[QatzelOk]

In the golden age of Islam (10th - 14th Centuries) trade was more free and open than ever. Islam actually spread in a linear way all along major trade routes from Spain to Indonesia.

Also, like English Liberalism, there was an attempt in classic Islamic politics, to create a trade zone (and political culture) that was internationalist and respectful of local customs - as long as they were peaceful and didn't disrupt international trade.

Also, the use of the Koran as a type of constitution had the added plus of providing international traders with a predictable environment in which to work.

A lot of this sounds like European Liberalism from the 18th and 19th Century.

Do you agree that there are similarities?

Are the differences much greater than the similarities?

Do you think Islamic Liberalism is a viable concept for the future?

[Lightman]

There were similarities. The problem is that instead of progressing the Middle East actually digressed because of European colonization.

[QatzelOk]

Nonetheless, it is possible the Europe also missed out by not adopting what was already a much more liberal and tolerant social model from the Islamic countries.

This is similar to the West throwing out all social programs now because the Soviet Union is defunct (thanks to our aggressive attacks against it).

Defeating a competing paradigm is not the way to progress. Understanding it and adopting to its new way of looking at the world is the way to progress.

So Europe actually slowed down its own progress - perhaps resulting in the current crisis in Western society we are witnessing today with environmental collaps amid growing income disparities. And all to retain some arbitrary and ethnocentric and xenophobic ideological "purity."

[kami321]

adopting what was already a much more liberal and tolerant social model from the Islamic countries.

In any case present day Europe went far ahead of all muslim nations in terms of liberalism and social tolerance, I don't think you will deny that.

[QatzelOk]

liberalism and social tolerance

But this had a very high cost of social harmony and the destruction of the family.

The Westerner has no social support except the government, no civil life except voting, and no fun except TV and shopping.

Also, we have incredibly weak social skills, and we are almost ready to kill every last living creature on the planet in order to keep entertaining ourselves with our toys.

Europe needed Islam a thousand years ago. But instead, chose materialism and superstition.

[Lightman]

The more I read your posts the more I think you're a satirist...but if you're not.

But this had a very high cost of social harmony and the destruction of the family.

Okay...you propose mandatory homsexuality..l.and you're talking about DESTROYING THE FAMILY? I mean, I'm pro-gay rights, but the family is historically a man, a woman, and their children.

The Westerner has no social support except the government, no civil life except voting, and no fun except TV and shopping.

Point one: charities, freinds, loved ones, etc.
Point Two: Debate, etc.
Point three: reading, exercising, though I think we miss out on the great fun of blowing people up.

Conclusion: you're a college student who has never seen the real world and just assumes whatever BS comes out of his proffesor's mouth is true.

[QatzelOk]

Okay...you propose mandatory homsexuality..l.and you're talking about DESTROYING THE FAMILY? I mean, I'm pro-gay rights, but the family is historically a man, a woman, and their children.

A family is traditionally dedicated to using 50% or more of the 2 parents energies to help nurture a forming human being.

If it is one man and one woman, or two of a single gender, this makes no difference.

A man and a woman who spend most of their time in the pursuit of money or pleasure, and dedicate as little as possible to the formation of their children, are being horrible parents, and are destroying the very process of family social reproduction.

Their kids won't know anything about parenting.

Whereas gay parents who dedicate more than half their energies to child rearing will instill the importance of this function on their kids.

It's about dedication, NOT some magical gender combination.

The Koran has nothing against homosexuality, so all of what it says may be applied to this new form of coupling.

[Lightman]

SURA IV: 19-21

19. But whoso rebels against God and His Apostle, and transgresses His bounds, He will make him enter into fire, and dwell therein for aye; and for him is shameful woe.

20. Against those of your women who commit adultery, call witnesses four in number from among yourselves; and if these bear witness, then keep the women in houses until death release them, or God shall make for them a way.

21. And if two (men) of you commit it, then hurt them both; but if they turn again and amend, leave them alone, verily, God is easily turned, compassionate.

SURA VII: 78-84 [On Lot at Sodom]

78. Then the earthquake took them, and in the morning they lay prone in their dwellings;

79. and he turned away from them and said, 'O my people! I did preach to you the message of my Lord, and I gave you good advice; but ye love not sincere advisers.'

80. And Lot, when he said to his people, 'Do ye approach an abomination which no one in all the world ever anticipated you in?

81. verily, ye approach men with lust rather than women- nay, ye are a people who exceed.'

82.But his people's answer only was to say, 'Turn them out of your village, verily, they are a people who pretend to purity.'

83. But we saved him and his people, except his wife, who was of those who lingered;

84. and we rained down upon them a rain;- see then how was the end of the sinners!

SURA XI: 77-84 [On Lot at Sodom]

77. And when our messengers came to Lot, he was grieved for them; but his arm was straitened for them, and he said, 'This is a troublesome day!'

78. And his people came to him, rushing at him, for before that they used to work evil. He 'Said, 'O my people! here are my daughters, they are purer for you; then, fear God, and do not disgrace me through my guests;- is there not among you one right-thinking man?'

79. They said, 'Thou knowest that we have no claim on thy daughters; verily, thou knowest what we want!'

80. He said, 'Had I but power over you; or could I but resort to some strong column....!'

81. (The angels) said, 'O Lot! verily, we are the messengers of thy Lord, they shall certainly not reach thee; then travel with thy people in the darkness of the night, and let none of you look round except thy wife: verily, there shall befall her what befalls them. Verily, their appointment is for the morning! and is not the morning nigh?'

82. And when our bidding came, we made their high parts their low parts. And we rained down upon them stones and baked clay one after another,

83. marked, from thy Lord, and these are not so far from the unjust!

84. And unto Midian (we sent) their brother Sho'haib. He said, 'O my people! serve God; ye have no god but Him, and give not short measure and weight. Verily, 'I see you well off; but, verily, I fear for you the torments of an encompassing day.

etc...

So tolerant, Qatz. I can just feel the love for homosexuals coming from the Koran.

[kami321]

The Westerner has no social support except the government, no civil life except voting, and no fun except TV and shopping.

Also, we have incredibly weak social skills, and we are almost ready to kill every last living creature on the planet in order to keep entertaining ourselves with our toys.

Islamic civilization would have most likely chosen the same or very similar path of development had it enough time to progress further. But since the Muslims were colonized and then seemed to have stuck/returned to some sort of middle age mindset, hence the difference.

[QatzelOk]

21. And if two (men) of you commit it, then hurt them both; but if they turn again and amend, leave them alone, verily, God is easily turned, compassionate.

That paranthesis is your own. This part of the forth sura (called "Women") has nothing to do with homosexality. Here are some better translations of that same line 21 of the Sura.

[4:21] How could you take it back, after you have been intimate with each other, and they had taken from you a solemn pledge?

21 How can ye take it (back) after one of you hath gone in unto the other, and they have taken a strong pledge from you ?

(Author's paranthesis)

http://www.islamicity.com/mosque/TOPICI.HTM

The passage is about breaking your vowes of marriage when you commit adultery.

The other passages you quote only refer to the misdeeds of the city of Lot. They don't specifically mention what the misdeed was, so the important thing to remember is that the citizens DIDN'T HEED THE WARNINGS.

[PBVBROOK]

This is similar to the West throwing out all social programs now because the Soviet Union is defunct (thanks to our aggressive attacks against it).

What? Where in God's name did you get this nonsense?

The Westerner has no social support except the government, no civil life except voting, and no fun except TV and shopping.

Also, we have incredibly weak social skills, and we are almost ready to kill every last living creature on the planet in order to keep entertaining ourselves with our toys.

Homosexuality is not how our society nor that under Islam defines itself. If you are looking for a bastion of human rights I suggest you look somewere other than under Sharia law.

Europe needed Islam a thousand years ago. But instead, chose materialism and superstition.

Where do you get this stuff. Honestly! I disagree with every assertion. Or should I say. Speak for yourself.

A family is traditionally dedicated to using 50% or more of the 2 parents energies to help nurture a forming human being.

If it is one man and one woman, or two of a single gender, this makes no difference.

And did you use the word traditionally? Well yes you did. And of course this is also nonsense. Traditionally gay marriage and child rearing was extremely unusual. One thing you can be sure of. Under Sharia law you will never see gay marriage. You may, however, see plural marriage.

I'm sorry you see dispair in the most free society in history. Rest assured most people don't. If you are young it will give you no hope to tell you that dispair and anger are common afflictions of the young.

Go for a walk around Paris. Have a glass of good Bordeaux in a cafe. It is still early enough to do this. Look at the other people there laughing and having fun. They are not stupid. They are not unenlightened. They are not blind. They are not deluded. The are generally happy because it feels better to choose to be as happy as one can. Much of the philosophy you interperate to be so serious and profound was concieved and matured around a table in a bistro. Study the lives of the philosophers. The were often smashing good company.

[NYYS]

QatzelOK, your entire existence just contradicts itself. You're so bent on being the anti-society that you've decided to become the two things that could not be more directly opposed to each other (homosexual and Muslim). And now you're taking obscure translations to try to argue against what everyone acknowledges as truth. I can almost guarantee you don't really follow the tenets of Islam and I wouldn't be half surprised if you weren't really gay either. You're just doing it because it's trendy (or untrendy).

I swear if one day society decided owning cars was wrong within a year you'd own a Hummer (if you could afford one, since I have no doubt you've spent your life trying to not make money). You're just one of those people that has a pathological need to be different.

[QatzelOk]

...could not be more directly opposed to each other (homosexual and Muslim)

Is this juxtaposition really more shocking than "American" and "colonialist?"

More than 10% of Moslems are biologically gay, and bisexuality is very common in many Moslem societies, despite what Osama told you after he took down those 2 big American penises.

American opinion on Islam is now charged to equate it with terror and destruction. This has nothing to do with the contents of the Koran, and everything to do with media ownership in America and Europe.

[NYYS]

Is this juxtaposition really more shocking than "American" and "colonialist?"

yeah that's pretty much why i said it

More than 10% of Moslems are biologically gay

got to knock off a few percents for all the ones that get hung in the mideast...

American opinion on Islam is now charged to equate it with terror and destruction. This has nothing to do with the contents of the Koran, and everything to do with media ownership in America and Europe.

i'd say it has a lot more to do with all those riots and terrorist attacks done in the name of islam, but you know the media thing is clever too

Actually, in all seriousness the media is one of the strongest advocates of "Islam is the religion of peace" type broadcasting. It's very politically correct to say that, and the media here is all over political correctness. Just because the media doesn't censor itself when there is another riot or carbombing in the mideast doesn't mean they're out to get you. It means they report the news.

[QatzelOk]

Just because the media doesn't censor itself when there is another riot or carbombing in the mideast doesn't mean they're out to get you.

Yes, it does.

The media covers car bombs and suicide bombings, even though many more people get killed in car accidents every day.

For the media, three dead people in a car bombing in Haifa gets 1000 times more coverage than a car accident in Flint Michigan that kills the same number of people. This means that, in the public mind, it "feels" like that car bomber is a thousand times as deadly as driving a car.

Since 1 death = 1 death, we can ascertain that the media repeats images of certain deaths in order to manipulate our instincts and distort our perspective. And to make money, of course, but that money-making objective of media also determines which groups get tarred, and which get spared.

[NYYS]

Yes, it does.

So the media should censor itself to not offend Islam? Is that what I should take from this?

For the media, three dead people in a car bombing in Haifa gets 1000 times more coverage than a car accident in Flint Michigan that kills the same number of people. This means that, in the public mind, it "feels" like that car bomber is a thousand times as deadly as driving a car.

The car crash in Flint will be covered on Flint's local news, so let's not pretend like it's just ignored, first of all.

Second, the crash is an accident. The car bombing is an attack on a country, designed to kill as many people as possible. If a serial killer went out and killed three people it would get just as much news as the car bombing (even though it probably shouldn't, as it is not an attack on a state) because it is intentional and designed to harm as many people as possible.

So, Qatz, what would you rather have your local news cover? A serial killer running loose in your neighborhood who just killed a couple people? Or a car crash that killed a couple people? One death does not equal one death, not in news at least.

[QatzelOk]

A serial killer running loose in your neighborhood who just killed a couple people? Or a car crash that killed a couple people?

Both.

I have been almost killed by cars many times, yet I seem to be immune to all the serial killing that's going around.

If the media glorified each car accident the way it glorifies school shootings and terror attacks, I can guarantee you there would be a lot less cars around, and a lot less death.

[NYYS]

Both.

way to weasel out of the question... if they only had time to run one, what would you rather it be? Or what would you rather they cover more in depth?

I have been almost killed by cars many times, yet I seem to be immune to all the serial killing that's going around.

Because car accidents are more common than serial killings, perhaps? Would you like your news to cover all the things that happen every day? Should they dedicate ten minutes each morning to the sunrise, just to let us know that it did, in fact, happen?

On a related note, you almost getting hit by cars is your own fault. I just got back from a run in Boston, home of Massholes, the absolute rudest, most inconsiderate, insane, outrageous driving on Earth and didn't even come close to getting hit once. I can see almost getting hit once every six months or so, but coming close "many times?" Seems like the blame wouldn't lie solely with the drivers.

[QatzelOk]

Seems like the blame wouldn't lie solely with the drivers.

You're right. It's my fault for not following the social norms that commercial media produce.

You probably walk a lot slower, and stay off the rollerblades when you're in the city.

Wimps for machine domination!

[NYYS]

You're right. It's my fault for not following the social norms that commercial media produce.

Yes, it is your fault for not following social norms.

You probably walk a lot slower, and stay off the rollerblades when you're in the city.

Yeah, partly because I'm in the city and partly because it's not 1996 anymore.

You going to answer my other question?

if they only had time to run one, what would you rather it be? Or what would you rather they cover more in depth?

Because car accidents are more common than serial killings, perhaps? Would you like your news to cover all the things that happen every day? Should they dedicate ten minutes each morning to the sunrise, just to let us know that it did, in fact, happen?