Islam Thread (2)

Can YOU point to an example of this--People of the Book who "stand (For the right)"? One would think a religion that wants all to serve Allah could at least let us know what to strive toward. Just one?

 

Why does one need to be true?

Because we require a God to exist....or perhaps because you wish it to be so?

 

And now wants us all to join in and do the same.

 

Thank you for your response. It's really hard to communicate with all of the hate filled trolls making useless, 'Islam is bad, M'kay!" posts and filling up the space on this thread.
That being said I have noticed that the Koran is written in a very poetic style compared to nearly every other religious text. Is it possible that this poetic style combined with the prohibition of graven images may have contributed to the stability of the godhead in peoples minds? Keeping it from being split up by sectarians within the faith. There is an old saying that "one picture is worth a thousand words". But that reliance on visual cues (the image of jesus on the cross for instance) may bypass critical parts of the brain that are involved with better logic and math-solving skills, eloquence in general speech, better ability at reading emotional states from facial cues, improved attention, and enhanced capacity for understanding visuospatial relationships. Rather than getting in too deep with this idea I'll simply post a link that discussed the possibility:

http://turntoislam.com/community/threads/how-the-quran-shapes-the-brain.85773/

Obviously a Muslim posted this so he may be biased. Nevertheless, this idea is consistent with the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis, the idea that differences in the way languages encode cultural and cognitive categories affect the way people think, so that speakers of different languages will tend to think and behave differently depending on the language they use. I understand that the traditional method for teaching the Koran follows a rigorous technique that the above poster describes. Also I understand that it is strongly recommended to learn Arabic in order to fully understand the Koran which again, is consistent with Sapir-Whorf. In other words the mindset of the devoted Muslim can be better attained by reading and thinking in Arabic. Perhaps this is the reason for the Muslim success you described. Your thoughts?

Now to get to the political question. It's well known that science, literature, industry, culture flowered at the beginning under Islam. But somewhere along the line something happened that dried up that flowering. Many reasons are put forth from the Mongol Invasions, to the sacking of Baghdad, to the plagues, to destruction of irrigation channels, to salt buildup in irrigated land. Of course the caliphates were not immune to greed, internal bickering, poor leaders, civil wars and other problems that beset empires. But the last caliphates under the Ottomans were relatively secure with many resources but were nevertheless highly reactionary and dismissive of new ideas. Even a fatwa on the printing press! Muslim civilization never recovered. Muslim scholar Dr. M. Hisham Hawasli in an interesting video I found suggests a turning away from the joy of this worlds beauty, life, and esthetics in favor of seeking life after this one started the 800 year decline of Muslim culture. The lecture is long but I found 28:45 to the end most interesting
http://alfarooqmasjid.org/48-the-mind-the-brain-and-thinking-in-islam/
I'm wondering what your thoughts are on the decline of Muslim civilization and whether it is a result of the way Islam is currently practiced and whether that problem can be corrected. Since there are approximately 7 million Muslims in the US I am very curious if the secular society of America will be a good fit for their religious beliefs. This whole fatwa thing bothers me. At present there are approximately 1 million pagans of various stripes in the US so as one I am naturally concerned. In the US disagreements between people are normally resolved through law not swords and guns. Could you imagine a community of Muslims in the US tolerating a pagan in their midst? I understand 'the people of the book' are to be tolerated but pagans are different. Your thoughts?

Please note I am not a troll trying to 'trip you up'. I am genuinely curious about other peoples beliefs.

 

Sorry Felicity, but that’s a rather stupid diatribe. It’s akin to saying that the more devout a Christian becomes the more likely he/she is to bomb an abortion clinic. Al Qaida represents devout Islam as little as the “Army of God” represents devout Christianity, that much should be obvious.
And while I believe that many people are just too simple-minded and uneducated to realize that, I don’t believe for a second you ‘d be simple-minded and uneducated enough to eat what the propaganda feeds you, if you did actually not want to believe it. It just seems to me that you’re not as devout a Christian as you may think that you are. If you’d be one you would try harder not to succumb to the anger and self-righteousness expressed in your posts. Not seeing the news through the lenses that hate-preachers such as Robert Spencer and the EDL provide would be a simple start to make.

Are you kidding me???? Did you ever read the verses after this verse? The parallel passage in the Gospel of Matthew goes: “Do not think that I came to bring peace on Earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.”!

Please don’t confirm the Protestant prejudice that Catholics don’t bother to read the Bible much! A prejudice that is a sign of the very divisions many Christians believe this verse to be about: bloody religious wars - be it Christians against Muslims, or Protestants against Catholics.

Many a Christian misunderstood/misunderstand it as meaning that a Christian was/is supposed to take a sword and slay people, rather than to be ready to be slain with it such as the martyrs who died a truly glorious death in the arenas of Rome etc. for sticking to their faith. This misunderstanding led Christians to slaughter all of Jerusalem - men, women and children - when they conquered it in 1099. And sadly it still leads to Christians happily joining the army and killing people while other Christians close their eyes to the atrocities that are committed by their military and secret services.
No, our religion is in no way better than that of Islam when it comes to producing nothing but “peacemakers”, as it should.

Weirdly enough – while you actually seem to long for the Pope to start a conflict with Islam – most devout Catholics I know would eagerly jump to the Popes defense here and say that surely it wasn’t his intend to upset Muslims via these canonisations. They’d happily agree with BBC-correspondent David Willey, that „There was no hint of any anti-Islamic sentiment in the homily that Pope Francis delivered before tens of thousands of worshippers gathered in St Peter's Square” and that “while it was Francis's predecessor, Pope Benedict, who gave the go ahead for their canonisations, the new pope is continuing the process of honouring a new generation of modern as well as historic martyrs.” (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22499327)

That most devout Catholics I know would want the Pope to engage in respectful interreligious dialogue in the tradition of John Paul II , is probably due to the fact that - contrary to the abovementioned Protestant prejudice - they actually do read the Bible and thus know the verse: “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.” (Matthew 5:9) I trust that Pope Francis knows and understands it too and that he has an honest desire to become a “peacemaker” himself. Of course this trust may just be caused by naïve hope.

 

Obviously you didn't read what I said. Christianity specifically teaches AGAINST violence--even in the face of violence and political oppression. Islam teaches otherwise--quite explicitly.

And so a lot of the rest of your post is irrelevant since you go on after a false premise of what I said. I deleted that part. I also deleted your snarky nonsense. It's a waste of time to bother with it.

LOL...Jesus with a sword...funny. I know you're not one who is a literalist. However, in the Koran, it is a literal sword that is weilded. In Christianity, you know darn well the "sword" is metaphorical and the "division" is in the heart. Jesus, in the same chapter, tells the disciples they are sheep among wolves and need to be wise as serpents, but innocent as doves. There is NO call to violence and it's patently silly for you to even try to suggest it.

Perhaps you should read it more...and maybe read the Koran, too. It reveals itself.

I don't really understand what you are saying here, but no matter any violence Christians are involved with, it is ALWAYS contrary to the desired order and unity called for in the Christian texts, and always Peace--even in times of distress and oppression is taught: http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/r/rsv/rsv-idx?type=DIV2&byte=5217371

This (what I cited from Romans) is in DIRECT opposition to what is taught in the Koran.

True...but such is easily condemned by other Christians and referred to in regretful sorrow that any such thing occurs in the name of God or in a misconstrued service to religious fervor. Not so in Islam.

It's about what is condoned by the tenets of the religion, not that individual people can be inhumane. Christianity does not condone violence, Islam does.

 

Yikes!
Yikes!
Yikes!
Oh BTW, did I say YIKES!
And I do agree, christianity is NOT about violence. But peace, joy, love, turn the other cheek, don't judge.
But everyone on this forum fails in one or more of them.

 

I couldn't care less what an Islamo says or does not say. They are the enemy because they say they are, I believe them, why would they lie.

 

You assume? Christianity in general. But that would exclude sects who call themselves Christians but are not, like jehova witness and mormons. A whole thread would be required to answer that question.

 

That Jesus died for you sins, was buried, and resurected, and ascended.

God is. I require nothing, what I wish is irrelevant. To require a being to exist for our benefit means that he would be a fabrication.

 

I recently read that in the early 1900s before WW1, over 80% of the wholesale companies in Istanbul were owned by Christians. Even before the 1850s in the Ottoman empire, which was when the jizya tax was abolished and non-Muslims were given full civil rights, Christian and Jewish communities supposedly thrived, at least partly because they were exempt from military service, and so could concentrate on their careers full time, and could afford to better educate their children.

From my perspective as a ''pagan'' who knows several Muslims, mostly through business, I can tell you that religion simply doesn't enter into our relationships.

Compare the Christians to the Muslims on this forum, and it's not hard to see which religion has more intolerant followers. While I have no doubt that some Muslims are also intolerant, I have yet to meet one, either in real life or even on an internet forum. Most of the Muslims I know are extremely friendly people, and I would have no qualms whatsoever living in a community even where the majority of people are Muslims.

What we call ''radical Islam'' nowadays, didn't really start until after Britain and France divided the Ottoman empire into countries and installed puppet dictators in each one, then in each of those countries, built armies which were mostly designed to keep their own populations down. As late as 1948, the Arab Legion, which was considered to be the most powerful Arab army of them all, was entirely commanded by British officers, and of course supplied by Britain. Then to top it all off we gave Palestine to the Zionists.

Had we left the Arabs to rule themselves, as we had promised them, I don't believe there would be any radical Islam today. But when you think about it, the last thing the west wants is a hugely powerful middle east, in charge of most of the world's resources. The reason for dividing the Ottoman empire up in the first place was because Britain and France considered it to be a threat to their colonial power - which shouldn't be surprising because Britain had already invaded and colonised Egypt when Egypt was still officially a part of the Ottoman empire. The last thing Britain wanted was a hugely powerful middle east in charge of most of the world's resources, and this was at the time when oil was just beginning to become a valuable resource.

After WW2 when, in practice, the US took over the former British empire, they continued much the same policy, for much the same reasons, and Britain today is like a junior partner to the US.

So-called radical Islam is really a backlash to all of that, and if anything, we should perhaps be surprised that more Muslims from the middle east haven't taken up arms against us. But even at that, much of what our governments tell us, and much of what we hear in the media about radical Islam, isn't real.

Here's an interesting 3 part, 3 hour, documentary for anyone who's interested in this, from the days when the BBC still practiced investigative journalism, that includes a study on the rise of radical Islam.

 

As it says in 1 Corinthians 15:13-19 (NLT) =
[SUP]13 [/SUP]For if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised either. [SUP]14 [/SUP]And if Christ has not been raised, then all our preaching is useless, and your faith is useless. [SUP]15 [/SUP]And we apostles would all be lying about God—for we have said that God raised Christ from the grave. But that can’t be true if there is no resurrection of the dead. [SUP]16 [/SUP]And if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised. [SUP]17 [/SUP]And if Christ has not been raised, then your faith is useless and you are still guilty of your sins. [SUP]18 [/SUP]In that case, all who have died believing in Christ are lost! [SUP]19 [/SUP]And if our hope in Christ is only for this life, we are more to be pitied than anyone in the world.

Is the world flooded with resurrected corpses? If there are no resurrected corpses then, per Paul, the story about Jesus having been resurrected is a lie. Why is that so hard to understand?

 

I understand it fully. Do you?

 

What are you "yikes[ing]?"

Absolutely. We are all sinners.

 

Yes but the Ottoman Muslims as a whole never competed with the others on an economic level. Why not? Military service doesn't explain enough. Muslim religious education is deeply committed to literacy especially in Arabic. So lack of reading skills and lack of a common language doesn't cut it either. Shinto Japan went from primitive to powerful twice (1852-1941 and 1945-present) in that same time frame. Ship building, planes, steel mills, Sony. Confucian China and and Hindu India were also raped by Western Imperialism. Yet they maintained national cohesion and went on to become independent industrialized nations. During the same time Ottoman/Muslim world was chopped up like a side of beef. And the Ottoman Empire wasn't exactly a bunch of guys in grass skirts and spears. Was there something about the practice of their religion that kept them from modernizing and closing ranks against the west?

Being tolerated and being welcomed into a community are two different things. Muslim businessmen represent the university educated top of the community. You usually see them in westernized business environments. Screaming Allah Ahkbar! and stabbing you with a pen would probably look bad on their mid year review. Will they rent to you, give you a job, permit your own personal religious activity at a local park, sign your petition, invite you to parties, give your car a jump? That's where the rubber hits the road. Fatwas have broad scope if youre in the majority. Islam doesn't separate the secular and sacred like we do.

Yes I know all about the sad story of western imperialism. But except for our stupid adventure the Muslim world has been free of direct Western control for 50 years. Don't you think that imperialism excuse is getting a little threadbare, especially after the Arab spring? Yes there are secret agents sneaking everywhere trying to disrupt and destabilize govenrments for their own selfish needs. That's been a problem everywhere for millenia! I know Islam was a very progressive and forward thinking in the first half of it's existence. But something went off the rails after that. Despite a Muslim comittment to tolerance Sunnis and Shiites have been at been at each others throats while Protestant, Catholic, and a galaxy of hindu god and goddess worshippers have been maintaining industrial civilizations in relative peace. Why the difference? I'd like for a Muslim inside the faith to let me know if he sees the same problems that I see. Maybe he doesn't see any problem with his religious practice. But something is different than it was 1400 years ago when Islam started. OJLeb what do you say?

 

Take a look a bit further afield, and consider that several African countries have majority Christian populations. Around 95% of the population of the Congo are Christians, yet it is one of the most war-ravaged, barbaric, corrupt and backward countries in the world. It is also rich in resources including having around 30% of the world's diamond reserves. Why do you think the middle east has done so much better than Africa?

Dusty

 

Like I say Dusty. I want a real Muslim to address the questions I'm asking. Sure things and people are bad all over. It's the sad nature of man. But Muslims claim to have an answer though their part of the world for the most part is worse than Detroit. So let's see what they have to say about it.

 

Yes, but for the most part, Africa is much worse than the middle east, despite the many countries that have majority Christian populations.

I take it you don't have an answer as to why that is.

 

Actually 41% of Africa is Muslim. Christians are 48%. They're not offering to answer questions on this thread. Like I say I'm waiting for a real Muslim to answer my questions about THEIR religion. That's what this thread is for. Why are you trying to interfere with that? Your opinion has already been noted.

 

The basic problem with black Africa is that the people are insane. On top of that they are easily corrupted by greedy whites who are always trying to steal everything there. Now the Chinese are moving in to get their hands on things. Black Africans will always be at a disadvantage as long as they interact with foreigners, especially whites.

 

1) You quoted my post, and asked more than one question.

2) This is a public forum, where anyone can answer questions.

You might find the differences you pointed out between the west and the middle east, have nothing to do with religion

Dusty

 

Different denominations are different in beliefs.
Some say you are saved by faith alone, others say by faith and works.
Which is it?
Some hold mary in as high a place as jesus, while others don't giver her much except the mother of Jesus.
So, there seems to be variances in that "absolute truth" you claim to believe.
BTW - how is a belief = absolute truth?
Absolute truth would not need a belief, it would be absolutely proved.

 

Not on essentials. What does the Bible say about those things?

 

Obviously you didn’t read what I said. Just like Christianity Islam does not teach anything, it is taught! And depending on the teachings it can produce both terrorists such as Osama Bin Laden and pacifists such as Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan, just as the various teachings of Christianity can produce both American Presidents who bomb people and “Pax Christi” protesting against such bombings.

Now while I thoroughly agree with you that Jesus Christ promotes non-violence, we’ll have to note that, alas, not all Christians agree with us. It would be far from me to say that those disagreeing with us can’t find scriptural backing for their views. I just think they interpret it wrong, just like most Muslims I know think that John Spencer and Osama Bin Laden interpret the Quran wrong.

Sad to see that you mistake what was meant as constructive criticism for snarky nonsense and find it a waste of time to go for a little Christian introspection. So you’ll probably continue writing posts that violate the Golden Rule that good Christians and good Muslims embrace. Rather than slandering another world-religion with the vile chorus of Islamophobes, you could spend more time rallying against drone strikes with the guys from Pax Christi. Just a suggestion.

I neither advocate literalism nor do I think the New Testament advocates violence. While I like your fluffy interpretation of Matthew 10:34 (which reminds me of Muslims interpretation of Jihad as an inner struggle by the way), I think it’s a little far fetched, especially if one bothers to read on until Matthew 10-39. I’d pertain that these verses refer to conflicts between different religious sections that were already visible when the verses were written and to the actual bodily martyrdom that was (and is to be) endured. No matter what: It’s a fact that many Christians begged/beg to differ with both our peaceful hippie interpretations here.

As for your assessment on how “Sword” is used in the Koran: did you ever think about consulting the Muslim Peace Fellowship (http://mpf21.wordpress.com/about-2/) about these verses that you find troublesome? Or are you just talking out of your prejudiced arse such as posters like Wyrd of Gawd do when they quote the Bible?

I suppose to Muslims such as the above mentioned Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan and Nafez Assaily the Koran reveals itself in sura such as these:
“And not equal are the good deed and the bad. Repel [evil] by that [deed] which is better; and thereupon the one whom between you and him is enmity [will become] as though he was a devoted friend.”
41:34

If you don’t understand what I’m saying here you should start occupying with history in general and the history of the Church and its theology in particular. It didn’t take our Church long to develop a theory of “just war” based on the very scriptures you and I like to view as entirely peaceful. That in the times of the crusades the general population tended to fare better when being conquered by Muslims than when being conquered by Christians, probably had to do with the fact that unlike the Bible and its interpreters the Qu’ran gives rather clear instructions on why when and how to fight a war, with the “how” coming much closer to the Geneva Conventions than anything us Christians sported at the time.

Ironically what you quoted from the Epistle to the Romans would have been among my Nazi-grandfathers favourite verses, especially Rom 13:1. He honestly thought Hitler was “instituted by God” and should thus be obeyed. Other Christians such as Bonhoeffer disagreed, yet they all read the same Bible. It seems our Holy Scriptures aren't as straight-forward as you'd like to paint them. If they were I'd see a point in quoting Matthew 7:1-5 to you: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+7:1-5&version=NIV

I’ve repeatedly linked you to statements of Muslims and Muslim organizations condemning violence and terrorism. If you stubbornly refuse to take notice of that, that’s your problem.

Luckily your current Pope seems to disagree with what is not a fact but just your one-sided opinion on Islam:

http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/the-vatican/detail/articolo/francesco-francis-francisco-25236/ I wish him and the leaders of the other Abrahimic religions every success in working for peace together.

 

The thing about the Bible is that it presents two opposing views on every issue. So if you don't like one viewpoint you are always free to counter it with the opposite one. And don't forget, controversy over which viewpoint is the "correct" one has been going on since the first con man uttered his first words. Would you like some examples?