The two faces of Islam.

[KrazyHorse]

The Muslim world is not as developed, in general, as the Western world. This includes socially, economically and technologically.

Wait a while. They'll catch up, as there is nothing inherently worse in one rather than the other...

[Dinner]

Frogger: I'm not a practicing christian nor do I frequent evangelical sites. I did run across this article and thought it was interesting, even if sections of it were overly religious. I selected a quote that didn't contain religious nonsense in it because I felt partisan religious drival wouldn't contribute anything useful. If that makes me a deceptive fanatic in your eyes then so be it.

[KrazyHorse]

I didn't call you a fanatic, or a Christian.

I called the author those things.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Frogger
The Muslim world is not as developed, in general, as the Western world. This includes socially, economically and technologically.

Wait a while. They'll catch up, as there is nothing inherently worse in one rather than the other...

If by catch up you mean become more like us then I think you are wrong. This culture is different and has different cultural values which will probably lead them to a different end then the western liberal democracies. I seriously doubt they will become democratic, pluralistic, or begin protecting ethnic and religious minorities anytime soon.

As for no culture being inherently worse or better then another culture; you couldn't be further from wrong. Some cultures really are better then other cultures. When you look at every meaningful way we can measure cultures from the protection of ethnic & religious minorities, to being democraticly leaning, to producing better economic results, to protecting human rights, to allowing free speech and desent, to creating an equitable and just society some cultures clearly out proform other cultures. Thus we can say some cultures really are inferior to other cultures.

to pretend these differences don't exist is to deny reality.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Oerdin


If by catch up you mean become more like us then I think you are wrong. This culture is different and has different cultural values which will probably lead them to a different end then the western liberal democracies. I seriously doubt they will become democratic, pluralistic, or begin protecting ethnic and religious minorities anytime soon

Why? Would you have predicted in 1300 that Britain would become fairly tolerant by 1800?

As for no culture being inherently worse or better then another culture; you couldn't be further from wrong

Thank you for telling me that I'm right, but I didn't say that.

Some cultures really are better then other cultures. When you look at every meaningful way we can measure cultures for the protection of ethnic & religious minorities, to being democraticly leaning, to producing better economic results, to protecting human rights, to allowing free speech and desent, to creating an equitable and just society some cultures clearly out proform other cultures. Thus we can say some cultures really are inferior to other cultures

to pretend these differences don't exist is to deny reality.

And I don't: the Western world (of today) is better than the Muslim world (of today).

[Shi Huangdi]

"The Muslim world is not as developed, in general, as the Western world. This includes socially, economically and technologically.

Wait a while. They'll catch up, as there is nothing inherently worse in one rather than the other..."

Don't assume that just because one religion developed along certain lines that other ones will too.With Islam it is going to be harder, because it is structured differently-a stricter interpretation of the scripture is demandedin their religion(see previous post) and the Koran has specific commands on government and a specific command to spread the religion by the Sword.

[KrazyHorse]

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

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

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Frogger
I didn't call you a fanatic, or a Christian.

I called the author those things.

Ok, glade we straightened that one out. No hard feelings?

[KrazyHorse]

Why would I hold hard feelings?

[Dinner]

In 1600 Christian Europe was fairly militant but this was mainly because of the thirty years war and the Protestant Reformation. Large political and religious changes made in a short time tend to polarize people.

Britain in 1300 most certainly had the seeds of a modern demacracy already sowed; it wasn't a modern democracy yet but we had trial by jury (for middle and upper class atleast), we had limits on the power of monarchs (limits only nobles could work with in but still limits), and we had a nucleus of a parliment.

The Christian bible tells people what they should do to be a moral person but it doesn't spell out every detail of their daily life, nor their legal system, nor punishments of people who disobay the bible, nor persribe a political order, nor does it directly state the faithful must convert or kill the nonbelievers. Islam spells out each of these; thus we get the two faces of Islam. The peaceful tolerent Islam spoken about in some sections and the draconian hateful Islam which preaches death and destruction.

Many hateful things were commited by christians but the bible didn't directly tell them to do these things. Christians interpreted the bible and decided, either as political cover or out of true religious belief, that they should commit atrocities. The Koran really does say it is the duty of Muslims to kill the nonbeliever who refuses to convert. This statement is contradicted in other parts of the Koran where peaceful coexistance is called for but this dicotomy isn't found in Judism or Christianity.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Many hateful things were commited by christians but the bible didn't directly tell them to do these things. Christians interpreted the bible and decided, either as political cover or out of true religious belief, that they should commit atrocities. The Koran really does say it is the duty of Muslims to kill the nonbeliever who refuses to convert. This statement is contradicted in other parts of the Koran where peaceful coexistance is called for but this dicotomy isn't found in Judism or Christianity.

Read the Bible again. Especially the Old Testament.

[KrazyHorse]

Britain in 1300 most certainly had the seeds of a modern demacracy already sowed; it wasn't a modern democracy yet but we had trial by jury (for middle and upper class atleast), we had limits on the power of monarchs (limits only nobles could work with in but still limits), and we had a nucleus of a parliment

You've fallen under the impression that the Magna Carta was a statement of democratic rights for at least the upper class...when in fact it was a statement of feudal rights. If it was anything, it was a floor plan for a federal system....and the fact that Britain ended up a democratic, non-federal entity should tell you something.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Read the Bible again. Especially the Old Testament.

The old testiment does have a vengeful god who turns the cities of Sadam & Gamora to Salt, who orders Moses to kill his son, and what not. The old testiment portrail of god even has god ordering the deaths of specific people such as when god orders all captured soldiers of the invading army of Asyrians should be put to death; but, there is never a direct call that all non-believers should be killed if they refuse to convert.

There is never even a call for action against non-believers in the bible except that a Christian must show them love and help those who ask to find "the light of Christ". Now that is clearly religious drival but it is at least non-violent religious drival. There is no call to violence in one sentence and then a call to non-violence in another sentence.

That dicotomy is unique to Islam.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Frogger
You've fallen under the impression that the Magna Carta was a statement of democratic rights for at least the upper class...when in fact it was a statement of feudal rights. If it was anything, it was a floor plan for a federal system....and the fact that Britain ended up a democratic, non-federal entity should tell you something.

The Magna Carta wasn't anything like the America Constiution but it never the less stated that a section of society (the rich nobility) had rights the king could not take away and that the king must consult the nobilities representatives conserning certain things. Yes, it protected the rights of the rich but never the less this was the enshrined law of the land and so we could see that already Britain was more pluralistic & more democratic (even if in a small way) then other societies.

[Imran Siddiqui]

there is never a direct call that all non-believers should be killed if they refuse to convert.

Why does it have to be direct? It seems that if you take all the actions of the Old Testament God, you have a God that says all un-believers should be killed. You are blaming the Koran for simply putting that into writing .