Tolerance: Muslims Versus Jews

[aitm]

The story is generally right, but I would say a little romanticised. The Chinese extracted tribute, and although getting to India and arabia did not think there would be worthwhile trade!

Incidentally the Admiral of the fleet was muslin or at least of a muslin family

Zheng He
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zheng_He

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

The next Emperor outlawed sea going junks with two masts and foreign voyages. Central control has always been suspicious of the outside.

I won't argue but I might defer to Boostin over wiki. He really does a good job.

[jonb]

Aitm
I know wiki is a bit lazy of me, but I just wanted to show an alternative vision.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2eukDRZ4B0
National geographic version.

Jose
I don't think it was the technology, but what drove the technology and science. Individualism.

[aitm]

Aitm
I know wiki is a bit lazy of me, but I just wanted to show an alternative vision.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2eukDRZ4B0
National geographic version.

Jose
I don't think it was the technology, but what drove the technology and science. Individualism.

Thanks. I'll take a look at it.

[aitm]

Ooh..jonb, just saw it was an over an hour vid……I read…. I could read that shit in 15 minutes…is there a written version?

[jonb]

Books I found these, but I cannot vouch for any of them. I cannot remember the ones I read, and my knowledge just covers the basics probably a little less than has already been covered. I only picked up what I did because I was working on a project of Islamic influence in China for a client years ago and basically even then I was only looking for pictures.

Dreyer, Edward L. Zheng He: China and the Oceans in the Early Ming Dynasty, 1405-1433, New York: Pearshon Longman, 2007.

Hadingham, Evan. "Ancient Chinese Explorers," PBS. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sultan/explorers.html

Levathes, Louise. When Ming China Ruled the Seas: The Treasure Fleet of the Dragon Throne, 1405-1433, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997.

[Baruch]

I think though, that Mr Menzies may have gone too far along this line ...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/3557568/Gavin-Menzies-mad-as-a-snake-or-a-visionary.html

What I have read, is that the explorations were indeed, a loss leader ... and that eunuch intrigue moved the Chinese court ... the first thing the Republic of China did in 1911, was move out of the Forbidden Palace and their influence ... all the way to Nanking in the south.

Later trade, involved moving Latin American silver across the Pacific to Manila and then Macao.  The Chinese economy was silver based ... and was always short.  This produced a conflict with GB in the 19th century, also silver based ... to extract the silver from the Chinese economy, the Opium Wars were started and the silver expatriated from Chinese drug addicts back to London ... though much may have originally come from Mexico, shipped out from Acapulco.

[Blackleaf]

Forgive me if this was already addressed in the 29 pages of this thread, but didn't Mohammed write that it acceptable to treat infidels (ie people who do not follow his teachings) harshly? The Jews don't have anything like that in their religious texts. Of course, there are peaceful Muslims who I'm sure ignore the bigoted teachings of the founder of their religion, but I think there's a reason why Muslims have such a high tendency for violence around the world.

[Baruch]

Specifically, Muhammad said it was OK to use violence if the Muslims were attacked (as they were in Mecca and Medinah before they were victorious).  Muhammad also probably considered his natural area of operations to include all Arabs, including those in the north, under the control of Byzantium and Ctesiphon (Turkey and Iraq).  Some things never change ... the current civil war in Syria is a direct continuation of the situation in the early 7th century CE.  The Caliphs particular #1 - #4 (the Rashidun) then analogized these verses to imply this initial ethnic consolidation (see Hitler 1938 regarding Austria, Sudetenland and Danzig) was authorized, via evangelism initially, and then using violence when evangelism didn't work.  Conditions in Byzantium and Ctesiphon were such, that Muslim victories extended well beyond their initial goal, into other arid and semi-arid regions, including Egypt, Turkey and Persia.  This led to the dilemma of a few Arabs ruling a large non-Arab population ... who initially were not Muslim.

[Shiranu]

Forgive me if this was already addressed in the 29 pages of this thread, but didn't Mohammed write that it acceptable to treat infidels (ie people who do not follow his teachings) harshly? The Jews don't have anything like that in their religious texts. Of course, there are peaceful Muslims who I'm sure ignore the bigoted teachings of the founder of their religion, but I think there's a reason why Muslims have such a high tendency for violence around the world.

A. Like the bible and Torah, the Quran contradicts itself. Sometimes it says wage war, other times he is promoting peace.

B. yes, God telling the Israelis to murder and rape opposing tribes sure isn't harsh.

[Blackleaf]

A. Like the bible and Torah, the Quran contradicts itself. Sometimes it says wage war, other times he is promoting peace.

B. yes, God telling the Israelis to murder and rape opposing tribes sure isn't harsh.

A command for a specific instance is different than a blanket statement authorizing treating all nonbelievers like animals. And I don't recall rape ever being authorized in the Torah. There were times when they were permitted to choose wives from the survivors, but they were also commanded to leave them alone for a while and allow the to grieve. That was very different from the typical rape and pillage that was common at the time. It wouldn't be acceptable in modern society, of course, but the women were still treated with a considerable measure of humanity.

[Blackleaf]

Specifically, Muhammad said it was OK to use violence if the Muslims were attacked (as they were in Mecca and Medinah before they were victorious).  Muhammad also probably considered his natural area of operations to include all Arabs, including those in the north, under the control of Byzantium and Ctesiphon (Turkey and Iraq).  Some things never change ... the current civil war in Syria is a direct continuation of the situation in the early 7th century CE.  The Caliphs particular #1 - #4 (the Rashidun) then analogized these verses to imply this initial ethnic consolidation (see Hitler 1938 regarding Austria, Sudetenland and Danzig) was authorized, via evangelism initially, and then using violence when evangelism didn't work.  Conditions in Byzantium and Ctesiphon were such, that Muslim victories extended well beyond their initial goal, into other arid and semi-arid regions, including Egypt, Turkey and Persia.  This led to the dilemma of a few Arabs ruling a large non-Arab population ... who initially were not Muslim.

So is there nothing in the Quaran that says you're allowed to lie to infidels, or that infidels should be treated like enemies?

[pr126]

So is there nothing in the Quaran that says you're allowed to lie to infidels, or that infidels should be treated like enemies?

Lying in Islam According to the Quran and hadiths.

according to Islamic Law (Sharia)

Reliance of the Traveler (p. 746 - 8.2) -  "Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it.  When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible (N:i.e. when the purpose of lying is to circumvent someone who is preventing one from doing something permissible), and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory... it is religiously precautionary in all cases to employ words that give a misleading impression...

Shiranu is a social warrior fond of Islam and Muslims.
His favorite fallacy is Tu Quoque. Because two wrongs always makes one right.

[CloneKai]

Forgive me if this was already addressed in the 29 pages of this thread, but didn't Mohammed write that it acceptable to treat infidels (ie people who do not follow his teachings) harshly? The Jews don't have anything like that in their religious texts. Of course, there are peaceful Muslims who I'm sure ignore the bigoted teachings of the founder of their religion, but I think there's a reason why Muslims have such a high tendency for violence around the world.

who knows?
i wasn't taught this.
i was taught that muhammad acted pretty much like jesus other than being a hobo and was a warrior.
in our school an incident was taught, where apparently, he used to go through an alley and resident old jewish women used to throw shit at him. on one day, there was no shit. so muhammad asked what happened to the women. they told him she was sick. he apparently went and nursed her and er probably prayed for her.

what do you think are reasons

[CloneKai]

So is there nothing in the Quaran that says you're allowed to lie to infidels, or that infidels should be treated like enemies?

not that i heard of.
the first time i heard about this was from person on internet who adored islam just as much as pr does soooo

however, muslim can lie to save their life. allah doesn't mind that

[pr126]

@ CloneKai

The best book about Muhammad is his biography by Ibn Ishaq: Sirat Rasool Allah.

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Sirat_Rasul_Allah.

Here you find the downloadable .pdf book.