Muslim Protestors Target Google

[Driekan]

A more recent example for you, though, would be the IRA, who were definitely founded with religious goals in mind, and were essentially the face of terrorist bombings until the late 80s.

You are right, that is absolutely a better example.

Actually, that wasn't really religion's fault. When the Spanish met with the Tlaxcala (an enemy of the Aztecs), they had no problem whatsoever with adopting 'Dios' into their religious pantheon, and the Spanish didn't mind them keeping their temples. And when they fought groups like the Aztecs, Spanish troops were more worried about the concrete-and-actually-real stuff like cutting the hearts out of POWs than the fact that the Aztecs thought Quetzalcoatl would drive the Spanish back with the fury of the sun.

The fact that spreading christianity was one of the core motivators for the entire chain of events to ever happen is not something that can just be shrugged off, nor the fact that religion served as justification for a lot of the violence going on. And while we may ascribe practical reasons for the actions of a lot of historical people, lets not be condescending and grant the fact that those conquistadors most definitely were, indeed, christians and did believe they were following the tenets thereof. Furthermore, that's just a subset of what was going on, further south you had the Bandeirantes and a lot more crazy bloodshed.

or the sacking of jerusalem,

In a hilarious-in-hindsight sort of way, the Crusades actually tended to veer violently from the Vatican's set goals from the third Crusade onward. Pope Innocent actually excomunicated the entire army during the 4th Crusade when he found out they'd sacked a Christian city. And not a Catholic city, either.

Which... Does not change the fact that a lot of 14 year old women very likely lived in Jerusalem at the time of the sacking. And that christian religious authorities were cool with the First Crusade.

or the religious justifications for the second wave of colonialism... List goes on. Religious justification for killing young women found in all of them. But damn, that is a specific thing you picked there, huh?

It was a specific one from not even a month ago. All the examples you gave are centuries old, friend. Most groups, whether they're nations, organized religions, or whatever, have things they're not proud of in their history, but the important thing is growing beyond it.

The example he gave was a 14 year old girl, writing on the internet about how women deserved education. And for this, one of the most well-known terrorist groups on Earth hunted her down and shot her in the head.

A fact that I'm pretty sure almost every muslim in the world finds deplorable, so despite all the discussion, it still bears very little relevance to a larger inter-cultural discussion.

On the bit about "not giving anything to the world"... You may want to think twice. The symbols you used to write that "14" on your message is arabic in origin. In fact, a disturbing volume of knowledge, science and culture in the world can be tracked to the arabic, muslim world, who kept culture alive while the christian nations were happily butchering each other.

I'll happily agree with you on everything up until the sweeping "Christians were just a bunch of bloodthirsty barbarians" part at the end.

They certainly seemed more bloodthirsty and more barbaric than the muslims, and since all things are a matter of comparison...

Yes...but what matters more? A nation's past, or a nation's present? The Vatican declared bloody wars centuries ago, but it doesn't any more. Old Muslim empires may have been exceptionally tolerant of other faiths centuries ago, but it seems like Islam has been becoming steadily more splintered in recent years.

I was under the impression we were discussing a religion, not nations. If it's nations we're talking about, we probably agree - lots of really shitty regimes in that region.

Yet, even considering that fact, the consideration must remain that a degree of blame for this rests elsewhere. USSR invasions, the great game, installing dictatorial puppet states, mass migrations... All things that can destabilize a region, none of them can be blamed on the natives.

Not saying everyone there are nice, naive, innocent lambs of god. But neither are "our" hands clean. Best to stop pointing fingers, and instead start lending hands.

Did...did you just compare the entire Western hemisphere's ability to understand Islam to the ability of a group who can literally and without hyperbole be called 'bloodthirsty savages' to understand a work of young adult fiction?

You can obsess about the details rather than consider the point, sure. Not productive, though.

Still, the point was that if someone without the cultural repertoire that surrounds a work tries to immerse themselves in that work without some form of guidance, secondary sources or direct help, they will often come out with a very bizarre understanding of it. For a nice example, you can check out the Taiping Rebellion.

And aside from that, I'm worried that your point here is, "If you had the cultural background to understand Islam, you'd know why some people follow it and decide to try and murder teenage girls for wanting an education."

I can't see how you'd arrive at that point. What was being discussed is a person's inability to derive meaning from the Qur'an. The case about the girl and the discussion about cultural background were two completely separate discussions.

 

[Therumancer]

To be honest my major concern is that Google will back down (if they haven't already) which will just encourage more of this, and pretty much undermine free speech by pretty much sending the message "you have freedom of speech, as long as you don't say anything bad about Muslims".

My initial reaction here would be to see if these Muslims have a permit, which I assume is also the law for such demonstrations in the UK (if not it probably should be). If not the authorities should get them to disperse, using riot control methods if need be.

Simply put, non-violent or not, this entire thing has gotten out of hand. I can't bring myself to have sympathy for a group of people protesting an indie movie based on it's trailer. Given the freedom of speech, which includes the abillity to mock and criticize religions in the media (there have been numerous comedies doing the same thing about Christianity for example), we should have a zero tolerance policy for this kind of pressure either abroad or overseas.

In the final equasion, if your a Muslim and don't like the movie, and think it's trailer means it's something you wouldn't want to see, by all means don't go and see it. The bloody movie is incredibly obscure anyway, as this article points out, like maybe 10 people have even seen this thing. Indeed more people are aware of it because of these protests than would ever have heard about it if people just chose to do the sane thing and ignore it.

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

They must be really insecure about their religion and faith if they think some dumb movie will effect. It wont. Suicide bombing and terrorist acts is what is ruining their religion, but you never hear them protest against that. An noone cares about this crappy movie on youtube, no one would have watched it or even knew it existed until the muslims started to kill and smash stuff up and put it in the headlines. Its these idiots that gave it all the free publicity it could ever wish for. lol

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

That's muslims in Europe for you. Civilized countries allow them to protest as a form of freedom of speech, and they use that right to demand censorship and an end to democracy.

Agreed. You only see them protest stuff that offends them, like muhommed drawings and crap like that. But people killing in the name of their religion? Nope, not a peep out of them.

 

[Char-Nobyl]

The fact that spreading christianity was one of the core motivators for the entire chain of events to ever happen is not something that can just be shrugged off,

The motivation was finding a trade route to West India. That's why Columbus went west in the first place, under Spain's endorsement no less. The fact that 'Spread Christianity' was on the conquistador's list of goals was no more relevant to why conflict broke out than, say, going to a bank to deposit a paycheck and winding up involved in a bank robbery. Yes, that's why you went there, but you'd have been sucked into things regardless of your motivation.

nor the fact that religion served as justification for a lot of the violence going on. And while we may ascribe practical reasons for the actions of a lot of historical people, lets not be condescending and grant the fact that those conquistadors most definitely were, indeed, christians and did believe they were following the tenets thereof. Furthermore, that's just a subset of what was going on, further south you had the Bandeirantes and a lot more crazy bloodshed.

So? Yes, they were Christian...and what of it? I find it laughable that you're attributing their actions to their perceived tenants of Christianity. If you think the noble class of a foreign city is planning to kill you in your sleep (as happened with Cortés and his men), do you sit back and let it happen as Jesus would've? Or do you make like Cortés and kill the conspirators before they can kill you?

Which... Does not change the fact that a lot of 14 year old women very likely lived in Jerusalem at the time of the sacking. And that christian religious authorities were cool with the First Crusade.

Okay. So...that leaves us with hypothetical women who supposedly stayed in the city as the walls were being overwhelmed, and were then hypothetically killed, even though the Crusaders didn't actually sack Jerusalem. The goal was to capture the city. Sacking it kind of defeats the purpose.

Besides, comparing the two events makes it sound like the Taliban were on their way to do something more important and just happened to shoot the girl in the head on their way there. They weren't. And they didn't. They launched a mission with the single goal of murdering a fourteen year old girl. That isn't even a case of collateral damage: the entire goal is to kill her.

A fact that I'm pretty sure almost every muslim in the world finds deplorable, so despite all the discussion, it still bears very little relevance to a larger inter-cultural discussion.

You literally just mentioned it in comparison to the people who died during the Crusades.

They certainly seemed more bloodthirsty and more barbaric than the muslims, and since all things are a matter of comparison...

Seriously? You couldn't just accept the "I agree with everything besides X" remark and move on?

Let's see here...oh, look: the Greco-Persian War. Where the cultured Arabs rampaged through Greece for no other reason than a desire for more territory.

And hey: Janissaries and Mamelukes. They were groups of POWs, slaves, and/or Christian boys who were forced into military service, masterfully combining slavery, child soldiers, and forced labor in one stroke.

What's this? Ghengis Khan's first encounter with a Middle Eastern Empire? They butchered a Mongol trade caravan, then received Khan's diplomatic delegation by shaving the diplomats' heads and decapitating their interpreter?

Would you like me to go on? Or would you prefer if we leave things alone with the knowledge that people in the olden days did some messed up shit regardless of the religion they practiced while doing it, and that trying to objectively quantify which side was worse would be pointless?

I was under the impression we were discussing a religion, not nations. If it's nations we're talking about, we probably agree - lots of really shitty regimes in that region.

And I was under the impression that we weren't bothering with such a distinction, but okay.

Yet, even considering that fact, the consideration must remain that a degree of blame for this rests elsewhere. USSR invasions, the great game, installing dictatorial puppet states, mass migrations... All things that can destabilize a region, none of them can be blamed on the natives.

And yet none of those things are even tangentially related to a major "political" group tracking down a fourteen year old girl and shooting her in the head for wanting women to be educated.

You know what Bin Laden thought until his last day? That America's increased presence in the Middle East was because they hadn't made a large enough attack against the US. Seriously. He was completely shocked when America didn't cower even deeper into their corner after 9/11 like they did following Pearl Harb...oh wait.

He was a delusional madman who got people to join his organization on the basis that a country on the other side of the world filled with people who most of them had never met even one of was responsible for all their problems, and that if they killed themselves trying to kill them, they'd get a mountain of ass in paradise.

Not saying everyone there are nice, naive, innocent lambs of god. But neither are "our" hands clean. Best to stop pointing fingers, and instead start lending hands.

You just said that you can't blame the native people of a country for things that happen by the hands of specific groups. So why is it that we collectively have blood on our hands and only specific people among them do?

You can obsess about the details rather than consider the point, sure. Not productive, though.

You used it as a direct comparison. It's hardly obsessing over details when it seems to be the absolute lynchpin of your argument.

Still, the point was that if someone without the cultural repertoire that surrounds a work tries to immerse themselves in that work without some form of guidance, secondary sources or direct help, they will often come out with a very bizarre understanding of it. For a nice example, you can check out the Taiping Rebellion.

Erm...why not? The Qur'an is a book. What kind of book requires a reading guide, additional books, and a co-reader for anyone to have anything resembling a good understanding of it? Is it the Finnegan's Wake of religious texts or something? Because I think that a lot of people had to have and probably have recently read it on their own or without all the things you mention and still come out fine.

I can't see how you'd arrive at that point. What was being discussed is a person's inability to derive meaning from the Qur'an. The case about the girl and the discussion about cultural background were two completely separate discussions.

I'll rephrase it, then:

Someone said, "I can't understand how anyone can look at a religious text and think it's a justification for murdering a girl for wanting an education." You responded by saying that westerners lacked the cultural context and thus overall ability to understand the Qur'an.

When someone says, "I don't understand why someone would X because of Y," saying that, "Oh, you just don't understand Y" implies that if we did understand Y, then we'd know why X. If a magical genie were to grant me perfect understanding of the teachings of the Qur'an, would I look at the story of Malala Yousafzai and completely understand why the shooters did what they did?

 

[hooksashands]

Oddly enough, this movie's original working title was Desert Warrior, a story about life in Egypt 2,000 years ago when a comet fell to earth. Several actors and members of the film crew have come forward admitting that there was no mention of Islam in the film during production, negative or otherwise.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Backchannels/2012/0912/There-may-be-no-anti-Islamic-movie-at-all

In other words, ya'll been duped. Not just the Muslims.

 

[hooksashands]

(Re-posted for knowledge purposes)

Oddly enough, this movie's original working title was Desert Warrior, a story about life in Egypt 2,000 years ago when a comet fell to earth. Several actors and members of the film crew have come forward admitting that there was no mention of Islam in the film during production, negative or otherwise.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Backchannels/2012/0912/There-may-be-no-anti-Islamic-movie-at-all

In other words, ya'll been duped. Not just the Muslims.

The post-production was allegedly tinkered with by one Steve Klein, an 'evangelical Christian and anti-Islamic activist with ties to militia groups and a Coptic Christian satellite TV station based in California[...]'

So there ya go. It turns out it was an entirely different film dubbed over with allusions to Islamic religion, when in fact it's set in a period that pre-dates Muhammad's teachings.

 

[Arsen]

Islam does not believe in freedom of expression. It believes in the control and domination of the human will to appease others.

 

[tjarne]

Don't people have the right to protest peacefully? I'm all for shooting all the demonstrators, but then again I'm a filthy communist.(Det är borgerligt att inte förstå sarkasm)

 

[Trippy Turtle]

A better title would be 'A bunch of idiots break the law for no reason and blame it on a video'. Seriously, I know nothing about them or their religion but I already have a negative view on it if its starting riots.
It pissed me off even more when I saw half the people rioting had nothing to do with Muslims. They just wanted to assholes.

[sub]Please kind mod, I am only insulting rioters, not muslims.[/sub]

 

[Driekan]

A fact that I'm pretty sure almost every muslim in the world finds deplorable, so despite all the discussion, it still bears very little relevance to a larger inter-cultural discussion.

You literally just mentioned it in comparison to the people who died during the Crusades.

No, I was merely pointing out the fact that no matter how much we discuss, the fact stands that this is pretty irrelevant to the larger discussion. People claiming to follow any religion (And you'll find examples for literally every religion or lack thereof if you look hard enough) have done horrible things and found themselves justified in their beliefs, islam is no special in this regard.

Let's see here...oh, look: the Greco-Persian War. Where the cultured Arabs rampaged through Greece for no other reason than a desire for more territory.

Those weren't arabs. Those were persians - different ehtnicity entirely. And islam only came into being close to a millenia afterwards, so... Other than proving that you can't tell all those people from each other, this didn't add anything.

That said, there is a lot to argue that on a socio-cultural level, the persians really were more cultured than the greeks. A lot points out to their society having been a lot more inclusive - the average persian probably led a much better, more peaceful life than the average greek.

And hey: Janissaries and Mamelukes. They were groups of POWs, slaves, and/or Christian boys who were forced into military service, masterfully combining slavery, child soldiers, and forced labor in one stroke.

Janissaries were not slaves in the sense you have been exposed to in "The West", being more akin to the group that would be called Freed Men in Europe. They were paid salaries, given education, they were free to marry, have children, etc. It is a well-known fact that families willingly gave their children over to be Janissaries because it was a good life. There were also possibilities for social ascension, with many Janissaries serving in political roles. The average peasant in western countries in the same time period had nowhere near as much freedom or as many possibilities. (Read: They were most often serfs, bound to the land and forced to work it).

Much the same applies to Mamluks. They were often elevated to positions of lordish, ruling over lands. At least two of them actually made themselves sultans, and for several centuries, mamluks pretty much ruled Egypt and neighboring regions.

What's this? Ghengis Khan's first encounter with a Middle Eastern Empire? They butchered a Mongol trade caravan, then received Khan's diplomatic delegation by shaving the diplomats' heads and decapitating their interpreter?

Yes, I'm certain if you saw mongols knocking on your town's gate around the 14th century you'd find no cause for fear whatsoever. And terrified people have been known to never do stupid things.

Besides... You're going to point the golden horde as victims? Seriously?

Would you like me to go on? Or would you prefer if we leave things alone with the knowledge that people in the olden days did some messed up shit regardless of the religion they practiced while doing it, and that trying to objectively quantify which side was worse would be pointless?

I agree it's pretty pointless, especially if all we're going to do is exchange anecdotes. Ultimately, though, on the big picture, looking over centuries and across continents, during a very, very, very long period, islam-influenced middle east and northern africa were far more civilized (By modern-day definition of the word) than europe was. It's not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact. Hence putting to question any notion of a special degree of violence or aggressiveness inherent in islam.

I was under the impression we were discussing a religion, not nations. If it's nations we're talking about, we probably agree - lots of really shitty regimes in that region.

And I was under the impression that we weren't bothering with such a distinction, but okay.

It's a huge distinction. Not having that distinction allows me to say "Christianity threw nukes at Hiroshima and Nagasaki!" which sounds more than a bit stupid.

Yet, even considering that fact, the consideration must remain that a degree of blame for this rests elsewhere. USSR invasions, the great game, installing dictatorial puppet states, mass migrations... All things that can destabilize a region, none of them can be blamed on the natives.

And yet none of those things are even tangentially related to a major "political" group tracking down a fourteen year old girl and shooting her in the head for wanting women to be educated.

Of course they are. The Taliban wouldn't exist if not for the Great Game.

You know what Bin Laden thought until his last day? That America's increased presence in the Middle East was because they hadn't made a large enough attack against the US. Seriously. He was completely shocked when America didn't cower even deeper into their corner after 9/11 like they did following Pearl Harb...oh wait.

He was a delusional madman who got people to join his organization on the basis that a country on the other side of the world filled with people who most of them had never met even one of was responsible for all their problems, and that if they killed themselves trying to kill them, they'd get a mountain of ass in paradise.

And you believe a significant portion of the world's muslims think as that one dude did, is that it?

In the spirit of nitpicking, the mountain of ass quote is the product of the lack of cultural repertoire, and furthers one of the points we are arguing over. In context, the afterlife was being described and was said to be "akin to living in a paradisiac hall with a couple thousand servants and dozens of concubines"- i.e.: It is hyperbole to describe an existence in pure joy, not a description of fact.

Not saying everyone there are nice, naive, innocent lambs of god. But neither are "our" hands clean. Best to stop pointing fingers, and instead start lending hands.

You just said that you can't blame the native people of a country for things that happen by the hands of specific groups. So why is it that we collectively have blood on our hands and only specific people among them do?

I'm saying that obsessing about a group's wrongs and applying judgement for those wrongs onto the entirety of the group is precisely what the dude you brought up above does.

The point of the whole argument is that from their perspective, they can certainly see all westerners as having blood on their hands... Possibly far more easily than we can see blood on all of theirs. The only productive way out of this position is to stop pointing fingers and accusing the other of having more blood on their hands, or worse blood, or whatever the day's choice of words is.

You can obsess about the details rather than consider the point, sure. Not productive, though.

You used it as a direct comparison. It's hardly obsessing over details when it seems to be the absolute lynchpin of your argument.

It wasn't a lynchpin, not even close. It was a throw-away example, any other pair of cultures and books they are not exposed to could have been used:

- It would be like giving the Vedas to a medieval viking;
- It would be like giving Fifty Shades to an Aka Tribesman;
- It would be like giving the Epic of Gilgamesh to a Xavante;
- It would be like giving the AD&D Player's Handbook to one of the Pintupi people.
- It would be like giving the Popol Vuh to you and me;

Hot damn, my argument has a lot of lynchpins now!

You can nitpick, but it doesn't add anything to the discussion.

Still, the point was that if someone without the cultural repertoire that surrounds a work tries to immerse themselves in that work without some form of guidance, secondary sources or direct help, they will often come out with a very bizarre understanding of it. For a nice example, you can check out the Taiping Rebellion.

Erm...why not? The Qur'an is a book. What kind of book requires a reading guide, additional books, and a co-reader for anyone to have anything resembling a good understanding of it? Is it the Finnegan's Wake of religious texts or something? Because I think that a lot of people had to have and probably have recently read it on their own or without all the things you mention and still come out fine.

All books. If you do not have the cultural repertoire to interpret a cultural product, you cannot expect to interact with it and derive from it the same meaning that someone who does have that repertoire.

Someone said, "I can't understand how anyone can look at a religious text and think it's a justification for murdering a girl for wanting an education." You responded by saying that westerners lacked the cultural context and thus overall ability to understand the Qur'an.

My interpretation of where that discussion came from was more akin to someone saying "I read six pages of this book and interpret it to be hate-filled justification for killing people", and I responded by saying that -yes, as you said- westerners lack the cultural context.

 

[dando300]

The thing that scares me is that the film is nothing compared to what the internet has created at times,
God forbid they find 4chan.

 

[gorfias]

Thus far the response to the film - which unfortunately goes way beyond the peaceful protests organized by MAF - has claimed the lives of at least four people, including US ambassador, John Christopher Stevens, and foreign service information management officer and EVE Online player, Sean "Vile Rat" Smith.

That whole episode had nothing to do with the youtube video. The State Dept. has released a lot of evidence that there were no protests and the attack on the Ambassador was pre-planned not a random act of violence due to a video that had very little views until after the 9/11 attack. Thank the President and his staff for fanning those flames and making light of a video that was obscure and had little to no hits.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/12/chris-stevens-us-ambassador-libya-killed
Witnesses report that there were no protests and that the raid was pre-planned due to the use of RPGs. Protesters generally don't use mitlitary grade weaponry for "peaceful" means.

Dunno if I've been ninja'd or not, but thank you. This is exactly correct about Libya. This article references this video. But as you write, the video had nothing to do with the assassination of our diplomat.

I would like to get some translation about the video. What was it's maker trying to say? Do the Haddiths describe Mohammad asking a donkey if it likes women? Did keeping his head between a woman's thighs end visions of demons for him? In short, is the video a poorly done but reasonably dramatized en-action of the Haddiths? Is it trying to be? Sorry for my ignorance. I do not accuse: I do not know the answers to these questions and do not know what that video was aiming at.

EDIT: This link seems to be stating that this film could be someone's interpretation of Islamic holy texts. Still reviewing to see what was written where and how this director botched it.

http://insidemovies.ew.com/2012/09/13/innocence-of-muslims-film-religion/

 

[Char-Nobyl]

No, I was merely pointing out the fact that no matter how much we discuss, the fact stands that this is pretty irrelevant to the larger discussion. People claiming to follow any religion (And you'll find examples for literally every religion or lack thereof if you look hard enough) have done horrible things and found themselves justified in their beliefs, islam is no special in this regard.

My point is that you're trying to have it both ways: you can argue that the terrible actions of a few in the name of a religion have no bearing on the vast majority of its practitioners, or you can play the guilt card by digging things up and saying, "Well, at worst, Islam is just as bad as every other major religion." Frankly, I'd prefer if we just stuck with the former. The latter is just a whole can of worms that nobody in their right mind wants to open.

Those weren't arabs. Those were persians - different ehtnicity entirely. And islam only came into being close to a millenia afterwards, so... Other than proving that you can't tell all those people from each other, this didn't add anything.

Except that the Persian Empire included modern-day Syria, which even has 'Arab' in its official name. Modern day Iranians identify as Persian, certainly, but it would've been awfully hard for an empire that only covered that territory to launch a massive invasion of Greece without at least some ties to Arab lands.

That said, there is a lot to argue that on a socio-cultural level, the persians really were more cultured than the greeks. A lot points out to their society having been a lot more inclusive - the average persian probably led a much better, more peaceful life than the average greek.

...why? Just tell me, why? Why would you offhandedly add such a sweeping remark to this already-roaring fire?

Or, if we're just rolling along with that line of thought, would you care to say specifically how Persian culture was objectively better than Greek culture? Because given the diversity of the Greek states (and putting aside the hopefully accidental racist undertones), I think that's a pretty hard conclusion to draw.

Janissaries were not slaves in the sense you have been exposed to in "The West",

...I'm not under the influence that they were chained together, singing spirituals, and being whipped by their Ottoman overseer, if that's what you're implying.

being more akin to the group that would be called Freed Men in Europe. They were paid salaries, given education, they were free to marry, have children, etc.

What, you mean peasants/serfs? Because the only definition of 'Freed Men' I know is slaves that have been freed from servitude...and nothing else.

It is a well-known fact that families willingly gave their children over to be Janissaries because it was a good life.

So, in other words, they sold their children to the military for a lifetime of service as a soldier? That actually strikes me as more shocking than most forms of western slavery because it explicitly involves parents selling their children to the army.

There were also possibilities for social ascension, with many Janissaries serving in political roles. The average peasant in western countries in the same time period had nowhere near as much freedom or as many possibilities. (Read: They were most often serfs, bound to the land and forced to work it).

...yes, but you seem to downplay the fact that you can only attain that socioeconomic mobility by involuntarily being surrendered to a lifetime of military service. Sure, you'll grow to like it if you hope to make anything of it, but isn't that just conditioned zealotry?

Much the same applies to Mamluks. They were often elevated to positions of lordish, ruling over lands. At least two of them actually made themselves sultans, and for several centuries, mamluks pretty much ruled Egypt and neighboring regions.

Look, mate, it doesn't sound like such appointments were being made out of the kindness of their patron's hearts. When you have an entire army composed of children raised as soldiers, prisoners of war, and other such non-volunteers, it's in your best interest to keep them A) happy and B) away from the general populace. If they were 'ruling' Egypt, doesn't that just mean that's where they were all plopped down in lieu of a conventional military?

Yes, I'm certain if you saw mongols knocking on your town's gate around the 14th century you'd find no cause for fear whatsoever. And terrified people have been known to never do stupid things.

Besides... You're going to point the golden horde as victims? Seriously?

Actually, yes. I am. Mostly because I said that it was a trade caravan. And an ambassadorial party. Khan was explicitly trying to forge an alliance with the Khwarezmid Empire. This was the first and second contact between the two empires, and when you explicitly humiliate ambassadors and murder their translator after already having butchered over four hundred people in a trade caravan, then it's awfully hard to write it off as a case of the jitters.

I agree it's pretty pointless, especially if all we're going to do is exchange anecdotes. Ultimately, though, on the big picture, looking over centuries and across continents, during a very, very, very long period, islam-influenced middle east and northern africa were far more civilized (By modern-day definition of the word) than europe was. It's not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact. Hence putting to question any notion of a special degree of violence or aggressiveness inherent in islam.

But that begs the question of what the 'modern-day definition' of civilized even is. They were both completely different societies, and compared to actual modern times, they'd have both been pretty shitty for anyone to live in if they weren't royalty.

Of course they are. The Taliban wouldn't exist if not for the Great Game.

Putting aside the correlation between the two, how is that relevant now? After a certain amount of time, the Freudian excuse of, "European powers were waging wars in my ancestral land" gets weaker and weaker, and it fails to justify any of the actual crimes against humanity that groups like the Taliban are guilty of.

And you believe a significant portion of the world's muslims think as that one dude did, is that it?

I think that the fact that Al Qaeda continued to be a threat for as long as it did means yes, quite a few did. Not statistically a 'significant portion' of the entire world's Muslim population, mind you.

In the spirit of nitpicking, the mountain of ass quote is the product of the lack of cultural repertoire, and furthers one of the points we are arguing over. In context, the afterlife was being described and was said to be "akin to living in a paradisiac hall with a couple thousand servants and dozens of concubines"- i.e.: It is hyperbole to describe an existence in pure joy, not a description of fact.

...okay? I'm sorry, but I don't know how that changes things. If anything, it's just a less specific form of paradise...which is still paradise in exchange for a single massive act of murder/suicide. And frankly, doesn't it bother you that pure bliss is likened to living in a massive building with thousands of slaves of both the normal and sexual variety?

I'm saying that obsessing about a group's wrongs and applying judgement for those wrongs onto the entirety of the group is precisely what the dude you brought up above does.

Oddly enough, I had to backtrack a few posts to remember what it was that I was responding to in the first place. Sorta fitting, given the context of the argument.

The point of the whole argument is that from their perspective, they can certainly see all westerners as having blood on their hands... Possibly far more easily than we can see blood on all of theirs. The only productive way out of this position is to stop pointing fingers and accusing the other of having more blood on their hands, or worse blood, or whatever the day's choice of words is.

Then why on Earth did you bring up the Crusades and the inquisition of all things?

Look, man: the guy you were responding to when I got into the conversation was kind of a dullard. When someone who clearly has no idea what he's talking about says something like, "You don't see Christians/Catholics shooting 14 year olds in the head," or some equally asinine garbage, the response shouldn't be to break out an ancient list of Christianity-related crimes. Because, as you can see, that just draws people like me into the argument on the basis that you're trying to refute his claim by asserting that another prominent religion is worse.

He was upset, and for an understandable reason. A child was shot and very nearly killed for the most trivial of things, and it was done by a group that claims to be acting in the interests of Islam. That doesn't mean that they are, not by a long shot. But people will make knee-jerk statements in response to this, and the thing to do isn't to justify that response by asserting that their religion is even more evil, in part because it makes it sound like you're justifying the whole 'shooting a child' thing.

It wasn't a lynchpin, not even close. It was a throw-away example, any other pair of cultures and books they are not exposed to could have been used:

- It would be like giving the Vedas to a medieval viking;
- It would be like giving Fifty Shades to an Aka Tribesman;
- It would be like giving the Epic of Gilgamesh to a Xavante;
- It would be like giving the AD&D Player's Handbook to one of the Pintupi people.
- It would be like giving the Popol Vuh to you and me;

Hot damn, my argument has a lot of lynchpins now!

Alright, then let me break it into more manageable pieces, starting with a couple questions:

1. Is there a generally accepted English translation of the Qur'an? Or is being able to read Arabic an obligatory first step before even touching Islam?

2. Do you consider the contents of the Qur'an any more difficult to understand to a layman than, say, the Torah or the Gospel? If so, is it a cultural divide, or is it simply difficult to read?

All books. If you do not have the cultural repertoire to interpret a cultural product, you cannot expect to interact with it and derive from it the same meaning that someone who does have that repertoire.

But why is that the case? After all, Judaism and Christianity touch on an awful lot of the same bases as Islam does.

My interpretation of where that discussion came from was more akin to someone saying "I read six pages of this book and interpret it to be hate-filled justification for killing people", and I responded by saying that -yes, as you said- westerners lack the cultural context.

*facepalm*

That's not cultural context. That's literary context. If you pick out a random passage from a massive text, you're not going to have anything resembling an accurate assessment of what you just read. If someone picked up the Torah and read nothing but the story of Sampson, they'd think that Jews worshiped a glorified Conan the Barbarian novel.