|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
 Posted: Sat Jun 06, 2009 6:14 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| mises wrote: |
| Quote: |
| My point was more that it's clearly not Islam in and of itself that is intolerant, |
Have you read the koran? The koran (and hadiths) are islam. Are you familiar with the texts? |
Yes, I've read the Korean and yes, I've read the quotes. And while I'd certainly use them to criticize the religion in question the same way I'd use any religion's holy book, right now I'm referring much more to how Muslims actually live than what the religion in some pure, distilled form is about. The vast majority of Muslims are no threat to anyone beyond the fact that the serious practice of religion itself is a threat to modern society.
| mises wrote: |
| Quote: |
| as there have been Islamic Nations that have been tolerant. |
Examples? Also, tolerant of what? |
I gave an example in this very thread, the Ottoman Empire. As to tolerant of what, tolerant of non-Muslims living in their midst, practicing their own religions, and not living by strict Muslim law. What else would tolerance consist of? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 06, 2009 6:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| right now I'm referring much more to how Muslims actually live than what the religion in some pure.. |
But that isn't what you said. You spoke of islam, in itself.
| Quote: |
| I gave an example in this very thread, the Ottoman Empire. As to tolerant of what, tolerant of non-Muslims living in their midst, practicing their own religions, and not living by strict Muslim law. What else would tolerance consist of? |
You consider dhimnitude tolerant? Really? Do you consider segregation in the American south in years past to be tolerant? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 06, 2009 7:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
The vast majority of Muslims are no threat to anyone beyond the fact that the serious practice of religion itself is a threat to modern society. |
"Vast majority" in the context of 1,400 million people is a difficult expression.
If 99% of Muslims are of no threat - and I believe that - then does that mean there are 14 million Osama Bin Ladens out there?
Or are we talking 90% and 140 million Osamas?
| Fox wrote: |
| I gave an example in this very thread, the Ottoman Empire. As to tolerant of what, tolerant of non-Muslims living in their midst, practicing their own religions, and not living by strict Muslim law. What else would tolerance consist of? |
The Ottoman Empire's tolerance - if true - occurred despite Islam, not because of Islam. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 06, 2009 8:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So, now slavery is tolerant?:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2004/mar/11/highereducation.books
| Quote: |
North African pirates abducted and enslaved more than 1 million Europeans between 1530 and 1780 in a series of raids which depopulated coastal towns from Sicily to Cornwall, according to new research.
Thousands of white Christians were seized every year to work as galley slaves, labourers and concubines for Muslim overlords in what is today Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria and Libya, it is claimed. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_(Ottoman_Empire)
| Quote: |
| Slavery was an important part of Ottoman society.[1] As late as 1908, women slaves were still sold in the Ottoman Empire.[2] In Constantinople (today Istanbul), about one-fifth of the population consisted of slaves.[3] It was Arab traders who started the trans-Saharan slave trade, exporting black slaves from sub-Saharan African countries as far back as AD 1100 and the practice carried over into Ottoman reign. The Ottoman slave could achieve high status. Harem guards and janissaries are some of the better known positions a slave could hold, but slaves actually were at the forefront of Ottoman politics. The majority of officials of the Ottoman government were bought slaves, obviously they were raised free, but they were integral to the success of the Ottomans from the fourteenth century to the nineteenth. By raising and specially training slaves as officials, not only did they get administrators with intricate knowledge of government and fanatic loyalty, but they cut back corruption as an administrator would have no ties in the region, thus he would not favor one person over another when granting contracts.[citation needed] |
Fox. This is tolerant? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 07, 2009 3:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| Quote: |
| right now I'm referring much more to how Muslims actually live than what the religion in some pure.. |
But that isn't what you said. You spoke of islam, in itself. |
There are two ways one can talk about any given religion. One way is in reference to what it's religious texts and traditions refer to in a very exact sense. The other way is in reference to how the vast majority of people who consider themselves part of that religion believe and what they do.
In this case, I'm talking about Islam in the second sense. I understand you generally want to talk about Islam in the first sense, and I don't blame you for that, but I really don't feel most Muslims want to harm anyone.
| mises wrote: |
| Quote: |
| I gave an example in this very thread, the Ottoman Empire. As to tolerant of what, tolerant of non-Muslims living in their midst, practicing their own religions, and not living by strict Muslim law. What else would tolerance consist of? |
You consider dhimnitude tolerant? Really? Do you consider segregation in the American south in years past to be tolerant? |
Would you please define what you consider to constitute genuine tolerance before I respond?
| mises wrote: |
| So, now slavery is tolerant? |
While I'm certainly not pro-slavery, I'm not sure if grabbing people from another country and forcing them into slavery can be defined as non-tolerance per-se. I'll try to talk about that more after you've described your definition of tolerance, so as to be working under the same defintion as you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 07, 2009 3:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
The vast majority of Muslims are no threat to anyone beyond the fact that the serious practice of religion itself is a threat to modern society. |
"Vast majority" in the context of 1,400 million people is a difficult expression.
If 99% of Muslims are of no threat - and I believe that - then does that mean there are 14 million Osama Bin Ladens out there?
Or are we talking 90% and 140 million Osamas? |
I certainly understand what you mean; given the immense size of the group we're talking about, even a tiny fraction amounts to quite a few people. None the less, given I think that in reality there are far less than 140 million "Osmas" to use your word, we're talking about a fairly tiny sub-fraction of this immense group. Probably far less than 1% of Muslims are an actual threat in any real sense.
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| I gave an example in this very thread, the Ottoman Empire. As to tolerant of what, tolerant of non-Muslims living in their midst, practicing their own religions, and not living by strict Muslim law. What else would tolerance consist of? |
The Ottoman Empire's tolerance - if true - occurred despite Islam, not because of Islam. |
Well, my understanding of the Ottoman Empire's tolerance ultimately is tracable back to taxes. Muslim citizens of the Ottoman Empire got a tax discout, and as a result it was in the Empire's fiscal interests to not encourage converison, since members of other religions would pay higher tax rates.
While I agree that that fairly pragmatic, secular logic is ultimatlely despite Islam, one could just as easily argue that tolerance in the United States is despite Christianity rather than because of it. What matters is that a nation with a majority of a given religion can find within itself a capacity for tolerance for those who don't follow that religion. If the Ottoman Empire can do it, there's no reason any other Muslim nation can't, and if any Muslim nation can, there's no especial reason to condemn Islam in and of itself. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 07, 2009 6:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| mises wrote: |
| Quote: |
| right now I'm referring much more to how Muslims actually live than what the religion in some pure.. |
But that isn't what you said. You spoke of islam, in itself. |
There are two ways one can talk about any given religion. One way is in reference to what it's religious texts and traditions refer to in a very exact sense. The other way is in reference to how the vast majority of people who consider themselves part of that religion believe and what they do.
In this case, I'm talking about Islam in the second sense. I understand you generally want to talk about Islam in the first sense, and I don't blame you for that, but I really don't feel most Muslims want to harm anyone.
| mises wrote: |
| Quote: |
| I gave an example in this very thread, the Ottoman Empire. As to tolerant of what, tolerant of non-Muslims living in their midst, practicing their own religions, and not living by strict Muslim law. What else would tolerance consist of? |
You consider dhimnitude tolerant? Really? Do you consider segregation in the American south in years past to be tolerant? |
Would you please define what you consider to constitute genuine tolerance before I respond?
| mises wrote: |
| So, now slavery is tolerant? |
While I'm certainly not pro-slavery, I'm not sure if grabbing people from another country and forcing them into slavery can be defined as non-tolerance per-se. I'll try to talk about that more after you've described your definition of tolerance, so as to be working under the same defintion as you. |
No no. You said that the OE was "tolerant". I'm not going to define words for you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 07, 2009 12:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| mises wrote: |
| Quote: |
| right now I'm referring much more to how Muslims actually live than what the religion in some pure.. |
But that isn't what you said. You spoke of islam, in itself. |
There are two ways one can talk about any given religion. One way is in reference to what it's religious texts and traditions refer to in a very exact sense. The other way is in reference to how the vast majority of people who consider themselves part of that religion believe and what they do.
In this case, I'm talking about Islam in the second sense. I understand you generally want to talk about Islam in the first sense, and I don't blame you for that, but I really don't feel most Muslims want to harm anyone.
| mises wrote: |
| Quote: |
| I gave an example in this very thread, the Ottoman Empire. As to tolerant of what, tolerant of non-Muslims living in their midst, practicing their own religions, and not living by strict Muslim law. What else would tolerance consist of? |
You consider dhimnitude tolerant? Really? Do you consider segregation in the American south in years past to be tolerant? |
Would you please define what you consider to constitute genuine tolerance before I respond?
| mises wrote: |
| So, now slavery is tolerant? |
While I'm certainly not pro-slavery, I'm not sure if grabbing people from another country and forcing them into slavery can be defined as non-tolerance per-se. I'll try to talk about that more after you've described your definition of tolerance, so as to be working under the same defintion as you. |
No no. You said that the OE was "tolerant". I'm not going to define words for you. |
And I stand by that statement. You seemed to disagree, which meant you disagree with my usage, so I offered you a chance to correct me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 07, 2009 2:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So, tolerance = not killing? Or, tolerance = segregation + second class status + slavery?
That's a strongly amoral world you're living in. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 07, 2009 2:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
So, tolerance = not killing? Or, tolerance = segregation + second class status + slavery?
That's a strongly amoral world you're living in. |
Religious tolerance = allowing members of the non-majority religion to practice their religion in peace without trying to force them to convert.
I know you hate Islam, but don't you ever feel a bit too fanatical about it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 07, 2009 3:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ha. Yeah.
You're not that familiar with this. You're seriously going to state that there were not forced conversions in the OE? And that life was "peaceful"? Lordy lordy.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS271US271&q=%22mass+forced+conversions%22+%22ottoman+empire%22&btnG=Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=
And we're only really looking at their impact on the Occident and to Occidentals (plus Jews). Do you know what happened in India?
| Quote: |
| Religious tolerance = allowing members of the non-majority religion to practice their religion in peace without trying to force them to convert. |
This is nuts. Firstly, members of the religious minorities were only afforded the protection if they were "people of the book", though this expanded towards the end of the OE. "Tolerance" was only for your people and mine. Second, muslims held slaves that were only non-muslims. Tolerance? Camon. Second class status, 2-3 additional taxes, children forced into islamic education, slavery and we're not even getting into day to day life yet.
If Canada today did this to the muslims, would you consider it "tolerant"?
There is nothing to gain from fabricating history and glossing over 'bad' stuff so as not to hurt muslim feelings. Don't do it. I know you desperately want to be balanced and nuanced but this is too much.
Anyways, if you still insist that the above is "tolerant" I suppose nothing much else is worth saying to you. Move to France in 15 years. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 07, 2009 3:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm familiar with what you're saying, and I understand your point. I don't think it's unreasonable, though, to judge countries based on the the standards of the time period they existed in. You keep bringing up slavery, for instance, but slavery was the norm throughout an immense part of history. My Jewish ancestors had slaves too, I wouldn't say that made them less tolerant of other religions. Rather, it meant they were partaking in the standard social norms of the time; members of other social groups were often taken as slaves.
| mises wrote: |
| There is nothing to gain from fabricating history and glossing over 'bad' stuff so as not to hurt muslim feelings. |
I agree, and I don't do it. None the less, I do judge Muslims by:
1) The historic norms of the time period they lived in (when talking about the past).
2) The average Muslim as opposed to the fanatical Islamist.
Muslims have done some attrocious things in history, and yes, some of it has been religiously driven. So have Christians. I'm not a particular fan of either group. I don't feel either group is especially worse than the other (though one group at a global level does happen to be far wealthier than the other, which does impact their social behavior). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lithium
Joined: 18 Jun 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 07, 2009 7:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| dmbfan wrote: |
| People have to realize that there is no middle when it comes to Islam. To them, we are considered infedels and it is OK to kill those who do not accept Alah. |
This is silly, most Muslims are moderates who just want to get on with their lives. There is also plenty of middle ground when it comes to Islam co-existing with other religions. There's evidence, for example, that the Ottoman Empire -- a decidedly Islamic Nation -- not only tolerated non-Muslims but actually discouraged conversion of it's non-Muslim citizens to Islam. That doesn't sound fanatical and lacking in middle ground to me.
Sometimes I feel like some parties in the West are actually more fanatical in their opposition to Muslims than most Muslims are in their opposition to the West.
| dmbfan wrote: |
| Ya know....one of the main reasons Islamists hate the West so much is that we consider women equal human beings.....which kind of goes against their little dick, insecure ideology. |
Islamists (i.e. people who support the political movement of Islamism) aren't necessarily representative of Muslims in general, nor are they necessarily the group the President wants to reach out to. I suspect he's much more interested in the average, normal, non-fanatical Muslim population. |
Call a spade a spade. Muslims hate the US just like our current president. Is he or isn't he one also? Hmmm.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lithium
Joined: 18 Jun 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 07, 2009 7:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| dmbfan wrote: |
| 1. Were are living in times of the Ottaman Empire...get in the now. |
My point was more that it's clearly not Islam in and of itself that is intolerant, as there have been Islamic Nations that have been tolerant.
| dmbfan wrote: |
| 2. When planes are bombed and hijacked...who are responsible 90% of the time? |
I don't think planes get bombed and hijacked with enough frequency to draw any statistical conclusions.
| dmbfan wrote: |
| 3. Do muslim countries, such as......oh, lets say....Iran or Saudi Arabi, conceed to the DEMDANDS of Christian minorities? |
Saudi Arabia does not, but Iran actually does make certain concessions to Christians. Christians are allowed to sell food generally prohibited to Muslims, and are allowed to follow their own religion's laws regarding marriage and inheritance. According to wikipedia, they also have a certain guaranteed level of representation in the Iranian Parliament, but there's no citation for this, and I'm having a hard time finding any confirmation of this elsewhere beyond the fact that there are evidently 2 Christian Armenians in membership (which may constitute the guaranteed representation).
Is this a vast amount of concession? Is it enough concession? Perhaps not, but it's certainly something, and it's more than Iran had to do. Honestly I was a bit surprised by it.
| dmbfan wrote: |
4. Perhaps most muslims ARE moderates...but, I see VERY little press
or open demands for the extreme side to stop what they are doing.
|
There was just a post about such press here on the Current Events Forums, so some occurs. I agree they could and perhaps should do more, but people the world over could and perhaps should do more in terms of political activism. Given how apathetic many Westerns are regarding world events, it's hardly surprising similar situations exist elsewhere. Most people just want to live their lives happily. |
 "According to wikipedia..." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lithium
Joined: 18 Jun 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 07, 2009 8:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hyeon Een wrote: |
Wow.
If DMBFan and so on either believe that the President of the USA is a Muslim, or that he is MORE of a Muslim than Christian then.. wow. He couldn't tick many more "Christian" boxes than he already did as a black man.
I personally believe though that the chap pretended to be a Christian in order to get elected in a fervently religious nation which would not accept anyone but one; he's a bright, well-educated chap. I don't believe that he thinks that a magician was resurrected after a naily death and I certainly don't believe that he thinks some Muhammed who married 9 year old girls was a prophet.
I think he's an intelligent guy who pretended to be a Christian in order to get elected. I think lying is bad; but if it's for the greater good it's OK. I don't think he pretends to be a christian for nefarious purposes, and I don't think he put his life on the line and ruined a normal life for his children for some silly sky god; I think he did it because he honestly believes that he will help the US, and as a consequence the world, by bringing his knowledge, experience and most importantly wisdom to the position of President.
And, like it or not, I think he'll be remembered as the greatest president in the last 40 years or so, no matter what he does.
He may only be a coupla hundred days in, but I think he is a great, great guy, and hopefully he will become a great, great president. His early days are being dominated by an economic Katrina which kind of slows things down, but things will get back on track. He's arrived in an economic storm and sorting out the mess is taking the wind out of his recently-elected-sails but I hope he can overcome it and use his legitimacy to do great things. He will be remembered as a JFK.
Anyone who believes this guy is a MUSLIM of all things is an idiot of the highest order. He's too clever for that nonsense. |
What has this man-child done besides be elected. Not a thing...... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
