 |
|
gsmoove23
|
|
When was Islam proclaimed peaceful? No one said it in this thread and the only people I've ever heard state it are defensive muslims or peaceful muslims who of course want to think the best of their religion and have faith that it holds up their ideals of peace.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
gsmoove23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
Of course the "Arabs" became "peaceful" after 732. I believe they sacked Rome in 840 and waged aggressive war across the Meditterrean until they were conquered by the Turks, who continued their aggessive wars against Europe.
The greatest change for "peace" occured when Ataturk came to power and forced the mullah's out of the government of Turkey. However, the Arabs, once freed of Turkish control, soon took up the wardrums again. It began with Israel. It magnified in Afghanistan with the war against the USSR. Now it has reached full blossom under Osama bin Laden.
Stop trying to divert attention from the warlike nature of Islam. It never really has known an era of peace in its whole history. |
All your examples seem to bring up times when they were in conflict with other powers. Yeah, like when they sacked Rome the Romans just didn't know what hit 'em. They were all sniffing flowers. Agressive wars across the mediterranean my ass, like the Christians were busy turning the other cheek.
And perhaps USSR's invasion of Afghanistan is simply a radicalizing cause, not simply one more example.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:27
|
|
Ned :
Please do not confuse everything. Turks are not Arabs, neither are Afghanis.
Today's muslims, and Arabs specifically, have a siginificant chunk of their population fighting against the humiliation they fear from the agressive presence of Israel or the constant defeats of their countries against Israel or their American bosees. (I'm not saying these conceptions are right. I'm saying they exist).
As such, I think many Arabs are fighting to get their old greatness again. Such a fight finds easy tools to federate :
- common enemy : Israel, the US
- common religion and culture.
Afghans didn't go to open war against the US, they simply harbored fellow (Arabic) Muslims fighting the "great Satan", which is quite expectable from a religious regime. Afghans did put up a fight against the Soviets that invaded their country. They have done it too against the British that invaded their country.
Pakistanis (non-Arabic) are too busy settling old business against India to bother with the US.
Iran (non-Arabic) has dropped the talk about opposing the western decadence at all costs, since they have signed interesting deals with European companies, and would have done the same with American companies if the US had been more tolerant towards them. The "great Satan" has become a mere propaganda phrase.
It leads us to think some Arabs, and not whole Islam, are at war against Israel and the US. The aim of fundamentalist organizations is to make as many Arabs as possible eager to fight this war, rather than simply looking for a better daily life. Terrorism is today's weapon, because it is the only weapon that works to some extent. The Arab-Israeli wars have shown us the Arabs are currently unable to match western militaries in a "fairly" battle.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:27
|
|
No doubt, gsmoove, the Europeans began to push the Arabs out in the long wars of liberation in Spain, the large naval battles in the Mediterranean, the wars against the African pirates, and finally, the conquest and colonization of Africa by France, Italy, and Spain.
In recent history, we see the Serb efforts to push the Islamic peoples of Bosnia and Kosovo out of greater Serbia.
Yet, the wars between Islam and the West are two-way streets. But for most of history, Europe was on the defensive.
I simply have never seen a dramatic statement by some grand Caliph that Islam must now live peacefully with its neighbors. Rather, Ataturk had to overthrow the Caliph in order that Turkey begin to live in peace with its neighbors.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:27
|
|
Bebro, here is a copy of a portion of the timeline:
791-792 Byzantine Empress Irene imprisoned by son; regains power.
797 blinds son Constantine and takes full power. (Proposal to marry Charlemagne?)
795–816 Pope Leo III
802-810 Byzantine Emperor Nicepherus I deposes Irene
810-813 Byzantine Emperor Michael I Rangabe
813-820 Byzantine Emperor Leo V the Armenian
813 Synod of Mainz declares 4 days of Christmas celebrations
814-840 Louis the Pious (le Débonnaire) rules Franks. Crowned at Rheims, 816. In 817 he divided kingdom among his sons
816–817 Pope Stephen V
816-17 1st Monastic Reform Movement Benedict of Aniane; for strict observance of Benedict’s rule
817–824 Pope Paschal I
820-829 Byzantine Emperor Michael II the Amorian ; end of Syrian, start of Phrygian, dynasties.
824–827 Pope Eugenius II
827 Pope Valentin (40 days)
827–844 Pope Gregory IV
829-842 Byzantine Emperor Theophilus
837 New division of Frankish Kingdom between Louis the Pious and son Lothar I
840–855 Lothar I King of franks, crowned 823
770-840 Einhard, Scholar of Charlemagne’s court
844 ? Pope John (diaconus) The mythical papess Joan or John VIII
844–847 Pope Sergius II
840-876 Louis the German, King of Germany
843 Treaty of Verdun divides Franks into German (-911), French (-987), and Italian (-875) lines.
846 Arab sack of Rome
847–855 Pope Leo IV
855–858 Pope Benedict III
855 Pope Anastasius.
855 Lothar divides Italian Kingdom among his sons
855-875 Louis II (in Italy)
858–867 Pope Nicolas I
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
|
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
Yet, the wars between Islam and the West are two-way streets. But for most of history, Europe was on the defensive. |
Because it was too much divided between kingdoms and fiefdoms too much involved in fighting each other rather than uniting behind a common enemy. Crusades were the few occurences where hints of European unity existed, and they weren't "defensive" at all.
Europe was really defensive until 732. It was rather defensive until the 14th century, when it became fully offensive until the 20st. Does it mean European are more or less warlike ? No, it does only mean they had enough force to be on the offensive from 14th century on, and the Arabs weren't enough.
Bebro :
I see two key elements that explain the recurrent use of religion by Arabic rulers :
- Islam is about 600 years younger than christianty and its existence had a huge impact on the expansion of the Arab empire and population. In comparison, Rome used its state-religion to consolidate its empire, not to conquer it. As such, Islam is closely bound to politics from the beginning.
- Sunni Islam is not organised enough to have any equivalent of the pope. The pope had the most organised power structure in medieval Europe, and had huge influence in the politics of kigdoms. In order to build more modern administrations, the Kings had to get as much power as possible, which put them at odds with the pope. In the fight for power that ensured (sometimes militarily), the pope eventually lost, and the King's mundane power was admitted as being superior as the pope's on Earth. In short, it meant the Kings could only strive by ripping the pope of many of his powers. It was the beginning of the separation between state and church, a process that still continues today.
In Sunni Islam, there was not such a hard opponent to the caliph. The caliph would claim the title of "Ruler of the believers" and assume himself as the one religious authority. This means the basic mechanics of separation between church and state didn't happen until the Turks went on their conquest, with their policy of relative religious tolerance.
Shiite Islam was closely bound to Persia, so the religious authority pretty much applied to only one country. The big Ayatollahs (who never had as much powers as the pope anyways) had not the biggest feature of the pope, which is to rule the religious matter of several divided countries.
20st century independant Arabic countries are closely tied to Islam in this respect, but most are not Islamic countires, because their ruling elites didn't want to share power with the clergy, or were animated through socialistic ideals. The rise of Islamist countries is quite recent, and can be seen as a reaction to the forceful separation between Church and State. I expect the iraqi Shias to have strong religious demands in this context.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
JohnT
|
 |
Capitalist
Mar 1999
time: 00:27
|
|
In regards to the Moslem "sack" of Rome, here's what Will Durant says:
"Fortified by mastery of the Mediterranean, the Saracens now looked appreciatively on the cities of Southern Italy. As piracy was quite within the bounds of honored custom at this time, and Christians and Moslems raided Moslem or Christian shores to capture infidels for sale as slaves, Saracen fleets, mostly from Tunisia or Sicily, began in the ninth century to attack Italian ports. In 841 the Moslems took Bari, the main Byzantine base in SE Italy. A year later, invited by the Lombard Duke of Benevento to help him against Salerno, they swept across Italy and back, despoiling fields and monasteries as they went. In 846, eleven hundred Moslems landed at Ostia, marched up to the walls of Rome, freely plundered the suburbs and the churches of St. Peter and St. Paul, and leisurely returned to their ships. Seeing that no civil authority could organize Italian defense, Pope Leo IV took charge, bound Amalfi, Naples, Gaeta, and Rome in alliance, and had a chain stretched across the Tiber to halt any enemy. In 849 the Saracens made another attempt to seize the citadel of Western Christianity. The united Italian fleet, blessed by the Pope, gave them battle, and routed them - a scene pictured by Raphael in the Stanze of the Vatican. In 866 the Emperor Louis II came down from Germany and drove the marauding Moslems of south Italy back upon Bari and Taranto. By 884 they were expelled from the peninsula.
... Italy, perhaps Christianity, had had a narrow escape; had Rome fallen, the Saracens would have advanced upon Venice, and Venice taken, Constantinople would have been wedged in between two concentrations of Moslem power. On such chances of battle hung the theology of billions of men."
Source: The Story of Civilization, vol 4: The Age of Faith, Will Durant (1950). Page 290.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:27.
Apolyton Time is 00:27. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
17-04-2003 04:52
The statement most famously was used to stop a violent US backlash against muslims within the country, then said again and again to ensure the world that he was just joking when he said crusade. So again, where are these massive amounts of non-muslim people proclaiming Islam as a religion of peace? I certainly don't and I'm as bleeding heart lefty as they come!
I should tune in to MTV more often, then, I guess. 
I thought civil wars were the common way to put a new clan at the shogun position, and the periods of peace were much shorter than what you said.
|