RELIGIOUS Debate on Terroristm-who, why, etc.

[Spock]

PLEASE REMEMBER:

DO NOT ATTACK THE MEMBER POSTER, DEBATE THE ISSUES

often some take the position that their interpretation is the only one for an issue, this is almost never 100% true

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

I need so much more then that.

Interesting - that's my objection to YOUR philosophy!

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

and for THAT very reason alone he shouldn’t make such sweeping clearly antagonistic statements. It certainly wont help the situation. It will ONLY make it worse.

On the other side, we (Many Christians) do believe that we are fighting a spiritual battle, as I previously explained. To explain its origins and nature is probably helpful for unaware Christians. From my reading of history (largely chronicled by Muslims), I came to the conclusion that Muhammad was essentially a terrorist.

He did do good things as well. He brought many moral teachings to people that were completely pagan.

However, I cannot possibly ignore the fact that he conquered Arabia by force of arms and his immediate followers interpreted his teachings in such a way that they conquered a great many surrounding countries in a likewise bloody and ruthless series of campaigns.

Those that I call liberal Muslims claim that jihad is supposed to be a spiritual war. A spiritual war??? History screams the opposite.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Lief I could site dozens more comments like this from many other religious leaders and many more from conservative leaders and talk show hosts etc. would you sit here and attempt to explain away each and every comment as being “out of context� and actually legitimate? Do you reject that these comments do actually divide people at a time when division is the exact opposite of what we need? I stand by my assertion that these kinds of statements absolutely do “incite the populace to hate and anger�. And should be condemned for doing so.

I don't deny that there may be Christian leaders out there that incite anger and hatred. I do think that you're misinterpreting some of these leaders, though.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Heres a nice one for you by the way. If the others were too mild and could be explained away in “context�. How bout Jimmy Swaggert for you: Mr. Swaggert (well known and highly praised by many many Christians), referred to the Prophet Muhammad on his program as a "sex deviant," a "pervert," and a "pedophile". Please explain the context on that one and how it doesn’t incite hate and anger.

I think I read that Muhammad married a twelve year old. Muhammad was not exactly a kid at that time himself. Muhammad also taught that men were allowed up to four wives, and an unlimited number of concubines. That caused much Christian disgust of Muslims during the Medieval Ages.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

He also called for the expulsion of all foreign Muslim university students in the United States and for profiling of airline passengers “with a diaper on their head and a fan-belt around their waist.�

Here, I'd appreciate some context.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Of American Muslims, Swaggart said: “We ought to tell every other Muslim living in this nation that if you say one word, you're gone."

France has recently expelled a Muslim religious leader for inciting terror. Pakistan arrested hundreds of imams. It sounds to me as though Swaggart was saying we should get rid of Muslims that support terror through preaching.


Note that I know nothing of Jimmy Swaggart. I'm not a supporter of his or a critic; I really know nothing of him. Some of the statements you're quoting do seem to me understandable, though.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

are you a scholar of the Koran? You seem quite knowledgeable on the contents of the Koran and of the teachings of muhammad. Have you read it? Have you studied it? Why is it people who HAVE spent years and years studying it quite often have a different picture of things? Much less simplistic then the one you paint. Why is that? are they all wrong and you are right?

Look . . . first, it's not just me .

I have not read the Koran. I have read a significant part of a book written by Muslims and called "An Introduction to Islam". I was given a history assignment for highschool of writing a fairly lengthy report about the rise of Islam. In order to write this essay, I read everything available from five or six sources about Muhammad and the rise of Islam. Just about all the information available was also written by Muslims, and therefore there is some likelihood that a bias existed in favor of Muhammad. Nonetheless, from history I was able to see that Muhammad started a bloodbath. The Koran describes Muhammad's rise to power as well.

Here's what Muslims say about Jihad:

the true meaning of Jihad is: a constant struggle to preserve one's faith and defend the rights to freedom of worship.

I read how Muhammad battled with and quelled the tribes of Arabia, how he threatened various surrounding peoples into submission. Then his immediate followers likewise interpreted jihad as violent warfare, rather than spiritual. They invaded powerful nations all about them, in impressive feats of military arms. They did amazing things in the name of Islam, by attacking two mighty empires simultaneously and winning. Their attacks were unprovoked and religious. Islam was a terrible creature, as these conservative leaders say, and the modern suicide bomber harks back to what Muhammad and his immediate followers did.

I would really like to agree with George Bush that these bombers are simply "murderers hijacking a religion." I think, however, based upon history and the Koran, that these bombers are interpreting the Koran correctly and liberal Muslims are not.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

ah so then you agree with osama bin laden that it’s a war between Islam and Christianity?

Muslims have been forced to get along with Westerners during the 1800s. The Ottoman Empire was the last real Muslim military power. After that, Muslims had to get along. I think that that's probably the time when these liberal views started most strongly originating. I am not saying there is a big war going on between these liberal Muslims (and they are still the majority, I hope) and Christianity.

Between radical, original Islam and Christianity, there is (or should be!) a war going on.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

this comment reminds me that one of the great reasons you don’t see radical Christianity as often like you do with Islam is for the very reason that most Christian nations are pretty well off and don’t need to go to extremes to fight what they believe is forces against them. When you are the top dog theres no need for suicide bombers. When you are Afghanistan and the mighty Soviet Union (to use one example) attempts to crush you like a bug then you will see pockets of violent extremism emerge from that kind of desperateness. And you get things like the Taliban… And Chechneya… I submit to you that if Afghanistan had been a nation of Christians that you would have radical Christian suicide bombers as well.

You're very probably right. That's why, rather than looking to the current situations, I look to the origins of the religions. Christianity originated small and beleagured, and it did not fight. It was the persecuted, not the persecutor, and it did not become the persecutor until centuries later. There still is a core that maintains the original faith and behavior.

Muhammad was persecuted by the tribe he grew up in, but then he became the persecutor within his own lifetime, and violently conquered everyone around him. His followers created new campaigns. There is a core that still sticks to Islam and adheres to it correctly as well, and I think that they're the radicals.

[Spock]

Lief, you've done your homework and are correct in your conclusions and statements. That's not IMO, it's fact. If some refuse to accept it, you can't change that. It's very hard but true. Keep the seekers mind.

[Lief Erikson]

Thanks for the support. What I am speaking is only my opinion based upon what evidence is available to me.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

of course! I'm sure there's lots!

I guess you misunderstood me.

GTG now, tho!

that is my main point... if there are lots of respectful muslims terrorism simple cannot be blamed on their religion... anymore than the crusades on christianity, in and of itself... religion may be used as a justification, but it is not a cause

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

that is my main point... if there are lots of respectful muslims terrorism simple cannot be blamed on their religion... anymore than the crusades on christianity, in and of itself... religion may be used as a justification, but it is not a cause

There may also be circumstances that spark the attacks. I believe the religion itself is one of the reasons, however. If you look at the history, you'll see that Muslim aggression began almost from the instant of Islam's birth, began with Muhammad. Islam ceased its aggressive policy really after it no longer was able to maintain it. Islam fell behind the Western world technologically and economically. It became technologically backward, and was eaten up by the Western Empires. That was when Islam became a peaceful religion.

Did Christian aggression begin with Christ? No, I think that rather, you'll find that Christian aggression began when Christianity became entwined with politics, and thus a tool of the politics. Christian aggression began centuries after Christ, and the religion's initial rise was swift and nonviolent.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

There may also be circumstances that spark the attacks. I believe the religion itself is one of the reasons, however. If you look at the history, you'll see that Muslim aggression began almost from the instant of Islam's birth, began with Muhammad. Islam ceased its aggressive policy really after it no longer was able to maintain it. Islam fell behind the Western world technologically and economically. It became technologically backward, and was eaten up by the Western Empires. That was when Islam became a peaceful religion.

Did Christian aggression begin with Christ? No, I think that rather, you'll find that Christian aggression began when Christianity became entwined with politics, and thus a tool of the politics. Christian aggression began centuries after Christ, and the religion's initial rise was swift and nonviolent.

people create aggression... not religions... but religion has always been used to influence populations, especially the poor and uneducated... i would say that christianity lost it's power to become a tool for aggressors in most western nations due to the prosperity and education of those nation's populaces... people would no longer buy the "kill in the name of god" line... that said, even in today's poorer regions of africa, christianity (and other religions) are used to incite the masses

the same is true with the muslims... i highly doubt the terrorist leaders are true believers in "the word"... but you can bet they know how powerful a tool religion can be to influence those who have little to look forward to in day to day life

basically, if muhammad never existed and all of the middle east was christian, the same (or nearly the same) issues would exist, because they are rooted in culture, the extreme division between rich and poor in the region, and the authoritarian governments that dominate the landscape there

[Spock]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

people create aggression... not religions

Not possible. Religion cannot exist without people so the statement is flawed.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

basically, if muhammad never existed and all of the middle east was christian, the same (or nearly the same) issues would exist, because they are rooted in culture, the extreme division between rich and poor in the region, and the authoritarian governments that dominate the landscape there

Not logical. Christianity basically is "love thy neighbor", "turn the other cheek" and "get along" , in its teachings. Islam is "kill the infidel" and its history is written in blood for a longer period than Christianity.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Spock

Not possible. Religion cannot exist without people so the statement is flawed.

"religion" is not a thing, it is a concept... a categorization... and like all categorization, somewhat broad and stereotypical... we can call people "christians" or "muslims", but the people within those groups vary to the extreme, and any individual muslim might have more in common with another individual christian than they would with extremists in their own religious category

the source of all aggression is people, specifically individuals, they may try to influence via concepts, but the concepts themselves can only cause something if people choose to give the the weight of "absolute reality"

Not logical. Christianity basically is "love thy neighbor", "turn the other cheek" and "get along" , in its teachings. Islam is "kill the infidel" and its history is written in blood for a longer period than Christianity.

yet devout christians kill, rape and hurt... even today... and many muslims find the idea of "killing the infidel" repulsive, but they still appreciate other aspects of the muslim teachings... the issue is how you choose to interpret the teachings... not the teachings themselves

and the world isn't always logical either

[Spock]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

"religion" is not a thing,

I never said it was. Try to stay awake.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

the source of all aggression is people, specifically individuals

DUH!

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

yet devout christians kill, rape and hurt... even today...

They are called criminals and are individual actions. There is no Christian holy war anywhere in the world. Remembering Croatia and Serbia is technically over.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

and many muslims find the idea of "killing the infidel" repulsive, but they still appreciate other aspects of the muslim teachings... and the world isn't always logical either

That's just nonsequitur IMO

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

perhaps the problem here was that I wasn't more specific in my original statement. IMO, saying insulting things is at one level, and calling for someone to be killed for writing a book is quite another. I see your point about all these things inciting anger, but I still maintain my opinion that the type we see coming from Islam is very different in terms of things like calling for direct, physical harm.

how many muslims called for killing salmon rushdie? From what I remember it was widely condemned by leaders of muslim countries when it first happened. You simply cant condemn an entire religion for the views of the fanatics. Whether is Islam or Christianity.

Swaggert's comments are disgusting, but again, I don't see him saying "go kill Muslims."

so does that make them ok? Does that mean that Christianity is better then Islam because this Christian leader’s derogatory comments aren’t as bad as that Islamic leader’s derogatory comments? And I really don’t think this requires a “but� at all Rian. Otherwise you come off as attempting to qualify and justify what he said. They are both disgusting.

As far as "Why try to be divisive?" - I don't think it's right to try to be divisive. However, I don't think it's right to say "everyone is right, let's all get along", either. That's illogical, as well as harmful, IMO.

where was I saying that? im trying to condemn BOTH sets of extremism. You are trying to say well Islam is worse. My view is extremists are bad news. No matter where they come from. But NOT that we should use this to trash a whole religion. No more so then we should use Swaggert’s and the other’s comments to trash Christianity. They are just boobs and blow hards. They are not the ultimate face of Christianity.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Spock

That's just nonsequitur IMO

so basically you are saying that christians who do aggressive things are criminals and do not represent christianity, but muslims who are aggressive represent any and all who choose to call themselves muslims? and muslims who are peaceful (the vast majority) are irrelevant?

There is no Christian holy war anywhere in the world. Remembering Croatia and Serbia is technically over.

do a little research on uganda's holy war

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

people create aggression... not religions...

Religions have a great deal of power to motivate people. They can motivate people to extraordinary lengths. Look at the disciples of Jesus, all of whom were killed for their beliefs, and look at the suicide bomber, a powerful expression of Muslim faith. Religions motivate people in different ways, depending upon what they are. Atheism can (doesn't always, but can) motivate people to strongly immoral behavior- "if morals don't exist, what's the difference between a moral and immoral action?" This point of view is plainly exposed in highschool violence and crime.

Religions can also motivate people to extremes of moral behavior. Beliefs shape how people live their lives. Religions are foundations of beliefs. Islam and Christianity both have had a massive impact upon the way people think. The religion Islam directly caused the transformation of Arabia, and the destruction and transformation of numerous surrounding countries. The religion Christianity directly caused the transformation of the Roman Empire from within, and has spawned much of modern states' justice and society values, even in the secular world.

These religions had direct and massive impact. Jesus and Muhammad had massive impact. Jesus in a direct way circumvented the aggressions of millions through his teachings. Muhammad in a direct way (in my opinion) spawned them.

When a Muslim fundamentalist on the streets preaches violence, he sometimes spawns those thoughts and behaviors within his listeners. They would not have had an outlet if not for him- or at least not so destructive an outlet, in many cases.

When a Muslim liberal preaches peace, he too can have a direct influence for good upon his listeners.

Religions can create aggression. They also can create peace. Beliefs have a direct and powerful impact upon what people think and do.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

but religion has always been used to influence populations, especially the poor and uneducated... i would say that christianity lost it's power to become a tool for aggressors in most western nations due to the prosperity and education of those nation's populaces... people would no longer buy the "kill in the name of god" line... that said, even in today's poorer regions of africa, christianity (and other religions) are used to incite the masses

Please note how Christianity can primarily be used to inspire the uneducated to aggression. If they knew more about the religion, if they knew what Jesus actually said, they would never be taken in by those that might twist his words.

The original Christians had nothing to do with violence. They suffered, but did not retaliate.

This is different from Islam, for Muhammad actually commanded his followers to fight.

"O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty unto Him."

Go here if you wish to see it in context: http://quranbrowser.com/cgi/bin/get....ng=009:121-125

. . . and declared that those able to fight that shirked their duty would be punished in eternity.

Sura 9:81-96

"Those who were left behind (in the Tabuk expedition) rejoiced in their inaction behind the back of the apostle of God. They hated to strive and fight with their goods and their persons, in the cause of God. They said, ‘Go not forth in the heat.’

[YA: "The Tabuk expedition had to be undertaken hurriedly in the heat of summer, because of a threat or fear of Byzantine invasion."] [This war took place late in 630AD and is the first war against Christians.]

...If, then, God bring thee back to any of them, and they ask thy permission to come out (with thee), say, ‘Never shall ye come out with me, nor fight an enemy with me. For ye preferred to sit inactive on the first occasion. Then sit ye (now) with those who lag behind.’

Nor do thou ever pray for any of them that dies, nor stand at his grave. For they rejected God and his apostle, and died in a state of perverse rebellion. Nor let their wealth nor their sons dazzle thee. God's plan is to punish them with these things in this world, and that their souls may perish in their (very) denial of God. When a sura comes down, enjoining them to believe in God and to strive and fight along with his apostle, those with wealth and influence among them ask thee for exemption, and say, ‘Leave us (behind). We would be with those who sit (at home).’ They prefer to be with (the women), who remain behind (at home). Their hearts are sealed and so they understand not. But the apostle, and those who believe with him, strive and fight with their wealth and their persons. For them are (all) good things, and it is they who prosper. God hath prepared for them gardens under which rivers flow, to dwell therein ... There is no blame on those who are infirm, or ill, or who find no resources to spend (on the cause), if they are sincere (in duty) to God and his apostle ... Nor (is there blame) on those who came to thee to be provided with mounts, and when thou saidst, ‘I can find no mounts for you’ they turned back. Their eyes streaming with tears of grief that they had no resources wherewith to provide the expenses..."

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

the same is true with the muslims... i highly doubt the terrorist leaders are true believers in "the word"... but you can bet they know how powerful a tool religion can be to influence those who have little to look forward to in day to day life

That is probably true as regards some of those that have entered radical Islam (criminals and the like). Others, however, are quite learned. There are professors in the Middle East that have argued from the Koran for a violent jihad.

I don't know what you mean when you say you highly doubt terrorist leaders are true believers in Islam.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

basically, if muhammad never existed and all of the middle east was christian, the same (or nearly the same) issues would exist, because they are rooted in culture, the extreme division between rich and poor in the region, and the authoritarian governments that dominate the landscape there

This is 100% hypothetical, and in my opinion ridiculous, as it ignores the fact that people behave in different ways depending upon what their beliefs are.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

how many muslims called for killing salmon rushdie? From what I remember it was widely condemned by leaders of muslim countries when it first happened. You simply cant condemn an entire religion for the views of the fanatics. Whether is Islam or Christianity.

I responded to this part of what you've been saying in my earlier post.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

so does that make them ok? Does that mean that Christianity is better then Islam because this Christian leader’s derogatory comments aren’t as bad as that Islamic leader’s derogatory comments?

"And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say:
The Messiah is the son of Allah. That is their saying with their mouths.
They imitate the saying of those who disbelieved of old.
Allah (Himself) fighteth against them. How perverse are they!
. . . O ye who believe! Lo!
many of the (Jewish) rabbis
and the (Christian) monks devour the wealth of mankind
wantonly and debar (men) from the way of Allah.
They who hoard up gold and silver and spend
it not in the way of Allah,
unto them give tidings (O Muhammad) of a painful doom,
On the day when it will (all) be heated in the fire of hell,
and their foreheads and their flanks and their backs
will be branded therewith (and it will be said unto them):
Here is that which ye hoarded for yourselves.
Now taste of what ye used to hoard."



As we were speaking of derogatory statements, I thought that that quotation from someplace might be appropriate . . .

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

where was I saying that? im trying to condemn BOTH sets of extremism. You are trying to say well Islam is worse. My view is extremists are bad news. No matter where they come from. But NOT that we should use this to trash a whole religion. No more so then we should use Swaggert’s and the other’s comments to trash Christianity. They are just boobs and blow hards. They are not the ultimate face of Christianity.

"Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low."



Who do you think said that? Osama Bin Laden?

Here these passages from the Koran can be seen in context:

http://qb.gomen.org/Quranbrowser/cgi/bin/get.cgi

[brownjenkins]

well said lief... i agree about religion being a motivator for both good and bad... which is why i think that absolute belief in any form of religion (or atheism) has more negatives than positives... it can lead someone to do good, but it can also lead someone to do evil... the key point is that more weight is put in the written or spoken word as opposed to ones own judgement or opinion

much better to take the path most in the western world have... keeping their religion "at home" and outside government... and not just that, but willing to bend the rules a bit here and there to better relate with those around them

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I don't know what you mean when you say you highly doubt terrorist leaders are true believers in Islam.

by that i mean they are motivated by personal gain, not by religious salvation... i think you can see a lot of that same motivation in the leadership of the catholic church a few hundred years back... they took advantage of the power that the people gave them... but, in time, the people learned

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

This is 100% hypothetical, and in my opinion ridiculous

many have used christianity in the past to condone violence... it is very far from ridiculous... some still use it today

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

it ignores the fact that people behave in different ways depending upon what their beliefs are.

that is exactly the supposed "fact" i am trying to get people to ignore... people behave how they do because of their life experiences... most in the middle east are muslim because they were born that way and it is all they will ever know... i'd say that economics has a lot more to do with how they behave than beliefs... and the smart and wealthy few take advantage of this for their own gains, via religion

think about a dirt poor muslim who has grown up losing half his family and seeing violence and death on a day to day basis... will he behave terribly different than a dirt poor christian in uganda who grows up in much the same environment?

compare these two to another two people growing up in suburban america... a christian and a muslim, who grow up best of friends and lead happy properous lives

two of these four people are "muslim" and two are "christian"... but those labels mean very little in terms of defining what they are about... life experience is what has made them what they are, and those religious labels draw people away from these very important factors that people don't like to discuss, because they are so difficult to change... much much easier to pin it on the book they subscribe to

[Spock]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

so basically you are saying that christians who do aggressive things are criminals and do not represent christianity, but muslims who are aggressive represent any and all who choose to call themselves muslims? and muslims who are peaceful (the vast majority) are irrelevant?

YES...and NO.. There are more calls for Muslims to kill than their are Christians who do kill. We won't go into definition of whose a Christian as I'm sure that would be an never ending post. Overall more Muslims have killed other Muslims and non-muslims in the past, present and have planned to do so in the future; those are facts. Again there is no call for Christians to kill anyone.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

o a little research on uganda's holy war

You can start by counting how many missionaries have been slaughtered there. And for the purposes of main stream discussion, I write off Africa. That's a totally different situation which is not germaine to this thread.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

by that i mean they are motivated by personal gain, not by religious salvation... i think you can see a lot of that same motivation in the leadership of the catholic church a few hundred years back... they took advantage of the power that the people gave them... but, in time, the people learned

I'll probably respond to the rest of your post later, brownjenkins. At the moment I don't have the time, and I'll also have to think about it some before I respond.

An interesting thing about this, though, is that I think you're pretty much right. While these people are religious, they are probably more motivated by personal gain. They think themselves religious too, but they are more motivated by selfishness.

However, I'm of the opinion that many of those early Muslim leaders had a similar attitude. Looking at history, I can't see much difference between them and these "extremists". Is the self-oriented leader a "true" Muslim? No. But it is interesting.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

However, I'm of the opinion that many of those early Muslim leaders had a similar attitude. Looking at history, I can't see much difference between them and these "extremists". Is the self-oriented leader a "true" Muslim? No. But it is interesting.

i will admit that based on the text alone, a strong argument can be made that the muslim texts lend themselves better to aggressive twisting than christianity... but i think it can be overcome without requiring muslims to ditch their philosophy entirely

[Lief Erikson]

A difficulty lies in the fact that a major part of Muslim doctrine is the infallibility of scripture, I believe. They're like Christians, in that way.