Crap Throwing Monkey

Are you mentally retarded? Do you understand the difference between 1000 AD and 2000 AD? My "implication" [sic] was that Islam, as written in the Koran, is required to be tolerant, and that it was in its "goldern era" (more than "was", it was a shining example of such to the rest of the world). Now...political Islam is reactionary and xenophobic...and contrary to the history of Islam and teachings of the Koran. And the will of God; most of these !@#$ers (bin Laden is a good example) will roast in hell, if they believe what they truly claim to. The problem - your problem, specifically - is that those !@#$ers are the ones that get the press, and you're far too damned lazy, arrogant, and downright stupid to bother doing any background research on them or their beliefs.

Actually, that's not revisionist. It's all factual. Irrespective of your breathtakingly moronic reply (that Neil Armstrong vignette was a really convincing counter-argument). You can look it up...in contemporary histories, not modern ones, if you feel compelled to learn Latin and dig around in European libraries. The FACT is that Islam was the most vigorous, most tolerant, richest society (financially, culturally, and intellectually) in the world until the disaster of the Genghisid invasion. The modern intolerance of Islam is less a function of Islam itself as it is a backlash against the Western colonial period.

http://www.thejakartapost.com/yesterdaydet...id=20060512.G02 You want to use Sulawesi as an example? I'll match you atrocity for atrocity...

Yeah...Americans are terrorists because they hide behind plastic and duct tape. Get a new shtick, devil woman. And stop agreeing with me. It makes me look bad.

Do you have any idea how many people had to die worldwide in the name of Queen Victoria's Pax Brittanica? (Britain was fighting at least two simultaneous wars against "savages" for all but twenty three months of Queen Victoria's reign. Pax Brittanica. ) Or of the extreme intolerance that characterizes modern Pax Americana? This idea that intolerance and violence is unique to Islam is seriously retarded.

Educate YOURSELF. A good chunk of early Renissance culture came from the Muslim world via trade with Venetian and Genoese merchants. Literacy rates in the Islamic world in the 900-1200 time period were highest in the world. Most major cities had libraries; at least four of them (Merv, Samarkand, Baghdad, Bukhara) surpassed the Classical "Great" Library at Alexandria. Outside of China, Baghdad was the center of scholarship in the world. Islamic science laid the foundations for Renissance astronomy, mathematics (especially), medicine (the name of the author escapes me...but the first medical textbook was written by an Arab in Baghdad around 1100, and was used in Western universities well into the 1500's), engineering, agriculture, economics, and chemistry (Islamic scholars were centuries advanced beyond Western alchemists). Most of what we consider novel and unique advances in the Renissaince were predated in the Islamic world by two to four centuries (there's actually evidence that Gutenberg's press was preceded by the use of movable type printing in the Islamic world around 1250). Islam also made major contributions to the art, architecture, and music of the High Middle Ages, as well - not in a stylistic sense (though the modern major scale is based on an Arabic musical foundation), but in an inspirational sense; the great cathedrals of the Middle Ages, for example, are stylistically unique but recall in scale not any architecture of the classical era but the great mosques of the Islamic era. And Islam was spread more by trade than conquest...through Persia, greater India, Southeast Asia, Indonesia, Central Asia, and Western China. Through those regions, Islam was able to peacefully coexist with Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism/Confucianism, local Christian sects (Nestorian Christianity, for example) and the various tribal shamanist religions.

Though it is accurate to say that we are in a war with reactionary, militant Islam. The problem is that people think reactionary, militant Islam is mainstream and representative of most people. Islam isn't the problem as much as extremism.

I'm sure that just proves Simon's point. Somehow.

I read it a few days ago. That was pretty much the gist of it. I actually thought it was a well-written and impressive theological (not just Christian) treatise. Too bad the "Hot Falafel " Muslim crowd only got the "The Pope is evil" bullet points off al Jazeera.

No, actually, it's because when I have to argue with idiots like you, it's easier on you if I stoop to your level. Unfortunately, right now I only have time for the gratuituous insult in reply to yours, not a substantial post. That'll come later...after I read the page you linked and obviously didn't read yourself.

Which still doesn't link liberalism to shot basketball players.

Except the "fact" and "reality" is that that is not conversion to Islam. Islamic teachings themselves specifically state that such a conversion isn't recognized. And if you can't discern between the individual acts of lunatics and overall religious doctrine...that's your own problem. By your logic, Christianity supports pedophilia because of David Koresh.

Bravo. They were sort of okay to Jews and Christians, but Hindus? Zaoastrans? Nope sorry. They deserved death. Hardly the model of tolerance. It's like me hating blacks, but being ok with hispanics, since they have some european lineage. I'm still a racist !@#$. Same goes for Islam. 778497[/snapback] And your sources for the Islamic oppression of Hindu and Zoroastrianism are...? Hinduism and Islam coexisted rather well until the British partition of India. India's most well-known architectural landmark - the Taj Mahal - was actually built by a Muslim emperor.

I'm trying to remember the last time someone put a gun to a person's head and said "Convert and become a Muslim, or die!" Really...name me ONE instance of forcible conversion to Islam. Just one. From any point in history. You can't, because there aren't any, because the Koran does not and has not ever recognized forcible conversion. Ever. Which is very unlike Christianity.

"Wantonly slaughtered"? Most Islamic cities had thriving Christian and Jewish communities well into the 20th century. Outside of the greater Palestinian area (which, not conicidentally, was where the Crusades - the Christian invasion against Islam - was fought), tolerance of other religions was the rule rather than the exception. In fact, tolerance of people who hold other beliefs is written into the Koran: That right there is a pretty unambiguous statement of equality before Allah. And, in fact, the Koran advocates - rather strongly, actually - forgiveness of Christians and Jews for not being Muslim.

Yeah...it's George Carlin's fault.

Actually, JSP is discussing how Islam is, was, and has always been an uncivilized religion. Despite it being the flower of civilization for a couple hundred years. And yes, that IS relevant, because if you don't understand the history of the Islamic world, you won't understand how it went from being a truly great civilization to the reactionary, xenophobic, intolerant civilization it is today. Or, in other words, those that don't learn from history are condemned to repeat ignorant nonsense on the internet.

Just like the 11th century Islamic world.

Brian Moorman's punting: Miami's average drive start: their own 22. Miami's average drive start after punts: their own 14. Buffalo's average drive start,. by the way, was their own 37.

Compared to what? The modern liberal Christian western ideal? For the era...the Islamic world was the center of trade, culture, art, literature, and science in the world. Even in modern times, their devotion to such would be considered commendable. When it came to personal freedoms and religious tolerance - what are usally considered the modern hallmarks of "civilization" - they were second only to the Mongols. It was safer to be a Jew in Merv or Samarkand or Baghdad than it was in Paris or Rheims or Venice back then. Of course, your argument COULD be that Islam never divorced the political from the religious...much as Europe believed in the "Divine Right of Kings" until around 1800, and some of America still does (witness Kathleen Harris' incredibly ignorant remarks from a few weeks back). Or maybe your complaint is simply with violent conquest. Good thing civilized western nations never do that.

I suspect the Buddhists are pretty innocent of it, though...

Yeah. Comparing a career average to one game. That's statistically valid.

Civilized and technologically advanced? You mean, like...Islam in the 11th century?

That was a phenomenal performance. Seriously, has anyone ever seen a punter have a game like that before?

I think everyone on this board should email that to him...