More Adherents of 'The Religion of Peace' Making Demands or Else!

[Annie]

http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/new...RI919487_RTRUKOC_0_UK-SECURITY-BANGLADESH.xml

Islamists demand Bangladeshi women wear veil
Fri Dec 9, 2005 10:57 AM GMT165


DHAKA (Reuters) - A banned Islamist militant group blamed for a series of bombings in Bangladesh has threatened to kill women, including non-Muslims, if they do not wear the veil, a statement said.

The statement by the Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen came hours after Thursday's suicide bomb attack in a northern town that killed at least eight people, the latest of a series of blasts blamed on militant groups in their campaign for an Islamic state.

"Women will be killed if they are found to move around without wearing burqa (veil) from the first day of Jilhaj," the Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen said in the statement sent to a Dhaka newspaper office.

Jilhaj refers to the Arabic month beginning early January.

"Women, including non-Muslims, are hereby advised not to go out of home without burqa. Seclusion has been made compulsory for you," said the statement in Bangla language, a copy of which was obtained by Reuters on Friday.

The group, which wants the introduction of sharia laws in mainly-Muslim Bangladesh, also ordered women students at Dhaka University not to step out after sunset, prompting police to increase security around the campus.

Earlier, a police officer said 30 suspected members of the Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen and another outlawed group, Jagrata Muslim Janata Bangladesh, were arrested for involvement in a wave of bomb attacks that have rattled the impoverished nation this year.

A dozen bombs were seized in raids across the country, the official said, as police hunted for the leaders of the two outlawed groups.

Two bombs exploded on a crowded street in the northern town of Netrokona on Thursday, killing eight people and wounding 50, many on their way to work.

A suicide bomber was believed to be among the dead, while another was found wounded with an unexploded bomb strapped to his body.

"These bombers are enemies of Islam and must be stopped," said an official at the Ministry of Religious Affairs, adding the government had asked clerics to spread the message from the nation's 250,000 mosques.

Thursday's deaths took the number of people killed by suspected suicide bombers to 28 in three weeks, including judges, lawyers and policemen. At least 150 people have been wounded.

Bangladesh is the world's third-most-populous Muslim country after Indonesia and Pakistan.

State Minister for Home Affairs Lutfuzzaman Babar said last month that Islamists had formed a 2,000-strong suicide squad to press home their demands.

 

[Psychoblues]

Thanks, Kathianne

You've certainly given me reason for a pause for thought. Aren't us Christians as the followers of Jesus of Nazareth the purveyors of "The Religion Of Peace?"

It seems to me that the flesh is weak and conveniently forgetful. From the Crusades to the Witches of Salem to the Jim Jones massacre, Christians don't seem to be adherent to the promises of their preaching. I certainly have my own relationship with Jesus and it doesn't include any of that or of this. WAR is WAR and WAR is IGNORANCE. Nothing else. So, what do we need? More education or more religion? I don't think the Ann Coulter solution, convert them or kill them, would be beneficial in light of all this education, would you?


Psychoblues

 

[KarlMarx]

Thanks, Kathianne

You've certainly given me reason for a pause for thought. Aren't us Christians as the followers of Jesus of Nazareth the purveyors of "The Religion Of Peace?"

It seems to me that the flesh is weak and conveniently forgetful. From the Crusades to the Witches of Salem to the Jim Jones massacre, Christians don't seem to be adherent to the promises of their preaching. I certainly have my own relationship with Jesus and it doesn't include any of that or of this. WAR is WAR and WAR is IGNORANCE. Nothing else. So, what do we need? More education or more religion? I don't think the Ann Coulter solution, convert them or kill them, would be beneficial in light of all this education, would you?


Psychoblues

Jim Jones was the head of a cult that had nothing to do with Christianity.
The Crusades happened over 700 years ago, a lot has changed since then.
Christians are also responsible for a lot of good in this world. You seem to overlook that.

War is sometimes necessary because there are bad people who come to power and try to do bad things like kill innocent people. These bad people don't respond well to reason and persuassion, so it unfortunately is necessary to use force.

We don't live in an ideal world. We have to sometimes deal with ignorant, bad people on their level.

 

[Psychoblues]

I'm so sorry that you completely missed the point, Karl. Do you know anything about Jim and Tammy Baker, the empire building of Jerry Falwell, the recent abuses of Catholic Priests, Jimmy Swaggart or the Southern Babtist Convention?

Jim Jones headed a Church called The Deciples of Christ. He preached Christianity everyday in every way except his own personal failings. But, his flock grew and grew until he killed them all. The Crusades indeed occured many years ago. Do you remember the original name of the operation that we are now ensnarled in Iraq? Does "Operation Crusades" ring a bell with you?

I don't deny that Christians and particularly the words of Jesus Christ have been both meaningful and good for this world. I merely suggest that I have a problem with a self avowed Christian that would so eagerly and under false pretense lead me or my fellow Americans into a WAR based on assumption and or false information.

Christian, agnostic and atheistic Americans killed innocent people in our Revolution. We killed more in our Civil War. We killed more in WWI, WWII, Korea and Viet Nam. We even killed innocents in Grenada and Panama. Spanish-American War? You really want to go on with this? We also have killed thousands of innocents due to our flawed justice system and overly zealous prosecutions of otherwise incompetents. I won't even go into the murders of Americans while trying to protect themselves and their families from corporate and private so-called "business interests."

So, who is not responding to reason and persuasion? Is "force" actually a viable or even intelligent solution?


Psychoblues

Jim Jones was the head of a cult that had nothing to do with Christianity.
The Crusades happened over 700 years ago, a lot has changed since then.
Christians are also responsible for a lot of good in this world. You seem to overlook that.

War is sometimes necessary because there are bad people who come to power and try to do bad things like kill innocent people. These bad people don't respond well to reason and persuassion, so it unfortunately is necessary to use force.

We don't live in an ideal world. We have to sometimes deal with ignorant, bad people on their level.

 

[Yurt]

Psycho:

What is your problem? Why must you deflect from the point of the post? You complain and cry about it when someone does this in one of your threads, but apparently your "standards" are only for others, not yourself.

What about the original subject? Anyone care to discuss it,,,,,intelligently?

Psychoblues

psycho's hypocritical complaining

So, what about the original subject? Can you discuss it intelligently? Or must you laboriously include a dozen cuss words in your response? Do you and us a favor and just respond to the orginal subject with intelligent like words, not playground cuss words.

Do you agree or not agree with the statement of these muslims?

Come on, you can do it!

 

[KarlMarx]

I'm so sorry that you completely missed the point, Karl. Do you know anything about Jim and Tammy Baker, the empire building of Jerry Falwell, the recent abuses of Catholic Priests, Jimmy Swaggart or the Southern Babtist Convention?

Jim Jones headed a Church called The Deciples of Christ. He preached Christianity everyday in every way except his own personal failings. But, his flock grew and grew until he killed them all. The Crusades indeed occured many years ago. Do you remember the original name of the operation that we are now ensnarled in Iraq? Does "Operation Crusades" ring a bell with you?

I don't deny that Christians and particularly the words of Jesus Christ have been both meaningful and good for this world. I merely suggest that I have a problem with a self avowed Christian that would so eagerly and under false pretense lead me or my fellow Americans into a WAR based on assumption and or false information.

Christian, agnostic and atheistic Americans killed innocent people in our Revolution. We killed more in our Civil War. We killed more in WWI, WWII, Korea and Viet Nam. We even killed innocents in Grenada and Panama. Spanish-American War? You really want to go on with this? We also have killed thousands of innocents due to our flawed justice system and overly zealous prosecutions of otherwise incompetents. I won't even go into the murders of Americans while trying to protect themselves and their families from corporate and private so-called "business interests."

So, who is not responding to reason and persuasion? Is "force" actually a viable or even intelligent solution?


Psychoblues

Psycho... I think that you need to calm down and quit reading so many comic books. Come off of your mountain and come to terms with reality.

The abuses that you point out are small potatoes compared to a bunch of Islamofascist pigs on the lunatic fringe that plow airplanes full of innocent people into skyscrapers, set 300 cities in Europe alight and vow the violent overthrow of Western civilization. Eventually, those clowns will get a nuclear bomb and aim it at us or Israel. Christians haven't been doing anything close to this, even when you take the goings on in the Balkans.

They are out to get you and me, Psycho, and they don't care if you support them or not. To them, you're an infidel and an American, that's all that matters to them. They want to slit your throat and your family's and if you give them the chance, they'll do it.

From the Book of Eccliesiastes Chapter 3 (King James Version)

1 To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:

2 A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted;

3 A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;

4 A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance;

5 A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;

6 A time to get, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away;

7 A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;

8 A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.

And the way I see it... like Ben Grimm from the Fantastic Four used to say "It's Clobberin' Time, Baby!!!"

 

[Psychoblues]

I didn't cuss and as much as the true believers in WAR would want me too, I will not calm down. Bullshit, innuendo and just plain lies don't get to me. EVER!!!! I expect and deserve, as an American, truth, justice and objective dialogue from my so-called leaders and particularly from a board that calls itself the United State Message Board.

Go ahead, cuss me and call me names. That is your perogative. I still think it juvenile and/or at least ignorant and/or immature when you do.

Psychoblues

 

[insein]

I didn't cuss and as much as the true believers in WAR would want me too, I will not calm down. Bullshit, innuendo and just plain lies don't get to me. EVER!!!! I expect and deserve, as an American, truth, justice and objective dialogue from my so-called leaders and particularly from a board that calls itself the United State Message Board.

Go ahead, cuss me and call me names. That is your perogative. I still think it juvenile and/or at least ignorant and/or immature when you do.

Psychoblues

OBviously. Your mind is so used to them by now from your own mouth.

You seem to find yet another excuse for the "Religion of Peace" by not defending it but comparing it to past transgressions of Chritianity. You seem to miss major differences in your thinking.

Jim Baker, Jerry Falwell and Jim Swaggert are con artists. They are not Killers. A majority of christians disagree with the preachings and actions of these morons. These muslims are preaching the main beliefs of islam. The only difference between themselves and other muslims is that they are willing to KILL PEOPLE to get their way.

The Crusades were a good idea. Europe recognized that ISlam was going to be a problem one day. Unfortunately they were poorly planned and executed. It was the right idea for the time. Times have changed. They also dont sell pardons for people to enter heaven anymore. ITs the 21st century, psycho. PErhaps you and those muslims terrorist a-holes want to join us in it.

For someone so hell bent on "freedom and justice" and caring about those innocent iraqis being slaughtered by American Storm Troopers, you always seem to have an excuse for all the murdering done by the terrorists.

 

[Mariner]

by Karen Armstrong, and several other books about the history of Christianity.

From my non-Christian, non-Muslim perspective, these religions look far more alike than different.

I was very struck by the peaceful origins of Islam. Muhammed's return to Mecca and the eventual creation of a multi-cultural Arab empire in which Christians and Jews were free to practice (though lightly taxed for the privilege) stands in stark contrast to the aggression and cruelty of the European Christians who embarked on the Crusades.

I was moved to learn that for its first 1000 years, Christianity really did maintain its peaceful character. Armstrong quotes the biographer of a knight about to embark on the First Crusade: "Frequently he burned with anxiety because the warfare he engaged in as a knight seemed to be contrary to the Lord's commands." She notes that the Eastern church never condoned warfare, and refused communion to active soldiers. She argues that Europe created a Muslim enemy as a "foil," by altering stories to create myths to justify hating Muslims. The famous story of Roland, who was killed by Basques, was altered, for example, making his killers Muslims. Similarly, the story was fabricated that Charlemagne went to Jerusalem. At the time of the Crusades, the Muslim empire was most advanced, scientifically and in political tolerance, on earth. Our many science-related Arabic-derived words (astronomy, alcohol), and our "Arabic" numbers testify to this. Try multiplying with Roman numerals.

Christian theologians worked overtime to twist their peaceful religion into a warlike one. The argument they used was the same that the Bush administration has been using in terms of rendition, torture, holding people at will, and secret prisons--"our laws apply here but not over there, where we can do what we want."

In fact, this was the same reasoning the Muslims used to justify defending their empire. In the Muslim view, the state and religion are one. Since there is just one true god--Allah--they could justify fighting in non-Muslim lands.

The Fourth Crusade, which destroyed the library of Alexandria (and the vast majority of the remaining Greek and Roman written legacy), was possibly the most destructive act in the history of Western Civilization.

Both Islam and Christianity began as religions of peace and nonviolence. Both also had their roots, however, in the violently angry god of the early Jewish writings (the Old Testament and others). And both were mixed with the local warlike character and pagan traditions where they took root (warlike Angles, Saxons, Franks, etc. in Europe, and tribal Arabians in Arabia). We still have all these pagan elements in our culture, from Easter (fertility) bunnies to the witches and goblins of Hallowe'en.

From my perspective of belonging to neither of these religions, it can look like monotheism itself carries a major risk. If you believe your god is the only one, and the only possible one, then it becomes all too easy to justify violence.

I utterly condemn the fundamentalism that seeks to control women in the original post that started this thread. I equally condemn the Christian fundamentalism that wants to make our United States into a "Christian nation," via school prayer, etc. They are one and the same, and arise from the same root. From my perspective, Islam versus Christianity is like two siblings at war with one another.

Someone pointed out above that Muslims are currently acting more violently than Christians. I would dispute this--invading Iraq has resulted in the death of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians, whom we refuse to name or count. From the Muslim point of view, this doesn't go unnoticed. It is certainly true that fundamentalist Muslims are currently using terrorism and random violence. But a quick look back in history shows just how willing Christians have been to engage in unspeakable cruelty to Muslims. How can they just forget this?

Osama bin Laden was perfectly aware of all this history, and made it his explicit goal to re-ignite the ancient sibling rivalry between these two religions. How do we escape this cycle?

Mariner.

 

[dilloduck]

by Karen Armstrong, and several other books about the history of Christianity.

From my non-Christian, non-Muslim perspective, these religions look far more alike than different.

I was very struck by the peaceful origins of Islam. Muhammed's return to Mecca and the eventual creation of a multi-cultural Arab empire in which Christians and Jews were free to practice (though lightly taxed for the privilege) stands in stark contrast to the aggression and cruelty of the European Christians who embarked on the Crusades.

I was moved to learn that for its first 1000 years, Christianity really did maintain its peaceful character. Armstrong quotes the biographer of a knight about to embark on the First Crusade: "Frequently he burned with anxiety because the warfare he engaged in as a knight seemed to be contrary to the Lord's commands." She notes that the Eastern church never condoned warfare, and refused communion to active soldiers. She argues that Europe created a Muslim enemy as a "foil," by altering stories to create myths to justify hating Muslims. The famous story of Roland, who was killed by Basques, was altered, for example, making his killers Muslims. Similarly, the story was fabricated that Charlemagne went to Jerusalem. At the time of the Crusades, the Muslim empire was most advanced, scientifically and in political tolerance, on earth. Our many science-related Arabic-derived words (astronomy, alcohol), and our "Arabic" numbers testify to this. Try multiplying with Roman numerals.

Christian theologians worked overtime to twist their peaceful religion into a warlike one. The argument they used was the same that the Bush administration has been using in terms of rendition, torture, holding people at will, and secret prisons--"our laws apply here but not over there, where we can do what we want."

In fact, this was the same reasoning the Muslims used to justify defending their empire. In the Muslim view, the state and religion are one. Since there is just one true god--Allah--they could justify fighting in non-Muslim lands.

The Fourth Crusade, which destroyed the library of Alexandria (and the vast majority of the remaining Greek and Roman written legacy), was possibly the most destructive act in the history of Western Civilization.

Both Islam and Christianity began as religions of peace and nonviolence. Both also had their roots, however, in the violently angry god of the early Jewish writings (the Old Testament and others). And both were mixed with the local warlike character and pagan traditions where they took root (warlike Angles, Saxons, Franks, etc. in Europe, and tribal Arabians in Arabia). We still have all these pagan elements in our culture, from Easter (fertility) bunnies to the witches and goblins of Hallowe'en.

From my perspective of belonging to neither of these religions, it can look like monotheism itself carries a major risk. If you believe your god is the only one, and the only possible one, then it becomes all too easy to justify violence.

I utterly condemn the fundamentalism that seeks to control women in the original post that started this thread. I equally condemn the Christian fundamentalism that wants to make our United States into a "Christian nation," via school prayer, etc. They are one and the same, and arise from the same root. From my perspective, Islam versus Christianity is like two siblings at war with one another.

Someone pointed out above that Muslims are currently acting more violently than Christians. I would dispute this--invading Iraq has resulted in the death of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians, whom we refuse to name or count. From the Muslim point of view, this doesn't go unnoticed. It is certainly true that fundamentalist Muslims are currently using terrorism and random violence. But a quick look back in history shows just how willing Christians have been to engage in unspeakable cruelty to Muslims. How can they just forget this?

Osama bin Laden was perfectly aware of all this history, and made it his explicit goal to re-ignite the ancient sibling rivalry between these two religions. How do we escape this cycle?

Mariner.

Kill or control all who try to impose their will on others using terrorism as a tactic.

 

[Hobbit]

by Karen Armstrong, and several other books about the history of Christianity.

From my non-Christian, non-Muslim perspective, these religions look far more alike than different.

It is a Judaism derived religion, as is Christianity. The Quran and the Bible are very similar in historical documentation, but actually differ greatly in values and core doctrine.

I was very struck by the peaceful origins of Islam. Muhammed's return to Mecca and the eventual creation of a multi-cultural Arab empire in which Christians and Jews were free to practice (though lightly taxed for the privilege) stands in stark contrast to the aggression and cruelty of the European Christians who embarked on the Crusades.

Actually, the rise of Islam was quite violent. It started with a jihad, where many people were converted at the tip of a sword. There may have been areas where Christians and Jews were free to practice (just not for free), but Islam was still made the state religion by force of arms. This is in stark constrast to the start of Christianity, which was done purely through words and was carried out in secret to avoid death by Roman soldiers. The idea of conquoring a nation to convert it to Christianity post-dated Christ's ascension by nearly a millenium while the Muslim Empire was expanding even before Muhammad's death.

I was moved to learn that for its first 1000 years, Christianity really did maintain its peaceful character. Armstrong quotes the biographer of a knight about to embark on the First Crusade: "Frequently he burned with anxiety because the warfare he engaged in as a knight seemed to be contrary to the Lord's commands." She notes that the Eastern church never condoned warfare, and refused communion to active soldiers. She argues that Europe created a Muslim enemy as a "foil," by altering stories to create myths to justify hating Muslims. The famous story of Roland, who was killed by Basques, was altered, for example, making his killers Muslims. Similarly, the story was fabricated that Charlemagne went to Jerusalem. At the time of the Crusades, the Muslim empire was most advanced, scientifically and in political tolerance, on earth. Our many science-related Arabic-derived words (astronomy, alcohol), and our "Arabic" numbers testify to this. Try multiplying with Roman numerals.

Mostly true. The Christian aspect of the Crusades, though, was mostly a front for nobles looking to increase their land gains in the east. If they were interested in liberation rather than conquest, they wouldn't have put the Jews, the (according to scripture) rightful owners of the land, to the sword.

Christian theologians worked overtime to twist their peaceful religion into a warlike one. The argument they used was the same that the Bush administration has been using in terms of rendition, torture, holding people at will, and secret prisons--"our laws apply here but not over there, where we can do what we want."

This, I think, is an effort by whoever thought it up to bash Bush. The Europeans fought each other all the time for lots of things, so there were no rules against war to bypass. Instead, they dressed up the conquest of the "Holy Land" as a holy liberation in order to take advantage of the very devout populace of Europe at the time.

In fact, this was the same reasoning the Muslims used to justify defending their empire. In the Muslim view, the state and religion are one. Since there is just one true god--Allah--they could justify fighting in non-Muslim lands.

Wouldn't know anything about this.

The Fourth Crusade, which destroyed the library of Alexandria (and the vast majority of the remaining Greek and Roman written legacy), was possibly the most destructive act in the history of Western Civilization.

False. The fourth crusade started in 1198 with a mandate from Pope Innocent III. The absolute latest theorized destruction of the Library of Alexandria was during the conquest of Egypt by Caliph Omar in 700 AD, though that account is believed to be propoganda. The second most popular theory is that Julius Ceaser destroyed it during his invasion when he set the harbor on fire. This, however, doesn't really stand up to evidence, considering the library wasn't very flammable and the troops camped in that section of the freshly conquored city, an impossible feat if it had been on fire. The most popular theory is that when the Romans began their persecution of the pagans for not worshipping the Roman pantheon, the Romans destroyed the library because they considered it another pagan structure.

Both Islam and Christianity began as religions of peace and nonviolence. Both also had their roots, however, in the violently angry god of the early Jewish writings (the Old Testament and others). And both were mixed with the local warlike character and pagan traditions where they took root (warlike Angles, Saxons, Franks, etc. in Europe, and tribal Arabians in Arabia). We still have all these pagan elements in our culture, from Easter (fertility) bunnies to the witches and goblins of Hallowe'en.

First off, what's with the apostraphe in Halloween? Is that a typo?

Second, Islam really didn't begin as a religion of peace. It began with the Quran, which clearly states that it's a good thing to kill infidels. Christianity, however, began with "love your neighbor as yourself," and "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Not to mention the fact that the central act in Christianity was a person being tortured to death to benefit others.

From my perspective of belonging to neither of these religions, it can look like monotheism itself carries a major risk. If you believe your god is the only one, and the only possible one, then it becomes all too easy to justify violence.

Very true, although it's harder, in my opinion, to sell this theory to an educated Christian. I, for example, think we should kill terrorists because it's the only way to protect the innocent Iraqis, not because they're Muslim. If we can capture the guys without undue risk, then, by all means, lock them up in Gitmo and give them a chance at redemption. A Muslim, however, would probably want my head sawn off.

I utterly condemn the fundamentalism that seeks to control women in the original post that started this thread. I equally condemn the Christian fundamentalism that wants to make our United States into a "Christian nation," via school prayer, etc. They are one and the same, and arise from the same root. From my perspective, Islam versus Christianity is like two siblings at war with one another.

Not quite. I think school prayer is a bit more mild than killing people and objectifying women. It's a touchy subject, though a congressional mandate requiring school prayer in a Judeo-Christian fashion is establishment of religion. The motivation, however, was a bit different. Muslims make demands and kill people because they want the whole world to either be Muslim or die. School prayer was specifically to look morally superior to the communists, keeping morale high for the Cold War.

Someone pointed out above that Muslims are currently acting more violently than Christians. I would dispute this--invading Iraq has resulted in the death of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians, whom we refuse to name or count. From the Muslim point of view, this doesn't go unnoticed. It is certainly true that fundamentalist Muslims are currently using terrorism and random violence. But a quick look back in history shows just how willing Christians have been to engage in unspeakable cruelty to Muslims. How can they just forget this?

Innacurate premise. These "thousands" of civilians are not only a smaller nubmer than what Saddam killed, but have been shown to include anybody not wearing a uniform, whether they were armed or not. You might also talk to people who have been in Iraq, first hand. Of the dozens of people I've talked to, the only person I've seen who hasn't told me what good work we're doing in Iraq and how much the Iraqis love us was a die-hard liberal before going, spent his whole tour in Fallujah, and didn't really want to go in the first place. I even know a couple of Iraqis and, by association, their relatives in Iraq. I've seen the letters they write about the great American soldiers and how much good they've done and how glad the Iraqis are that we're there. The Crusades ended hundreds of years ago. The Inquisition ended hundreds of years ago. Jihad is still alive and well. If somebody who once claimed any of your beliefs did some bad things hundreds of years ago, does that disqualify you from making any similar judgement calls, even if what that person did went directly against that belief.

Osama bin Laden was perfectly aware of all this history, and made it his explicit goal to re-ignite the ancient sibling rivalry between these two religions. How do we escape this cycle?

The comparison to the two siblings isn't really accurate. If Christianity is the firm, older brother, then Islam is the illegitamite stepchild who walked in on mom and dad doing it, then grabbed a knife and went psycho on the older brother.

Muslims have been fighting Christians ever since the two met. Christians have tried to stop fighting Muslims several times, but the Muslims won't play along. What do you suggest, that we just lay back and let them slit our throats in the name peace?

 

[Mariner]

I'm no expert on history or either of these religions--that's why I'm reading.

The apostrophe in Hallowe'en is accurate but optional--Halloween is a contraction for "Hallowed Evening."

My main source for what I wrote was Karen Armstrong's book, which came out before the current war. It was my own observation that Bush, Gonzalez et al's justifications for rendition, etc. were identical to those used by both the early Christians and the early Muslims in justifying war that their core religions condemn.

I can't remember the book I read about the Fourth Crusade which labeled it the most destructive act in Western history. It was a world history book of some kind. I may be remembering incorrectly.

Unless she's skipping something, Armstrong clearly tells the story of Islam as a peaceful religion from the beginning, which united warring tribes and inspired the generally non-violent creation of a large empire, within which Jews and Christians were free to practice. She is very clear that early Islam never pursued forced conversion--but that Christians did. In the first Crusade, for example, they wiped out large Jewish communities in Germany via the non-choice, "Convert or die."

As for the impulse to the Crusades, it is quite clear that the church was directly involved--you can't blame it on the nobles. Urban II called for the first crusade directly, and theologians worked hard to justify killing in the name of peaceful god. The first crusade was led by Peter the Hermit, a popular religious preacher, and was called the "Peasant's Crusade" because the majority going were poor Christians for whom this was the ultimate pilgrimage. All those crosses sewn into their clothing were there for a reason. The nobles who chose to go were often inspired by apocalyptic prophecies of an "Emperor from the West" who would appear in Jerusalem, and they had a stated goal of re-taking the Holy Lands for Christendom, not for personal use. Part of killing Jews along the way was to fulfill this prophecy, according to Armstrong.

If you're going to go easy on the church authorities who pushed for crusade, then you should go equally easy on the ayatollahs and others who pervert Islam toward violent ends.

Yes, of course, calling for school prayer is a far milder form of church/state overlap than either the Islamic state idea or the terrorism. All I said was it comes from the same impulse. From radically different perspective, say a Hindu one like mine, the three violent monotheistic religions of the Middle East still look much more alike than different. I think fundamentalist Christians who want a more Christianized United States should think hard about whether that's the type of democracy they would really want in the Middle East now--theocracries where the people may very well vote to cover women or adhere to strict Islamic law.

Mariner.

 

[Said1]

Unless she's skipping something, Armstrong clearly tells the story of Islam as a peaceful religion from the beginning, which united warring tribes and inspired the generally non-violent creation of a large empire, within which Jews and Christians were free to practice. She is very clear that early Islam never pursued forced conversion--but that Christians did. In the first Crusade, for example, they wiped out large Jewish communities in Germany via the non-choice, "Convert or die."

That is so inaccurate, I don't even know where to begin. Muslims have been in an almost constant state of battle, over everything including Mohammad's true succesor, to territory, power, right down to their own warriors. Those of other religions, were not "lightly" taxed and I'd be interested to see Armstrong's accounts of what happened to those unable to pay. For reading, I would seriously suggest anything by Bernard Lewis, a highly regarded scholar on the subject.

 

[Mariner]

and will take all recommendations. But Armstrong is pretty well-regarded, and is hardly a Muslim apologist. Her books are best-sellers. I don't see why she would make a point of emphasizing the peaceful roots of early Islam if it wasn't true.

I also think that all of us in the West need to heed her warning about how Muslims were set up as a "foil," a bogey enemy against which European culture could define itself, and to note that the aggression began with the West not from the East. This time period was also the origin of modern anti-Semitism, so looking back 1000 years in search of deep cultural patterns is a very reasonable thing to do. The Crusaders' anti-Semitic language, particularly that of a certain group of German nobles, was almost identical to that of the Nazis.

The story of Roland, for example--I'd read it in college and no one ever mentioned that the historical Roland's killers were fellow Europeans, not Muslims. The Muslim empire before the Crusades basically ignored the backwaters of Europe. An entire genre of songs and stories was created to stimulate hatred of Muslims when no factual reason for it existed at all.

Besides, saying that Islam can be violent simply makes my point--that it's a lot like Christianity. Compare Hinduism, or Tibetan Buddhism, for example.

Mariner.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

and will take all recommendations. But Armstrong is pretty well-regarded, and is hardly a Muslim apologist. Her books are best-sellers. I don't see why she would make a point of emphasizing the peaceful roots of early Islam if it wasn't true.

I also think that all of us in the West need to heed her warning about how Muslims were set up as a "foil," a bogey enemy against which European culture could define itself, and to note that the aggression began with the West not from the East. This time period was also the origin of modern anti-Semitism, so looking back 1000 years in search of deep cultural patterns is a very reasonable thing to do. The Crusaders' anti-Semitic language, particularly that of a certain group of German nobles, was almost identical to that of the Nazis.

The story of Roland, for example--I'd read it in college and no one ever mentioned that the historical Roland's killers were fellow Europeans, not Muslims. The Muslim empire before the Crusades basically ignored the backwaters of Europe. An entire genre of songs and stories was created to stimulate hatred of Muslims when no factual reason for it existed at all.

Besides, saying that Islam can be violent simply makes my point--that it's a lot like Christianity. Compare Hinduism, or Tibetan Buddhism, for example.

Mariner.

Islam has always been violennt. THe first crusades were a reaction to previous violent encroachments of Islam. That's something you lefty liars lie about too.

 

[Hobbit]

I'm willing to admit that the church officials propogated the crusades, it was still a very financial matter. The catholic church of the middle ages may have kept Christianity alive, but was largely corrupt and took in a lot of money based on doctrines that were not in the Bible. This is why the protestant movement was so big after the Bible began to be mass produced. While many of the crusaders went to Jerusalem to retake it from the Muslims (who took it from the Eastern Empire by force of arms), the main propogators of the war went in for monetary reasons. War is good for business, after all.

Islam also didn't "peacefully unite" warring tribes. The most peaceful thing early Islam did was unite the warring tribes into a single warring tribe that fought other people, like the Persians, Jews, former Romans, North Africans, Turks, Slavs, etc.

Islam may mean peace, but if you look at the nuances of the Arabic language, it more precisely translates to the peace that immediately follows a surrender.

 

[Said1]

and will take all recommendations. But Armstrong is pretty well-regarded, and is hardly a Muslim apologist. Her books are best-sellers. I don't see why she would make a point of emphasizing the peaceful roots of early Islam if it wasn't true.

I also think that all of us in the West need to heed her warning about how Muslims were set up as a "foil," a bogey enemy against which European culture could define itself, and to note that the aggression began with the West not from the East. This time period was also the origin of modern anti-Semitism, so looking back 1000 years in search of deep cultural patterns is a very reasonable thing to do. The Crusaders' anti-Semitic language, particularly that of a certain group of German nobles, was almost identical to that of the Nazis.

The story of Roland, for example--I'd read it in college and no one ever mentioned that the historical Roland's killers were fellow Europeans, not Muslims. The Muslim empire before the Crusades basically ignored the backwaters of Europe. An entire genre of songs and stories was created to stimulate hatred of Muslims when no factual reason for it existed at all.

Besides, saying that Islam can be violent simply makes my point--that it's a lot like Christianity. Compare Hinduism, or Tibetan Buddhism, for example.

Mariner.

I'm not suggesting she's apoligist, merely grossly inaccurate. Like I said, Lewis is a renound scholar on the topic, so much so, that his books are often used as text books, or in my case, supplimenatry text. Good, non-sensational, historically accurate literature.