 |
|
|---|
What is the engine of democracy? What make it stable? Why some countries start with democracy but end with dictatorship?I have been asking myself and I could not find any answer in scientific manner, which is irreducible, simple and general. In this post I would like to have a look at the simplest process that leads to democracy with minimal assumptions and in the worst case. There is no law and every one is evil. I believe no more assumptions are nessesary to construct a democracy.
Democracy is just a side-effect of a very simple process, the only real rule of nature, the rule of primitive jungles: survival of the fittest. This is reality. It is enough to look around and see democratic states and their leaders. If they are not evils, they are not saints either. They use any possibility to go
above the law to gain more fitness.
How a paradise-like society could be established by politicians who take care only of their own personal interests?
Suppose there is not something like religion, as it is assumed in secular states. Therefore, there is not any measure to show what is good and what is bad. Thus, for an individual, good will be something toward his/her personal interest and bad will be something against it.
Assume there is a very strong group in a country, against whom no one can resist. The results is obvious: they will take control. When it is against their interest, They won't respect any laws and rights, like all dictators in the world. It doesn't matter who they are and how they take the power. In fact even a president who has 90 percent of the votes is a potentioal dictator.
Now let us think about when two strong groups coexist. In this case the situation is a little different. If they have the same amount of power, it won't be a wise idea if they try to eliminate each other, thus, the best way is just try to live peacefully. They can either flip a coin or refer to public opinions to chsose a ruler.
When it comes to public opinions and elections, both sides have to respect the voters' rights, because they need their votes and any betrayal to the voters' rights will give the advantage to the opponent.
That is the way things work in the world. Therefore, to have a democratic government, which respect the citizens' rights, we need at least two parties with almost equal power. In fact, the existence of a strong minority is a key factor of a stable democracy. Without the presence of such a minority, any sort of governments and rulers will lead to dictatorships.
I would like to finish this post with a question: What can we tell about Iran within this analogy?
"How a paradise-like society could be established by politicians who take care of only their own personal benefits?"
Is that the aim of democracy? If it is so, how to define or understand the concept of paradise withen the democracy?
-----------------------------------------------------
I love the picture, especially the wooden boxes!
A long time ago I bought a tiny book in order to quickly familiarize myself with Democracy. The book is titled, no, not "Democracy for Dummies", but "On Democracy", by Robert Alan Dahl, who as I am finding out thanks to amazon.com, has also written the following titles: "How Democratic is the American Constitution?" (sounds intriguing!), "A Preface to Democratic Theory", and "Democracy and Its Critics". I'm afraid I've not yet finished reading Dahl's little book (do I ever finish a book?), but I strongly recommend it for anybody who wants to write a serious essay on Democracy. I believe it's translated to Persian too, but I myself wouldn't rely on the Persian translation.
The following is not my only criticism, but as I was *trying* to read this post (From now on, not knowing whether "post" or "posting" is the right term for referring to FToI articles, I opt for the shorter "post"), I ran into the following sentences: "Suppose there is not something like religion, as it is assumed in secular states. Therefore, there is not any measure to show what is good and what is bad." I can't be sure what Hamed means by "something like religion", but if he means that religions provide the only possible yardsticks for right and wrong (or as Hamed puts is, "good" and "bad"), then I disagree. I believe that it is this very fallacy (that religion is the only sources of morality) that is responsible for many of our social problems. The secular man, unlike what we have been told, is not necessarily without a moral compass. To give just an example, tolerance is a value, a moral value, that, as it happens, is cherished by a lot of non-believers. That is to say, tolerating the Others, who are not like us, do not share our opinions, or are not somehow related to us, is "good" and lack of it is "bad". So right there, a non-religiously inspired measure for you! But the list doesn't end there. Democracy, is not just a political system of government. In fact, a democratically established government is just the tip of a huge iceberg, nay, but just the facade of an edifice whose foundations, the notion of Human Rights for instance, are of a moral nature and character...
I failed to explain why in my opinion the idea that religion is the sole source of morality is responsible for a lot of our social ills. Here's an attempt at a clarification of my point: See, once X believes that morality, "the good and the bad" can *only* be provided by the dictums of a religious tradition, then as soon as X rejects a religion without embracing another one (something that, for whatever reason, has been happening in many traditional societies, for whatever reason), X naturally finds it alright to do anything that doesn't get him/her caught and punished. As you know, this is not how the Western man operates though. There are deeply instilled moral codes in the West, without which the society would simply collapse. Our eyes are not trained for discerning these rules and it takes us a while to feel their strong authoritative presence. What we see first is "freedom" and we think there is no morality...
"What is the engine of democracy?"
- Why don't you start with, what IS a modern democracy?
"In this post I would like to have a look at the simplest process which leads to democracy with the minimal assumptions and in the worst case. There is no law, and every one is evil. "
- How can you have a modern democracy with no rule of law? And what's "evil"? If people consciously wanted to hurt everyone around them, I don't think democracy or any society can exist. At the very least, a society requires identification into "us" and "them", and "us" is the society.
The idea of democracy is that the leaders are at least partially accountable to the people, and the government at least partially represents what the people want. The most basic question (which I don't know how to answer myself) is, how does democracy come in a single group of people?
it all probably starts with councils representing various interests meeting and deciding on things. Over time, more and more groups of people are demanding to have a vote, until most people have a vote through their representatives at the council.
Unfortunately my Master of JFTD, the democratic process that you mention here never happened in history unless there were a select few individuals who helped it and saw that it was good.
These simple ideas are good and nice but we must be on the watch for the downfalls as well: both Hitler and Mussolini (as particularly celebrated examples of "evil" in modern times) came to power by manipulation of relatively young democracies. Democracy, I think, is best to be considered as a good tradition not as an ideal system of government; that's asking for too much.
Iran and Turkey are the first countries in the Middle East to have experienced democratic processes. It is interesting to note that Turkey hasn't moved on far from there after about 100 years (well they had uncountably many military coup d'etats instead and are now facing serious threats from Muslim Fundamentalism) and in Iran everything was gradually reversed during the Pahlavi's and was finally brought to a caricature of democracy during the Islamic Republic.
We lacked the tradition not the system.
The idea of two srong competing party, group or whatever you want to name it, is something that philosopher Karl Poper has pointed out in his book, "The open Society and its enemies", (if I remember correctly.
Señor Græd,
I meant by “something like religion” any thing which asks its followers to do some thing against their personal interest, without any reward or punishment. Whatever it is, you can not guaranty that the followers always obey.
“democratically established government is just the tip of a huge iceberg”, I agree. Have it in mind that an iceberg is the result of very simple process, you just need some water and a cold climate :-)
JFTDMaster,
In addition to Grand Vizier's comment,
Maybe the word “evil” was too strong. I meant some one who just take care of his own interests, in any cost.
“If people consciously wanted to hurt everyone around them, I don't think democracy or any society can exist. At the very least.” After a while the people will find that their personal benefit is to do not hurt each others.
Grand Vizier,
You have mentioned good points in your comment, nothing to add, just tanks.
Okay, I claim that our problem with democracy is the fact that we lack the ethical foundation necessary for sustaining a democracy (together, of course, with beliefs such as belief in the equality of human beings) and Grand Vizier, in an uncharacteristically long comment, maintains that our problem is the fact that we lack a tradition of democracy. I find Grand Vizier's position akin to my own. It seems to me that we both feel that there is something essential missing here, and we each come up with our own words for the missing element. This is not to say that I think ethical foundation and tradition are one and the same, but there is a close relation between them. What I have in mind by "morality" (a word whose old connotations may make you cringe in disgust!) has a more individual nature (every individual should believe in certain basic rules and abide by them) while Grand Vizier's "tradition" seems to have a more communal nature. In any case, the question remains: How should Iranians go about making a tradition of democracy? Can a critical studying of the history (a branch of Humanities!) of our nation help?
On second thought, "morality" (which I take to mean a set of principles for conducting your affairs with other human beings) seems to have more overlap with "tradition". However, although a tradition-oriented ;-) approach to democracy in Iran points to the fact that Iran doesn't have a past that is, well, democratic (a defect with no remedy that I can think of), a morality-specific approach (should I wink again?) hopes to change the minds of individuals in such a way that they accept, even embrace democracy as *the* way to be.
It seems to me that any system of morality is based on certain convictions. For example, if you believe that all humans are (created) equal, then you will not discriminate against someone based on their race, but if you believe that your tribe consists of God's chosen people, then of course you may act differently. In general, whatever your convictions are, they affect the way you behave. It's kind of trivial; isn't it?
Hamed wrote: "Have it in mind that an iceberg is the result of very simple process, you just need some water and a cold climate". Let's see if you can make a small iceberg in the Adriatic Sea. :-)
In a comment above, I said something about the "critical" study of history and I would like to underline the word "critical" here. You see, one problem with history is that no proud nation likes to hear bad things about its past. So the story of those historians who insist on telling the truth will just fall on deaf ears. (In more primitive societies, they may even risk their lives by narrating the events the way they see them.) People simply like to hear good things about themselves and their fathers.
There is, however, a more intrinsic problem with history, which I cannot elaborate on very well. Briefly, any account of history is necessarily contingent. For a nice elaboration on this idea, I suggest reading the beginning pages of this book: "The Individual, Society, and Education" by Clarence J. Karier.
Great article, but, you are all way off base.
What is "missing" in a Muslim society is the Judeo-Christian ethic. Regardless of whether our democratic governments are secular, they are nevertheless based in the Judeo-Christian ethic and tenets of morality: The Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule. Those tenets also include a separation of "Church" and State ("give unto Ceasar. . .") as well as a high level of tolerance. It is not written in the Torah or the Bible that one should "kill the unbeliever" to the extent that this is so in the Qu'ran with scores of passages on jihad and war against the "infidel."
Unless Islam has a Reformation, there can be no change for Muslim governments because intolerance of the "other" or the apostate ("bad" Muslim, whatever that is) is codified in sharia law. With Islam being a so-called "complete" system of living, based on the literal word of allah, that does not leave much room for individual expression or a Reformation that interprets the Qu'ran differently.
Wessie
In Iran we still have some Zoroastrians. Is there any Mithraists in Italy or Muslims in Spain?
I beg to differ with Wessie in so far as he tries to portray the fundamentals of the political ethics in the Western Democratic states on highly aggregate terms.
Of note are the German, French, Swedish and the Dutch political ethic that are radically secular. They draw the ethical concepts from 1789 Revolution inspired principles and values, rather than the so-called "Judeo-Christian" laden values of some common law systems.
I think the strongest feature of the present article is its succinct assessment of the importance of political pluralism and political equality as primary to ensure the effectiveness and meaningfulness of the democratic project.
Unfortunately, Roman style republicanism has often jeopardized democratic projects' salient approach to ensure pluralism and equality. In so doing, Britain and the US have been much slower in the post-War to achieve such pluralism.
In fact, one can argue, especially in the case of the US, that the influence of Judeo-Christian politics in these countries has rendered them to look like majoritarian republics (I appreciate the royal appearance of the UK) as opposed to porperly and proportionally represented parliamentary democratic systems. Sweden, Germany, and the Netherlands have been the overachievers in campaign for political pluralism.
France with its presidential model has been slower and more vulnerable to the demands of republicanism.
The minimum to which the author has referred to is obviously not enough even for any country, (Muslim or otherwise, Middle Eastern or Western), that is two party systems do not represent people and can cause frustration by monoplizing the power appartus and refusing to embark upon more respresentative projects. Look at the two-party based US of today. The two parties cannot often be even told from one another when it comes policy making. The look often too identical.
Such a system,one would acknowledge, has been very detrimental for the refrom and progress of the American federalism and democracy since the outbreak of the Cold War.
Indeed, the two parties have ensured that they maintain the power within their own joint-monoply and rendered the system irresponsive to the demographic and societal changes that the polity has undergone since 1945.
Moreover, the Christian conservatives have done their best to consolidate power by closing the public space through various means, mainly propaganda funded by their corporate sponsors, to secular forces and left-leaning forces. This has been much successful in view of the lack of proper campaign finance reform laws.
In this regard, the system appears to be democratic and plural but it is limited to two main parties.
What would one say about Iran? Well, I think the only thing I can say is that without proper constitutional reform that brings about a more politically plural and representative state no democratic exercise is meaningful. By way of analogy, it seems to me that democratic practice in a coutnry like the US has already lost its meaning for many of its citizens, NOT TO MEANION THAT MANY CITIZENS OF THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN HAVE BEEN FEELING LIKE THIS MORE OFTEN THAN NOT DURING THE PAST 25 YEARS.
First, Mr. Oakman, try to turn your sexist prejudices off automatic pilot and understand that I am a woman. ;-)
Second, I continue to maintain that Western secular law and jurisprudence is based in the Judeo-Christian ethic, which in turn are based in Roman law. It is precisely the reason WHY the state can be secular. Regardless of the "radical" secularism of many European states, their basis of law and jurisprudence are in the tenets of the Judeo-Christian ethic. Note the current argument in the EU regarding making that part of the constitution.
“By way of analogy, it seems to me that democratic practice in a coutnry like the US has already lost its meaning for many of its citizens, NOT TO MEANION THAT MANY CITIZENS OF THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN HAVE BEEN FEELING LIKE THIS MORE OFTEN THAN NOT DURING THE PAST 25 YEARS.”
With all due respect, sir, that is the stupidest thing I have ever heard! You are comparing the freedoms and pluralism in the US to the fascistic Islamic regime in Iran. Please, come and see for yourself how many women get beaten on the streets for not being “properly dressed” or how many dogs get “arrested” for being dogs or how many non-Christians the US jails or executes on a regular basis or how many opposition candidates we persecute, ban or imprison. Thanks for the laugh!
“Unfortunately, Roman style republicanism has often jeopardized democratic projects' salient approach to ensure pluralism and equality. In so doing, Britain and the US have been much slower in the post-War to achieve such pluralism.”
Pluralism, based Roman secular law, is what makes the free West, Mr. Oakman. It is Muslims who come to the West and try to impose their restrictive values— negating Western concepts of equity based in Roman law— demanding sharia concepts, that are threatening our traditional pluralistic way of life.
Additionally, your wrong-headed idea that the religious right runs the US is just that—WRONG—just as wrong as the Islamic myth that the “Zionist-entity” runs the US. We have people in government of every stripe, ethnicity and religion as well as gender and sexual orientation. While there may be much religious influence in the US and there may be more religion in general than in Europe, the US is nevertheless a nation of secular laws in which all religions and minorities are equally protected. Indeed, even having no religion is protected. The US is really the only nation where Muslims, for example, can freely practice their religion. Note that we do not have a law pending banning the hijab as can be seen in several European states. Nor does the US exclude and persecute other religions besides our own, as do Saudi Arabia and any number of other Muslim states.
While two parties may "look identical" in the US there is nevertheless not a tyranny of the majority or the minority—although, many radical Muslims would like to impose such a tyranny just as they have done in Islamic lands. In the US we change governments every 4 years quite peacefully. Voters are not going to the barricades on a regular basis as in a number of European countries (France for example) because there is a general consensus of pluralism and tolerance for all! Riots against the “other” do not happen in the US as they do in Islamic lands. You may want to note that the Bush administration is being challenged in the courts and in the Congress regarding many of its policies. That is hardly the case in Islamic countries where challenging the regime can get one killed. While the current administration may have, illegally, incarcerated suspected terrorists, one is not seeing this administration jail or execute its political opposition. And even if GW Bush is re-elected, in 4 years he will go and another president will peacefully take over and perhaps overturn some of the “Bush doctrines.”
That is not the case with Islamic nations that only permit one religion and where the law is codified in sharia that is based on the Qu’ran and the hadith. Certainly there is no such thing as free, democratic, peaceful elections.
It is clear that regardless of ANY constitution that is written in any Islamic land, these will never be honored in the same manner that they are in the West, until there is a Reformation in Islam—and that, will be a long time coming. In the meantime the Islamic Diaspora will continue to flock to the West where they will continue to try to challenge and change the Western secular laws to suit their idea of sharia. As a result, the West may employ even more draconian measures against our traditional freedoms, based in Judeo-Christian tenets, in order to stop the Islamicization of the West.
Ms. Wessie
["Well, I read it;" you might say, "now let's close it!"]This is quite an interesting exchange. Not that I have anything to add to it, or even suggest that I fully understand what Ms. Wessie and Mr. Essie are talking about. Part of Ms. Wessie's comment, however, reminded me of a strange piece of news that I ran into recently:
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/8AD9D094-4356-4428-BE23-2A6C1FAA19E6.htm
You seem to be a REAL admirer of your Judeo-Christian stuff! However you seem to have overlooked the fact that your beloved Christian backers here in the states want you to be in Israel in order to expedite the second coming of Jesus! "According to the most influential of the Christian Zionists, Hal Lindsey, the valley from Galilee to Eilat will flow with blood and "144,000 Jews would bow down before Jesus and be saved, but the rest of Jewry would perish in the mother of all holocausts".
Just check out this piece! http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/comment/0,10551,973445,00.html
And there is more than 50 million of this kind here in the US!
Also in a recent opinion poll, the “Christian Europe” singled out Israel as the biggest threat to the world peace!
You don’t seem to have a minimum knowledge of history otherwise you wouldn’t make these gross and ridiculous comments!
Someone wrote:
"You don’t seem to have a minimum knowledge of history otherwise you wouldn’t make these gross and ridiculous comments!"
I think this language is inappropriate and unacceptable. Even this one is not so polite (from another column, witten by a loose can):
"How many Iranians have you met that told you that? ... How much do you know about Islam anyway? Have you looked at any modern scholarly text on Islam?"
Can we all calm down and discuss our issues in a more friendly setting?
"No free-enterprise economic system can function properly (fairly and efficiently) without a strong Judeo-Christian ethical base. [Remember the Judeo-Christian ethic—“Love the LORD your God with all your heart, soul and mind; and love your neighbor as you love yourself.] Free-enterprise, without this ethical basis, will inevitably deteriorate into materialism. Materialism is the belief that comfort, security, pleasure, and/or prosperity are the only things that really matter in life; or it is the tendency to focus on material things (e.g., a nice car or a large, comfortable house) rather than on spiritual things (e.g., God, His Will, justice, and righteousness). Without a strong Judeo-Christian ethic, powerful “capitalists” (because they are human—because their fundamental nature is self-serving) will exploit their workers and their customers for all they can get. With a strong Judeo-Christian ethical foundation, the built-in checks against human nature—competition and the bottom line—together with ethical competitors, workers and consumers (provided those competitors, workers and consumers are generally moral, educated and informed) keep the “capitalist” honest."
Source: http://www.americandaily.com/item/3252
I don't buy this line of argument myself. The reason why I am quoting it is reminding you that this is a thesis procaliming that:
"The Ten Commandments are the foundation of Western morality and the American Constitution and government."
Read: http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=2
To throw my two cents on this topic, I have problems with this 'judeo-christian' categorization. The way I see it, Christianity is fundamentaly different from Judaism, although it is superficially connected to it via the same 'old' testament and pre-Christ history. Judaism was the result of a great innovation, Christianity is Pagan to its very roots and only immitates Judaism in its outward declerations. I am aware that protestanism has been trying to uplift a lot of the historical Jewish elements but its still a far cry (and will remain so) , for one thing thae simply can't do away with their Christ's life,death,resurrection, God in flesh...dogma.
Oh yes, and as to the point of secularism, I agree that Christianity has left the matter not completely closed so that the remaining loop hole could be used after the renaissence to do away with theh Church in politics, the matter is not so simple.
By just looking at John for example (which is incidentaly not a Gospel at all , but a theological tractatus in which Jesus is only a character in the same sense that Socrates is one in Platos works, and has therefore almost no historical worth-but is included by all Christians in their Canon so it does form part of the basis for Christianity) you see in abundance claims of Jesus being the Only path, the only way of redemption, the only channel to God and truth...and the Geist of that is against the very core of democracy and secularism and the fact that the Church proved to be anything BUT democratic in its times of power gives extra credence to this claim. Secularism and democracy are the fruit of generations of free thinking brave souls who really struggled for it again all odds through out history.
As a final suggestion, perhaps Graeco-Judaic is a better candidate , though it stll leaves a lot missing.
Ms. Wessie, your words sound to me as if you might not be very familiar with Islam, history of Iran and the one of the west.
Let me remind you that judeo-Christian made a very dark point in the mankind history when they had absolute power. You might have seen one of the not very famous words of one Pops - If you go to Rome you could find it. It reads "Peace of Jesus for the Jesus kingdom".
I am absolutely disagree with you and I think that the source of present pluralism and tolerance IS NOT judeo-christian culture. These concept have been borrowed from some other fountains located outside of judeo-christian yard.
Islamic countries made and even established the base of modern science and culture, when Islam had the power in these countries. Islam never has stood against science as the church did.
Anyway it seems after Mogul invasion something dramatic happened.Something like what happened in Europe after barbar[?] invasion. After this period the aims and the values changed.Mogul affected soft Islamic culture by their barbarism. One might count it as unwanted and hidden reformation of Islam.However I think in the modern Islamic culture mogul affects are being washed out.
Also at the end let me remind you that Islam has not destroyed any religion. In iran Zoroastrians do exist. A religion with about 3000-4000 years history. Could you answer Hamed why there is no any Mithraists in Italy?And why its fellow have been simply washed out by Cristian. May be cristians want the pluralism to be only among themselves. Don't get angry last sentence was joke ;).
AS an Iranian let me remind you that even at the time of Darius the Great the existence of all group of religion had been accepted. We inherit a great histoty and culture which perhaps needs to polished but never to be changed with any presents ones.They are not worth enough.
As an answer to one of your sentence also I would like to remind you that In Quran there exist No word or sentence that people of other religion or beliefs should got hurt, in any way. There are so many sentences that no one should ever force other people by any means to change their idea.
Ah, this is interesting. While Iranians often profess to be irreligious just look at the posts above. ;-)
"You seem to be a REAL admirer of your Judeo-Christian stuff!"
You apparently don't understand what is meant by the term Judeo-Christian, Señor Græd, or you would not make the statements you made. It has little to do with either Judaism or Christianity as religions but rather their tenets as the basis for our civilization and the laws under which we live in the West.
And, yes, despite not being a 'Christian,' I am an admirer of the progress the Judeo-Christian world has made, while the Muslim world has produced virtually nothing for the last 500 years—since being driven out of Spain, a Christian country where Muslims did not belong in the first place.
I will pit my knowledge of history as well as my knowledge of Christianity and Islam against yours or anyone's any day. Try me. The advantage I have is that I know both—while you appear to have only read Islamic propaganda. ;-)
"And there is more than 50 million of this kind here in the US!"
Those 50 million Christians are not all fundamentalists. Additionally, Christian fundamentalists are not committing worldwide terror as are Islamic fundamentalist nor are they trying to take over the world, as is militant Islam. And don't bring up Afghanistan or Iraq because ISLAM ATTACKED the US and NOT vice versa! It was Muslims who shamefully danced in the streets on 9/11 and not other peoples.
"Also in a recent opinion poll, the “Christian Europe” singled out Israel as the biggest threat to the world peace!"
Yes, well Europe is known to already have dhimmi status in Islam. Perhaps you are not aware that it is Muslims who perpetrate anti-Semitic attacks in Europe. You might want to look at this report, which has since been published by the EU, Señor:
"Manifestations of anti-Semitism in the European Union"
"Anti-Semitic incidents in the monitoring period were committed above all either by right-wing extremists or radical Islamists or young Muslims, mostly of Arab descent, who are often themselves potential victims of exclusion and racism;" but the report also noted that that "anti-Semitic statements came from the pro-Palestinian left."
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1070259994583
"Jews rule this world by proxy. They get others to fight and die for them." prime minister of Malaysia, Mahathir Mohamad"
----
"The Ten Commandments are the foundation of Western morality and the American Constitution and government."
I agree with this statement. Islam paints the US as "Godless," Iran likes the "Great Satan" (I’ve grown rather fond of that epithet). At least we are not letting earthquake victims from 10 years ago still live in tents. The US is in fact a very religious and moral nation that has saved the bacon of Muslims numerous times in Kuwait, Iraq, Bosnia, etc. Europe is much more secular and decadent. Most people in the US go to religious services and have a Judeo-Christian moral base.
---
You appear to only understand Christianity superficially, Iranian student. If Christianity is "pagan" then Islam is a 7th century death cult. Christianity, despite its "idols" of saints and crosses, says "Love they neighbor as thyself" While Islam says:
• "Fight against such of those to whom the Scriptures were given ... and do not embrace the true Faith, until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued." (9:29)
• When the sacred months are over, slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them and lie in ambush everywhere for them. If they repent and take to prayer and render alms levy, allow them to go their way. God is forgiving and merciful. Surah Al-Tawbah, Ayah 5.
The Qu'ran is, among other things, a manual of war against the "unbelievers"—one could almost call it a terror manual—certainly the Islamic terrorists are using it as such. The New Testament has NO SUCH passages! Jesus did NOT take up arms and make war against the "unbelievers" as did the so-called prophet Mohammed. (And btw, I don’t believe in the divinity of Jesus nor the virgin birth—so don’t get on that boat.) The great "innovation" of Christianity is the concept of a loving God and the concept of loving one's neighbor as oneself instead of making war in the “infidel.”
Islam ripped off Judaism and Christianity. However, when Mohammed could not convince the "pagan" Arabs of the peaceful message, he was driven to Medina and began warring for Islam while receiving the more violent “revelations”—which BTW supersede the “revelations” received in Mecca according to Islamic scholars..
". . .As a final suggestion, perhaps Graeco-Judaic is a better candidate , though it stll leaves a lot missing. . . "
daanaa: Western secularism occurred with the Reformation and the Renaissance. The Church was caged as Islam must be caged in order for there to be progress. For such a Reformation to happen Muslims must first be educated enough to read their own religious dogma. When Christians could interpret the Bible for themselves because they were literate, then things began to change. When Muslims are finally able to really read the Qu’ran and the hadith one would hope they will reject the more hateful violent passages that call for war against all “unbelievers” and the subjugation of women and bigoted practices like purdah.
"Ms. Wessie, your words sound to me as if you might not be very familiar with Islam, history of Iran and the one of the west."
You know, it is incredibly presumptuous of you to make such a statement. You have posted little in the way of substance. Let's see some proof of your assertions.
"Let me remind you that judeo-Christian made a very dark point in the mankind history when they had absolute power. . . "
Islam has made a "dark point" for 1400 years and has not stopped since its inception. Islam was born of the sword. Mohammed did not spread Islam nor did his followers, via peaceful means. Islam conquered the people it converted and subjugated. Islamic imperialism and hegemony was threatening the wolrd of the "unbelievers" for hundreds of years and is doing so AGAIN today. Islam came out of Arabia with a vengeance, as directed by the Qu'ran, and conquered half the world with the SWORD within a few hundred years. Islam was at the gates of Vienna twice! I doubt that the West will permit that to happen again. ;-)
"Islamic countries made and even established the base of modern science and culture, when Islam had the power in these countries. Islam never has stood against science as the church did."
Oh, please! The stuff is really getting old despite the concept of zero. The Crusades and Christianity's "dark past" was hundreds of years ago. Please post ONE thing that Islam has accomplished in the realm of science and technology in the last 1000 years. I'll make it easier—in the last 500 years. Islam is a conduit and not an innovator. Muslims are resting on the laurels of past glories. Show us what they have done lately!
" . . .However I think in the modern Islamic culture mogul affects are being washed out. . . "
Hardly! Note "modern" Islamic terrorism that follows the instructions in the Qu'ran to "kill the unbelievers." The 9/11 Arab terrorists followed the instructions in the Qu'ran to the letter! Islam has NOT been hijacked. If Muslims follow the teachings in the Qu'ran then they are obligated to make murderous jihad on the "infidels" until "God’s religion shall reign supreme."
Islam believes and teaches that ONLY Islam should be and is willing to murder and subjugate to make this happen—according to the Qu'ran. Good thing that most Muslims in the world ignore those misanthropic teachings. ;-)
["Well, I read it;" you might say, "now let's close it!"]"Also at the end let me remind you that Islam has not destroyed any religion."
Destruction of ALL religions besides Islam is Islam’s mission as instructed in the Qu'ran:
• "Slay those who believe neither in God nor the Last Day, who do not forbid what God and his apostle have forbidden, and who do not embrace the true Faith, until they pay jaziah out of hand and are utterly subdued Surah Al-Tawbah (Repentence), Ayah 29, . . "
Why are other religions persecuted by Muslims world wide? Why can no Christian or other religious places of worship be built in Saudi Arabia, the "birth place" of Islam, etc.? Why do Muslims murder innocents every day of the week all around the world in the name of Islam? Why is the cry of Muslim fundamentalists "convert or die"?
"Bombs found in Christian Schools. Pupils Warned to become Muslims or Die."
http://www.barnabasfund.org/News/Archive/Iraq/Iraq-20031120.htm
"Harkat-E-Islam Al-Jihad’s issued ultimatum to
religious minority businessmen and leaders of
opposition party to convert to Islam with in seven days
of receiving letter.
The letter said, their family members will be attacked
and houses will be burnt if they do not follow the
orders. . . " http://www.hrcbm.org/news/sangbad_11_032003_harkat.html
This sort of thing is an every day occurrence from Islam.
Show us where ANY OTHER religion is saying "convert or die" in its "holy" book! Please show us where in the New Testament (Christianity) there is such language? Even in the Old Testament one cannot find hundreds of passages that say “kill ALL the unbelievers” or subjugate them. Not too many Jews strapping on bomb-belts in following passages from the Book of Joshua.
" In iran Zoroastrians do exist. A religion with about 3000-4000 years history. Could you answer Hamed why there is no any Mithraists in Italy?And why its fellow have been simply washed out by Cristian. May be cristians want the pluralism to be only among themselves. Don't get angry last sentence was joke ;)."
ANY religion can be practiced in the West; there are all kinds of religions from paganism (real ones) to Satan worshipers and anything in between including Jews, Hindus, Buddhist, Bahais, Zoroastrians, etc. They all live in peace together in the West. The only fly in the ointment is Muslims, who are constantly agitating for special privileges for Muslims not accorded to other religions in the West. Any Muslim can walk into any church including St. Peter's. Such is not the case in Islam. A non-Muslim cannot step foot into the "holy" cities of Mecca and Medina. Nor can non-Muslim go into most mosques. Forget about the issue of women–especially menstruating women. That little issue alone is enough to turn one away from this misogynistic cult of Islam.
"AS an Iranian let me remind you that even at the time of Darius the Great the existence of all group of religion had been accepted."
Darius has been dead a long time now. Don’t forget, the Qu'ran states that ALL OTHER peoples and religions must be subdued until Islam "is supreme" in the world. Other religions are “accepted” with dhimmi status, not equal status to Muslims in an Islamic land.
". . . In Quran there exist No word or sentence that people of other religion or beliefs should got hurt, in any way. There are so many sentences that no one should ever force other people by any means to change their idea."
That is an unmitigated LIE, daanaa! I could clog these boards with hundreds of quotes from the Qu'ran and the hadith that say "kill the unbelievers" or make them pay the poll tax and treat them as second class dhimmis.
Just a few Surahs on violence & Jews you all might want to look up for "peaceful" "tolerant" Islam: 9:73; 2:190-192; 47:8; 4:74,76; 4:95,96; 9:5; 5:34,35; 8:39; 8:65; 9:29; 5:60; 2:65; 7:166 There are hundreds of such surahs.
It always astounds me what a capacity for denial of the truth that Muslims, especially Arabs and Persians have. It is written in black and white in the Qu'ran to:
• "Make war on them until idolatry shall cease and God’s religion shall reign supreme" (8:39)
• "We carry our beliefs on the tip of our swords."
(Imam Ali's Nahaj ol-balaghah)
According to Umar b. al-Khattab to the commander of the troops he sent to al-Basrah (636 C.E.), during the conquest of Iraq. Umar (the second “Rightly Guided Caliph”).
“Summon the people to God; those who respond to your call, accept it from them, (This is to say, accept their conversion as genuine and refrain from fighting them) but those who refuse must pay the poll tax out of humiliation and lowliness. (Qur’an 9:29) If they refuse this, it is the sword without leniency. Fear God with regard to what you have been entrusted.”
Reference: Al-Tabari, “The History of al-Tabari (Ta’rikh al rusul wa’l-muluk)”, vol. 12, The Battle of Qadissiyah and the Conquest of Syria and Palestine, translated by Yohanan Friedman, (Albany, NY.: State University of New York Press, 1992).
---
The point I am trying to make is that Islam, IF practiced according to the misogynistic and misanthropic tenets set down by Mohammed, is fundamentally in conflict with democracy, pluralism and the secular rule of law while other religions are not.
Islam is a political, social and cultural system pretending to be a religion that seeks to subjugate ALL "unbelievers" or convert them to Islam. The practice of no taxes save those collected from dhimmis renders Islamic states non-functional. Example: Saudi Arabia, which depends on its tax base from expatriates and despite oil riches has a 35% “official” unemployment rate. Additionally, the Islamic concept of "no interest" is non-viable in a modern, capitalistic state.
Until such time that there is a Reformation in Islam, wherein the "true believers" reject the tenets of "Islam über alles," the subjugation of all other peoples and religions, the subjugation of women and the non-viable Islamic fiscal concepts, Islam will not be compatible with a modern state, democratic concepts nor the secular rule of law. Therefore, democracy will NOT work in the Islamic world, especially in the Arab world any time soon.
Wessie
["Well, I read it;" you might say, "now let's close it!"]I am here to witness that His Majesty Señor Græd did not write the comment you are referring to, Wessie. Look carefully: somebody else wrote that comment!
You have written a long comment. Yet another boring weekend is upon us, I know. I shall try to correct your wrongs as far as I can, but I may not be able to finish it. You feel free to write back though.
First of all, I do agree that Judeo-Christian ethic had played an important role in *shaping* America the way it stands today. But I certainly disagree that the modern notions of democracy, pluralism, tolerance, human rights, etc. *emerge* from the Judeo-Christian tradition. How come they didn't emerge for more than a millenia? Quite the contrary, I believe these modern notions emerged *against* a tyranny for which Christianity was largely responsible.
Muslims' having produced "nothing for the last 500 years" has little, if anything at all, to do with their being "driven out of Spain". The way you phrase your sentence it seems you want to convey the false idea that Muslims' contribution to the world civilization in the golden era of Islam, when Europe was sleeping fast in the dark, had something to do with their being in Spain. All accounts of history that I have seen (Google is at your service!) point out that it was Spain (and later the whole Europe) that benefitted from a civilization that had thrived under Islam, not the other way around.
You say Muslims didn't belong to Spain. It is as if I say you don't belong to America, because your great grandparents were not born in America. Muslims conquered Spain, as they did Persia and North Africa, converted the population, and made it their own for a long period of time. In that sense, they did belong to Spain and Spain did belong to them. If you've been to California, that I assume was once a Spanish colony you can easily see the influence of the Islamic (a.k.a. Moorish) architecture in many places! Imagine that! Or just see with your own eyes: http://www.sdrm.org/gifs/sfd-1.jpg (Google, google!) In a mission in Santa Barbara, I saw with my own eyes minarets on the tilings inside the building! So here we go. Islam even influenced America!
So no dear, unlike what you're trying to say, Europe didn't make progress because Muslims were driven out. I'm now out of breath.
Wessie:
The name of the commentors appear above their comments in the comment section, not below. So, it was "huh!" that proclaimed: "You seem to be a REAL admirer of your Judeo-Christian stuff!" not "Señor Græd" and it was "An Iranian Student (AIS)" who suggested: ". . .As a final suggestion, perhaps Graeco-Judaic is a better candidate , though it stll leaves a lot missing. . . " not "daanaa." Just to clear some things up!
I think Wessie's last comments above has some valid points, although the best thing about it is that it provides for us a well-versed account of how someone may be tempted to view us (Iranians or Muslims) from the outside. The thesis that Islam is not compatible with democracy is nothing new, however. This has been discussed at length by many "insiders", if you will, and in fact, we argued about it in this very forum while back...
Sorry about the confusion with ”who posted what” all. I realized after I posted that I had miscredited the posts. How come no one signs their names?
His “Majesty Señor Græd”? Right! OK then I’m the Queen of Sheeba. LOL
”You have written a long comment. Yet another boring weekend is upon us, I know.”
First, it’s not the weekend yet. Second, Americans tend to work even on the weekends as will I. And third, only boring people are bored. ;-)
“First of all, I do agree that Judeo-Christian ethic had played an important role in *shaping* America the way it stands today. But I certainly disagree that the modern notions of democracy, pluralism, tolerance, human rights, etc. *emerge* from the Judeo-Christian tradition. How come they didn't emerge for more than a millenia?
I already told you your Majesty, because of the literacy of the populace after the invention of the printing press, after the Reformation, the Renaissance and the Age of Enlightenment when the Church (not Christianity) was finally caged because the people became more literate and could read the Bible themselves—The Church was caged as Islam must be caged! Actually, I think Islam will fade away once people are able to read the misanthropy and misogyny for themselves.
“Quite the contrary, I believe these modern notions emerged *against* a tyranny for which Christianity was largely responsible.”
There is no “tyranny” in Christianity that is codified in its tenets, as there is in Islam. The Bible does NOT say, “Kill all unbelievers” as does the Qu’ran. Don’t confuse the Church (as in Catholic Church) with the tenets of Christianity. Jesus said, “Love thy neighbor as thyself” he does not say “kill the neighbor because he is not a Christian.”
”Muslims' having produced "nothing for the last 500 years" has little, if anything at all, to do with their being "driven out of Spain".
. . . .All accounts of history that I have seen (Google is at your service!) point out that it was Spain (and later the whole Europe) that benefitted from a civilization that had thrived under Islam, not the other way around.”
Hardly. Again I say that Islam is a conduit, the concept of zero aside. Islam is not innovative, it used the innovations of the peoples it conquered with the sword—that means war. Even “Islamic” architecture came from other peoples. Tell us what Islam has produced in the last 500 years your Majesty. Name ONE thing that has benefited mankind as those things that have come from the West.
“You say Muslims didn't belong to Spain. It is as if I say you don't belong to America, because your great grandparents were not born in America.”
I DO belong in America, despite the fact that I was not born in America. That is the greatness of the US assimilation of immigrants.
Muslims conquered Spain, as they did Persia and North Africa, converted the population, and made it their own for a long period of time.
Well, conquered is the key word here isn’t it—Conquered via WAR. Spain was a Christian country. Islam forced itself on Europe and Africa and Persia, etc. Islam even forced itself on the Arabs. The conversions were forced. Accept Islam or die, just as it says in the Qu’ran—or live as a dhimmi in inferior status to Muslims.
In a mission in Santa Barbara, I saw with my own eyes minarets on the tilings inside the building! So here we go. Islam even influenced America!
Regardless of Byzantine architecture, which the Muslims adapted and adopted, Islam has not influenced much in the world in a positive way. For every point you make historically I can refute that with historical records by Islamic scholars of Muslim terror against the world from almost the day it was conceived by Mohammed—certainly from the time he began to make war in Medina. The best time for Islam was when it was “open” to other peoples because it was the only way Islam could rule the conquered. Once Islam began to follow the tenets of Mohammed to the letter it went down hill.
“So no dear, “
I am not your “dear” your Majesty. But, you may call me your Highness. ;-) Or just “Highness” will do.
”unlike what you're trying to say, Europe didn't make progress because Muslims were driven out.”
Certainly it did, your Majesty! If Muslims had not been driven out the Reformation etc. might not have happened. If Islam had truly gotten a foothold in central Europe, we’d all be living in the middle ages. Those Viennese coffee houses would only be serving coffee instead of nice glasses of wine to go with the pastries. And the French—oh perish the thought! No French wines or the romance that goes with the “decadent” French way of life—no more pretty women in the cafes and along the boulevards. They’d all be wrapped in black shrouds. ;-)
Islam suppresses the religions of the “other” don’t forget. Certainly Islam has not made ANY progress since it was driven out of Spain. Islam has turned inward and never emerged from the middle ages. According to Bernard Lewis, Islam began to decline a mere 400 years after its war-like busting out of Arabia because of the problem of dhimmitude. As the conquered peoples were absorbed, there was no more innovation and most importantly, there were no more poll taxes (jizya) to keep the Islamic state viable. Saudi Arabia has the same problem today. Not enough tax paying dhimmis (expatriates) and not enough innovative Muslims. Everything is done by expats in that failed, backward, terror exporting nation.
“I think Wessie's last comments above has some valid points, although the best thing about it is that it provides for us a well-versed account of how someone may be tempted to view us (Iranians or Muslims) from the outside. The thesis that Islam is not compatible with democracy is nothing new, however. This has been discussed at length by many "insiders", if you will, and in fact, we argued about it in this very forum while back...”
Where is the link to that discussion, please?
There seem to be some intelligent people on this site (despite the plethora of scientists and higher degrees.) Don’t get offended. I too am suffering from alphabet soup after my name. I have a question:
Do you all believe that Islam is compatible with democracy? No Westerner I know does. All one has to do is study Islam and one can see that there is no such thing as individuality or freedom of thought. Everything is group do and group-think—not to mention all the “jihad” and “kill everyone who is not one of us” pronouncements and tribalism and revenge. To me, Islam is like Communism—looks great on paper (well, sort of great if you are a Muslim male) but—doesn’t work.
HRH Wessie
The Queen of Sheeba
["Well, I read it;" you might say, "now let's close it!"]Wessie,
I wonder why you answer the points I made by refering to Islam?
"Islam is a 7th century death cult. "
exactly. I agree with you on that and your view about Islam 100%. (You seem to be new to this site,so welcome first, because I have made many points myself on this topic that you can check for yourself (you have to usually look at the last half of comment sections for my part), so when I talk about Christianity rest assured that Islam is completely out of the picture already.)
"It (the term Judeo-Christian) has little to do with either Judaism or Christianity as religions but rather their tenets as the basis for our civilization and the laws under which we live in the West."
That is exactly why I am saying that it better be called 'Graeco-Judaic' instead.
I agree again with your overall point of view, but you see although Christianity has as two of its pillars Judaism and Hellenism among other things, its own identity is a combination that is quite hostile (please FORGET about Islam, compared to Islam almost anything is mild and loving) and totalitarian. Let me ellaborate a bit further:
Judaism has at its very basis the concept of an independent Law above EVERY individual that is presented as God. That is why EVERY prophet or character is portrayed as haing made a mistake or commited a sin in the Hebrew Bible, in order to prevent any man to become deified and so that the attention is drawn to an ever more abstacted God of LAW and LOVE. (That always gives me a kick because precisely THIS is presented to us in our brainwashing school system in Iran as a proof of degeneracy of judaism and the Bible, just shows how out of phase Isalm is with the meanings here)
And the more imoprtant that person is the more this humanity is exaggerated, so that Moses the most important figure is sometimes presented as a real simpleton, where as the whole essence of Christianity is in deifing a single man and concentrating everything on Him. The two are diagonally opposed. The consequences is seen in history. In the ancient lands of Israel and Judea we see kings even as great as David himself constantly and sometimes really harshly reprimanded by mere subjects, shepherads, carpenters and the like.(Nathan , Amos etc)and this in a time and place where in neighboring lands kings where above the law, directly connected to gods or gods themselves. Where as the history of Christianity starts with a church (and I don't just mean the Catholic Church) who declares itself and subjugation to it as the only path to god and redemption and thousand years of dark tyranny and inquisition that make those older god-emperors look benign. You can argue about the difference of Church and Christianity as much as you like, but this church was what NATURALLY came from it and there was a reason for it. Also please stop talking of christianity as all just loving stuff. First of all it turns that human natural love and tragedy that it takes from the Biblical tradition into a sterile theology of almost mechanistic 'love' relation. Secondly what do you say of paasages like " I am not come to bring peace. Not the peace but the sword! I am come to seperate the father from the son...?" What about the real savage attitude towards the scribes and the pharisees? I don't need to recall John again that is fascism itself in some parts of it. Or the revelation, do you think one gets ideas of tolerance and democracy after reading it?
Yes there are Judaic,Greek and yes Persian elements from which Christianity was formed, but it needed many centuries of struggle and bloodshed to seperate them from it again, I hardly see that a credit to Christianity. I agree that Chrsitinaity played a role in propogating those concepts as dogmas to a much wider population than where they were first really formed and that after its 'taming' as you call it it did benefit the world, but that might also be said about Islam after its complete taming that would probably kill it anyway.
It might be juts a matter of names then, but sometimes names have consequences. For one calling it Judeo-Christian allows Christian fundamentalists to take advantage and pose as promoters of morality.
Second and much more important it misses the real point of the importance of regarding the 'tenets, what formed them and what constitues the real struggle of deprting them from religious dogma once more and shifts it instead to a war of one religious dogma against the other. that is EXTREMELY dangerous. that's what Islamist fundamentalsts take and have taken advantage of to promote their sick views. Just see how much they talk of Crusade and terms of that nature now a days. The struggle should be taken out of their arena and brought to ours if you like.
I hope that cleared things somewhat.
Daanaa,
"Islamic countries made and even established the base of modern science and culture"
"Also at the end let me remind you that Islam has not destroyed any religion."
"I would like to remind you that In Quran there exist No word or sentence that people of other religion or beliefs should got hurt, in any way."
["Well, I read it;" you might say, "now let's close it!"]LO(very)L.
You WERE joking,right?
Iranian Student, thanks for the reply. And thanks for the welcome!
I see that you are still "mixing" the tenets of Judaism and Christianity as well as the crimes of so-called Christians, which have nothing to do with the teachings of Christianity. While Islam TEACHES hatred and jihad, Christianity does not. Never mind that *some* people, calling themselves Christians did very bad things. That is almost irrelevant, as horrible as it was, because Christianity does not postulate such things in its written scriptures. Islam, OTOH, has reams of misanthropic surahs and hadith.
However, it is very late here and my day is over. So, if you will excuse me, I shall have to tackle your post tomorrow. :-)
Wessie
PS—I don't think daanaa was kidding. ;-)
My God, Wessie, can't we talk of Christianity without comparing it with Islam?
please remember that 'The revelations' and 'The Gsopel of St. John' ...ARE in the scripture.
Once again, there is a REASON, to be found in the basic dogmas of any religion, why those 'bad' people behaved the way they did, FOR A THOUSAND years and perhaps more. I am NOT talking about orders of killing of infidels in the Christrian texts, ok? I am talking about the inherent fascism in the teaching that says 'I am the ONLY way, if you want to see the Father you have to go through me' that anone else will be condemned to eternal damnation in the after life. This is afterlifce terrorism if you like . ;)
I have a question for you:
What do you hope to achieve by confronting people like this?
If you agree that the very core of Islam has is bloody, then you must also understand the effects it would have on the character of the people that are raised with it. By opposing the PEOPLE like that you would just get them to react and stick more to their views.
I have said very direct and harsh words on Islam, but I always directed it to the idea, the teaching and the like and never to the people who are brainwahsed by it, if you like. Don't you see your attitude is self-contradictory?
Bias is wrong, form any side.
I think I really ahve to tell a bit more here.
I have defended Judaism here a lot, and I do not deny that there are many elements in it that I STRONGLY admire. That however does not make me blind to the fact that you can also find some mumbojumbo in its myriads of religous documents that are indeed absolute bullshit, or that you sometimes find passages in the early that are horribly savage. I understand this as the more primitive stages of an ever evolving CULTURE based on a very noble idea that eventually gets more and more humane in its details and I compare even the savage parts with the total savagery of the time-just look at the Hammurabi law code for example and remember that despite its disturbing violent nature it is a milestone in human history. I can do that because Judaism has no specific initial dogma, because it is precisley a culture and a national thing. I can not do this for Christianity, because it is based on a historic figure as its dogma. There is no way you can regard that as a primitive early age because if you take Jesus out, nothing remain of Christianity and I also see a relation of why it HAD to be so fascistic in declaring its own teaching as the only way to salvation and threatning any opponent to eternal damnation-and they RAE in its scripture as well as church.
More so in case of Islam that was extremely savage for its own time and whose very existence is justified by unchangbility.
If you mean cultural trends, stop defending christianity with this bias. (Islam is worse ok? satisfied? But Chrsitianity is already bad enough)
In the middle of Wessie's comment (dated yesterday 07:14 PM) I smelled the unpleasant smell of bigotry. I was first willing to give her the benefit of the doubt, but she's totally unreasonable, man! I didn't even finish reading the comment. I stopped where she stubbornly insists on her unsubstantiated (and ignorant) version of the story of Spain. Go to a library and read some books, for God's sake, ma'am. Anyway, it's a busy weekend and I don't have time to respond all your allegations one by one. You certainly don't know much about the history of Europe. Or maybe you prefer not to know. If you don't have access to books, you should be able to use google, too. Just go to http://google.com and search words such as Islam, Spain, you know. Of course you will find some stuff that would please you, but for Heaven's sake read some of the scholarly stuff as well. Or you may start from here: http://www.historyforkids.org/ ;-)
"I smelled the unpleasant smell of bigotry."
Ah the race card.
If one tells the truth about Islam and quotes the Qu’ran and the hadith as well as Islamic jurisprudence and Islamic historians, then one is labeled a “bigot” by Muslims. LOL The race card is so ineffective against the truth.
The facts are that it is Muslims who are bigoted, intolerant and racist! They are taught to be so in their religious book the Qu’ran as well as the basis of sharia the hadith. As the Student above mentioned, the fascist idea that Muslims are “the best of peoples.”
As a victim of Islamic terror I am only willing to give the “benefit of the doubt” to Muslims who categorically reject the violent, misanthropic, misogynistic passages in the Qu’ran. Let me see you put that into writing Señor Græd! ;-)
“I stopped where she stubbornly insists on her unsubstantiated (and ignorant) version of the story of Spain.”. . . You certainly don't know much about the history of Europe. . . ”
Not only do I know about the history of Europe I also know about the history of Islam. What, BTW, have you substantiated, Señor? Please list some references for your claims. After Islam was driven out of Europe came the Renaissance. That is a fact! And Islam has done nothing since having been driven out of Spain except blame the world for its self-inflicted problems.
Amazing! Muslims always know so much more about everything, yet they can’t make a decent, peaceful nation in the modern world. Your twisted Islamic history does not bear out in facts! In about the 11th century Muslims started to fight amongst themselves in Al-Andalusia (quelle surprise!) and thus, the caliphate was weakened so that the Christians could re-conquer it and drive the Muslims out by 1492. . In fact it is called: the Reconquista in other words it was theirs once and they got it back from Islam.
After the Reconquista Spain had what is known as its “Golden Age” a place where Muslims never went. And all of Europe had the Renaissance, The Reformation and thereafter the Age of Enlightenment.
Here are a few books you should read on Islamic history instead of Googling radical Islamic websites that only tell half the story. What Islam did 1000 years ago is totally irrelevant! What has it done lately besides murder innocents?
Al-Tabari, “The History of al-Tabari (Ta’rikh al rusul wa’l-muluk)”, (Albany, NY.: State University of New York Press, 1992).
“The Origins of the Islamic State (Kitah Futuh al-Buldan)”, translated by Philip K. Hitti, (Piscataway, NJ.: Georgias Press, 2002); Al-Kufi,
“The Chachnãmah”, Part I: Giving the Mussulman period from the Arab conquest to the beginning of the reign of the Kalhorahs, translated by Mirza Kalichbeg Fredunbeg, (Delhi Reprint, 1979);
Speros Vryonis, Jr., “The Decline of Medieval Hellenism in Asia Minor”, (Berkeley, CA.: University of California Press, 1971);
K.S. Lal, “The Legacy of Muslim Rule in India”(New Delhi.: Aditya Prakashan, 1992);
Moshe Gil, “A History of Palestine,”, Translated by Ethel Broido, (Cambridge. : Cambridge University Press, 1992);
Bat Ye’or, “The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam”, Translated by Miriam Kochan and David Littman, (Cranbury, NJ.: Associated University Presses, 1996)
Dozens more are waiting for you in the library if you are serious about learning about the terrible history of violent Islam and how it tried to conquer the world via war, but, failed.
You should also look at the consensus on the nature of jihad from all four schools of Islamic jurisprudence: Maliki, Hanbali, Hanafi, and Shafi:
Ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani (d. 996), Maliki jurist
“Jihad is a precept of Divine institution. Its performance by certain individuals may dispense others from it. We Malikis [one of the four schools of Muslim jurisprudence] maintain that it is preferable not to begin hostilities with the enemy before having invited the latter to embrace the religion of Allah except where the enemy attacks first. They have the alternative of either converting to Islam or paying the poll tax (jizya), short of which war will be declared against them.”
Ibn Taymiyya (d. 1328), Hanbali jurist
“Since lawful warfare is essentially jihad and since its aim is that the religion is God’s entirely and God’s word is uppermost, therefore according to all Muslims, those who stand in the way of this aim must be fought. As for those who cannot offer resistance or cannot fight, such as women, children, monks, old people, the blind, handicapped and their likes, they shall not be killed unless they actually fight with words (e.g. by propaganda) and acts (e.g. by spying or otherwise assisting in the warfare).”
From the Hanafi school (as given in the Hidayah)
“ It is not lawful to make war upon any people who have never before been called to the faith, without previously requiring them to embrace it, because the Prophet so instructed his commanders, directing them to call the infidels to the faith, and also because the people will hence perceive that they are attacked for the sake of religion, and not for the sake of taking their property, or making slaves of their children, and on this consideration it is possible that they may be induced to agree to the call, in order to save themselves from the troubles of war… If the infidels, upon receiving the call, neither consent to it nor agree to pay capitation tax, it is then incumbent on the Muslims to call upon God for assistance, and to make war upon them, because God is the assistant of those who serve Him, and the destroyer of His enemies, the infidels, and it is necessary to implore His aid upon every occasion; the Prophet, moreover, commands us so to do.”
al-Mawardi (d. 1058 ), Shafi’i jurist
“…The mushrikun [infidels] of Dar al-Harb (the arena of battle) are of two types: First, those whom the call of Islam has reached, but they have refused it and have taken up arms. The amir of the army has the option of fighting them…in accordance with what he judges to be in the best interest of the Muslims and most harmful to the mushrikun… Second, those whom the invitation to Islam has not reached, although such persons are few nowadays since Allah has made manifest the call of his Messenger…it is forbidden to…begin an attack before explaining the invitation to Islam to them, informing them of the miracles of the Prophet and making plain the proofs so as to encourage acceptance on their part; if they still refuse to accept after this, war is waged against them and they are treated as those whom the call has reached…”
Ibn Khaldun (d. 1406), jurist (Maliki), renowned philosopher, historian, and sociologist, summarized these consensus opinions from five centuries of prior Muslim jurisprudence with regard to the uniquely Islamic institution of jihad:
“In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the [Muslim] mission and [the obligation to] convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force... The other religious groups did not have a universal mission, and the holy war was not a religious duty for them, save only for purposes of defense... Islam is under obligation to gain power over other nations.”
========
So, in other words, “Convert or die” is the motto of Islam. So much for there not being any “compulsion in religion.”
No thanks!
Wessie
["Well, I read it;" you might say, "now let's close it!"]Hey, Wessie, I never said I was "knowledgeable" about the story of Spain under Mussulmans, or the history of Islam for that matter. Unlike what you claim to be, I am not a student of religions. As idiotic as it sounds, I have adopted Google as my Great Educator. I really have no time for deeply delving into a serious study of religions. To my own embarrassment, I have not even read Koran once from cover to cover. Are you happy now?
But I am not filled with fanatical anger and hatred directed towards a particular religion and its followers either. You've surely been hurt by some Muslims (the least of all, the 19 boys on a mission on September 2001) and you seem to know no better way of relieving yourself than lumping all the Muslims together and find faults (of which I'm sure there are many) with their way of life, their creed and their scripture.
I told you I don't have time now to search the web to contradict your assertions, but you're insisting. So here we go:
"In the 10th century, Cordoba, the capital of Umayyad Spain, was unrivalled in both East and the West for its wealth and civilisation. One author wrote about Cordoba:
"there were half a million inhabitants, living in 113,000 houses. There were 700 mosques and 300 public baths spread throughout the city and its twenty-one suburbs. The streets were paved and lit... There were bookshops and more than seventy libraries."
Muslim scholars served as a major link in bringing Greek philosophy, of which the Muslims had previously been the main custodians, to Western Europe."
Read more at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/history/spain/index.shtml
(This was the first thing that came up when I googled "Islam Spain".)
I have read in other sources that the number of books in a Muslim Spain's library exceeded the number of books in all other European libraries combined. The importance of public baths must be clear to you. In Europe of that era, bath was an unheard of notion. Is that also because they hadn't read the Bible? Look here:
"The Muslims were the first to license physicians and require standards of cleanliness in their hospitals. They were the first to establish permanent general hospitals with dispensaries and libraries. The Romans had introduced the idea of military hospitals."
I recommend you to read it all, since you seem to have a lot of free time on your hands (it *is* weekend now!):
http://www.dental-site.itgo.com/islamic.htm
"Scientific knowledge, architecture, mathematics, and philosophy flourished in Spain during the rule of the Umayyad. Much of this intellectual climate can be traced to the precepts of the Qur'an (in English, we sometimes refer to this as the Koran). Throughout the Qur'an, there is a strong emphasis on the value of knowledge. As noted in the tutorial, "because Muslims believe that Allah is all-knowing, they also believe that the human world's quest for knowledge leads to further knowing of Allah. Muslims must thus pursue knowledge not only of God's laws, but of the natural world as well, extending the frontiers of human knowledge. Unlike the revealed knowledge of the Qur'an, Muslims believe that human knowledge is not perfect, and requires constant exploration and advancement through research and experimentation. According to the Qur'an, learning and gaining knowledge is the highest form of religious activity for Muslims, and the one which is most pleasing to God.""
Read it all at the non-radial-Islamic website:
http://www.mastep.sjsu.edu/history_of_tech/islam.htm
Yep, I found it! Thanks a lot Google. :-)
"Cordoba in its prime has no peer in Europe for the amenities of civilized life. Its houses were bountifully supplied with hot and cold running water, its streets were lit at night, its royal library -- if one may trust the chroniclers -- had 400,000 volumes at a time when the major libraries in western Europe scarcely reached a thousand. (Hillenbrand, 1999, p. 175)"
Don't miss the bibliography at the bottom of the page. make sure to read them all, Highheelness.
http://users.telerama.com/~jdehullu/islam/sp_01.htm
And finally (for my time doesn't allow me to stay with you more, as enjoyable as it is) a treasury of links on the subject:
http://instruct1.cit.cornell.edu/courses/nes339/nes339links.html
By the way, thanks for the list of the books. Rest assured that I'll check them out (not necessarily out of the library) whenever I get the chance.
["Well, I read it;" you might say, "now let's close it!"]I should haste to add that I am by no means proud of the situation the Islamic world finds itself today. I just wanted you, Wessie, to get your sources of information right. Islam once helped make a great civilization. Perhaps Christianity helped made another great civilization later, as you seem to claim (though I have my doubts about how meaningful this comparison is, because, as I said before, it was the *decline* of the Church that paved the way for Reformation in Europe, or maybe the Reformation pushed Church back. Either way, I find it a hard-to-buy argument that: as soon as Muslims were driven out of Spain and Europeans got a chance to read the Bible "themselves", the art and science and democracy and whatevernot flourished among them. Frankly, it's even laughable.) Again, please clear your mind/heart and get your historical sources right, Wessie. Love thy neighbor, as you have already said quite a few times. After all, in the "global village" we're all neighbors...
Have you people heard of this saying “The dogs bark and the Caravan passes by”?
I was just checking some of the references that this “woman” was referring to and found out that some of them come from “Memri” website. It is basically a media institute that translates the Middle Eastern newspapers.
The Guardian had an article titled “Selective Memri” which was explaining the nature of the institution and its functions.
1) Memri's purpose, according to its website, *is to bridge the language gap between the west - where few speak Arabic - and the Middle East*, by "providing timely translations of Arabic, Farsi, and Hebrew media".
2) Its work is subsidized by US taxpayers because as an "independent, non-partisan, non-profit" organization, it has tax-deductible status under American law.
3) The co-founder and president of Memri, and the registered owner of its website, is an Israeli called Yigal Carmon.
I checked some of their translations of the Iranian newspapers and compared them with the actual pieces in the related newspapers and was shocked by how manipulative and deceitful they were in their translation!
This is the link to the Guardian articled that I talked about at the beginning, I think it’s good to check out the article.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,773258,00.html
"Civilization is not something inborn or imperishable; it must be acquired anew by every generation, and any serious interruption in its financing or its transmission may bring it to an end." Will Durant
“Hey, Wessie, I never said I was "knowledgeable" about the story of Spain under Mussulmans, or the history of Islam for that matter. Unlike what you claim to be, I am not a student of religions. As idiotic as it sounds, I have adopted Google as my Great Educator. I really have no time for deeply delving into a serious study of religions. To my own embarrassment, I have not even read Koran once from cover to cover. Are you happy now?”
You really are a pip, Señor! You denigrate my posts without being “knowledgeable.” You have not even read the Qu’ran cover to cover!? Get with it! The Qu’ran is a very, very short poem in comparison to the lengthy tome called the Bible. And you admit to having Google as your great “educator.” That is pretty pathetic. LOL
“But I am not filled with fanatical anger and hatred directed towards a particular religion and its followers either. You've surely been hurt by some Muslims (the least of all, the 19 boys on a mission on September 2001) and you seem to know no better way of relieving yourself than lumping all the Muslims together and find faults (of which I'm sure there are many) with their way of life, their creed and their scripture.”
Get over yourself! Muslims see “fanatical anger” and “bigotry” against Islam and Muslims behind every tree—not to mention the “Zionist entity.” I have NO “fanatical anger or hatred” directed against any religion or its followers. What I do is tell the truth about Islam and its history— A history which I happen to know rather well; A terrible, violent history which most Muslims are clueless about. This bothers lots of pe