• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Is this Anti-Muslim propaganda?

The idea that Islam is where Christianity was in 1600 is remarkably demeaning to Islam.

ETA: It also implies that religions under some sort of growing and maturation process.

It's not so much a growing and maturation process as a reasonably predictable cycle.

As to my assertion that Islam is where Christianity was in the 1600s, what I'm referring to is the level and intensity of internal strife over doctrine. In the 1600s Catholic and Protestant Christians were killing each other in the name of Christ. In fact, even differing Protestant groups were suppressing others. This was particularly true of the Calvinists. Today we see the same sort of strife between Shia and Sunni Muslims.
 
I mean that the virtually unstoppable flow of free information is a great counter to America as the Great Satan propaganda, and that Islam hasn't got anything to match or counteract it.

Islam has the Internet too. And the Internet is far from unstoppable, the Chinese government has figured out. And, the Internet works well for disseminating propaganda as well.
 
Today we see the same sort of strife between Shia and Sunni Muslims.

Where? Except for sectarian conflict in Iraq closely tied to secular power, I can't think of any. If by "strife" you mean warfare.
 
Where? Except for sectarian conflict in Iraq closely tied to secular power, I can't think of any. If by "strife" you mean warfare.

Also in Pakistan and possibly soon in Bahrain; and, if you scroll down at this site, you'll see that violence between Sunnis and Shiites has taken place in Indonesia in 2011.
 
Last edited:
Islam has the Internet too. And the Internet is far from unstoppable, the Chinese government has figured out. And, the Internet works well for disseminating propaganda as well.

Okay, I'll concede these points. However, I still think the Internet, including Facebook did have a considerable positive effect in the "Arab Spring."
 
The idea that Islam is where Christianity was in 1600 is remarkably demeaning to Islam.

ETA: It also implies that religions under some sort of growing and maturation process.
Religions gain and lose power in recognizable patterns, what is offensive about pointing out who is at what point on the wheel of life?
 
The idea that Islam is where Christianity was in 1600 is remarkably demeaning to Islam.

ETA: It also implies that religions under some sort of growing and maturation process.


To the first, a quick look at the Middle East shows remarkable similarities -- it is largely intertwined with government and is used to lead people in outrage, for the purpose of the elite maintaining power.


To the second, yes, that is also the case. The West has spent the bulk of the last 300 years turning Christianity into little more than a quaint lifestyle choice, when it used to be what you see currently raging in the Middle East.


Yes, yes, a thousand times yes! This process needs to happen to Islam, too.
 
What is called in the film the "second Jihad," i.e. the expansion of the Ottoman Empire into Europe, was more the political expansion of an empire, rather than a jihad.
I agree strongly with this. Ottoman expansion was political and imperial, rather than a religious jihad. The proof is, that it was directed as much (if not more) against other Muslim polities as against Christian ones. See: http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?historyid=ab37#1627
During the reign of Bayazid II, son of Mehmed II, the Turkish thrust is mainly to the west. Hercegovina is occupied in 1483 (joining Bosnia, taken by Mehmed twenty years earlier). The Venetians are driven out of Albania in 1501.

During the reign of Bayazid's son, Selim I, the focus shifts to the east where Ismail I, founder of the new Safavid dynasty in Persia, is becoming a threat. After defeating the Persians in 1514, Selim embarks on a bold undertaking. He invades the extensive territories of the Egyptian Mamelukes. By 1517 he has achieved a resounding victory, bringing Syria, Palestine, Arabia and Egypt under Ottoman control.
Syria, Palestine, Arabia and Egypt were bigger prizes than Bosnia, Hercegovina and Albania, by any standards. And common devotion to Islam did little to inhibit centuries of war between the Ottomans and Persia.
 
And do you know who was allied militarily with the Ottomans for a large chunk of the time they were "invading" Europe, including during the second infamous Siege of Vienna (the point at which the supposed total Muslim domination of Europe was finally averted)?

The French.
 
And do you know who was allied militarily with the Ottomans for a large chunk of the time they were "invading" Europe, including during the second infamous Siege of Vienna (the point at which the supposed total Muslim domination of Europe was finally averted)?

The French.

Aha! And the perfidious cheese-eaters also intervened on the Protestant side in the Thirty Years' War 1618-1648. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_France
 
Aha! And the perfidious cheese-eaters also intervened on the Protestant side in the Thirty Years' War 1618-1648. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_France

Both the support of the Ottomans in their sieges of Vienna and the intervention on the Protestant side in the Thirty Years' War were part of France's anti-Hapsburg strategy. The Spanish and Austrian Hapsburg territories combined were gradually forming a ring around France by the time of the Thirty Years War.
 
Both the support of the Ottomans in their sieges of Vienna and the intervention on the Protestant side in the Thirty Years' War were part of France's anti-Hapsburg strategy. The Spanish and Austrian Hapsburg territories combined were gradually forming a ring around France by the time of the Thirty Years War.
Which the French evidently feared more than they feared the Ottoman "jihad", or the spread of "heresy". Imperial politics. Religion comes second.
 
Both the support of the Ottomans in their sieges of Vienna and the intervention on the Protestant side in the Thirty Years' War were part of France's anti-Hapsburg strategy. The Spanish and Austrian Hapsburg territories combined were gradually forming a ring around France by the time of the Thirty Years War.
In fact, that ring was already loosened a bit. During the times of Francis I of France and Charles V of Habsburg, the (still unified) Habsburg lands completely encircled France.
 
Aha! And the perfidious cheese-eaters also intervened on the Protestant side in the Thirty Years' War 1618-1648. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_France


Don't forget the Escargot ... :eek:

:big:


But they also invented the Freedom Fries :p and the Tartare sauce without which Fish and Chips would be nothing.

But above all I have to thank them for the Crème Brûlée and Marrón Glacé. ... yummy.


So not so perfidious when it comes to what matters most.... SUPERB CUISINE :D
 
Mao had a theory about swimming among the fish, who provide cover.

Moderate Muslims may or may not be alert to being used as cover.

Tim's "mixed bag" is about the best that can be said on the film.
 
Mao had a theory about swimming among the fish, who provide cover.

Moderate Muslims may or may not be alert to being used as cover.

Tim's "mixed bag" is about the best that can be said on the film.
If people are behaving with apparent moderation while in reality covering for murderous criminals, it behoves us to determine whether they are consciously and intentionally doing this. If they are, they are guilty too. Being alert makes all the difference. To dismiss it merely as "may or may not" is surprisingly casual. Mao took for granted that the peasant "fish" were aware of the presence of communist guerillas, and actively concealed and supported them. Is that what "moderate Muslims" do?
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom