Violence is something inherent to Islam in a way that it isn't to Christianity. There is nothing in the New Testament, as far as I am aware, that tells Christians to go out and fight the unbelievers. Christian institutions may have endorsed war at times, but there is nothing in the "core" of the religion about fighting people.

I am not sure that it should be described as an "occupation". Troops are there with the permission of the democratically elected government.

Do the Palestinians treat the Israeli's as brothers?

Hmm..... let's start here. Out of all the religions in the world, only "some" make claims to exclusivity. Christianity and Islam, for instance, are highly dogmatic, they take much of their authority from "scripture", and in many cases their followers believe the text is "complete and final". Buddhism, on the other hand (or at least some "versions" of it) - is not that way. It's considered to be a "way", as distinct from "the truth" - hmm... I didn't say that exactly correctly, but you probably understand what I'm getting at.

The second piece, is that religion "in and of itself" is neither good nor bad - it's what the "followers" believe that matters. Islam, for instance, is far from homogeneous. In addition to the "sects", like Sunni and Shi'a and Salafi and whatever else, within any given sect there are various interpretations of the meaning of the words in the Quran. A simple word like "jihad" (loosely translated as "struggle") could mean either armed conflict, or an internal "struggle against self", depending on who you talk to and whether they're fundamentally inclined or liberally inclined or whatever.

The third piece, is that it is impossible to understand a religion - any religion - outside of its historical context. This is certainly true for Judaism for instance, especially in relation to all the "rules" of orthodoxy and so on. And it's also true for Islam. The Quran is a mixed bag, just like every other religious writing - it contains tidbits of philosophy, theology, sociology, and even suggestions for "law" as it might apply in a particular historical context. In Christianity, the "progressives" choose to regard the law as "exclusively" historical, while the "fundamentalists" sometimes choose the validate their legal beliefs on the basis of specific scriptures.

And fourthly, Islam has no central authority. There's no one like the Pope who can basically decide what any piece of scripture means. The closest they get are the Imams (or Mullahs, or that general concept), which are basically "religious scholars". Anyone can become an Imam, all you have to do is attend some version of a religious school and then become accepted by your community. So when one of those folks issues a "fatwah", it isn't like a Papal edict. It's only something that's meaningful within whatever particular community the relevant Imam is a part of. If a given Imam issues a fatwah that says "jihad means armed struggle", the rest of Islam can tell him to go shove off, and nothing will become of it (religiously speaking).

And finally, Islam does have a loosely defined "culture" associated with it, which is probably one of its more definitive elements. For instance, the idea of Muslim hospitality, is pretty universal - the main difference is how it's "implemented" by any particular individual. The idea of praying in the prescribed manner is also pretty universal, although some people adhere to that more than others. If you trace through the history of some of the various religions that "derive" from Islam in one way or another (like Sikhism for instance), it can be very revealing to understand what parts of Islam they've chosen to keep, and what parts they've chosen to jettison.

Another interesting phenomenon is the Black Muslim here in the US. That's a whole interesting study in and of itself, and it's well worth paying some attention to, if you're interested in Islam or comparative religion or anything like that.

So, maybe these ideas will provide some food for thought.

Carry on.

In a religion you have to be able to choose weaher you want to belive or not, and once you already a beliver you have to be able to chose to stop beliveing. In islamic nations you are forced to belive. If you decide to stop beliveing you are killed. that is not a real religion you have to be able to decide for yourself what you beive in. belive or die, what do you do when given that choice.

I have nothing against islam. it could be a great religion of peace and pure belife, but first they have to give the people a choice of religion or way of life, without a penalty of death. That is the reason america was created wasnt it, to escape from religious persicuion, to the have the abiltiy to belive in something ohter than what the government says. I belive that is what america is doing in iraq and not just for choice in religion, also for a choice in there government. people should have a say in the way their life is run.

YOu have to be able to think for yourself and make you own decisions in your own life. Belief in religion means nothing without the choice to not belive.

__________________
"People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people." -V

That's an excellent point, locke. It's also a point that relates deeply to history, yes?

I mean, Islam has a long history of conversion by force. But, so does Christianity. The difference is, that Islam is still in that mode, while Christianity has mostly gotten out of it. (I'm speaking in very general terms, of course).

The central idea, that would seem to be relevant, is the difference between a "believer", and one who simply follows all the rules.

The history of Europe during the Middle Ages through the Renaissance is very revealing in that regard (like for instance, the various "secret societies", the various versions of gnosticism, and depending on the particular time and place, the idea that politicians were regularly back-stabbing clergymen and vice versa.

In the history of Christianity, religion and politics were often at odds with each other, but once in a while they'd align. However in Islam, religion and politics are one and the same, there's really no dogmatic distinction between the two. There's no concept like "render unto Caesar" and etc.

Definitely food for thought. Very good point, locke.

One of the features of Islam is how it is so integrated with politics. Of course, so was Catholicism. With Catholicism there was a central figure to rebel against however.
My thought is that the Islam reformation will be much quieter once it happens.
It will begin in Europe and America. Here Muslims can freely give up their religion if they choose. If Islam does not meet their needs, they will convert. The likelihood is that Islam will change to accomodate them... Not all Islam, but the local Muslims that create the faith in these areas.
From what I understand, in a mosque, anyone of faith can speak rather than just a preacher. This is how we often get the misconception that radicals are running all kinds of mosques. They are allowed to speak there.
This allows the followers to change the faith all the more... on a local level.
The same decentralization that makes Islam chaotic and the radicals of it unpredictable will help to create peaceful transition in democratic societies... so long as we give them opportunity and do not try to forcefully remove or intrude on their faith.

__________________
"Man lives in the sunlit world of that which he believes to be reality. But unseen by most is an underworld, a place that is just as real... but not as brightly lit... A DARK SIDE!"
-opening from Tales From the Darkside

Politics and religion are to things that should be comletly seperated but for some reason, i guess because of human nature, They always end up completly tangled up together in a big not. THis is true for most religions. THis is the reason that religion has prblems and becomes more of a religion, politics whithin the religion is what causes problems and turns a religion into something that it is not supposed to be. Like the chritian crusades, they did exactly what islam seems to be doing now. The religions are pure and there intent good, it is the people that are bad and the people that curropt the rieligion, bu i think that it will eventually fix itself.

__________________
"People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people." -V

Islam makes the assertion that "no legitimate prophets will follow Muhammad".

Obviously this is an assertion, and can not be supported except by taith.

This claim goes beyond simple "exclusivity". It basically puts a "seal" on religious revelation, now and in the future.

No other religion on earth makes this assertion. (Or at least, the ones that do, have either died out, or are in the process of dying out).

But it does affect Islamic politics. If Muhammad was the last true prophet, then whatever he said must be authoritative, and whatever presriptions he delivered in the sphere of politics must also be authoritative.

And it has an even subtler and more insidious effect. It leads to the controversy over ijtihad (which means something along the lines of "new interpretation"). If you believe that your particular "version" of Islam (Sunni, Shi'a, Salafi, or whatever) is the "right" one, then you can easily see how the closure of ijtihad might cause political conflicts.

Here's a primer on ijtihad: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ijtihad

But the root of this idea, is in the assertion that Islam is "complete and final". Because without that assertion, the controversy over ijtihad couldn't possibly be as intense as it is. If there could ever be another legitimate prophet after Muhammad, then ijtihad would be a "given", and there would be no need for closure.

This, in essence, is the fundamental fallacy of Islam. And it is also a big part of what makes it "strong" as a religion. But, it's also a big part of what holds it back as a religion. Without ijtihad, Islam will remain forever the underdog, without hope for any new revelation.

Of course, Muslims will claim they don't "need" a new revelation - but it seems to me that this would be something along the lines of cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.

Thoughts?

This place wreaks of Islamophobia.

__________________
“Capitalism cannot reform itself; it is doomed to self-destruction. No universal selfishness can bring social good to all.” —Dr. W.E.B. Du Bois

no it wreaks of the truth

__________________
"People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people." -V