Islam by the end of 21st century

[loseyourname]

If a house is for sale it is based on the discretion of the owner as far as who should buy that house. When applied to peoples and cultures, it is a matter of discretion. If the Dutch people do not wish to allow immigration of Muslims into their lands, it is their right as a people.

All right, you kind of lost me in that leap there. I understand that a landowner has the right to sell his land to whomever he wants, and to not sell it to someone that he doesn't want living there. His neighbors, however, have no say. As such, the Dutch people, who have no collective right to any extended piece of land, have no right to say who can or cannot live anywhere. Individual Dutch landowners certainly do, but you can't make the leap from that to saying that a Dutch government - which is what this would have to amount to, as you would never get every landowner to disallow Muslims purchase or rental of property - can dictate who can or cannot live on the land.

[Anonymouse]

How they could after all from the moment they have holy Church persecuting anyone who is against their rules by preaching ''Beleive and don't investigate.''

If you think that medieval European history involved only the Church and persecuting, you are mistaken and again, do not know the subject. I repeated myself already, but there is more to medieval Europe than the Church persecuting. And really when we talk about the Church persecuting we are referring to the Inquisition which was a marginal part of European history.

I repeat for the second time that you are right that we shouldn't ignore that there were some advancments as well.One can only compare how much the people advanced during the pre Medieval times in Europe and during the Medieval times in Europe and will understand why they are called Dark times in every history book by the vast majority of the historical community.

Compare? The problem with your approach is that it is ahistorical. You cannot compare "advancement" of some past society with that of another society previous to that, as if it is some sort of empirical equation that we can measure with a ruler. When we are dealing with history, and past societies it is about as ignorant to compare antiquity, to medieval society, as they were two different eras and histories. The only comparisons we can make are in the present. That approach disregards their histories, institutions and ideas of those peoples and cultures and assumes that all history is static and a point in time. "Medieval" and "Antiquity" are simply social scientific terms applied to the past. These people did not consider themselves living in "antiquity" or "Dark times". It is the prejudices of myopic ahistorical viewpoints like yours that taint history.

[Anonymouse]

All right, you kind of lost me in that leap there. I understand that a landowner has the right to sell his land to whomever he wants, and to not sell it to someone that he doesn't want living there. His neighbors, however, have no say. As such, the Dutch people, who have no collective right to any extended piece of land, have no right to say who can or cannot live anywhere. Individual Dutch landowners certainly do, but you can't make the leap from that to saying that a Dutch government - which is what this would have to amount to, as you would never get every landowner to disallow Muslims purchase or rental of property - can dictate who can or cannot live on the land.

I do not disagree that individual Dutch have the right to who shall own their land or occupy it. At the same time, it is precisely the government that is allowing these Muslims to immigrate en masse,often to the detriment of the Dutch who, if left by themselves, would never have asked for their immigration in the first place. Like in France, and in the United Kingdom, the individual landowners have no say, thanks to government quotas and laws, and forcing people to accomodate multiculturalism.

The other issue I have with this is that it is similar to the open borders crowd.
This crowd assumes that humans have absolute free will. If we had complete free will, any ideological and social system would work. But since we do not have complete free will, it cannot. As much as we have free will, we are also animals. We are social beings that group ourselves into families, tribes, and nations, like animals form packs. If you think that all society is nothing more individual atoms disconnected from everyone else, you are mistaken.

The fact that we group ourselves with our families or nations, shows that we are animals also. If we weren't like that then we wouldn't do it. Underlying in your assumption is that all tribes can share and occupy the same land and get along, in reality and history this has proven otherwise. It has always resulted in the domination of one over the other. Your position is basically the same as the open borders crowd.

[bell-the-cat]

Those same Byzantians were closing all the schools which were still keeping alive the ancient hellenic culture thus all the books which they ''preserved'' were already stolen.Emperors like Zeno and Justinian,are one of the few of many that commited a cultural genocide to the Greeks, always directed by the Church.

This is again a complete myth. For example, when the Parthenon temple at Athens was finally closed and converted to a church, the famous statue of Athena was taken to Constantinople, where it survived until the supposedly "Christian" Crusaders burned most of the city in 1204. The statue is thought by some to be the origin of the iconic images of the Virgin that were so important in the Byzantine empire. Until 1204, Constantinople was full of pagan Greek and Roman statues and literature.

[bell-the-cat]

This is again a complete myth. For example, when the Parthenon temple at Athens was finally closed and converted to a church, the famous statue of Athena was taken to Constantinople, where it survived until the supposedly "Christian" Crusaders burned most of the city in 1204. The statue is thought by some to be the origin of the iconic images of the Virgin that were so important in the Byzantine empire. Until 1204, Constantinople was full of pagan Greek and Roman statues and literature.

Or I might be thinking of the wrong statue - there was another one, of Zeus or Apollo I think, with a halo of golden rays, that was in Costantinople, and which influenced the depiction of Christ in art.

[Anonymouse]

Or I might be thinking of the wrong statue - there was another one, of Zeus or Apollo I think, with a halo of golden rays, that was in Costantinople, and which influenced the depiction of Christ in art.

That is correct, the earliest model for Jesus was the sun god Apollo