Peaceful Islam?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Wernazuma III
Well, Israel is mainly an affront because they're "chasing the muslims from their homes" as is written in the Quran being a sin which can only result in death.
But other than that, I must say again, that Islam can not be limited to a religion which does not do anything but violently expanding. Many islamic thinkers (especially among Hanafites and Malikites) have interpreted the "slay all unbelievers" teachings to be directed towards the pagans of Mekka who had Muhammad go into exile. This implies a) that this duty is limited to Arab pagans or even to Mekkan pagans and b) only against those who attack the Islam first.
No one obliges Muslims to continuously fight against non-believers if they aren't attacked - on the other hand it's not a sin either...


About the islamic territory though you're more or less right. Within an islamic country, dhimmis have very limited rights, apostates have to be killed. And Muslim rulers who act against the Sharia are apostates and enemies of the faith basically. But I have to correct you in one thing: When it somes to discriminating Jews and Christians, the Wahabite Sauds are VERY orthodox...

Thanks. This is the first "interpretation" that I have seen that permits one to be a good muslim without having to continuously be expanding the franchise by force. I wonder why we haven't heard more of this from muslim commentators who are defending their religion from the likes of Falwell and others. They mostly simply state that Islam is a peaceful religion with citing any evidence in support of their position, or as we have seen in this thread, by trying to excuse the violence by saying that Christianity is violent as well.

It seems that there are two (and perhaps more) valid interpretations of the Koran. One requires the use of violence under certain circumstances to extend the faith. The other sanctions it use in defense of the faith.

But even OBL states that we are the aggressors and that he is only responding to our aggression. If what you say is true, this "defensive" use of violence is sanctioned by all muslims.

As to the Saudi's, I suspect we, the West, will have a major confrontation with them sooner rather than later. In retrospect, it might have been better to have backed Saddam's invasion of Saudi Arabia. They manipulated us.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by gsmoove23
Where does Christianity separate church and state in the Bible, that isn't contradicted by a number of other passages?

Once can easily see in revelations that the government(s) of man are compared to the government of Christ in the second coming. By doing so it implicitly states that the church and man's government are separate until the second coming of Christ, wherein teh unificationof Church and State take place.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Saint Marcus

quote:

If the ruler has to follow Islamic law and the Koran, then he has to slay the unbelievers who do not submit or convert because this is Islamic law and the injunction of the Koran. Not so? While it is clearly possible to be a Christian or a Jew in an Islamic country, you still do not have full rights and have to pay higher tithes. A ruler who brings in Western culture and laws, or who does not discriminate against the Christian or Jew, is violating Islamic law. This is why the Shah was deposed and why OBL is after the Saudi royal family.


You can say the same about christianity.

There have been Christain rulers like this, of course. But there is nothing in the New Testament that requires the ruler to spread the Christian religion or to discriminate against non Christians.

Such concepts are completely allien in the United States where there is complete separation of chuch and state. Members of a religion must advocate their views in the marketplace of ideas in order to have them declared as laws. There is no Imam dictating morality here.

I hardly think this is the case anywhere in the Christian world today save perhaps for England.

[chequita guevara]

How close are you paying attention to Muslims who protest the depiction of Islam as a violent religion, Ned? Have you actually gone to community meetings where imams try to explain what their view of Islam is or gone to a mosque to talk with people? Are you simply relying on the media?

[Wernazuma III]

But even OBL states that we are the aggressors and that he is only responding to our aggression. If what you say is true, this "defensive" use of violence is sanctioned by all muslims.

Not really as whether you define an action to be defensive or not is matter of opinion and taste. Not everyone e.g. would follow Bush in the argument that war against Iraq is defensive, yet he said once that it is, because otherwise it wouldn't be a just war. The same applies on the other side. No muslim needs to see the terrorist attacks of OBL to be a defensive response to violence. It also has somthing to do with people's ability to differentiate. If, say, Israeli Jews attack Islam, can a Muslim attack a jew in Morocco and say he only defends Islam? Who's responsible? That's rather a matter of personality and insight and moderation than a religious matter. Moreover, the Quran offers no good guideline for terrorist attacks as the wars of Muhammad were rather open battles. But Islamic theory says that people who don't participate in the war (meaning mainly women, children, old people and disabled) or direstly host the enemy - thus the statements that say "it can't have been a muslim"...

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
How close are you paying attention to Muslims who protest the depiction of Islam as a violent religion, Ned? Have you actually gone to community meetings where imams try to explain what their view of Islam is or gone to a mosque to talk with people? Are you simply relying on the media?

Actually, two of our secretaries are married to muslims from Arabia. I talk to them.

[Saint Marcus]

There have been Christain rulers like this, of course. But there is nothing in the New Testament that requires the ruler to spread the Christian religion or to discriminate against non Christians.

Why are you ignoring the biggest part of the Bible, the OT?

I hardly think this is the case anywhere in the Christian world today save perhaps for England.

Yet you ignore the centre of the biggest Christian religion in the world...the Roman Catholic Church...seated in Vatican City, where the Pope, a religious leader, is also the nation's leader.

And in the past there have been many other nations like that. Just take Malta prior to Napoleon's conquest.

[Drake Tungsten]

Why are you ignoring the biggest part of the Bible, the OT?

Because the New Testament trumps the Old Testament, making it irrelevant as anything other than a history book. Even I know that, and I'm Daoist...

[Saint Marcus]

NT quotes

1 Corinthians 14:34 "As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says."

1 Corinthians 11: "Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. 5And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head--it is just as though her head were shaved. 6If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. 7A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man."

Ephesians 6:5: "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ."

and don't even get me started on the OT, where you do find passages advocating the killing of people with other religions.

[Drake Tungsten]

Corinthians and Ephesians aren't the words of Christ. I dare you to find Christ saying violent things comparable to what Mohammed says in the Koran.

[Saint Marcus]

Because the New Testament trumps the Old Testament, making it irrelevant as anything other than a history book. Even I know that, and I'm Daoist...

hardly.

A. God of the OT is the God of the NT
B. Jesus said he won't abolish the law, but merely complete it. (in other words, the law of the OT stands)
C. the christians who put together the bible, put in the OT for a reason. Not merely as a history book, or they could have made it half the size.


and the NT isn't such a wonderful book either. It does call for the submission of women, and advocates slavery.

[Saint Marcus]

Corinthians and Ephesians aren't the words of Christ. I dare you to find Christ saying violent things comparable to what Mohammed says in the Koran.

they are in the Bible. Saying what is written in Corinthians and Ephesians isn't the Word of God, is considered blasphemy by (nearly) all the christian churches in the world. Baptist, Catholic, Orthodox, etc. Not just the words of Jesus are the Word of God, but all the Bible, OT and NT, are considered to be the Word of God (and Jesus is a part of God).

[Drake Tungsten]

B. Jesus said he won't abolish the law, but merely complete it. (in other words, the law of the OT stands)

I don't think this is correct. I don't have a Bible, so I can't really find competing quotes, but I think that Jesus says his new covenant replaces the convenant of Moses somewhere in Hebrews.

Saying what is written in Corinthians and Ephesians isn't the Word of God, is considered blasphemy by (nearly) all the christian churches in the world. Baptist, Catholic, Orthodox, etc.

Are you kidding me? It says right at the start of Corinthians and Ephesians that they are letters written by Paul, not God. Not everything in the Bible is the Word of God; only the stuff written in red is...

[Saint Marcus]

I don't think this is correct.

Matthew 5:17
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

your turn.

Are you kidding me? It says right at the start of Corinthians and Ephesians that they are letters written by Paul, not God. Not everything in the Bible is the Word of God; only the stuff written in red is...

according to nearly all the mayor christian churches, Paul was devinely inspired by God, and what he wrote down wasn't just the word of Paul, but the Word of God Himself.

[Kropotkin]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Because the New Testament trumps the Old Testament, making it irrelevant as anything other than a history book. Even I know that, and I'm Daoist...

You might think so, many might think so. Still, there's thousands of fundamentalist wackos that while use every inch of the OT to prove stupid and disgusting points.

-----
edit:

...letters written by Paul, not God.

The Koran is the written world of Muhammad not God. I've think we've solved the puzzle here. The Koran is invalid! It's like having someone else write your tests in school!