A fourteen-year-old girl was flogged to death for the crime of being raped.
[Update a day or more later]
This poignant photo gallery seems related somehow.
What was the religion of the people who took over that country three decades ago? Gee, it’s right on the tip of my tongue.
[Bumped]
I think Andrew’s goal was to crap all over this comment thread, and insult a bunch of people he doesn’t know. What can I say, everyone has to have a hobby.
Andrea, how about you point out which of my comments crap on people, I count two, both directed at you, plus one (March 31st, 2011 at 2:44 pm) where I was dismissive of Carl appealing to “common sense”.
Now can you find one single comment of yours on this thread that isn’t intended to insult your target? Just one?
Rand, if you’re arguing that Islam, or much of Islam is barbaric now because Muslims kill in the name of Islam, and that Christians do have a history of killing in the name of Christianity, are you saying that Christianity was once barbaric?
If so, you and I have a different way of using the word barbaric, as I wouldn’t apply the word to a religion, just actions, then or now.
“These stats simply destroy the atheistic argument against religions based on the deaths caused by them. Quite frankly, atheistic governments and societies have killed far more people than any one religion, and likely more than several of the major religions combined. Thus, atheist’s view that religious groups have killed more people than any other organization is not only false, but also hypocritical. Yet atheists constantly use the deaths caused by Christianity to accuse it of being made up of bloody, violent people, hypocritical in their teachings of love and kindness. ”
From hyperhistory. (Wouldn’t let me post a link either)
“I know that won’t be satisfactory for you, as I know you’ll insist that they aren’t actually killing in the name of the Christian God unless they’re actually chanting some religious slogan while they’re doing the killing (praying to their God for guidance before the slaughter is commenced I’ll assume still wouldn’t qualify in your eyes as “killing in the name of God”, though I’ve no doubt that you would see Muslims praying in identical circumstances as such).”
There is an important distinction between people of a religion killing people and people killing in the name of their religion.
People are not saying that Islam is the cause of adultery but they are saying that Islamic law was carried out in the punishment for adultery (not rape). You seem to be arguing that if a person belongs to a religion then that religion is responsible for the actions carried out by that person. I don’t think people are saying that about Islam.
Let’s face it, war would exist without religions.
…are you saying that Christianity was once barbaric?
Of course it was, often, as practiced by the Church. Are you saying the Inquisition wasn’t barbaric?
Fortunately, it was eventually reformed (see for example, Luther, M.).
Unfortunately, this will be much more difficult for Islam, though I hope not impossible, partly because one religion is based on a man who spent his life actually preaching peace, while the other is based on a pedophile who spread the religion at the point of a sword, and viewed his religion as at war with any part of the world not dominated by it. As Wafa Sultan has said, Muslim men are to look to Mohammed as a guide to morality. Do you really think that’s not a problem?
“Are you saying the Inquisition wasn’t barbaric?”
As I said: “I wouldn’t apply the word [barbaric] to a religion, just actions, [perpetrated] then or now.’
Also to the perpetrators, not to the religion, doing so gives warmongers an excuse to extract retribution against any and all members of that religion.
address the rest soon
Also to the perpetrators, not to the religion, doing so gives warmongers an excuse to extract retribution against any and all members of that religion.
Nonsense.
It occurs to me that if you have to scour two millenia of history for the same handful of examples, next to none more recent than the 18th century, then tu quoque ceases to be even rhetorically effective.
“Let’s face it, war would exist without religions.”
Undoubtedly, Humans are an aggressive species, which is another reason for not automatically accepting (as the author in that hyperhistory link emphasizes) every claim that killings between religions, even if the perpetrators claim to be acting in the name of a religion, as conflict with its inception based in religious principles, bad men will use the name of religion to further their own quest for power, sheeple will follow them more easily if a religious justification can be successfully offered to them.
Wodun, I thought that that was one inconsistency in that essay, if the killing was done in the name of a God, it was down to bad men, if done by an atheist state, it was down to, not bad men, but atheism.
So again Rand, I don’t blame the Christian religion for the Inquisition, it was down to powerful humans (bad people if you want) trying to enhance their power. Ditto for todays use of religion as a justification to kill.
If Rand can point to the Quran explicitly advocating that Muslims invade other nations and kill the inhabitants, I’ll apologies for being in error. The Quran does refer to killing nonbelievers, but the context of the verses is unclear, Muslims usually emphasizes that it’s the fighting and killing of foreign aggressors in the defense of Islam, Islamophobes claim it refers to the conquest of foreign lands by Muslims. In fact there are passages that refer to the smiting of nonbelievers that aren’t at war with Muslims, but translations usually support Muslim claims that the Quran makes it clear that Allah will be doing that bit of smiting himself.
If Rand can point to the Quran explicitly advocating that Muslims invade other nations and kill the inhabitants, I’ll apologies for being in error.
It doesn’t matter what the Quran, or Koran, says. What matters is what its adherents believe it says, and what they tell us they believe it says, and the occasional disparity between these things (taquiyya). Go look up “Dar al Islam” and “Dar Al Harb.”
If he looks it up, he’ll just figure out a way to fit it into his Not All Muslims worldview. Probably by writing twenty paragraphs bitching about Christians in the Crusade.
You might have to provide a link Rand, I had a look at a couple of sites including wiki, and their definitions are probably not the ones you’re relying on.
“and the occasional disparity between these things (taquiyya)”
Sorry, I don’t get why you’re referring to taqiyya, my understanding is that it’s just a practice in Islam whereby adherents may conceal their faith when they are under threat.
my understanding is that it’s just a practice in Islam whereby adherents may conceal their faith when they are under threat.
Yes, much of your understanding of Islam is what people like CAIR want it to be. That’s what taqiyya is all about.
Though that’s actually true, since they are concealing their true faith because they are under threat that enough people will understand what it’s all about.
@ Andrew W: If Rand can point to the Quran explicitly advocating that Muslims invade other nations and kill the inhabitants, I’ll apologies for being in error.
“And fight with them [the non-Muslims of Mecca] until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah” — Quran (8:39)
“Surely Allah loves those who fight in His way” — Quran (61:4)
“He it is who has sent His Messenger (Mohammed) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islam) to make it victorious over all religions even though the infidels may resist.” Quran (61:9)
There. Three quotes from the Quran explicitly advocating that Muslims invade other nations and kill the inhabitants.
Apologize.
Well, what if B. Lewis points it out?
Well, here are the three translations at asksam, 8.39 I think is most likely to refer to defensive conflict ” until there is no more tumult or oppression”, ditto for 61.4 fight like a wall again sounds like defensive conflict, 61.9 I read as the messenger (Mohammad) converting nonbelievers to Islam, that’s not Muslims invading other nations and putting people to the sword.
008.039
Y: And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and
there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere; but
if they cease, verily Allah doth see all that they do.
P: And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is all for
Allah. But if they cease, then lo! Allah is Seer of what they do.
S: And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion
should be only for Allah; but if they desist, then surely Allah sees
what they do.
061.004
Y: Truly Allah loves those who fight in His Cause in battle array, as if
they were a solid cemented structure.
P: Lo! Allah loveth them who battle for His cause in ranks, as if they
were a solid structure.
S: Surely Allah loves those who fight in His way in ranks as if they
were a firm and compact wall.
061.009
Y: It is He Who has sent His Messenger with Guidance and the Religion of
Truth, that he may proclaim it over all religion, even though the
Pagans may detest (it).
P: He it is Who hath sent His messenger with the guidance and the
religion of truth, that He may make it conqueror of all religion
however much idolaters may be averse.
S: He it is Who sent His Messenger with the guidance and the true
religion, that He may make it overcome the religions, all of them,
though the polytheists may be averse.
61.9 I read as the messenger (Mohammad) converting nonbelievers to Islam, that’s not Muslims invading other nations and putting people to the sword.
They only get put to the sword if they refuse to convert, or accept dhimmitude. So I guess that’s all right.
@Andrew W: Gosh, I’m glad you’re an Islamic scholar with the infallible gift of interpretation. Without your divinely-inspired ability to discern the true meaning of Quran, we infidels might be tempted to think that the Quran means what it says when it says “Go kill those guys until they accept Islam”.
OR
Maybe you’re just full of shit.
***
PS – Here’s a question fer ya, Imam Andrew: how did Islam come to dominance in the formerly Christian lands of the Near East? Was it:
a) by peaceful proselytization, or
b) by military force?
***
In closing: only an idiot watches a shark eating his legs while posting “Sharks never eat people” on the Internet.
Oh there were plenty of military actions involved in the expansion of Islam in the first thousand years of its existence, but so what? There were also plenty of military actions involved in the expansion of the domains of the European powers across the world in the following centuries, with missionaries doing their best to promote Christianity.
In both instances bringing the true religion to the nonbelievers and savages were given as justifications.
No doubt you like to think that this Muslim expansion involved killing everyone who didn’t want to convert. It did not, though as with the Christian expansion, converting to the religion of those in power had its benefits.
As I said in an earlier thread “When the leaders of powerful nations have lots of military toys to play with, they find an excuse to play”. At the time of the expansion of Islam, many neighboring states were in disarray as a result of their own wars on one another or poor domestic management, that’s why the expansion could happen. That expansion was no more a matter of good and evil than any other successful empire building done along similar lines.
“In closing: only an idiot watches a shark eating his legs while posting “Sharks never eat people” on the Internet.”
First you need to recognize the sharks from the rest, sure there are sharks in Islam, just as there are sharks in Christianity.
The US is todays preeminent military power, we’ve seen one President after another, both Democrat and Republican, use that power in foreign adventures doing whatever they thought was the right thing.
I suggest that if you’re worried about US military dominance being challenged in the foreseeable future you’re looking in the wrong direction.
In both instances bringing the true religion to the nonbelievers and savages were given as justifications.
Sadly for you case, in one instance it was demanded by the holy book and its writer, and in the other it was a convenient excuse for greed and plunder, but unsupported by the holy book.
No doubt you like to think that this Muslim expansion involved killing everyone who didn’t want to convert.
No only do I not “like to think” that, but I don’t think that. Didn’t you even read what I wrote? Why should I waste any more time discussing this with someone who would not only “like to think” that we aren’t at war with many people over religion, but doesn’t even bother to read my responses?
Actually Rand, that comment of mine was in response to B Lewis, I didn’t see any point in responding to your point because basically I don’t dispute it.
“So I guess that’s all right.” That’s how it was, no point in crying over it.
I knew it. “But Christians!” Yawn, so bored.
“but unsupported by the holy book”, “spreading the gospel” is something some Christians are, even today, so remarkably keen on I find the claim that it’s not encouraged in the bible surprising.
Oh there were plenty of military actions involved in the expansion of Islam in the first thousand years of its existence, but so what? There were also plenty of military actions involved in the expansion of the domains of the European powers across the world in the following centuries, with missionaries doing their best to promote Christianity
Really? Identify one of the latter, please. That is, give an example of a Christian campaign of conquest comparable to al-Ġazawāt.
Because I think you’re just making this stuff up, pulling it right out of your ass.
“so bored” I bet it’s getting that way for everyone Andrea.
Rand, how about a new post involving delta V’s and Isp? Much more interesting!
Carl, the promotion of Catholicism was closely tied to the conquest of Latin America.
From: The History of the Catholic Church in Latin America and Liberation Theology.
“It is important that students recognize that the history of the Catholic Church in Latin America was not merely an adjunct to the conquest or a side issue in the later independence movement but, rather that the history of the conquest and the history of the Church, itself are completely intertwined. The Inquisition in Spain became a reign of terror in the New World. Temples were razed and idols were destroyed as aboriginal cultures were viewed as manifestations of the devil.”
“spreading the gospel” is something some Christians are, even today, so remarkably keen on I find the claim that it’s not encouraged in the bible surprising
You would. But that’s because your ignorance of history is profound. While an integral component of Islam from its birth, missionarianism is an aspect of only modern Christianity, and particularly of Protestantism as it got yoked to imperialism in the 17th through 19th centuries. Early Christians — those who were around when the Bible was written — were generally uninterested in conversion, inasmuch as Christianity at that time, and certainly at least until Constantine, was a religion of retreat from wordly power, and a persecuted cult at that. Early Christians were far more interested in the dedication and sincerity of would-be converts. Quality, not quantity, you might say.
It may also be worth noting that there was (and is) a strong, sometimes dominant in some sect’s (e.g. Baptist) philosophy that says all Christians must be those who freely choose the religion as adults, e.g. you cannot even baptize the children of Christians at the parents’ behest. This is in distinct contrast to Islam, which, indeed, asserts that every child (not just those with Muslim parents) is born into Islam. From the Muslim point of view, everyone not a practising Muslim is not just unenlightened but apostate.
Carl said: “You would. But that’s because your ignorance of history is profound.”
I know there’s lots to learn but then, when you think you know everything, you know nothing.
According to Wiki:
Biblical mandate
Jesus instructed the apostles to make disciples of all nations (Matthew 28:19–20). This verse is referred to by Christian missionaries as the Great Commission and inspires missionary work.
Carl, the promotion of Catholicism was closely tied to the conquest of Latin America.
Really? And here I thought there was this little thing about silver and gold carried across the Atlantic by the yearly Flota. Plus mercantilism and colonies. Who knew it was all about the mass baptism of aborigines? Weird, though, how North America ended up full of white and not red people, and South America full of Spanish-speaking and not Quechua-speaking people.
From: The History of the Catholic Church in Latin America and Liberation Theology…
By…? Published by…? Or doesn’t it matter, because you are under the impression that everything you read online, or in a book, so long as it matches your prejudices, must be true? Because, you know, it’s in print. I can believe it. The degrees of narcissist folly that people are allowed to reach majority these days still possessing, is astonishing. You might even be old enough to vote, God help your jurisdiction, which is still more dismaying, so shallow and unoriginal is your thinking.
Matthew 28:19-20 (New International Version, ©2011)
19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”
According to Wiki: Biblical mandate
Someone with more self-awareness than you — well, that means nearly anyone, I guess — would be troubled by the way you flip back and forth between saying religion is what its followers do and religion is what its Scripture says. Kind of according to how it depends which branch of the argument you’re losing, huh? Intellectual consistency is not your strong point, I suppose. You’d make a good Muslim or Christian missionary.
Carl, you’re the one doing the flip flops, you make nonsense assertions, I point out your nonsense, and rather than address the point, you switch to another subject. The Spaniards were committed, by Vatican decree, to convert their New World indigenous subjects to Catholicism.
Believe otherwise if it makes you happy. I had assumed that you actually knew Christian history, since you claimed to, but so far all you’ve demonstrated is that your ego exceeds your knowledge.
“you flip back and forth between saying religion is what its followers do and religion is what its Scripture says.”
No, again I was only addressing your points, the scriptures made no mention of the new world and the actions of Catholics in Latin America were not at the instruction of the scriptures. It’s very simple really.
The hypocrisy of Andrew is getting thick. Anyone remember his assertion that he wouldn’t judge morality of people across time? Yeah, I didn’t believe it either, but he still made the claim earlier in this thread. Now he is lecturing Carl Pham on “Christian history”, and it is obvious Andrew is no theologian.
So we have gone from “it’s wrong to criticize the murder of a 14 year old girl for
rapeadultery and covering it up to protect the local Muslim community” to:“It is important that students recognize that the history of the Catholic Church in Latin America was not merely an adjunct to the conquest or a side issue in the later independence movement but, rather that the history of the conquest and the history of the Church, itself are completely intertwined. The Inquisition in Spain became a reign of terror in the New World. Temples were razed and idols were destroyed as aboriginal cultures were viewed as manifestations of the devil.”
Funny, I don’t recall Spaniards living in Bangladesh, nor did any of the articles, linked by Bob, mention the Vatican’s position in the matter of lashing the young girl. But I guess there is nothing wrong with equivocating what happened a month ago to what happened 5 centuries ago.
So, SHAME ON YOU CARL, YOU DON’T KNOW YOUR CHRISTIAN HISTORY! But lets not talk about a 14 year old girl lashed to death because she violated Sharia law.
Why would we do that? The whole purpose of language itself is to trash bourgeois society. Didn’t you learn that in Critical Theory? That’s why all conversations with Leftists feel exactly the same. Hence, boredom.
If, by bourgeois society, you mean what we in America call the middle class, then I love bourgeois society — there’s room for everyone! Including Muslims.
I’m back! I don’t understand the nature of this thread. Andrea referred to liberals having a ” Not All Muslims worldview” — do any of you really have a “All Muslims Worldview”, and if so, what are its tenets?
@Bob-1: If, by bourgeois society, you mean what we in America call the middle class, then I love bourgeois society — there’s room for everyone! Including Muslims.
Naïvety. Worse, suicidal naïvety. Islam is not just another religion. It is a complete social, political, and theological system that cannot coexist peacefully with other religions. Proof: the front page of the daily paper.
The tenets of Islam are not compatible with Western society.Expecting Muslims to be Presbyterians-in-Turbans is foolish, Unopposed, they will impose their civilization upon ours.
And by “ours”, I mean you.
B. Lewis, in other recent conversations that Rand has hosted regarding Islam, I mentioned this group: http://www.apaam.org — the Association of Patriotic Arab Americans in Military. Maybe you didn’t see it. Some of the members are Christian, some of the members are Muslim, all have served in the US Military. I wonder how your “All Muslims worldview” can be reconciled with this group of Americans.
Bob, Useful Ignorance.
Titus, I don’t understand what you are getting at with the sentence fragment “useful ignorance”. Is it because I never studied Critical Theory like you?
(I can’t tell if you are commenting on B. Lewis, me, both of us, or neither of us. Are you trying to create the kind of referent-ambiguous epistemological frisson you lit-theory “folks” think is so clever?)
Maybe he meant “Useful Idiocy,” bob. You can google that one.
Yeah, I was just trying to be polite.
The Spaniards were committed, by Vatican decree, to convert their New World indigenous subjects to Catholicism.
Uh huh. And you probably think that is practically the same thing as the Spaniards conquering Mesoamerica in response to a Vatican decree, and for the purpose of converting its indigenous subjects to Catholicism, don’t you? Why should it matter whether cause or effect comes first? So long as A wouldn’t have happened except for B, you — well, perhaps only you, and like-minded
victimsrecipients of the modern education — can assert that A must have caused B. Throw off the confining chains of traditional (Dead White Male!) logic and epistemology, comrades! You have nothing to lose but your marbles!And I’m sure you can’t see any real difference between wars of aggression against your neighbors and colonialism, either. The British taking over India is pretty much equivalent to Germany invading France, right?
@Andrew W: Muslims are killing people right now because some hick pastor burned a copy of their holy book. If that’s not enough to make you see the truth about Islam, there’s no hope for you.
Who is a useful idiot, and for what movement? Are you saying that I am a useful idiot for the Bangladeshi physics teacher I linked to? Are you saying she is a useful idiot for the fundamentalists she is condemning? Are you saying I am a useful idiot for the Association of Patriotic Arab Americans in Military? Are you saying they are useful idiots for the people they are trying to kill?
I still don’t understand the point of this discussion. Is it to define Islam’s nature? If so, study possible outliers. When I say “look, here’s a physics teacher in Bangladesh who isn’t like the Muslims you’re describing at all” and someone replies “but she’s the upper crust of Bangladeshi society”, I have to ask “So what?” Maybe she is outlier as Muslims go, maybe she isn’t, but I don’t have to decide if she’s an outlier or not to learn something useful. If you want to study stars (or define what makes a star a star), look for the heaviest stars, the lightest stars, the hottest and coolest stars, etc, and then you’ll know more about what makes a star a star.
If you want to study stars (or define what makes a star a star), look for the heaviest stars, the lightest stars, the hottest and coolest stars, etc, and then you’ll know more about what makes a star a star.
Bob, that’s not even true in physics. You’re thinking of what you do when you already have an excellent body of data on the average case, and want to test your theories on the exceptional case. You certainly do not begin a study of stars, say, by looking only at the exceptional cases. If you did so, and tried to publish a theory about all stars, or even the average star, you’d be laughed out of the journal.
Studying exceptional cases can tell you the lmiits of your theory. But it cannot help you create the theory in the first place. Or, to put it in more your own terms, if your theory is developed by studying only the “exceptional cases” (e.g. your Bangladeshi physics teacher, or professors of religion in US universities, or field-grade officers in the US Army), then the average case (e.g. the Pakistani man in the street) is for your theory an exception, an extreme limit, a place where your theory may show its shortcomings.
The situation is still not symmetrical, however. If I have a theory good for the average, and you point out it falls short for the extremes, well and good. I admit my theory has exceptions. But if your theory is only good for the extremes, and falls short for the average — that’s a different story. I have a theory good for 85% of the time. You have one good for the other 15%. Which do you suppose is a more useful tool, a better guide for policy?
Oh, and by the way, Andy, I see you are confirming my point in my response to Daveon. Your most recent example of Christian militant missionarianism is from the 16th century. I’m reminded of the apologists for inverse racism, otherwise known as “affirmative action.” But whites enslaved blacks 150 years (and counting) ago! The poor guy applying for your job may have had a great-great-great-grandfather who was born a slave! Think of the disadvantage!
I guess this is the Principle of Infinite Guilt, under which a whole people can be held responsible for what some of their distant cultural ancestors did. What’s interesting is how flexible this principle is, how it can be turned on or off, depending on to whom it is to be applied.
Pizarro brutalizes some Incan peasants in 1526, and whoops! 21st century Christians have no moral stature to crticitize the excesses of modern Islam. But let an Egyptian crash an airliner in 1999 muttering God is Great, or a Hamas creature cut the throat of a 15-month-old baby in 2011 just because he’s Jewish, and amazingly we discover that these are clear exceptions to the Principle. How can you hold all Islam responsible for what some of its outliers do (albeit to wide applause)? That would be unfair! Everyone knows the only folks who can be held collectively guilty and responsible are white Christian Americans, or Jews in Israel.