The two faces of Islam.

[Ned]

I find it amusing that in the whole thread no one discusses the distinct differences between Christ and Mohammed and focuses instead on the OT vs. the Kuran.

Christ and Mohammed were polar opposites. So is Christianity and Islam.

[Shi Huangdi]

"How so? Christians were strict fundamentalists until the 1600s, in general. "

Of course, but the structure of Christianity itself was more suscepcitble to change. Christianity has no scripture with supreme authority over all.

"And it was the Protestants (without the rigid church system you claim is positive) that finally broke the mold, not the Catholics."

You are putting words in my mouth. Where in that post did I say the Catholic/Anglican scripture is positive!? I merely said that in those two group, which account for large numbers of Christianity today, the church structure meant that the bible was not the sole authority on matters on faith, hence less weight to scripture is given in those two denominations. And hence Islamic commands to kill the unbelievers in the Koran says more about their religion then God killing unbelievers in the Old Testament.

[Capt Dizle]

Its very simple really. Whether Christain or Islamic, religious fundamentalists are ripe to be misled into radical actions by leaders that have no faith or morals, but are evil egotistical tyrants rampaging toward their own ends. Religion isn't evil, people are.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ned


That was a pope to promised those who died in the crusades a place in heaven. That was more than 1000 years after Christ. If it marked a change from "turn the other cheek," then I ask when did Islam have the same change, but in the opposite direction. When did peaceful co-existence with the Infidel become the norm?

I note that Islamic armies (Turkish) continued to assault Europe until just a few hundred years ago, the Moguls in India did not give up power until the last century, IIRC.

Where-ever you see a non Islamic people bordering or being the dominant culture in a nation, you tend to see either war or terrorism. What does this mean other than than Islam has never, ever been a peaceful religion.

Ok, if Crusades were too long ago because you say that Christianity has evolved since then, how about as recently as the late nineteenth century -- the period when European nations found it distasteful to be honest about their reasons for colonizing and enslaving Africa in the form of rubber and cotton plantations, and diamond mines??

Instead, they said they were colonizing Africa to spread the benefits of Christianity.
All you have to do, is read the history of Belgium's King Leopold's colonial policies in the Congo to see charitable, nurturing Christianity at work.

Is Christianity the religion that should be singled out for bashing?
No -- and no religion should be bashed, but know that ALL religions, and not just Islam, have dark periods in their history.

[Ned]

MrFun, Even in Roman times, pagan women were burned at the stake or otherwise executed as witches. This represents the dark underbelly of Christianity that one can only wish never occurred. Charlemagne gave the Saxons the choice of converting or dying. It is interesting to see how a "peaceful" religion became perverted once it became associated with the state.

Islam started as the state power and was forcefully spread by the state. For the most part, countries with Islamic majorities have no concept of separation of church and state. Turkey is an exception, the only one that I can think of at the moment.

There was a very interesting story on the news concerning Palestine. The Hamas leader was said to be contemplating co-existence with Israel. But as to the Palestinian state, his view was that it had to be an Islamic republic, with mullah's like himself in ultimate control.

Separation of church and state is critical to keeping religions, such as Christianity and Islam peaceful. Perahps that should be our policy focus, rather than whether a religion is fundamentalist or not or whether it is peaceful or not.

[Imran Siddiqui]

the Moguls in India did not give up power until the last century

Excuse me? It would be hard for the Moguls to have power when the British ruled India.

And when the Moguls were in charge of India, it was the greatest period of Hindu-Muslim cooperation. A few Mogul rulers even took Hindu's as their wives.

Separation of church and state is critical to keeping religions, such as Christianity and Islam peaceful.

Of course, but go back to 1400 Christianity and see if 'seperation of church and state' would have made much headway there.

For the most part, countries with Islamic majorities have no concept of separation of church and state. Turkey is an exception, the only one that I can think of at the moment.

Iraq before the Gulf War (and even to some extent today) was a secular state. Pakistan has a seperation of church and state, as does Indonesia. Granted Iraq and Pakistan has military dictatorships, but they are secular.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ned

Separation of church and state is critical to keeping religions, such as Christianity and Islam peaceful. Perahps that should be our policy focus, rather than whether a religion is fundamentalist or not or whether it is peaceful or not.

But this is a kind of Western, secular culture biased thinking.
We ASSUME that what you have said above, is the best way for religion and government to co-exist because it has worked well with European and American nations.

But with other cultures that do not share the heritage of Western culture, I believe that it is possible for such groups of people to yet find a way for a government that has an official state religion, to tolerate other religions within their nation.
Just because they have not found a way to make this work in their own political/religious culture, does not mean that in the future, the possibility cannot happen.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Frogger
ck, the prerogative to kill lies in God's hands alone in the Quran too, if we're going to interpret it as broadly as that.

And I also seem to remember the Quran making direct statements against murdering other "peoples of the book" (Christians+Jews) because of their persistence of belief...and against conversion by the sword.

Yes you are right Frogger. It does make contradictory statements that a good Muslim must both be peaceful & accepting of other groups and that they must kill these other groups. Thus you have to two faces of Islam.

The problem with the debate between the peaceful Islamists & the Fundamentalists is that both sides are correct in what they read in the Koran. It just depends on which part you choice to read.

This dual nature of the Islamic religion is a prime reason why the Fundamentalist danger will be with us for a long, long time.

[KrazyHorse]

And so does Christianity. Christ comes to bring a sword, not peace...but he that lives by the sword shall die by it.

[dunk]

Originally posted by MrFun

I believe that it is possible for such groups of people to yet find a way for a government that has an official state religion, to tolerate other religions within their nation.

But would these other-religion people be treated the same as state religion followers? How could they be? In a theocracy, the leaders would be influential members of the religion. How could a Hindu gain any kind of power in a Muslim state? Some religions have practices which offend other religions. How would this co-exist when the power of the state rests with one of the religions?

Toleration may be possible, but if your country has a state religion, you have a situation where second-class citizens exist. And that can't lead to good things.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by dunk

Toleration may be possible, but if your country has a state religion, you have a situation where second-class citizens exist. And that can't lead to good things.

I definitely prefer to live in a secular republic/democracy than in a theocracy any day.

But, it is possible for a theocracy to have an official religion without denying the people of other religions, their equal rights and protection.
Unfortunately, thus far, many theocracies have failed to attain this ideal possibility.

[dunk]

Originally posted by MrFun
I definitely prefer to live in a secular republic/democracy than in a theocracy any day.

Me too.

Originally posted by MrFun
But, it is possible for a theocracy to have an official religion without denying the people of other religions, their equal rights and protection.
Unfortunately, thus far, many theocracies have failed to attain this ideal possibility.

In a country where the people feel strongly enough about their religion to make it their government, I don't see how another religion can function or how followers of the second religion can function as equal to the first religion. By naming a state religion, you are endorsing one and saying it is the best.

[Ned]

Originally posted by MrFun

But, it is possible for a theocracy to have an official religion without denying the people of other religions, their equal rights and protection.
.

Name one that has a clean record over history.

I think what is in theory possible in reality is not.

[November Adam]

One thing I noticed after talking with my Muslim boss regarding instant passage into paradise. It is based on works that anyone would do. Ex: dieing defending your home, or your family. This is a basic animal instinct. So would a non-muslim who dies defending his home go to paradise? Just a question.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Faeelin


The problem is that the rest of the world's religions have moved beyond the "kill everyone who isn't one of us stage."

Islam has REGRESSED from being the civilization which gave us modern science to what it is today.

Islam hasn't done anything, its an idea. Neither have Islamic countries regressed: unless letting McDonalds in is seen as a sign of regression. What has happened in the last 25 years is the growth of utopian Islamist political groups who have taken a fundamentalist version of islam around for centuries and are trying to institute it as the solution to the problems of modernization, which many of the secular, authoritarian regimes, both from left and right, in the muslim world, had failed to solve from the 50's to 70's.