Which Religion is the one truly most Murderous?

.

but then how can you attribute the murders and opression to china's values and religions, when the very same was uprooted ? all the intolerance that maoists did - was certainly not in the name of chinese values or religions & was, in fact, very much in denial and opposition of the same.

so how could you say "Conclusion? All religions have been at one time or another intolerant and murderous.". china/chinese have been intolerant and murderous - precisely when they HAVEN'T been religious/traditional AT ALL. in red china, people could be persecuted if a book of taoism was found in their house !!

or did you mean the murder of "chinese values and religions" - attributabe to maoism ?

However far grater and far more systematic oppression was done by godless states that placed themselves above all others.

China's history was very different from that of Europe, but, even there intolerance occurred among Taoists, Buddists and others before the rather pragmatuc neo Confucian synthesis evolved.

And even there irreligious tyranny produced the same (or worse) results as did its counterparts in the West.

if it was done by a god(religion)less state, and in a state (as in, "state of drunken-ness") of religionless-ness, then how can you blame the religion?

if it indeed is "irreligious tyranny", that "produced the same (or worse) results as it did in the west" - then surely its the irreligious totalitarian maoism, that is to be blamed, & not the amalgam of old chinese wisdom and buddhism that used to be their belief system till mao's great walk.

I agree. I don't know what makes you suppose I have suggested otherwise.

The long history of China also has demonstrations of oppression and violence at the hands of advocates of Taoism, Buddism and the teachings Confuschus - though long ago China reached a synthesis that was stable, even static, for many centuries. .....
.
.
.
Conclusion? All religions have been at one time or another intolerant and murderous

That bin Laden declares a fatwah for holy war against the West constrains no one in the Muslim World.

Iran is the only nation in the history of Islam to truly be ruled by a Muslim religious hieracrchy,

and that only since 1979, and with a continuing use of the 1906 constitution, although the force of that document is likely only notional.

The extent to which Muslim terrorists can command the obedience of other Muslims is exactly to the degree that Muslims feel put-upon and under attack by the West.

We have made this bed in which we are obliged to lie, due to the high-handed manner in which first the English from the Great War to the early 1960's attempted to impose upon the middle east,

and then the United States from Truman's recognition of Israel in 1948 to the present.

The simple-minded retort of the partisan conservative would be to demand if i blame America for this terrorism. Yes, i do blame the policies of previous administrations, of both parties, for stupidly creating the situation with which we have to deal. Yes, i do blame the current administration for not only failing to effectively deal with the situation, but to exacerbate it. No, i don't blame the American people for having naively trusted venal and selfish men who have made these policies. But it is long past time that Americans learned how this all has gone down, and demand that government begin to act effectively to deal with the situation. Declaring a crusade against Islam is certainly not going to do the trick

Really? By implication therefore none of the multitude of other "fatwas" by Muslims against the West constrain any Muslims? Interesting idea. I doubt that almost any of the one billion Muslims on this planet would agree with you, whether they are in favor of such fatwas or not. A religious ruling is followed by those who believe in the ruling authority. Therefore, those that believe in bin Laden are indeed constrained by his rulings, no?

And the other nations in the history of Islam were? Or are you simply referring to the twentieth century? Or are you saying that no Islamic kingdom before the twentieth century was ever ruled by a Muslim religious hierarchy?

Which, would mean that Iran has invented a new religion since 1979, which indeed they have - It's called Wilayat Al-Faqih, Rule of the Jurist. And, as with all other Shia cults and some Sunni cults, it will either disappear or become another religion other than Muslim.

This supports an idea which would declare that Islam is a religion of self-pity; a victimology.

Which would surely support the idea that therefore Islam would be the most violent of religions, no?

You are positing that it is the English manner of behavior from WWI onwards that is responsible for Islamic fascism?

You have moved from the silly to the uniformed.

If you wish to magic away all of Islamic history up until modern times, I still would suggest that you might investigate the alliance through marriage of Muhammad ibn Saud and Muhammad ibn Abd al Wahhab in the 1700's. The Middle East and Islamic terrorism has been shaped by this particular factor above all, however incompetent you may feel the English have been.

Study the Middle East. Study Islam.

Study Fascism and Marxist-Leninist-Stalinism.

These particular combinations of ideologies have everything to do with the present state of the Middle East. And it is written, chapter and verse, why, based on these philosphies, it is necessary and convenient to have Israel as a focal point.

As you brought up bin Laden initially, you conveniently ignore that his initial manifesto in attacking the United States had nothing to do with Israel. Nothing. But, you do not find that peculiar?

Again, in light of the real history of Islam, not one seen through the rosy anti-imperialistic glasses of Lawrence of Arabia, or some other romantic twaddle, it is an historical fact that overwhelming, absolute force is the only method that has ever worked against formerly imperialistic Islam and today's bastard child of Islamic fascism.

Please help us in your effort to "J'accuse" our current administration in exacerbating the present Islamic tendency towards violence and Death Cult worship, by showing us how, in the past, reconciliation and appeasement have created peace and prosperity for those that Islam wished to destroy? That is a list I want to see.

Moishe3rd wrote:

Really? By implication therefore none of the multitude of other "fatwas" by Muslims against the West constrain any Muslims? Interesting idea. I doubt that almost any of the one billion Muslims on this planet would agree with you, whether they are in favor of such fatwas or not. A religious ruling is followed by those who believe in the ruling authority. Therefore, those that believe in bin Laden are indeed constrained by his rulings, no?

Bin Laden holds no religious brief. Those who choose to follow him choose to recognize his dicta, and that is choice, not constraint.

Within an Islamic community, there is no priesthood. The imams and mullahs can claim a special knowledge of the Qu'ran, and the qu'adis can interpret the Qu'ran and the hadith to expound Islamic law, but the governance of the community is always in the hands of the ulama, the aggregate of righteous men in a community. Any man seen as righteous by the community is accounted an alim, and if the opinion of an imam is at odds with this judgment, the imam is likely to be ignored. Islam is the most decentralized, least priest-ridden religion which has ever attained to the status of major religion.

Quote:

And the other nations in the history of Islam were? Or are you simply referring to the twentieth century? Or are you saying that no Islamic kingdom before the twentieth century was ever ruled by a Muslim religious hierarchy?

That's absolutely what i am saying. Even the first four Orthodox Caliphs could not agree on governance, and whether or not all residents of Muslim controlled territory would be subject to sharia--this was the great divide between Ali and the Companions. In the end, the policy of the Companions prevailed, and non-Muslims who were also not pagans (i.e. Jews and Christians such as the Syriac and Nestorian Christians) were allowed to follow their own custom and culture, in so far as it was not considered to be sacreligiously offensive to Islam. Policy in matters military and diplomatic were in the hands of the "holy warriors" who lead the armies, of which Ali is the only officer ever to have attained to the Caliphate. The only religious duty of the Caliph was to assure the security of pilgrims to the holy places of Islam--a duty which consecutively the Seljuk and the Osmali Turks took up to establish a weak hegemonic authority. In Islam, each man and woman stands in direct communication with Allah, with no priestly intermediary. Muslims states have come no closer to theocracy than the interpretation of the Qu'ran and the hadith as a basis for civil ajudication where custom had no solution.

Quote:

You are positing that it is the English manner of behavior from WWI onwards that is responsible for Islamic fascism?

The term "islamic facsim" is an absurdity. It does not involve a rational definition of fascism, which is a politico-economic system of governance based upon autocratic authority supported by industrial and capitalist interests.

I am not positing, i am stating that when Arthur Balfour and Winston Churchill divided the middle east into French and English spheres of influence, they did so for venal and selfish imperial reasons. Churchill at any rate did. Balfour had originally conceived of a division of Turkish spoils of war which left Mosul under French control. Churchill, who had been First Lord of the Admiralty at the time when the Royal Navy switched from coal-fired reciprocating steam engines to oil-fired steam turbine engines, assured that all of the petroleum producing regions formerly controlled by the Turks fell into the English sphere of influence. The political and social abortion which became Iraq was a direct consequence of this idiotic and self-interested policy. When the Ibn Saud clan made a devil's bargain with the Wahhabis to seize control of the Arabian penninsula, the English quickly cut a deal for the petroleum rights of the penninsula, and the Ibn Saud clan agreed to Wahabbi demands for conservative Islamic monarchy, and then assumed the ancient duty of assuring the security of pilgrims to the holy places.

Quote:

If you wish to magic away all of Islamic history up until modern times, I still would suggest that you might investigate the alliance through marriage of Muhammad ibn Saud and Muhammad ibn Abd al Wahhab in the 1700's. The Middle East and Islamic terrorism has been shaped by this particular factor above all, however incompetent you may feel the English have been.

I've already noted the alliance, which was nugatory until the English cut their deal and agreed to help prop up a Saudi throne, and which was only made acceptable to the other Arabian tribes precisely because of that alliance.

Quote:

Study Fascism and Marxist-Leninist-Stalinism.

I have, and well enough to know that you are attempting to tar Muslims with this brush because of your deep and irrational hatred.

Quote:

These particular combinations of ideologies have everything to do with the present state of the Middle East. And it is written, chapter and verse, why, based on these philosphies, it is necessary and convenient to have Israel as a focal point.

Nonsense.

Quote:

As you brought up bin Laden initially, you conveniently ignore that his initial manifesto in attacking the United States had nothing to do with Israel. Nothing. But, you do not find that peculiar?

Not in the least bit, his grudge against the United States centers upon the stationing of "infidel" troops in Holy Arabia--i've noted that elsewhere in these fora. It may be useful to attempt to put forth silly ideas as mine in attempting to bolster your feeble argument, but it is a falsehood. The sole reason i mentioned Truman's recognition of Israel was because prior to that event, the Americans were not seen by Muslims as "players" in the middle east. The United States certainly supported the puppet Shah in Iran during the Second World War, but that was not appreciated in the Muslim world, which simply saw more English meddling. But after 1948, when England withdrew from Palestine, and Truman recognized Israel, Muslim attention was drawn to American policy. The United States then susequent colluded in the overthrow of the Mossadegh government in Iran, and helped to prop a puppet king up on the Afghan throne. It is from the era of these events, taking place in the period 1948 to 1953 that the attention of the Muslim world was drawn to the United States. Were you not so obsessed with Israel and so full of hatred for Muslims, you might be able to appreciate that not everything has to do with Israel.

Quote:

Again, in light of the real history of Islam, not one seen through the rosy anti-imperialistic glasses of Lawrence of Arabia, or some other romantic twaddle, it is an historical fact that overwhelming, absolute force is the only method that has ever worked against formerly imperialistic Islam and today's bastard child of Islamic fascism.

When not viewed through the hate-colored glasses which you always wear, it is easy to see that Islam was never successfully imperialistic. The one successful Arab conquest was the tottering Sassanid empire. Even then, when Ali rode off to the mother of all battles in Persia, Islam began to fragment into sectarian sqabbling. Even the militarily successful Seljuk and Osmanli Turks were never able to do more than exercise hegemony over other regions of the Muslim world. Ayyub and his famous nephew Saladin were rebels against the puppet authority of the Seljuk's Caliph in Baghdad. The Mameluks of Egypt successfully used their military expertise to exercise authority in the Nile valley in despite of the Osmalis after the collapse of the brief Ayyubid dynasty. Once again, you are indulging your own fantasies, based upon a view of Islam as a monster to be slain. That is simply disgusting. Imperialistic Islam is a joke--anything approaching an empire in Muslim history has been based upon a militarily successful clan or tribe, such as the Seljuks, the Osmanlis and the Moguls, and Islam was something they embraced out of political expedience. It is easy to make a creature of nightmare out of Islam by speaking of "imperialism" or "fascism"--but it is totally false.

Quote:

Please help us in your effort to "J'accuse" our current administration in exacerbating the present Islamic tendency towards violence and Death Cult worship, by showing us how, in the past, reconciliation and appeasement have created peace and prosperity for those that Islam wished to destroy? That is a list I want to see.

Leaving aside your butchery of French, i am in no way obliged to explain what are nothing more than your hateful fantasies. I have never called for reconciliation and appeasement. Save your snide remarks and invidious comments for the Muslims you love to hate. I simply point out that the idiot policies of a long string of English and American governments, guided by a blind self-interest, have created the situation in which we currently find ourselves. I don't call for appeasement, just an end to institutionalized theft, and military adventurism for venal ends

Are you theorizing that only Muslims who have "religious brief" have the authority to issue fatwas? Maybe you could clarify this statement in light of your previous post . . . You may refuse to recognize bin Laden's "religious brief," but apparently, based your understanding of Islam, millions of other Muslims might feel "constrained" to do so....

There is certainly a difference of opinion here.
I would suggest that a more careful reading of history did indeed pit Muslim religious authorities against the established state, resulting in religious usurpation of power.
As you point out, all of the original Caliphates believed they were designated by Islam to rule. I would suggest that this implies a belief in the power of religious authority to govern.
Shia sects have always ruled based on religious hierarchy. For instance, the Fatimids, rulers of Egypt, believed they headed a religious movement, Ismaili Shia Islam, and challenged the Sunni Abbasids for control of the Caliphate.
I would suggest that all Islamic conquests and civil wars ended in the establishment of a new religious hiearchy by the triumphant tribe or sect.
I have already mentioned the conquest of the Umayyad dynasty by the Almoravides or the Murabits, who first imposed their religion on the Berber tribes of North Africa and later under fatwa by the religious authorities of Spain deposed the Umayyad princes due to their lack of Islamic morals and collaboration with Christianity.
They were succeeded by the Almohads, an even more fanatical Berber sect that wished to impose even greater religious authority on Muslim Spain.
Your odd belief that the Turks were irreligious and wished only to impose a "weak hegemonic authority" on their fellow Muslims as opposed to renewing religious authority is also at odds with historical fact.
All wars of conquest in Islam were religious.

No.

Fascism is a political philosophy; movement; or system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism. (Edit: this is false, racism is not a necessary component of fascism) You may choose to add whatever qualifiers you like, but the above is the definition of fascism.

As a point of fact, as Mussolini did indeed orginate the concept as we know it today, you should know that he based his fascist ideology initially on Marx and socialism. Lenin was an admirer of Mussoloni until he diverged into catering to all of the forces of the state, including your capitalists and industrialists. But Mussolini's base and core believers were always the peasants and the "proletariat."

Again, you write as if the Saud/Wahhab alliance sprang full-blown from the forehead of Churchill, ignoring 150 years of warfare and consolidation.
The only reason England dealt with the house of Saud was because they were the de facto rulers of the Nejd and had continuously, sometimes successfully and sometimes not, fought against the ruling Ottomans; the Egyptian rulers of the Hijaz; the al-Rashids; the ruling Hashemite dynasty of Mecca; and, meanwhile, just for fun, the entire Shia population of northern Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Southern Iraq. All of these wars were fought on the basis of establishing the Wahhabi cult under the patronage of the Saudi tribal sheiks. These were religious wars, in addition to being wars of conquest for land. They went hand in hand and the result is self-evident in modern day Saudi Arabia.
To suggest that the English were responsible for these conquests and wars is absurd.

Except that it was not acceptable to the "other Arabian tribes," as I have pointed out above. Neither with English support, nor during the 175 years before World War I.

I am not sure of your point here. You are declaiming that the leaders of various Islamic countries, let us specify Iran and Iraq, did not look to fascist ideology and Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist ideology as their models for goverance? And, in the case of Iran, for combining Islam with these models? You are wrong, as both the Ayatollah Khomeini and Saddam Hussein both claimed, loudly that they did embrace the ideals of fascism and Soviet ideology.

Your wish to associate fascism strictly with Nazi Germany is incorrect. Franco's Spain; the Afrikaaner Church; and the Utashi were all fascist. As were and are many of the present Islamic states.

No. It is worth noting that both fascism and (Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist Communism which I am mislabling as) Soviet ideology call for an external enemy on which the ruled masses must focus their hatreds in order for the State to rule successfully. Israel is a classic case of misdirected attention for the benefit of the ruling parties who have mismanaged their countries so badly.

However, again, you want to have your cake and eat it too. A constant belief of yours is that there is no "Dar Islam," that the Muslim world is dis-unified. However, you insist that there is a unified Muslim resentment against the United States for its meddling; against Israel; against England; and all other forces that have affected Islam for only the last 100 years. Then, you insist that the previous 1,000 years is null and void as far as this unified resentment goes. In your view of Islam, there is dissent when it suits your purposes and unanimity when it suits your purposes.
Islam is not united against the United States, England, or Israel. And, it is not united in its acceptance of the murder of innocents to achieve Islamic goals.
As with every philosophy in the world, Islam takes the path of least resistance in declaiming its goals.
The answer to why Muslims do not decry the murder of innocents in the name of Islam is very simple. They do not wish themselves, to be killed. This is unfortunate, but true.

You transfer your disdain for religion into all peoples, including Muslims.

As you believe that as religion is false, you believe that Islamic tribes or clans could not possibly truly believe in the doctrine that they claim as their religious authority.

To you, the "divine right of kings," is simply a convenient fable that rulers used to put one over on the stupid masses.

The clans and tribes you denigrate as politically expedient cynics were anything but.

You do see your world through the eyes of unbelief and refuse to allow anyone else, particularly Muslims, religious motives for their actions and, in this case, conquests.

Again, your belief is belied by the avowed statements of the leaders of Dar Islam today.
Islam was and is a religion tied together with conquest and control. The conquests of the tribes that you dismiss were indeed religious conquests.
This is historical fact, despite your efforts to dismiss it.

And, there is no historical record of any Islamic conquest ever peacefully co-existing with its "neighbor" until the particular Islamic kingdom was defeated.

I don't even know why you try and put the effort into implying that Islamic countries will peacefully co-exist without being defeated.

There are very few aggressive countries, peoples, or religions in the world that have ever peacefully co-existed until they were utterly defeated.

I apologize for my butchery of French. I though you might be cynically amused by the reference.

I confess to being bemused by your conclusion.
You appear to be writing that if only the United States (and?) would stop stealing and invading, there would be peace in the world.
I am sure that is not your conclusion, but I can draw no other inference.

Islamic fascism needs to be crushed until the point where Islam at large reforms its ideology.

This has been true of most conflicts in history.
Why do you believe that this one is so different?

That is simply a more verbose statement than was mine.

It does not apply to the Muslim terrorists, who are state-less. Had you applied it to the mullahs of Iran, or of the Taliban, it would have been more plausible. It is an absurdity to brand the terrorists as fascists, and is simply the equivalent of calling someone a Nazi as the highest order of offensive characterization. You make yourself look silly--although that is so common in your rants, that it is not to be wondered at.

No small achievement, that.

Those who work, conspire and kill to create a fascist state can be accurately termed fascists, even if, at the moment, they are out of power and have no state at their immediate disposal. This is quite in keeping with common usage.