Define conservatism

[Lilly Marlene]

Did I? Did the compliment seem to serve its purpose?

I can only answer that once I know what the purpose was.

Palerider,
I came late last night to check on your claim about the Andalusian Myth.

Unfortunately I fell asleep at the keyboard, but there is one website I did find before that and I certainly intend to explore it ... "just for fun" as you would say.

Note that I will be referencing an actual website here with verifiable content ...vs. a list of dates and events with zero substantiation.

http://www.thirteen.org/edonline/teachingheritage/lessons/lp3/index.html

 

[Lilly Marlene]

Two other comments:

1. We have come far afield of the thread topic as I'm sure you can see, and I would like to get back to that after establishing that the historical account is subject to the bias of whichever author one chooses.
* We will be able to see that as we explore the website I pasted and possibly others.*

2. I submit that - had you been born in Iraq or Saudi Arabia - you would not have the same non-negotiable contempt for Islam. Do you agree ?

 

[Friendindeed]

Not part of this topic USMC. The pm was about something else.

Hey thanks buddy.

 

[Lilly Marlene]

[Anyone who read this before, please notice I have come back and bolded quite a bit more of the text; earlier I sent it before I was done because I had to log off prematurely].

....the entire religion is based on the writings of one man and it must be taken entirely on his word and that one man lived as vile a life as anyone ever has.

This is from the Catholic Encyclopedia - a less than friendly witness just to demonstrate my intention of avoiding hagiography. A note says it was entered in 1910, which is probably why they call Islam "Mohammedanism", but they give a more recent additional source ... ask me if you want that one. Bolds will be mine :


I. THE FOUNDER
Mohammed, "the Praised One", the prophet of Islam and the founder of Mohammedanism, was born at Mecca (20 August?) A.D. 570. Arabia was then torn by warring factions. The tribe of Fihr, or Quarish, to which Mohammed belonged, had established itself in the south of Hijas (Hedjaz), near Mecca, which was, even then, the principal religious and commercial centre of Arabia.

The power of the tribe was continually increasing; they had become the masters and the acknowledged guardians of the sacred Kaaba, within the town of Mecca - then visited in annual pilgrimage by the heathen Arabs with their offerings and tributes - and had thereby gained such preeminence that it was comparatively easy for Mohammed to inaugurate his religious reform and his political campaign, which ended with the conquest of all Arabia and the fusion of the numerous Arab tribes into one nation, with one religion, one code, and one sanctuary. (See ARABIA, Christianity in Arabia.)

Mohammed's father was Abdallah, of the family of Hashim, who died soon after his son's birth. At the age of six the boy lost his mother and was thereafter taken care of by his uncle Abu-Talib. He spent his early life as a shepherd and an attendant of caravans, and at the age of twenty-five married a rich widow, Khadeejah, fifteen years his senior. She bore him six children, all of whom died very young except Fatima, his beloved daughter.

On his commercial journeys to Syria and Palestine he became acquainted with Jews and Christians, and acquired an imperfect knowledge of their religion and traditions. He was a man of retiring disposition, addicted to prayer and fasting, and was subject to epileptic fits. In his fortieth year (A.D. 612), he claimed to have received a call from the Angel Gabriel, and thus began his active career as the prophet of Allah and the apostle of Arabia. His converts were about forty in all, including his wife, his daughter, his father-in-law Abu Bakr, his adopted son Ali Omar, and his slave Zayd. By his preaching and his attack on heathenism, Mohammed provoked persecution which drove him from Mecca to Medina in 622, the year of the Hejira (Flight) and the beginning of the Mohammedan Era. At Medina he was recognized as the prophet of God, and his followers increased. He took the field against his enemies, conquered several Arabian, Jewish, and Christian tribes, entered Mecca in triumph in 630, demolished the idols of the Kaaba, became master of Arabia, and finally united all the tribes under one emblem and one religion. In 632 he made his last pilgrimage to Mecca at the head of forty thousand followers, and soon after his return died of a violent fever in the sixty-third year of his age, the eleventh of the Hejira, and the year 633 of the Christian era.

The sources of Mohammed's biography are numerous, but on the whole untrustworthy, being crowded with fictitious details, legends, and stories. None of his biographies were compiled during his lifetime, and the earliest was written a century and a half after his death. The Koran is perhaps the only reliable source for the leading events in his career. His earliest and chief biographers are Ibn Ishaq (A.H. 151=A.D. 768), Wakidi (207=822), Ibn Hisham (213=828), Ibn Sa'd (230=845), Tirmidhi (279=892), Tabari (310-929), the "Lives of the Companions of Mohammed", the numerous Koranic commentators [especially Tabari, quoted above, Zamakhshari 538=1144), and Baidawi (691=1292)], the "Musnad", or collection of traditions of Ahmad ibn Hanbal (241=855), the collections of Bokhari (256=870), the "Isabah", or "Dictionary of Persons who knew Mohammed", by Ibn Hajar, etc. All these collections and biographies are based on the so-called Hadiths, or "traditions", the historical value of which is more than doubtful.

These traditions, in fact, represent a gradual, and more or less artificial, legendary development, rather than supplementary historical information. According to them, Mohammed was simple in his habits, but most careful of his personal appearance. He loved perfumes and hated strong drink. Of a highly nervous temperament, he shrank from bodily pain. Though gifted with great powers of imagination, he was taciturn. He was affectionate and magnanimous, pious and austere in the practice of his religion, brave, zealous, and above reproach in his personal and family conduct. Palgrave, however, wisely remarks that "the ideals of Arab virtue were first conceived and then attributed to him". Nevertheless, with every allowance for exaggeration, Mohammed is shown by his life and deeds to have been a man of dauntless courage, great generalship, strong patriotism, merciful by nature, and quick to forgive. And yet he was ruthless in his dealings with the Jews, when once he had ceased to hope for their submission. He approved of assassination, when it furthered his cause; however barbarous or treacherous the means, the end justified it in his eyes; and in more than one case he not only approved, but also instigated the crime.

Concerning his moral character and sincerity contradictory opinions have been expressed by scholars in the last three centuries. Many of these opinions are biased either by an extreme hatred of Islam and its founder or by an exaggerated admiration, coupled with a hatred of Christianity. ...

 

[Friendindeed]

The New Testament superceded much of the old orthodox laws. Eating pork, circumcision, wool and cotton, etc. No such revision exists within islam. This is why very little outcry from muslims about the violence done in the name of their religion. To speak out against the violence is to make oneself known as an infidel and in islam, they still actually do kill you for heresy.

You are stating that they kill any fellow Muslim who speaks out against the violence ?

 

[Lilly Marlene]

Just wanted to drop in with a third source for you palerider.

It is

http://www.masnet.org/history.asp?id=354


where you will find items such as the following ...which stands in stark contrast to the observation you made earlier in this thread about Islam having been spread by the sword:

Nothing is further from the truth and more inimical to Muslim - non-Muslim relations than the claim that Islam spread by the sword. Nothing could have been and still is more condemnable to the Muslims than to coerce a non-Muslim into Islam. As noted earlier, Muslims have been the first to condemn such action as mortal sin. On this point, Thomas Arnold, an English missionary in the Indian Civil Service of colonial days, wrote:


…of any organized attempt to force the acceptance of Islam on the non-Muslim population, or of

any systematic persecution intended to stamp out the Christian religion, we hear nothing. Had the caliphs chosen to adopt either course of action, they might have swept away Christianity as easily as Ferdinand and Isabella drove Islam out of Spain, or Louis XIV made Protestantism penal in France, or the Jews were kept out of England for 350 years. The Eastern Churches in Asia were entirely cut off from communion with the rest of Christendom throughout which no one would have been found to lift a finger on their behalf, as heretical communions. So that the very survival of these Churches to the present day is a strong proof of the generally tolerant attitude of the Mohammedan governments towards them.

 

[palerider]

You are stating that they kill any fellow Muslim who speaks out against the violence ?

It happens regularly Friendindeed. I don't know of any case here in the US, but that is not to say that it hasn't happend quietly in a manner that would be known among community or mosque members but not to the general public. Muslims certainly have been murdered in this country and not all the cases have been solved.

In other countries, it happens regularly. Remember Salman Rushdie? Condemned to death by the iranian spiritual leader, bounty on his head. People in islamic nations are still killed for all the reasons the qur'an says they should be killed.

I heard a news story on the radio yesterday talking about a man and woman who were arguing over sex. He wanted it, she didn't. In a fit of rage, muhammed (the man's name) tore out his wife's eyes because she would not submit to him as was required by their religion. He is serving 30 years, she is permanantly blind.

Yes. They do kill fellows who speak out because once they speak out, they are no longer fellows, just infidels.

 

[Friendindeed]

Salman Rushdie had the fatwa because of what he wrote so it was not because he spoke against violence.

 

[palerider]

Note that I will be referencing an actual website here with verifiable content ...vs. a list of dates and events with zero substantiation.

Not a problem. If you report something that I don't agree with, I will pursue information on my own to dispute it. I won't whine because you don't feel like spoon feeding me every bit of information that I feel like I need to decide whether you are telling me the truth or not.

 

[palerider]

I submit that - had you been born in Iraq or Saudi Arabia - you would not have the same non-negotiable contempt for Islam. Do you agree ?

I probably wouldn't because in those countries, people who don't follow islam to the letter are killed.

 

[Friendindeed]

I think both points of view are valid. It is not unreasonable for Lily to expect palerider to give a source when he makes statements as facts. But he has a point to that she could just go ahead and prove it wrong.
Lily on your first link it looks like it's supporting the point but I can't open the jewishgate links they gave. Maybe a technical problem right now. Have to go to work anyway. Be good you two.

 

[palerider]

The Koran is perhaps the only reliable source for the leading events in his career.

Here is the key sentence Lilly, and the qur'an condemns him as a thieving, murdering, raping, torturing, pedophile terrorist. Read it sometime keeping in mind that it is the most reliable source for learning about his life.

 

[palerider]

where you will find items such as the following ...which stands in stark contrast to the observation you made earlier in this thread about Islam having been spread by the sword:

Lilly, the qur'an itself describes islam as being spread by the sword. Now which do you believe is the more credible source?

 

[Lilly Marlene]

It happens regularly Friendindeed. I don't know of any case here in the US, but that is not to say that it hasn't happend quietly in a manner that would be known among community or mosque members but not to the general public. Muslims certainly have been murdered in this country and not all the cases have been solved.

Typical. Look at the construction above. "It happens regularly ...I don't know of any case here in the US, but that is not to say..."
Oh yes, it could happen some day. Thank you for illustrating just how feeble the grounds can be, for those who wish to malign an entire group.

In other countries, it happens regularly. Remember Salman Rushdie? Condemned to death by the iranian spiritual leader, bounty on his head. People in islamic nations are still killed for all the reasons the qur'an says they should be killed.

Point of information. You represented that any Muslim who spoke out against 'the violence' gets killed. Salman Rushdie wrote regarding the instance when Muhammed caved in to the yearning of his people to worship female deities. It had nothing to do with speaking out against violence. So I'm afraid that episode does not support your claim.

I heard a news story on the radio yesterday talking about a man and woman who were arguing over sex. He wanted it, she didn't. In a fit of rage, muhammed (the man's name) tore out his wife's eyes because she would not submit to him as was required by their religion. He is serving 30 years, she is permanantly blind.

Really gotta love hearing the incrimination of an entire religion, based on hearsay which Mr. Rider learns on right wing talk radio, don't you ?
Notice no names are given for these two people even though the case has supposedly been prosecuted.

 

[Lilly Marlene]

Not a problem. If you report something that I don't agree with, I will pursue information on my own to dispute it. I won't whine because you don't feel like spoon feeding me every bit of information that I feel like I need to decide whether you are telling me the truth or not.

Somebody sounds a little cranky !

Ya won't whine, huh ?
Well that is something which time will tell; after all there have been no occasions thus far in which I've posted two or three hundred years' worth of questionable 'facts' and then resolutely refused to substantiate any of them.

But I think the audience should be apprised, don't you [you know, that 'audience' you told me about a couple of days ago].

Alright then.
Henceforth - within this thread at least - the customary conventions of debate have been suspended by one Mr. Rider: it is to be regarded as merely so much whining from here on, if anyone should request documentation of alleged "facts".

This new protocol will no doubt facilitate a heavier volume of 'fact' presentation so it should be of great advantage for debaters -
unless they wish to convince anyone of anything.