What's the problem with Islam, anyway?

[Squonk]

But the Hadith wasn't the divine revelation, now was it? My Islamic Theology may be a tad off, but Mohammad wasn't privy to any more divine knowledge than what is in the Qu'ran.

The hadiths are basis for the islamic law, besides Al-Qur'an.

Of course it is how you interpret it. I could interpret Christianity as advocating a communist revolution. That doesn't mean the interpreation is right.

In this case, certain passages of Al-Qur'an were interpreted in a certain way for centuries, so while the interpretation may not be "right", it is traditional.

The war against Mecca was a defensive one. I don't remember the exact passages but Mohammad repetedly emphasised peace and tolerance once the war was over and the war should be over once the immediate objectives were achieved.

Defensive? Are you kidding? Muhammad was attacking the caravans of Meccans, and eventually conquered this city. Of course, Meccans did counter-attack and even besieged Yathrib.

If anything, Christianity is a bit worse with regards to appropriating holy buildings.

how so?

I find most of that a bit odd. Old ones were repaired as I'm almost certain that the Church of the Holy Apostles was repaired during Ottoman rule.

It was? I believe that, while Mehmet Fetih let the patriarch keep this church, this quarter of the city was settled with muslims, and anyway some body of a muslim was found next to the church, so the patriarch let the church go and moved elsewhere, and the church was destroyed as it was already falling into a ruin, while a fameous mosque was built on its place. I don't see when this church was repaired. (this is the story I recall from Runcinman's book)
Yes, churches were sometimes repaired, which was officially illegal.

Furthermore, the showing of religous symbols outside was not that common as the icons were all on the inside.

There were crosses, statues of saints...

Any source?

Just read any book on this subject, Tritton's or some more modern.
in the internet:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pact_of_Umar_II

His conditions are simply his opinion. It is like assuming Lutherans hate Jews just because Luther did.

No it isn't, as such treatment of dhimmis is part of shari'a and influences modern radical islamism. Khomeini, for example.

While the conditions of tolerance definitly varied; from quite decent under the Ummayads to down-right crappy under the Almohavids, it was on the whole better than Europe for a long time.

In what sense was condition of Jews in Europe worse than christians in the muslim world? What laws were they subject to in Europe they or christians were not in the muslim Middle East?
In my opinion, it often indeed was, because all this "they killed Jesus" stuff. But it was not always so. First pogroms are late X century. There were anti-jewish laws in canons of certain late-antiquity synods and in late antiquity imperial law (which are in fact similar to what muslims later introduced towards non-muslims: in late antiquity they were de iure forbidden to build new synagogues or repair old ones, to buy slaves and were obliged to dress in a specific way, to marry christian women (all exactly as in later muslim law) - then there's a long gap until Lateran IV, or so it seems.

I'm not denying there were Pogroms in the Muslim world. But Poland had their fair share of pogroms and Russia had the Pale settlements.

Polish laws concerning Jews were, since Middle Ages, more lenient than shari'a.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Kalisz

The number of pogroms in Poland was not great.

And if I remember correctly, Al-Hakim was insane and he was quickly deposed.

Al-Hakim may have been mentally disturbed, but his policy was logical, and his anti-christian decisions were popular in his society. Al-Qalanisi, a muslim historian, mentions that, when he had the Church of the Holy Sepulchre destroyed, muslims held thanksgiving prayers. Another historians mentions the text of sermon a certain leader of arabic tribe held when he mentioned the name of Al-Hakim instead of Al-Qadir (the abbasid caliph) in his prayers, which seems to glorify this deed (it was at the year of the destruction I believe, and he mentioned "the destruction of the fundaments of the idolatry", or something like this, I believe it is a reference to destruction of Holy Sepulchre, but I may be wrong.
In fact, his policy was so popular that Al-Qadir, the abbasid caliph, felt forced to remind the special garment law twice as well.

he was not "quickly deposed", he reigned for 26 years.

Any source on the special garments and on firing the non-muslisms?

If you need proof for it, you know nothing in this subject, but it clearly shows the lack of symmetry between the knowledge of christian treatment of their minorities and muslim ones. I've mentioned the book of Tritton (the title goes I believe "the caliphs and their non-muslim subjects"), there are arabic works on this subject but I think you do not read arabic. There are works of Joseph Nasrallah I believe (in french), Koscielniak (in polish), by miss Edde (french) and so on. Also, you can read the relations of european voyagers to the Middle East to find that christians and jews wore a special colour (originally Al-Mutawakkil made them wear honey colour, Al-Hakim prefered them to wear black, as it was the colour of Abbasids, and later on, it seems, it was different in every city.
On the firing of non-muslim officials - the same. this is basic knowledge in this subject.
I've actually written my thesis about the situation of christians under Al-Hakim, so I do know what I'm saying.

I agree that the tolerance ranged from decent to crappy. But to assert Islam is inherently intolerant and 'kill the infidel' is a misrepresentation of the situation.

Huh? Did I ever say that? I am only saying that the statements about islamic tolerance are bloated, and in reality it was on a level comparable to christian Europe.

Is that in any way a uniquely Muslim habit? Roman Christians many pagan temples into Churches, many other holy sites had churches constructed upon them, and medieval Christians were just as willing to convert mosques into Churches as vice versa. To be quite honest, this seems like a comment on the greater military success of Islamic rulers, rather than any peculiar trait of Islam.

No it isn't. Read my posts carefully, if you wish to comment on them. I claim muslims were no different from christians, not that they were worse.

 

[Colonel]

Simple answer to this question. Islam is a religion of hate and violence. It may not have originally been intended that way (which I doubt since Muhammad said to spread the word of god by the end of a sword) but it is very much so today.

 

[Lord of Elves]

Simple answer to this question. Islam is a religion of hate and violence. It may not have originally been intended that way (which I doubt since Muhammad said to spread the word of god by the end of a sword) but it is very much so today.

That's a striking generalization right there. Islam is no more a religion of hatred and violence than Christianity, which according to the Roman Catholic church of the feudal period, determines that the Kings of Christendom must march their armies against the musselman (Muslim) heathen in eternal combat, as determined by the Bishop of Rome.

 

[Colonel]

That's a striking generalization right there. Islam is no more a religion of hatred and violence than Christianity, which according to the Roman Catholic church of the feudal period, determines that the Kings of Christendom must march their armies against the musselman (Muslim) heathen in eternal combat, as determined by the Bishop of Rome.

This may be true of the organized religion but not of the true faith behind it. I never heard Jesus say we should go kill off the heathens. Christianity was corrupted after its creation by man, Islam was simply created by some guy who needed an excuse for his kin to unite and go on a killing spree.

We are different simply because of the creation of each religion. Not to mention we have evolved out such a state as you mentioned, yet Islam can't seem to get itself out of the dark ages.

 

[Squonk]

Now I do not agree with that. I do believe Muhammad actually believed he was a prophet. In his early days he didn't profit from his alleged prophetdom at all, he had a lot of problems because of it.

 

[Colonel]

Now I do not agree with that. I do believe Muhammad actually believed he was a prophet. In his early days he didn't profit from his alleged prophetdom at all, he had a lot of problems because of it.

I simply point out he is the only "prophet" or "messiah" or "messenger" of god in the Abrahamic sense that said to spread the word of god via the sword. For this reason Islam is a religion of hate and violence.

 

[Lord of Elves]

This may be true of the organized religion but not of the true faith behind it. I never heard Jesus say we should go kill off the heathens. Christianity was corrupted after its creation by man, Islam was simply created by some guy who needed an excuse for his kin to unite and go on a killing spree.

We are different simply because of the creation of each religion. Not to mention we have evolved out such a state as you mentioned, yet Islam can't seem to get itself out of the dark ages.

I'm going to address the second paragraph first, though it may be out of chronological order as far as your post goes, I think it warrants it. The early medieval period, known colloquially as the Dark Age, was a distinctly European period, in that the lack of an over-arching cultural, military and economic authority (Rome) the peoples of Europe that had lived under Rome's boot had no infrastructure to build their own lawful society upon. Though it would be wrong to say that Europe "descended into chaos", it can be rightfully said that compared to the ordered and regulated paradigm that had existed during Roman rule over the majority of Europe, there now was a sort of anarchy, in which power was grabbed by those who could. Places like Britain, which were far from the center of Roman authority even before the Fall, were now left without any form of organized defense against potential enemies, which eventually led to the success of the gradual Anglo-Saxon migration and the founding of the English kingdoms. France is another example, where once the Gauls had lived in relative peace under Rome, now Franks came spilling in under the intention of conquest. One of the few forms of order there was in this period was established by the Christian church, which was up until and after the Fall was still a power to be reckoned with in Europe, thanks to the proliferation of worship of the Roman Catholic God to the various European peoples. To be brief, Christian authority quickly centered itself around Rome and the "Papal States", and the founding of the Holy Roman Empire, which in its earliest iteration stretched from the new "France", to eastern Germany and northern Italy.

While all this was happening, the Middle-East or Near-East if you prefer, prospered. The spread of Islamic ideology aided the creation of a powerful cultural and imperial force that helped to unify the Near-Eastern societies into one cultural and religious unit. Making their influence known in Spain, the Islamic realm of Al-Andalus (known in modern terms as Andalusia, which remains to this day a term for a region of Spain) was during its peak perhaps the most civilized and learned place in all of Europe, while the rest was still plagued by corruption, general anarchy, and in the north, Vikings. So you refer to the fact that "Islam can't seem to crawl out of the dark ages", but truth be told Islam was a great force for order in that rather order-less period. There is an argument to be made that Islam became in any way centered around violence after the command by the Pope to reclaim the Holy Land from the Muslim heathen. One thing that has to be understood is that the Crusade was not just an event for the Middle-East. It was a massive period of upheaval, in which a decent percentage of an entire continent's armies marched towards their destruction, and were not only moderately successful, but went on to greatly-overstay their welcome by establishing the Crusader kingdoms. And it would happen again (in all nine Crusades)! Islam could and has rightfully blamed Christianity for a lot of general unpleasantness.

Now, to address the first paragraph. Jesus may not have said it, but somewhere there is a passage in the Bible to my knowledge that calls for the execution of those who do not hold the Christian God in worshipful reverence. While Jesus may have preached a message of peace, in many ways so did Muhammad. And if we are calling religions for the various atrocities committed on their behalf, up until the 20th century, Islam falls rather short in comparison with Christianity.

 

[Colonel]

While all this was happening, the Middle-East or Near-East if you prefer, prospered. The spread of Islamic ideology aided the creation of a powerful cultural and imperial force that helped to unify the Near-Eastern societies into one cultural and religious unit. Making their influence known in Spain, the Islamic realm of Al-Andalus (known in modern terms as Andalusia, which remains to this day a term for a region of Spain) was during its peak perhaps the most civilized and learned place in all of Europe, while the rest was still plagued by corruption, general anarchy, and in the north, Vikings. So you refer to the fact that "Islam can't seem to crawl out of the dark ages", but truth be told Islam was a great force for order in that rather order-less period. There is an argument to be made that Islam became in any way centered around violence after the command by the Pope to reclaim the Holy Land from the Muslim heathen. One thing that has to be understood is that the Crusade was not just an event for the Middle-East. It was a massive period of upheaval, in which a decent percentage of an entire continent's armies marched towards their destruction, and were not only moderately successful, but went on to greatly-overstay their welcome by establishing the Crusader kingdoms. And it would happen again (in all four Crusades)! Islam could and has rightfully blamed Christianity for a lot of general unpleasantness.

Now, to address the first paragraph. Jesus may not have said it, but somewhere there is a passage in the Bible to my knowledge that calls for the execution of those who do not hold the Christian God in worshipful reverence. While Jesus may have preached a message of peace, in many ways so did Muhammad. And if we are calling religions for the various atrocities committed on their behalf, up until the 20th century, Islam falls rather short in comparison with Christianity.

First, I didn't say I was judgeing the religions on their actions up to the 20th century, just on their founding. One person said spread God's word through peace, one said to spread it at the end of a sword. This is why I say it is a religion of violence and hatred.

Second but your thing about the Crusades, they were in fact a delayed reaction to the holy war the Muslims brought to Europe three centuries earlier. We were just better about continuing the fight at the time so we brought a few holy wars to try to recapture the holy land.

 

[Lord of Elves]

First, I didn't say I was judgeing the religions on their actions up to the 20th century, just on their founding. One person said spread God's word through peace, one said to spread it at the end of a sword. This is why I say it is a religion of violence and hatred.

Second but your thing about the Crusades, they were in fact a delayed reaction to the holy war the Muslims brought to Europe three centuries earlier. We were just better about continuing the fight at the time so we brought a few holy wars to try to recapture the holy land.

Bolded: While I don't at all claim to be an expert on Islamic creed and doctrine, can you cite where exactly Muhammad said that Islam must be spread and if necessary through warfare?

Red: And what holy war was this, exactly?

 

[Squonk]

There is an argument to be made that Islam became in any way centered around violence after the command by the Pope to reclaim the Holy Land from the Muslim heathen.

If by "violence" you mean war and expansion, this statement is clearly not true. Muslim state expanded from a single city to an empire stretching from Morocco to the borders of China, and in a less than a century, and they did try to expand further. Muslim ideology did not allow a cease-fire with infidels shorter than 10 years (because it was the longest period Muhammad signed a truce for), and that was only acceptable when the infidels were the winning side. The world was divided into dar al-islam and dar al-harb... and the ultimate goal was the world conquest. And the conquest of Constantinople, at this time the capital of christianity, was very clearly stated by muslim tradition.

One thing that has to be understood is that the Crusade was not just an event for the Middle-East. It was a massive period of upheaval, in which a decent percentage of an entire continent's armies marched towards their destruction, and were not only moderately successful, but went on to greatly-overstay their welcome by establishing the Crusader kingdoms. And it would happen again (in all four Crusades)! Islam could and has rightfully blamed Christianity for a lot of general unpleasantness.

crusades were really limited to Greater Syria and Lower Egypt. Definite most of the Middle East never saw a crusader unless he was a captive. These lands were likely still majorly christian by then anyway.

Now, to address the first paragraph. Jesus may not have said it, but somewhere there is a passage in the Bible to my knowledge that calls for the execution of those who do not hold the Christian God in worshipful reverence. While Jesus may have preached a message of peace, in many ways so did Muhammad. And if we are calling religions for the various atrocities committed on their behalf, up until the 20th century, Islam falls rather short in comparison with Christianity.

By actions you shall judge them, not by the words.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Three centuries is a waay too delayed a "reaction" to be considered a reaction at all. Of all the anti-Islamic arguments, the "crusades were just a defensive strike back" made the least sense to me. Shall France invade Germany and claim that it's just a defensive strike back for the World Wars?

And yeah, all that "early Islam was all fluffy bunnies, especially compared to the dark-ages, brutish, unwashed Christian barbarians" is too, bonkers.

 

[Squonk]

Bolded: While I don't at all claim to be an expert on Islamic creed and doctrine, can you cite where exactly Muhammad said that Islam must be spread and if necessary through warfare?

Red: And what holy war was this, exactly?

Sahih Bukhari
Volume 4, Book 53, Number 386 states that Muhammad commanded Al-Mughira and his army to fight non-Muslims until they worshiped Allah alone or gave jizya.[30]

Sahih Muslim
* Book 19, Number 4294 states that Muhammad commanded his military leaders to demand jizya from non-Muslims if they refused to accept Islam, and to fight them if they refused to pay.[34]

etc
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jizya#Sahih_Bukhari


in Coran there are also passages:

http://www.sacred-texts.com//isl/pick/009.htm

(...)
4 Excepting those of the idolaters with whom ye (Muslims) have a treaty, and who have since abated nothing of your right nor have supported anyone against you. (As for these), fulfil their treaty to them till their term. Lo! Allah loveth those who keep their duty (unto Him).

5 Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

(...)

25 Allah hath given you victory on many fields and on the day of Huneyn, when ye exulted in your multitude but it availed you naught, and the earth, vast as it is, was straitened for you; then ye turned back in flight;

26 Then Allah sent His peace of reassurance down upon His messenger and upon the believers, and sent down hosts ye could not see, and punished those who disbelieved. Such is the reward of disbelievers.

(...)

28 O ye who believe! The idolaters only are unclean. So let them not come near the Inviolable Place of Worship after this their year. If ye fear poverty (from the loss of their merchandise) Allah shall preserve you of His bounty if He will. Lo! Allah is Knower, Wise.

29 Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.

(...)

52 Say: Can ye await for us aught save one of two good things (death or victory in Allah's way) ? while we await for you that Allah will afflict you with a doom from Him or at our hands. Await then! Lo! We are awaiting with you.

(...)

73 O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites! Be harsh with them. Their ultimate abode is hell, a hapless journey's end.

(...)

122 And the believers should not all go out to fight. Of every troop of them, a party only should go forth, that they (who are left behind) may gain sound knowledge in religion, and that they may warn their folk when they return to them, so that they may beware.

123 O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty (unto Him).

(...)

 

[Squonk]

Three centuries is a waay too delayed a "reaction" to be considered a reaction at all. Of all the anti-Islamic arguments, the "crusades were just a defensive strike back" made the least sense to me. Shall France invade Germany and claim that it's just a defensive strike back for the World Wars?

And yeah, all that "early Islam was all fluffy bunnies, especially compared to the dark-ages, brutish, unwashed Christian barbarians" is too, bonkers.

in fact, the crusades were not a responce to VII-VIII century muslim arabic conquests, but rather to XI century muslim turkish ones, a responce to a plea by Byzantium, which was threatened by Turks.
One must note, however, that papacy toyed with the idea of a holy war earlier in the XI century, in regards to Spain.

 

[Squonk]

oh, and one of the everyone's favourites (from Sahih Muslim)

Book 041, Number 6981:

Ibn 'Umar reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: You will fight against the Jews and you will kill them until even a stone would say: Come here, Muslim, there is a Jew (hiding himself behind me) ; kill him.

Book 041, Number 6982:

Ubaidullah has reported this hadith with this chain of transmitters (and the Words are):" There is a Jew behind me."

Book 041, Number 6983:

Abdullah b. 'Umar reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: You and the Jews would fight against one another until a stone would say: Muslim, here is a Jew behind me; come and kill him.

Book 041, Number 6984:

Abdullah b. 'Umar reported that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: The Jews will fight against you and you will gain victory over them until the stone would say: Muslim, here is a Jew behind me; kill him.

Book 041, Number 6985:

Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews.



http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/muslim/041.smt.html


btw, sahih means true, which means these are the most certain and the most respected hadiths....

 

[bernie14]

....like father, like son.....
not flesh nor fish nor bone!

 

[Squonk]

Can't you see he's fooled you all.
Yes, he's here again, can't you see he's fooled you all.
Share his peace,
Sign the lease.
He's a supersonic scientist,
He's the guaranteed eternal sanctuary man.
Look, look into my mouth he cries,
And all the children lost down many paths,
I bet my life you'll walk inside
Hand in hand,
gland in gland
With a spoonful of miracle,
He's the guaranteed eternal sanctuary.

 

[Masada]

and if that doesn't convince you: Vatican City

I count nine: Madagascar, Tanzania, Rwanda, Mozambique, Afghanistan, Somalia, Ireland and Namibia. I'll add in Vatican city. I cross-checked that with gas and only Madagascar showed up in both lists. But thanks for proving my point that the presence of domestic oil and gas is kinda meaningless as an objective metric!

Anyway, do you claim that Middle East is not richer in oil than other regions? hm?

I wrote a nice long elegant response that you didn't seem to get. No problem, I'll distil it down to a nice catchphrase for you: per capita. Its simple, no? In per capita terms the top guys are:

#1 Kuwait: 39,902,530.317 barrels per 1,000 people
#2 United Arab Emirates: 37,576,175.322 barrels per 1,000 people
#3 Qatar: 18,071,765.239 barrels per 1,000 people
#4 Saudi Arabia: 9,722,524.625 barrels per 1,000 people
#5 Libya: 6,778,794.71 barrels per 1,000 people
#6 Canada: 5,405,008.234 barrels per 1,000 people
#7 Iraq: 4,200,365.577 barrels per 1,000 people
#8 Brunei: 3,307,470.931 barrels per 1,000 people
#9 Venezuela: 2,937,766.112 barrels per 1,000 people
#10 Norway: 2,138,231.377 barrels per 1,000 people
[...]
# 20 Suriname: 341,594.609 barrels per 1,000 people

The drop-off between the UAE (#2) and Qatar (3#) is approximately 200%. The drop-off between the UAE (#2) and Norway (#10) is 1850%. The drop-off between the UAE (#2) and Suriname (#20) is somewhat more than that. But going by that data five are in the Middle East but four of which I've already alluded to with my earlier post and well that leave Iraq. Libya is North African. Norway is Scandinavia. Venezuela is Communist. Canada is boring. And Brunei is on the other side of the world. It isn't as clear cut as you might like to think.

Lets see, out of 20 biggest producers, 11 are majorly muslim (7 are in the Middle East, 2 in Maghreb)

Biggest isn't really all that relevant dood. China (#15) figures in absolute terms but it has a billion and a bit people to split it between which forces it down the per capita list big time (#54).

of course, reliance on oil only isn't good for these states. But if not oil, most Gulf states would have nothing. Thanks to oil, they can invest the gained money to progress in another sectors of economy. If they are not doing that, it's because of folly of their own gouverments.

That wasn't the point.

and? Still, these were Americans who were producing oil, and "western opressors" who were buying it.

Putting a gun to someone's head and forcing them to extract the oil and sell it at low prices is exploitative. Signing a document between two consenting parties with proper consideration as part of an arms length transaction isn't exploitative. Just because Saudi Arabia dealt with Western firms didn't make it exploitative considering that it was between consenting parties operating at arms length with proper consideration. If that wasn't the case then it would have been exploitative. Civilised countries usually have this kind of distinction enshrined in law..

that's a good point (although I was talking about Middle East, and Malaysia isn't part of it), but who was buying oil from them? Even if it was to be Japan, Korea and Taiwan, it wouldn't progress without the horrible western imperialism.

It was hardly the only state that became a major producer only after it was granted independence or autonomy. Abu Dhabi's first batch of oil was only discovered in 1958 and production began in 1960. Oman's only began to export in 1967. A number became producers without needing to undergo colonialism in the first place. Saudi Arabia. Persia.

the colonialism passed, and the infrastructure (roads, bridges, mines, hospitals, schools, whatever) stayed. That's my point. Anyway, every conquest is about exploitation and I don't see why we should think that XIX century Europe was any different, that they were worse than usual conquerers. I believe they were in many ways better, because, apart from the usual opression, which happens with every conquest, they shifted many areas to a higher economic level. They were doing it in their own interest, of course, but the conquered lands profited somewhat.

Previous conquerors usually didn't reduce the average per capita living standards of those living of those living under them as a matter of course.

 

[Gangor]

in fact, the crusades were not a responce to VII-VIII century muslim arabic conquests, but rather to XI century muslim turkish ones, a responce to a plea by Byzantium, which was threatened by Turks.
One must note, however, that papacy toyed with the idea of a holy war earlier in the XI century, in regards to Spain.

You neglect to mention however, that the first crusade (amongst others) went on to cause rather a lot of devastation in the Byzantine empire. The request was a pretext, that is all.

 

[Ayn Rand]

I've never seen a thread where one side of the debate steadfastly refuse to discuss the actual issue, yet try to defend it with massive energy while not talking about it. It's a fascinating look at the psychology of evasion and cognitive dissonance.

Perhaps we should re-name the thread the "let's talk about Christianity, colonialism, crusades... anything that diverts attention from the problems in Islam".

 

[Gangor]

I've never seen a thread where one side of the debate steadfastly refuse to discuss the actual issue, yet try to defend it with massive energy while not talking about it. It's a fascinating look at the psychology of evasion and cognitive dissonance.

Perhaps we should re-name the thread the "let's talk about Christianity, colonialism, crusades... anything that diverts attention from the problems in Islam".

You're right, this thread has become somewhat sidetracked. The issue: "Islam poses no geopolitical threat to western civilization". Discuss.