Islamic Iconoclasm

[AEON]

but any and all religions are legal. Women have equal rights with men. Hell, they've even had a female head of state, something we Americans can't say.

Thank your for this information Verte. Hopefully it is the a sign of the future for all countries that are not currently in such a state. We can only pray and hope, right?

 

[financeguy]

Jesus - Life was dedicated to Love
Mohammed - Life was consumed by war

Given that you pride yourself on being 'well versed' on the Bible, it's interesting that you have ignored Jesus's quote about coming to bring a sword to the world.

That said I agree with your statement that Islam is the essence of intolerance.

 

[verte76]

Huh? Islam being the essence of intolerance? Hardly. Take a look at this link about a Muslim who could have invented the Coexist campaign.

http://www.mevlana.net/

 

[A_Wanderer]

Yes for people of the book, he is hardly the rule in the history of Islam - which is really quite a brilliant meme for Arab culture.

 

[AEON]

Huh? Islam being the essence of intolerance? Hardly. Take a look at this link about a Muslim who could have invented the Coexist campaign.

http://www.mevlana.net/

Interesting link. Is he Sufi? I have always been a bit fascinated by Sufi Muslims. Gnosticism in general still fascinates me. Unfortunately, they have been on the receiving end of a few genocides...

 

[verte76]

The terms "Arab" and "Muslim" are hardly synonymous. The Turks are not Arabs. The Iranians are not Arabs. The Pakistanis are not Arabs. Additionally only 18% of the world's Muslims live in what is loosely considered the Middle East. So let's not get confused about this.

 

[verte76]

Interesting link. Is he Sufi? I have always been a bit fascinated by Sufi Muslims. Gnosticism in general still fascinates me. Unfortunately, they have been on the receiving end of a few genocides...

Yes, Mevlana was Sufi. Everyone, Muslim, Jew, Christian, and yes, atheist alike was always welcome at his place. I've been to his mausoleum and plan on making the journey again.

 

[yolland]

I'm bumping this up with some trepidation, because I'd really rather not see its discussion topic continued at all at this point. But, this thread has touched a deep nerve with a couple folks in ways I don't think the people who upset them really intended, and I feel like I need to address that here.

(Please note, the posters quoted below are NOT synonymous with the parties referred to above--I just chose these quotes because they're as good a segueway as any into what I wanted to say.)

Man...where are all the critics of the Quran? I mean, if you post something from the Bible - within minutes you receive a half dozen attacks about the Scripture.

AEON I understand your frustration. There are certainly a lot of contentious, highly charged debates relating to Christian(s)/-ity in here, and while most stay substantial, if heated, I think we can all acknowledge that they sometimes descend into petty recriminations and preachiness (not necessarily the religious variety). When that happens it can really cut deep on all sides, and I think the damage done is often more across-the-board than most of us realize. I will do my best to call out the most obvious wrongs when they happen (though I see I did manage to miss a snipe or two I should've caught in this thread, for which I apologize)--but, ultimately, there's only so much I can do to regulate the kind of deep-seated conflicts at work here.

I hope we can all try a little harder to not lose sight of the underlying camaraderie and mutual respect that makes our discussions here worth coming back for. I don't want to get all preachy about this, but please, guys--keep in mind that at the end of the day, whatever evil it is that you see fundamentalist politicians/opportunistic oppositionists/savage media pundits/etc. wreaking in the world around you, the poster you're debating with right now is NOT the enemy incarnate; they're just a friend, a colleague of sorts or at the very least, simply an opportunity to learn something, who checks in here for pretty much the same reasons and with pretty much the same hopes that you do. (And if you need a little inspiration to revive your flagging enthusiasm, maybe check out Irvine's wonderful "...change the world..." thread.)

Now...that said, and to return to AEON's quote...while I don't object as a moderator to the approach you took in this thread, AEON (i.e., it certainly breaks no forum rules), I have to say I do question whether it could ever work as a way to promote the sort of discussion you--or A_Wanderer, for that matter--probably intended. Not just for reasons I'll discuss below in response to nb's comment, but also because it occurred to me in reading through your Koran posts that if I came in here and saw someone tossing down a similar gauntlet, only from the Old Testament--collecting all the most violent, or xenophobic, or virulently sexist posts, which I'll freely acknowledge would be easy enough to do...then frankly, I think I would just shrink back, click out, and slink quietly away, concluding that here is someone who already has their mind so made up--and is probably, in truth, giving voice to the underlying judgment of enough others in here--that there's nothing I could really say that wouldn't come off as rote apologetics of the lamest sort.

I realize this may sound very hypocritical in light of what you've just pointed out about Christianity threads. And in some ways it probably is. But may I just suggest that in a social sense, this hypothetical would be quite different in that--so far as I know--I am really the only frequent Jewish poster in here. I would not have the confidence of knowing that there at least a couple people I could count on to substantially back me up--or maybe even more likely, lol, transform it into a ferocious factional debate between Jews who disagree completely with each other about the "correct" Jewish interpretations of various things. Can you understand how the latter is different from feeling totally alone? It at least affirms the fundamental awareness and social legitimacy of what you "belong" to in a way that being the token apologist cannot.

I'm not claiming that everyone would react in this way. If some outspoken Muslim, or Jew, or bona fide expert on either has more psychological stamina than I do, and really thrives on such a challenge--well, more power to them. But I think most would not, and that concerns me, because while I don't think anyone deserves kid-gloves treatment around here, I do want everyone to at least feel like they needn't fear being nailed alone to the wall and maybe even humiliated in front of everybody. You never know who might be reading what you say.

It is not unusual for a thread on Islam to get a quick, unrelated interjection on Christianity "for balance".

I took a couple minutes to trace the trajectory of the discussion in this thread, and I have to disagree with you--if you meant to suggest that that's what happened here (and if not, see below). What I saw was first iron horse, then AEON, interjecting unfavorable comparisons of Islam to Christianity into the thread, followed by critical responses from posters who disagreed with either this approach, or the claims made about Christianity, or both. I agree that what resulted was neither pretty nor (with some notable exceptions) particularly productive, but I can't agree that "for balance-ing"--at least in the sense I think you meant that--was what provoked the spats here.

Or perhaps the point you're making was simply that AEON's strategy was no worse than someone tossing in a caustic aside about Christians in a similarly-themed thread. If so, I agree to a point, and while it would be overzealous of me to go after every "quick interjection," I can certainly promise to watch for out-and-out derailments along those lines in the future. (Actually, I'm pretty sure I have closed at least one thread for this precise reason at some point...but, my apologies if I've missed some others.) And again, I would appeal to everyone to practice a little more self-restraint in this regard--it really is just not that difficult to avoid taking potshots; even if someone else started it, you can always just politely call them on that, rather than returning fire. "Do unto others..."

I think AEON would agree, though, that what he was going for here was something considerably more systematic than that. And I've already addressed that issue above.

------------------------------------------------------------------

So...anyways...I really am tempted to just lock this one up--but, in case anyone else wants to offer their own post-mortem perspective (constructive and polite suggestions only, please), I think I may just leave it open for now. (And I'm sorry for inviting further digressions, A_W...but, I'm afraid this one was already terminally derailed anyhow.)


~ Peace All...

 

[Irvine511]

God will be trump for those who seek God. The state, ideal, cause or other belief will be trump for those who put that first in their lives.

and the fact that 90% or so of people on the planet believe in God should make it clear that God, for most people, will trump the state, and the fact that states tend to have earthly, more practical goals -- economic or military success, perhaps, not salvation and eternity.

I understand your feeling that religion is unique. I'd ask, is religion unique as a motivator, or is it only unique for the negative motivations?

it's a unique motivator -- it's potential for apocalyptic destruction is matched by it's potential for near infinite kindness.

 

[AEON]

Now...that said, and to return to AEON's quote...while I don't object as a moderator to the approach you took in this thread, AEON (i.e., it certainly breaks no forum rules), I have to say I do question whether it could ever work as a way to promote the sort of discussion you--or A_Wanderer, for that matter--probably intended. Not just for reasons I'll discuss below in response to nb's comment, but also because it occurred to me in reading through your Koran posts that if I came in here and saw someone tossing down a similar gauntlet, only from the Old Testament--collecting all the most violent, or xenophobic, or virulently sexist posts, which I'll freely acknowledge would be easy enough to do...then frankly, I think I would just shrink back, click out, and slink quietly away, concluding that here is someone who already has their mind so made up--and is probably, in truth, giving voice to the underlying judgment of enough others in here--that there's nothing I could really say that wouldn't come off as rote apologetics of the lamest sort.

Believe me, I know which OT passages fit the bill - I once e-mailed a list of about 40 such items to a pastor and demanded an answer. That answer is outside the bounds of this discussion but I did touch on it in another thread. Basically, he did challenge me to find a NT equivalent. If I could not, then it was something set forth in a particular place and time (ceremonial laws, protecting the actual nation of Israel...etc - that is a very huge generalization I know, and I could go on further but I will stay on the point). However, I do understand your point that someone posting such things probably already has their mind made up. And yes, I probably do - but I can be convinced to change it in the same way my mind was changed by a pastor regarding the more troubling OT passages.

The original post was a story about intolerance. At least that was how I read it. My point is, and still is, that the Quran actually teaches extreme intolerance. Yes, Christianity does teach us to spread the Word and make disciples of all the nations, which can be seen as a form of intolerance – but nowhere in the NT are we commanded to do this violently. We are to love people to Christ, not scare them to Him. (Not a tactic everyone uses I agree, but that is a failure of Christians, not the NT)

I do agree, however, that the posts from the Quran I made are probably not productive – and perhaps my intentions were not pure. I am still praying about that. But I still wish someone could put them into context for me. I would like to be wrong about them, especially considering I have a seven-year-old daughter that I want to have equal access to an educated life and a 13 month old son I want to experience the same religious freedom I have had.

 

[AliEnvy]

But I still wish someone could put them into context for me.

Perhaps we would all benefit from that perspective but if there are any Muslim U2 fans, they (understandably) don't hang around here.

Maybe mainstream Muslims disobey those violent aspects of the Quran the way Christians who support war disobey the peaceful aspects of the NT.

 

[AEON]

Maybe mainstream Muslims disobey those violent aspects of the Quran the way Christians who support war disobey the peaceful aspects of the NT.

So, according to this logic - the only way to have peace between Muslims and Christians if for Muslims to ignore their Scripture and for Christians to actually obey theirs.

Oddly enough, I suspect you are right.

 

[Irvine511]

^ wow.

 

[BVS]

My point is, and still is, that the Quran actually teaches extreme intolerance.

More than conservative Christianity?

Perhaps we would all benefit from that perspective but if there are any Muslim U2 fans, they (understandably) don't hang around here.

Well there are a few but their visits are sporadic, understandibly so given threads like this.

 

[maycocksean]

it's a unique motivator -- it's potential for apocalyptic destruction is matched by it's potential for near infinite kindness.

Irvine, I believe you've convinced me on this point. I know we argued about it a few threads back. I started really thinking about it, and you are right--there is an inherent danger in religion. I guess, I took that to mean that religion is inherently evil (a sentiment I imagine that some posters agree with) which is why I fought back so vigorously then.

But I see what you're saying. Anyone who claims
access to Absolute Truth, has the potential to do great harm. One had better hope that Asolute Truth is Love otherwise we've got a problem.

I guess where I end up is that religion is neither inherently good or inherently bad (though there are inherently helpful and dangerous things about it). It just is. Those of us who are believers have to decide whether our practice of faith is good, whether it lives up to love.

This is a quote by one of the founders of my denomination, a woman named Ellen White. I don't agree with her on everything she ever said or wrote but I do believe this:

"Religion, like all things else, was a matter of authority. The people were expected to believe and practice as their superiors directed. The right of man as man to think and act for himself was wholly unrecognized. Christ was establishing a kingdom on different principles. He called men not to authority but to service, the strong to bear the infirmities of the weak. Power, position, talent, education, placed their possessor under a greater obligation to serve his fellows. . . .In matters of conscience the soul must be left untrammeled. No one is to control another's mind, to judge another, or prescribe his duty. God gives every soul freedom to think, and to follow his own convictions."

Obviously Christianity has done a terrible job of living up to these ideals. Every time religion becomes a "matter of authority" (which is so easy to do when you believe that you have elite access to Ultimate Absolute Truth) religion has become a horror in this world.

As to where this thread has gone. It is absolutely wrong, wrong, and wrong to seek to stop "the spread of Islam" especially by military means (note the this is distinct from stopping the spread of violent terrorists motivated by their views of Islam. We must oppose violence and the killing of innocents regardless of what the "motivating beliefs" for it are). The analogy of Nazism and Islam does not add up. The Nazis made it clear what their beliefs were. There was no "majority" of Nazis saying "Oh no, that business of the Aryan superrace and anti-Semitism is not what we're about. That's just a misreading of Mein Kampf and taking it out of context." The FACT is that the MAJORITY of Muslims insist that the radical interpretations of Islam such as practiced by the terrorists is wrong. I think we need to accept the majority interpretation of Islam at face value.

ANY time we start saying that a particular group of people, a particular belief system, MUST be stopped at all costs we are treading on very, very dangerous ground.

 

[yolland]

My point is, and still is, that the Quran actually teaches extreme intolerance. Yes, Christianity does teach us to spread the Word and make disciples of all the nations, which can be seen as a form of intolerance – but nowhere in the NT are we commanded to do this violently. We are to love people to Christ, not scare them to Him. (Not a tactic everyone uses I agree, but that is a failure of Christians, not the NT)

I do agree, however, that the posts from the Quran I made are probably not productive – and perhaps my intentions were not pure.

It's not for me to judge the purity of your intentions, but I will admit I'm still having trouble wrapping my mind around what exactly they were. Certainly I can understand asking--because I've done it countless times myself--"You know, I frankly found this particular passage highly unsettling; can you explain it to me as you understand it--as you might personally apply it?" But I would not expect the answer to illuminate much more for me than an ideal that person aspired to in the abstract...and perhaps a useful new perspective or two for me to incorporate into my own thinking. To assess how dangerous or intolerant or generous or broad-minded they actually were, I would have to observe their behavior. And, as already mentioned, I'd be especially wary about making predictions of (huge, staggeringly diversified) groups' behavior based on collective commitment (whatever that might look like; how would we gauge the form and extent of it, anyway?) to living out the principles of some one-size-fits-all(?) text.

You also talk about a "failure of Christians, not the NT" which, again, I don't really understand--would you likewise diagnose a success of Christians, not the NT, if you concluded that a given group of them was living the Gospels precisely as they were meant to be lived? and who gets to decide what constitutes that? and by what method would you then go about ensuring that all Christians executed this one, foolproof interpretation of that master program "successfully"--and if there really isn't one, how meaningfully can you then claim moral superiority for whichever code of conduct supposedly follows from it? By getting into employing relative measures, gradients of goodness of some kind--how? who decides? what's the measure and who takes it?

Arguing that the Bible, in and of itself, contains transcendent truths about the nature of God, or the one proper object of faith which/who grants salvation, or maybe even the ultimate purpose of life...these kinds of claims, I can understand; if one grants in principle that such things exist, it seems plausible enough that they might be adequately contained in a book. But...that it could also encode some sort of precise, infallible recipe for living that is always and everywhere guaranteed, when followed "successfully," to result in better, nobler, safer, gentler individuals and societies...that claim, I don't understand at all. To put it in an extreme way--if studying the NT can't guarantee such results, then what good is it? I am certain you didn't mean to suggest that it could. And yet, by demanding Muslims prove to you that their analogous guidelines won't result in individuals and societies that epitomize "the very essence of intolerance," that is exactly how you seem to be implying religious-text-based ethical systems work. Muhammad killed people to achieve certain aims and was OK with that, Jesus didn't and wasn't, therefore the followers of Muhammad are always and everywhere more likely to kill, and the followers of Jesus always and everywhere less so....?? Prove that every single last corrupt or bloody or cruel episode in the history and present of Christendom that we could possibly come up with was/is some sort of preventable (if we only got that interpretation right) anomaly that will never happen again...and I guarantee you, you would have the entire world brought around to your side in very short order. I sure could not prove the same for my own religion, and wouldn't even begin to try.

(I'm not expecting you to actually answer all these questions, lol. I'm pretty much just puzzling out loud at this point.)

 

[AliEnvy]

Well there are a few but their visits are sporadic, understandibly so given threads like this.

That's unfortunate...it would be huge to have a couple of Muslim versions of Melon and Irvine around here to stem the fear and hatred of Islam.

I would add more to that but now that I read that sentence again all I can think about is a certain SNL animated series...

 

[AEON]

[

You also talk about a "failure of Christians, not the NT" which, again, I don't really understand--would you likewise diagnose a success of Christians, not the NT, if you concluded that a given group of them was living the Gospels precisely as they were meant to be lived?

During our lifetime on earth, being Christlike is a process and will not fully be realized until after death. Essentially, it is impossible for any Christian to achieve “perfection” in this lifetime. However, I would diagnose a group of Christians that have achieved a high level of Christlikeness (as defined in the NT) as a “success.” Not a complete success, but still a success. Again, this would be my personal assessment – which you asked for. So how would I know who is more Christlike? How would I make such an assessment? I think the Paul gives me that “measuring stick” – and it is called the Fruits of the Spirit:

Galatians 5:22-23 “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control”

So – if a group of Christians collectively and continuously (even if not perfectly) demonstrated these traits, then I would say these people are a “success” with the hope of even “more success” as they continue to grow into the image of Christ. Again, Christ is the standard, and He is the goal.

Paul also gives me a way to know if I am “floundering” in my walk, that is, acting out of the sinful nature, not the Christlike nature. It is not a judgment of my salvation, but it does point out where I am at in the process of the Christian walk. This is from a passage just before he describes the fruit of the Spirit:

Galatians 5:19-21 “The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like.”

So, if a group of Christians lived like this, despite their claims of Christianity, would not be adhering to the NT principles successfully – in my opinion.

To put it in an extreme way--if studying the NT can't guarantee such results, then what good is it?

No, studying the NT cannot guarantee the results in this lifetime, but that is only a small part of the story. Again, Christ is the goal. (In other words, perfection so that we may have access to God and Heaven is the goal) Because we cannot achieve the goal “in this lifetime” does not negate the goal.

and who gets to decide what constitutes that?

Only God truly has the final answer on this. But he does grant us the opportunity to minister to each other and correct each other. As long as the goal is to build up into Christlikeness.

and by what method would you then go about ensuring that all Christians executed this one, foolproof interpretation of that master program "successfully"--and if there really isn't one, how meaningfully can you then claim moral superiority for whichever code of conduct supposedly follows from it?

It is impossible to ensure that all Christians are fully Christlike at any given point in time. It is a process and each individual is at a different state in their own walk. Again the “code” is there in the Galatians passages. The claim that it is morally superior is not mine, but God’s as written by Paul.

By getting into employing relative measures, gradients of goodness of some kind--how? who decides? what's the measure and who takes it?

I hope I already answered this above regarding Galatians.

And yet, by demanding Muslims prove to you that their analogous guidelines won't result in individuals and societies that epitomize "the very essence of intolerance," that is exactly how you seem to be implying religious-text-based ethical systems work. Muhammad killed people to achieve certain aims and was OK with that, Jesus didn't and wasn't, therefore the followers of Muhammad are always and everywhere more likely to kill, and the followers of Jesus always and everywhere less so....??

My argument remains. If, in theory, EVERY person in a society fully and perpetually demonstrated Chrislikeness (love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control) – then you would have a loving, joyful, peaceful, patient, kind, good, faithful, gentle, and self-controlling society.

However, if, in theory, EVERY person in a society fully and perpetually demonstrated the example of Mohammed…well, you will get a society that acts and behaves as Mohammed did.

Prove that every single last corrupt or bloody or cruel episode in the history and present of Christendom that we could possibly come up with was/is some sort of preventable (if we only got that interpretation right) anomaly that will never happen again...

In theory, if every Christian modeled Christ 100% - there never would have been any atrocities committed in the name of Christ, nor would it ever happen again. The fact that this does happen is an indictment of people, not of the New Testament or Jesus Christ. It is the NON-APPLICATION of Christianity that is the problem, not the application of it.

and I guarantee you, you would have the entire world brought around to your side in very short order.

Well, I do hope it is the “Message of Christ” that does spread throughout the whole world, not “Christendom.”

(I'm not expecting you to actually answer all these questions, lol. I'm pretty much just puzzling out loud at this point.)

I gave it a shot

 

[AEON]

ANY time we start saying that a particular group of people, a particular belief system, MUST be stopped at all costs we are treading on very, very dangerous ground.

Just for the record - I called on fighting this on a spiritual and intellectual level. I do not necessarily equate that to "at all costs." Nor do I see anyone else advocating an "at all costs" solution

 

[BVS]

Nor do I see anyone else advocating an "at all costs" solution

No, I haven't seen many an "at all costs", but I have seen many "Christians" that call this a holy war and advocate it 100%.

 

[AEON]

No, I haven't seen many an "at all costs", but I have seen many "Christians" that call this a holy war and advocate it 100%.

I actually was referring to posts in this forum. However, I would like to point out that the concept of a Christian Holy War is not taught in the NT. Any "Christian" claiming and supporting this is not doing so based on Scripture.

The only thing which even closely resembles thic concept is "Judgement Day, End of days, Apocalypse" stuff - which is not for us to carry out but God's.

 

[BVS]

I actually was referring to posts in this forum. However, I would like to point out that the concept of a Christian Holy War is not taught in the NT. Any "Christian" claiming and supporting this is not doing so based on Scripture.

The only thing which even closely resembles thic concept is "Judgement Day, End of days, Apocalypse" stuff - which is not for us to carry out but God's.

Well I agree there is no scripture basis. But there have been a handful of people preaching it from the pulpit Fallwell, Robertson, Hagee, and they've all used scripture. I don't have time to look it up, but my point is that these people have big followings and as an outsider looking in, these pieces of scripture and preachings can be percieved just as "the very essence of intolerance" as you percieve the Muslim religion.

 

[maycocksean]

In my opinion, it seems the political left should be doing everything in its power to stop the spread of this religion and way of thinking.

I believe this was the statement that prompted my comment about "at any cost." Apparently that is not what you meant, but that was what seemed to be implied. That and the comment about Nazism (which was defeated through military means) and the part about Religion X landing on our shores. All seemed to imply that this is a religion that must be "stopped." That was the concern I had.

I tend to try to read between the lines, and granted I sometimes get it wrong.

 

[verte76]

This phrase "Islam is the essence of intolerance" disturbs me, too. I was in Turkey with a Muslim tour guide who knew more about St. Paul than some Christians do. We were going some places in Paul's very footsteps. He was born in what is now Turkey, in fact.

 

[AEON]

I believe this was the statement that prompted my comment about "at any cost." Apparently that is not what you meant, but that was what seemed to be implied. That and the comment about Nazism (which was defeated through military means) and the part about Religion X landing on our shores. All seemed to imply that this is a religion that must be "stopped." That was the concern I had.

I tend to try to read between the lines, and granted I sometimes get it wrong.

The comment about the political left was an attempt to point out what I perceive to be hypocrisy - that is, the political left seems to not be critical of Islam even though they are, in my opinion, less tolerant of classic liberal causes than Christians.

The Nazi comparison was to demonstrate the logic behind defending against those with a "convert or die" attitude. A weak comparison is some regards. The essential point I was trying to posit was this - if any group of people with a "convert or die" religion, whatever religion it was, actually swept across this country forcing people to either convert or die – should that be stopped? My answer is yes, although nobody else seemed to want to tackle this issue.

Currently, there are no Muslims (or any other group) sweeping across this country with a “convert or die” military campaign. My fight with Islam is no different than a secular humanists fight with Christianity – as a secular humanist points out the perceived flaws in the Christian religion, I am pointing out the perceived flaws I find in the Muslim religion. I believe in freedom; and I believe that men and women should be free to choose Muslim, Judaism, Christianity, Secular Humanism, Hinduism…etc, as their personal religion. Is the enemy of such freedom not the very essence of intolerance?

 

[Judah]

...I believe in freedom; and I believe that men and women should be free to choose Muslim, Judaism, Christianity, Secular Humanism, Hinduism…etc, as their personal religion. Is the enemy of such freedom not the very essence of intolerance?

Total religious freedom is possible in Islam. It's all dependent upon how progressive the religion's leaders and Muslim countries' governments become and how progressively they interpret the Koran (and if they can stay away from Sharia Law, which seems to keep evolving through strict/fundamentalist interpretations of Islamic traditions). Sadly, you don't see too many examples of world-wide change, but it's never a hopeless situation.

I think everyone should read this article below. Provides some good context, looking at the positives and negatives of Islam's approach to "religious freedom." [Though it doesn't explain why, historically, Dhimmis (non-Muslims) in Muslim countries were levied a poll-tax. Muslims have to pay zakat (10% of annual income to go toward charity or the poor). The poll tax, I believe, was to ensure all the Muslim countries' populations contributed equally to the poor.]


http://www.forum18.org/Archive.php?article_id=227

 

[AliEnvy]

The comment about the political left was an attempt to point out what I perceive to be hypocrisy - that is, the political left seems to not be critical of Islam even though they are, in my opinion, less tolerant of classic liberal causes than Christians.

Maybe people are less willing to jump on a general purpose Muslim bashing bandwagon about a religion and lifestyle they know little about and for the most part has little impact on their daily lives. Particularly when all they are exposed to revolves around fundamentalist fear-mongering bullshit that really only serves the political agendas of those who wish to manipulate the masses...from both sides.

Sure we could sit here and pick apart the Quran and condemn the conservative Muslim lifestyle from our own little myopic, superior western Christian viewpoints...but without a counterpoint what would be the purpose? It would just end up a discussion that perpetuates fear and loathing...NOT understanding.

Is that hypocritical?

 

[yolland]

The Nazi comparison was to demonstrate the logic behind defending against those with a "convert or die" attitude. A weak comparison is some regards. The essential point I was trying to posit was this - if any group of people with a "convert or die" religion, whatever religion it was, actually swept across this country forcing people to either convert or die – should that be stopped? My answer is yes, although nobody else seemed to want to tackle this issue.

Currently, there are no Muslims (or any other group) sweeping across this country with a “convert or die” military campaign. My fight with Islam is no different than a secular humanists fight with Christianity – as a secular humanist points out the perceived flaws in the Christian religion, I am pointing out the perceived flaws I find in the Muslim religion. I believe in freedom; and I believe that men and women should be free to choose Muslim, Judaism, Christianity, Secular Humanism, Hinduism…etc, as their personal religion. Is the enemy of such freedom not the very essence of intolerance?

Now I am probably beginning to sound like a broken record--but, from my POV, here you are once again distinguishing between "religion" as abstract set of ideals (i.e. sacred texts) and religion as sociocultural and historic phenomenon in ways that I just can't see as legitimate. If I understand you correctly, you are basically describing imperialism here. But of course BOTH Islam and Christianity became the global religions they are today through precisely that--regardless of what the Koran and the Bible might or might not seem to endorse about it. Christianity was established in Europe via Roman imperialism, then much later, in the Americas via European imperialism. That's not to say every last pagan convert did so at swordpoint...but then the same is true about the spread of Islam. In view of that it seems meaningless to me to argue that Islam is, in some ultimate and irrevocable way, in fact any more of a "convert or die" religion than Christianity is. You can only get so much mileage out of that "But they weren't true Christians" argument...and really, why would you want to? Would you actually prefer it if Christianity was still essentially a small Mediterranean sect?

Perhaps a deeper problem running beneath all this is that, if you believe one particular religion to possess the one correct truth about the afterlife, ultimately you are not really going to judge it by the same yardsticks you use to judge others. So that one religion is not ultimately expected to answer for how its followers behave in this world, even when these things contradict its own scriptures, because its "true ends" can safely be said to lie elsewhere...while meanwhile the scriptures of another religion (even one which also understands its "true ends" to lie elsewhere) are assumed to in fact dictate quite precisely how its followers can be expected to behave, as if no other outcome were imaginable--an assumption not made, or at the very least resisted, in the first case.

 

[yolland]

I think everyone should read this article below. Provides some good context, looking at the positives and negatives of Islam's approach to "religious freedom." [Though it doesn't explain why, historically, Dhimmis (non-Muslims) in Muslim countries were levied a poll-tax. Muslims have to pay zakat (10% of annual income to go toward charity or the poor). The poll tax, I believe, was to ensure all the Muslim countries' populations contributed equally to the poor.]

Great info, thanks.

Zakat sounds like it might well be a cognate for the Hebrew tzedaka, which stipulates precisely the same thing. Do you happen to know if zakat has the dual meaning in Arabic, as tzedaka does in Hebrew, of "justice"?

 

[BVS]

The comment about the political left was an attempt to point out what I perceive to be hypocrisy - that is, the political left seems to not be critical of Islam even though they are, in my opinion, less tolerant of classic liberal causes than Christians.

The Nazi comparison was to demonstrate the logic behind defending against those with a "convert or die" attitude. A weak comparison is some regards. The essential point I was trying to posit was this - if any group of people with a "convert or die" religion, whatever religion it was, actually swept across this country forcing people to either convert or die – should that be stopped? My answer is yes, although nobody else seemed to want to tackle this issue.

But here's the hypocricy and irony that you aren't grasping. Here in America Muslims aren't trying to force their beliefs into the political arena, guess who is? Guess who's closest to the convert of die religion here in the states?

But let's look at this from a worldwide view, how many Muslims approach their religion with this "convert or die" mentality? Small percentage.

Your posts come off as incredibly bad generalizations.