Terror Attack: 130 Dead in Paris

[Fragony]

London stabbings?

Oh - there were some stabbings by a man claiming to be retaliating for Syria?

I'm afraid that stabbings in London are rather like shooting in New York some years ago.

I'm inclined to think he may have been drunk and he may have been a Muslim. The motives may be slightly novel but in general this sort of thing is relatively common crime-wise in the Capital.

Slitting someones throat with a machette normal? Nah this is not your ordinary stabbing

[Brenus]

"Why did people in the Middle East gradually convert from Greek and Coptic Christianity to Islam? It made their lives much easier, they had better legal rights and paid lower taxes." That is a nice point of view, but, unfortunately, quite remote from reality.
If you were not a Muslim you were part of the sub-humans categories if you belonged to the Religions from the Book (Jews and Christians) and none-humans if you were a Pagan.
The second one was promptly executed.
The first category was permanent slave, had to pay for life every year, and no legal right whatsoever, had a status of dhimmis. Their children could be taken as slaves for whatever purpose for sexual use to military use.
So the reason why they convert was to save their lives, get legal rights and pay taxes only in money, having access to proper job, having the right to own properties (and not being one). Roughly.

[Fragony]

non-islamapoligists call it dhimmitude for a reason

[Gilrandir]

Bible: did this
Quran: do this

Don't like either but the difference isn't that hard to grasp

I advise you to read Leviticus, in which you will find many do's and dont's. For instance:

Leviticus 20

Punishments for Sin
20 The Lord said to Moses,

2 “Say to the Israelites:

10 “‘If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death.

12 “‘If a man has sexual relations with his daughter-in-law, both of them are to be put to death. What they have done is a perversion; their blood will be on their own heads.

(Woody Allen and Mia Farrow are still not stoned?)

13 “‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

27 “‘A man or woman who is a medium or spiritist among you must be put to death. You are to stone them; their blood will be on their own heads.’”

Generally speaking, both books are supposed to be value models for the adherents. If it is written in a holy book, it is the example to follow. It doesn't really matter what tense or mood of verbs is there.

If memory serves, and it has been decades since I even held a bible, let alone studied it, the violence in it is always directed at specific peoples for a set duration or goal. Not an open and ongoing struggle for supremacy with all the rest of the world.

Yet it was used as an ultimate guidance for many attacks on any unfaithful and heretics which is more or less equal to the desire to turn everyone to Christianity.

"Why did people in the Middle East gradually convert from Greek and Coptic Christianity to Islam? It made their lives much easier, they had better legal rights and paid lower taxes." That is a nice point of view, but, unfortunately, quite remote from reality.
If you were not a Muslim you were part of the sub-humans categories if you belonged to the Religions from the Book (Jews and Christians) and none-humans if you were a Pagan.
The second one was promptly executed.
The first category was permanent slave, had to pay for life every year, and no legal right whatsoever, had a status of dhimmis. Their children could be taken as slaves for whatever purpose for sexual use to military use.
So the reason why they convert was to save their lives, get legal rights and pay taxes only in money, having access to proper job, having the right to own properties (and not being one). Roughly.

Perhaps it was true of later epochs, but at the time of the First Crusade the Cristians of Outremer were not molested by the Muslims and many of them OPPOSED the crusaders.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

"Why did people in the Middle East gradually convert from Greek and Coptic Christianity to Islam? It made their lives much easier, they had better legal rights and paid lower taxes." That is a nice point of view, but, unfortunately, quite remote from reality.
If you were not a Muslim you were part of the sub-humans categories if you belonged to the Religions from the Book (Jews and Christians) and none-humans if you were a Pagan.
The second one was promptly executed.
The first category was permanent slave, had to pay for life every year, and no legal right whatsoever, had a status of dhimmis. Their children could be taken as slaves for whatever purpose for sexual use to military use.
So the reason why they convert was to save their lives, get legal rights and pay taxes only in money, having access to proper job, having the right to own properties (and not being one). Roughly.

No, you are conflating Arab Islamic law with later Turkish Law. Under the Arabs Christians and Jews were afforded limited rights and were required to pay additional taxes. The situation was roughly similar to the one Gentiles were in during the early Roman Empire. Christians and Jews were not "sub humans" but nor were they citizens, being outside the Islamic community. Roughly, a Christian man was worth 1/3 of a Muslim in a court of law.

Now, under the Ottoman Turks the situation was very different and, frankly, all non-Turks were abused to a degree up until the late 18th century, I think.

I advise you to read Leviticus, in which you will find many do's and dont's. For instance:

Leviticus 20

Punishments for Sin
20 The Lord said to Moses,

2 “Say to the Israelites:

10 “‘If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death.

12 “‘If a man has sexual relations with his daughter-in-law, both of them are to be put to death. What they have done is a perversion; their blood will be on their own heads.

(Woody Allen and Mia Farrow are still not stoned?)

13 “‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

27 “‘A man or woman who is a medium or spiritist among you must be put to death. You are to stone them; their blood will be on their own heads.’”

Generally speaking, both books are supposed to be value models for the adherents. If it is written in a holy book, it is the example to follow. It doesn't really matter what tense or mood of verbs is there.

Yet it was used as an ultimate guidance for many attacks on any unfaithful and heretics which is more or less equal to the desire to turn everyone to Christianity.

Ignorenta Sacerdoti are responsible for most of the ill in the world. If you actually read the Christian Bible then you'll see that Christians are not required to follow Leviticus, so Frag is broadly correct when he says "Bible" and "did this" because the history of the Jews in the Christian Bible is not meant to be a blueprint for society.

Of course, that only applies to Christians.

[Brenus]

"No, you are conflating Arab Islamic law with later Turkish Law" Turkish Islamic Law.
The Turkish Empire was built on Islam, and the Turks were as Islamic that the Arabs/Kurdes were.

"Roughly, a Christian man was worth 1/3 of a Muslim in a court of law." Less than a woman... And it really looks like a good definition of sub-human to me... A lesser class, not worth of...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

"No, you are conflating Arab Islamic law with later Turkish Law" Turkish Islamic Law.
The Turkish Empire was built on Islam, and the Turks were as Islamic that the Arabs/Kurdes were.

Well, that's a matter of opinion - but my point is still valid because the Ottoman Empire presided over territory that had already undergone Islamisation under the Arabs.

Anyway, why are you arguing about this? You're just saying the same thing as me, but a bit more extreme.

"Roughly, a Christian man was worth 1/3 of a Muslim in a court of law." Less than a woman... And it really looks like a good definition of sub-human to me... A lesser class, not worth of...

You are familiar with the concept of citizenship - we are a bit nicer about things today but the fact remain that if you aren't a part of the polity you aren't entitled to a say in how the country is run. Our law courts are more even handed because over the last two centuries the countries of the world have developed reciprocal arrangements.

Compare this to the areas under Germanic or Roman Law - non Christians were actual non-people.

[Brenus]

"Compare this to the areas under Germanic or Roman Law - non Christians were actual non-people." Certainly, but a lot of people were not people in Rome or under Germanic Law, this was not reserved to the Christian... Note that when the Christians took power, first it was thanks to a military victory, not really by conversions, then the Pagans became the sub-humans and were persecuted, under the same laws they kept from the Roman Empire...
Times were like this, and it is not about blame games... The reality is/was that all powers tend to impose their rules, and my point was not to paint it in too rosy colours...

[Gilrandir]

If you actually read the Christian Bible then you'll see that Christians are not required to follow Leviticus, so Frag is broadly correct when he says "Bible" and "did this" because the history of the Jews in the Christian Bible is not meant to be a blueprint for society.

I read a thick (or should I say "bulky"?) black book which has Біблія written on its cover. Leviticus, as much as other elements of the Old Testament, ARE a part of the Bible thus are supposed to be followed by Christians. Otherwise it should be officially extracted. Or is the law for a brother not to marry his sister apply only to Jews? And the Ten commandments which are also in the Old Testament shouldn't be obeyed by the British or Russian Christians? Holy texts can't be selective, as well as the faithful can't choose which parts of them to revere. Jesus himself didn't:

Matthew 5

The Fulfillment of the Law
17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.


On the other hand, some of the things Jesus preached (thus should be revered by Christsians) are not followed either:

Mark 11

15 On reaching Jerusalem, Jesus entered the temple courts and began driving out those who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves, 16 and would not allow anyone to carry merchandise through the temple courts.

and churches feel free to sell whatever they like against the explicit command of Jesus.

Bottomline: no one follows EVERYTHING written in the Bible and its quite sensible given the change of time and mores that has happened since then. But those who wish will always find in it justification for whatever they do.

[Idaho]

I read a thick (or should I say "bulky"?) black book which has Біблія written on its cover. Leviticus, as much as other elements of the Old Testament, ARE a part of the Bible thus are supposed to be followed by Christians. Otherwise it should be officially extracted. Or is the law for a brother not to marry his sister apply only to Jews? And the Ten commandments which are also in the Old Testament shouldn't be obeyed by the British or Russian Christians? Holy texts can't be selective, as well as the faithful can't choose which parts of them to revere. Jesus himself didn't:

Matthew 5

The Fulfillment of the Law
17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.


On the other hand, some of the things Jesus preached (thus should be revered by Christsians) are not followed either:

Mark 11

15 On reaching Jerusalem, Jesus entered the temple courts and began driving out those who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves, 16 and would not allow anyone to carry merchandise through the temple courts.

and churches feel free to sell whatever they like against the explicit command of Jesus.

Bottomline: no one follows EVERYTHING written in the Bible and its quite sensible given the change of time and mores that has happened since then. But those who wish will always find in it justification for whatever they do.

Yeah but that's quite inconvenient, so can we just go back to picking and choosing from the good book?

[Pannonian]

I read a thick (or should I say "bulky"?) black book which has Біблія written on its cover. Leviticus, as much as other elements of the Old Testament, ARE a part of the Bible thus are supposed to be followed by Christians. Otherwise it should be officially extracted. Or is the law for a brother not to marry his sister apply only to Jews? And the Ten commandments which are also in the Old Testament shouldn't be obeyed by the British or Russian Christians? Holy texts can't be selective, as well as the faithful can't choose which parts of them to revere. Jesus himself didn't:

Matthew 5

The Fulfillment of the Law
17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.


On the other hand, some of the things Jesus preached (thus should be revered by Christsians) are not followed either:

Mark 11

15 On reaching Jerusalem, Jesus entered the temple courts and began driving out those who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves, 16 and would not allow anyone to carry merchandise through the temple courts.

and churches feel free to sell whatever they like against the explicit command of Jesus.

Bottomline: no one follows EVERYTHING written in the Bible and its quite sensible given the change of time and mores that has happened since then. But those who wish will always find in it justification for whatever they do.

Liberal humanism is the almost universally accepted standard of modern civilisation. Most beliefs have been "modernised" in order to accommodate this. Very few professed believers in most beliefs oppose this trend. However, there are far more extreme opponents of liberal humanism among Muslims than among any other belief, and probably more than all other believers put together. When extremist Christians and other believers who oppose all tenets of liberal humanism, including the right to be left alone, number in their thousands if that, while extremist Sunnis number in their millions, it's a false equivalence to say they're all the same. One is far more of a problem than the other(s). Supposedly clever rhetoric does not change the political reality.

[Fragony]

How dare you state the oh so obvious

[Idaho]

Liberal humanism is the almost universally accepted standard of modern civilisation. Most beliefs have been "modernised" in order to accommodate this. Very few professed believers in most beliefs oppose this trend. However, there are far more extreme opponents of liberal humanism among Muslims than among any other belief, and probably more than all other believers put together. When extremist Christians and other believers who oppose all tenets of liberal humanism, including the right to be left alone, number in their thousands if that, while extremist Sunnis number in their millions, it's a false equivalence to say they're all the same. One is far more of a problem than the other(s). Supposedly clever rhetoric does not change the political reality.

You are proposing we defend liberal humanism by being illiberal and anti human?

No. Better to just weather the storm and ignore the attempts by the stupid to repeat the errors of history.

[Gilrandir]

Liberal humanism is the almost universally accepted standard of modern civilisation. Most beliefs have been "modernised" in order to accommodate this. Very few professed believers in most beliefs oppose this trend. However, there are far more extreme opponents of liberal humanism among Muslims than among any other belief, and probably more than all other believers put together. When extremist Christians and other believers who oppose all tenets of liberal humanism, including the right to be left alone, number in their thousands if that, while extremist Sunnis number in their millions, it's a false equivalence to say they're all the same. One is far more of a problem than the other(s). Supposedly clever rhetoric does not change the political reality.

This kind of argument is much better. I suggest we talk about PEOPLE who do things, not about BOOKS which can make people do quite opposite things.