rationalskepticism.org

Sendraks wrote:I can accept that the Sultans were tolerant but, there Sultans =/= the religion. They just happened to be tolerant individuals. History is replete with tolerant and intolerant individuals.

What caused them to be tolerant? I don't know. I'm not persuaded it was Islam, given that the same belief system seems equally capable of producing horrendously intolerant individuals. Clearly on tolerance, Islam is not inherently that much cop.

Sultans say that they represent Islam, take permission from Islamic clergy about their actions, they're caliph of the Islamic world when caliph call Muslims all around the world to protect Islam claiming that it's under attack just as in the first world war Muslims coming for battle, each Friday prayer they mention his name but Sultan is not religion, fine.

The same Sultans doesn't practice stoning punishment and I say it doesn't exist in Koran but just because a few newly established extremist Kingdoms or gangs practice it you said there is stoning in Islam. Isn't that a contradiction ?

Sendraks wrote:Christianity preaches "love they neighbour" and "thou shalt not kill" as fairly headline parts of its scripture, not to mention an adherence to the golden rule and "turning the other cheek". If people were following the scripture, you'd expect to see a similar bedrock of tolerance in Christianity. But we don't, almost as if there were other factors at play.

Bad practice can't be example or represent the scriptures right ? Parents warn their kids about a lot of bad things, don't smoke, be careful in traffic etc. if a kid had all these warnings but still did wrong is that the mistake of the parents or the kids ? Why would I blame the parent when it's kids fault ? There is a long history of peaceful time of Muslims even people who aren't fancy of Islam can't deny it's success, although there is such a good example why would I prefer to blame Islam because of today's bad practitioners. It's religion and they're expired long ago but there were times it was much more peaceful than today.

Sendraks wrote:Taken from the same Wikipedia page you quoted later and yet, for some reason, chose not to quote.

Ottoman religious tolerance was notable for being a bit better than that which existed elsewhere in other great past or contemporary empires, such as Spain or England

In the same sentence first it say notable and then a bit, what's the point of both increasing and decreasing the meaning of something ? If they're notable for being tolerant that means that's worth something to mention, on the other hand I prefer someone to be a bit more tolerant instead a bit less tolerant, wouldn't you ? Or would you prefer a bit the less tolerant one because of Islamophobia ?

Sendraks wrote:What you are arguing for and have been for most of this thread, I think of a misplaced sense of national loyalty, is for the superiority of the Ottoman empire compared to its contemporaries. Trying to pass it off as a success of Islam is a mistake and does a massive discredit to the many worthy things the Ottoman empire achieved

To tell the truth I would prefer to live in the land of Ottoman empire during the mediaeval times, actually who wouldn't ? Call it Islam or Sultans' tolerance even you accepted that they were more tolerant. Actually they were tolerant to non-Muslim minorities they weren't that friendly to other sects of Islam but still situation was much brighter than Europe which was suffering under the pressure of church. Nobody ever sold deed of heaven, burned with witchcraft accusations. If there would be a tiny bit of Ottoman or Islam admiration I wouldn't criticize Erdogan's policies that fiercely.

Sendraks don't be afraid to tell the truth, I know it's hard to accept that it was cool in the past but when compared to other games in the town Islam was better.