The two faces of Islam.

[Ned]

I find it amusing that in the whole thread no one discusses the distinct differences between Christ and Mohammed and focuses instead on the OT vs. the Kuran.

Christ and Mohammed were polar opposites. So is Christianity and Islam.

[Shi Huangdi]

"How so? Christians were strict fundamentalists until the 1600s, in general. "

Of course, but the structure of Christianity itself was more suscepcitble to change. Christianity has no scripture with supreme authority over all.

"And it was the Protestants (without the rigid church system you claim is positive) that finally broke the mold, not the Catholics."

You are putting words in my mouth. Where in that post did I say the Catholic/Anglican scripture is positive!? I merely said that in those two group, which account for large numbers of Christianity today, the church structure meant that the bible was not the sole authority on matters on faith, hence less weight to scripture is given in those two denominations. And hence Islamic commands to kill the unbelievers in the Koran says more about their religion then God killing unbelievers in the Old Testament.

[Capt Dizle]

Its very simple really. Whether Christain or Islamic, religious fundamentalists are ripe to be misled into radical actions by leaders that have no faith or morals, but are evil egotistical tyrants rampaging toward their own ends. Religion isn't evil, people are.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ned


That was a pope to promised those who died in the crusades a place in heaven. That was more than 1000 years after Christ. If it marked a change from "turn the other cheek," then I ask when did Islam have the same change, but in the opposite direction. When did peaceful co-existence with the Infidel become the norm?

I note that Islamic armies (Turkish) continued to assault Europe until just a few hundred years ago, the Moguls in India did not give up power until the last century, IIRC.

Where-ever you see a non Islamic people bordering or being the dominant culture in a nation, you tend to see either war or terrorism. What does this mean other than than Islam has never, ever been a peaceful religion.

Ok, if Crusades were too long ago because you say that Christianity has evolved since then, how about as recently as the late nineteenth century -- the period when European nations found it distasteful to be honest about their reasons for colonizing and enslaving Africa in the form of rubber and cotton plantations, and diamond mines??

Instead, they said they were colonizing Africa to spread the benefits of Christianity.
All you have to do, is read the history of Belgium's King Leopold's colonial policies in the Congo to see charitable, nurturing Christianity at work.

Is Christianity the religion that should be singled out for bashing?
No -- and no religion should be bashed, but know that ALL religions, and not just Islam, have dark periods in their history.

[Ned]

MrFun, Even in Roman times, pagan women were burned at the stake or otherwise executed as witches. This represents the dark underbelly of Christianity that one can only wish never occurred. Charlemagne gave the Saxons the choice of converting or dying. It is interesting to see how a "peaceful" religion became perverted once it became associated with the state.

Islam started as the state power and was forcefully spread by the state. For the most part, countries with Islamic majorities have no concept of separation of church and state. Turkey is an exception, the only one that I can think of at the moment.

There was a very interesting story on the news concerning Palestine. The Hamas leader was said to be contemplating co-existence with Israel. But as to the Palestinian state, his view was that it had to be an Islamic republic, with mullah's like himself in ultimate control.

Separation of church and state is critical to keeping religions, such as Christianity and Islam peaceful. Perahps that should be our policy focus, rather than whether a religion is fundamentalist or not or whether it is peaceful or not.

[Imran Siddiqui]

the Moguls in India did not give up power until the last century

Excuse me? It would be hard for the Moguls to have power when the British ruled India.

And when the Moguls were in charge of India, it was the greatest period of Hindu-Muslim cooperation. A few Mogul rulers even took Hindu's as their wives.

Separation of church and state is critical to keeping religions, such as Christianity and Islam peaceful.

Of course, but go back to 1400 Christianity and see if 'seperation of church and state' would have made much headway there.

For the most part, countries with Islamic majorities have no concept of separation of church and state. Turkey is an exception, the only one that I can think of at the moment.

Iraq before the Gulf War (and even to some extent today) was a secular state. Pakistan has a seperation of church and state, as does Indonesia. Granted Iraq and Pakistan has military dictatorships, but they are secular.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ned

Separation of church and state is critical to keeping religions, such as Christianity and Islam peaceful. Perahps that should be our policy focus, rather than whether a religion is fundamentalist or not or whether it is peaceful or not.

But this is a kind of Western, secular culture biased thinking.
We ASSUME that what you have said above, is the best way for religion and government to co-exist because it has worked well with European and American nations.

But with other cultures that do not share the heritage of Western culture, I believe that it is possible for such groups of people to yet find a way for a government that has an official state religion, to tolerate other religions within their nation.
Just because they have not found a way to make this work in their own political/religious culture, does not mean that in the future, the possibility cannot happen.

[Oerdin]

Originally posted by Frogger
ck, the prerogative to kill lies in God's hands alone in the Quran too, if we're going to interpret it as broadly as that.

And I also seem to remember the Quran making direct statements against murdering other "peoples of the book" (Christians+Jews) because of their persistence of belief...and against conversion by the sword.

Yes you are right Frogger. It does make contradictory statements that a good Muslim must both be peaceful & accepting of other groups and that they must kill these other groups. Thus you have to two faces of Islam.

The problem with the debate between the peaceful Islamists & the Fundamentalists is that both sides are correct in what they read in the Koran. It just depends on which part you choice to read.

This dual nature of the Islamic religion is a prime reason why the Fundamentalist danger will be with us for a long, long time.

[KrazyHorse]

And so does Christianity. Christ comes to bring a sword, not peace...but he that lives by the sword shall die by it.

[dunk]

Originally posted by MrFun

I believe that it is possible for such groups of people to yet find a way for a government that has an official state religion, to tolerate other religions within their nation.

But would these other-religion people be treated the same as state religion followers? How could they be? In a theocracy, the leaders would be influential members of the religion. How could a Hindu gain any kind of power in a Muslim state? Some religions have practices which offend other religions. How would this co-exist when the power of the state rests with one of the religions?

Toleration may be possible, but if your country has a state religion, you have a situation where second-class citizens exist. And that can't lead to good things.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by dunk

Toleration may be possible, but if your country has a state religion, you have a situation where second-class citizens exist. And that can't lead to good things.

I definitely prefer to live in a secular republic/democracy than in a theocracy any day.

But, it is possible for a theocracy to have an official religion without denying the people of other religions, their equal rights and protection.
Unfortunately, thus far, many theocracies have failed to attain this ideal possibility.

[dunk]

Originally posted by MrFun
I definitely prefer to live in a secular republic/democracy than in a theocracy any day.

Me too.

Originally posted by MrFun
But, it is possible for a theocracy to have an official religion without denying the people of other religions, their equal rights and protection.
Unfortunately, thus far, many theocracies have failed to attain this ideal possibility.

In a country where the people feel strongly enough about their religion to make it their government, I don't see how another religion can function or how followers of the second religion can function as equal to the first religion. By naming a state religion, you are endorsing one and saying it is the best.

[Ned]

Originally posted by MrFun

But, it is possible for a theocracy to have an official religion without denying the people of other religions, their equal rights and protection.
.

Name one that has a clean record over history.

I think what is in theory possible in reality is not.

[November Adam]

One thing I noticed after talking with my Muslim boss regarding instant passage into paradise. It is based on works that anyone would do. Ex: dieing defending your home, or your family. This is a basic animal instinct. So would a non-muslim who dies defending his home go to paradise? Just a question.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Faeelin


The problem is that the rest of the world's religions have moved beyond the "kill everyone who isn't one of us stage."

Islam has REGRESSED from being the civilization which gave us modern science to what it is today.

Islam hasn't done anything, its an idea. Neither have Islamic countries regressed: unless letting McDonalds in is seen as a sign of regression. What has happened in the last 25 years is the growth of utopian Islamist political groups who have taken a fundamentalist version of islam around for centuries and are trying to institute it as the solution to the problems of modernization, which many of the secular, authoritarian regimes, both from left and right, in the muslim world, had failed to solve from the 50's to 70's.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Yes you are right Frogger. It does make contradictory statements that a good Muslim must both be peaceful & accepting of other groups and that they must kill these other groups. Thus you have to two faces of Islam.

The problem with the debate between the peaceful Islamists & the Fundamentalists is that both sides are correct in what they read in the Koran. It just depends on which part you choice to read.

This dual nature of the Islamic religion is a prime reason why the Fundamentalist danger will be with us for a long, long time.

This problem exists in all monotheistic relegions. Chirst says to forgive and forget, to turn the other cheek, yet in other parts of the bible we are told to strike down gods enemies: the two faces of christianity.

The problem in Islam is not a contadiction is peace vs. war, again, Judaism and Christanity both have it. The problem with Islam is the relation of Islam to political power. Because poltics and islam are more closely linked than politics and Christianity it is much easier intelectualy to envision a theocratic Muslim state than a theocratic Christian one with real temporal powers, which is why political fundamentalism in Islam seeks more temporal power than political fundamentalism of Christian origin.

[JCG]

The OT and the NT must be viewed as separate parts of the bible written/inspired under different circumstances, meaning that even if most christians accept both as valid, there is a progression as the NT essentially overrides any contradictions between it and the OT. Keep that in mind when you compare the punishing OT "God" and the more forgiving NT "God", very different perspectives are at work.

If someone thinks that the OT is much more important than the NT, they would be better off trying to convert to Judaism, AFAIK.

Regarding Islam once again, this religion regulates many more aspects of life than christianity does in general, therefore you can see a greater margin for maneuvering and interpretation, which has obviously tremendous consequences. There is greater room for contradictions than in Judaism and Christianity, even if both religions still obviously have them.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by dunk


Me too.



In a country where the people feel strongly enough about their religion to make it their government, I don't see how another religion can function or how followers of the second religion can function as equal to the first religion. By naming a state religion, you are endorsing one and saying it is the best.

All government officials would have to do, is allow for an official state religion, and provide an amendment in their constitution that explicitly protects people of other religions.

But to name a country that has done this in the past -- I cannot think of one.

[Imran Siddiqui]

How could a Hindu gain any kind of power in a Muslim state?

They did when the Moguls ruled India. And when the Muslims had their massive empire, Jews held great positions of power and at times were the chief advisor to the Sultan.

As for countries that have an official state religion and protects other people - England and Sweden both, technically, have state religions .

[GePap]

What is fundamentally missing from this thread is any sense of history. The Koran has not changed in 1000 years plus. So, anyone arguing that Islam is an inherently violent relegion becuase of its scriptures, should have also to show a long term, historical pattern showing the lands of Islam and its neighboring lands being more violent than those of christianity and their borderslands, not only for the past 30 years, but past 100, past 500.

So, for those arguing that the lands of Islam and the borderlands are hotbeds of violence, as Ned did, please show the same pattern in the year 1940, 1916, 1900, 1860, 1840, 1816, 1800 so forth. THe pattern should be there if this argument about Islam is true, since the dependent variable,the Koran, has not changed. Now, if such a pattern fails to be, then the explination for the current violence must lay with other factors than the Koran.

[dunk]

Originally posted by MrFun


All government officials would have to do, is allow for an official state religion, and provide an amendment in their constitution that explicitly protects people of other religions.

But to name a country that has done this in the past -- I cannot think of one.

Then what point is there in having a state religion? None. That amendment would effectively separate church and state.

[dunk]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

How could a Hindu gain any kind of power in a Muslim state?

They did when the Moguls ruled India. And when the Muslims had their massive empire, Jews held great positions of power and at times were the chief advisor to the Sultan.

As for countries that have an official state religion and protects other people - England and Sweden both, technically, have state religions .

Could a Hindu become a Mogul? Could a Jew become Sultan?

England's "state religion" is about as powerful as its monarch. No church officials have political power in England.

[Ned]

Originally posted by GePap
What is fundamentally missing from this thread is any sense of history. The Koran has not changed in 1000 years plus. So, anyone arguing that Islam is an inherently violent relegion becuase of its scriptures, should have also to show a long term, historical pattern showing the lands of Islam and its neighboring lands being more violent than those of christianity and their borderslands, not only for the past 30 years, but past 100, past 500.

So, for those arguing that the lands of Islam and the borderlands are hotbeds of violence, as Ned did, please show the same pattern in the year 1940, 1916, 1900, 1860, 1840, 1816, 1800 so forth. THe pattern should be there if this argument about Islam is true, since the dependent variable,the Koran, has not changed. Now, if such a pattern fails to be, then the explination for the current violence must lay with other factors than the Koran.

But there does seem to be a continuous pattern of violence - albeit not everywhere and not at all times. In the last two hundred years, the Christian (Jewish) countries have largely been more powerful than the Muslim countries, but there never really has been peace between the two camps - ever. Neither has there ever been peace between Muslim and Hindu. The Mogul rule in India was marked by continuous religious upheavals and revolts, IIRC. There never was peaceful co-existence. That pattern persists 'til this day.

For a long time, the Mongols kept the Christian Slavs and the Muslim south under "control." But once they lost control, there was been continuous expansion into Muslim areas by Christian Russia. At times there may have been peace in the Russian and USSR empires, but this was at the point of a gun. As soon as they could, the Islamic republics "revolted."

Chechenya's revolt against Russia is also about Muslim vs. others. Russia's recent counter-invasion was in response to Chechenya's Islamic warlord/defense minister invading neighboring Dagestan to spread radical Islam.

We all know about the godless USSR against the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan. That was a Jihad by the Mujahadeen.

Kasmir and the wars between Pakistan and India are all about Islam vs. Hinduism.

The violence in E. Timor was all about Muslim v. Christian.

Ditto the Phillipines.

The violence in Bosnia and Kosovo both have Islam as its root cause.

The revolts in East Turkestan (Xinjiang) against the Chinese has Islam at its roots.

I could go on, but to the extent that Islam (as a whole) was not continously expanding was only due to military defeats and lack of power or, as in the case of the Saud family, the radicals had served their purpose and could now be dealt with.

The point is, "radical" Islam is not a new phenomenon. It is inherent in Islam. It infests its host like a latent disease and bursts forth here and there from time to time. The fall of the Shah of Iran is one such "surprise."

To say this about Islam is not to deny that Christianity has at times been militarily aggressive. Certainly we all know about Charlemagne, the Crusades and the Spanish conquest (not colonization) of the New World. We also know of the 30-Years war and the continuous problems beween the Protestants and Catholics in Ireland. But, where the lines of separation between Church and State are made clear, such as in the United States, Christianity is "peaceful."

I suggest that Islam could be peaceful, but only if there is separation of church and state.

[Imran Siddiqui]

So you've taking a series of revolts and thus stated Islam is a violent religion . Can I thus state South and Central Americans are inherantly violent?

I could say the same about Europe seeing all the wars Europe went through, religious and non-religious. From the 30 Years War, you had numerous amounts of warfare. The reason why there wasn't much war during the Cold War was because there was a fear of annihilation due to nuclear weapons.

Islamic states are no more violent as a whole than Christian states have been.

[Ned]

Imran, I don't disagree. In fact I agree. We learned our lesson about Christianity by providing for separation of church and state. It is far to easy to use raw power to achieve religious objectives. There is a saying that Power Corrupts. Well, temporal power certainly corrupted Christianity.

I think we should work for separation of church and state with respect to Islam as a necessary step for world peace.

[Lars-E]

Originally posted by MrFun
Islam is a religion of violence just as much as Judahism and Christianity are religions of violence -- extreme fanatics within each religion, take and pick passages from their sacred documents of ones that only serve their purpose, then twist their religious values around, so they can kill people with whom they disagree with.

Which Christian groups 'practise' violence today? And which christian groups would say that violence is part of their 'exercising their religion'?

History shows that Christianity has been USED by powerhungry ppl. We should accuse those ppl and not what they used.

Two faces of Christianity? Not at all. The OT should be understood thru the NT. The new covenant has fulfilled the law! Thus we are not under the OT law. The OT is for our admonishing:

1. Cor 1:1-11
Moreover, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware that all our fathers were under the cloud, all passed through the sea, all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ. But with most of them God was not well pleased, for their bodies were scattered in the wilderness.
Now these things became our examples, to the intent that we should not lust after evil things as they also lusted. And do not become idolaters as were some of them. As it is written, "The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play." Nor let us commit sexual immorality, as some of them did, and in one day twenty-three thousand fell; nor let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed by serpents; nor complain, as some of them also complained, and were destroyed by the destroyer. Now all these things happened to them as examples, and they were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages have come.

As far as islam goes it seems like there are two groups... to put it in simple 'terms':

Moderates
Extremists

Now, it may seem like the moderates are not too serious about their religion. This is partly why OBL criticizes the Saudi leaders. They are too westernized. And there might be some truth to that. One of them has a huge collection of different alchoholic bottles. And yes, they do drink them. Some of them are also seen as playboys.

The extremists take their religion seriously obviously - believing they get free access to God and orgies, by killing innocent children and women.

As for the rise of islam just play the Jihad Civ2 scenario!! It is of no doubt that islam was spread thru severe violence. Check out this timetable:

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/history/chronology/

This is also a very interesting site:
http://www.answering-islam.org/index.html

Also some claim that the sharia laws stem from the time of Muhammed. The laws that already where in existence in his time. Why should we adopt such ancient 'dark age' practises today? Isn't barbaric to bury ppl halfway and then stone their upper body (torso) ? Is this what God wants humans to do here on earth if they wanna be devout and honor God?

Anyways, I don't understand the muslim rethoric that says the USA is the "great satan". If the USA is satan then satan is more powerful than allah.

The Qur'an states:

Sura 4:55
"Righteous women are therefore obedient, ... And those you fear may be rebellious (nushuz) admonish; banish them to their couches, and beat them."

Sura 8:12
"Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): ‘I am with you: give firmness to the believers. I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers. Smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them.

Sura 8:38
"Say to the unbelievers, if (now) they desist (from unbelief), their past would be forgiven them, but if they persist, the punishment of those before them is already (a matter of warning for them)." And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God altogether and everywhere. But if they cease, verily God doth see all that they do.

You cannot compare these verses to the OT law which has been fulfilled.

This verses and others... are to be taken seriously TODAY.

[Az]

" but the old and the new testament have plenty of those quotes, too...."

[Lars-E]

The OT has some, but not like those... Anyways I commented on the OT law being fulfilled. The Jewish believers don't believe that though.

Maybe you could provide some NT quotes?

[Velociryx]

The most telling thing to me is this:

If a splinter Christian group bombed a cafe full of people in the name of the Christian God, the Pope, and every other prominent leader of the Christian world would come out *strongly* against such actions, declare a day of mourning, offer to help those suffering, etc., etc. Christians the world over would be expressing their outrange and offering assistance.

When a bomber in the ME goes into a cafe in Israel and blows up a cafe filled with innocent people in the name of Allah, we get as a response:

Dancing in the streets and celebrations.

Fundamental difference, wouldn't you say?

-=Vel=-

[Imran Siddiqui]

Which Christian groups 'practise' violence today?

Oh, and this is also for Vel:

IRA, and don't say they don't.