I'm sick of the rabid Islamophobia on these boards...

[Montalban]

nonsumd,

Blaming the victim, I see.

Like Spain. He acknowledge Spain was attacked by them in the beginning of Islamic history, and yet they had nothing to do with Arabia.

And, he’s not an apologist

 

[Keikiolu]

People do not attack for no reason. There have been radical Islamic sects for hundreds of years. They were of little concern to the US until our interventionist foreign policy, created by the Neo Cons of the Council on Foreign Relations.

So you’re a NeoConophobe…!?

Wouldn’t this “phobia” of yours cause NeoCons to attack you as “an enemy”…!!?

Why is it OK to be a NeoConophobe, but not an Islamistophobe…?

Don’t think for one moment that I sympathize with the terrorists. Anyone who would fly airplanes into building and kill innocent people is a murderer, and needs to be dealt with accordingly. My point is, why did these radical elements attack us?

I have heard to most ridiculous reasons: they hate us because of our freedoms (well, we are rapidly losing them, thanks to the Patriot Act, the Department of Homeland Security, the Real ID proposal & c),…

…They don’t hate us for our “freedom”. They hate us for our lack of islamic societal slavery. There is a difference my naive young friend…

…seems to be the most popular. The reason they attacked us is because our politicians have interjected us into their affairs.

You obviously simply don’t listen to what they say themselves.

We are “the greater or lesser Satan”. I ask you, since they are COMMANDED to battle Satan(s), when do you suppose they will EVER not be at war with us?

Your simplistic grade-school causation theory of islamic terror is more dangerous than even simply reacting to the “criminal behavior” of the jihadis,… because it actually lends “cover” to evil men.

We need to restore our foreign policy to one of non-intervention. We need to have contact between the American people and the people of other countries. We need to minimize the contact between our government and theirs.

I realize you simply HATE government (even “small” government). Actually, you would LOVE “big government” as long as it contained no politicians, which is an interesting (whacky) concept.

You are obviously a “righteous anarchist”. No doubt a follower of the “christianized” philosophy of John Lennon’s “Imagine!”.

Today, we have a situation where our politicians make secret deals with foreign governments. This has to end. We cannot allow the agent to dictate to the principal. Our politicians are nothing but elected public servants. We need to know every move they make.

Make yourself the king of your country, and institute that.

I agree that governmental trasnparency is often desirable, but to straightjacket our government, in contradistinction to other governments, by instituting “mob’ocracy” would be an obvious mistake.

I realize yu have NO respect for legitimate authority, and need to CONTROL everyone, especially those “in power”, in every respect, which is a beautiful “precursor of mind” to the imposition of islamic slavery on those you hate (ie authority figures).

In a free country, it is the government that is under scrutiny, not the people. We are rapidly losing our freedoms because we have allowed our politicians to make us hostage to their military adventurism around the world.

And we would suddenly become “Not the Great Satan” if your utopia was imposed?

Actually, we would no longer be that. We’d be the Umma.

…and there goes ALL your freedoms.

Anytime a political crime is committed, you need to ask yourself, qui bono? Who profited?

It’s the GREEDY XXX’s!? Those XXXXed-Xosed bastards…! The Articles are REAL…!

Your anti-XXXitism is profound.

What did the attack of 11 September get us? It got us the Patriot Act, the Department of Homeland Security, and a bunch of other unconstitutional actions. supposedly to “protect us from terrorism”. Well, I don’t buy it. I don’t want their protection. I don’t want to have to show my papers to one of their agents. I want a return to the days when we could come and go as we pleased. A day when our personal business and finances were our business, not theirs.

You want to rewind history, which is impossible. What does it say of you that you simply want what you want, regardless of reality?

Which particular complex of mental illness would you call that?

It is a simple matter to return to those days. All it takes is to vote the Neo Cons out of office. I would like to see them serve another term, but not in a public office role.

The lure of utopianism is overwhelming,… to the juvenile.

For years Americans have had two choices: the Liberals (the blame America crowd), and the Neo Cons (the party of perpetual, un-declared wars abroad, and the police state at home). There is an alternative. We need to adopt a policy of non-intervention in the affairs of other nations. We need to go to war only when we are attacked, and only with a Declaration of War by the Congress.

Vote it in, little one. That’s your job. What other measures would you condone to make your utopia happen?

…and who would you “support”, if even by supplying cover, to “help” you?

This is a radical concept. It is called Constitutional government. We need to hold our politicians to adhere to the Constitution. This will end the terrorist threat, and any excuse to the usurpation of our liberties.

Your ideas would end no terrorist threat, because we are “The Satan(s)” regardless of our “constitution” (in the larger and smaller sense) or our behavior.

…unless our behavior is to hand ourselves over to the umma.

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[nonsumd]

Rodrigo, Montalban, and Verisimilitude,

You cannot accuse me of “blaming the victim” when that sort of tactic is incompatible with my position that no one, neither Christians or Muslims, has a monopoly on victimhood.

I have consistently criticized Muslims who claim to be only victims and not aggressors or oppressors in their relations with non-Muslims.

Moreover, I still would remind you all to drop that ***common nonsense ***of seeking the cause of aggression exculsively in religious motivations. Reality is far more complex, and to simplify our understanding of reality is to take one more step away from any path towards solving, rather than perpetuating, real problems.

 

[nonsumd]

A closer aproximation would be if you looked at the British in North America how they used border Indian tribes to war with French colonists, and their border Indian allies, and visa versa. It would be then akin of you coming in and showing why an Indian tribe of the plains should feel ‘threatened’ by Britain which had no interests in the plains - and hand’t even disturbed them… but certainly both Britain and France had been involved with Indians, per se

I dare say that the Hijazi Arabs had far more to do with the Arabs in neighboring areas than the Plains Indians had to do with the Indians further east.

In any case, it was not just Hijazi Muslim Arabs who swept into the Roman and Persian empires but Muslim Arabs from all over the peninsula and beyond. The Arabs of interior Syria, who certainly had intense contact, good and bad, with the Romans, were prominent in the first Islamic armies (how could they not have been?) – and even Christian Arab tribes took part in the Muslim wars of conquest.

As Richard Lim writes in his essay in G.W. Bowersock, Peter Brown, and Oleg Grabar, eds., Late Antiquity:

The Muslim conquest of the Near Eastern lands of the Byzantine Empire was neither particularly violent nor particularly destructive. That does not mean, of course, that there was not bloodshed and disruption… However, compared with later invasions, like those of the Crusaders or the Mongols, or even the Persian invasions which immediately preceded the coming of Islam, neither the literary sources (such as they are) nor the archaeological records show evidence of extensive destruction… The Muslim conquest was a stage in the long-term penetration of Arabic-speaking peoples into the Near East which seems to have begun about 200 CE and continued to the 10th and 11th centuries. Certainly the Muslim conquest, bringing as it did a new religion and a new language of high culturem narks an important stage in this process – but a stage nonetheless (p.220)

I would add for our purposes here a reminder that it took several centuries before Muslims became the majority of the population of the Muslim-governed Middle East (indeed not till the trauma from the Crusader and the Mongol invasions). That fact should encourage us towards a more balanced view of the Islamic conquests and early Islamic rule with respect to the treatment of “Peoples of the Book.”

b) the Sassanians were not western or Christian. You keep mentioning them in your reasons for Islamic aggression towards ‘the west’.

I explicitly stated that only the Romans and the Abyssinans were Christians – that you read me as saying that the Sassanians were “Christian” or “western” only shows how selectively and opportunistically you read posts you don’t agree with.

If both A and B were fighting proxy wars in area C, does it mean that A was not fighting a proxy war in area C simply because B was also fighting a proxy war there.

You fail to acknowledge this.
c) you don’t even acknowledge what I wrote about the Ethiopians - WHO HAD HELPED THE MOSLEM COMMUNITY - I hope you notice it this time.

This objection is truly silly. The Abyssinian involvement with Arabs goes back centuries before the episode of the Abyssinian ruler giving hospitality to the Muslim refugees from still pagan Mecca – to fellow monotheists. Like the Romans and Sassanians, the Abyssinians had been fighting proxy wars using Arab client tribes and kingdoms for centuries.

If it serves your purposes to read what I write as justifying Islamic aggression rather than just explaining the motives driving it, which is what I explictly contend I am doing, that is your business.

Meanwhile, the cycle of vengeance ravaging our world spins on…

 

[Verisimilitude]

Rodrigo, Montalban, and Verisimilitude,

You cannot accuse me of “blaming the victim” when that sort of tactic is incompatible with my position …religious motivations. Reality is far more complex, and to simplify our understanding of reality is to take one more step away from any path towards solving, rather than perpetuating, real problems.

I don’t know if it is you blame the victim as much as excuse the aggressor.

Some things are not that complex. Honestly, what is to be misunderstood about Islam and allah’s Casue? What do you think I misunderstand about its tenets or its founder? Why do you give it the credibility you do?

 

[Sixtus]

I don’t know if it is you blame the victim as much as excuse the aggressor.

Some things are not that complex. Honestly, what is to be misunderstood about Islam and allah’s Casue? What do you think I misunderstand about its tenets or its founder? Why do you give it the credibility you do?

It is ok to debate but I do think it is not good for groups to ‘gang up on’ a lone Muslim [or anyone else for that matter] and beat them just because they are ‘on their own’. That is not the way of Christ

 

[Verisimilitude]

It is ok to debate but I do think it is not good for groups to ‘gang up on’ a lone Muslim [or anyone else for that matter] and beat them just because they are ‘on their own’. That is not the way of Christ

nonsumd’s profile says he is Catholic.

 

[Montalban]

I dare say that the Hijazi Arabs had far more to do with the Arabs in neighboring areas than the Plains Indians had to do with the Indians further east.

Prove it!

In any case, it was not just Hijazi Muslim Arabs who swept into the Roman and Persian empires but Muslim Arabs from all over the peninsula and beyond.

Indeed, but this has nothing to do with Rome occupying itself with a small part of Arabia. Muhammed did indeed unite the Arabs - which was the first time, which itself blows your re-working out of the water - because they HAD NOT BEEN UNITED before!
Sheesh!

The Arabs of interior Syria, who certainly had intense contact, good and bad, with the Romans, were prominent in the first Islamic armies (how could they not have been?) – and even Christian Arab tribes took part in the Muslim wars of conquest.

And this is why they attacked Spain?

As Richard Lim writes in his essay in G.W. Bowersock, Peter Brown, and Oleg Grabar, eds., Late Antiquity:

I would add for our purposes here a reminder that it took several centuries before Muslims became the majority of the population of the Muslim-governed Middle East (indeed not till the trauma from the Crusader and the Mongol invasions). That fact should encourage us towards a more balanced view of the Islamic conquests and early Islamic rule with respect to the treatment of “Peoples of the Book.”

This shows you miss the point. The “Arabs” weren’t the only people of the Middle East. That’s different from all the Arabs being made to be Moslem though!

I explicitly stated that only the Romans and the Abyssinans were Christians – that you read me as saying that the Sassanians were “Christian” or “western” only shows how selectively and opportunistically you read posts you don’t agree with.

I didn’t say you said that they were Christian. You do however keep referring to them as one of the causes for Islamic aggression to the west - for reasons known only unto yourself.

If both A and B were fighting proxy wars in area C, does it mean that A was not fighting a proxy war in area C simply because B was also fighting a proxy war there.

This objection is truly silly. The Abyssinian involvement with Arabs goes back centuries before the episode of the Abyssinian ruler giving hospitality to the Muslim refugees from still pagan Mecca – to fellow monotheists. Like the Romans and Sassanians, the Abyssinians had been fighting proxy wars using Arab client tribes and kingdoms for centuries.

It’s not silly, because they gave shelter to the Moslem community… it’s only a point you can make if you can show that the Ethiopians used the Moslem community for a ‘proxy war’.

If it serves your purposes to read what I write as justifying Islamic aggression rather than just explaining the motives driving it, which is what I explictly contend I am doing, that is your business.

You’re the one continually re-working history

Meanwhile, the cycle of vengeance ravaging our world spins on…

Indeed. Thanks to apologists who justify it

 

[Montalban]

Rodrigo, Montalban, and Verisimilitude,

You cannot accuse me of “blaming the victim” when that sort of tactic is incompatible with my position that no one, neither Christians or Muslims, has a monopoly on victimhood.

But that’s the problem because Christianity was the victim. You yourself raised the issue of Spain - which you’ve now dropped - without admitting it actually argues against your own stance. It’s dishonest to have done so, but that’s what you’re doing here - re-working history.

The issue of Spain which you raised goes to the very heart of showing this - unless you can show Spain had warred against Islam.

I have consistently criticized Muslims who claim to be only victims and not aggressors or oppressors in their relations with non-Muslims.

Arguing one falsehood against another doesn’t make for a truth.

Moreover, I still would remind you all to drop that ***common nonsense ***of seeking the cause of aggression exculsively in religious motivations. Reality is far more complex, and to simplify our understanding of reality is to take one more step away from any path towards solving, rather than perpetuating, real problems.

What non-religious motives do Moslems use?

 

[nonsumd]

But that’s the problem because Christianity was the victim. You yourself raised the issue of Spain - which you’ve now dropped - without admitting it actually argues against your own stance. It’s dishonest to have done so, but that’s what you’re doing here - re-working history.

The issue of Spain which you raised goes to the very heart of showing this - unless you can show Spain had warred against Islam.

I never justified the Muslim conquest of Spain or of any place. I have only suggested what may have motivated Muslims to wage wars of conquest other than simply the dictates of their religion.

Personally, I think the prospect of enjoying the riches of Spain played a far greater role in motivating the Arabs and Berbers to cross the Strait of Gibraltar than any mere injunction to spread Islam through force of arms.

Arguing one falsehood against another doesn’t make for a truth.

So, you are saying that it is *false *to say that Muslims have been aggressors and oppressors in their relations with non-Muslims.

That is what I was arguing – just as I was arguing that Christians have also been aggressors and oppressors in their relations with Muslims.

Why are you now arguing that Muslims are all peaceful and Islam a religion of peace?

I have never said anything even remotely like that!

What non-religious motives do Moslems use?

The same motives any community wages war on other communities - greed, will to power, hunger for adventure, political competition internal to the community, fear, revenge, etc., etc.

Scriptures do not motivate people to violence independently of the specific historical situations they find themselves in.

Caricatures of religions, caricatures of religious communities, *caricatures *of history – can you offer us nothing else?

 

[Montalban]

I never justified the Muslim conquest of Spain

YOU raised the fact Spain was invaded in the first century of Islam. Your own example blows apart any notion of Islam simply reacting to ‘the west’. You’ve yet to show evidence for Spain attacking Islam prior to this -as you’ve attempted to by raising issues of the Roman Empire, Ethiopia, and more strangely - the Persian Empire

or of any place.

That’s false - you’ve been arguing for days that Islam *was *justified in reaction to Napoleon, et al. Funny you’d now turn on your own argument

I have only suggested what may have motivated Muslims to wage wars of conquest other than simply the dictates of their religion.

Which is to attempt to justify it! Sheesh

Personally, I think the prospect of enjoying the riches of Spain played a far greater role in motivating the Arabs and Berbers to cross the Strait of Gibraltar than any mere injunction to spread Islam through force of arms.

More opinion!

Make up your mind what argument you wish to have!

 

[nonsumd]

Montalban,

you still haven’t explained to me why you are now arguing that Islam is a religion of peace and Muslims are all peace-lovers.

You have been accusing me of peddling falsehoods, but “Islam is a religion of peace and all Muslims are peace-lovers” is one I have never asserted. Since I have never said anything of the kind and rather have actually said “Muslims have been aggressors and oppressors in their relations with non-Muslims,” then when you accuse me of falsehoods, then you must be the Islamophile here.

Oh, maybe I’ll indulge you, a demonstrated Islamophile, a bit and play at being the Islamic apologist you claim that I am.

Perhaps, the Muslims in the Maghreb at the beginning of the 8th century invaded Spain in order to free the Spanish Jews from oppression by the country’s Catholic Visigothic rulers. The Spanish Jews would certainly not have seen an Islamic army coming to topple their, the Jews’, Christian oppressors as conducting unjustified aggression.

In any case, was it not a Visigothic prince who, seeking to take the throne from the reigning Visigothic king, sought the aid of the Muslim governor of the Maghreb? Was it not a Christian prince in a civil war with other Christians who invited the Moors into Spain in the first place?

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Perhaps, the Muslims in the Maghreb at the beginning of the 8th century invaded Spain in order to free the Spanish Jews from oppression by the country’s Catholic Visigothic rulers. The Spanish Jews would certainly not have seen an Islamic army coming to topple their, the Jews’, Christian oppressors as conducting unjustified aggression.

In any case, was it not a Visigothic prince who, seeking to take the throne from the reigning Visigothic king, sought the aid of the Muslim governor of the Maghreb? Was it not a Christian prince in a civil war with other Christians who invited the Moors into Spain in the first place?

1. Spain is none of Muslim business. What they do in their own country is none of the Muslim’s business.
2. The first recorded pogrom against the Jews was by a certain Mr Muhammad bin Abdallah. It would be like Hitler invading Poland to free the Polish Jews.
3. The Jews in Islamic countries are/were not free - dhimmitude is not freedom.
4. Count Julian invited the Moors to help him fight his king Roderick. It is not the excuse to invade the WHOLE of the Iberian Peninsula. Besides, it was TREASON.

 

[Montalban]

Montalban,

you still haven’t explained to me why you are now arguing that Islam is a religion of peace and Muslims are all peace-lovers.

Probably because I’m not now arguing that!

You have been accusing me of peddling falsehoods, but “Islam is a religion of peace and all Muslims are peace-lovers” is one I have never asserted.

No one’s accused you of this. Are you attempting to straw-man your own argument?

Since I have never said anything of the kind and rather have actually said “Muslims have been aggressors and oppressors in their relations with non-Muslims,” then when you accuse me of falsehoods, then you must be the Islamophile here

Bcause although you recongise their aggression, you try to contextualise, and thus justify it - as a reaction against ‘the west’, the ‘Latin West’, ‘Catholics’, ‘Persians’ or whatever. The fact you’re throwing all these up as possible excuses makes you an apologist.

Oh, maybe I’ll indulge you, a demonstrated Islamophile, a bit and play at being the Islamic apologist you claim that I am.

Perhaps, the Muslims in the Maghreb at the beginning of the 8th century invaded Spain in order to free the Spanish Jews from oppression by the country’s Catholic Visigothic rulers.

If there was one united Visigothic kingdom, oppressing Jews uniformally, perhaps yes, but even leaving aside this new re-interpretation of yours, you’re now arguing that an ‘attack’ on Judaism justifies an retaliation by Islam

The Spanish Jews would certainly not have seen an Islamic army coming to topple their, the Jews’, Christian oppressors as conducting unjustified aggression.

Until they themselves were oppressed by Islam.

In any case, was it not a Visigothic prince who, seeking to take the throne from the reigning Visigothic king, sought the aid of the Muslim governor of the Maghreb?

So you recognise more than one Visigothic politic? And that justifies Islam attacking the whole lot!

Was it not a Christian prince in a civil war with other Christians who invited the Moors into Spain in the first place?

Was it?
And of course the fact you continue to justify their aggression in no way makes you an apologist

I’m sure you’d be keen to find ‘reasons’ for each and every attempt by Moslems at aggression.

[SIGN]Newsflash![/SIGN]

 

[Ignatius]

Ignatius:

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=2657934#post2657934

			Please cite some specific examples with links

wow thats pretty tough coming from a catholic
. . . …

No citation examples? I didn’t think so. Just another baseless, false accusation.

 

[Montalban]

1. Spain is none of Muslim business. What they do in their own country is none of the Muslim’s business.

He’s now arguing Islam attacks Christians in Spain based on Visigothic oppression of the Jews - attacks that lead to a holding of Spain that was oppressive of the Jews - under Dhimmi laws.

 

[Montalban]

What happened to nonsumd’s justifications of Islamic aggression ? Which have, by the way, apparently no Chrisitan equivelents - Christians being the aggressors.

Even the Islamic raid into Frankish Gaul must have been provoked by the Franks who somehow oppressed the Jews or some other act.

 

[nonsumd]

What happened to nonsumd’s justifications of Islamic aggression ? Which have, by the way, apparently no Chrisitan equivelents - Christians being the aggressors.

Even the Islamic raid into Frankish Gaul must have been provoked by the Franks who somehow oppressed the Jews or some other act.

I am not justifying Muslim aggression against or oppression of dhimmis – I am just pointing out to you the fact that Christians have been aggressors and oppressors too and have treated non-Christians or Christians of other sects as the equivalent of dhimmis. The Muslims were not the first people on the planet to persecute people different from them.

The Visigoths did persecute the Jews quite fiercely, and the Jews in Spain, though dhimmis, fared far better under the Muslims than they had under the Visigoths. Overall, Jews fared better under Muslims than under Christians until Zionism began to make itself felt in Palestine in the early 20th c.

It is simply hypocritical for Christians/Westerners to claim that they have showed nothing but religious tolerance in their history while Muslims have never showed anything but religious intolerance in theirs. Are you indeed claiming such a thing?

The impression I am getting from all the Islamophobes’ writings is that they prefer to blame Muslims aggression solely on their religion while refusing to ackowledge other motives such as greed, power-hunger, etc. You appear to deny that Muslim aggressors may be motivated by the same sort of motives that non-Muslims are, or to claim that non-Muslim aggressors have always been justified in their aggression or that non-Muslims have never been motivated by their religion to commit violence.

I prefer history in all its complexity to caricature, propaganda, and hate-mongering, be it from Muslims or non-Muslims.

 

[Montalban]

I am not justifying Muslim aggression against or oppression of dhimmis – I am just pointing out to you the fact that Christians have been aggressors and oppressors too and have treated non-Christians or Christians of other sects as the equivalent of dhimmis. The Muslims were not the first people on the planet to persecute people different from them.

And yet, here you go again…

The Visigoths did persecute the Jews quite fiercely, and the Jews in Spain, though dhimmis, fared far better under the Muslims than they had under the Visigoths. Overall, Jews fared better under Muslims than under Christians until Zionism began to make itself felt in Palestine in the early 20th c.

It is simply hypocritical for Christians/Westerners to claim that they have showed nothing but religious tolerance in their history while Muslims have never showed anything but religious intolerance in theirs. Are you indeed claiming such a thing?

The impression I am getting from all the Islamophobes’ writings is that they prefer to blame Muslims aggression solely on their religion while refusing to ackowledge other motives such as greed, power-hunger, etc. You appear to deny that Muslim aggressors may be motivated by the same sort of motives that non-Muslims are, or to claim that non-Muslim aggressors have always been justified in their aggression or that non-Muslims have never been motivated by their religion to commit violence.

I prefer history in all its complexity to caricature, propaganda, and hate-mongering, be it from Muslims or non-Muslims.

Ta da! And there you have it. An apology justifying Moslem aggression

 

[nonsumd]

And yet, here you go again…

Ta da! And there you have it. An apology justifying Moslem aggression

Montalban, my brother, your incorrigible ability to misread (or misrepresent) what I write never ceases to amaze me!

If we Christians want to condemn Muslim intolerance or aggression, we had better admit our own history of intolerance and aggression. If we want Muslims to engage in self-criticism, we’d better show that we are capable of it ourselves, we should show them how it is done.