Muslims

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

Isn't that a tad off-topic?

Almost.

I felt it necessary to do the scripture analysis on that occasion, to refute Gwaimir's claim that Christianity can be reasonably (or even slightly reasonably) interpreted as calling for violence. If his claim went unanswered, it would appear that Christianity is approximately the same as Islam, and then I have nothing left to stand on in this whole discussion. That's why I had show why he was wrong.

[Insidious Rex]

Lief, werent you making basically the opposite point in this thread? http://www.entmoot.com/showthread.php?p=529019

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Lief, werent you making basically the opposite point in this thread? http://www.entmoot.com/showthread.php?p=529019

I said there, "There isn't always just one interpretation that is correct." Sometimes there can be several interpretations that are correct. However, that isn't saying, "any interpretation is correct," or "any interpretation can be reasonable." That would be just absurd.

[Spock]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

. Think about it. How would you, Gwaimir, like to live in a country where you have to be a Muslim? And how would Serenoli like to live in a country where we force her to be Christian?

Yet that is exactly what Afganistan has become under our 'liberation'. Switch and die.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

. From the same chapter: "If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town. I tell you the truth, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town."

YEP, that vs :

"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, even if they are of the Poeple of The Book (Jews and Christians), until they pay the jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued."
Qur'an 9:29

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

And I absolutely disagree with you and Serenoli, on this point. We cannot impose Sharia law on the entire country without making illegal everyone's values wherever they differ from Muslim values. In the same way, we cannot impose Christian values on the entire country without making illegal the values of everyone that disagree with Christian values. What you and Serenoli are advocating, without knowing it, is intolerance and religious violence. Such horrors must naturally come where the state legislates Christian morals, Muslim morals, or the morals of any other religion and makes them mandatory upon the whole population, without regard for how it may differ from you.

But I didn't say that I thought Sharia law should be imposed, what I agreed with was that

For me, a society with laws and boundaries, and standards, is better, even if there are those who turn it to their 'evil' purposes.

Obviously, being a Christian, I don't think everyone should be held to Sharia law, nor to the Mosaic Law, but to the natural law.

Remember, Jesus was considered a friend by the prostitutes. He didn't condemn them, though he certainly disagreed with their morals. He advocated not judging an adulteress for her crime, and after he had freed her, said "leave your life of sin." Jesus was not one to try legislating his moral values on others, but presented his message with kindness. Legislating Christian morals and trying to make everyone follow our way was not Jesus' way and would naturally cause injustice in our country.

Very true, Christ did 'eat with sinners'; that's one of the things I think is great about the Catholic Church, that she is more willing to do so than many of the low-church bodies. But I'm not saying everyone should be held to the highest standard of Christian virtue, but merely that there should be laws, boundaries, and standards, as Serengoli said. The former two are existent but ignored, and the latter essentially are non-beings in the West.

*paragraph snipped because it dealt with an assumption which I respond to above*

Violent fundamentalists are those who don't ignore scriptures. Right-wing liberals are those who pick and choose or interpret to suit their own ends. I'd have to examine the theological viewpoints of many of these violent Christians to form an opinion on which viewpoint they are coming from.

My apologies; when I said 'who', I was looking for specifics. Give me the particular, that I may know the universal.

I disagree. Often, it says what it says and is clear enough. People reinterpret or twist scripture though in order to find conclusions that suit their interests or desires.

Sometimes it says what it says and is clear enough, but I see where the Scriptures seem to indicate certain teachings contrary to essential doctrines of the Faith, and seems to contradict itself. I know this cannot be, but it is a difficult process trying to work it out.

That's a good point. I think a lot of those Christians who have gone a violent route were unaware of all that the scripture says, because much of this was before the printing press and before widespread literacy.

An extremely weak and liberal case could be made .

You're playing Humpty-Dumpty again; words are significant by convention, and conventionally defending (which I am not, but our Objector is) the use of violence is NOT liberal.

Did Jesus ever raise a sword against anyone, or permit his disciples to do so? Are any of the early Christians recorded as having been responsible for violence? This passage is not a difficulty if one looks at it in context. Though I can see that it could be used to advocate violence when taken completely out of context.

This all comes directly before passages such as:

"Brother will betray brother to death, and a man his child; children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death. All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved. When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another."

The passage reads:

""Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35For I have come to turn
" 'a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her motherinlaw—
36a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.'[e]

37"Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; 38and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.

40"He who receives you receives me, and he who receives me receives the one who sent me. 41Anyone who receives a prophet because he is a prophet will receive a prophet's reward, and anyone who receives a righteous man because he is a righteous man will receive a righteous man's reward. 42And if anyone gives even a cup of cold water to one of these little ones because he is my disciple, I tell you the truth, he will certainly not lose his reward.""

What you are citing is apparently a different text, I assume from the next chapter, but it is not 'directly' after the text in question, so that the relation is not self-evident.

However, I admit that one can interpret this verse as a violent one if one separates it from everything else in the chapter and takes it entirely by itself. People have done this with Christianity before, seizing passages and taking them totally out of context in order to convince others about things.

Indeed, but it does not require taking it away from everything else in the chapter, as your whole elaborate declaration was based on an assumed relation of the cited passages, which do not seem to be directly related. Essentially, what you are saying is, "If I can explain it away, then it picking and choosing."

You can take one of the Psalms to actually say there is no God, if you want! It says, "There is no God." However, that's ignoring the context . The full sentence is, "the fool says in his heart, 'there is no God.'"

That's not a valid example; the context of Psalms is very clear. The meaning of Our Lord, and exactly where one thought begins and another ends is not.

I'm not denying that not knowing didn't occur also (though the forgetfulness possibility seems pretty stupid to me). It's a perfectly valid possibility, especially in view of the time period.

Are you kidding??? Pretty stupid??? Do you always remember everything? Do you not forget things? Even important things like passages of Scripture that might relate to matters at hand?

This is why I don't argue that they were all right-wing liberals. I admit that there were probably some fundamentalists there too, people who did look at the whole Bible.

But again, I object to the use of fundamentalism in this way; your playing Humpty Dumpty, and denying the essence of language, which is to convey thought through vocal sound which is significant by convention. If you just say "I'm going to use this word to mean this thing in the face of all common usage", then you are undermining language itself.

I think it is clearly against anti-Semitism, and there are a huge host of reasons one can base that argument off of, to make that case. I think the opposing case is absurdly weak. True anti-Semites, like Adolf Hitler, in order to make a case against the Jews from the Bible had to examine the Bible from the perspective of, "what of its true content remains?" That was a note he wrote to himself about the Bible as he studied it, because so much of it clearly was supportive of the Jews. I completely reject the claim that a case of any strength at all can be formed from the Bible in favor of anti-Semitism.

Agreed, the "Bible teaches that Jews are evil or must be punished" case is absurdly weak, but nonetheless that does not make it cease to be a case.

I absolutely agree with you that one can take random passages from the Bible, usually completely out of context, to make arguments in favor of all sorts of horrible things. This is an abuse of scripture. It does occur, but I don't think the Bible can be easily interpreted to mean whatever people like. It takes hard work, often, for them to get the interpretation they want out of it. I think the Bible is a unified whole that makes sense and does not contradict itself, and interpretations that try to support things like anti-Semitism and violence are very, very weak, at their best.

I disagree that it takes hard work. When you have a certain worldview, you wear tinted glasses through which you read everything. If you have an anti-Semitic worldview, you will read the passage I cited and say "aha!", but not notice when you read the passages which make clear the folly of anti-Semitism. This is not intentional, it is merely the way things happen.

Well fine, you can stick to your doubt if you like. I flat out disagree with you, but we'll just have to leave it at that . Because this isn't the thread for going into all the Bible arguments in detail, I suspect. Though I know I just did that above to refute the violence argument.

Actually, since the question is "Whether they intentionally skipped over things", it seems we would discern that not by poring over the holy books, but by studying their worldview, their knowledge, etc., which would of course be beyond the reach of either of us.

I said it that way on purpose.

I smell a sophist...get 'im, Socrates! [/QUOTE]

[Lief Erikson]

I'm responding to most of your post in the Theology Thread, Gwaimir. That part of it which in my opinion relates to the arguments surrounding Islam though, I'm going to respond to here.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Obviously, being a Christian, I don't think everyone should be held to Sharia law, nor to the Mosaic Law, but to the natural law.

Explain what you mean by that, please. What is the nature of this natural law that should be imposed on all citizens?

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

What you are citing is apparently a different text, I assume from the next chapter, but it is not 'directly' after the text in question, so that the relation is not self-evident.

No, they are the same chapter and the same speech by Jesus. Matthew chapter 10, verse 23 and verses 14-15. The passages about persecution are also all there in the same chapter and speech. I can cite them too, if you wish. Sorry I didn't cite all the passages when I gave them, initially . I said that they were all from the same chapter in that post, and just assumed everyone would trust me .

*Suddenly comprehension dawns.*

OH, now I see what you're on about.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

This all comes directly before passages such as:

Allow me to change that sentence. What I meant to say is "This all comes directly after passages such as this:" My slip-up in giving directions .

But as you can see now, looking at that whole speech from Jesus, there was a lot on persecution and also instructions for how the disciples were to behave if rejected or persecuted. None of those instructions included violence. And furthermore, as I said, that "I did not come to bring peace, but a sword," is in the context of describing in the same speech the sacrifice Jesus' followers must make on his behalf and the severity and details of the persecution they would go through.

Furthermore, a little writing point that I didn't mention before. Jeseus said, "a man's enemies will be the members of his own household," right after he said, "I will bring a sword." That doesn't say, "a man will be the enemy of his own household," which would imply that Christians are supposed to be violent, but rather says that the household will be enemies with him. The sentence structure implies that the household is going to oppose him rather than he oppose the household.

Though that's not so important as the context.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Essentially, what you are saying is, "If I can explain it away, then it picking and choosing."

I'm saying that it's clear from the context that this passage should not be interpreted violently. I presented a great deal of evidence to support this, all from the same chapter and the same speech by Jesus. There's a huge amount of context there that supports what I'm saying.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I'm responding to most of your post in the Theology Thread, Gwaimir. That part of it which in my opinion relates to the arguments surrounding Islam though, I'm going to respond to here.

Yes, I was just thinking that we were waaaay off topic.

Explain what you mean by that, please. What is the nature of this natural law that should be imposed on all citizens?

Natural law is essentially that law which demands that the nature of things (especially man) not be transgressed; it is popularly supposed (I think incorrectly) to be summed up in the Ten Commandments, though certainly the commandments related to man can be considered. It is essentially the law written on the hearts of all, to borrow from St. Paul.

I'm saying that it's clear from the context that this passage should not be interpreted violently. I presented a great deal of evidence to support this, all from the same chapter and the same speech by Jesus. There's a huge amount of context there that supports what I'm saying.

Christ is not like a college lecturer; He changes topic seemingly at random. There are in fact seven intervening verses, v. 26-33. Of course, this may very well be a short 'rabbit trail' (which I think is the case) but it could easily be taken to indicate a complete change in what he is saying. I don't think that view is accurate, but it is not patently absurd, and even if it were, it would not indicate 'picking and choosing', but merely a belief in absurdity.

EDIT: But anyway...back to Muslims!

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Natural law is essentially that law which demands that the nature of things (especially man) not be transgressed; it is popularly supposed (I think incorrectly) to be summed up in the Ten Commandments, though certainly the commandments related to man can be considered. It is essentially the law written on the hearts of all, to borrow from St. Paul.

So what are some ways you think our current laws should be changed so that they fit with this natural law?

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

EDIT: But anyway...back to Muslims!

I'm going to reply to your argument in the Theology Thread, then.

[Serenoli]

Rian, *moothug* I sure miss it a lot!

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

And I absolutely disagree with you and Serenoli, on this point. We cannot impose Sharia law on the entire country without making illegal everyone's values wherever they differ from Muslim values. In the same way, we cannot impose Christian values on the entire country without making illegal the values of everyone that disagree with Christian values. What you and Serenoli are advocating, without knowing it, is intolerance and religious violence. Such horrors must naturally come where the state legislates Christian morals, Muslim morals, or the morals of any other religion and makes them mandatory upon the whole population, without regard for how it may differ from you.

Think about it. How would you, Gwaimir, like to live in a country where you have to be a Muslim? And how would Serenoli like to live in a country where we force her to be Christian? Or to be atheist? Forcing people to behave according to our religious beliefs by weight of the law is evil and useless. That is why we must have freedom of religion and freedom in politics, and this is why we have to have laws decided by everyone with protection for the rights of minorities. That's why our governments are formed the way they are in the West.

And, where in all my writings have you seen me supporting Sharia law, or forcing non-Muslims to accept Islam?

I am not here to defend the Muslim socieites of this world... there are too many, and of too many kinds. I am defending Islam. And I am defending its right to exist, and trying to show you the benefits it confers on a society.

Now, I am not very advanced in my religious studies. I have not read all the teachings, but I have read much of the Quran... which is the ultimate Scripture for Islam. And, nowhere does it say that we force people to convert... rather I find teachings that advocate tolerance.

There are Islamic societies, where the legalisation of Islam is carried too far, but there are also societies, such as mine, where we (Muslims and those of other faiths) exist side-by-side peacefully. if your argument, Lief, had been that we try to change these extremist societies, and work to make them more tolerant, it would be a valid one. But I find your proposition of wiping out Islam quite preposterous.

Jihad... what a difficult word it is. And, yes, we do interpret it as a spiritual battle (hmmm... am I fighting a jihad here, I wonder? ) but in the time of Mohammad, they were told to take up arms, against those who had driven them out from their homes, and those who oppressed them... which actually seems quite fair, and if they had only cried out something like "freedom! Liberty" etc. instead of "Allah" you could quite forgive them. And, you have to admit, even though Islam spread by wars, and violence, it spread at a phenomenol rate... and it was accepted whole-heartedly by the people of those nations'; if they had been 'forced' to convert, then the religion would not have lasted long in them. And, you have to admit, Islam did away with much of the oppression and cruelty that had existed before.

How can you, Lief, judge of what the Prophet did? Simply by labelling his acts as violence? Who is to judge the atrocities of a war, without having been there? Without judging also the after-effects of such a war?

I think also, that it is a bit rich of you to accuse Islam of violence, when it is the non-Muslims who have attacked and taken over Afghanistan and Iraq. And that is not violence? That is peaceful? The Iraqis love the American rule? Their lives are somwhow better because they have effectively lost their freedom, and are now being led by those who know better how their lives should be led???

Raking up the supposed 'violence' of centuries ago, comparing Jesus and Mohammed, and ignoring altogether what is happening now, in this century and time, is downright silly. When was the last time, you saw a Muslim army attack and invade another country, under the name of Jihad?

However, I admit that one can interpret this verse as a violent one if one separates it from everything else in the chapter and takes it entirely by itself. People have done this with Christianity before, seizing passages and taking them totally out of context in order to convince others about things.

And, I admit Muslims can and are doing the same with the Quran. So, both Muslims and Christians are flawed. Are you going to equate Christianity itself, with those misguided Christians who misuse it? If not, then grant us the same justice.

If I say Islam is violent, that makes it violent? By saying something against Islam, I'm liable to cause Muslims to physically attack me?

I think you didn't get me. What I mean, is that if people talk of destroying Islam, by whatever methods, then Muslims are going to defend themselves...

Ah! Long post... I have myself lost the thread of what I'm saying. By the way, funny thing... I was reading some of the Quran last night, and come across this line :

"Never will the Jews or the Christians be satisfied with thee unless
thou follow their form of religion. Say: "The Guidance of Allah,-that
is the (only) Guidance." Wert thou to follow their desires after the
knowledge which hath reached thee, then wouldst thou find neither
Protector nor helper against Allah." - The Quran, Chapter 2, Verse 120.

Made me think of you, Lief. Its fate... you were pre-ordained to be unhappy with me, and I to resist!

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Serenoli

And, where in all my writings have you seen me supporting Sharia law, or forcing non-Muslims to accept Islam?

You called our freedom anarchy and advocated moral values being enforced upon society. You said that you had a problem with freedom being put ahead of morality. I assumed that those were Muslim moral values you thought should be placed on society ahead of freedom, since those are the values you believe are right .

Originally Posted by Serenoli

Now, I am not very advanced in my religious studies. I have not read all the teachings, but I have read much of the Quran... which is the ultimate Scripture for Islam. And, nowhere does it say that we force people to convert... rather I find teachings that advocate tolerance.

Spock has brought up a number of scriptures that seem to indicate violence. History shows us that Mohammed interpreted jihad as violent warfare, as well.

Originally Posted by Serenoli

if your argument, Lief, had been that we try to change these extremist societies, and work to make them more tolerant, it would be a valid one. But I find your proposition of wiping out Islam quite preposterous.

That's logical.

Originally Posted by Serenoli

Jihad... what a difficult word it is. And, yes, we do interpret it as a spiritual battle (hmmm... am I fighting a jihad here, I wonder? )

By that definition, I often think I am!

Originally Posted by Serenoli

but in the time of Mohammad, they were told to take up arms, against those who had driven them out from their homes, and those who oppressed them... which actually seems quite fair, and if they had only cried out something like "freedom! Liberty" etc. instead of "Allah" you could quite forgive them.

I haven't an enormous problem with Mohammed's war against his home tribe, the Qur'ayshe. The Qur'ayshe were persecuting him and his people because Mohammed taught that their pagan ancestors were burning in hellfire, and the Qur'ayshe were deeply involved in ancestor worship, so to them this doctrine was a very sharp cut. Mohammed had great courage though, and he did not quail from his beliefs, no matter how he was pressured to do so. So the Qur'ayshe persecuted him. They fought Mohammed for a long time and he and his followers fought back. It was around this time that Mohammed fled Mecca and went to Medina, a trip that is marked in Muslim calendars as the Hagira.

Then Mohammed made a truce with the Qur'ayshe, and he used the time of truce to exterminate their allies, the Jews of Kaybar, in order to weaken the Qur'ayshe. He also raided caravans of the Qur'ayshe and their trade partners, and took many hostages and a great deal of money. Thus he weakened the Qur'ayshe, and when he had weakened them sufficiently he came to Mecca in what was pretty much a completely peaceful take-over. Of course, if I recall correctly he expelled all the Jews shortly after also.

After he conquered the Qur'ayshe, Mohammed went on to conquer all the other pagan tribes of Arabia, many of which had done him no wrong at all. This was aggressive warfare, all out attack without provocation. He forced conversion too- these were disloyal Muslims who hated him. As soon as Mohammed died, most of them rebelled.

Then Abu Bakr, Mohammed's successor, conquered them all over again with the sword in the ridda wars. After he had secured Arabia, he turned his eyes on the rest of the world. I don't think it was he who made the major invasions of the rest of the world though- I think it was his successor. (Frowns) I can't really remember this part in as much detail.

Originally Posted by Serenoli

And, you have to admit, even though Islam spread by wars, and violence, it spread at a phenomenol rate...

I know! That's one of the facts about Islam that has me totally freaked out, as well, the ability of religious fanatics to violently conquer huge swaths of territory when they are totally outnumbered in every way! The early Muslims were totally outnumbered and they also didn't have anywhere near the massive economical resources or the trained armies of the nations they attacked. They were seasoned of course, because of all the conflicts they'd been going through in Arabia, but they attacked the Sassanid and Byzantine Empires simultaneously, and they won!

They completely destroyed the Sassanid Empire and they also conquered a huge swath of the Byzantine Empire. These were the mighty superpowers of their time, and the Muslims of Arabia conquered them in their jihads through extreme religious zeal and courage. It was a ferocious invasion that utterly horrified many of the Christians in Byzantine lands. It made the Christians question God and say, "are we worshipping the true religion? How can our God have allowed these infidels to conquer us so easily?" It caused much questioning of their beliefs among Christians and Jews.

Those invasions are totally scary to me, because of their success and the type of rule that was established. The Muslims were not accepted whole-heartedly by everyone, though many accepted them, particularly in Egypt. Some accepted Islam whole-heartedly, because the Byzantines and Sassanids had been very oppressive governments, in many ways. Others were forced to pay the jizya, as Spock has been saying. Non-Muslims were oppressed in those days under Muslim law, though it's true that Muslim law was more tolerant than the laws of many other countries of that time. They were intolerant enough though to show that Islam wasn't exactly peace, especially in view of all the violence. All Muslims were extremists in those times, completely ready to give their lives in jihad for what they believed, and that is why they were so completely successful. None of those they conquered, in spite of all their might, had anywhere near that kind of certainty, relentless determination and courage.

Originally Posted by Serenoli

and it was accepted whole-heartedly by the people of those nations'; if they had been 'forced' to convert, then the religion would not have lasted long in them. And, you have to admit, Islam did away with much of the oppression and cruelty that had existed before.

Yes, I admit that. Though it replaced it for non-Muslim populations with some oppression and cruelty of their own. Many people did convert of their own accord. Many others converted because of the penalties and taxes that were laid upon people who didn't convert.

Originally Posted by Serenoli

How can you, Lief, judge of what the Prophet did? Simply by labelling his acts as violence? Who is to judge the atrocities of a war, without having been there? Without judging also the after-effects of such a war?

I do judge the after-affects of the war too! And one can know about what the war was like in part from the records of the time. Though it is true that many of the reports of those invasions are limited. It was a time without a great deal of literacy (Muslims spread literacy a good deal though, after the invasions, along with many other positive advances like medicine and culture), and the accounts were written by the victors- and the victors were the Muslims. So how reliable those accounts are isn't independently verifiable. But our history books show massive scale violent campaigns against countries that did nothing against the Muslims. These were the jihads of the early days of Islam, and they were totally freaky (to me) in their success against incredible odds.

That's what has me somewhat scared about the modern terrorists as well. If the Muslims under Mohammed's successors, with such limited resources but fanatical faith, could attack the mighty Sassanid and Byzantine Empires simultaneously and win, what can the modern terrorists do? Like the Muslims of the past, they are attacking superpowers with extremely limited resources but faith so zealous that they will die for what they believe in.

Also I would like to point out that these invasions of unoffending non-Muslim lands were far, far greater in scale than the Crusades. I don't know so much about what atrocities might have happened during those wars because the records aren't detailed enough from that early century, and many of the records we do have come from the Muslims. But those campaigns were incredibly successful and conquered huge swaths of territory, peoples that did them no harm. They oppressed multitudes of nonbelievers with the jizya, and sliced down non-Muslim numbers by those economic and discriminatory policies, for many would rather change their faith than live under those laws. However, the Muslim invaders also did some incredibly positive things for those lands. They greatly enriched those peoples economically and culturally. There is much beauty and learning that comes from those time periods. Islam skyrocketed to become the peak of civilization in those years.

You know, when the Crusaders invaded Muslim lands, they brought back with them to Europe many inventions and new knowledge from Muslim territories. For example, did you know that Europe had forgotten about Plato? They had to rediscover him from the libraries in Muslim lands. They brought back many advances to improve their civilizations, from the Holy Land.

Islam's early invasions stopped I believe because of civil war. *Frowns* I'll have to research that again though, for I'm not quite sure. But I know they did come against Europe, at least twice. Charlemagne stopped the Muslim invaders at Poitiers, thank God. In a second invasion, Muslims attacked Europe a second time but this time over sea, in future years. However, they were slaughtered in their thousands and their fleets destroyed, and that was the end of their attacks on Europe for many years.

The Muslims kept engaging in their violent jihad until they couldn't do it anymore. When the European powers split up the Muslim lands between them and economically took over everything, violent jihad was no longer an option and the word had to be redefined to still be practical. That's where modern and more peaceful interpretations of Islam came from. But unfortunately, those interpretations are fading as Islam begins to turn back to a version closer to the original- the radical and fundamentalist version of conquest and Muslim morals laws being enforced upon whole populations, with discriminatory laws and persecution being the penalty of noncompliance. Also extremists seek again to create an Islamic, theologically based empire like that of the past. But there are many liberals and peaceful Muslims in Islam too, at this point in history.

So that's the story of Islam as I've learned it from the history books and news websites going up to this time, without getting into discussing the Ottomans or the invasions of India - or the many peaceful and spectacular cultural, philosophical, literary, artistic and other achievements that Islam has spread throughout the territories Mohammed's successors conquered. There are of course loads of details and facts I've not covered. This is just a cursory look.

Originally Posted by Serenoli

I think also, that it is a bit rich of you to accuse Islam of violence, when it is the non-Muslims who have attacked and taken over Afghanistan and Iraq. And that is not violence? That is peaceful? The Iraqis love the American rule? Their lives are somwhow better because they have effectively lost their freedom, and are now being led by those who know better how their lives should be led???

According to an Economist Intelligence Unit Survey posted on BBC News, Iraq is one of the freest countries in the Middle East right now. It is much more free than almost all the other Muslim lands. It is controlled by an Iraqi government, not by the United States. Millions of Iraqis voted in elections for their government, and international observors said that the voting was fair. Unless you want to accuse the UN of complicity in the US scheme. Iraq is one of the freest countries in the Middle East, and we are laying down our lives to make it completely free.

Afghanistan also is a very free government. That, I think, was pretty much proven by the fact that they nearly executed a man recently for converting from Islam to Christianity. Raman only was allowed to live because they decided he was insane. Can you imagine a US controlled government trying to execute someone for converting to Christianity?

Originally Posted by Serenoli

Raking up the supposed 'violence' of centuries ago, comparing Jesus and Mohammed, and ignoring altogether what is happening now, in this century and time, is downright silly. When was the last time, you saw a Muslim army attack and invade another country, under the name of Jihad?

9/11

Times have changed. The US is a mighty superpower now, and attacking it with armies is completely futile. Muslims who mean us harm know this. Terrorism is the new option for them, however. It is the new form of warfare in this modern era, and some Muslim countries, such as Iran, fund terrorists who fight against coalition forces and the Iraqi people.

Originally Posted by Serenoli

And, I admit Muslims can and are doing the same with the Quran. So, both Muslims and Christians are flawed. Are you going to equate Christianity itself, with those misguided Christians who misuse it? If not, then grant us the same justice.

I think that looking at the lives of Mohammed and Jesus, the founders of their religions, and their early followers is a valid way of seeing what both religions are about. As history progresses and the religious movements gain the distance of many centuries between them and their founders, it becomes less obvious what the true nature of the religions is, because you get all sorts of variants and less purity.

Originally Posted by Serenoli

I think you didn't get me. What I mean, is that if people talk of destroying Islam, by whatever methods, then Muslims are going to defend themselves...

I still find that scary. If I hand out a tract to a Muslim on the street that he can throw in the dumpster, he's going to shoot me in the head? I don't believe that that's true- I don't think most Muslims are like that at all (though the extremists are a different story). I'm just pointing out the justice of the thing. If Muslims tried to convert Christians by handing out tracts or trying to discuss their faith with them, and if Muslims tried to eliminate Christianity in that peaceful way, that would never in a billion years get a violent response from us in the West. I hope that Muslims would do us the same courtesy, and I'm sure that many Muslims would.

Originally Posted by Serenoli

Ah! Long post... I have myself lost the thread of what I'm saying. By the way, funny thing... I was reading some of the Quran last night, and come across this line :

"Never will the Jews or the Christians be satisfied with thee unless
thou follow their form of religion. Say: "The Guidance of Allah,-that
is the (only) Guidance." Wert thou to follow their desires after the
knowledge which hath reached thee, then wouldst thou find neither
Protector nor helper against Allah." - The Quran, Chapter 2, Verse 120.

Made me think of you, Lief. Its fate... you were pre-ordained to be unhappy with me, and I to resist!

That is funny! Though don't worry- I'm not in the least unhappy with you.

[-elfearz-]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I still find that scary. If I hand out a tract to a Muslim on the street that he can throw in the dumpster, he's going to shoot me in the head? I don't believe that that's true- I don't think most Muslims are like that at all (though the extremists are a different story). I'm just pointing out the justice of the thing. If Muslims tried to convert Christians by handing out tracts or trying to discuss their faith with them, and if Muslims tried to eliminate Christianity in that peaceful way, that would never in a billion years get a violent response from us in the West. I hope that Muslims would do us the same courtesy, and I'm sure that many Muslims would.

I don't think that's what she means.

If you insult someone's mother/girlfriend/wife...he may punch you. It hits close to home. It is not a sensible thing to do, or a good thing to do - and most people would be able to restrain themselves...nonetheless some people might punch you, and it would be fair to say that they were provoked, if not 'right'.

If a society at large sends out messages that a particular religion is dangerous, or violent, or evil...how can those who practice that religion avoid taking it personally? Even if you are peaceful, even if your quarrel is with the religion itself, and not with the individuals who practice it, individuals who see the religion as central to their sense of self will perceive a personal attack. If you speak of destroying a religion, however peacefully, for a person who practices that religion seriously you speak of destroying something which is central to everything they believe.

Most people will not react violently. Most people will be saddened that you do not understand what - for them - is a source of enlightenment, and something beautiful, not dangerous. Just like most people will be disappointed that you don't share their high opinion of their mother/girlfriend/wife. But some people will feel the need to "defend" that which is dear to them.

This is not something exclusive to Islam - it applies to other religions, and to athiests and agnostics too if some equivalent to religion can be found. It has less to do with the nature of a religion than with the nature of some people. A couple of years ago, some Hindu fanatics brutally murdered a family of Christian missionaries. Hinduism is not a violent religion; Hinduism is not even a religion really (it's more of a philosophy) - but this peaceful act of trying to convert could provoke a disgusting, violent response in some people who felt the need to 'defend' it. The overwhelming majority of Hindus found this abhorrent. The overwhelming majority of Muslims find al Qaeda abhorrent. If it seems that there are more violent interpretations of Islam around at the moment than of any other religion, it is because there is more hostility today from the West directed at Islam than at any other religion.

[Lief Erikson]

I agree with all you said, elfearz. All except the last sentence .

Originally Posted by -elfearz-

If it seems that there are more violent interpretations of Islam around at the moment than of any other religion, it is because there is more hostility today from the West directed at Islam than at any other religion.

I don't believe that this is true. Muslim extremism and terrorism is the cause of hostility, rather than the hostility being the cause of the extremism and terrorism. America did not invade Afghanistan until 9/11, and there was extremism expanding in Islam well before all the recent terrorism. Modern hostility is not the cause of the extremism. It is a response to extremism. I don't think it fuels extremism very much either- major things such as the policies of Israel and US policies toward Israel, as well as Iraq and Afghanistan, and images of Western depravity and immorality, as well as things like Abu Ghraib, all these make a great imprint on people's minds when they come from a different culture. Such things as those can easily feed terrorism and create more extremists. But extremism was expanding in Islam well before all of these more modern events as well (except perhaps the situation with Israel). I haven't researched the birth of modern radicalism as much as I one day will have, but I know it's been spreading for a long, long time, since well before all the more recent hostility in the West toward Islam.

There also is a great deal of hostility in Western culture toward Christianity. I've encountered a lot more people, both on Entmoot and at college, who have a great deal of anger against Christianity than who have anger toward Islam. Much of modern culture is turned against Christians and stereotypes them as stupid people who rely on blind faith and savagely conquer anyone who disagrees with them . An insane stereotype, but it exists and I've seen it a lot, coming through in people's arguments and treatment of Christians at different times both here and elsewhere. This is largely a Western attitude. I think it's very sad and I view it as highly ignorant. I expect that's how many Muslims view people like me, as well. But in spite of living in this culture, you won't see any Christian violence or much retaliation at all against people who make these stereotypes and claims in the West. You will see some response stereotyping, the lilly livered liberal with whom anything goes, but all this cultural stratifying could never be a source of violence, here.

[Farimir Captain of Gondor]

I don't have a problem with any religion, it's when a religion goes around killing in the name of a god to justify their killing that I have a problem with. Wheither it was the Christians in the Crusades, or Muslims with jihad. I mean, war is bad enough, is there really a need to say that a higher power is in control of of your war?

*runs out of thread before someone throws tomatoes at him*

[Spock]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Furthermore, a little writing point that I didn't mention before. Jeseus said, "a man's enemies will be the members of his own household," right after he said, "I will bring a sword." That doesn't say, "a man will be the enemy of his own household," which would imply that Christians are supposed to be violent, but rather says that the household will be enemies with him. The sentence structure implies that the household is going to oppose him rather than he oppose the household.

ok, I gotta jump in here-probably to no avail

It seems that studying, reading and interpreting has caused this to be a point of contention amongst you two.

My background education says that Jesus was referring to the 'sword' that would come because people converted to His religion; i.e. from Rome. Thus certain family members would be put to the sword while others would not.

This is more in tune with what actually happened in that period of time.

....only for viewpoint...not for debate

[Serenoli]

Lief, Don't have much time to talk right now, but I'll reply to one or two points.

Firstly, about Sharia law. I have not said that I think we should go ahead and put Sharia law in Western societies to remove anarchy. I was pointing out why, for us, an Islamic society is so much more preferable. There are always people who will crave personal freedom, but there are people too, who prefer order. If you removed Islam, then you would remove these societies, and all the benefits they conferred.

You find it scary that Islam spread so quickly, and I know you'll point fingers, or say extremism, but I believe it is because it was Allah's will. I suppose you are frowning now, but how else do you explain it??

Anyway, Lief, I find you being contradictory. On one hand you say there were many good effects of Islam being spread, but also many bad effects. Who is to judge them on a scale and say whether good or bad predominated? Then again, you say that now, in the present world, there are a few extremists, and many others who are NOT extreme.

But you are afraid they will lose their sensible natures, somehow become charged with the craziness and thus they need to be converted before they become a threat. All 'mays', 'maybes' and 'probably's.

And when I talk of defending Islam, why, oh, why do you imagine I am talking about someone bopping you on the head? Thats twice you took my innocent statement, and put a violent interpretion on it. The justice of the thing, is as elfearz says. Of course, we'll get riled up. Of course, we will defend our right to practise our own faith. And, obviously we are not going to take happily preaching that would do much better work at home. A few tracts to those angry modern lily-livered liberals would do a whole lot more good, before you come offering them to us.

Don't talk logically of preaching Christianity till Islam disappears. For one thing, there is too much bad blood between the two religions for one to embrace willingly the other. For another thing, it will lead to violence, needless violence, and if peace is your motive, then perhaps it will be better to refrain... surely if you go ahead with such a venture knowing full well you are going to offend people, then a large share of any violence that comes from it is your own fault. If you're more worried about peace, then spend more time trying to understand Muslims, and work with them. There has been peace between us for quite a long time, and it is surely possible again.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Serenoli

Firstly, about Sharia law. I have not said that I think we should go ahead and put Sharia law in Western societies to remove anarchy.

I see. It's good to hear that .

Originally Posted by Serenoli

I was pointing out why, for us, an Islamic society is so much more preferable. There are always people who will crave personal freedom, but there are people too, who prefer order. If you removed Islam, then you would remove these societies, and all the benefits they conferred.

What does it mean for the society to be Islamic? Are people (Muslims or non-Muslims) allowed to be morally degraded in your society? If not, what kinds of laws are set up against that kind of behavior (gambling, drunkenness, sexual immorality and such)?

Originally Posted by Serenoli

You find it scary that Islam spread so quickly, and I know you'll point fingers, or say extremism, but I believe it is because it was Allah's will. I suppose you are frowning now, but how else do you explain it??

There is another explanation. I don't want to offend though, so this one I won't post .

Originally Posted by Serenoli

Anyway, Lief, I find you being contradictory. On one hand you say there were many good effects of Islam being spread, but also many bad effects. Who is to judge them on a scale and say whether good or bad predominated?

Let's put it this way. I don't want to be conquered. I don't want my brothers who might be drafted into war to die. I don't want my country to suffer. I don't want to pay jizya. I don't want to suffer persecution. This is true no matter what good affects may come afterward or have come afterward!

I'm sure many of the Byzantines and Sassanids, and all those Abu Bakr and Mohammed conquered felt the same.

Now I know you don't want to see any of these things happen to me or the West either. Muslims in the past didn't feel the same. Europe experienced two ferocious Islamic invasions that they had to block by force of arms. A growing number of Muslims in our own day feel the same way. No matter what good affects might follow for society, I don't want to be made to submit, and that is why I fight when extremists try to do the same thing here as Muslim armies did to India and the Sassanid and Byzantine Empires, and tried to do to Europe.

Originally Posted by Serenoli

Then again, you say that now, in the present world, there are a few extremists, and many others who are NOT extreme.

But you are afraid they will lose their sensible natures, somehow become charged with the craziness and thus they need to be converted before they become a threat. All 'mays', 'maybes' and 'probably's.

True. I think the threat exists (admittedly a maybe) because of what I see of Islam from history, and looking at the modern trend.

Originally Posted by Serenoli

And when I talk of defending Islam, why, oh, why do you imagine I am talking about someone bopping you on the head? Thats twice you took my innocent statement, and put a violent interpretion on it.

Because I was talking about extremism in my previous post. You responded by saying that extremism is probably only growing because of people making attacks on Islam- people like me. That implies that people even saying things against Islam is going to cause some Muslims to turn to extremism or violence.

Originally Posted by Serenoli

The justice of the thing, is as elfearz says. Of course, we'll get riled up. Of course, we will defend our right to practise our own faith.

And I would never steal that right from you.

Originally Posted by Serenoli

And, obviously we are not going to take happily preaching that would do much better work at home.

Then you don't need to listen to it. I detest it when people try to shove Christianity down people's throats when they don't want to hear it.

Originally Posted by Serenoli

Don't talk logically of preaching Christianity till Islam disappears. For one thing, there is too much bad blood between the two religions for one to embrace willingly the other.

But Muslims do accept Christianity. Certainly not all of them do, but there are many cases.

Originally Posted by Serenoli

For another thing, it will lead to violence, needless violence, and if peace is your motive, then perhaps it will be better to refrain... surely if you go ahead with such a venture knowing full well you are going to offend people, then a large share of any violence that comes from it is your own fault.

I know full well that I would not push my faith on those who aren't interested, or try speaking to those who don't appear open to it or at least interested in talking about it some. I know that some Muslims would see me talking about our faiths with those who are interested in Christianity, and would be very angry at that. So I know there is a risk of undeserved violence against me, but I believe Christ is worth that.

Originally Posted by Serenoli

If you're more worried about peace, then spend more time trying to understand Muslims, and work with them.

A very good suggestion.

Originally Posted by Serenoli

There has been peace between us for quite a long time, and it is surely possible again.

Well, based on my reading of history and the current trends, I'm afraid I'm not so optimistic. It would be great if you were right, though!

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Farimir Captain of Gondor

I don't have a problem with any religion, it's when a religion goes around killing in the name of a god to justify their killing that I have a problem with. Wheither it was the Christians in the Crusades, or Muslims with jihad. I mean, war is bad enough, is there really a need to say that a higher power is in control of of your war?

You say what you believe to be true, as Christians and Muslims did, and as everyone should.

[Farimir Captain of Gondor]

I'm sorry Lief, or anyone else, if that offended you. I didn't mean to point out just Chritianity and Islam, I know a lot of other religions have done the same thing.

[Spock]

yumpin yimminie, don't start me on the p.c. christians and the crusades crappola!!

[Lief Erikson]

Don't worry Faramir, that was a totally non-offensive viewpoint . No offense taken whatsoever.