re: Check out this absurd press release from an Australian politician re mosque shootings

quote:

---

Not in the past 500 years.

---

Try googling the Spanish sometime and see what they did.

I think it's great.

quote:

---

You are garbage, and your opinions follow.

---

Nothing quite says “I’m a fricking moron” like “I know you are but what am I?”

quote:

---

Again, you're talking about Inquisition-era "conquistadors"

---

You realize there are plenty of earlier examples of forced conversions by Christians? The conversion of the Saxons was through warfare, the conversion of Jews was often forcible, and the Northern Crusades again were explicit in their aims. That's not to mention that the Spanish, whom you write off as only Inquisition-era, had forcible conversions to Christianity to the 19th century. The Portuguese tortured the Hindus of Goa and forcibly converted them all throughout their ownership of the area. Christian treatment of Jews also flies in the face of any notion that medieval Christians were somehow better than medieval Muslims. Bernard Lewis has a wonderful article about this in the American Spectator (if you know who Bernard Lewis is).

This is not to give an excuse to Islam, but to have some perspective. Yes Islam was primarily spread by the sword, but the context of the time illuminates why it was so oriented around military conquest. If you remove the religion aspect from it, what you had was a proto-merchant class (as Muhammad was also a merchant) organizing disparate tribes to fight against the four powers in the region, the Romans (then Byzantines, Sasanians, and their proxies, the Lakhmid and the Ghassaninds, who had been fighting on the Northern Arabian frontier for 400 years, more or less, starting in the year 200 and ending with Islamic conquest. The early Islamic invasions were extremely successful, in part because all four powers were weakened by the constant fighting, and in part because the populations along that frontier, all the way to the Med., were also tired of the fighting, and in some places, welcomed the Muslims without a fight. I can't remember now if it was Uthman or Umar who was the caliph during the compilation of the Quran, but both saw Islam as a warrior religion, with Arabs in the highest caste, and the groups they conquered in the lower castes. The frontier between the Arabs and the Byzantines actually stabilized for around 150 years, the first time the region had not seen fighting in 500 or so years, until the Byzantines reorganized and fought back with a fury after the 860's. That second set of wars occurred up until the First Crusade or so, but the new power in the region, the Turks (who, to my knowledge, weren't forcibly converted, as the adoption was rather gradual) drove into Anatolia from the Caspian basin, which beckoned Alexios to appeal for aid to Pope Urban.

Despite the fall of Arabs from the top of the caste, so to speak, a significant portion of converts to Islam, under Muslim rulers, converted on their own, as the benefits were great, as that conversion included a tax break. The 3 Mongol Khanates that converted to Islam chose to. The aforementioned Turks converted mostly gradually. There are very few instances, if I remember, in the literature of forcible conversions in Indonesia. And forcible conversions in Iran occurred in the early modern era, not the medieval era, specifically after Ismail converted to Shia Islam, which was his method of coalescing support against the Turks, who practiced Hanafi fiqh, the same as the medieval Persians. He wanted to make his empire more distinct than the Turks, as there was a massive degree of crossover between the two empires, indeed the two peoples, resulting in the robust Turco-Persian tradition. That suggests that medieval Iran was relatively more tolerant than other areas of the globe, as the forcible conversions of Zoroastrians was only decreed in the 1717. This period, under Sultan Husayn, also showed massive intolerance to Sunnis, Jews, and Christians, again partly due to the geopolitics of the time, as many of those peoples lived on the fringes of the Safavids, and in areas which were sought after by the Russians. Husayn wanted to buttress support for the crown through Shia Islam, a move that did not work, seeing the Safavids lose many of their claims in Central Asia and the Caucasus.

This is not to excuse Islam, but to actually discuss the history for once. It's complicated by even more details, as the geopolitical context is vitally important to understanding why Islam was seen as a warrior religion by the early caliphs, and why those early invasions were so successful.

No amount of unnecessary, google-wrought detail changes the fact that one religion teaches and implores its members to violently spread the religion. No amount of academic doublespeak accounts for 14 centuries of constant, committed violence. No "geopolitical trend" lasts over a thousand years, dude.

I'm not really defending Christianity so much as I'm drawing the clear distinction between the two. One has bred plenty of violence. The other teaches and demands it. It's an intellectual plague that has stagnated in undeveloped, myopic bliss since the 7th century and seeks to wipe out all history and knowledge that doesn't celebrate itself. Its rendered social effect are a multitude of two class, often monarchic societies in which the tiny ruling classes cannot be questioned. Not 500 years ago. Today. I'm sorry you're too full of your own bullshite to get that.

quote:

---

No "geopolitical trend" lasts over a thousand years, dude.

---

You realize those geopolitical trends are the major reason for Islam's reputation, as I explained as concisely as possible. I haven't even discussed the compilation of the Quran, which was complicated by the fact that formal Arabic had not yet been standardized, as well as questions to do with the order of the surahs, and the meaning of the verses. That's not to mention the massively conflicted history of the hadiths, and more specifically, the exegesis of those hadiths, which is contentious and meaningful to this day.

And it's arguable that the West Asian geopolitical trends aren't relevant today. We've seen the battle change from Greek-Persian to Roman-Persian to Byzantine-Arab to Turco-Persian, which determined many aspects of Islamic culture. The geopolitical importance of Turkey remains to this day because of its access to both Europe and the Caspian basin, which remains the most resource rich area in the world. The specifics change but we see the same trend pop up over and over. Why?

quote:

---

No amount of academic doublespeak accounts for 14 centuries of constant, committed violence

---

What exactly was doublespeak? Be specific. Do you think explaining the political context of early Islamic history equates supporting the religion?

quote:

---

I'm not really defending Christianity so much as I'm drawing the clear distinction between the two

---

Okay.

quote:

---

Its rendered social effect are a multitude of two class, often monarchic societies in which the tiny ruling classes cannot be questioned. Not 500 years ago. Today. I'm sorry you're too full of your own bullshite to get that.

---

You realize I haven't yet taken a political position on Islam; I've only explained a topic, quite briefly, that I have wealth of reading on. Why are acting like I'm supporting Islam here? It's massively dishonest to have a discussion this way. Other than trying to remember specific names, I haven't googled anything either.

We can discuss why Islam is the way it is, or we can reinforce plainly boring notions about what Islam is. I don't think I've even insinuated that I support Islam, what it did, or what it does. Don't pretend like I did. Discuss this like an adult or stop pretending you want to have a discussion about the history.

Anning is a hero

quote:

---

I disagree. His assessment seems spot on and the truth should never be denied just to appease someone's feelings.

---

The guy butchered unarmed civilians praying in a building specifically designated for praying. I don’t care how you feel about Islam, that is despicable and cowardly. We treat the worst war criminals better than that.

Of course you are 1000% correct and proven right by history and any logical examination of the facts.

Yet it will not stop the progtards from endlessly parroting “Muh diversity is our greatest strength”