Coyote
Well-Known Member
You have yet to provide a source for that.
-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
Understanding the Enemy
- Thread starter bewitched
- Start date
You have yet to provide a source for that.
Werbung:
I was not attacking a strawman, I was launching a pre-emptive strike before you began rabbiting about the history of Islam
The Caliphate under the Ottomans for example traded with Venice and had an alligence with the French for a long time against other European powers. They never forcefully converted entire nations who became their subjects. It hardly sounds like they were chasing out the infidel and enforcing their religion upon everyone.
I guess since you extol the virtues of the Ottoman Caliphate, we shouldnt be surprised that you consider alligence with the French in opposition to European powers to be a good thing.
Now look whos beating the strawman!!!
Did I ever extol the values and claim it was a good alligence???? No, I just pointed out that the Ottoman Caliphate was not following the literal interpretation of the text and massacring non believers.
Did I ever extol the values and claim it was a good alligence???? No, I just pointed out that the Ottoman Caliphate was not following the literal interpretation of the text and massacring non believers.
Your exerpts from wikipedia support my statements and contradict yours.
"On the note of repressive caliphates -it was certainly not the case with the Ottoman Empire of around 1400-1600. They were one of the most free socities".
Sounds like you are extoling the virtues to me.
And evidently your knowledge of the Ottoman empire is based upon some Islamic apologist viewpoint. "Massacring non believers" is exactly what they did. Their territorial expansion was at the tip of a sword.
The Massacres of the Khilafah
http://debate.org.uk/topics/history/xstnc-6.html
Coyote
Well-Known Member
I disagree. You can not have "seperation of church and state" when state is run on religious law.
According to http://www.tylwythteg.com/enemies/reconstruct2.html:
A Christian Reconstructionist "firmly believes in the separation of church and state, but not the separation of the state or anything else from God." Now what exactly does that mean? It does not mean seperation of church and state as we understand it to be.
These guys appear to be proposing a society little different from Islamic extremists.
Consider their view of capital punishment:
Epitomizing the Reconstructionist idea of Biblical "warfare" is the centrality of capital punishment under Biblical Law. Doctrinal leaders (notably Rushdoony, North, and Bahnsen) call for the death penalty for a wide range of crimes in addition to such contemporary capital crimes as rape, kidnapping, and murder. Death is also the punishment for apostasy (abandonment of the faith), heresy, blasphemy, witchcraft, astrology, adultery, "sodomy or homosexuality," incest, striking a parent, incorrigible juvenile delinquency, and, in the case of women, "unchastity before marriage." (whoa! Is this honor killing?)
Well I'm not. I was just pointing out that compared to other governments of the time they were a far sight better.
Well do I have to go through this again? I'm an agnostic, but firmly anti-organized religion. I have little respect for any religion although I try to respect the people who follow it and their beliefs as an individual. I am not an apologist, I just want to try and put in perspective for you that Islam is not really any worse than any other religion.
Of course, it seems extremely satisfying for you to label me an apologist and you must regard this as some kind of debate winner because of your mass use of the word.
Because Christianity has never had a massacre commitied in its name? Lets ge real - this is organized religion we're talking about. Its full of evil and slaughter. My point is that when it comes to Islamic Caliphates they tended to be better than their Christian counterparts.
bewitched
Well-Known Member
call the FBI, they will confirm.
Coyote
Well-Known Member
I said "your knowledge of the Ottoman empire is based upon some Islamic apologist viewpoint". No doubt, written by an apologist for the faith, accepted as fact by you. It doesnt make you an apologist. Simply uninformed.
Coyote
Well-Known Member
Apologist.
Well there's one all to frequent buzzword these days.
Translation: I can't refute your argument any other way so I'll just call you an apologist.
Arguement? Not "repressive"??? "most free socities"??? The imperial house of Osman? Are you kidding?
No, not at all. As I have been saying, the Ottoman empire was still a savage place at times and the religion certainly did its ideology no favours. However, compared to the Christian governments of the time it was far less repressive.
I didn't realise presenting the truth about the Islamic religion in ways you personally don't like made me an apologist.
I said "your knowledge of the Ottoman empire is based upon some Islamic apologist viewpoint". No doubt, written by an apologist for the faith, accepted as fact by you. It doesnt make you an apologist. Simply uninformed.
Werbung:
Coyote
Well-Known Member
I believe the point he was making was that in many ways, it was not as repressive as some of the other religiously-ruled societies (such as the Catholic monarchies) of the time. Certainly, the Jewish people did better under them then they did under the Christians. That's not being an "apologist". It's simply looking at history, as opposed to cherry-picking, which you seem to be doing.
