• Please remember: Pray for Ukraine in the Prayer forum; Share news in the Christian News section; Discuss religious implications in FFA: Religious Topics; Discuss political implications in Politics (and if you don't have access, PM me) Thank you! + Fr. George, Forum Administrator

Sharia Law in UK Unavoidable

Riddikulus

Protokentarchos
Joined
Feb 20, 2006
Messages
4,788
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Queensland, Australia
TinaG said:
I feel a little hypocritical for having started this thread and railed against the islamization of the free world and its threat to Christians, but it seems the only suggestions seem to be about repressing islam, deportation (which wouldn't be an option if so many muslims hadn't been invited in), etc...  It's a tricky situation to deal with a religion whose tenets basically deny Western values of free choice, plurality and debate, without becoming as oppressive.  Short of wishing islam would just disappear from the earth, I think the only thing that will turn the tide against islam will be strong evangelism and an unwavering Christian faith.  However, the brutal violence of islam has got  a lot of people (me included) thinking twice about making evangelizing muslims or making public statements against islam knowing they could get you hurt or killed. 
Tina,

It's good to have a rant every now and then.  ;D

But the problem in Europe, I believe, is not so much Islamisation, as deChristianisation. Perhaps concerted efforts to evangelise Europe wouldn't be such a bad thing because increasing Christians numbers could at least present a buffer.

With regard, to the Archbishop's comment, I caught the tail end of news report on Queensland TV which had some young Brits making comments like "what the Archbishop suggests would be a good thing" with a kind of "hail fellow, well met" attitude. Unfortunately I didn't hear enough to get any impression that they understood what they were so thoughtlessly agreeing to, and I seriously doubt that they do.

So what worries me most is that people have short memories (or simple lack of knowledge) when it comes to history. I have heard at least two well-known presenters of documentaries concerning the Middle East and the Crusades making such statments as only Christians resorted to "converting by the sword" and indicating quite strongly that Muslims were peace-loving folk all minding their own business, only to find themselves at the mercy of brutish Crusaders. While that's not entirely untrue to some extent, it's a gross misrepresentation of the overall historical facts. And the Crusades (horrible as they were) were a lot more complicated than simple rape and pillage missions.

However, if that sort of "it's all our fault" history has been dished up for sometime, it's no wonder that Europeans are leaving Christianity and bending over backwards to apologise for their forebears being such thugs. Naturally, any effort to correct such a mistaken view is going to be seen as racist and bigotted.

 

Friul

Protokentarchos
Site Supporter
Joined
Dec 10, 2006
Messages
4,492
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
35
Location
Earth, Solar System, Local Interstellar Cloud, Loc
Website
www.iheu.org
TinaG said:
I feel a little hypocritical for having started this thread and railed against the islamization of the free world and its threat to Christians, but it seems the only suggestions seem to be about repressing islam, deportation (which wouldn't be an option if so many muslims hadn't been invited in), etc...  It's a tricky situation to deal with a religion whose tenets basically deny Western values of free choice, plurality and debate, without becoming as oppressive.  Short of wishing islam would just disappear from the earth, I think the only thing that will turn the tide against islam will be strong evangelism and an unwavering Christian faith.  However, the brutal violence of islam has got  a lot of people (me included) thinking twice about making evangelizing muslims or making public statements against islam knowing they could get you hurt or killed.   
It is only a matter of time before someone in Europe will say something that will get them violently rioting again ("Death to Europe", "Death to those who insult Islam", stoning police, firebombing, flipping cars, etc).  When it happens, treat it as an insurrection, bring in the gendarmerie, arrest and jail those who were born in the country and deport those who migrated there.  If they wish to violate our laws, we should come down on them with everything we have.  In France, you will hear police speak of how they will get swarmed my Muslim youths in these suburbs, and have their car stoned by 30+ people, or they will try and flip the car with them in it.  They say they show absolutely no fear.  We look weak and submissive in their eyes, an image we need to change and fast.

I can't blame you about fearing to speak out publically against islam, there are a lot of Bouyeri's out there...
 

Riddikulus

Protokentarchos
Joined
Feb 20, 2006
Messages
4,788
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Queensland, Australia
Friul said:
Something I have been called quite often.  ::)  :laugh:
Well, it's not something I would worry about. I'm always prepared to admit Christian/European/British failures and if rose-spectacled people don't like to hear my opinion of their own performances - with diplomacy, of course, it's kind of tough luck for them. :laugh:
 

Myrrh23

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Dec 5, 2007
Messages
1,639
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Hey Guys!


Look at Shar'ia Law...it's very medieval, especially for women and girls. I get sick to my stomach when I hear Muslim women praising Islam because they think it's so good to women. Actions speak louder than words.  :mad:
For many women in Islam, it's "give me a son, cover up, and shut up". I've noticed that when moderate voices speak up, the voices of extremism say lies and whip the crowds into religious frenzy. Indeed, the seeds fall on hard ground. Take the incident of the British teacher letting her students name a teddy bear after Mohammed. The crowds were told this teacher blasphemed the name of their Prophet. They were waving swords and clubs, calling immediately for her death. Muslims in Muslim countries eat this stuff up. Maybe the reason why Muslims in Christian countries are relatively calm about their grievances is because (1) they're around good Christian influences, and (2) Muslims in our countries are given fair treatment.
One learns hate when one is constantly around it. Look at how non-Muslims are treated in Muslim countries. I am not aware of anything in Christianity that bestows honor and the ticket to God's Paradise when one goes about killing members of other religions like there is in Islam.
Personally, I think Bush and his cronies would have made great Muslims...but that's another story.

Myrrh23
 

greekischristian

Merarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
9,487
Reaction score
0
Points
36
^I think that this is in large part the issue here Sharia does not provide for equal protection under the law, it provides biases based on gender and religion and, thus, should not even be allowed via private arbitration; at stake is much more than the specifics of the case being considered by the courts, the very principles of Western Jurisprudence are under attack whenever such a system is even given consideration.
 

DerekMK

Protokentarchos
Joined
Oct 4, 2002
Messages
5,437
Reaction score
0
Points
0
greekischristian said:
Because an invasion of the home islands would have resulted in far fewer casualties?
Entirely irrelevant.  Either option shows that the idea of the pacific westernized nations vs. violent Islamic ones is suspect.

You'd think that after all of this they would compare themselves to the west and ask why our civilization has advanced while theirs have diminished; despite their civilization having once been a center of knowledge and scholarship? It is not hard to see that the second rise of Western Civilization coincides with the Renaissance, Reformation, and Enlightenment. The fact that they have not realized this, and changed their society accordingly, in several centuries does not bode well for them.
The cultural shift you are talking about took centuries to occur in the West.  This transition is happening far more rapidly in today's developing world than it did in Europe, but it still isn't going to happen overnight.

greekischristian said:
^I think that this is in large part the issue here Sharia does not provide for equal protection under the law, it provides biases based on gender and religion and, thus, should not even be allowed via private arbitration; at stake is much more than the specifics of the case being considered by the courts, the very principles of Western Jurisprudence are under attack whenever such a system is even given consideration.
Principles of Western Jurisprudence?  You do realize that women were not allowed to vote until the early 20th century in the US?  And as for equality before the law - do you really think a poor black person has the same shot as a rich white person in our legal system?  It really wasn't that long ago that the legal system in the US turned a blind eye to activities of groups like the KKK.  The reality is that we are barely a second generation removed from an era where our system was little better in many areas than their current system. 
 

greekischristian

Merarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
9,487
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Νεκτάριος said:
Entirely irrelevant.  Either option shows that the idea of the pacific westernized nations vs. violent Islamic ones is suspect.
No more irrelevant than your initial use of the example which sought to somehow compare intra-societal violence to undermine personal liberty with (in this case defensive) war.


The cultural shift you are talking about took centuries to occur in the West.  This transition is happening far more rapidly in today's developing world than it did in Europe, but it still isn't going to happen overnight.
Then they can remain in their own countries until it does occur.

Principles of Western Jurisprudence?  You do realize that women were not allowed to vote until the early 20th century in the US?  And as for equality before the law - do you really think a poor black person has the same shot as a rich white person in our legal system?  It really wasn't that long ago that the legal system in the US turned a blind eye to activities of groups like the KKK.  The reality is that we are barely a second generation removed from an era where our system was little better in many areas than their current system. 
Yes, 'Principles of Western Jurisprudence', are you really that incapable of understanding the differences between principle and practice?

I believe that I already admited to our failings in the past, but they are also complete irrelevant. If this were the year 1800 you may have had a point, but, last I checked, it's 2008. As, in this time, we have managed to overcome many of these difficulities, I see no reason why others who have had access to the same political and philosophical writers and who have been able to observe the developments of the same ideologies should be given a pass for their failure to substantially improve their societies and legal systems.

If they had, at least, changed their legal system in order to attempt to establish equality under the law, it may be possible to overlook practical shortcommings (depending on how severe); but they have not even attempted this. Sharia law is inherently inequitable, as long as even a nod is given towards it we can be assured that they have made zero progress in the modernizing of their legal codes, for if they are unwilling to change the principles behind their laws there can be no hope of them changing their practice of said law.

And getting back to the OP, to allow even the consideration of this barbaric code in the midst of our infinitely more enlightened judicial codes is nothing short of absurd. Sharia law simply has no redeeming qualities when compared to the laws of the west.
 

greekischristian

Merarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
9,487
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Νεκτάριος said:
And there is still this assumption underlying this thread that Islam is some sort of monolithic entity.  I do wonder how much time some people have spent reading literature from the classical period of Islam, studying languages and cultures of Muslims etc.   
I don't know that these things are even relevant, just like 12th century Christian sources about politics or society arn't really relevant when discussion modern Christian social values. Democracy may not have been very popular in Byzantium, but today it is the de facto Christian form of government. Likewise, all people really need to grasp about Islam are their modern practices, the fact that they still establish theocratic states, the fact that their leaders advocate killing in the name of religious oppression.

You have this tendency to want to compare the best you can find in Islam with the worst you can find in Christianity, which is not a valid approach. What we must judge is how our peoples conduct themselves right now in our modern world.
 

Myrrh23

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Dec 5, 2007
Messages
1,639
Reaction score
0
Points
0
GIC---


Our futures are based somewhat on our past, but our futures are also influenced by other cultures. Many centuries have changed a lot of the culture of Christian societies, sometimes for the better, and sometimes for the worse. I wonder why so many centuries have not changed many Islamic societies for the better...I wonder why many of them still wish to view women as baby-making machines that must be accompanied by a male relative when outside the home. I wonder why Islam enjoyed a time of peace and prosperity before the Black Death...even with the Qur'an back then, but now they wish to use the same text as a means of terror and sorrow. Who knows?

Myrrh23
 

greekischristian

Merarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
9,487
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Myrrh23 said:
GIC---


Our futures are based somewhat on our past, but our futures are also influenced by other cultures. Many centuries have changed a lot of the culture of Christian societies, sometimes for the better, and sometimes for the worse. I wonder why so many centuries has not changed many Islamic societies for the better...I wonder why many of them still wish to view women as baby-making machines that must be accompanied by a male relative when outside the home.

Myrrh23
I can't tell you why Islamic societies have not managed the intellectual developments of the west, but that was in large part my point. There may have been a time when they were just as 'enlightened' as the west (not that that's saying much, given the era), but what is significant today is that their social development has been retarded and, thus, we are compelled to confront them as the medieval societies they are, rather than as the society they could have become.
 

DerekMK

Protokentarchos
Joined
Oct 4, 2002
Messages
5,437
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Myrrh23 said:
I do know that many Palestinians were unjustly driven from their homes by Israel during the years it was forming Itself, and I do believe that Israel does more than its fair share of selfish damage in their clash against the Palestinians. However, the way the latter has responded to this crisis has made it worse. Violence is now a large part of Islamic culture, and though the West has a lot of the guilt on its shoulders, these cultures also share some of the guilty weight.
It is a tit-for-tat struggle for territory and geopolitical position.  It is also a vicious cycle: extreme poverty, warfare, refugee crises are all breeding grounds for extremist ideology that otherwise would not take a mainstream hold.  Unless people start seeing these types of problems as economic problems and issues with development, this is just going to be an endless cycle of violence. Call me a leftist radical if you wish, but that is the public position of Gen. Petraus, the US State Department, USAID etc. 

Islamic cultures are traditionally conservative, private,  family-oriented, and tribal. To us, to violate anything that has to do with Eastern society and religious culture is worse than taboo. One of the reasons it's so hard for Pakistan and Afghanistan to get their acts together is because of this tribal aspect. Even to Liberal Muslims like many of my family members, it is very much frowned upon to be a bird of a different feather.
That is what I said previously in this thread: the British and French partitioned old empires into unsustainable nationstates.  A good of the security problems in Pakistan and Afghanistan stem from the current Pashtun national awakening and the fact that the Pashtun homeland happens to have an international border running through the middle of it.   
 

Myrrh23

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Dec 5, 2007
Messages
1,639
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Hey GIC--

To go back to the beginning, I think Tina was right in her apphensive tone. I think indulging the Shar'ia Law will only encourage them to remain medieval. Maybe the reason why they're extending a welcome hand to it is because the UK is afraid of rioting that the French are enduring...

Quote:
"It is a tit-for-tat struggle for territory and geopolitical position.  It is also a vicious cycle: extreme poverty, warfare, refugee crises are all breeding grounds for extremist ideology that otherwise would not take a mainstream hold." 

Nekta--
How do you explain Saudi Arabia's extremism? They seem pretty well off to me...
I made the post about the traditionalism of Islamic cultures to say that the classic period is ancient history..it's dust. What Islamic cultures care about is this conservatism and tribalism.



Myrrh23
 

DerekMK

Protokentarchos
Joined
Oct 4, 2002
Messages
5,437
Reaction score
0
Points
0
greekischristian said:
I don't know that these things are even relevant, just like 12th century Christian sources about politics or society arn't really relevant when discussion modern Christian social values.
The reason I think that era is particularly relevant is that it can serve as a religious and cultural model for modern Muslim societies.  Simply telling people to becoming aping imitators of the West doesn't really win hearts and minds on the large scale.  Instead pointing out times in Islamic history when tolerance was the norm, where high culture was valued, when the secular sciences were revered is essential is telling people that they don't have to give up their faith and entire culture to enter the modern world. 

You have this tendency to want to compare the best you can find in Islam with the worst you can find in Christianity, which is not a valid approach. What we must judge is how our peoples conduct themselves right now in our modern world.
That isn't an apple to apple comparison, either.  My position is basically that under the same economic and social conditions as exist in the West, Islam would moderate itself in the same way that post-enlightenment Christianity has done.  It won't be a rapid transformation, just like it wasn't a rapid transformation in Europe. 
 

DerekMK

Protokentarchos
Joined
Oct 4, 2002
Messages
5,437
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Myrrh23 said:
Maybe the reason why they're extending a welcome hand to it is because the UK is afraid of rioting that the French are enduring...
Who is extending a welcoming hand?  One rather irrelevant ecclesiastical figure mentioned it.  Wake me up when they start debating it in House of Commons.  And apparently you didn't actually read either of the two BBC articles on the topic that were quoted in the thread as they mention that a majority of British Muslims do  not wish to see Sharia law implemented in the UK.

How do you explain Saudi Arabia's extremism? They seem pretty well off to me...
Wealth is concentrated in a few hands there.  The ruling class's version of bread and circuses is funding Wahhabism. 
 

Myrrh23

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Dec 5, 2007
Messages
1,639
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Looks to me that the Bishop of Canterbury is extending a welcoming hand, i.e., "going soft". From the article, which I did read, it seems the good doctor is arguing "that adopting parts of Islamic Sharia law would help maintain social cohesion". So the majority of British Muslims are against...hoopla! But for an important figure like the Bishop of Canterbury to make a statement like this looks like he aint listening to those voices. From reading it, kinda looks like he's flip-flopping on the issue..

Myrrh23

 

greekischristian

Merarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
9,487
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Νεκτάριος said:
The reason I think that era is particularly relevant is that it can serve as a religious and cultural model for modern Muslim societies.  Simply telling people to becoming aping imitators of the West doesn't really win hearts and minds on the large scale.  Instead pointing out times in Islamic history when tolerance was the norm, where high culture was valued, when the secular sciences were revered is essential is telling people that they don't have to give up their faith and entire culture to enter the modern world. 
But, in large part, they do have to give up their culture and parts of their faith, just as we did. Just as it was not enough for us to go back to ancient Greece or Rome, going back to the classical age of Islam is no longer enough at this point, there were too many elements of their society then that are simply inconsonant with modern ideals. New and revolutionary philosophies, such as those that manifested themselves in the enlightenment, must be adopted to the exclusion of the old.

That isn't an apple to apple comparison, either.  My position is basically that under the same economic and social conditions as exist in the West, Islam would moderate itself in the same way that post-enlightenment Christianity has done.  It won't be a rapid transformation, just like it wasn't a rapid transformation in Europe. 
Of course, our economic success in the west came, in large part, as a result of the economic philosophy of the Renaissance and Enlightenment: free markets, global trade, banking, corporations, etc. You can't have the economic conditions until after you have made the ideological change. So why did the Islamic societies fail to make these philosophical changes, and the associated economic and political changes, when Europe did? What were they doing in the 16th - 19th centuries? You can't blame the west for their failures, in the 1680's we were defending the Gates of Vienna from the Ottoman invaders, we didn't really intervene directly in the Middle East until the very late 19th century. In the 400 years that laid the philosophical and economic foundations for a modern enlightened western society, they accomplished little to nothing. They haven't even managed to implement a code of laws that upholds the principle (to say nothing of practice) of equal protection. And you want to give them more time? How much more? Are we supposed to turn a blind eye towards misogyny, religious persecution, and general theocratic tyranny for another 500 years? I don't think so...what reason do I have to believe that they'd use this time any wiser than they did the previous 500 years?

I think they've had more than enough time.
 

Myrrh23

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Dec 5, 2007
Messages
1,639
Reaction score
0
Points
0
(starts a small fire with GIC's anger and roasts marshmallows)  :)
Just trying to dispel some of the tension, love...


Myrrh23
 

greekischristian

Merarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
9,487
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Myrrh23 said:
(starts a small fire with GIC's anger and roasts marshmallows)  :)
Just trying to dispel some of the tension, love...


Myrrh23
LOL...didn't mean to come off quite like that, guess I over did it with the rhetorical devices. ;)
 

DerekMK

Protokentarchos
Joined
Oct 4, 2002
Messages
5,437
Reaction score
0
Points
0
greekischristian said:
But, in large part, they do have to give up their culture and parts of their faith, just as we did. Just as it was not enough for us to go back to ancient Greece or Rome, going back to the classical age of Islam is no longer enough at this point, there were too many elements of their society then that are simply inconsonant with modern ideals. New and revolutionary philosophies, such as those that manifested themselves in the enlightenment, must be adopted to the exclusion of the old.
The enlightenment did not happen ex nihilo.  Ironically enough, the scholarship of Islamic Spain gave the impetus for 13th century scholasticism, which eventually evolved into classicism etc.  Starting with classical Islamic culture as a base for a new emphasis would be a very positive thing.  Some of the greatest poets ever wrote in this period, some of the most stunning architecture in the world is from this period, many great philosophers were a part of this culture.  Use this as a means of (re)generating a modern literary culture, which in turn causes people to write about social issues, which causes all the rest to happen.  With Islam itself, all that needs to happen is for there to be a shift in emphasis: the Qu'ran and the Hadith literature speak a great deal on love, compassion, the equality of all people etc.  As for the rest, simply do what modern Christians do to most of the Old Testament - ignore it.  Since this process really didn't start in the Western world  until the until the 13th century and really hasn't come into fruition until the 19th and 20th centuries, be prepared for the long haul. 

Of course, our economic success in the west came, in large part, as a result of the economic philosophy of the Renaissance and Enlightenment: free markets, global trade, banking, corporations, etc. You can't have the economic conditions until after you have made the ideological change. So why did the Islamic societies fail to make these philosophical changes, and the associated economic and political changes, when Europe did? What were they doing in the 16th - 19th centuries? You can't blame the west for their failures, in the 1680's we were defending the Gates of Vienna from the Ottoman invaders, we didn't really intervene directly in the Middle East until the very late 19th century. In the 400 years that laid the philosophical and economic foundations for a modern enlightened western society, they accomplished little to nothing.
These types of things are usually cyclical.  The main empires never really recovered from the upheaval of the Turko-mongol invasions.  The forces of conservativism and decline were too strong in the wake of that to be quickly enough suppressed.  By the time that did happen it was already too late as most of the Muslim world was already being colonized by Europeans.  One of the most powerful internal reforming force within Turkic Islam was the Jadid movement, which sought to abolish the old system of maktabs and madrasas in favor of modern education and to modernize the political systems of Muslims.  They were violently suppressed by the Russians, the British and the Chinese - there is a certain danger in the subjects actually modernizing.  So as for your question, the reason why Islamic reform movements have failed is because they were put down by European powers acting in their own self-interests.   
 

greekischristian

Merarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
9,487
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Νεκτάριος said:
Since this process really didn't start in the Western world  until the until the 13th century and really hasn't come into fruition until the 19th and 20th centuries, be prepared for the long haul. 
And, as I said before, Islam had the same opportunities Europeans did at the time (perhaps better opportunities), they fact that they haven't made adequate progress points towards the need to destroy their culture and rebuild them in our own image, like we did in Japan; rather than waiting hoping their culture evolves.

These types of things are usually cyclical.  The main empires never really recovered from the upheaval of the Turko-mongol invasions.  The forces of conservativism and decline were too strong in the wake of that to be quickly enough suppressed.  By the time that did happen it was already too late as most of the Muslim world was already being colonized by Europeans.  One of the most powerful internal reforming force within Turkic Islam was the Jadid movement, which sought to abolish the old system of maktabs and madrasas in favor of modern education and to modernize the political systems of Muslims.  They were violently suppressed by the Russians, the British and the Chinese - there is a certain danger in the subjects actually modernizing.  So as for your question, the reason why Islamic reform movements have failed is because they were put down by European powers acting in their own self-interests.     
I knew you'd try to blame the problems on Europe, as though the one source of Civilization and Enlightenment in the world is also the source of everyone's problems, despite the fact that while we were in the midst of our Enlightenment they were actually invading us. ::) By the time the European powers arrived on the scene in the Middle East they should have been well-past the era of Enlightenment and well on the way to establishing a modern society...but they were not, their system, their culture, their society had already failed. You can't ignore the centuries of relative peace within the Ottoman Empire that failed to produce any real enlightenment; at some point we must acknowledge that their culture and society are simply inadequate and have to go.

In fact, today, the only vestiges of civilization to be observed in the Middle East, outside of Israel, are the direct result of British Imperialism. It would seem as though this model, the imperialistic model, has proven itself to be the only reliable way to get results in this region of the world. Not that America is properly following this model, unfortunately, but at least we have a model that works...and it is probably the collective responsibility of the west to implement it in Islamic societies.
 

Riddikulus

Protokentarchos
Joined
Feb 20, 2006
Messages
4,788
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Queensland, Australia
Νεκτάριος said:
Who is extending a welcoming hand?  One rather irrelevant ecclesiastical figure mentioned it.  Wake me up when they start debating it in House of Commons.  And apparently you didn't actually read either of the two BBC articles on the topic that were quoted in the thread as they mention that a majority of British Muslims do  not wish to see Sharia law implemented in the UK.
They aren't silly, are they?  ;)
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
50
Location
Portland, Oregon
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
Orthodox Church in America
The side-discussions regarding the political aspects of this topic have been moved to this thread in the Politics section of the Private Forum:  Political Discussion on Sharia Law in the UK.  Please keep this public thread free of the political tangents that belong only in the Private Forum.

If you don't yet have access to our Private Forum, please PM Fr. Chris a request that you be granted this access.  Thank you.

- PeterTheAleut
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,973
Reaction score
183
Points
63
Location
Chicago
greekischristian said:
But, in large part, they do have to give up their culture and parts of their faith, just as we did. Just as it was not enough for us to go back to ancient Greece or Rome, going back to the classical age of Islam is no longer enough at this point, there were too many elements of their society then that are simply inconsonant with modern ideals. New and revolutionary philosophies, such as those that manifested themselves in the enlightenment, must be adopted to the exclusion of the old.
So Greeki, you mean you have given up worship of Zeus/Jupiter?

Of course, our economic success in the west came, in large part, as a result of the economic philosophy of the Renaissance and Enlightenment: free markets, global trade, banking, corporations, etc.
And of course, the expansion of empires, colonization across the globe, the rape of the New World, the Triangular trade, slavery, etc. had NOTHING to do with the West's economic success. LOL.

can't have the economic conditions until after you have made the ideological change. So why did the Islamic societies fail to make these philosophical changes, and the associated economic and political changes, when Europe did? What were they doing in the 16th - 19th centuries? You can't blame the west for their failures, in the 1680's we were defending the Gates of Vienna from the Ottoman invaders, we didn't really intervene directly in the Middle East until the very late 19th century. In the 400 years that laid the philosophical and economic foundations for a modern enlightened western society, they accomplished little to nothing. They haven't even managed to implement a code of laws that upholds the principle (to say nothing of practice) of equal protection. And you want to give them more time? How much more? Are we supposed to turn a blind eye towards misogyny, religious persecution, and general theocratic tyranny for another 500 years? I don't think so...what reason do I have to believe that they'd use this time any wiser than they did the previous 500 years?
Now, now Greeki, you're being judgmental.


 

greekischristian

Merarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
9,487
Reaction score
0
Points
36
ialmisry said:
So Greeki, you mean you have given up worship of Zeus/Jupiter?
Eh, he's kinda boring...now Athena, she's a different story. ;)

And of course, the expansion of empires, colonization across the globe, the rape of the New World, the Triangular trade, slavery, etc. had NOTHING to do with the West's economic success. LOL.
Here one must ask why was it Europe that colonized (and in large part civilized) the world? Why wasn't it another group of people that colonized Europe? Unless you're going to adopt the philosophy of racial superiority, which doesn't quite fall in line with modern science, it must be something else we did right.

Now, now Greeki, you're being judgmental.
That is a luxury of cultural superiority.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,973
Reaction score
183
Points
63
Location
Chicago
greekischristian said:
And, as I said before, Islam had the same opportunities Europeans did at the time (perhaps better opportunities), they fact that they haven't made adequate progress points towards the need to destroy their culture and rebuild them in our own image, like we did in Japan; rather than waiting hoping their culture evolves.
Sorry to break it to you Greeki, but the Japanese modernized on their own terms.  That's how WWII got started in the first place.

I knew you'd try to blame the problems on Europe, as though the one source of Civilization and Enlightenment in the world is also the source of everyone's problems, despite the fact that while we were in the midst of our Enlightenment they were actually invading us. ::) By the time the European powers arrived on the scene in the Middle East they should have been well-past the era of Enlightenment and well on the way to establishing a modern society...but they were not, their system, their culture, their society had already failed. You can't ignore the centuries of relative peace within the Ottoman Empire that failed to produce any real enlightenment; at some point we must acknowledge that their culture and society are simply inadequate and have to go.
And what if they don't want to go?  What does the great humanitarian do in that case?

In fact, today, the only vestiges of civilization to be observed in the Middle East, outside of Israel, are the direct result of British Imperialism. It would seem as though this model, the imperialistic model, has proven itself to be the only reliable way to get results in this region of the world. Not that America is properly following this model, unfortunately, but at least we have a model that works...and it is probably the collective responsibility of the west to implement it in Islamic societies.
And you distinguish between Zionism and the direct results of British Imperialism why?

Is an apartheid state a goal?
greekischristian said:
Eh, he's kinda boring...now Athena, she's a different story. ;)

Here one must ask why was it Europe that colonized (and in large part civilized) the world? Why wasn't it another group of people that colonized Europe? Unless you're going to adopt the philosophy of racial superiority, which doesn't quite fall in line with modern science, it must be something else we did right.

That is a luxury of cultural superiority.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,973
Reaction score
183
Points
63
Location
Chicago
greekischristian said:
Eh, he's kinda boring...now Athena, she's a different story. ;)

Here one must ask why was it Europe that colonized (and in large part civilized) the world? Why wasn't it another group of people that colonized Europe? Unless you're going to adopt the philosophy of racial superiority, which doesn't quite fall in line with modern science, it must be something else we did right.
Bigger and better weapons.  Hey, that's progress.

That is a luxury of cultural superiority.
and arrogance.
 

DerekMK

Protokentarchos
Joined
Oct 4, 2002
Messages
5,437
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Riddikulus said:
Pardon?  ???
A lot of people this side of the Pond don't seem to realize that WWII didn't start on 7 December 1941. 
 

Ebor

Taxiarches
Joined
Dec 11, 2002
Messages
6,492
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Age
66
Location
Maryland
I've been busy with family and school (yes at my age  :D ) but this is a subject, Japanese History, that I have been studying for some time.  In particular, I got into it some years ago when I started to wonder just *what* happened to change the relations between Japan and the US/Britain from quite cordial to what occured in the 1930's and eventually to the Pacific Theater of WWII.

After over 200 years of Japan being closed to all other countries, except for a very tightly controlled link involving the Dutch, the "Opening of Japan" with with Commodor Perry and the Black Ships and the Meiji Restoration in which the Tokugawa Shogunate was replaced by the return of power to the Emperor led to Japan taking in all kinds of "Western" goods, technology, and influence.  Political thought, education and more were imported as well.  In order to supply goods and feed the new mills, Japanese industries grew and in places were a copy of some of the horrors of the Industrial Revolution in England and the US. 

While some things were resisted or not changed much of what happened was embraced by the country itself and not forced in any way.  I could go on if there is interest and I can recommend some excellent books that cover many aspects of Japanese History both from Japanese sources (in translation) and 'western' ones. 

I also have some on the Occupation after WWII from a number of different angles.

As a supporting point to Nektarios last post, in Japanese WWII is referred to as "The Fifteen Years' War" since they date it from 1931 and their entrance into Manchuria.

Historically yours,

Ebor
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,973
Reaction score
183
Points
63
Location
Chicago
Ebor said:
I've been busy with family and school (yes at my age  :D ) but this is a subject, Japanese History, that I have been studying for some time.  In particular, I got into it some years ago when I started to wonder just *what* happened to change the relations between Japan and the US/Britain from quite cordial to what occured in the 1930's and eventually to the Pacific Theater of WWII.

After over 200 years of Japan being closed to all other countries, except for a very tightly controlled link involving the Dutch, the "Opening of Japan" with with Commodor Perry and the Black Ships and the Meiji Restoration in which the Tokugawa Shogunate was replaced by the return of power to the Emperor led to Japan taking in all kinds of "Western" goods, technology, and influence.  Political thought, education and more were imported as well.  In order to supply goods and feed the new mills, Japanese industries grew and in places were a copy of some of the horrors of the Industrial Revolution in England and the US. 

While some things were resisted or not changed much of what happened was embraced by the country itself and not forced in any way.  I could go on if there is interest and I can recommend some excellent books that cover many aspects of Japanese History both from Japanese sources (in translation) and 'western' ones. 

I also have some on the Occupation after WWII from a number of different angles.

As a supporting point to Nektarios last post, in Japanese WWII is referred to as "The Fifteen Years' War" since they date it from 1931 and their entrance into Manchuria.

Historically yours,

Ebor
Ebor's point on Manchuria is what I was refering to (actually, one can question whether if it should not be earlier, with the seizure of the German New Guinea or Korea, or the Russo-Japanese War).  Not Pearl Harbor.

A friend of mine who spent time in England used to razz the Brits that America saved them twice, to which they reminded him "yes, and you were late both time!"
 

DerekMK

Protokentarchos
Joined
Oct 4, 2002
Messages
5,437
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Ebor said:
After over 200 years of Japan being closed to all other countries, except for a very tightly controlled link involving the Dutch, the "Opening of Japan" with with Commodor Perry and the Black Ships and the Meiji Restoration in which the Tokugawa Shogunate was replaced by the return of power to the Emperor led to Japan taking in all kinds of "Western" goods, technology, and influence.  Political thought, education and more were imported as well.  In order to supply goods and feed the new mills, Japanese industries grew and in places were a copy of some of the horrors of the Industrial Revolution in England and the US. 
I was hoping you'd show up for this ;D

I'm working my way through The Cambridge Illustrated History of China at the moment and there is a striking picture on pg 253 of a painting of the treaty negotiations between China and Japan after the 1894/5 war.  The Chinese all dressed in traditional Chinese attire and the Japanese are all wearing European military apparel.  The book doesn't give the name of the painting, otherwise I'd try to find a link, but here is the caption: "Japanese efforts to strengthen the country in the late nineteenth century had verged on wholesale westernization, as is evident in the differences in dress of the Chinese and Japanese officials assigned to negotiate a treaty after China's disastrous defeat in 1894/95." So much for the myth of Japanese isolation...
 

Ebor

Taxiarches
Joined
Dec 11, 2002
Messages
6,492
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Age
66
Location
Maryland
Νεκτάριος said:
I was hoping you'd show up for this ;D
:D :D  At your service and ready to give information on Japanese history until people's eyes glaze over.  ;)


I'm working my way through The Cambridge Illustrated History of China at the moment and there is a striking picture on pg 253 of a painting of the treaty negotiations between China and Japan after the 1894/5 war.  The Chinese all dressed in traditional Chinese attire and the Japanese are all wearing European military apparel.  The book doesn't give the name of the painting, otherwise I'd try to find a link, but here is the caption: "Japanese efforts to strengthen the country in the late nineteenth century had verged on wholesale westernization, as is evident in the differences in dress of the Chinese and Japanese officials assigned to negotiate a treaty after China's disastrous defeat in 1894/95." So much for the myth of Japanese isolation...
I don't know that particular picture, but I certainly know of others that show the way "western" dress was taken and adapted. For example the traditional Japanese boys' school uniforms Gakuran are based on Prussian military uniforms
http://www.casazen.com/vestiti_giapponesi/G_type1ENG.htm

and the girls' "sailor suit", sera-fuku is based on the British Naval uniform

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_school_uniform

From what I recall, almost every picture that I have ever seen of the Meiji Emperor has him in 'western' clothing and often a kind of uniform.  There's one where he's shown in the traditional ceremonial garments based on the Heian period clothing. But he took to western ways with vigor.

court robes: http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/shinto/history/nationalism_2.shtml
uniform, near the bottom of the page: http://www3.sympatico.ca/iaido/edo2.htm

Ebor
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
50
Location
Portland, Oregon
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
Orthodox Church in America
With all due respect to y'all, what do Japan's history and role in WWII have to do with Sharia Law in the U.K.?
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,973
Reaction score
183
Points
63
Location
Chicago
PeterTheAleut said:
With all due respect to y'all, what do Japan's history and role in WWII have to do with Sharia Law in the U.K.?
Started with Greeki's "have-to-destroy-them-to-save-them" philosophy, which he offered Japan as an example.  I merely countered that Japan modernized before post-WWII reconstruction, which led in part to Japan's expansionism, a prime cause of WWII.

On a side note, Japan's defeat of Russia was EXTENSIVELY played up in the press and intelligensia of the Muslim World of the day, whereas they ignored the fact that earlier Ethiopia had defeated another European power, Italy.
 

greekischristian

Merarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
9,487
Reaction score
0
Points
36
ialmisry said:
Started with Greeki's "have-to-destroy-them-to-save-them" philosophy, which he offered Japan as an example.  I merely countered that Japan modernized before post-WWII reconstruction, which led in part to Japan's expansionism, a prime cause of WWII.

On a side note, Japan's defeat of Russia was EXTENSIVELY played up in the press and intelligensia of the Muslim World of the day, whereas they ignored the fact that earlier Ethiopia had defeated another European power, Italy.
Of course, that element of my post was refering to cultural change, rather than technological change. Granted, prior to the 30's Japan had a degree of western influence and westernized elements of society, but the same can be said of various Islamic states. During the war much of this culture was supressed as religious fundamentalism has done to some classically western elements of current Islamic states. In the end, the eradication of the traditional culture and the establishing of the supremacy of the western culture (at least as some hybrid of traditional culture and western culture, with western values taking precedence) required the cultural elements of the reconstruction of Japan by the United States...similar models could be applicable to the middle east, though they would require an investment on the scale of the one we had in Japan.
 
Top