Israel/Palestine Murders 18 November

[Tom]

@Tom, No I wouldn't hate you if I found out you were Muslim, you seem decent so even if you were, I'd be cool with you. Also it's not particularly a religious war. The perpetrators just happen to be Muslim, if they were Chinese instead, I'd be all hating the Chinese. I care more because they're trying to take out the only Jewish country but they're attacking all over the world, to me this looks like these groups actually want a completely Islamic world and unless they're put down hard, won't stop trying.

I'm not really qualified to comment on the subject matter but I think the hating of an entire religious or ethnic group due to the atrocities perpetrated by the few is quite concerning. I just feel that hating an entire group is relegating the majority which are probably just like you and me to the level of the few nutters.

[Pentagathus]

I've based it on pure speculation. Is there anything else to make a guess either way on? Not especially. People/countries are usually moderate before slipping into un-moderateness. No, they've been trying to get a Kurdistan through the 'proper channels' forever. The Iraqi government has no interest of giving them anything. They're probably going to (rightfully, by the way) ask Europe for some land from those countries mentioned to make their own country. I think it'll go up for debate and be a major global decision in the next 10 years. Again, pure speculation.

No, not denying that. Anyone fighting ISIL is by default better than ISIL. I can't say they will be in 20/30/40 years time though. Which doesn't really mean anything to be honest as nobody will be the same in that time, however Islamic nations have the predisposition of being especially hostile.

No, people are usually moderate and then usually stay moderate. There's no reason to assume the Kurdish people would become radicalised following independence and it seems rather unlikely. Yeah the Iraqi government doesn't want Iraqi Kurdistan to secede, and yet Iraqi kurds are still supporting said government in the fight against IS. If they had let IS destabilise Iraq further it would have given less legitimacy to the Iraqi government and hence improved the chances of Kurdish secession. Yet they are fighting IS because they are opposed to such extremism, which really doesn't support the view that they themselves would turn to extremism.

No, Islamic nations are not predisposed to be hostile. Nations with a recent history of sectarian violence and serious political instability are predisposed to be regions where conflict and extremism may be relatively common yes, but that description is very distinct from Islam. Again, look at the rest of the Islamic world.

[Clockwork]

@Penty, What I meant by the moderate thing was that there are those two options: stay moderate or not. There is a chance, however small, that they will choose 'not'. In case this wasn't clear I am in favour of them getting their own country. They're fighing IS because IS is trying to wipe them out. They're in the same situation as Israel, however they lack the means to defend themselves and they lack their own country to defend. I don't think it's really anything to do with being opposed to IS, which yeah, they say they are which proves only that they say they are. If they didn't, they wouldn't be getting any support from the west and IS would probably succeed in killing the vast majority of Kurds. This is just my cynical view on it though. They could also really be against IS and would be fighting them even if they had the option to be neutral and had nothing to gain from it. Saying definitively either way is further speculation though.

Islamic powers throughout history have been hostile (rightfully or wrongfully so) to anyone not of Islam. I'm not blaming the Islamic faith for that, I blame the people that want an excuse for a fight. Today, sure there are peaceful Islamic nations but they're the ones that are more westernised

@Tom. Yeah I've said like 3 times it's irrational. But they're also not exactly few. Not the majority by any means but it's thousands rather than like a few hundred.

[Othko97]

Islamic powers throughout history have been hostile (rightfully or wrongfully so) to anyone not of Islam. I'm not blaming the Islamic faith for that, I blame the people that want an excuse for a fight. Today, sure there are peaceful Islamic nations but they're the ones that are more westernised

Source please.

[Son of the King]

But they're also not exactly few. Not the majority by any means but it's thousands rather than like a few hundred.

There are 1.6 billion Muslims in the world, even if there are hundreds of thousands extremist Muslims out there committing atrocities and so on, that is 1 person in every 10000. If its thousands, then its 1 in a million.

[Clockwork]

Whichever way you want to slice it, it's more than a few. How many western terrorists are there comparative to population? I would say a few. Compare that with the Muslim population and 'a few' doesn't really cut it. Muslims are still the most likely people to be trying to kill you (after family members) than any other. I don't get how this is even debatable.

@Othko: Really? Ottoman Empire, Moors invading Iberia in 711 and subsequent Reconquista, Umayyad Caliphate. Also bear in mind I said rightly or wrongly. You may or may not argue that each of these were justified hostility but each of these killed at least large parts of the non muslim populations of the places they passed through if not almost all of them.

[Othko97]

Muslim societies have actually been historically more tolerant than western ones. For most of history the caliphates actually allowed westerners and non-Muslims to live in their cities with nothing more than a tax, whereas western society would prosecute non-Christians.

Islamic Spain was a multi-cultural mix of the people of three great monotheistic religions: Muslims, Christians, and Jews.

Although Christians and Jews lived under restrictions, for much of the time the three groups managed to get along together, and to some extent, to benefit from the presence of each other.

It brought a degree of civilisation to Europe that matched the heights of the Roman Empire and the Italian Renaissance.

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/history/spain_1.shtml

After the initial conquests, the caliphate often exercised a degree of religious tolerance towards non-Ismaili sects as well as towards Jews, Maltese Christians, and Egyptian Coptic Christians

On the Fatimid Caliphate. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatimid_Caliphate

"If anyone harms (others), God will harm him, and if anyone shows hostility to others, God will show hostility to him." Sunan of Abu-Dawood, Hadith 1625.

"Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians...and (all) who believe in God and the last day and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve."  The Qur'an, 2:62

Source: http://www.religioustolerance.org/islam.htm

As you can see, not only does the Qur'an preach tolerance, but for much of history this teaching was actually followed. Let us contrast now with western society, who extradited all none catholics, burned many, many people at the stake for "witchcraft" and were generally very intolerant to anybody else.

Note, I am not saying that Muslim societies are tolerant for todays standards, but certainly for the time there was a level of tolerance that just wasn't in the West - people accepted other religions and were generally non-violent towards one another. Also I accept that the quality of some sources may be less than respectful, but the general consensus is that there are valid sources pointing out the tolerance.

Your evidence is less compelling. You cite the Ottoman empire, when you live in a western country who had an empire which spanned about a quarter of the world and was very intolerant of other societies. Thus violence from empires and kingdoms in conquering is not exactly evidence is it? By your logic, you should hate all westerners looking at what we did to the globe. Citing invasions and conquests is not valid evidence for your point, as almost everyone at the time was the same.

So, I ask again. Source please.

[Clockwork]

First off: I didn't say whether anyone else was or wasn't. Western society being tolerant or otherwise historically is not important

The bit you're quoting from the moorish iberia page was later on, not during the conquest. Furthermore if you read the Life for a non-muslim bit on that page, you can clearly see it wasn't exactly a great place to be.

The ruling Islamic forces were made up of different nationalities, and many of the forces were converts with uncertain motivation, so the establishment of a coherent Muslim state was not easy.

A lot of people converted either by force, in fear or to get out of the social gutter. The penalty for leaving Islam was death.

Look here http://explorethemed.com/reconquista.asp if you want more information on the Reconquista I mentioned. As an aside http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martyrs_of_C%C3%B3rdoba this is a stronger argument as to how tolerant of other faiths Moorish Iberia was. The Christians there had to force their own executions to be martyred.

That wasn't the point though, the point I was making there was that Umayyad guys slaughtered pretty much all the sort of people who used to be Visigoths.

The Fatmid dynasty was a good thing for the Islamic world, yes. I didn't say each and every one of them was evil incarnate.

Your third source is frankly ridiculous though. From a site called religioustolerance.org. If I get a link from thequranpreachesevil.org I'm guessing that wouldn't count as evidence that the quran is intolerant?

I have read at least half the Quran and like every holy book it's hugely contradictory. It does say in it that all other religions are false and that those worshiping them are perverted transgressors (punishment is eternal torment under the eyes of Allah). It preaches both tolerance and hatred, it's the people that read it make up their minds which bits are the most important and which bits to follow. Some are going to say tolerance is the main message and all that, others are going to say that fighting against the enemies of Allah (all-non muslims) is the most important. So, it's like all religions tbh.

Othko you're shifting this argument waaay off track but here you go. Whether or not westerners were better or worse at having an empire is a completely separate discussion. You asked for examples of Muslims killing the peoples they conquered if they didn't convert, and I gave you some. Why would you think I would be talking about anything other than invasions? The sources are all naturally going to be wars from kingdoms and empires. Everyone was at the time.... So? I'm saying they did, not everyone else didn't. Why would I be hating westerners when my entire overall point was that Muslims are more likely to be the ones causing various violent bullarmadillo around the world than anyone else? I don't get how this has even become a debate, it's just true. The argument has deviated so far from the original point it's become ridiculous.

[Othko97]

My point is that Muslims were no worse than the rest of the world at the time, and were actually better in terms of tolerance than most others. I didn't ask for examples of Muslim conquests being violent I asked for evidence to back up your point, which seemed to be that Muslims were historically more violent than other groups. Thus showing that Western society was also violent at the time is a valid criticism of what seemed to be your point earlier. If your point is not that Muslims were historically more violent than others at the time, but just violent, then all groups continuing from that era should also get a share of the self-admitted irrational hatred you insist on attempting to rationalise.

The article on Moorish Iberia was to show that religious tolerance was further advanced in that region in comparison to everywhere else at the time: around the 8th and 9th centuries elsewhere anybody non-Christian had no citizenship, which even second-class citizenship is better than. Thus it was advanced in comparison to the rest of Europe at the time, not modern day Britain, which I would never claim it to be.

Again, atrocities committed are no evidence that Muslims are historically particularly violent, as to argue that would be to argue that everyone is particularly violent.

I didn't say each and every one of them was evil incarnate.

You're right, you said you will assume all Muslims are evil incarnate until proven otherwise, which is just as backwards.

I did point out that my sources were poor, although on closer inspection it seems that the questioned source does have some background of legitimacy. This can be judged from the page detailing the site's goals.

I am not shifting the conversation off track, you explicitly stated that Muslims were violent historically, in order to justify your belief that they will be particularly violent today. I asked for a source which would show that Muslims were particularly violent in the past in order to justify this statement, as I believe we live in a reasonably peaceful society, and that pretty much all the planet progressed with us into this. Essentially I wanted evidence of your implication that Muslims have deep-seated violent tendencies which are not shared by the rest of us. You are yet to show this. I assumed you would be talking about something other than invasions as this would be necessary as evidence to back up your point, as the rest of the world committed atrocities during invasions, and they progressed to being more peaceful. I suppose you could have a belief that all people just want to fight in the manner you suggested, but if that's the case why specify Muslims in particular? You could have just said "people", which is a statement which is far more reasonable.

[Clockwork]

I said hostile, not violent. You're reading into what I'm saying what you want to. Hostile does not necessarily mean violent. I only called the modern day ones violent. Christians fought each other over land, money, power etc. Muslims, as penty said, have more sectarian hostility.

No you're not getting it at all. Forget the history thing, it was my mistake to mention it, it wasn't necessary, we'll disagree on what constitutes hostility and who was worse than who, I'm sure we can each list sources until the end of time.The rationalising is for why Muslims are more likely to commit violence *now* than any other demographic. This just started by me deciding not to patronise by saying 'I like Muslims but the extremists are terrible' when it just isn't true for me. I don't think you're going to argue me out of this way of thinking. You're getting all het up on an opinion. Who cares if I hate muslims? Why does that even matter to you? It shouldn't, it's completely inconsequential other than to note my bias. The link I posted first demonstrates one of my only points in this whole thing: Israel are using justified force against Hamas. The other point was this: Muslims are more likely to kill you than any other demographic today. That point is worthless, which I've already said, because it's just obvious as nobody else is actively trying to kill us at the moment.

[Jubal]

For the sake of my currently slightly wibbly brainspace I'm keeping off debating, but in terms of my brief historian's input:

Christians fought each other over land, money, power etc. Muslims, as penty said, have more sectarian hostility.

I'd disagree with this, or at least I'd like to clarify it - sectarianism has been a very major problem in Christianity, and was a major influence on warfare approximately up the thirty years' war in Europe - and for longer in the Americas. After that the increased power of centralised states kinda put a damper on things - one tends to get major religious wars in periods when there are a large number of sub-state-level actors able to use force independently, and that hasn't been seen in Western Europe for some time (and where it has been seen in the Americas there often has been a sectarian element to violence). I think land, money, and power drive most wars in the Islamic world as well to be honest - groups like the Taliban, Al-Quaida, the Islamic State, etc, are really a relatively modern phenomenon.

Ok, I'm done
*Puts helmet back on and flees*