Is anyone on here muslim?

[mhphoto]

I restored a headlight for a very nice muslim. He was observing Ramadan and, even though he couldn't have any himself and it was nearly 107˚, he offered to get me some bottled water no less than eight times.

 

[Wheel Gun]

you have to remember your history lessons....the Crusades were waged by Christians to bring the Muslims into the fold (and of course treasure & aquisition of territory)

I'm not sure that that statement accurately describes the history of that era, but it does reflect much common thought and is tossed around quite a bit. What's usually not mentioned is the fact that Islam (following the death of Mohamed) began a systematic military conquering of that entire corner of the world. For 400 years, Muslim armies spread throughout the Holy Land (and neighboring empires) with one choice--convert to Islam or lose your heads. (Ever wonder why it spread so fast?) Eventually, Jerusalem was cut off from Christians and Constantinople was under seige. This invading army actually travelled all the way to Vienna.

The Byzantine emperor cried for help to Rome. The sitting pope (and more popes over the next 300 years) authorized and encouraged "religious expeditions" to return access to Jerusalem and to help the Christians under persecution there. The whole thing was really more like nation-states warring than religions. The "nation" of Islam began battling the "nation" of Christianity in a limited theater. People have made claims of millions of people being slaughtered, but the reality is that there were only really about 100,000 casualties over those centuries (still a big number--especially if one was your great granddad). Pretty much everyone involved was a "soldier".

The motives for fighting in the crusades? The average "enlistee" was probably just trying to keep his job, fill his stomach and stay alive. The knights and princes of Europe that dragged their armies there probably did so to keep in good standing with their king/monarch/whatever. This was a pretty unrelgious religious series of wars. When there were no cool wars in Europe, bored princes got interested in fighting in the Holy Land. This was pretty common in the 11th, 12th and 13th centuries.

So, I'm not sure how fair it is to blame the Crusades on Christians and/or Christianity. Anyone that has flipped through the New Testament figures out in a hurry that fighting "religious" wars is antithetical to Christianity. Lots of people claim to be Christians, but do not follow the tenets and teachings of Christ. To broad brush Christians with a history of religious violence paints an inaccurate picture, but an inaccurate picture that's applauded in many corners.

 

[SlammerG_89]

The Roman Catholic Church has killed more people than muslims could ever imagine.

 

[ez bake]

So, I'm not sure how fair it is to blame the Crusades on Christians and/or Christianity. Anyone that has flipped through the New Testament figures out in a hurry that fighting "religious" wars is antithetical to Christianity. Lots of people claim to be Christians, but do not follow the tenets and teachings of Christ. To broad brush Christians with a history of religious violence paints an inaccurate picture, but an inaccurate picture that's applauded in many corners.

Hmmmmmmmmmm.....

So, I'm not sure how fair it is to blame terrorist acts on Muslims and/or Islam. Anyone that has flipped through the Qur'an figures out in a hurry that fighting "religious" wars is antithetical to Islam. Lots of people claim to be Muslims, but do not follow the tenets and teachings of Muhammad. To broad brush Muslims with a history of religious violence paints an inaccurate picture, but an inaccurate picture that's applauded in many corners.

 

[ripnbst]

I was just wondering. What are your views of the muslim religion and what is being teached? Not about the people themselves, but the rules they live by?

This seems fitting for this thread.

 

[SoonerTactical]

I think we're getting a bit confused by the semantics. People who identify themselves with a particular religion don't necessarily reflect the tenants of the religion or the leader/founder of that religion. For instance, many religious conflicts are internal conflicts where one sect or faction has issues with another sect or faction over which one has a more pure interpretation of the leader's / founder's tenants.

For instance, the Shii and the Suuni, the Fransciscans and the Jesuits, etc.

In summary, just because someone identifies themselves as a particular religion, it doesn't mean they follow the religion to the extent as someone else within the religion but in a different sect.

 

[Glocktogo]

you have to remember your history lessons....the Crusades were waged by Christians to bring the Muslims into the fold (and of course treasure & acquisition of territory)...so many people killed over the years in the name of Christ....I wonder what he would have to say about that...Lurker66-above-got it right...I am not a religious scholar by any stretch but it seems to me that the Buddists are the only non-violent religion....somewhere along the road of life we have to learn tolerance and respect the rights of others

The Roman Catholic Church has killed more people than muslims could ever imagine.

Let's put a face on this. it isn't the religion that teaches to "kill the infidels" or "kill the Jews or "kill the Muslims", it's the people. Specifically, from a historical perspective, it would be those peoples originating in the Fertile Crescent. Here’s a brief timeline I posted on another forum that sums it up. It was posted as a rebuttal to someone who thought the Jewish/Muslim conflict was only 150 years in the making.

That's an incredibly naive and shortsighted view of history in the Middle East. The Jews have had issues with other inhabitants of the region since Joshua led them in battle in the 12th century B.C. The Diaspora, when the Assyrians destroyed Israel in 722 B.C. and the Babylonian Captivity of Judah under King Nebuchadnezzar in 586 B.C. were periods of exceptional conflict. The 12 tribes have been ruled variously by the Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Macedonians, Persians, Egyptians (again), Romans, Byzantines (Eastern Roman Empire), dhimmitude under various Muslim Caliphates, Christians through the Crusades, more Muslims, the Ottoman Empire, British rule, and currently under the hegemonic thumb of the United States. The one thing that Israelites are completely unfamiliar with is autonomous peace.

The Fertile Crescent is at once the cradle of civilization and the cradle of human barbarity. The tribes are nomadic and the Holy Land has been under contested rule for 10,000 years. Calling Israel a good friend of the United States is an abject failure to understand our relationship with them. We are the hand that feeds them, for now. They fully understand the fickle finger of fate and they recognize that the U.S. will be their allies only so long as it suits us. We have a checkered history of dropping allies like a hot rock if they become problematic. Israel knows this because they understand history like no one else.

I have to laugh when any group from that region gets indignant about the transgressions of another group. They're all a bunch of wannabe tyrants and rulers of the so-called "civilized" world. There's nothing at all civil about it.

There are a lot of historical references in that post that can be researched online. That poster came back with a weak argument upholding his position, to which I replied:

Who do you think Muslims in that region are? They are the very same people that fought the Jews and Israelites BEFORE Muhammed came into the picture. Regardless, Muhammed was merely a catalyst for Arabic expansionism under the banner of Islam. They expanded into the Holy Land in the 7th century A.D., not 150 years ago. They've served Muslim masters as 2nd class citizens since Umar, the 2nd Caliph in 638 A.D. Therefore, your timeline is about 1/10th of reality and patently false. The population numbers have absolutely nothing to do with it.

He was of the belief that an Arab peace plan was both practical and fair. I retorted with a quote from radical cleric Sayyid Qutb (you should look him up, because he’s a prominent figure in the world of radical Islam):

Islam’s mission is to correct the injustices of the world. What he has in mind is that if Islam does not control a society, then injustice dominates it, ipso facto. But if Islam dominates it, then justice rules it (In the Shade of the Qur’an, vol. 7, pp. 8-15).

I finished by saying: “Qutb and other radical Muslims believe that Islam must conquer the whole world to express Allah’s perfect will on this planet. That includes the Jewish state of Israel. The radical Islamic Arabs will never be satisfied until the entire region is under Sharia Law. Your "practical Arab peace plan" is ludicrous and foolhardy.”

FWIW, the Jewish settlement of Jerusalem fared better as Dhimmi under the Muslim Caliphates than they did under the Christian Crusaders. They were not forced to convert and they were allowed to live in peace and prosperity, so long as they paid the poll tax levied by the ruling authority.

Essentially the whole conflict boils down to regional dominance of the so-called “cradle of civilization”. Religion is a veneer to lend legitimacy to an otherwise selfish pursuit. Peaceful peoples use organized religion as a means to further cohesiveness of the community and to further expectations of the society. Hostile peoples use it to dominate and subjugate those who differ from them. Islam is actually late to the game, but it’s dual use is a simple expression of the duality of man.

 

[ez bake]

I think we're getting a bit confused by the semantics. People who identify themselves with a particular religion don't necessarily reflect the tenants of the religion or the leader/founder of that religion. For instance, many religious conflicts are internal conflicts where one sect or faction has issues with another sect or faction over which one has a more pure interpretation of the leader's / founder's tenants.

For instance, the Shii and the Suuni, the Fransciscans and the Jesuits, etc.

In summary, just because someone identifies themselves as a particular religion, it doesn't mean they follow the religion to the extent as someone else within the religion but in a different sect.

I think you're confused as to which website you're posting on. We don't need facts F!@#$ing up our anger - give us the torches and pitchforks!

 

[fustigate]

The Roman Catholic Church has killed more people than muslims could ever imagine.

[CITATION NEEDED]

 

[Street Rat]

So, I'm not sure how fair it is to blame the Crusades on Christians and/or Christianity. Anyone that has flipped through the New Testament figures out in a hurry that fighting "religious" wars is antithetical to Christianity. Lots of people claim to be Christians, but do not follow the tenets and teachings of Christ. To broad brush Christians with a history of religious violence paints an inaccurate picture, but an inaccurate picture that's applauded in many corners.

Here is what I'm having a problem with, everyone says the Christian's were the cause of the crusades. Were these not Catholics, if they were,they were not Christians, Christians and Catholics are not the same, Catholics go to the priest to ask for forgiveness, Christians cut out the middle man and go straight to God, the Pope is biggest fraud on this planet, the Catholics take what he says as infallible (the gospel) and what he says stands and cannot be corrected. Catholics and Christians are not the same, that is why I have a problem with people saying the Christians are the cause of the crusades, the Apostle Paul never told any of Christ followers to kill anyone in the name of Jesus Christ to further the gospel.