Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 27

Thread: Got a reply from good ol' Steve...finally!

  1. #1
    Mehmed II's Avatar Vicarius
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Istanbul, Turkey
    Posts
    2,740

    Default

    Remember the republican guy I spoke to? Check it out:

    Hi. My name is Egemen Birben; I'm a 16 year old Turkish-muslim who studies college here in the U.s. I have a few objections to make about your article ''Death Threats from Muslims.'' I would like to state some facts and ask a couple of questions to you (by quoting some parts from the article)
    * * * * About the first 15th objections, what Khalil said were all false and I completely agree with you. This stuff, slavery, sexism, chauvinism, pedophilism, rape, murder; hundreds, maybe thousands of cases exist in a muslim community. But does this mean that my religion encourages such acts? Does that mean the community of Iran is a representative of a true Islamic community and it's laws are the representatives of the true Sharia?
    Egemen, could you please tell me how I can determine what is true sharia and what is not?
    In Christianity, there is one person who bears sole authority for determining what is true - the Pope.
    While it is true that many Christians do not agree with the Pope, there is no one else in all Christendom who claims the kind of sole authority he claims.
    Point to me the ONE person in Islam who claims sole authority to decide what is true sharia and what is not.
    In fact, there is no one person who makes such a claim.
    Thus, what constitutes true sharia and true Islam is not something even Muslims can determine.
    Osama bin Laden's understanding of Islam is no less true than your understanding or that of any one of a billion other Muslims. You can argue that Quran and the Hadith all day long and twice on Friday, but you cannot appeal to an authority who can tell you for certain that one is wrong and the other right. There is no Muslim who claims to have sole authority over all Muslims - none.

    As for the Crusades, give it a rest, Egemon. Islam launched holy war and swept over HALF of Christendom in a century. Christendom did nothing in response. You invaded Christian Spain and half of France.
    Christendom did not declare crusade.

    The Spaniards and Franks pushed you out of Spain, but then you pushed up through the Balkans over the next five hundred years. You enslaved Christian children, raised them as Muslims, often castrating them, and forced them to fight against their own relatives as slave armies.
    Christendom did not call crusade.
    You cut off trade routes and pilgrimage routes to the holiest sites in Christendom.
    Christendom did not call crusade - we developed the stations of the Cross devotion instead.

    Only after you destroyed the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and threatened Constantinople with such military might that the Emperor asked the Pope for assistance - only then was Crusade called, after SIX HUNDRED YEARS of warfare and provocation.

    Now tell me, Egemon. If Christians conquered half of Islam, enslaved Muslim children, castrated them, forced them to fight in slave armies against their own relatives, and cut off access to Mecca and Medina so you couldn't make the Hajj, would you simply develop an alternate prayer devotion in response?

    Don't give me that Muslim crap about Crusades.
    I could write a similar tirade against your invocation of the Inquisition.
    It's total crap to even start the conversation.
    The only people who entertain that kind of idiocy is Western journalists and Muslims who don't know history, which seems to be most of you.

    I'm not trying to be mean, Egemon, but I'm fed up with Muslims who haven't bothered to do their research.
    ''We'' did invent science - Invent is actually a wrong word to use, science is discovered not ''invented'', since your main language is English I guess you know better than I do-, the Islamic world contributed the science much more than you think. In fact, if you would grab an encyclopedia and look at names such as Khwarizmi, Cemshid, Takiyuddin, Al Jaziri, Al Pharabius, Averroes,Al Mahudi, Geber, Rhazes,Ibn Yunus,Omar Khayyam, Avicenna, Biruni, Kutbi and tens of them may God never let their names be forgotten, you would realize that these Leonardo Da Vinci's of the East:
    a)founded Sybernetics.
    b)founded the modern mathematics. (numbers -That's right, the numbers used in math are arabic, bynomes, the term ''x'' etc.)
    c)founded Chemistry. (Chemistry is an arabic word Steve, ''al Kimya'&#39
    d)discovered the principle of pendulum (In case you do not know what it is, the concept of ''time'&#39
    If I continued by mentioning all the achievements in Biology, Astronomy, Optics, Medicine, Philosophy, I would've literally written a book. Where do you think the Europeans acquired the scriptures that would lead them to their renaissance? Yes, your guess is right. The people who follow the evil religion..
    Big deal, Egemon. The Chinese discovered gunpowder and invented movable type, but that doesn't make them scientists.
    The Greeks invented atomic theory, but that doesn't make them scientists either.
    To say that the Muslims stumbled across a few interesting things means only that they aren't complete fools.
    Science requires the scientific method.
    That was developed by Galileo in the Christian west and perfected by the Christians who followed him.
    Like the pagan Chinese, Islam did better than most of the polytheists, but you didn't invent science.

    a) Why should the crusades be given a rest? Just because it was ''supposedly provoked by centuries of muslim conquest (I have an objection there too), the killings are justified?. Was it necessary to sack Antioch, Damascus and Jerusalem? Was it necessary to bathe the temple of Suleiman with the blood of the muslim civilians in Jerusalem?*
    Yes, Egemon, it was necessary to bathe the city with the blood of civilians because that's how EVERYONE fought wars back then, including the Muslims. If a city resisted, it was put to the sword. If it did not resist, it was not. Jerusalem resisted.

    b) What is with the ''we'' use? Have you participated in the Crusades, my friend? It must be terribly sad to hear this from a 16 year old ''terrorist'', but that reminded of the class newspaper my classmates and I wrote in kindergarten.
    I'm a Catholic, which makes me responsible for what other Catholics do in the name of Christianity, just as your being part of Islam makes you responsible for what Moslems do in the name of Allah.

    In order to maintain supply lines and defend a territory, military men typically take more than just the single objective. They take the land and resources necessary to hold that objective. I don't understand your objection.
    Given a choice between Christian heretics and slave-trading Muslims who impose absurdities like sharia, I'll take the heretics. At least they can be reasoned with.

    You also seem to be forgetting the great Schism of 1054, 40 years before the crusades, that the pope and the arch bishop excommunicated each other. There wasn't a linguistic unity, nor a cultural one. So the Christians have been fighting each other long before the crusades, just take a look at the 4th one.
    Yes, but they didn't assassinate one another. Look at your caliphs, my friend. The history of Islam is the history of assassination. Very scientific of you.

    Until sharia is stripped out of Islam, Islam will not be a fit religion for the world.
    It will be stripped away - that is what the imposition of democracy on Iraq and Afghanistan has begun.
    Like the Jewish Deuteronomic code, sharia is on its way out, my friend.

    Sigh, what a loser...

  2. #2
    Mordhak's Avatar Civitate
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Flanders, Belgium
    Posts
    1,113

    Default

    Yeah, I remember your 'owned' topic. I thought he'd simply ignore it because he was, indeed, owned. But coming with something this silly... jeez.

    Yes, Egemon, it was necessary to bathe the city with the blood of civilians because that's how EVERYONE fought wars back then, including the Muslims. If a city resisted, it was put to the sword. If it did not resist, it was not. Jerusalem resisted.
    Not true. Take Saladin: when he recaptured Jerusalem from the crusaders, not one townsman was harmed. And 300-400 years earlier, when the Islam were taking over Europe, they were way more tolerant towards the christians than the christians towards the muslims. And there are many more examples that I can't think of now.

    I'm not trying to be mean, Egemon, but I'm fed up with Muslims who haven't bothered to do their research.
    He's the one to talk, really :rolleyes

  3. #3
    wilpuri's Avatar It Gets Worse.
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    The Weimar Republic
    Posts
    9,512

    Default

    Why do you even bother talking to him? He refers to medieval muslims, using the personal pronoun YOU. That should tell you something about this guy and his perspective on history.
    The common culture of a tribe is a sign of its inner cohesion. But tribes are vanishing from the modern world, as are all forms of traditional society. Customs, practices, festivals, rituals and beliefs have acquired a flut and half-hearted quality which reflects our nomadic and rootless existence, predicated as we are on the global air-waves.

    ROGER SCRUTON, Modern Culture

  4. #4
    Mehmed II's Avatar Vicarius
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Istanbul, Turkey
    Posts
    2,740

    Default

    Guys, check this:
    Big deal, Egemon. The Chinese discovered gunpowder and invented movable type, but that doesn't make them scientists.
    The Greeks invented atomic theory, but that doesn't make them scientists either.
    To say that the Muslims stumbled across a few interesting things means only that they aren't complete fools.
    Science requires the scientific method.
    That was developed by Galileo in the Christian west and perfected by the Christians who followed him.
    Like the pagan Chinese, Islam did better than most of the polytheists, but you didn't invent science.
    In his first article, he also claimed that the science developed under the ''rationality'' of the Christian west and he gives Galileo as an example! Galileo! the guy who opposed the great chain of being theory! Please, I beg you to help me, let us shut this guy up!

  5. #5
    Portuguese Rebel's Avatar Civitate
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Lisbon, Portugal
    Posts
    5,361

    Default

    In his first article, he also claimed that the science developed under the ''rationality'' of the Christian west
    Galileo? The guy that was almost burned in the stake for what he discovered by those rational christians? A rational christian west where the kings could not write or read and scientific advancements were hindered by christianity itself? I have no desire to get into this Islamism vs christianity thingy, but the present galileo as a sign of west superiority in terms of rationality is laughable.

    I don't know why you even bother with this. The guy obviously has no knowlage of history to speak of and is just a biggot.


    "Yes, I rather like this God fellow. He's very theatrical, you know,
    a pestilence here, a plague there... He's so deliciously evil."
    Stewie, Family Guy

  6. #6
    Mehmed II's Avatar Vicarius
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Istanbul, Turkey
    Posts
    2,740

    Default

    All right, my reply:
    Egemen, could you please tell me how I can determine what is true sharia and what is not?
    In Christianity, there is one person who bears sole authority for determining what is true - the Pope.
    While it is true that many Christians do not agree with the Pope, there is no one else in all Christendom who claims the kind of sole authority he claims.
    Point to me the ONE person in Islam who claims sole authority to decide what is true sharia and what is not.
    In fact, there is no one person who makes such a claim.
    Thus, what constitutes true sharia and true Islam is not something even Muslims can determine.
    Osama bin Laden's understanding of Islam is no less true than your understanding or that of any one of a billion other Muslims. You can argue that Quran and the Hadith all day long and twice on Friday, but you cannot appeal to an authority who can tell you for certain that one is wrong and the other right. There is no Muslim who claims to have sole authority over all Muslims - none.
    Wow! Great argument. Just because there isn't a sole authority in Islam like a pope, that means that there is no one who can tell you what's right and wrong in Islam? Is that what you're trying to tell me? Great Argument! Absolutely beautiful! Let's ask Pope Urbanus II of the 11th century about whether it's a sin to kill people, or just heck, any pope between 19th century and the first centuries. It's not hard to guess what their responses are going to be is it? So basically, what they're saying is true christianity? Heck, why do we have a holy book then?

    As for the Crusades, give it a rest, Egemon. Islam launched holy war and swept over HALF of Christendom in a century. Christendom did nothing in response. You invaded Christian Spain and half of France.
    Christendom did not declare crusade. The Spaniards and Franks pushed you out of Spain, but then you pushed up through the Balkans over the next five hundred years. You enslaved Christian children, raised them as Muslims, often castrating them, and forced them to fight against their own relatives as slave armies.
    Christendom did not call crusade.
    You cut off trade routes and pilgrimage routes to the holiest sites in Christendom.
    Christendom did not call crusade - we developed the stations of the Cross devotion instead.
    Only after you destroyed the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and threatened Constantinople with such military might that the Emperor asked the Pope for assistance - only then was Crusade called, after SIX HUNDRED YEARS of warfare and provocation.
    Now tell me, Egemon. If Christians conquered half of Islam, enslaved Muslim children, castrated them, forced them to fight in slave armies against their own relatives, and cut off access to Mecca and Medina so you couldn't make the Hajj, would you simply develop an alternate prayer devotion in response?
    Don't give me that Muslim crap about Crusades.
    I could write a similar tirade against your invocation of the Inquisition.
    It's total crap to even start the conversation.
    The only people who entertain that kind of idiocy is Western journalists and Muslims who don't know history, which seems to be most of you.
    I'm not trying to be mean, Egemon, but I'm fed up with Muslims who haven't bothered to do their research.

    Perhaps you misunderstood my question?

    Since you're contiuning to refer to the medieval muslims by using the pronoun you, I have no doubt about the credibility of your perspective on history now. No one is denying the muslim expansion, while you're certainly exaggerating it right there. ( Perhaps you're referring to Janissaries as the poor christian children that were castrated and forced to fight against their relatives. Let me correct you there:
    a) Those christian children were taken by the Ottomans as a payment for the blood tax. Normal ones were trained as the personal guards of the Sultan -considering their power right now, it wouldn't be logical to call them slaves would it? Do the historians call the preatorian guards slaves?- while the ones that proved to be more intelligent were taught various lessons. Some of them even got to be grand viziers, such as the ottoman grand vizier Sokollu.
    b) Janissaries were never castrated, they weren't allowed to marry as long as they stayed in their corps.

    But, still, this is not the point. I asked you a simple question: Are the crusades justified by the christian faith?
    According to your argument, we might as well say it is justified for the Jewish people to massacre the german descendants of the Nazi's or for the african americans to enslave the descendants of their former masters? correct?

    For your amusement, I'll quote a part of a poem written by Omar Khayyam:
    '' If you answer my malice by yours,
    What is the difference between you and me?''

    Big deal, Egemon. The Chinese discovered gunpowder and invented movable type, but that doesn't make them scientists.
    The Greeks invented atomic theory, but that doesn't make them scientists either.
    To say that the Muslims stumbled across a few interesting things means only that they aren't complete fools.
    Science requires the scientific method.
    That was developed by Galileo in the Christian west and perfected by the Christians who followed him.
    Like the pagan Chinese, Islam did better than most of the polytheists, but you didn't invent science.
    Another fantastic argument! Wonderful! Let me ask you two very simple questions:
    a) Would the science we know today even exist without the advanced Arab math and the arabic numerals? Yes 0,1,2,3 etc.
    b) Try to solve a complex mathematical equation with the Roman numerals, Arab math and al-jabra is just one of the few interesting things Arabs found overall, you would surely succeed without them.

    Setting the muslims aside, it's very funny that you claim that greek's weren't scientists, when it was the greeks who set the foundations of the modern science we enjoy today. Perhaps then you would explain why the modern doctors of today still take the oath of Hippocrates, not an oath of Harvey? Perhaps then you would explain why the greeks of 300 Bc measured the circumference of the earth, about 2000 years before Galileo? Getting to the point, Perhaps then you would explain why, when the medical students enter the big conference room in the university of Paris, find themselves with the portraits of only two people: Ibn-i Sina (Avicenna) and Razi (Rhazes)? Perhaps then you would explain the reason behind the medical genius Sir William Osler's comment that claimed that El Kanun Fit Tıb, Avicenna's most famous book, became the book of every era of medicine. Perhaps then you would explain, why, the greatest genius of the western Renaissance, Leonardo da Vinci mentions the great help of an eastern scientist named Takiyuddin, in one of his letters about fluids? Perhaps then you would explain why the famous Harvard science historian George Sarton claims that Al Khwarizmi is one of the greatest mathematicians that set foot on this world?

    Strange, when you mention Galileo and claim that science was invented under the rationality of Catholic faith yet you forget that Galileo was a man who opposed the catholic great chain of being theory and got almost burned at the stake.
    Strange, when you mention Galileo and claim that science was invented under the rationality of Catholic faith yet you forget that Galileo was a man who opposed the catholic great chain of being theory and got almost burned at the stake.

    Yes, Egemon, it was necessary to bathe the city with the blood of civilians because that's how EVERYONE fought wars back then, including the Muslims. If a city resisted, it was put to the sword. If it did not resist, it was not. Jerusalem resisted.
    Wow! The terrific arguments do not end do they? If what you're stating is true, why do the historians consider the mongols as one of most ruthless people in history and their invasion of Persia as possibly the worst destruction up to date? That's what they did after all, it was how all the battles were fought. 8 people were left in Shiraz, 9 people were left in Merv, 10 people were left in Esfahan, 20 people left in Neyshabur, 25 in Semerqand, like 5 in Baghdad..certainly not a big deal right?

    Take Saladin as an example, when he retook Jerusalem, did he massacre everyone in the city?
    When the Ottomans took Constantinople, did they massacre every christian there? It wouldn't make sense since the Sultan allowed the orthodox church to function.


    I'm a Catholic, which makes me responsible for what other Catholics do in the name of Christianity, just as your being part of Islam makes you responsible for what Moslems do in the name of Allah.
    Why? Why do I have to be responsible for anything my ancestors have done? Why do you?
    You're not only feeling responsible, you seem to be glorifying everything the crusaders did.

    Given a choice between Christian heretics and slave-trading Muslims who impose absurdities like sharia, I'll take the heretics. At least they can be reasoned with.
    Yeah right. Like the christians never traded slaves correct? But they can be reasoned with, still, very funny you said that. Since when Harun Al Rashid, the greatest Abbasid ruler, sieged Constantinople and was about to take it, lifted the siege and left when the Romaioi queen sent him a letter which stated that she respected him as a rival. Crusaders that arrived to Constantinople in 1204 did the same right? Guessed so....

    Yes, but they didn't assassinate one another. Look at your caliphs, my friend. The history of Islam is the history of assassination. Very scientific of you.
    I am not even going to bother replying to this one...

  7. #7

    Default

    Though that man is wrong, and it abuses reason and patience to even consider responding to his ill-conceived arguments, he is also right, but in no way that he could explain effectively: Western societies have shown more capacity for revolution, non-violent, than any others in history.

    Is it not fascinating to gloat over the intellectual decadence of others? [Morble accused me of 'setting up straw men,' but here is a real straw man] Is the contest not detestable and inglorious?


    In Patronicum sub Siblesz

  8. #8
    Portuguese Rebel's Avatar Civitate
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Lisbon, Portugal
    Posts
    5,361

    Default

    Western societies have shown more capacity for revolution, non-violent, than any others in history.
    This guy may disagree:



    "Yes, I rather like this God fellow. He's very theatrical, you know,
    a pestilence here, a plague there... He's so deliciously evil."
    Stewie, Family Guy

  9. #9
    Civitate
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Nottingham, England
    Posts
    2,727

    Default

    Western societies have shown more capacity for revolution, non-violent, than any others in history.
    Good, you have presented the conclusion that you have drawn. Now, perhaps, in the next post we will get the reasoning behind it.
    Under patronage of: Wilpuri

  10. #10

    Default

    Originally posted by Mehmed II@Apr 5 2005, 01:12 PM


    Egemen, could you please tell me how I can determine what is true sharia and what is not?
    In Christianity, there is one person who bears sole authority for determining what is true - the Pope.
    While it is true that many Christians do not agree with the Pope, there is no one else in all Christendom who claims the kind of sole authority he claims.
    jsut to be petty the queen of England as head and defender of the faith has a right to through the Archbishop of Canturbery, change the services and interpritations of the church of england. Your point remains valid however as almost certainily she would nto directly interfere in this area though of course her ancestors used to.
    But that guy you were talking to was an idiot. A Seriously big one...
    Under the patronage of Boripavlovgrozny.
    Member of BWT.

  11. #11

    Default

    Bloody Idiot, mehmed please "OWN" him again he deserves it.
    Well, if I, Belisarius, the Black Prince, and you all agree on something, I really don't think there can be any further discussion.
    - Simetrical 2009 in reply to Ferrets54

  12. #12

    Default

    Originally posted by KingOfTheIsles@Apr 5 2005, 03:52 PM
    Western societies have shown more capacity for revolution, non-violent, than any others in history.
    Good, you have presented the conclusion that you have drawn. Now, perhaps, in the next post we will get the reasoning behind it.
    A forum is no place for 'reasoning'; we're here to amuse the crowds, provide a spectacle, and convince the boorish multitude.

    Portugese should open his mind, and try to see the damn forest for the trees - I don't just mean political revolution...silly. :rolleyes


    In Patronicum sub Siblesz

  13. #13

    Default

    You know, you could trash him immediately again on those religious basics. He says all christians consider pope to be the defining authority on christianity but forgets the orthodox, evangelic lutheran, anglican and all the other churches who do not consider pope to be "the" authority.

    I know... It's petty of me but I just dislike the habit of some people to try to present catholic church as some kind of representative of all christians. Though I admit that with one billion followers catholic church does alone represent half of the whole christian movement.


    Everyone is warhero, genius and millionaire in Internet, so don't be surprised that I'm not impressed.

  14. #14
    Marshal Qin's Avatar Bow to ME!!!
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Back home for now
    Posts
    2,215

    Default

    You might also speak about the reconquista with regard to the way Iberians treated captive populations (both moslems and christians) and the way the crusaders treated them.

    http://libro.uca.edu/bishko/spr1.htm

    Persuaded in the king's name by bishop Peter Pitões of Oporto to join the royal army, the crusaders unquestionably made it possible for Afonso to take Lisbon, for its stubborn defense of some four months (June 28-October 23/24) against the combined Portuguese and crusader resources, including the northerners' heavy siege machines and poliorcetic skills, makes it certain that, the city was still too strong to be taken by Afonso's men alone. The narrow limits, however, within which such collaboration was possible are illumined by the incompatibility in outlook evinced by trans-Pyrenean crusaders and Iberian reconquistadores. One instance is the constant breaking out in the crusader camp of misunderstanding and bitter suspicion because of the primarily secular attitude with which the Portuguese approached fighting the Moslems; the other, the implacably hostile ideas the northerners entertained of how to treat Lisbon's surrendered inhabitants, in contrast to the typically Iberian respect for capitulation terms and readiness to accept the vanquished as fellow-subjects under the king.
    Exotic Slave - Spook 153, Barbarian Turncoat - Drugpimp, Catamite - Invoker 47
    Drunken Uncle - Wicked, Priest of Jupiter - Guderian


    Under the patronage of El-Sib Why? ...... Because Siblesz sent me
    Proud member of the Australian-New Zealand Beer Appreciation Society (ANZBAS?)

  15. #15
    Mehmed II's Avatar Vicarius
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Istanbul, Turkey
    Posts
    2,740

    Default

    All right, he responded again. Quote's are my responses, and the un quoted ones are his new responses.

    Wow! Great argument. Just because there isn't a sole authority in Islam like a pope, that means that there is no one who can tell you what's right and wrong in Islam? Is that what you're trying to tell me? Great Argument! Absolutely beautiful!
    Correct.
    And thank you.
    Most of the people who have read the piece have found the argument compelling

    Let's ask Pope Urbanus II of the 11th century about whether it's a sin to kill people, or just heck, any pope between 19th century and the first centuries. It's not hard to guess what their responses are going to be is it?
    No, it's not difficult at all.
    They taught that killing innocent people is a sin.
    If you can prove otherwise, do it.

    Since you're contiuning to refer to the medieval muslims by using the pronoun you, I have no doubt about the credibility of your perspective on history now. No one is denying the muslim expansion, while you're certainly exaggerating it right there. ( Perhaps you're referring to Janissaries as the poor christian children that were castrated and forced to fight against their relatives. Let me correct you there:
    How can anyone exaggerate the takeover of the entirety of North Africa?
    In 611 AD, everything from Jerusalem to the straits of Gibralter was Christian.
    By 711 AD, that whole stretch of land was Muslim - that's half the Christian empire.
    Tell me how this is an exaggeration.

    a) Those christian children were taken by the Ottomans as a payment for the blood tax. Normal ones were trained as the personal guards of the Sultan -considering their power right now, it wouldn't be logical to call them slaves would it?
    Sorry, but the only people who wouldn't call them slaves is you.
    http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/6512.html
    http://voi.org/books/mssmi/
    http://www.williams.edu/history/courses/pa...oman_Terms.html

    Do the historians call the preatorian guards slaves?-
    I know you are Muslim because you are SUCH a liar.
    The Praetorian guard found its origins in Augustus' selection of the bravest Roman soldiers, and Roman soldiers were never slaves.

    while the ones that proved to be more intelligent were taught various lessons. Some of them even got to be grand viziers, such as the ottoman grand vizier Sokollu.
    As you well know, the devsirme system was not the totality of the Islamic slave system.
    The Kuran assures the Muslim the right to own slaves (to “possess their necks”) either by purchasing them or as bounty of war (58:3). Its author, Muhammad, had dozens of them, both male and female, and he regularly sold, purchased, hired, rented, and exchanged slaves once he became independently wealthy in Medina after the confiscation of Jewish property. The bounties are lawful to the Muslim, theologian ibn Timiyya wrote, and slavery is justified: “It is lawful to kill the infidel or to enslave him, and it also makes it lawful to take his offspring into captivity” (Ibn Timiyya says,Vol. 32, p. 89).

    b) Janissaries were never castrated, they weren't allowed to marry as long as they stayed in their corps.
    Oh, get a life.
    Islamic eunuchs fetched higher prices than regular slaves, and slaves were routinely castrated.
    But Islamic castration did not just involve ligation of the seminiferous tubes, it was total removal of all external genitalia, so that the pubic region was "smooth as the stomach." This radical castration generally brought about death rates in the slaves so castrated as high as sevent-five percent due to blood loss and subsequent infection. That's why eunuchs brought higher prices - most didn't survive the operation.

    But, still, this is not the point. I asked you a simple question: Are the crusades justified by the christian faith?
    Defending oneself against unjust aggression is absolutely justified by Christian Faith, so of course the Crusades are justified. The war was conducted according to the standards of the time. There was nothing wrong with the Crusades.

    According to your argument, we might as well say it is justified for the Jewish people to massacre the german descendants of the Nazi's or for the african americans to enslave the descendants of their former masters? correct?
    For your amusement, I'll quote a part of a poem written by Omar Khayyam:
    '' If you answer my malice by yours,
    What is the difference between you and me?''

    If it is malice to defend oneself, Omar would have a point.
    But since as it is, he has none and neither do you.

    Another fantastic argument! Wonderful! Let me ask you two very simple questions:
    a) Would the science we know today even exist without the advanced Arab math and the arabic numerals? Yes 0,1,2,3 etc.
    I don't answer hypotheticals.

    b) Try to solve a complex mathematical equation with the Roman numerals, Arab math and al-jabra is just one of the few interesting things Arabs found overall, you would surely succeed without them.
    You still don't have a point.
    That's the problem - as a Muslim, you still don't really understand what science is, so you think that simply supplying algebra makes you a scientist. It doesn't. You need the scientific method. You never developed it. Sorry, but them's the facts.

    Setting the muslims aside, it's very funny that you claim that greek's weren't scientists, when it was the greeks who set the foundations of the modern science we enjoy today. Perhaps then you would explain why the modern doctors of today still take the oath of Hippocrates, not an oath of Harvey?
    See? You can't tell the difference between science and morality.
    The Hippocratic oath is an oath concerning moral action, not science.
    Trying to explain this to a Muslim is like trying to explain color to a blind man.

    Perhaps then you would explain why the greeks of 300 Bc measured the circumference of the earth, about 2000 years before Galileo?
    The ability to measure the circumference of a sphere doesn't make one a scientist.

    Getting to the point, Perhaps then you would explain why, when the medical students enter the big conference room in the university of Paris, find themselves with the portraits of only two people: Ibn-i Sina (Avicenna) and Razi (Rhazes)?
    Because medicine wasn't a science until after Harvey, but the French, being French, couldn't figure that out.

    Perhaps then you would explain the reason behind the medical genius Sir William Osler's comment that claimed that El Kanun Fit Tıb, Avicenna's most famous book, became the book of every era of medicine. Perhaps then you would explain, why, the greatest genius of the western Renaissance, Leonardo da Vinci mentions the great help of an eastern scientist named Takiyuddin, in one of his letters about fluids? Perhaps then you would explain why the famous Harvard science historian George Sarton claims that Al Khwarizmi is one of the greatest mathematicians that set foot on this world?
    Leonardo da Vinci wasn't a scientist, he was an artist.
    Being a great mathematician does not make one a scientist.
    Science requires the scientific method.

    Strange, when you mention Galileo and claim that science was invented under the rationality of Catholic faith yet you forget that Galileo was a man who opposed the catholic great chain of being theory and got almost burned at the stake.
    You REALLY ought to take a decent history class sometime.
    Neither of those statements are accurate.

    Take Saladin as an example, when he retook Jerusalem, did he massacre everyone in the city?
    When the Ottomans took Constantinople, did they massacre every christian there? It wouldn't make sense since the Sultan allowed the orthodox church to function.
    Muslims massacred Jews - consider the massacre of the Jewish tribe of Qurayza
    Muslims massacred Hindus after every victory in India. Look at Mahmud Ghaznavi's campaigns.
    But both of those pale to what was done to the Armenians.

    Why? Why do I have to be responsible for anything my ancestors have done? Why do you? You're not only feeling responsible, you seem to be glorifying everything the crusaders did.
    The Crusaders did great work.
    I have no problem with what the Crusaders did.

    Yeah right. Like the christians never traded slaves correct?
    The difference is this: Islam specifically permits slavery.
    Christianity does not.
    The Christian slave traders were not Catholics, they were heretics, so of course they got it wrong.
    In Islam, no one can tell who the heretic is, since Islam has no leader and its Scriptures are corrupt, both physically and morally.

    I am not even going to bother replying to this one...
    Of course you aren't.
    Too many assassinated corpses to explain.

  16. #16

    Default

    Originally posted by Mehmed II@Apr 6 2005, 12:12 AM
    Leonardo da Vinci wasn't a scientist, he was an artist.
    Being a great mathematician does not make one a scientist.
    Science requires the scientific method.
    This really caught my eye. This guy has no idea. Leonardo Da Vinci wasn't a scientist??? He was just about everything, scientist, artist inventor, did this guy ever read a book in his life? I knew about DaVinci when i was 7yrs old for god's sakes!

    All ths muslim did was massacre and invade?

    Huh? I'm sure you Mehmed know about the 150yrs of occupation of the turks in Hungary. It's still a common saying in hungary, that the soviets did a greater destruction under 50yrs then the turks ever did throughout 150yrs. They didn't. They built.




  17. #17
    Mehmed II's Avatar Vicarius
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Istanbul, Turkey
    Posts
    2,740

    Default

    Please gentlemen, let us bomb him with e-mails. For the sake of just shutting him up, please, for the sake of rationality, some other people email him!

  18. #18
    Civitate
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Davis/San Jose, CA
    Posts
    322

    Default

    Y'know, Mehmed, I might just file this one under "not worth dignifying with a response", but then that would just make him think he won. Arguing with him is definitely not going to get you anywhere, though, even if all of us were to jump in (until a medical procedure is developed to remove one's head from one's ******, I fear there is little hope)...maybe just write him back saying politely that you feel it is unfortunate that he is unable to find a basis other than your religion for which to criticize you, and that you regret yours and his inability to come to an understanding? (Don't sink to his level, Mehmed--maintain the high ground of civility&#33

    I must say, though, my favorite part is wheen you said

    Do the historians call the preatorian guards slaves?
    and he said

    I know you are Muslim because you are SUCH a liar.
    thus proving that in addition to his utter failure to comprehend history and science, grammar has also eluded his grasp. Or perhaps I should ask him how it is possible for a question to be a lie?
    ~amor vincet omnia~

  19. #19
    Mehmed II's Avatar Vicarius
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Istanbul, Turkey
    Posts
    2,740

    Default

    My response:
    No, it's not difficult at all.
    They taught that killing innocent people is a sin.
    If you can prove otherwise, do it.

    Is there anything left that is there for me to prove? When Reynald of Toulouse sent a letter to the pope, telling him that the temple of Suleiman was bathed in blood up to it's knees, did pope told him that it was a sin to kill innocent people? There wasn't any innocent people in Antioch or Jerusalem? Not a single one? I invite you to logic my friend.

    Why do the popes of today still apologize for the crusades?

    How can anyone exaggerate the takeover of the entirety of North
    Africa?
    In 611 AD, everything from Jerusalem to the straits of Gibralter was
    Christian.
    By 711 AD, that whole stretch of land was Muslim - that's half the
    Christian empire.
    Tell me how this is an exaggeration.

    That is not an exaggeration; the exaggeration I'm mentioning is the devshirme system, which I'm about to debate.

    Sorry, but the only people who wouldn't call them slaves is you.
    http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/6512.html
    http://voi.org/books/mssmi/
    http://www.williams.edu/history/courses/pa...oman_Terms.html

    Perhaps you and those sources would like to give me the reason behind the extreme powers of the janissary corps then? Who revolted multiple times, throned or dethroned, executed multiple SULTANS? Heck they guarded the whole capital, christian families often bribed Ottoman officials to take their christian children into janissary corps. Then turkish families took the places of those christian ones because in later times, they bribed the officials to accept their own muslim children to the corps. That is the reason behind the dramatic rise in the janissary corps, everybody wanted to be a janissary. If that's slavery, heck I want to be a slave!

    I know you are Muslim because you are SUCH a liar.
    The Praetorian guard found its origins in Augustus' selection of the
    bravest Roman soldiers, and Roman soldiers were never slaves.

    Thanks for the compliments. I am not going to ask about the connection between my credibility or my religion, for the sake of my patience, I will pass it.

    Praetorian Guard formed the elite corps of the Roman Empire, so did the Janissaries.
    Praetorians often preferred to be neutral in family matters, Janissaries took sides. Here's another example of how powerful they were.
    Preatorian Guards defended the emperor, Janissaries defended the Sultan.

    This shows that the Janissaries is just as, if not more, powerful as the Preatorian Guards were.

    >As you well know, the devsirme system was not the totality of the
    >Islamic slave system.
    >The Kuran assures the Muslim the right to own slaves (to "possess
    >their necks") either by purchasing them or as bounty of war (58:3).
    >Its author, Muhammad, had dozens of them, both male and female, and
    >he regularly sold, purchased, hired, rented, and exchanged slaves
    >once he became independently wealthy in Medina after the
    >confiscation of Jewish property. The bounties are lawful to the
    >Muslim, theologian ibn Timiyya wrote, and slavery is justified: "It
    >is lawful to kill the infidel or to enslave him, and it also makes
    >it lawful to take his offspring into captivity" (Ibn Timiyya
    >says,Vol. 32, p. 89).
    >Further, a slave who was grand vizier was still a slave and could be
    >executed for the same reasons any other slave could be executed, as
    >Ibraham Pasha found out.
    >http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/Ne...sST112403.html

    I warned you, don't argue with me about the Qu'ran. You want to see what Qu'ran says about slavery, let's check it out.

    Don’t force slave girls into prostitution, if any desire freedom, give it 24:33

    Free slave to make up for breaking oath 5:89, 58:3, to make up for zihar 58:3 - Please add the later part of that passage next time.

    Charity to free a slave 9:60

    True piety includes the freeing of slaves 2:177

    Share sustenance with slaves 16:71, free slave, feed hungry, care for orphans, etc. 90:13

    Obviously, from these passages we see that it's a good thing to free a slave after all...

    Oh, get a life.
    Islamic eunuchs fetched higher prices than regular slaves, and
    slaves were routinely castrated.
    But Islamic castration did not just involve ligation of the
    seminiferous tubes, it was total removal of all external genitalia,
    so that the pubic region was "smooth as the stomach." This radical
    castration generally brought about death rates in the slaves so
    castrated as high as sevent-five percent due to blood loss and
    subsequent infection. That's why eunuchs brought higher prices -
    most didn't survive the operation.

    I don't remember stating that slaves were not castrated. But Janissaries were not, answer me that simple question. Were the janissaries castrated or not?

    Defending oneself against unjust aggression is absolutely justified
    by Christian Faith, so of course the Crusades are justified. The war
    was conducted according to the standards of the time. There was
    nothing wrong with the Crusades.

    So killing people, if the cause is just, is absolutely justified. Wow, you just contradicted your whole argument.
    The strange thing is, most of the people badmouth Islam by showing a passage from the Qu'ran and that quote is exactly the thing you said.
    I guess Jesus basically contradicts the whole christianity, ''turning the other cheek when one is slapped''

    I don't answer hypotheticals.
    Figures..

    You still don't have a point.
    That's the problem - as a Muslim, you still don't really understand
    what science is, so you think that simply supplying algebra makes
    you a scientist. It doesn't. You need the scientific method. You
    never developed it. Sorry, but them's the facts.

    See? You can't tell the difference between science and morality.
    The Hippocratic oath is an oath concerning moral action, not
    science.
    Trying to explain this to a Muslim is like trying to explain color
    to a blind man.

    The ability to measure the circumference of a sphere doesn't make
    one a scientist.

    Because medicine wasn't a science until after Harvey, but the
    French, being French, couldn't figure that out.

    Leonardo da Vinci wasn't a scientist, he was an artist.
    Being a great mathematician does not make one a scientist.
    Science requires the scientific method.

    1)Nice! Spitting to the face of the french at any opportunity, a great republican you are.
    2)Leonardo da Vinci was not a scientist? True, because he was everything.
    3)Being a great mathematician does not make one a scientist.
    Science requires the scientific method.

    Ok, let us see what scientific method means, from www.dictionary.com
    ''The principles and empirical processes of discovery and demonstration considered characteristic of or necessary for scientific investigation, generally involving the observation of phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena, experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis, and a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis.''

    So, the muslim or the greek scientists did not use this method? Is it what you're trying to tell me? Would you please explain it with more detail? Al Nafis discovered basically the same thing Harvey discovered ..in 13th century.., or Biruni and the greek scientists whose name is not in my memory right now discovered exactly the same thing Galileo discovered. The difference?

    You REALLY ought to take a decent history class sometime.
    Neither of those statements are accurate.

    Perhaps, you would like to present me the reasoning behind that statement?


    Muslims massacred Jews - consider the massacre of the Jewish tribe
    of Qurayza
    Muslims massacred Hindus after every victory in India. Look at
    Mahmud Ghaznavi's campaigns.
    But both of those pale to what was done to the Armenians.

    and my father can beat your father! The point? What do those events have to do with how the medieval warfare was fought?

    The Crusaders did great work.
    I have no problem with what the Crusaders did.

    Thank you!

    The difference is this: Islam specifically permits slavery.
    Christianity does not.
    The Christian slave traders were not Catholics, they were heretics,
    so of course they got it wrong.
    In Islam, no one can tell who the heretic is, since Islam has no
    leader and its Scriptures are corrupt, both physically and morally.

    I oppose you, Islam does not permit slavery, check the passages I ve mentioned above. The Christian slave traders were more devout catholics than you are, they enslaved hundreds of thousands of people and their pope said absolutely nothing about it, which brings down your whole theory.

    ''Yes, but they didn't assassinate one another. Look at your
    caliphs, my friend. The history of Islam is the history of
    assassination. Very scientific of you. ''

    Caliph's were assasinated, so muslims were assasins, not scientists and your argument makes about as much sense as beowulf having sex with Robert Fulton at the first battle of Antietam, I mean when a neo conservative defenestrates it's like Raskalnikov filibuster dioximonohydroxinate... I love to say that a lot!

  20. #20
    Marshal Qin's Avatar Bow to ME!!!
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Back home for now
    Posts
    2,215

    Default

    lol, I get the impression that he thinks only Muslims killed jews.

    check this Jewish site..

    http://www.aish.com/literacy/jewishhistory...he_Crusades.asp
    Exotic Slave - Spook 153, Barbarian Turncoat - Drugpimp, Catamite - Invoker 47
    Drunken Uncle - Wicked, Priest of Jupiter - Guderian


    Under the patronage of El-Sib Why? ...... Because Siblesz sent me
    Proud member of the Australian-New Zealand Beer Appreciation Society (ANZBAS?)

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •