(March 21, 2020 at 11:04 am)WinterHold Wrote: You cry because Coronavirus is killing some thousands of you.

But why didn't you cry for Chinese Uighur Muslims butchered by the communist government?
Why didn't you cry for the Millions in Syria killed by Assad?
Why didn't you cry for Millions killed in Yemen by Saudi/U.A.E airstrikes?
Why didn't you cry for thousands tortured in prisons of Saudi Arabia?

Does humanity of today deserve covid-19 ?
I say yes.
Millions would also say yes.

Just like when the Black Death came.

Took me a while to realize you're Atlas.

Anyway, I think this is a bad idea of a thread because you fucked up with the "deserve" bit. And I suspect some of the attacks on you here appear to be made in bad faith. You may have bigotry issues (don't we all) but you're not a monster.

Coronavirus is a worldwide problem affecting everyone as you know. It's not just Westerners "paying" for it. And it is a health issue as much as it is an economic one.

Whatever point you're trying to make is being ruined by the way you're wording things and it's not fair at all to say that billions of people are asking for this problem.

To answer your rhetorical questions, it's because human individuals generally don't have the faculties and resources to do, or even care enough to do, what it takes to help thousands or millions of other people living in remote regions with which they have no familiarity. It doesn't mean there isn't an ounce of sympathy and sadness for the sufferings of others, though.

(March 25, 2020 at 7:41 am)Mr Greene Wrote: The claim was that 'Imperialism' was to blame for economic inequalities. All 4 examples were governed by the same administration, 2 became Islamic republics on Independence, 2 did not. They all form part of the same economic region. The difference is the religious attitude to finance.
Indeed it was the Islamic attitude to finance that led to them become colonies in the first place.

Sorry, but this is just a restatement of your earlier assertion. It doesn't tell me any more than before.

No doubt these seem like simple questions to you, but I honestly don't know.

What exactly is the "Islamic attitude to finance"? How does it differ from other countries? Is it identical in all Muslim-majority countries?

Is this attitude solely responsible for economic trouble in former colonies? Or only in the ones you name? Can one point to any other issues in Bangladesh, for example, that would harm its economy? 

You said earlier that Christian countries got over the bad financial advice in their scripture, so I'm guessing that Christian countries which are economic basket cases can't blame religion. But the Congo and numerous former colonies in South America have had a lot of trouble economically, and they are majority Catholic. In those cases, surely their status as former colonies and non-Islamic finance policies are to blame.

(March 25, 2020 at 8:17 am)Belacqua Wrote:

(March 25, 2020 at 7:41 am)Mr Greene Wrote: The claim was that 'Imperialism' was to blame for economic inequalities. All 4 examples were governed by the same administration, 2 became Islamic republics on Independence, 2 did not. They all form part of the same economic region. The difference is the religious attitude to finance.
Indeed it was the Islamic attitude to finance that led to them become colonies in the first place.

Sorry, but this is just a restatement of your earlier assertion. It doesn't tell me any more than before.

No doubt these seem like simple questions to you, but I honestly don't know.

What exactly is the "Islamic attitude to finance"? How does it differ from other countries? Is it identical in all Muslim-majority countries?

Is this attitude solely responsible for economic trouble in former colonies? Or only in the ones you name? Can one point to any other issues in Bangladesh, for example, that would harm its economy? 

You said earlier that Christian countries got over the bad financial advice in their scripture, so I'm guessing that Christian countries which are economic basket cases can't blame religion. But the Congo and numerous former colonies in South America have had a lot of trouble economically, and they are majority Catholic. In those cases, surely their status as former colonies and non-Islamic finance policies are to blame.

Islam declares payment of Interest to be Haram. Obviously this creates issues with obtaining finance (though most rich Islamic leaders choose to ignore the restriction when it comes to their personal finance, at least until it comes to paying them off...).

In the case of India, Mirza Shuja ud-din Muhammad Khan, Nawab of Bengal in common with most Mughal leaders believed that his palaces should be large and lavishly decorated. This was financed by loans from Bengal's Hindu bankers. However he  decided that as a muslim he shouldn't have to pay their interest and when summoned regarding his missed payments he threatened the bankers with forced conversion to Islam and circumcision.
Obviously the bankers didn't take this well and convinced the commander of the Palace Guard, Alivardi Khan, to betray and depose Mirza Shuja ud-din Muhammad Khan and supported his claiming the throne.
Alivardi Khan himself took out loans and the process repeated with Alivardi Khan being deposed by Sarfaraz Khan (son of  Mirza Shuja ud-din Muhammad Khan) but yet again this led to arguments with his bankers who this time decided to invite the East India Company to take over Bengal. 
This provided to Bengal and ultimately to India as whole as the Company did not owe the bankers,(though individual employees did resulting in the bulk of Indian revenue being retained by the Indian banks.)

Bengal was the richest state in India (The whole of the British Empire in fact) and on independence became partitioned into West Bengal under Delhi and East Pakistan, now Bangladesh as an Islamic republic. Bangladesh has collapsed economically following this. 

This scenario is played through even today with Muslims taking out loans then refusing to pay on the basis that 'as Muslims the agreements they signed don't apply to them'. as a result all Muslims get poor credit ratings.

(March 25, 2020 at 8:03 am)Grandizer Wrote: Anyway, I think this is a bad idea of a thread because you fucked up with the "deserve" bit. And I suspect some of the attacks on you here appear to be made in bad faith. You may have bigotry issues (don't we all) but you're not a monster.

His bigotry is not any bigotry, it involves the death of innocent people which he deems justified. In my playbook that is no less than monstrous.

And no, contrary to Atlass i mean what i say when i say he is a moral monster. I mean what i say when i say we are lucky that he is a coward who doesnt dare to act on base of his beliefs, because others may be hurt or killed i fhe did.

And this thread is not the first time where he displays a monstrous lack of decency and empathy towards most of, if not all of, humanity. I am only mentioning threads about the history of slavery. Again, we can be happy that he is not in charge of anything, or lots of innocent people would be hurt pretty badly.

(March 25, 2020 at 9:35 am)Mr Greene Wrote: Islam declares payment of Interest to be Haram. Obviously this creates issues with obtaining finance (though most rich Islamic leaders choose to ignore the restriction when it comes to their personal finance, at least until it comes to paying them off...).

It's true that modern fundamentalist Muslims are against all interest. Historically, though, this has varied. Just as Christians have differed over the definition of "usury" -- whether it refers to all interest or only excessive interest -- the Muslim world has varying views on this. 

A quick Google search indicates that banks in Bangladesh charge and pay interest. The current rate on savings is apparently 6.6%. 

Quote:In the case of India, Mirza Shuja ud-din Muhammad Khan, Nawab of Bengal in common with most Mughal leaders believed that his palaces should be large and lavishly decorated. This was financed by loans from Bengal's Hindu bankers. However he  decided that as a muslim he shouldn't have to pay their interest and when summoned regarding his missed payments he threatened the bankers with forced conversion to Islam and circumcision.
Obviously the bankers didn't take this well and convinced the commander of the Palace Guard, Alivardi Khan, to betray and depose Mirza Shuja ud-din Muhammad Khan and supported his claiming the throne.
Alivardi Khan himself took out loans and the process repeated with Alivardi Khan being deposed by Sarfaraz Khan (son of  Mirza Shuja ud-din Muhammad Khan) but yet again this led to arguments with his bankers who this time decided to invite the East India Company to take over Bengal. 
This provided to Bengal and ultimately to India as whole as the Company did not owe the bankers,(though individual employees did resulting in the bulk of Indian revenue being retained by the Indian banks.)

Very similar things happened in Europe, when Christian rulers borrowed from Jewish lenders. Then when it was time to pay back the loans they had a sudden attack of piety and expelled the Jews. 

But such anecdotes don't tell me about the overall situation. We'd need to establish that this is the norm, and still relevant, and not just cherry-picked bad examples. 

Quote:Bengal was the richest state in India (The whole of the British Empire in fact) and on independence became partitioned into West Bengal under Delhi and East Pakistan, now Bangladesh as an Islamic republic. Bangladesh has collapsed economically following this. 

Bangladesh is a secular state, and I see no indication that its government won't do normal modern banking. Its economic collapse may well have to do with partition itself, mass population movements, environmental catastrophes, corruption, and other things. I can't really say, but so far I see no evidence that Islam is the cause. 

Quote:This scenario is played through even today with Muslims taking out loans then refusing to pay on the basis that 'as Muslims the agreements they signed don't apply to them'. as a result all Muslims get poor credit ratings.

Can you cite some modern cases of this? Is it really true that ALL Muslims get poor credit ratings? There are some awfully rich ones. Does Mohamed Al-Fayed have a poor credit rating?

This is from the Wikipedia page on Bangladesh:

Quote:Although the country continues to face the challenges of the Rohingya Refugee Crisis,[20] corruption[21] and the adverse effects of climate change,[22] it is one of the emerging and growth-leading economies of the world. Bangladesh is also one of the Next Eleven countries, with one of the  in the world.

I am no expert on this topic, and I know that Wikipedia isn't unimpeachable. Still, I see no evidence yet that merely being majority-Muslim condemns a country's economy. If you have some more information I don't know about I'd be interested, but anecdotes about bad examples in India don't persuade me about the total picture. 

(March 25, 2020 at 3:56 am)The Valkyrie Wrote: If this is a pubishment from the great celestial dictator against humanity, and he's supposed to be loving, I wonder why he's not targeting the Xis, Trumps, Ayarollahs, and other dictators of the world, instead of killing around 20,000 (so far) randomly selected people around the world?

Seems either his priorities or aim is just a little off.

Perhaps he's gone back to the OT god who slaughtered (according to myth) thousands of innocent children in Egypt as punishment to the Pharaoh (whose heart he had hardened before sending the punishments).

Or perhaps he's utterly inept and can't punish specific individuals.

Or perhaps ge doesn't exust and Covid is just the latest pandemic to sweep the world.

Whichever of the above is true, I wonder why anyone would think the victims deserve it?

As far as I know, Trump and the rest of the Oligarchs lost billions, and their economy is said to be collapsing.

As for the OT, it's not my concern because I'm discussing from an Islamic point of view.
COVID-19 is not a strike to human life; but a strike to a rotten economy built by non-believers totally.

---

(March 25, 2020 at 7:41 am)Mr Greene Wrote:

(March 24, 2020 at 9:33 pm)Belacqua Wrote: How would you demonstrate the truth of this? 

Is the "economic ineptitude of Islamic countries" only the result of Islam, or are there any other factors?

---

The claim was that 'Imperialism' was to blame for economic inequalities. All 4 examples were governed by the same administration, 2 became Islamic republics on Independence, 2 did not. They all form part of the same economic region. The difference is the religious attitude to finance.
Indeed it was the Islamic attitude to finance that led to them become colonies in the first place.
But as per usual for religious apologists we're now seeing a round of goal post shifting.

Muslim governments were annihilated with the fall of the Ottoman empire.
Secular law won the war. And Secular law hold the keys of today's world.

The Islamic windmill you use as a scapegoat to blame your failures upon is long gone.

Whenever I fail, and lose my head, I blame Marie Antoinette.
Pull your head out of the sand. Religion is a choice. god, any god, is make-believe.

(March 25, 2020 at 12:57 pm)Belacqua Wrote:

(March 25, 2020 at 9:35 am)Mr Greene Wrote: Islam declares payment of Interest to be Haram. Obviously this creates issues with obtaining finance (though most rich Islamic leaders choose to ignore the restriction when it comes to their personal finance, at least until it comes to paying them off...).

It's true that modern fundamentalist Muslims are against all interest. Historically, though, this has varied. Just as Christians have differed over the definition of "usury" -- whether it refers to all interest or only excessive interest -- the Muslim world has varying views on this. 

A quick Google search indicates that banks in Bangladesh charge and pay interest. The current rate on savings is apparently 6.6%. 

Quote:In the case of India, Mirza Shuja ud-din Muhammad Khan, Nawab of Bengal in common with most Mughal leaders believed that his palaces should be large and lavishly decorated. This was financed by loans from Bengal's Hindu bankers. However he  decided that as a muslim he shouldn't have to pay their interest and when summoned regarding his missed payments he threatened the bankers with forced conversion to Islam and circumcision.
Obviously the bankers didn't take this well and convinced the commander of the Palace Guard, Alivardi Khan, to betray and depose Mirza Shuja ud-din Muhammad Khan and supported his claiming the throne.
Alivardi Khan himself took out loans and the process repeated with Alivardi Khan being deposed by Sarfaraz Khan (son of  Mirza Shuja ud-din Muhammad Khan) but yet again this led to arguments with his bankers who this time decided to invite the East India Company to take over Bengal. 
This provided to Bengal and ultimately to India as whole as the Company did not owe the bankers,(though individual employees did resulting in the bulk of Indian revenue being retained by the Indian banks.)

Very similar things happened in Europe, when Christian rulers borrowed from Jewish lenders. Then when it was time to pay back the loans they had a sudden attack of piety and expelled the Jews. 

But such anecdotes don't tell me about the overall situation. We'd need to establish that this is the norm, and still relevant, and not just cherry-picked bad examples. 

Quote:Bengal was the richest state in India (The whole of the British Empire in fact) and on independence became partitioned into West Bengal under Delhi and East Pakistan, now Bangladesh as an Islamic republic. Bangladesh has collapsed economically following this. 

Bangladesh is a secular state, and I see no indication that its government won't do normal modern banking. Its economic collapse may well have to do with partition itself, mass population movements, environmental catastrophes, corruption, and other things. I can't really say, but so far I see no evidence that Islam is the cause. 

Quote:This scenario is played through even today with Muslims taking out loans then refusing to pay on the basis that 'as Muslims the agreements they signed don't apply to them'. as a result all Muslims get poor credit ratings.

Can you cite some modern cases of this? Is it really true that ALL Muslims get poor credit ratings? There are some awfully rich ones. Does Mohamed Al-Fayed have a poor credit rating?

This is from the Wikipedia page on Bangladesh:

Quote:Although the country continues to face the challenges of the Rohingya Refugee Crisis,[20] corruption[21] and the adverse effects of climate change,[22] it is one of the emerging and growth-leading economies of the world. Bangladesh is also one of the Next Eleven countries, with one of the  in the world.

I am no expert on this topic, and I know that Wikipedia isn't unimpeachable. Still, I see no evidence yet that merely being majority-Muslim condemns a country's economy. If you have some more information I don't know about I'd be interested, but anecdotes about bad examples in India don't persuade me about the total picture. 

In other words the original claim by Atlass is false.

(March 25, 2020 at 1:17 pm)WinterHold Wrote:

(March 25, 2020 at 7:41 am)Mr Greene Wrote: The claim was that 'Imperialism' was to blame for economic inequalities. All 4 examples were governed by the same administration, 2 became Islamic republics on Independence, 2 did not. They all form part of the same economic region. The difference is the religious attitude to finance.
Indeed it was the Islamic attitude to finance that led to them become colonies in the first place.
But as per usual for religious apologists we're now seeing a round of goal post shifting.

Muslim governments were annihilated with the fall of the Ottoman empire.
Secular law won the war. And Secular law hold the keys of today's world.

The Islamic windmill you use as a scapegoat to blame your failures upon is long gone.

The Ottoman Empire fell due to the maneuvering of the Russian government.
The Sykes-Picot Agreement was developed to thwart Russian ambitions (Which I strongly suspect they still hold and are manipulating events in Syria and Turkey to realise) This unfortunately entailed betraying the ambitions of Sharif Faisal and establishing a French mandate despite the lack of French involvement to provide a buffer against Russian ambition.

Winterhold, can I come to your church and teach evolution?

I noticed that you completely ignored almost everything I said.

So, to break it down:

- The Islamic book of myths is based directly on the Christian and Hebrew book of myths, so your saying that you're looking from an Islamic point of view is moot.

- Non-believers aren't responsible for the state of the Islamic world. That would be down to the dictators and religious leaders in the region with help from individuals and groups from the outside.

- I've grown very tired of hearing the whole "it's because of white men and colonial powers that we're the way we are" whine. It's as if you ignore the Islamic invasion of Europe and much of the Middle East, Africa, and Asia.

And please don't try justifying Islamic colonialism/conquest while criticising European powers for doing the same thing.

As soon as we come up with a good alternative to oil, the whole ME region will likely end up the way it has been for millennia and, hopefully, outside interests will leave the whole mess alone.