From that prism, I wouldn't understand my argument, either.
Aggressor: a person, group, or nation that attacks first or initiates hostilities; an assailant or invader.
Hostile: opposed in feeling, action, or character; antagonistic: hostile criticism; characterized by antagonism.
Actions have consequences.
Agree. And i guessing we would also agree it would go both ways? His preaching was vocal, but certainly not 'in your face'.
Historically misleading. Europe went through some pretty dark times during the Islamic invasions, which retarded growth in every measurable form. It wasn't until after the Crusades, and universities were formed, that Europeans started having access to all the info Muslims had looted from Rome, Greece, Constantinople and other locales (and added some worthy observations of their own to). That is when European sciences began to flower. By then, Islamic scientific and social advancement had stagnated.
Overall, actually isn't much to debate here per say....... Yes and no.
Yeah it would be dishonest to say that conflicts didn't cause retardation, though i highly doubt that was the sole reason for the Dark ages, and blame can't solely be put on the east. Alot of knowledge from islamic empires WAS used positivly by europe, during this flowering they certainly were influenced by texts from islamic nations, discoveries etc made well after building upon foundations from the byzantine,persians. And,I was too general in the last discussion we had, i should not have said that the concept of universities was inspired by madrassas, rather it had a profound influence on universities instead, but not created by them. Overstatement. They borrowed structurally many concepts seen in the arab maddrassas, how they run the schools and the like.
And i think your underestimating the muslim influence by saying the knowledge that europe took back was simply knowledge looted from conquest. Lots of discoveries occured well after conquest. Of course, alot of science is based of teh previous work of others. I think it's only practical to borrow whats useful from one cultural discipline and use it in another, or another scientist, or as a docter, im sure if you saw some useful new technique/research created by a japanese docter that you find great for yoru discipline, im sure you would use it. The islamic empires certainly didn't forbid scientific discovery or incresing knowledge.
Im sure, for the most part most theologians had no problems with scientific advancement in europe. I know thomas aquines was greatly influenced by both Aristotle and Al-ghazzali(yay bad spelling
) It would be ignorant to say previous work of conquered territories had nothing to do with it. It did. I only wish to point out that, they simply didn't recycle old knowledge. They added to it. Unfortunatly, it didn't go both ways. While the europians integrated and benefitted from knowledge/discoveries by muslim empires, the muslims failed to advance more so(other than maybe the Turks and persians. Large chunks and influential, but still not the core) thats not to say advancement didn't occur, just as you said, stagnation began. And the fact the sultans and kings were more interested in fighting eachother and keeping themselves in power and closing themselves off from the rest of of the world, isn't going to foster intellectual flowering. They screwed up.
So i guess we agree...kind of.
See? Big difference between Deuteronomy chapter 7 and Numbers Chapter 31. Much better. But is this supposed to prove that Moses was a bigger villain than Mohammed? Or a lame attempt at defending your religion by pointing your finger at someone else's?
Actually no, i don't think that is relevent. Just bringing up how christs actions really varied, as he commanded moses. Also wanted to point out that christ and the other prophets were really totally different charecters. Also, there is alot recorded about mohammed, probably both false and true about his public AND personal life. While other figures thats just not the case.
So what you're saying is, that even though Jesus (who was a prophet, remember?) said Do unto others what you would have them do unto you... God turned around and told Mohammed to go back to 'Eye for an Eye.' And you explain this by the mush that an eternal being cannot be comprehended?
Ill admit, i actually have to study this more, and it's place in islam. But what was taught to me as a kid, though i forgot about as an adult until i remembered it, was that mohammed wasn't really trying to create a new revelation, simply go back to the old ways. View is older scriptures were corrupted, and that is another debate all together. There is a huge place for forgiveness in islamic text and thought though, both pre and post hijra.
The dissonance, man, the dissonance. Ouch.
Always. I have always kept room for doubt. Imam Ghazzali(yes spelling, but i say it right) talks about the place of doubt as being vital to spirituality.
Also medication(no joke)
I appreciate it. I hate erroneous claims.
No problems.
You may not believe, but you do care, otherwise you would not have jumped on me for what I said. It would be really odd for someone to claim Jesus was a monster (a madman, well, that's plausible). But to me, the shoes fit Mohammed and Joseph Smith. I think these two charlatans have done great harm with their shenanigans.
Or great good. Perspective.
That's not Agnostic. That's Sophist, or Cynic.
Im still not sure though.
Agnostic: a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as god, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
And i beleive that.
Truth, and fact, are distinguishable from fiction, and falsehood. To say that truth is relative is a cop-out.
To a degree yes, but I believe it. Especially considering the validity of ancient texts, and how they developed. Especially with alot of new info im getting.
[quote)gree. Perceptions can be tested, theories formulated, conclusions drawn. Was Einstein a slave to his perceptions? Is Stephen Hawking limited to taste, smell, touch, sight and sound? I think not.[/quote]
Good example. But surely you admit that our senses can only percieve so much?
Define natural. As for disproportionate attacks, define disproportionate. I don't see, given the circumstances, how it's been disproportionate. Unfair, perhaps (but not IMO), but that just means Islam has finally joined the club.
Agree that muslims need thicker skins, they are not used to it. Or were not. I think you'll notice as time goes on, they are getting less and less reactionary toward blasphemy. Theya re simply getting used to it. But i do think disproportionate, considering so much that goes on in the world, especially when a place like Greece just had a terrorist attack, but didn't get much press. Or when i posted the europols of the proportion of domestic leftist terrorist attack attempts compared to muslim ones. Alot of the issues that are harped on by muslims can be applied to many other people aroudn the world, including coptics(most ive met are really cool) just reading about how, just as ex-muslim egyption converts often get oppressed or life threatened, apparently it's very common among ex-coptics who convert to islam. Threats and attacks on life.
CHINA has female infanticide even now, and other issues. But no one brings it up. And these are huge, real issues.
India and nepal, christian oppression(i won't even bother mentioning gughrat) and hindu extremist groups(remember the train bombing? Everyone thought it was pakistanis, but it was actually a hindu extremist group.)
I talked to my old antrhopology proff. And she told me that there is a disturbing world wide trend she and many other researchers have noticed, radicalization of nearly every religion and ideology. It's as if the whole world is becoming more and more polarized than before. I wish i had more to go on than a conversation. Id love to post a discussion on that, seems very interesting.
What do you think of Oklahoma passing (by 70%!!!) an amendment banning International (and by extension, Sharia) law? News of Sharia courts operating in England had a lot to do with this one.
Only informally, and on domestic issues for britian, no actual 'sharia' law. I don't believe in the implimentation of sharia, i think the secular state historically has done a way better job than theocracies.
And oklahoma really wasted it's time, as the muslim population in the states seems disinterested in this concept. Even in canada, when we had the possibility of faith based arbitration for domestic issues(legally) the government rightly denied it, but also extended it to any faith based arbitration other than that of natives.
No muslims gathered and rioted, no one got shot. There isn't even a push to repeal it. In north america particularly, this isn't really a threat.
Critique america for many things. But one thing we cannot critique america for is how it handled muslim immigration compared to europe. The immigrants tend to be more educated, and more INTEGRATED than in europe. In europe it seems they shipped a bunch of labourers(and yes educated folk in) put them in a 'ghetto'(i use this term loosely) where they fail to mix and interact with the rest of europe. Alot of it is their own fault, but also the fault of short sighted europian leaders.
I read, i don't remember where, but the more laizze faire system(haha spelling again) of the united states(and yes canada, were more left than you folk, but more right than europe) makes the folk mix and integrate more.
For all the attempted attacks in north america, the community tends to be alot less retarded than in europe. I include canada in this as well, were actually more hawkish on immigration than people think. Europe has some real problems with it's immigration. Forced marriage is a problem in britain, including sikh and hindu families in britain.
People blame the multicultural model when looking at britains muslim(and to a lesser degree immigration problem with other folks) and look at the superiority of the melting pot. But hell Canada has a multicultural model, and we still haven't had the same problems as Europe. Is it that Canada and america are simply bigger land masses? Or is it taht because these are continents filled with immigrants, that historically the culture is better at dealing with immigration? Afterall, if you think about it, your typical dutchman/swede probably never seen an arab/or south asian individual until probably the sixties. And in some cases even eighties i guess.
And then suddenly there was a huge, huge, wave of people coming in suddenly.
While north america? I how many times in our combined histories did we have waves of immigrants coming in? Chinese, Blacks, Irish. Alberta seems to have lots of ukrainians.
I think i may be on the way to answer my own question.
EDIT: Added more to some points.
In any case, I hardly see these things as muslim or Islamic. You can find them (or not) in any religion, or in the absence of one. Plus, I'm not impressed with the practice of letting people live their lives provided they accept Muslim rule and pay a tax. You call that humility and respect, I'll call it worse than western custom by far. 
You are a funny man, Ahmed. 
Talk about winding up the bases of each party.