[Buzz62]

@Buzz62

No and I never said that.

All those things are not Western specific. All those things are parts of what all humans value unless you want to tell me that ALL Middle Easterners and Chinese people do not value family, hard work, pleasure, strength, education, and diversity. Also diversity was only a "western value" until recently. Europe and America have had a very long history with racism from their beginnings in Greece and Rome. So diversity isn't it.

That's right. They are not western specific.
And you're wrong about diversity. Of course racism exists...get a grip. Or would you really want to climb down that hole?
Tell me something. Should I bring my daughter to the Arab world, do you think it would be a good idea or a bad idea for my daughter to wander about sight-seeing in a miniskirt?
Because for the most part, we do allow all people to adorn themselves in their customary fashion.

For your democracy value I guess you would have to exclude Europe which has had democracy only 60 years ago.

Dude...really...

Democracy in its earliest forms is generally associated with the efforts of the ancient Greeks and Romans, who were themselves considered the founders of Western civilization by the 18th century intellectuals who attempted to leverage these early democratic experiments into a new template for post-monarchical political organization.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_democracy

Ok, I don't care. I never said anything about religion being a value at all.

Neither was I actually. At least not the overbearing value it appears to be in the Arab world.

The first literally thing you see in the Quran is to read and to think about the Quran critically. The Quran states that in order to be Muslim you need to have an education and that you are obligated to be educated regardless of who you are.

I see.
Tell me, what school do you figure this fine lad attends?

Looks a little more like "indoctrination" to me.
Whadya think?
And not only is this young boy being "educated" he's being lectured in Diversity.
He's being taught to sing "May our blood be shed".
Figure he's singing about shedding blood in the name of Diversity?
Cool school, eh?

Also which "Muslim people" are you talking about? Do you mean Sunnis, Shi'as, Sufi's, Ismailis, Ahmadiyyais, etc.? Do you mean Syrians, Persians, Egyptians, Arabians, Lebanonians, Pakistanis, Afghans, Moroccans, Algerians, Libyans, Iraqis, etc.? So much for valuing diversity eh? I can't see how a person who values diversity would shove all Middle Easterners under "Muslim people" kind of stupid and pathetic isn't it?

Is it?
There are currently people form all of these religious denominations and regions, migrating to the west (Europe mostly for now). They bring with them the deep desire to maintain the cultures of the societies they left. Many of them, or at least enough of them to create real alarm, are also motivated by hatred for the societies and cultures they've migrated to. I think it's safe to say that all of these denominations of Islam, from all of these regions, are causing global alarm.

How is that relevant to my post? What does that have to do with what I was saying? Are you drunk or something? Are you implying I am Muslim just because I said I was Iranian? So much for diversity I guess. I think you should lower diversity to the 100s because I can't see how anyone who values diversity to have such a close-minded view of the world.

WTF does this have to do with what I said. I was talking about how an atheist Saudi ruler would not be accepted by his people and now you're just ranting about democracy and the West and shit. And not only that but your description of power is so stupid and ignorant. You misunderstood why democracy is effective and democracy's problems. You just decided to simplify it into a black and white problem:

THE WAY POWA WORKS IS THAT RELIGIONS GET THAT POWA (There's no other way to get power for some fucking reason) AND THEN THEY TAKE IT FROM PEOPLE WHICH HAVE HTE REALS POWA YAAAAA!! RELIGION BAD PEOPLE GOOD!!

See how stupid you sound? I can get into the nuances of why you are wrong but I don't want to waste my time on you. You seem like someone who doesn't contribute to the discussion anyways.

I could just say, "I rest my case." now and be done with it.
However since you are so easily angered...
I don't particularly care which flavor of religion you follow.
But I'd be willing to bet you follow one of them...which one?
If the answer is really "none of the above", that would be a good thing.

I was pointing out that, as you said, a truly atheist leader would not have a chance in the Saudi lands, as the culture would not accept such a thing. They are driven by religious indoctrination. But maybe if I reduce this to your level it will help?

POWA BELONG TO ALL PEOPLE. BUT GREEDY FUCKAS TAKE POWA AWAY WIT RELIGION. DIS BE BAD.
IN WEST WE GOT SMART AND HAVE DEMOCRACY. RELIGION NOT SO IMPORTANT. DIS BE GOOD.
IT WOULD ALSO BE GOOD IF MUSLIM PEOPLE GET SMART TOO. MAYBE EVEN ALL ARABS?

get it...?
Killing people foir their religious beliefs, or lack there of, DOES NOT demonstrate intellect nor an acceptance of diversity. It does not reflect western values. it is...in a word...unacceptable.

[Oxymandias]

@Buzz62

And guess what? I asked for western values, not human values if you read my post.

I never said you did either. When did I say that you thought religion was of value?

But how can someone who says that he values diversity, then say such a racist thing? I know racism exists but if you're racist, say you're racist. Don't say you value diversity and then assume I'm Muslim because I'm Iranian.

I don't see how that has to do with my post.

If you want to go ahead. I wouldn't recommend it though because it would be boring for your daughter. However if you're rich then I recommend you go to Dubai since that's a rich guys paradise. I don't personally like it maybe because I'm not rich and so I couldn't do 99% of all the stuff in Dubai so it was boring for me but-

Wait a second, you're making me go off topic and bore you with stories of my travels! Do you realize what you have done?!

The boy was probably not educated. He probably was not taught even how to read just like his parents. If he read the Quran he would have doubts about suicide bombing and ISIS does not like doubts.

And not all people listen to their religions. I think you and I know that better than anyone (or maybe you don't since it doesn't fit your narrative). Also are you attempting to demonize diversity by stating that this kid was taught in a school that talked about diversity since that takes off diversity off of your list of values. Not only that but the school does not teach diversity. ISIS is against diversity since they think that Arabs are the only ones that can be Muslim and that their interpretation of Islam is the true interpretation of Islam.

Is what? Now I know you don't value diversity at all given what you are saying here. First off, that is bullshit. Based on the refugees I have talked to, yes, they do want to keep their culture but guess what? Their culture isn't a deserts and suicide bombs. What they care about is their traditions, their clothing, their rituals, their food, their art. That is what they want to bring to the west . And refugees do not hate the West, they in fact love it because the West to them is full of opportunities and seems civilized etc.

Hatred for the West is not connected to Islam in anyway. How is an old, vague book and a pile of scrolls supposed to hate an entity that didn't even exist when it was made? It can't. The reason why some people dislike the West is because of what the West does in their countries. Every country in the Middle East has a reason to hate the West except Saudi Arabia ironically. However this does not make them hate Westerners as in people who live in the West. Arabs admire Westerners in fact.

I am not angry simply because I mocked your perception of power. Just because I used a capital letter doesn't mean I'm angry, in fact what I was doing was imitating you.

I am not angered by your representation of Islam, I just dislike the way you portray power. Power is not like how you describe it and you over-simplified it. You do not understand how people get power and how power works.

So just shut up talking about power because you don't understand and I won't explain to you because you're so caught up in "exposing" me to be a Muslim that you won't listen anyway.

Would a Muslim really say that Islam needs a reformation and that the Middle East needs to be secularized? Do you have dyslexia like can you not read at all? Do you not know how to read I'm asking a very important question, how you answer determine whether or not I will waste my time with you.

No, all you did was just rant about how I'm a Muslim and how Islam is bad and incompatible with democracy. You didn't mention culture or indoctrination at all. If you did prove it and quote me where you did. I may have missed it when I had that stroke off of reading your bad formatted and incoherent words.

You know nothing about Arab culture how on earth would you know whether or not the culture wouldn't accept such a thing? Saudi Arabia hates culture since their extremist ideology Salafism says that everything in Perso-Arabic and Islamic culture is horrible. Saudi Arabia indoctrinates it's citizens with propaganda. Saudi Arabia has plans to demolish Mecca and put a parking lot over it because their extremist ideology, Salafism makes them do it.

I'm sorry but I'm the one who has to simplify things for you. You're the one who's an incoherent drunk posing on PoFo. I engage you intellectually, you just sloppily format your posts and make stupid assumptions about me based on nothing but my nationality. You didn't even know my race how the fuck were you supposed to know my religion?

Yes but do you understand what I'm saying? It doesn't look like it since everything you say to me is irrelevant to my posts. Also why are you telling me that killing people "foir" their religious beliefs is bad when I never said that it wasn't bad? Are you this bad at reading? And btw, Islam says you can't kill someone over their religious beliefs and just because ISIS does it doesn't mean that it is "true" Islam or that all Muslims do it or have to do it.

You never even defined western values at all. All you said was human values. I want you to tell me exclusively western values. If you can't think of any then western values don't exist at all.

[Oxymandias]

@Buzz62

So because the Athens (the only city with democracy that excluded everyone except wealthy landowners) and Rome (which had a faulty democracy this means that democracy has been in Europe up until this point. Wow. In most of Europe's history there has only been monarchies and the time where it did have democracy, democracy wasn't seen as a value and was opposed.

Just because one city in Greece and Rome had fault democracy doesn't mean democracy is a value nor does it mean that Europe has always been a democracy. In Northern Syria, a faction in the Syrian Civil War, Rojava has a democratic confederation and in Sunni Islam you can vote for a Caliph. Does this mean that democracy is a Middle Eastern value?

[Buzz62]

As I sit here on this sunny Friday afternoon...enjoying a beer...
Actually...what prompted me to comment originally was snot-faced comments like this one,

That isn't a blasphemy case. It's only a blasphemy case in a Middle Eastern country. So if you really want to do better than them you have to go to a Middle Eastern country and actually say it out loud in public instead of sitting at your laptop in you air conditioned home, being able to use your free speech and not get killed over it.

However that takes actual balls which you have none of.

Especially after having so eloquently espoused this,

It doesn't matter where a good argument came from. If it did then I could discredit your argument right now by saying you are biased based on your political beliefs and that, because of this, your argument doesn't matter. I think we can agree that is ridiculous since if so then no one would have political debates since everyone would be biased and no one would get anything done.

You were debating with Ter, whether or not an article proclaiming that the PEW poll was invalid because many people in the polling sample would be, because of fear of persecution by the state, unwilling to give their true opinions. That and whether or not real evidence had been provided to support this article. I think there is some validity to the article, but watching the immigrants carry on globally, I do suspect that most Muslim people actually share the ideals of those who would kill people who do not share their beliefs in their Gawd.
So now...since you profess to enjoy good debate so much...

First of all, western values ARE human values. I'd thought you'd have picked-up on that one but...
'cept maybe the golfing value...
The problem is the application of these values as "freedoms". And the inclusion of Religion as a top value.

But how can someone who says that he values diversity, then say such a racist thing? I know racism exists but if you're racist, say you're racist. Don't say you value diversity and then assume I'm Muslim because I'm Iranian.

There are very few people on this planet who can claim to truly hold no racism.
That's because racism stems from a human survival instinct to shut and fear that which is different.
If you are really the intellectual you make yourself out to be...you know that one...right?
However in all fairness, I did think you are Muslim.
Apparently that's not true. My mistake.

Wait a second, you're making me go off topic and bore you with stories of my travels! Do you realize what you have done?!

The boy was probably not educated. He probably was not taught even how to read just like his parents. If he read the Quran he would have doubts about suicide bombing and ISIS does not like doubts.

And yet to be Muslim is to be educated according to you. I guess Muslim warriors get a pass???

What they care about is their traditions, their clothing, their rituals, their food, their art. That is what they want to bring to the west . And refugees do not hate the West, they in fact love it because the West to them is full of opportunities and seems civilized etc.

Hatred for the West is not connected to Islam in anyway. How is an old, vague book and a pile of scrolls supposed to hate an entity that didn't even exist when it was made? It can't. The reason why some people dislike the West is because of what the West does in their countries. Every country in the Middle East has a reason to hate the West except Saudi Arabia ironically. However this does not make them hate Westerners as in people who live in the West. Arabs admire Westerners in fact.

OK now I think you're being naive.
The empirical evidence is in the rapes of girls throughout Europe, the blowing up of buildings, the proclamations made, and of course the willful killing of kids at a concert. People can say a variety of things that don't really reflect their beliefs...as you've already pointed out. It is rather evident that the culture and values of Muslim, indeed the Arab people, do not coincide with those of our culture. They clash.

And I agree with you somewhat that the actions of the west have come home to roost...if you will.
That this Terrorism issue is our own fault. However that does not mean I have to agree that blasphemers should be killed, or that I should fail to protect my society and culture from a real threat.

You now proceed to expose your anger and irrationality,

I am not angry simply because I mocked your perception of power. Just because I used a capital letter doesn't mean I'm angry, in fact what I was doing was imitating you.

I am not angered by your representation of Islam, I just dislike the way you portray power. Power is not like how you describe it and you over-simplified it. You do not understand how people get power and how power works.

So just shut up talking about power because you don't understand and I won't explain to you because you're so caught up in "exposing" me to be a Muslim that you won't listen anyway.

Would a Muslim really say that Islam needs a reformation and that the Middle East needs to be secularized? Do you have dyslexia like can you not read at all? Do you not know how to read I'm asking a very important question, how you answer determine whether or not I will waste my time with you.

No, all you did was just rant about how I'm a Muslim and how Islam is bad and incompatible with democracy. You didn't mention culture or indoctrination at all. If you did prove it and quote me where you did. I may have missed it when I had that stroke off of reading your bad formatted and incoherent words.

You know nothing about Arab culture how on earth would you know whether or not the culture wouldn't accept such a thing? Saudi Arabia hates culture since their extremist ideology Salafism says that everything in Perso-Arabic and Islamic culture is horrible. Saudi Arabia indoctrinates it's citizens with propaganda. Saudi Arabia has plans to demolish Mecca and put a parking lot over it because their extremist ideology, Salafism makes them do it.

I'm sorry but I'm the one who has to simplify things for you. You're the one who's an incoherent drunk posing on PoFo. I engage you intellectually, you just sloppily format your posts and make stupid assumptions about me based on nothing but my nationality. You didn't even know my race how the fuck were you supposed to know my religion?

Yes but do you understand what I'm saying? It doesn't look like it since everything you say to me is irrelevant to my posts. Also why are you telling me that killing people "foir" their religious beliefs is bad when I never said that it wasn't bad? Are you this bad at reading? And btw, Islam says you can't kill someone over their religious beliefs and just because ISIS does it doesn't mean that it is "true" Islam or that all Muslims do it or have to do it.

You never even defined western values at all. All you said was human values. I want you to tell me exclusively western values. If you can't think of any then western values don't exist at all.

LOL...
Have a nice weekend and do come back

[Zag Edit: Rule 2]

[Oxymandias]

Good for you. I prefer wine over beer personally but I do enjoy a good beer once in a while. If you think it's snot-faced that's your problem. If you have a problem with it respond to that, don't just start randomly ranting about me for no reason.

Can you explain what is so bad about my blasphemer post? I think it should be in line with your beliefs. Don't you think that the people who fight against their government are brave and deserve respect?

Oh my god that is an actually coherent and well thought out paragraph! I'm going to enjoy responding to it! I really like it! I actually agree with some of it was well! See? This is what happens when you coherently talk to people!

Many of the terrorist attacks that you see in Europe were not made by Syrian refugees but by second-generation immigrants. As in people born in Europe who had immigrants as parents or grandparents. The reason for committing such terrorist attacks are often due to a sense of alienation and a feeling to fit in somewhere. Europe has always been bad at assimilation in contrast to America (which is why you see so little terrorist attacks in America and tons in Europe) which can lead to alienation of people who have lived in Europe their entire lives and share it's culture yet will never be considered European. So this is why ISIS attracts them so much because it creates a sense of belonging. Now this isn't a problem for American because being an American just requires you to believe in democracy and freedom and whatever is said on the Constitution but it is a big problem for Europe which has had a culture of extreme nationalism and racism.

Are there some Muslims that do kill people because they truely believe that their God said so? Yes, probably but there are also Christians who do the same thing and we don't assume that all Christians are like this or that the Bible does tell people to kill others.

What is with you and me being intellectual? All I said was that I wanted to engage you in intellectual debate not that I myself was intellectual. I'm bay far the least intellectual person I know.

However there is a difference between being self-aware of that racism and stopping it and be self-aware about your racism and continuing it. You are doing the latter. If you know that what you are saying is racist, stop it, don't just continue and try to justify it. I thought humans were creatures of reason and not creatures of instinct?

I accept your apology. Just please do not do it again.

Then they wouldn't be western values, they would be human values and since western values are human values the west cannot claim them to be theirs.

No, they don't. They wouldn't be Muslim according to my interpretation of the Corn.

1. Culture isn't a static thing, it changes over time. In another time, the actions of Arabs would've fit with the actions of the Greeks.

2. It has to with differing environments rather than culture or religion. These Syrians came from an environment in which their actions don't have consequences. Syria is in chaos and anyone can get away with anything. There are no rules in Syria currently and it's literally anarchy there. These Syrians are just doing what they did in Syria and many of them probably aren't even Muslim in a traditional sense.

Yes, I agree. You shouldn't have to to want blasphemers to die and you should want to protect your society from a real threat. I would be worried that you aren't!

What is so angry and irrational about those points? Please point to me what so irrational and angry about them. The fact that you refused to answer them at all is proof that you have no way to refute them.

Are you assuming that I think I am of higher intellect than you? You're wrong, I genuinely thought you were high or drunk or something because of how incoherent your previous posts were. I'm legitimately being serious. I was profoundly worried and annoyed that I was potentially talking to a drunk guy right now.

[Rich]

@Rich

Well thank god the participants could've answered unhonestly.

Or do you want to kill millions of people that bad? If you want to do that then you should get your hands dirty. Why don't you go South in America, find a Muslim in a secluded southern town preferably with a christian and Trumpian majority, and murder him/her/the entire family. Sure you may be caught however since it's a secluded southern town your sentence wouldn't be that bad and since it's under a Trump administration the local government would feel that they could get away with giving you an easy sentence.

And if you want bonus points why don't you murder all of the muslims in that town or all the muslims in secluded towns with christian and Trumpian majorities? If you aren't willing to be change you believe in why believe in your beliefs at all? Take action! If you truely believe in the things you believe in you would actively participate in those beliefs!

Its not about my personal desires. Its not about my psychological needs. Its about how do begin to create a real resistance to Muslim terrorism. We are at a very primitive stage in the development of a real movement to end Muslim tyranny to destroy Islamic Imperialism once and for all. In time that will require the imposition of law upon Muslims and the waging of war against Muslims, but it will certainly not be helped by narcissistic acts of individual violence against individual Muslims or individual leftists who enable Muslim tyranny. There can be no toleration of the likes of Brevik.

Words in themselves are not enough, but thy are necessary. When a Muslim willingly collaborates in the killing of people for blasphemy or apostasy he is guilty of murder. This needs to be asserted.

[Oxymandias]

You can't really do that without ruining free speech. Because given how Islamophobic you are, it won't stop at simply killing anyone who calls for the killing of others but mass genocide of Muslims and anyone who supports Muslims.

"Islamic Imperialism" has never existed. How can an old vague book and a pile of scrolls imperialize anyone? If you are referring to Caliphates then a caliphate or an Islamic empire hasn't existed for decades. The last one was the Spanish Caliphate which didn't conquer anyone and was confined to Andalusia. And not only that but there was no Islamic empire that was an imperial power since there isn't an Islamic power that industrialized and colonized other countries. And conquering Spain is very different from colonizing it.

And before you end Islamic Imperialism end Western Imperialism which actually still exists today.

And if you want "Muslim tyranny" to end then why did the West even put horrible dictators and destabilize the Middle East in the first place?

Why would you wage a war against an entire population of people who a majority of them had nothing to do with terrorism? That's stupid and will only lead to more terrorism. I've heard of people who joined ISIS who did it not because of religion but because US forces were bombing them and killing their family and friends. This will only lead to more violence.

Are you implying that all Muslims enable terrorism? That's stupid of you to even think. You're law would probably fail given that Muslims will feel oppressed by your law and at this point have become used to free speech. Then they would join ISIS because they went to America and Europe for freedom only to see that they have returned to Syria and Iraq-style oppression.

But most Muslims don't in contrast to what you implied. It is already asserted. You already get sent to jail if you participate in terrorist activites in America unless you want to make practicing Islam a terrorist act in America so that more terrorists are made.

In fact I think you're a closet terrorist sympathizer since you want laws that encourage the creation of terrorists. You want Europe to essentially generate terrorists. Which means you are a Mohammedan, terrorist, ISIS sympathizing, Islamic, jihadist, goat-fucking scum for even thinking of such a terrorist creating law.

[Bulaba Khan Jones]

"Islamic Imperialism" has never existed. How can an old vague book and a pile of scrolls imperialize anyone? If you are referring to Caliphates then a caliphate or an Islamic empire hasn't existed for decades. The last one was the Spanish Caliphate which didn't conquer anyone and was confined to Andalusia. And not only that but there was no Islamic empire that was an imperial power since there isn't an Islamic power that industrialized and colonized other countries. And conquering Spain is very different from colonizing it.

This entire paragraph is incredibly autistic. Imagine someone saying "Western imperialism has never existed: how can a set of cultural values and common cultural traits imperialize anyone?" That would be equally obtuse. Islam spread largely by military conquest, whether it was a series of raids into Visigothic Spain which led to outright conquest and colonization or the same into India. What do you suppose Muslim rulers were doing when they set up shop in conquered territories, pressured new subjects to convert, and worked to destroy indigenous cultures? The Muslims in India destroyed countless Hindu and Buddhist temples and structures to literally use the building materials/stones to create mosques: the famous Qutb complex in India is one such example of the aftermath of Islamic imperialism.

The way you worded the end of your paragraph also makes it sound like you think industrialism necessitates imperialism.

[Hong Wu]

Let's not forget the Ottoman Empire. There seems to be some kind of leftist doublespeak definition of Imperialism at work here, such as only whites can be imperialistic, or something.

[Bulaba Khan Jones]

There are people who are so triggered by comments about Muslim terrorists (and a lot of that is understandable: people who say all Muslims are terrorists are obviously wrong in that assertion, or that all Muslims want to impose Sharia law, etc) that they will literally trip over themselves to say some of the stupidest fucking things.

Not too long ago we had another Pofoer (who is probably fighting for his life in Raqqa, Syria right now as ISIS begins to finally collapse) one-up the crazy argument that there has never been Islamic imperialism by going a step further in arguing that every Islamic expansion was purely defensive.

[anasawad]

Islamic expansion was never defensive.

Nevertheless, i think the point being made in which i made before is that there is a little difference between Empires and imperialism.
And there is also a vast difference between saying regular empires and colonial empires of the late centuries.

For example;
Since the talk about empires in the Muslim world, take the first Arab empires.
They formed vast empires conquering all the Arabian peninsula, Roujami parts of Persia, entirety of north Africa and Spain along with Anatolia and the levant ofcourse. All the people living in these territories are citizens of the empire.
This is called an empire.
They, by force, influenced several African nations south (Bantu nations) and forced them against their well into many dealings under the fear of being invaded or attacked. The people in these nations were not citizens of the Arab empires, nor did they have any benifit from it rather only being abused by them.
This is called Imperialism.

And lastly, colonial empires.
A good example of the longest standing of these empires are the Hazzari Persian or Turkic-Persian empires.
In these empires, the lands conquered have its people usually evicted from their lands and the lands seized by citizens of the conquering nations to benifit them.
The natives that stay within the border of empire are usually forced to adopt the culture, religion, language, etc of the conquering nation.
These empires are famous for mass genocides and ethnic cleansing being done under its reign.
Late European empires are also an example of this type.
Arab empires are sometimes called colonial empires but its factually not true because they did not colonize the lands they conquered. They did force the arabization of many parts of it but never did the colonization part in which natives are evicted from their lands and it being seized by the conquering nation.

Now, for the point that the empires in the Muslim world (and emphasis muslim world not Islamic world, big difference in meaning) are not caused by Islam is true for the most part.
Empires are almost never formed by religions, rather by politics and economy.
The empires built by Muslims are no difference. Islam was used to justify the expansion sometimes, just like Christianity was used to justify European empires. But neither Islam or Christianity actually pushed or formed or caused these empires.Rather its generally the same dynamic that the world has ran on for the past several thousands of years for everyone.

So saying that Islam is the reason these empires formed, or that Muslim empires are somehow different from the rest of the world empires is nothing but simplistic explanation of complex structure of multitude of factors and can be described as a stupid explanation almost every time its made.

@Bulaba Jones
Which poster is that ?

[Oxymandias]

@Bulaba Jones

I don't think you understand the difference between Imperialism and Conquest. Imperialism is the acquisition and exploitation of territories, an action linked to colonialism. Colonialism in turn involves unequal relationships between the colonizers and the indigenous people of the territory. Conquering is simply taking over a territory and making it yours. There hasn't been a Caliph that imperialized a territory and most of the time the opposite happened. Caliphs, like other conquerers, built their conquered territories and had invested interest in their growth along with the fact that many Caliphs were very lax on rules and regulations given that Shariah Law was often interpreted to suit the local needs as was with the Millet system.

Yes Islam spread by the sword however that isn't imperialism, that is conquest.

You are right, you don't need to industrialize to be an imperial power. That is my mistake.

Of course Islamic conquest wasn't defensive however it wasn't due to purely Islam and the goal of spreading religion that caused it. Of course there were times where conquest was due to religious reasons however Caliphs often didn't conquer for religious domination often since many times it's a waste of time and resources.

I apologize for my poor English.

[Oxymandias]

@Hong Wu

I think the Ottoman Empire is an interesting case given that it was a Caliph between 1261-1517 however it later became a Sultanate shortly after therefore not making it an Islamic empire given what the Quran defines as "Islamic empire". I just kind of left it out because when the Ottoman Empire started to actually imperialize was when it wasn't a Caliph however I do still consider it an Islamic empire given that it was an empire with Islam as it's state religion. I just didn't include it because it would've been safer just to go with the Quranic definition and not my own intuition.

I also apologize for leading you to think about whites being the only one to imperialize. I know that whites are not the only who imperialize. There has been both Middle Eastern and Asian imperial powers and I understand that.

[Bulaba Khan Jones]

Islamic expansion was never defensive.

Nevertheless, i think the point being made in which i made before is that there is a little difference between Empires and imperialism.
And there is also a vast difference between saying regular empires and colonial empires of the late centuries.

For example;
Since the talk about empires in the Muslim world, take the first Arab empires.
They formed vast empires conquering all the Arabian peninsula, Roujami parts of Persia, entirety of north Africa and Spain along with Anatolia and the levant ofcourse. All the people living in these territories are citizens of the empire.
This is called an empire.
They, by force, influenced several African nations south (Bantu nations) and forced them against their well into many dealings under the fear of being invaded or attacked. The people in these nations were not citizens of the Arab empires, nor did they have any benifit from it rather only being abused by them.
This is called Imperialism.

And lastly, colonial empires.
A good example of the longest standing of these empires are the Hazzari Persian or Turkic-Persian empires.
In these empires, the lands conquered have its people usually evicted from their lands and the lands seized by citizens of the conquering nations to benifit them.
The natives that stay within the border of empire are usually forced to adopt the culture, religion, language, etc of the conquering nation.
These empires are famous for mass genocides and ethnic cleansing being done under its reign.
Late European empires are also an example of this type.
Arab empires are sometimes called colonial empires but its factually not true because they did not colonize the lands they conquered. They did force the arabization of many parts of it but never did the colonization part in which natives are evicted from their lands and it being seized by the conquering nation.

Now, for the point that the empires in the Muslim world (and emphasis muslim world not Islamic world, big difference in meaning) are not caused by Islam is true for the most part.
Empires are almost never formed by religions, rather by politics and economy.
The empires built by Muslims are no difference. Islam was used to justify the expansion sometimes, just like Christianity was used to justify European empires. But neither Islam or Christianity actually pushed or formed or caused these empires.Rather its generally the same dynamic that the world has ran on for the past several thousands of years for everyone.

So saying that Islam is the reason these empires formed, or that Muslim empires are somehow different from the rest of the world empires is nothing but simplistic explanation of complex structure of multitude of factors and can be described as a stupid explanation almost every time its made.

@Bulaba Jones
Which poster is that ?

There's certainly a difference with Western colonialism, but the hallmarks of colonialism did exist: there was military conquest, there was economic exploitation, and Arabs (and other peoples who converted to Islam) certainly did live in areas they conquered. They didn't exactly move to replace the indigenous populations, which is of course true. The point I made, however, is that peoples and empires which adopted Islam were imperialist and colonialist in some respects.

When people talk about European imperialism and colonialism, we aren't literally saying Europe was a single entity, united, with only one culture. It's the same as talking about Islamic imperialism/Islamic colonialism when we talk about Western imperialism or Western colonialism.

[Oxymandias]

@Bulaba Jones

I don't think making a business in conquered territories count as imperialism. And the businesses set there weren't large exploitative corporations but small shops and stores which puts them at the same level as the indigenous people of the territory which crosses out number 1 off the colonization list which is unequal relationships between the colonizers and the indigenous people. Since this isn't unequal at all and isn't economic exploitation this removes 2 from the colonization list.

Just military conquest doesn't mean that it is colonization. When people talk about military conquest in terms of colonization it's a situation where the colonizers are extremely powerful and more technologically advanced than the colonized to the point where it isn't even a fight i.e. Spain and the Mayas, the British and the Indians, Europe and Africa. When Arabs conquered territory they were often either equal to, slightly superior to, or slightly inferior in terms of military strength to the conquered nation. This crosses another from the colonization list.

Then by that definition every empire in existence is imperialist and colonized which isn't true if we are to look at exactly what imperialism and colonization is.

Please do not use the word "Islamic". Not because I'm offended by you putting Islam and Imperialism in the same sentence but because of the same reason I dislike people calling the Middle East and North Africa the "Islamic World" or calling the Abbasid Caliphate's golden age the "Islamic Golden Age" it is not reflective at all of the actual territory, time period, or actions of the empires of that time and instead of putting it in a secular perspective puts it in a strictly religious one. It's like me calling the West the "Christian World" or the Renaissance and Enlightenment the "Christian Golden Age" or calling Western Imperialism "Christian Imperialism". Do you understand? It puts religion in the center of it all and puts the discussion on religion rather than what actually happen during those time periods or in those territories or why they did those actions.

It also could be a reason for why the Middle East has a hard time secularizing and is the reason why the West fails at fixing the Middle East. By making the Middle East's only identity be Islam and have it's only secular golden age be attributed to Islam, you assume that the Middle East's only trait is that it is Islamic and that Islam is the only thing the Middle East has going for it which is absolutely wrong.

[Buzz62]

I am so tired of these terrorist sympathizers who spend all their time and effort, trying to "fudge" the issues with horseshit.
For as much as the tragic actions of the Bush administration, the drone attacks of the Obama administration and so on, are ultimately the responsibility of the people in the west, this Islamic Terrorist movement is the responsibility of the people of the Islamic world. Running away from, or trying to excuse and confuse, exhibits cowardice.

[Oxymandias]

@Buzz62

Ah yes it's easy to admit the actions of Bush and Obama when you can just blame the government. But when we, in the Middle East, blame the government you're like "Nooooooo you can't do that you have to take PERSONAL responsibility!".

No one here isn't admitting terrorist attacks or ISIS sucks. Just because we don't think that everyone in the Middle East is a horrible person who wants to kill anyone and that everyone in the Middle East isn't a complex population of people with their own cultures, societies, and headcanons and just one single person known by the name of "Islam". doesn't mean we are terrorist sympathizers. Hell, I saw up close and personal what an Islamic extremist can do and I absolutely hate them but that doesn't mean I'm going to go ahead and say that every single person in the Middle East is either a terrorist or a terrorist sympathizer.

[Buzz62]

Ah yes it's easy to admit the actions of Bush and Obama when you can just blame the government. But when we, in the Middle East, blame the government you're like "Nooooooo you can't do that you have to take PERSONAL responsibility!".

No actually I said "are ultimately the responsibility of the people in the west". That's because we elected those people, and is how democracy works.

No one here isn't admitting terrorist attacks or ISIS sucks. Just because we don't think that everyone in the Middle East is a horrible person who wants to kill anyone and that everyone in the Middle East isn't a complex population of people with their own cultures, societies, and headcanons and just one single person known by the name of "Islam". doesn't mean we are terrorist sympathizers. Hell, I saw up close and personal what an Islamic extremist can do and I absolutely hate them but that doesn't mean I'm going to go ahead and say that every single person in the Middle East is either a terrorist or a terrorist sympathizer.

Yes well, I'd have to say that's rather obvious.
However, "terrorist" or not, it's extremely obvious that the Islamic people are much more controlled by their religion than mainstream westerners, and this is causing allot of "friction" in Europe.

Case in point:
I am, admittedly, a little rough on Christian doctrine and the church in general.
I have said verbally and in here in posts, that I find the worship of a dead guy unceremoniously tacked to a crucifix, macabre and speaks volumes about Christianity.
However...I can say and write that over and over, and nobody here is going to try to kill me for it.

Tell me, can you make similarly rough statements about Mohammad where you live?
Probably not a good idea huh?
Now...knowing this, how well do you think the Muslim refugees to Germany (for instance) are going to assimilate into a society that allows such ideas to flow freely? Not at all maybe?

[Oxymandias]

@Buzz62

And I said that it's easy to admit the actions of your country when you can easily blame the government but that when Muslims blame the government you state that we have to do more than blame the government. As if we can do more than blame the government.

That is absolutely false. In fact they're probably less likely to follow their own religion than Westerners given that they probably don't knowhow to read. They get most of their religion from clerics and the government.

That was my point to begin with. When Muslims in the Middle East speak out against the government and blame them Westerners think that this isn't enough and want Muslims to risk their lives and the lives of their families to fight the government which can be bad for the long term stability of their country. It's easy to tell others that they should risk their lives and the lives of their community when you're sitting you ass on a comfy chair in an air conditioned house with lots of freedoms and stuff. But Middle Easterners don't have that luxury.

To be honest it's in fact easier to assimilate into a country with freedom of speech in contrast to a strict society where speech is prohibited. In fact many refugees come from Syria which is in literal anarchy. So it's not a situation in which a person is going from a place with little freedom to a place with lots of it but a person going from a place where anyone can do anything they want to a place where you can't do anything you want.

In other words, it's not going from a lack of freedom to freedom, but going from too much freedom to constrained freedom. In Syria you can do anything you fucking want and not have any consequences for it, in Europe you can't get away with doing whatever you want. In fact if you went from a place that was authoritarian to a place that was free it would be easier for you to assimilate.

[Buzz62]

And I said that it's easy to admit the actions of your country when you can easily blame the government but that when Muslims blame the government you state that we have to do more than blame the government. As if we can do more than blame the government.

That's not what I'm saying. If fact I'm saying the opposite.
It is THE PEOPLE of any given area, that is ultimately responsible for the conditions they live in.
THE GOVERNMENT of said area, is only a reflection of the culture and society of that area.
What that means is, I am somewhat responsible for the NATO and "Coalition of the willing" attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq, and all the "hanky-panky" that our governments have so rudely imposed on the Arab and Muslim world.
Quite frankly, the whole sorted story is detestable.
Our societies have done the same in South America as well.
Empire building is such a shitty idea...
But the point is, our culture PRODUCED the neocons who lead those attacks.

I assume you are a native of your lands (correct me if I'm wrong), and thus must also admit that it is your CULTURE and SOCIETY that produced this ultra-religious and violent reaction to western impositions. And let's be honest here...when I say "impositions", I mean all the BS our governments have engaged in for profit. The bombs, the dead, the destroyed towns, the mess.
However, this thread is about dealing out the death penalty for blaspheme.
Does this legal system have much to do with our "impositions"?

That is absolutely false. In fact they're probably less likely to follow their own religion than Westerners given that they probably don't knowhow to read. They get most of their religion from clerics and the government.

Yes yes...simple people. I get it. We have them too. In Arkansas and a place in Canada called Saskatchewan. Oh and Hamilton...
What you're suggesting is that the immigrants be given time (like 2 generations) to assimilate.
I'm not sure we have that luxury. And I'm not sure your next premise is correct.

To be honest it's in fact easier to assimilate into a country with freedom of speech in contrast to a strict society where speech is prohibited. In fact many refugees come from Syria which is in literal anarchy. So it's not a situation in which a person is going from a place with little freedom to a place with lots of it but a person going from a place where anyone can do anything they want to a place where you can't do anything you want.

In other words, it's not going from a lack of freedom to freedom, but going from too much freedom to constrained freedom. In Syria you can do anything you fucking want and not have any consequences for it, in Europe you can't get away with doing whatever you want. In fact if you went from a place that was authoritarian to a place that was free it would be easier for you to assimilate.

Syria is in a state of war. I'm not sure that's really "anarchy" but more a form of religious-military rule, and all the goodies that comes with. In short...it sounds like living hell. I don't blame people for wanting to get outta there. I blame them for bringing their anger to my doorstep. For making this a religious issue.

For sending their warriors to my home to blow up my kids.