Really, some things change and some things stay the same. And this was the 1700s. Well, I'm sure they weren't "real" Muslims. Everyone knows "real" Muslims only preach peace - unless you're a singing girl making fun of a fat prophet, well then the gloves come off...
See, that's the thing again: I can criticize the US, socialism and other socialists, atheism, Christianity and even Western society, but on the flip it's all tu quoque. People have to accapt criticism of their system more; I'm trying to do so, and I don't always succeed. Anything else leans towards supremacism.
This quote: "Taught by revelation that war with the Christians will guarantee the salvation of their souls, and finding so great secular advantages in the observance of this religious duty [the secular advantage of keeping captured cargoes], their inducements to desperate fighting are very powerful." In essence this is the exact same thing my Iranian buddy said to me about why the Persian and Byzantine fell to the Muslim Arabs. Exactly the same thing.
No it was part of a larger concerted effort that began in the seventh century You could just as well call any invaders pirates.
Oh sock that's different for any number of reasons: 1) They weren't real Muslims as real Muslims follow Islam a religion of only peace. 2) If it did happen, which it didn't, it was purely defensive in nature. 3) They didn't harm anyone when they did sack a city, which they didn't do and if they did do they weren't real Muslims, they were pirates. Probably Xian pirates at that! etc... etc... etc... Note: the Crusades were not committed by Christians, because real Christians follow Christianity a religion of pure snow white peace. If the Crusades did happen it was purely defensive in nature, or to regain that which was stolen, anyway they didn't happen, but if some where to think that they did happen then it was only as a defense. When the Crusaders sacked a city, which they never did do, they never harmed a hair on a Muslims head, they were simply let in to the shouts of joy - finally infidel Muslims could hear the only absolutley true belief that can possibly exit.... Christianity.
We all saw how tolerant you Indians were a couple of years ago when you mass murdered hundreds of Muslims and the Indian police just stood by and watched. Muslims are safer in the West.
Sounds very similar to what the Vikings did actually, or Taimurlang on several occasions in India. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Well does the US NOT support the women and children of Israel? Thats news to me. And what does what one pirate said in 17-whatever have to do with what another did in 18-whatever? Besides look at where they originated
All the "tolerance" dripping in this thread. Makes one emotional, it does. Especially considering how equal the credence is to all beliefs. Awesome! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! No one sided beliefs here, nosirree
I'm sure the wave of Islamophobia sweeping the west today will contribute to greater peace and understanding in the world. ^^^look at all the recruits campaigning on their behalf.
Maybe Muslims should ask themselves why there is "Islamophobia" sweeping the western world. And maybe they should try to do something to resolve that. Baron Max
Which then makes it justified? Yes, yes: our rejection of islamic violence but the tacit acceptance of the ongoing atrocities of the Vikings must seem quite two-faced to you, I'm sure. I was referring, rather, to the slavery of women and children of Europe by the Barbary pirates. ?? Odd. I thought it was your point a few posts back that they did have something to do with one another. My point was that the Barbary pirates were doing it because they felt they had an overt religious license to do so. ...yes, in the expulsed invaders of Spain. Not sure what you're getting at here. They felt the best way to get their territory back was to enslave the actual inhabitants? Well...I guess they had political islamic precedence to back up their argument. And anyway, any MSA-sponsored tafsir of Sura 9 will illustrate the important...ah, humanitarian reasons for enslavement and forcible confinement. It was really all for their own good. Yes, indeed! Don't become aware of the issues, or fight back, because that just causes more jihad. Instead, you should submit...which creates more jihad. Absurd.
I'm not surprised that he's an Atheist as well as being very glib. A lot of what he says rings true... "I admire anyone who’s genuinely trying to achieve spiritual enlightenment and live a peaceful life. But religious dogma is a barrier to that. The last thing a dogmatist wants is for anyone to be enlightened, any more than a pharmaceutical company wants anybody cured.’ Or, as Condell puts it on his website: ‘Religion disapproves of original thought the way Dracula does sunlight.’
As with a lot of Atheists he seems to want some form of Utopia on Earth...we've seen the same with George Bernard Shaw re. Communism and HG.Wells re. Eugenics and Nazism. Maybe he needs to visit the Middle East and have a few bombs land on him to realise that people don't become fanatics by mere whim alone. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
They become fanatics - quite often it seems - via religious indoctrination, or resurgence later in life. But - and I regret to say this - not all religions so inculcate this position. (More succinctly, Atom: what bombs were dropping on Malaysia? Pakistan? This century? Last century? The 12 ones before that? What bombs dropped on Mohammed, personally?)
