muslims PART 2

[Spock]

HEY PEOPLE

This isn't a Christian Evangelistic Topic site nor thread.

No spouting OLD TESTAMENT dictates.

The topic is Muslims!!

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

They've had six less centuries than Christianity, and a helluva lot less time than Judaism, in all fairness.

So, let's see, six centuries ago, Christianity was where? Not long had its ass kicked in numerous failed crusades if I recall correctly. Women were property. Concepts of democracy...? etc etc

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Gaffer, did you just write 1800s in Arabic numerals? I think you did!

Aren't you the sharp eyed one!

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by Spock

HEY PEOPLE

This isn't a Christian Evangelistic Topic site nor thread.

No spouting OLD TESTAMENT dictates.

The topic is Muslims!!

*cough* Sorry. *darts eyes* I got a little side-tracked when I was explaing what I meant about evolving over time.

Anyway, the Gaffer much more succinctly pointed out that Christianity has evolved over time. As for Islam, the evidence suggests that it has also evolved (changed) over time. Most Muslims now do not live out their lives as if the whole City of Faith/City of War thing is necessary or important. Am I wrong here?

EDIT: Missed some stuff from the end of the last page.

Originally Posted by Spock

He just laughed and said it was a fine tea, and thanked him for making it.

That guy is my hero. What a good sport.

Gwai, perhaps we should move along to the Theology thread, about the Old and New Covenant? And I will indeed ignore the article. It was dumb anyway.

[Spock]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Anyway, the Gaffer much more succinctly pointed out that Christianity has evolved over time. As for Islam, the evidence suggests that it has also evolved (changed) over time. Most Muslims now do not live out their lives as if the whole City of Faith/City of War thing is necessary or important. Am I wrong here?

...to paraphrase Sinatra...."I know a few but then again too few to mention.."

And we sure haven't heard from them in the media, not FOX not The Guardian, not nothing.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by Spock

...to paraphrase Sinatra...."I know a few but then again too few to mention.."

And we sure haven't heard from them in the media, not FOX not The Guardian, not nothing.

Well, if FOX news misses something, that definitely doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

We haven't heard from who in the media?

[hectorberlioz]

Do Muslims defend Muhammed so much because what is said about him are lies, or because this is what Muhammed/Islam dictates? I think the latter, judging from the fact that they do not allow pictures of Muhammed etc...

[Nurvingiel]

Well, it depends what is being said. If someone tells a lie about Muhammad, then that is why someone would defend them. A Muslim might also feel compelled by their religion to defend him. As for the no pictures of Muhammad thing, that's a matter of respect.

[hectorberlioz]

But that Muhammed was violent is not even an issue debatable; it is a historic fact that he was...and I wonder why the muslim response, instead of trying to defend and perhaps explaing Muhammed's violence in contexts etc, only shout out that he wasn't...

The last point is exactly what I'm talking about: the respect for Muhammed, are they defending him only because they respect him?

[Spock]

Because Denial is more than a river in Egypt.

[hectorberlioz]

Is that a real river? ...that made me think of a good idea for a thread...

[Butterbeer]

Denial floodeth once a year ...
thus thou shalt not drink beer?

[hectorberlioz]

Golly! *smacks self on head*.....didn't catch the slang involved...

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

So, let's see, six centuries ago, Christianity was where? Not long had its ass kicked in numerous failed crusades if I recall correctly. Women were property. Concepts of democracy...? etc etc

Wrong about women. Christianity treated them a hell of a lot better than most religions.

The crusades were quite a while preceding it. Though I think the Plague was sometime around then.

Three cheers for lack of concepts of democracy.

But, then again, where was Judaism when it had been around for 2000 years?

*awaits Vulcan wrath*

[Butterbeer]

You're getting mixed up with the wrath of khan surely ... ??

well, here's a thing ...today is Yom Kappor ... the day of attonement ..so i would say your timing is lousy!

i heard on Radio 4 today how this christian bird ( a Vicar i think) was reflecting on Yom kappor and how the early Christian church and even Saints and Pope's treated Jews and Judaism very much like we are now led to see and treat muslims and they are led to see us and treat us.

What gives?


.....................


(and what takes? - hatred - it takes from us all and from God)




What fools these Mortals be.

best, BB

[Gwaimir Windgem]

It's true, there has been throughout the Church's history an unfortunate tendency towards anti-Semitism, though it has never been universal, and the Magisterium usually fought against it, at least it's greatest extremes. See the ritual murder myth, which was several time condemned by Rome.

The Popes have been more generous to the Jews overall than most rulers, though.

But all things said, aye, we mortals be fools indeed.

Nos mortales quidem stulti sunt.

[Butterbeer]

Aut disce aut discede


mind you ...


Aut insanit homo, aut versus facit

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

But that Muhammed was violent is not even an issue debatable; it is a historic fact that he was...and I wonder why the muslim response, instead of trying to defend and perhaps explaing Muhammed's violence in contexts etc, only shout out that he wasn't...

The last point is exactly what I'm talking about: the respect for Muhammed, are they defending him only because they respect him?

Well, someone might defend Muhammad solely because they respect him. Someone might also defend him against any unjust claims against him. There isn't one single reason why various Muslims come to the defense of Muhammad.

If someone outright denies that Muhammad participated in wars of aggression, then they are, as Spock pointed out, denying what really happened.

Okay, the Reader did pretend that Muhammad and his followers lived in complete harmony with their neighbours as Islam grew. But we've been over that they probably did it to avoid adding to the perception that Muslims are actually violent. We've also been over that they shouldn't have done this, though the reason is understandable.

[Spock]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

So, let's see, six centuries ago, Christianity was where? Not long had its ass kicked in numerous failed crusades if I recall correctly. Women were property. Concepts of democracy...? etc etc

Und Islam was slaughtering people already in large numbers by the year 622...doesn't seem too far away from their behavior these days.

for the most part women are not property in a Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, etc. venue where they are in most muslim societies. Their culture doesn't recognize democracy and we are wrong to expect them to 'convert' to it. IMO

[Lief Erikson]

What I really want to know is just how many modern Muslims interpret the "little jihad" violently. I'm positive that the vast majority of those who believe in violent jihad still aren't engaging in it. I also think that more and more Muslims will turn away from liberal Islam toward that more radical belief because of a growing sense of injustice perpetrated against them by the West. I've met and conversed with two liberal Muslims through my college, and both of them feel that the West is responsible for various wrongs against them.

I wonder how broad these various strains in Islamic belief are, what the percentages of the population look like and such. I'm very interested in seeing some reliable statistics on that.

When I dig some up in my ongoing research on this subject, I'll post them here. If anyone else already happens to have some links on this subject, I'd be interested in seeing them.