Tweet
Re: Radical Islamists No Different Than Inquistion?
Stopping Islamic immigration isn't about stopping terrorism. Its about stopping it as entering our society as a cultural force. A "vibrant" 10% minority and growing of Wahabi Muslims is not my idea of good immigration policy.
http://quotingislam.blogspot.com/201...-inherent.html
Bernard Lewis also observed that Christians and Jews faired better in the Ottoman empire than Muslims and Jews in Christian lands until, as any historian will tell you, the reformation secularized Christendom. Thus the consistent pattern is that Islam , in its wild and libertarian forms , never existed. With the destruction of Arab states , all non Muslims are on the run, again. The Ottomans were of course not just Muslim. It was a state. The state obviously benefited from an oppressed minority like any with a stock of slaves. Why not have Christians and Jews pay the Jizya? That is why the Ottoman state was happy to take the Jews from Spain as good tax slaves. So it created a conflict of interest between the idealism of a spreading Islam. Without kuffar, there are no slaves , war booty and plunder. Just like hunter gathers tired of harvesting from the wild, the Ottoman empire domesticated this plundering process into a tax.
State authoritarianism pacifies Islam, because Islam is really nothing but what was developed in the context of anarchy and war . State authoritarianism historically was what made Christians militant.
Of course what is also interesting about this is the selection process. What happens when you tax a minority, enslave , kill or convert the ones too poor to pay? That can only lead to Christianity being a luxury the rich can afford.
http://www.britannica.com/event/Armenian-Genocide
Once again showing the idea is to try tolerance and assimilation of minorities you have, not to test the moral fiber of the state by just importing people who will not for the hell of it. It is also interesting to note that in Islamic lands , slaves always wound up being exterminated. Muslims imported African slaves for far longer than Europe, yet there are no communities of them. That is because the males were castrated , and the infants of rape were destroyed. So no need to have a civil rights movement for them either since no one is left to complain. Even though Christianity was also complicit in slavery, at least there was the idea of treating them "justly" more or less in that they actually survived as a people.
Stopping Islamic immigration isn't about stopping terrorism. Its about stopping it as entering our society as a cultural force. A "vibrant" 10% minority and growing of Wahabi Muslims is not my idea of good immigration policy.
http://quotingislam.blogspot.com/201...-inherent.html
[I]In point of fact, except for the early caliphate, when the anarchic individualism of tribal Arabia was still effective, the political history of Islam is one of almost unrelieved autocracy...t was authoritarian, often arbitrary, sometimes tyrannical. There are no parliaments or representative assemblies of any kind, no councils or communes, no chambers of nobility or estates, no municipalities in the history of Islam
Bernard Lewis also observed that Christians and Jews faired better in the Ottoman empire than Muslims and Jews in Christian lands until, as any historian will tell you, the reformation secularized Christendom. Thus the consistent pattern is that Islam , in its wild and libertarian forms , never existed. With the destruction of Arab states , all non Muslims are on the run, again. The Ottomans were of course not just Muslim. It was a state. The state obviously benefited from an oppressed minority like any with a stock of slaves. Why not have Christians and Jews pay the Jizya? That is why the Ottoman state was happy to take the Jews from Spain as good tax slaves. So it created a conflict of interest between the idealism of a spreading Islam. Without kuffar, there are no slaves , war booty and plunder. Just like hunter gathers tired of harvesting from the wild, the Ottoman empire domesticated this plundering process into a tax.
State authoritarianism pacifies Islam, because Islam is really nothing but what was developed in the context of anarchy and war . State authoritarianism historically was what made Christians militant.
Of course what is also interesting about this is the selection process. What happens when you tax a minority, enslave , kill or convert the ones too poor to pay? That can only lead to Christianity being a luxury the rich can afford.
http://www.britannica.com/event/Armenian-Genocide
Although Ottoman society was dominated by Muslims, a small number of Armenian families were able to attain prominent positions in banking, commerce, and government. For several generations in the 18th and 19th centuries, for example, the chief architects of the Ottoman court were in the Armenian Balian family. The prominence and influence of the well-educated and cosmopolitan Armenian elite had a drawback, however, in that it became a source of resentment and suspicion among Muslims.
Once again showing the idea is to try tolerance and assimilation of minorities you have, not to test the moral fiber of the state by just importing people who will not for the hell of it. It is also interesting to note that in Islamic lands , slaves always wound up being exterminated. Muslims imported African slaves for far longer than Europe, yet there are no communities of them. That is because the males were castrated , and the infants of rape were destroyed. So no need to have a civil rights movement for them either since no one is left to complain. Even though Christianity was also complicit in slavery, at least there was the idea of treating them "justly" more or less in that they actually survived as a people.
Comment