Stephen Fry hits back at accusations of Islamophobia

[Ralin]

This seems to provide a clear incentive to y'know, not murder them. Of course, you'd likely have to kill enough people to be in the position to tax them in the first place.

I seem to recall the Jizya being a rather important source of income for early Muslim states.

It also provides a pretty clear incentive to define "People of the Book" as broadly as possible, which if I remember right was an issue in India.

[PainRack]

There are always cases where people convert willingly. In Islam's case it was most likely adult males of certain class and standing because that is who Islam benefits the most. The concept, right or wrong, of 72 virgins points directly at a benefit to males, then add in the shaming of women by various means and it becomes almost exclusively male rather quickly.

You know, I'm going to be anal and ask you to prove this.

In Malaya and Indonesia, we lack evidence to show how Muslims were initially converted but an initial theory was how muslim traders would marry local females and conversion through marriage. No real proof since data is limited, but its buttressed by how the Pernakanan community was formed. Namely, Chinese men marrying into Islam.

We can show that your reasoning doesn't apply in the modern context though, because in the US, for converts to Islam, women outnumber men.
http://www.academia.edu/300375/Women_an ... Experience

A similar example can be found in Islam spread to China/Xinjiang during the Tang dynasty.
http://www.islam.org.hk/eng/eislaminchina05.asp
Arab traders settling in Chinese territory and marriage help spread Islam ideas in the region and the cosmopolitan Tang dynasty allowed the migration and settling of Muslim peoples.

I'm not sure about the actual data, but as Thanas has pointed out, the initial increase in Muslims in Spain was most likely not promoted by conversion, but rather by Muslims settling into the defeated and destroyed Vandal kingdoms.
Its a bit.... hard to see how the Muslim conquerors were that interested in conversion as a reason for invasion since one of the documentated speech during the conquest was along the lines of the women of spain are pretty and the land rich, the sea is behind us, so charge!
You know. Typical invading mentality. Rape, loot, plunder.

Are you refuting that Islam wouldn't rather convert or kill those who do not believe the way they do? Those who do not believe their crap are, in their eyes, subhuman. Does their theology allow for anything else? Please, enlighten me, just do not try to be an apologist.

Yes, it does. Read the Koran and understand that a strict interpretation, one that is actually more internally consistent than what Osama Bin Ladin preaches actually dictates that muslims be tolerant of other religions.

I'm copying and pasting from earlier posts I made on SB as well as a site I reference so pardon if some of the text seems off.
For example.
http://www.muslim.org/islam/tolerance.htm
“There is no compulsion in religion” (2:256),

“We have truly shown him the way; he may be thankful or unthankful” (76:3).

“The Truth is from your Lord; so let him who please believe and let him who please disbelieve” (18:29).

“Clear proofs have indeed come to you from your Lord: so whoever sees, it is for his own good; and whoever is blind, it is to his own harm” (6:104).

“If you do good, you do good for your own souls. And if you do evil, it is for them” (17:7).

“And fight them until there is no persecution, and religion is only for Allah” (2:193).

“And fight them until there is no more persecution, and all religions for Allah” (8:39).
“And if they incline to peace, incline thou also to it, and trust in Allah. Surely He is the Hearer, the Knower. And if they intend to deceive thee, then surely Allah is sufficient for thee” (8:61, 62).

Now, that word Allah is very important. I explain why later.

109:1 is from the chapter "The Disbelievers". The Koran explictly states to disbelievers, tells its worshippers to say to disbelievers "Say o disbelievers, you have your religion and I have mine. I will not worship yours and you will not worship mine."
This is EXPLICIT, HOLY textual scripture telling its believers what to SAY to disbelievers.

Now, are there texts preaching violence and etc? Of course.
One commonly preached is this text.

8:12 is from Spoils of War
and he leaves out a VERY IMPORTANT PORTION. Namely
When thy Lord inspired the angels, (saying): I am with you. So make those who believe stand firm. I will throw fear into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Then smite the necks and smite of them each finger.

Oh. God told his angels, strengthen the faith and courage of my believers and I will make those dirty non muslims fear me. We shall thus win a great victory.

Its literally a passage talking about how God will make true believers victorious in combat against their foes.Why?

8:13 That is because they opposed Allah and His messenger. Whoso opposeth Allah and His messenger, (for him) lo! Allah is severe in punishment.

Because they opposed GOD. So GOD, again, not muslims, GOD punishes those unbelievers by making muslim victorious against their foes.( I will note that he didn't actually bring out the MORALIST viewpoint, since later in that same chapter, the Koran tell muslims that when you kill the enemy, its not you killing them but Allah.
http://forums.spacebattles.com/threads/ ... t-10218019


In other words, Muslims believe that the Koran preaches tolerance for non believers. However, there are times when they themselves have to serve as the agents of divine intervention.

The common theme rests in the context of Jihad and the struggle of religion. Muslims may utilize violence to defend their faith, but they aren't to use violence to convert others.

Now, here's the key point on how Muslims can and do interpret the Koran to justify terrorism and other acts of violence. Defence is a vague term. And sometimes, you are what's coming around.

The traditional Muslim world is Arabia you twit. That is were it came from. That is where the major events seem to happen, at least from a historical standpoint. the reason most Westerners do not know much about Indonesia and Malaysia is because they are not the metaphorical squeaky wheel. That is not taking into account where the holy locations are; namely Mecca (and others I can't remember off the top of my head, think Jerusalem is another)

So because you're close minded, the rest of the world is expected to follow your beliefs? Its quite funny, because the Islamic world itself hasn't viewed Arabia as the centre of Islam ever since the caliphate was destroyed.

Its kinda important, because the re-establishment of the caliphate and the return of Saudi Arabia and etc as the centre of the Muslim world does form a tenet of Al Queda propaganda.

Tell you what, why don't you actually define what is traditional Muslim countries? Because I'm not interested in a verbal debate where both of us have different interpretations.

My definition of Islamic countries are countries with a majority of muslims and a culture dominated/inspired by Islam. So, Mulghal empire isn't a traditional Muslim country even though its ruling class, philosophy and etc was Muslim.

As for how it spread to Indonesia in the first place it seems to be a case of the rich (royalty and merchants) converting first and one thing that seems prevalent is that where the leaders go the people follows, officially. Not to mention in some areas: i.e. Java and Pajajaran was conquered by Muslims, not peacefully as you seem to be proposing.

They were conquered by Muslim LEADERs, not Muslim imams trying to spread Islam in the region. And more importantly, Islam itself was already IN the area when said invasion was launched. There is no evidence whatsoever to show that Islam spread by conquest, although again, limited data.

Again, we're working off extremely limited archaeological and textual data, but given the trade routes and etc, Arab traders were probably already established in Java.

[Zwinmar]

First: Are you really saying that Islam does not benefit the men more than women?

Second:

“If you do good, you do good for your own souls. And if you do evil, it is for them” (17:7).

“And fight them until there is no persecution, and religion is only for Allah” (2:193).

“And fight them until there is no more persecution, and all religions for Allah” (8:39).
“And if they incline to peace, incline thou also to it, and trust in Allah. Surely He is the Hearer, the Knower. And if they intend to deceive thee, then surely Allah is sufficient for thee” (8:61, 62).

Now, that word Allah is very important. I explain why later.

109:1 is from the chapter "The Disbelievers". The Koran explictly states to disbelievers, tells its worshippers to say to disbelievers "Say o disbelievers, you have your religion and I have mine. I will not worship yours and you will not worship mine."
This is EXPLICIT, HOLY textual scripture telling its believers what to SAY to disbelievers.

You only do evil for yourself?
Religion is only for Allah? Nothing else?
Fight them until there is only the Muslim bigotry?
So, you do evil for yourself, Allah's brand is the only brand and fight them so that they admit this. That is what seems to be the only logical conclusion to the verses you gave. Then the message contradicts itself.

Third,as for traditional, I don't think you know what word means.
So, a simple litmus test:
Do Muslims take on and/or name their kids Arabic names?
Do they pray toward Mecca?
Are most of their holy cities in Arabia?


Tradition

Definition of TRADITION
1
a : an inherited, established, or customary pattern of thought, action, or behavior (as a religious practice or a social custom)
b : a belief or story or a body of beliefs or stories relating to the past that are commonly accepted as historical though not verifiable
2
: the handing down of information, beliefs, and customs by word of mouth or by example from one generation to another without written instruction
3
: cultural continuity in social attitudes, customs, and institutions
4
: characteristic manner, method, or style <in the best liberal tradition>

And fourth:

They were conquered by Muslim LEADERs, not Muslim imams trying to spread Islam in the region.

And what is the difference? An Imam can be a leader, and a leader an Imam but by no means do they have to be one and the same. They were still conquered by Muslims.

[Darth Yan]

There are verses which state that jews and christians worship allah and thus technically can follow their faith. the "religion for allah" referred to pagans, which were actively persecuting the muslim tribes. Jews and christians both followed allah, albeit in a different way. At the time the pagans were oppressing the muslims and there was war going on. That's what it meant. If you take historical context into account it makes a lot more sense. Zwimm, you should do real studying of islam. Read the sources, talk to scholars, find out about context and interpretation. If you don't all you have is a half assed and cursory knowledge

[PainRack]

You only do evil for yourself?
Religion is only for Allah? Nothing else?
Fight them until there is only the Muslim bigotry?
So, you do evil for yourself, Allah's brand is the only brand and fight them so that they admit this. That is what seems to be the only logical conclusion to the verses you gave. Then the message contradicts itself.

Say what? Just how do you get that interpretation.
Again. The verses explicitly preaches tolerance for other faith. Something that rebuts your argument that Islam views others as subhuman.
Note that you gave NO evidence for this whatsoever from a religious context.

There are verses from Islam that has been quoted as preaching violence towards other faiths. The more common one quoted as above ignores the context, which was about Muslim believers fighting in a war against others and is about how Allah(God) will punish the unbelievers. The whole '2 korans' bit ignores the actual religious context, there is no two Testaments in the Quran. There are two historical periods, one where Muhammad was more aggressive militarily and that was incorporated into the Koran, but even here, note the text. You are only allowed to fight your enemies until they no longer persecute you. But leave the concept of religion/God, to GOD. In other words. DON"T PERSECUTE THEM FOR THEIR FAITH.

Its an important contextual belief, because most koranic verses about violence towards other faith is in the context of God will punish the unbelievers and a thread of Muslim faith is that only God can judge the unbelievers.

However, and this is important, Muslims can be the agents of God justice. And a Muslim is justified in violence if he's acting to defend himself and others. In other words, Islam has as enshrined into its holy text, the concept of a Just War and its the existence of this concept that constantly confuses others when they insist that Islamic text preaches violence against other faiths.

Ideal is obviously always far from reality and in practice, elements of the text has always been distorted to support one policy or another but it IS telling that the religious fatwas from muslim councils has always argued that terrorist actions is not the act of a true Muslim. Most condone what we would consider barbaric actions towards heresy, towards blasphemy, but they do not condone terrorist strikes against populations, despite Al Queda claims otherwise. Note that Al Queda religious recruitment is based on the concept of a just war, that Muslims need to rise up to defend themselves against an aggressor.

Third,as for traditional, I don't think you know what word means.
So, a simple litmus test:
Do Muslims take on and/or name their kids Arabic names?
Do they pray toward Mecca?
Are most of their holy cities in Arabia?

So? Malaysia, Indonesia fulfills your requirements. YET, you insist that these are not traditional Muslim countries.
Fuck. Under YOUR consideration, India, Bangaldash, areas such as Xinjiang and etc would ALL be considered traditional Muslim areas.

And what is the difference? An Imam can be a leader, and a leader an Imam but by no means do they have to be one and the same. They were still conquered by Muslims.

Your argument was that Islam was spread to said region by force of conquest. You need to SHOW that, not show that a Muslim leader invaded the area. Because Islam had already spread to said area BEFORE conquest.

[PainRack]

First: Are you really saying that Islam does not benefit the men more than women?

Missed this.

I'm NOT saying that. I'm asking you to actually SUPPORT your assumption males of a certain class and standing willingly convert to Islam or how Islam was almost exclusively willing male converts quickly by providing historical data.

We can check that assumption in modern times and show that its not necessarily true, more female American converts to Islam than males.

We can also trace other historical expansion such as in China or the Malayan community and note that it was spread through marriage, so, in many contexts, it was either females entering into the religion as a convert or just new children inducted into the religion.

[Kitsune]

Islam also does not "like" people converting from the religion
Generally, you read about people being threatened with death over it.

[SMJB]

Okay, firstly, just, what does this argument have to do with anything? No one is saying Islam gains converts exclusively through the sword, and I don't think anyone is saying that that isn't a big part of how it spread in the first place, either. Pointing out specific verses just proves that, just as with the Bible, you can argue absolutely anything with the Koran!* The point of this thread is that Fry is arguing that when someone who is alive today pulls some horrible shit today, calling them on it shouldn't be impeded based on Muslim-ness.

Which, to me, is freaking obvious. Yes, check your privileges, and yes, Western idiocy has often lead to Middle-Easterners being screwed over, like, constantly--but that is no reason that I, as an individual, cannot criticize another individual's actions. Guess what? Every evildoer ever thinks they're perfectly justified in doing what they're doing. Every single one of them has a list of grievances that lead them down their path, from the drug dealer on your street corner to Hitler and Stalin. But being abused by your parents does not excuse becoming a serial killer, being abused by society doesn't excuse selling drugs to kids, and being abused by the West doesn't excuse FGM and child marriage.

Incidentally, I pretty much fell in love with the "straight white male is the easiest difficulty setting" thing the first time I heard of it. Being told you're "privileged" is a bitter pill to swallow when you're too poor to pay income tax, whereas this allegory gets the concept across without trivializing anyone's struggle in life.
____________________
* Well, people with more Koranic knowledge than me keep saying that later verses take precedence over earlier verses and that later verses are more violent than earlier ones, but still.

[Grumman]

Incidentally, I pretty much fell in love with the "straight white male is the easiest difficulty setting" thing the first time I heard of it. Being told you're "privileged" is a bitter pill to swallow when you're too poor to pay income tax, whereas this allegory gets the concept across without trivializing anyone's struggle in life.

It also avoids the arse-backwards notion that being treated fairly is a privilege and not a right.

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

Privilege extends beyond "being treated fairly".

White privilege or male privilege, for example, don't just mean you aren't unfairly kept away from jobs and promotions, but you are given an unfair advantage to get those jobs and promotions since people as or more qualified than you are kept out of the running.

Privilege implying an active gain is a useful tool to help get over the "well racism is those other white people not ALL of us are like that" since when you're in a privileged group, you by default are complicit in the oppression and you have to actively work against it to be neutral in the issue.

[energiewende]

I feel that the West merely checked the Ottoman and Mughal Empires' privilege by shooting apart their imperialist hegemonies and introducing some redistributive social justice. Isn't that how the saying goes - "Whoso checketh man's privilege, by man shall his privilege be checked: for in the image of George Galloway made he man."?

It's about time we embraced egalitarianism and admitted that all people are broadly equal in their capacity to be total bastards. The West was on top for a while, and that's getting less true now. The West wasn't on top because they were particularly more bastardly than others, but rather because they invented a lot of technologies and modes of social organisation that made their societies more successful than others. The bastardry was always there, but previously checked by neighbours who were stronger. Before it was the West, it was someone else, and they were also bastards. Most anything more than 300 years old is terrible, and a lot of the things newer. A lot of people have mistakenly interpretted that as "anything familiar to me that is more than 300 years old is terrible", lumping foreign things into the category of "new and different". This is psychologically understandable but intellectually sloppy. If Islam had been the state religion of Western countries, Fry's ample rhetorical blunderbuss would be steaming from both barrels. All he's done to provoke this is giving it a mild tap.

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

Are you seriously saying that the European colonies carved up from Ottoman and Mughal lands, ones that involved poison gassing people to keep them in line or colonially-induced famines that killed millions, are some sort of beneficial or just outcome, or am I misunderstanding you?

[energiewende]

Are you saying that privilege checking isn't about imposing random penalties on a vague group of people who may or may not be responsible for the alleged grievance? If they didn't want to be bombed with gas planes they shouldn't have annexed Bulgaria in 1396.

[Terralthra]

Are you saying that privilege checking isn't about imposing random penalties on a vague group of people who may or may not be responsible for the alleged grievance? If they didn't want to be bombed with gas planes they shouldn't have annexed Bulgaria in 1396.

I think you have drastically misunderstood something somewhere along the way. Privilege is not checked by other people, not something imposed as a penalty.

[Thanas]

I am very much disturbed that one can seriously compare colonialism and its racist policies which directly caused the deaths of more people than WWII and indirectly probably caused the death of millions, if not billions of people is somehow being used as a valid comparison to social groups not having as many options. Whatever hurdles gay people face are not comparable to the Bengal famines. Whatever hurdles women face are not comparable to the burning of the Summer palace and the campaigns that accompanied it.

Get a freaking grip, people. Either show how these are directly comparable scale-wise or start using more accurate comparisons. Because if you had ever read, say, the diaries of colonial forces, you would find any such comparison deeply offensive. It is just like those white-trash idiots calling cops SS-troopers after receiving a ticket for speeding.

[Zwinmar]

Know what Painrack, since you have resorted to quoting bullshit scripture, I am going to just bow out as that is an argument that cannot be won. You can 'prove' anything you wish by quoting shitty philosophy while the fact remains that Islam (and every religion) is a racket that benefits the chosen at the expense of others..

So peace out and enjoy being told what to do.

[PainRack]

Dude. You specifically argued that Islam views other religious believers as subhumans.

I put up my end of the bargain even though it was YOUR job to prove it. This forum allows mockery of stupid people. It does not allow bigotry.
Now put up or shut up.

[PainRack]

Okay, firstly, just, what does this argument have to do with anything? No one is saying Islam gains converts exclusively through the sword, and I don't think anyone is saying that that isn't a big part of how it spread in the first place, either. Pointing out specific verses just proves that, just as with the Bible, you can argue absolutely anything with the Koran!* The point of this thread is that Fry is arguing that when someone who is alive today pulls some horrible shit today, calling them on it shouldn't be impeded based on Muslim-ness.

That portion of the thread had nothing to do with Stephen Fry, considering I defended his actions.

However, Zwinmar in an attempt to follow through with an ITG act put out bigoted statements and you popped in on the section where he states that Islam treats all other religions as subhuman, something so utterly ignorant that I didn't know whether to laugh or cry. And that Islam would rather kill or convert anyone else. Anyone with a passing knowledge of Islamic theology and history can show that this isn't the case. While we secular people would point out that their actions were restricted by other ideologies, from the practicality of ruling a large empire, snipping a religious backed rebellion in the bud, creating conditions for a peaceful rule or even just taxation, Zwinmar statements are just nothing more than bigotry backed up by nothing more than his ignorance.

[SMJB]

I am very much disturbed that one can seriously compare colonialism and its racist policies which directly caused the deaths of more people than WWII and indirectly probably caused the death of millions, if not billions of people is somehow being used as a valid comparison to social groups not having as many options. Whatever hurdles gay people face are not comparable to the Bengal famines. Whatever hurdles women face are not comparable to the burning of the Summer palace and the campaigns that accompanied it.

Get a freaking grip, people. Either show how these are directly comparable scale-wise or start using more accurate comparisons. Because if you had ever read, say, the diaries of colonial forces, you would find any such comparison deeply offensive. It is just like those white-trash idiots calling cops SS-troopers after receiving a ticket for speeding.

Just, who are you responding to?

[Scrib]

Dude. You specifically argued that Islam views other religious believers as subhumans.

I put up my end of the bargain even though it was YOUR job to prove it. This forum allows mockery of stupid people. It does not allow bigotry.
Now put up or shut up.

It's a bit funny how easy it was for him to fuck up grasping the low-hanging fruit.Say:" Islam is a racket that believes itself to be the best racket while screwing someone over". Boom,you get to make your anti-theist point, collect your cred and walk the fuck out. But apparently, that's too hard, you have to go with hyperbolic, black and white statements which then force you into a a discussion like this one. Rookie mistake.

[energiewende]

I am very much disturbed that one can seriously compare colonialism and its racist policies which directly caused the deaths of more people than WWII and indirectly probably caused the death of millions, if not billions of people is somehow being used as a valid comparison to social groups not having as many options. Whatever hurdles gay people face are not comparable to the Bengal famines. Whatever hurdles women face are not comparable to the burning of the Summer palace and the campaigns that accompanied it.

I agree with the sentiment, but the Summer Palace is an odd example to choose. It was certainly beautiful, but lost tourist opportunities for the upper middle class are not quite in the same league, to my mind, as death of actual people, and the surrounding campaigns were not very large. The Spanish conquests in America seem by far the worst examples to me, with the Belgian Congo perhaps second.

[PainRack]

I am very much disturbed that one can seriously compare colonialism and its racist policies which directly caused the deaths of more people than WWII and indirectly probably caused the death of millions, if not billions of people is somehow being used as a valid comparison to social groups not having as many options. Whatever hurdles gay people face are not comparable to the Bengal famines. Whatever hurdles women face are not comparable to the burning of the Summer palace and the campaigns that accompanied it.

I agree with the sentiment, but the Summer Palace is an odd example to choose. It was certainly beautiful, but lost tourist opportunities for the upper middle class are not quite in the same league, to my mind, as death of actual people, and the surrounding campaigns were not very large. The Spanish conquests in America seem by far the worst examples to me, with the Belgian Congo perhaps second.

The sacking of the Summer palace contains gems such as

""Should you encounter the enemy, he will be defeated! No quarter will be given! Prisoners will not be taken! Whoever falls into your hands is forfeited. Just as a thousand years ago the Huns under their King Attila made a name for themselves, one that even today makes them seem mighty in history and legend, may the name German be affirmed by you in such a way in China that no Chinese will ever again dare to look cross-eyed at a German"

Also, Japan was so shocked at the Allied rape of civilians and how this was used to justify their policy of comfort women?

The surrounding campaigns were also punitive campaigns, meant to teach those uppitity Chinese not to torch European missionaries, but this ignores why anti foreigner sentiment was popular. Outside of extra-territorial laws, there were one story circulating about how a missionary beat a trishaw rider which led to his death. Such inflammatory stories are impossible to verify now through the lens of time. Combine this with racist attitudes(although for the Chinese, this would be a case of pot,kettle,black) and well......

[PainRack]

Dude. You specifically argued that Islam views other religious believers as subhumans.

I put up my end of the bargain even though it was YOUR job to prove it. This forum allows mockery of stupid people. It does not allow bigotry.
Now put up or shut up.

It's a bit funny how easy it was for him to fuck up grasping the low-hanging fruit.Say:" Islam is a racket that believes itself to be the best racket while screwing someone over". Boom,you get to make your anti-theist point, collect your cred and walk the fuck out. But apparently, that's too hard, you have to go with hyperbolic, black and white statements which then force you into a a discussion like this one. Rookie mistake.

I found it funny that his challenge to me was to show that
Are you refuting that Islam wouldn't rather convert or kill those who do not believe the way they do? Those who do not believe their crap are, in their eyes, subhuman. Does their theology allow for anything else? Please, enlighten me, just do not try to be an apologist

And then withdraw from the debate because I actually debated their theology.....

[K. A. Pital]

No quarter orders were certainly a brutal attitude, and it is not as if colonial powers have not behaved with unprecended brutality before or after the sacking of the Summer palace. American massacres in the Philippines, British executions, massacres and finally mass imprisonment, torture and mutilation in the Raj, et cetera.

One could find many examples, but all of them betray the same: Europeans and European offshoots thought of themselves as of a master race. Others were expendable untermenshen - stricken in their rights, and first and foremost the right of national self-determination, locked in a gigantic world prison called "colonial posessions".

Energiewende is right that the Europeans were only enabled to commit barbarity on a greater scale by their technology. It was the capacity of high-tech barbarity to cause suffering on continental, universal scale, which allowed them to become number one at this in the first place. It is also true that monotheistic religions underpinning the vast majority of European and other empires evolved into violent, distasteful supremacist philosophies with a religious or quasi-religious core. Nobody cares if Islam or Christianity preached tolerance at some point in history. Now that time is long gone.

[energiewende]

I am very much disturbed that one can seriously compare colonialism and its racist policies which directly caused the deaths of more people than WWII and indirectly probably caused the death of millions, if not billions of people is somehow being used as a valid comparison to social groups not having as many options. Whatever hurdles gay people face are not comparable to the Bengal famines. Whatever hurdles women face are not comparable to the burning of the Summer palace and the campaigns that accompanied it.

I agree with the sentiment, but the Summer Palace is an odd example to choose. It was certainly beautiful, but lost tourist opportunities for the upper middle class are not quite in the same league, to my mind, as death of actual people, and the surrounding campaigns were not very large. The Spanish conquests in America seem by far the worst examples to me, with the Belgian Congo perhaps second.

The sacking of the Summer palace contains gems such as

""Should you encounter the enemy, he will be defeated! No quarter will be given! Prisoners will not be taken! Whoever falls into your hands is forfeited. Just as a thousand years ago the Huns under their King Attila made a name for themselves, one that even today makes them seem mighty in history and legend, may the name German be affirmed by you in such a way in China that no Chinese will ever again dare to look cross-eyed at a German"

No it doesn't. The sacking of the Summer Palace occurred during the Second Opium War while this quote comes from the Boxer Rebellion. Germany was not involved in the sacking of the Summer Palace.

Not to imply it wouldn't be equally ludicrous to compare the Boxer Rebellion to the Spanish Empire (especially as China was, in legal terms at least, the aggressor).

Also, Japan was so shocked at the Allied rape of civilians and how this was used to justify their policy of comfort women?

The surrounding campaigns were also punitive campaigns, meant to teach those uppitity Chinese not to torch European missionaries, but this ignores why anti foreigner sentiment was popular. Outside of extra-territorial laws, there were one story circulating about how a missionary beat a trishaw rider which led to his death. Such inflammatory stories are impossible to verify now through the lens of time. Combine this with racist attitudes(although for the Chinese, this would be a case of pot,kettle,black) and well......

I don't approve of torching missionaries of any nationality. I don't see how this story is any different to Southerners using stories about blacks raping or murdering white women (which, by law of large numbers, will have been true at least some of the time) to justifying lynchings. The government of China was in the wrong for not having the freedom of speech and religion and not protecting religious minorities against persecution.

Energiewende is right that the Europeans were only enabled to commit barbarity on a greater scale by their technology. It was the capacity of high-tech barbarity to cause suffering on continental, universal scale, which allowed them to become number one at this in the first place. It is also true that monotheistic religions underpinning the vast majority of European and other empires evolved into violent, distasteful supremacist philosophies with a religious or quasi-religious core. Nobody cares if Islam or Christianity preached tolerance at some point in history. Now that time is long gone.

Everyone's a supremacist when he's supreme. The Japanese went even more insane with power during their brief couple of years in the spotlight. What amazes me is how little use the Europeans put their temporarily God-like position. Just think, if they had actually carved up China, murdered all the Indians, and turned Sub-Saharan Africa into a second USA or Australia, we wouldn't even be having this discussion, any more than we discuss whether it was OK for the Romans to genocide Carthage. Now while reasonable people can differ, personally I think Christianity had a fair part to play in keeping it from being much worse than it could have been.