Columbus was a mass murderer, regardless of the proportion of the total deaths that were at his hands directly. His conquest and rule of Hispaniola was a horror, and involved the directly caused death of many thousands of the inhabitants. Baloney. The Ottoman empire was no stranger to brutality and exploitation, and neither were (or are) the Arabs. Of course they did - at least 37 times, as States were added to the Union. The vote on adding Haiti to the Union tied in the Senate - 28 to 28. Columbus was closer to being Ottoman than American.
Total codswallow. The jannissary system alone was a reservation of the broadest and most heinous kind.
Yes. But I'm sure like Alexander of Macedonia and Jesus, they were Muslims too weren't they pffffff...... lol Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! The fact is "Islam" has acted to retard human progress not advance it. In some places and for some arts, such a sculpting the human form, it actually destroyed it. Which is why everything from your computer and internet connection to the electricity that runs it, the car you drove to get it and the radio you listened to are all from modern secular Western societies. None of these things were invented in Islamic nations. See what happens when you move past "God did it" and actually try figuring things out? It's called progress.
. ok, then why didnt the western world invented the radio, tvs and electrecity in the time, that arabs, and the rest of the eastern world, was invneting and creating? and can you explain, how did islam, stopped the evolution, or the progress?
One explanation could be the rise in Christianity. Perhaps once people were convinced that "God did it First" they stopped looking for the real answer and stagnated. Not to mention a double whammy of being invaded and colonized by Arabs during the Islamic Crusades and a mini ice age in Germany. Does that answer work for you? You want an example of Islam retarded progress? Before Islam the Middle East was where people went to learn how to sculpt. The Human Form being the pinnacle of a sculpture. Like many things in the ME, after Islam came to prominence, this entire art form was destroyed and lost. One THOUSAND years BEFORE Islam Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! After Islam: Well, I'd show you an example except that Art Form died out under the superstitious Islam. Due to Islamic superstition Evolution was concidered and deemed wrong - only God made man, not nature. Evolution is the corner stone of modern biology. So again, thanks to Islam you buy your modern medicine from a Western nation, not a Middle Eastern Islamic one. Over and Over this is the case. Some progress, but, very little. Have you ever heard this: The only reason Europeans are advanced is because of Islam? Have you? Have you ever wondered why then it wasn't Muslims having an industrial revolution and eventually sending man into space? I think it was because Muslims never banned Slavery? They didn't because Mohammad was a Slave owner. It was the Europeans who had to ban Slavery in the ME. Again, Islam retards the people of the Middle East in ways they STILL can not imagine. Did women in the Middle East ever reach their potential? No. Most still don't. Why? Probably as a side effect of living in a Polygamous society. THAT is the reason why Chinese banned Polygamy under Communism - because it retard social development. Mohammad was a Polygamous. So, it is Islamic. There you go, 50% of your society is retarded in their potential to develop this society. So, you can thank Islam for typing on a Western keyboard, into a Western Computer, using Western electricity into your Western Internet. ALL of these things may have been developed in the Middle East, if not for Islam.
What WTF? Yes a culture of polygamy is inversely correlated with female equality and social progress. Which is why the Chinese Communists banned polygamy. Because Communistic ideology promotes social harmony thought Citizen equality. While the system didn't work economically, it gave Chinese women more rights than any previous time in recent Chinese History and has had a profound effect on the way in which men and women interact. Much more equally. Is that really hard to fathom? It's probably related to the way in which male polygamists view their relationships with women. IMO monogamist societies are statistically more likely to see men develop notions of equality with their one partner then a men in polygamist societies develop notions of equality with there many partners. Especially when they keep trading in the old ones for young new eye candy. Obviously the Chinese saw the situation clearly enough to stamp out polygamy in the new order.
haha, no SAM, my family wasn't Southern Baptist or Mormon. They don't attend church at all. You don't have to be dark skinned to see that racism is wrong. It just takes clear vision and common sense Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! RE: Polygamy Gee, the UN agrees with me too. Shocking, I know! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Indeed. Are you monogamous Michael? Only ever had one sexual partner? I think you'll find, that monogamous systems are very unstable and restrict sexual freedoms. Polygamous social systems on the other hand are less repressive and extend greater sexual freedoms to women. Don't take my word for it, just study some biology.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
haha... Is polygamy for men and women SAM? Or just for men? Because the UN report seems to suggest polygyny leads to female inequality. Which is the case in a number of primate social hierarchies. Thank the Gods outright rape isn't endorsed in the Holy Books, geesh, I'd hate think of the comparisons with the biological world :bugeye:
Clearly you're not about to be wife number 1-4 either. Let me make sure I have this correct, because we've sort of side tracked and I'm not sure if I made any headway at all with you over the years on this subject. You are in favor of or are against polygamy? Also, what is your stance on polyandry? Do you think there should be a limit as to the number? I mean, why stop at 10 if you can afford 20?
Personally I prefer being single, so lets not confuse personal preferences with what principles apply. Philosophically I think people should decide for themselves what they want. Looking at the historical record, I see that where monogamy is imposed it doesn't change human nature and I see more familial stability in places where people don't give a damn about such stuff. Notions of monogamy have actually been detrimental for the social unit in Nepal for instance and have done nothing for the family unit in western countries either. It seems to be a precursor for abdication of responsibilities and social and individual alienation so that women practically barter themselves as commodities so as not to be replaced by a newer model Compare that to societies where such imposition is lacking and divorce is not only uncommon, but remarriage is easy and there is no destbilising of the familial structure. If we compare our closest relatives, the gorillas are polygamous, the chimps and bonobos promiscuous and there is greater social unrest in chimps than in bonobos,, who abandon age sex and maturity considerations entirely using sex as a bonding mechanism rather than as reproductive tool So are you monogamous? Is it possible for you to be monogamous? I don't know that. Should I decide for you? Why? I think having the option for those who want it is more progressive than enforcing unhappy marriages, banning divorce and abandoning children. I think one of the reasons you have a problem making headway with me, is that you approach the problem from the opposite end. You believe for some reason, that I get my values from Islam, rather than what I have constantly maintained, that I consider myself a Muslim, because Islam is most agreeably compatible with my values So in addressing the problem of how other people practise Islam around the world, you miss the boat altogether. I could for example substitute Allah with Xenu, but Xenu would look remarkably like Allah when I was done with him.
OK then, do you think it's moral and acceptable for women to take more than one man as a husband? also, what about numbers, you're not going to limit the man to 4 wives are you? Say, 5 or in some cases more than 5 would be perfectly acceptable?
Could I be monogamous? Why SAM, of course - I thought everyone wanted to only be with one partner? I've had chances with two, didn't really do it for me, for whatever reason, maybe too much Brady bunch and not enough internet porn when I was growing up? Damn you post-internet for not providing me with porn! I'm OK with polygamous IF society is structured in such a way so a woman can, if she chooses, have more than one man. If you look at the social structure of most primates you'll soon find: When the cats away, the mouse, oh baby Mmmm Mmmm she will play ... hahaha... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Also, women should have equal oppertunity lawfully and legal and economically. I think monogamy would be a step in such a direction whereas men playing recycling women in ever decade - ah, no. I'm a man SAM, I've been around, I know exactly what we men think.
Anyway, while you may like the freedom of a single life, you would NOT be happy with your husband recycling you in for a 18 year old teenager. Oh, Like HI, you must be his old wife. Oh, like you know, He's told me all about you and like... and you're so cool to me and like ... lol...please. We both know better.
