News Stories

[Urzu 7]

Originally Posted by Sumeragi

This post. The basic thread of discussions started since you left out historical and sociological aspects to the violence that is happening in the Muslim world.

Okay. Hmm, where to start? Well, okay, for starters, I made a mistake by leaving out those things.

Originally Posted by Sumeragi

Yes, and how is that any different from other religious texts, specifically the Old Testament? The main problem with your initial post was how you made it seem it was a problem of the Koran, not the general situation with the Koran being a contributing factor. Furthermore, you should have mentioned other texts.

I suppose I did make it seem it was a problem with just the Qu'ran. As I clarified, I don't think that and I wrote to willx that I know and understand the things he was bringing up. So yes, it would have been better to make mention of those things in that post. I'm trying to think back to when I was writing that post and I don't really remember calling to mind the kind of things willx brought up. When I began the post, I was only going to write about half of it. I was going to go up to the part where I talked about some issues with Christianity in these modern times and then bring up how the Qu'ran endorses violence in a number of verses. I wrote this: "Islam has an additional problem. There are verses in the Qu'ran, which Muslims believe to be the Holy word of God, which endorse and condone violence and killing. It is very problematic, as many Muslims today who are violent or even kill 'infidels' or support violence and killing in their hearts feel it is absolutely fine with Allah due to some verses in the Qu'ran." So that there I wouldn't call a simplification, it just isn't the complete picture. It wasn't meant to be a simplification.

Sure, it would have been good to make mention of the kind of things willx brought up, and maybe I would have thought of that. What ended up happening is when I wrote that part I put in quotes, I went to google and looked up the Qu'ran and violence and ended up finding that site I linked to. Then I read some pretty appalling verses from that site. From there, acknowledging other factors like those brought up by willx were just out of sight. I then put some verses in quote boxes because it really tied into the last part of the paragraph above them. After that, I wrote a bit more, wrapped it up, and moved on. Yeah, it would have been good to make mention of the kind of things willx brought up. Like I said, I made a mistake/wasn't being mindful of other contributing factors.


You are right about the Old Testament. Some really harsh things found in it. I guess I didn't bring it up because I wasn't focused on the world from centuries past. I brought up in another post that Judaism and Christianity have progressed much in these modern times, which people can infer that I acknowledge that they've both had rocky pasts. I didn't bring up the Old Testament in the post where I provided some Qu'ran verses because I responded to someone who asked if other religions could elevate to the level of Buddhism, and so I was discussing about religions as they are today, and you just don't find Christians or Jews today abiding to the commands for violence in the Old Testament. Today, you don't have Jews and Christians stoning to death adulterers or people with clean shaven faces, or people who work on the Sabbath.

[sneaker]

@willx

So if the "Koran condones violence against non-believers" (which is an belittlement in itself) and the believers follow that, it has nothing to do with religion?
If "only written documents" matter, it has nothing to do with religion, like the Pope has nothing to do with the Catholic religion?
If their ulterior motives are "religious states" (meaning that all people have to object themselves to religious laws) it has nothing to do with religion?

[Sumeragi]

Originally Posted by Urzu 7

and you just don't find Christians or Jews today abiding to the commands for violence in the Old Testament. Today, you don't have Jews and Christians stoning to death adulterers or people with clean shaven faces, or people who work on the Sabbath.

Haredi Judaism is keeping its more violent tendencies in check because it relies on the state for all the aid it receives. Otherwise there is no big difference between the more extreme versions of Haredi Judaism (yes, there are trends even within that conservatives of conservatives) and the radicial Islam we are seeing.

[Ithekro]

There are always religious extremists...just there seems to be more of them in Islam than most other religions in recent times. Go back three hundred years and you'd find American colonies founded by religious extremists (some would consider the Puritans extreme in one way and the Quakers or Amish extreme in other ways).

[aohige]

Originally Posted by KiraYamatoFan

You want facts? Fine! Since the 13th Century, back when Mongolia and China were one single empire, Japan inflicted defeats to the Khan's army in direct confrontations when there were any. Those defeats had the same impact on China as it was for Spain when the Spanish Invincible Armada got destroyed by a storm and the English navy over 300 years later. Between the 13th Century and the 19th Century, the Chinese empire could have tried taking over Japan again with their army and numbers when Japanese warlords were fighting each other, but didn't. And why is that? Probably because Japan had enough military strength during all this time when the discrepancy between the 2 countries was not that big yet.

Kamikaze incident was not Japan owning China.
It was Mother Nature (and most likely help from Korean ship crafters) owning Mongols.

Economics... the Portugese traders may have arrived in China first, but they also arrived in Japan around the same time before being followed by the Dutch a century later. The funny thing is that Japan maintained a solid trade partnership with the Netherlands and Portugal, so much that the domain of rangaku (the study of Western sciences) was created. Oda Nobunaga's men even used Western technology in his part of the exchange. Meanwhile, I'm not sure there was much of a deep commercial AND cultural exchange at the same time between the Qing empire and European nations (commercial perhaps, but certainly not cultural).

By solid relationship, if you mean "pretty much isolated to Kyushuu, and hardly any demand for actual trades as far as the entire rest of the Japan goes". The western science and technology really didn't have impact on Japan until Edo era, due to Japan's secluded isolationist culture and status quo. Portugal was the only real connection, and it was NO WHERE close to the level of the Silk Road of China.

The one exception was Nobunaga's interest in Sengoku period, which carried over to those who followed his steps, Toyotomi and Tokugawa.

Look, your statement about Japan being superior to China in every domain for centuries is simply wrong.
It wasn't until very, very modern times that Japanese culture, economy, military, and technology were modernized to surpass that of China. Namely, it was after Perry's Black Ship arrival and crumbling of the isolationism.

China has dominated as the top culture in Asia for thousands of years until the 19th century.

I'm Japanese, and even I know this. You give us way too much credit.

[NoemiChan]

When did this become a Religion Thread?!

All religions are good...
The problem ain't the religion...
It's the people who interpret them who are the wrong ones...

[Ithekro]

The News has been show outside the recent troubles with over an offensive film and China's posturing in the seas. Other than the US Presidental election and that's covered in another thread.

Maybe something with Syria?

[Urzu 7]

@willx: I'm pretty sure we both don't really understand where we are coming from.

Originally Posted by willx

Your argument for why it's a problem can be summarily reduced to: 1) Those Gov'ts and Orgs that manage Islam have ulterior motives (Religious States or Official Orgs)

...

So you intellectually understand. Now I want you to be "aware" of those factoids above and how they relate to what you are saying. If we clearly analyse 1) we can see that it has nothing to do with religion at all. They could be managing a secular government and they would desire the same result. Their desires are not based on actual religious concerns.

I tried to make a distinction between 'religion and organized religion'. What I was trying to discuss isn't merely the religion of Islam that you get on paper and in texts. I was trying to talk about how the religion of Islam operates in some countries. I was trying to expand on the greater depth that you brought up by, basically, talking about how certain governments and many Muslims clerics steer the masses around by capitalizing on their devout faith in their religion. Does this make sense?

Originally Posted by willx

2) Koran condones violence against non-believers

...

And 2) is related to Islam but is the same in other religions (we're not talking about progress over time here, we're talking about what's written in the documents)

Yes, you have commands for violence found in the Jewish religious texts and in the Bible (mostly in the Old Testament); it is written in their documents, but it is very important to make note of the progress. Jews and Christians today (for the most part) don't abide to the commands for violence. Today, many Muslims do abide to the commands for violence found in the Qu'ran (and it isn't just violence towards nonbelievers). It may be either that they are in support of the/some of the commands for violence or they carry them out. But in the Muslim world, there are many who abide to the commands for violence. If today, they for the most part did not abide to those things, I wouldn't really care about the Qu'ran verses that endorsed violence. And again, I know their religion isn't always the root cause or prime cause for these things, but it certainly is a factor. This here is important to note: In some of these countries, with the masses of society, most of the people in the masses are very devout to their religion and their religion is incredibly influential to them and how they live their lives, and so many of them try to abide to the Qu'ran as much as they can, so it really matters when the Qu'ran endorses violence many times throughout its pages. It really impacts the societies and cultures of said countries.

Originally Posted by willx

3) Population in these countries are under-educated and under-informed

...

and 3) also clearly has nothing to do with religion.

I brought that up in the second to last paragraph in that post. You can reread it here:http://forums.animesuki.com/showpost...ostcount=23675

You misunderstood me. I didn't mean for you to infer that from what I wrote. I wasn't saying those things have anything to do with Islam or any religion. I know those things have nothing to do with Islam. I brought them up as I was trying to illustrate some points.

You expanded on things in this post: http://forums.animesuki.com/showthre...9965&page=1184

All I was trying to do by bringing up those things was try to incorporate the points you made (that there is great depth to the issue) to some of the points I was trying to make in that paragraph.

I hope that clears at least some of those things up. Please don't pull your hair out.

[KiraYamatoFan]

Originally Posted by aohige

Kamikaze incident was not Japan owning China.
It was Mother Nature (and most likely help from Korean ship crafters) owning Mongols.

The kamikaze did its part, but the Japanese troops beat the ones who already landed on the ground, no? The Spanish Armada faced a similar situation, but unlike the Mongols, the Spaniards never managed to land a single man in England. In the following 5-6 centuries after that, China could have tried another attack if they wanted, but stll didn't. There has to be a reason for that, don't you think?

By solid relationship, if you mean "pretty much isolated to Kyushuu, and hardly any demand for actual trades as far as the entire rest of the Japan goes". The western science and technology really didn't have impact on Japan until Edo era, due to Japan's secluded isolationist culture and status quo. Portugal was the only real connection, and it was NO WHERE close to the level of the Silk Road of China.

The one exception was Nobunaga's interest in Sengoku period, which carried over to those who followed his steps, Toyotomi and Tokugawa.

Look, your statement about Japan being superior to China in every domain for centuries is simply wrong.
It wasn't until very, very modern times that Japanese culture, economy, military, and technology were modernized to surpass that of China. Namely, it was after Perry's Black Ship arrival and crumbling of the isolationism.

Portugal was a real connection, but then the Dutch had very frequent trades with Japan even in the Edo Era (1641 to 1853 if I'm right). The domain of rangaku proved to be useful in a longer run while the Chinese gave even less attention to Western science.

I didn't say Japan had the advantage in all domains, but they held enough of an advantage in how to approach things in many domains which ended up being useful by the time the Meiji Restoration came. From what I read, Dejima became known throughout Japan as a center of medicine, military science, and astronomy. Many samurai travelled there for "Dutch studies" and that was before Perry even came. Let's put it that way: the Chinese chose to reject elements which could have helped them modernize their country despite having been in contact with Europeans for some time; meanwhile, the Japanese spent enough time looking at a number of things from Europe to finally accept embracing those same elements for their country's sake (hence my analogy of red pill vs. blue pill).

By the way, it wasn't the first time I'm at odds with kyp275 and I was fed up with his comments. I'm guessed I'm tired, but I'm still in the mood of shouting out loud that the PRC doesn't deserve anything, not even respect from anyone by the path they are taking.

Originally Posted by Ithekro

Maybe something with Syria?

It has become so much of a boring routine that no one dares to talk about anymore and that's quite a shame when this IS a living hell.

[Sumeragi]

Really, the Mongol invasion parts are ignorant..... I'm on a Galaxy Tab, so bear the short answers,

First invasion, the Koreans were the spearhead, basically pushing the Japanese to the point only on fortress was left to take over in Kyushu. When the storm came, the Mongols forced a retreat into the boats while the Koreans wanted to do the final battle. The Mongols basically sank themselves with their judgment, while the Koreans mostly survived and returned.

Second invasion, the troops were mostly Mongol/Han with the Koreans playing a minor role. Because of the disaster from the previous invasion the Japanese were more prepared, and the Mongol tactic of mass landings actually hindered the Mongols. Then the storm came and the ending was repeated, with Koreans going away safe.

In both invasions, the Japanese never actually beat the invaders, and almost got conquered if it weren't for the misjudgments of the Mongols.



About modernization: It is easier to change a small country than a large one. Japan could take the change because it had a small group of elites that controled everything, whereas Qing had to deal with too many different interests. You're comparing apples and watermelons.

[NoemiChan]

Originally Posted by Sumeragi

In both invasions, the Japanese never actually beat the invaders, and almost got conquered if it weren't for the misjudgments of the Mongols.

..and Mother Nature...

[MakubeX2]

Originally Posted by KiraYamatoFan

the Chinese chose to reject elements which could have helped them modernize their country despite having been in contact with Europeans for some time; meanwhile, the Japanese spent enough time looking at a number of things from Europe to finally accept embracing those same elements for their country's sake (hence my analogy of red pill vs. blue pill)

A few piece here, if I may. From my readings, both the Tokugawas and the Qings reject the Western powers in equal measures and despite some concessions here and there, both tried to undermind the foreigners when possible.

But when the Japanese populations realise how the British played dirty by getting their richer neighbour hooked on opium and started "the rush for China", they began to fear for themselves, decided that it not worth tackling the gaijins head on and switched tactics. That's is also the moment they loose the respect they had for the Chinese.

[Urzu 7]

Originally Posted by Sumeragi

Haredi Judaism is keeping its more violent tendencies in check because it relies on the state for all the aid it receives. Otherwise there is no big difference between the more extreme versions of Haredi Judaism (yes, there are trends even within that conservatives of conservatives) and the radicial Islam we are seeing.

Okay, I stand corrected, what I said doesn't apply to all Jewish followers. However, it isn't a widespread problem with the religion because, as you said, they keep themselves in check due to reasons, and also, there are many Jews who are not Haredi Jews. I should ask, how big is the Haredi following? Is it a significant portion of Jews in the world, or only a small segment of them?

[Sumeragi]

Enough to change the demographics of Jerusalem and Israel.

[Urzu 7]

Originally Posted by Sumeragi

Enough to change the demographics of Jerusalem and Israel.

I personally love Jewish people, on the whole. I don't understand why so many people hate them. But I hate to say it, but if the Jewish religion was much bigger in amount of followers throughout history and much more widespread, you'd most likely have a long history of violence and warfare like you find in the histories of Christianity and Islam.

[aohige]

Originally Posted by KiraYamatoFan

The kamikaze did its part, but the Japanese troops beat the ones who already landed on the ground, no?

Sure.

Much of their forces drowned, stranded with no supplies and equipment sunk to the bottom of ocean, no reinforcements, and hell of a lot more island monkeys to fight against.

Oh boy, we gonna take this land now!

Yeah, no.

[bladeofdarkness]

Originally Posted by Sumeragi

Enough to change the demographics of Jerusalem and Israel.

change demographics from what ?
Jews already ARE the majority in Israel, and have been the majority in Jerusalem since 1844.

[Urzu 7]

Originally Posted by bladeofdarkness

change demographics from what ?
Jews already ARE the majority in Israel, and have been the majority in Jerusalem since 1844.

She is talking about a certain group of Jews called Haredi Jews.

[bladeofdarkness]

Originally Posted by Urzu 7

She is talking about a certain group of Jews called Haredi Jews.

but the Haredi are still Jews in the end.
mind you, annoying as hell Jews, but still Jews.
it doesn't change Demographics in the traditional sort of way.

[NoemiChan]

Originally Posted by Urzu 7

She is talking about a certain group of Jews called Haredi Jews.

As I researched, they are a really a group within the Jews... I've always thought they are the "usual" Jews I see in TV wearing black coat and hats... Interesting