The two faces of Islam.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Oerdin


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.

This problem exists in all monotheistic relegions. Chirst says to forgive and forget, to turn the other cheek, yet in other parts of the bible we are told to strike down gods enemies: the two faces of christianity.

The problem in Islam is not a contadiction is peace vs. war, again, Judaism and Christanity both have it. The problem with Islam is the relation of Islam to political power. Because poltics and islam are more closely linked than politics and Christianity it is much easier intelectualy to envision a theocratic Muslim state than a theocratic Christian one with real temporal powers, which is why political fundamentalism in Islam seeks more temporal power than political fundamentalism of Christian origin.

[JCG]

The OT and the NT must be viewed as separate parts of the bible written/inspired under different circumstances, meaning that even if most christians accept both as valid, there is a progression as the NT essentially overrides any contradictions between it and the OT. Keep that in mind when you compare the punishing OT "God" and the more forgiving NT "God", very different perspectives are at work.

If someone thinks that the OT is much more important than the NT, they would be better off trying to convert to Judaism, AFAIK.

Regarding Islam once again, this religion regulates many more aspects of life than christianity does in general, therefore you can see a greater margin for maneuvering and interpretation, which has obviously tremendous consequences. There is greater room for contradictions than in Judaism and Christianity, even if both religions still obviously have them.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by dunk


Me too.



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.

All government officials would have to do, is allow for an official state religion, and provide an amendment in their constitution that explicitly protects people of other religions.

But to name a country that has done this in the past -- I cannot think of one.

[Imran Siddiqui]

How could a Hindu gain any kind of power in a Muslim state?

They did when the Moguls ruled India. And when the Muslims had their massive empire, Jews held great positions of power and at times were the chief advisor to the Sultan.

As for countries that have an official state religion and protects other people - England and Sweden both, technically, have state religions .

[GePap]

What is fundamentally missing from this thread is any sense of history. The Koran has not changed in 1000 years plus. So, anyone arguing that Islam is an inherently violent relegion becuase of its scriptures, should have also to show a long term, historical pattern showing the lands of Islam and its neighboring lands being more violent than those of christianity and their borderslands, not only for the past 30 years, but past 100, past 500.

So, for those arguing that the lands of Islam and the borderlands are hotbeds of violence, as Ned did, please show the same pattern in the year 1940, 1916, 1900, 1860, 1840, 1816, 1800 so forth. THe pattern should be there if this argument about Islam is true, since the dependent variable,the Koran, has not changed. Now, if such a pattern fails to be, then the explination for the current violence must lay with other factors than the Koran.

[dunk]

Originally posted by MrFun


All government officials would have to do, is allow for an official state religion, and provide an amendment in their constitution that explicitly protects people of other religions.

But to name a country that has done this in the past -- I cannot think of one.

Then what point is there in having a state religion? None. That amendment would effectively separate church and state.

[dunk]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

How could a Hindu gain any kind of power in a Muslim state?

They did when the Moguls ruled India. And when the Muslims had their massive empire, Jews held great positions of power and at times were the chief advisor to the Sultan.

As for countries that have an official state religion and protects other people - England and Sweden both, technically, have state religions .

Could a Hindu become a Mogul? Could a Jew become Sultan?

England's "state religion" is about as powerful as its monarch. No church officials have political power in England.

[Ned]

Originally posted by GePap
What is fundamentally missing from this thread is any sense of history. The Koran has not changed in 1000 years plus. So, anyone arguing that Islam is an inherently violent relegion becuase of its scriptures, should have also to show a long term, historical pattern showing the lands of Islam and its neighboring lands being more violent than those of christianity and their borderslands, not only for the past 30 years, but past 100, past 500.

So, for those arguing that the lands of Islam and the borderlands are hotbeds of violence, as Ned did, please show the same pattern in the year 1940, 1916, 1900, 1860, 1840, 1816, 1800 so forth. THe pattern should be there if this argument about Islam is true, since the dependent variable,the Koran, has not changed. Now, if such a pattern fails to be, then the explination for the current violence must lay with other factors than the Koran.

But there does seem to be a continuous pattern of violence - albeit not everywhere and not at all times. In the last two hundred years, the Christian (Jewish) countries have largely been more powerful than the Muslim countries, but there never really has been peace between the two camps - ever. Neither has there ever been peace between Muslim and Hindu. The Mogul rule in India was marked by continuous religious upheavals and revolts, IIRC. There never was peaceful co-existence. That pattern persists 'til this day.

For a long time, the Mongols kept the Christian Slavs and the Muslim south under "control." But once they lost control, there was been continuous expansion into Muslim areas by Christian Russia. At times there may have been peace in the Russian and USSR empires, but this was at the point of a gun. As soon as they could, the Islamic republics "revolted."

Chechenya's revolt against Russia is also about Muslim vs. others. Russia's recent counter-invasion was in response to Chechenya's Islamic warlord/defense minister invading neighboring Dagestan to spread radical Islam.

We all know about the godless USSR against the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan. That was a Jihad by the Mujahadeen.

Kasmir and the wars between Pakistan and India are all about Islam vs. Hinduism.

The violence in E. Timor was all about Muslim v. Christian.

Ditto the Phillipines.

The violence in Bosnia and Kosovo both have Islam as its root cause.

The revolts in East Turkestan (Xinjiang) against the Chinese has Islam at its roots.

I could go on, but to the extent that Islam (as a whole) was not continously expanding was only due to military defeats and lack of power or, as in the case of the Saud family, the radicals had served their purpose and could now be dealt with.

The point is, "radical" Islam is not a new phenomenon. It is inherent in Islam. It infests its host like a latent disease and bursts forth here and there from time to time. The fall of the Shah of Iran is one such "surprise."

To say this about Islam is not to deny that Christianity has at times been militarily aggressive. Certainly we all know about Charlemagne, the Crusades and the Spanish conquest (not colonization) of the New World. We also know of the 30-Years war and the continuous problems beween the Protestants and Catholics in Ireland. But, where the lines of separation between Church and State are made clear, such as in the United States, Christianity is "peaceful."

I suggest that Islam could be peaceful, but only if there is separation of church and state.

[Imran Siddiqui]

So you've taking a series of revolts and thus stated Islam is a violent religion . Can I thus state South and Central Americans are inherantly violent?

I could say the same about Europe seeing all the wars Europe went through, religious and non-religious. From the 30 Years War, you had numerous amounts of warfare. The reason why there wasn't much war during the Cold War was because there was a fear of annihilation due to nuclear weapons.

Islamic states are no more violent as a whole than Christian states have been.

[Ned]

Imran, I don't disagree. In fact I agree. We learned our lesson about Christianity by providing for separation of church and state. It is far to easy to use raw power to achieve religious objectives. There is a saying that Power Corrupts. Well, temporal power certainly corrupted Christianity.

I think we should work for separation of church and state with respect to Islam as a necessary step for world peace.

[Lars-E]

Originally posted by MrFun
Islam is a religion of violence just as much as Judahism and Christianity are religions of violence -- extreme fanatics within each religion, take and pick passages from their sacred documents of ones that only serve their purpose, then twist their religious values around, so they can kill people with whom they disagree with.

Which Christian groups 'practise' violence today? And which christian groups would say that violence is part of their 'exercising their religion'?

History shows that Christianity has been USED by powerhungry ppl. We should accuse those ppl and not what they used.

Two faces of Christianity? Not at all. The OT should be understood thru the NT. The new covenant has fulfilled the law! Thus we are not under the OT law. The OT is for our admonishing:

1. Cor 1:1-11
Moreover, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware that all our fathers were under the cloud, all passed through the sea, all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ. But with most of them God was not well pleased, for their bodies were scattered in the wilderness.
Now these things became our examples, to the intent that we should not lust after evil things as they also lusted. And do not become idolaters as were some of them. As it is written, "The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play." Nor let us commit sexual immorality, as some of them did, and in one day twenty-three thousand fell; nor let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed by serpents; nor complain, as some of them also complained, and were destroyed by the destroyer. Now all these things happened to them as examples, and they were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages have come.

As far as islam goes it seems like there are two groups... to put it in simple 'terms':

Moderates
Extremists

Now, it may seem like the moderates are not too serious about their religion. This is partly why OBL criticizes the Saudi leaders. They are too westernized. And there might be some truth to that. One of them has a huge collection of different alchoholic bottles. And yes, they do drink them. Some of them are also seen as playboys.

The extremists take their religion seriously obviously - believing they get free access to God and orgies, by killing innocent children and women.

As for the rise of islam just play the Jihad Civ2 scenario!! It is of no doubt that islam was spread thru severe violence. Check out this timetable:

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/history/chronology/

This is also a very interesting site:

http://www.answering-islam.org/index.html

Also some claim that the sharia laws stem from the time of Muhammed. The laws that already where in existence in his time. Why should we adopt such ancient 'dark age' practises today? Isn't barbaric to bury ppl halfway and then stone their upper body (torso) ? Is this what God wants humans to do here on earth if they wanna be devout and honor God?

Anyways, I don't understand the muslim rethoric that says the USA is the "great satan". If the USA is satan then satan is more powerful than allah.

The Qur'an states:

Sura 4:55
"Righteous women are therefore obedient, ... And those you fear may be rebellious (nushuz) admonish; banish them to their couches, and beat them."

Sura 8:12
"Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): ‘I am with you: give firmness to the believers. I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers. Smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them.

Sura 8:38
"Say to the unbelievers, if (now) they desist (from unbelief), their past would be forgiven them, but if they persist, the punishment of those before them is already (a matter of warning for them)." And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God altogether and everywhere. But if they cease, verily God doth see all that they do.

You cannot compare these verses to the OT law which has been fulfilled.

This verses and others... are to be taken seriously TODAY.

[Az]

" but the old and the new testament have plenty of those quotes, too...."

[Lars-E]

The OT has some, but not like those... Anyways I commented on the OT law being fulfilled. The Jewish believers don't believe that though.

Maybe you could provide some NT quotes?

[Velociryx]

The most telling thing to me is this:

If a splinter Christian group bombed a cafe full of people in the name of the Christian God, the Pope, and every other prominent leader of the Christian world would come out *strongly* against such actions, declare a day of mourning, offer to help those suffering, etc., etc. Christians the world over would be expressing their outrange and offering assistance.

When a bomber in the ME goes into a cafe in Israel and blows up a cafe filled with innocent people in the name of Allah, we get as a response:

Dancing in the streets and celebrations.

Fundamental difference, wouldn't you say?

-=Vel=-

[Imran Siddiqui]

Which Christian groups 'practise' violence today?

Oh, and this is also for Vel:

IRA, and don't say they don't.