Peaceful Islam?

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by Ned
There was a law -- passed by Diocletion, that tied the farmer to his land but also prevented anyone from displacing him from it. These farmers eventually because serfs.
Over time, farm-worker slavery was completely abandoned in favor of the new system. However, when the Goths took over the governence of Italy at the request of the Eastern Empire, they passed a law repealing Diolectians law - hence freeing the serfs.

But these peasants or coloni were not the original slaves. They were originally freemen who got into an unfavorable social situation and were tied to the land. These Coloni-System merged together with Germanic institutions to what we call the medieval serfdom, which persisted throughout the Middle Ages in Europe. And, again, this law was not about slaves (though it's true that slave work on the fields didn't really pay when you had those serfs by the hand, so it declined (and because of generally less wealth in the late Roman time). But no law in antiquity could forbid slavery - this wasn't even a topic.

[Wernazuma III]

They were not only defeated in the west, but also in the east. Yet, it was not those defeats which caused them to stop (though it looked like this for the winners). As Kropotkin said, it was severe internal struggles - conquering such a vast area in less than a century prooved to be too much to be held together by a small elite of Arab conquerors and local converts pushed to power.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Saint Marcus


interesting that you use the word universal. Check your dictionary for the meaning of the word catholic.

Christianity and Islam are both "universal." Theyl were both spread at one time or another by conquest. Zoroastrianism inspired Cyrus to conquer the world to spread the faith. Mohammed the same. Christianity's chance came when Charlemagne became the Frankish King and began his conquests at the urging of the pope.

[Saint Marcus]

so do you, or why do you, consider christianity to be more peaceful/civilized than Islam?

[Kropotkin]

So it took you 10 pages to get to the actual subject?

[Saint Marcus]

I want a brief summary.

[Ned]

The problem seems to be giving religion temporal power, or as GePap would say, mixing the political and the religious in a universalist religion. At times, religion exploits the temporal. At others, polictics exploits religion.

I think Christianity has largely left behind the use of state power to spread its faith. This obviously is not true of Islam. (Taliban, the invasion of Dagestan) But also, as GePap observes, the political (OBL) also uses religion to advance polictical aims.

[Kropotkin]

While I, and I guess most, can agree about the first part I'm somewhat sceptical about the second there ned. The President of the USA still uses the phrase "god bless america" quite often and it's also common in many other countries. For a more illustrative example I think of the situation with the chatolic church and latin america where the religion still playes a major role in the political strife.

[Saint Marcus]

Ned: two small observations

A. seperation of church and state isn't so strong in christianity either, as some people like to believe.
B. Islam is a lot younger than Christianity, it had less time to develop.

[Kropotkin]

But Marcus is the age of the religion really a valid point? I mean, it would be if it was just a few 100 years but by now it shouldn't be of much significance.

[Saint Marcus]

I think it is a valid point. Islam had some 600 years less to develop. That's a LOT of time.

On top of that, you have to consider that Islam is found mostly in poor countries with dictatorial regimes. "Modern" values, found in the west and far east, aren't common there. So you got a poor area, with a traditional society, under dispotic regimes. Religion is shaped by that.

[Kropotkin]

I do agree with the second part (i'm a materialist after all) but I don't think it made that much of a difference. I don't agree that time in itself leads to development of a religion in itself. As for example 600 years gap does not mean that one can claim that the christian churches are about 40% more evolved than the islamic ones. It's not a mesurable thing as you can't quantify it in any way.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Btw, going back a bit... I never said individual Churchmen weren't influential in the slavery debate, I said CHRISTIANITY wasn't. There is a difference. Christianity was incredibly powerful for thousands of years, so why did it not abolish slavery? It could have at any time. Suddenly in the 19th Century, Churchmen start campaigning for an end to slavery (while, might I add many, many Churchmen backed slavery).

What caused the shift? You cannot say that Christianity suddenly realized slavery was wrong. As stated, many Churchmen looked to the Bible and justified slavery. Individuals like Douglass used terminology from the Declaration of Independence, which is the pinnacle of Enlightment texts (with apologies to Locke and Kant).

So no, the Church did not end slavery.

Let me analogize, Islam, esp. the Koran, bans slavery. There are references to all men are created equal and Muslims should free slaves whenever they can. However, the slavery in Africa is blamed on Islam, even though many clerics campaign against it. If, in 50 years, those African states ban slavery (while under secular governments) would you say Islam was instrumental in banning slavery there? Bull****!

[gsmoove23]

I don't think you can say christianity has moved to separate church and state. This is more a movement in western civilization. Christian political movements are quite strong in the states and in many European countries. For many christians it is only logical that christian thought and political thought should be merged. Under the US's current administration I would argue the idea of separation is more threatened then it has been for quite awhile.

I think other posters on this thread have been correct in referring to humanism or the enlightenment as being separate from christianity. The US constitution and Declaration of Independance were documents of the Enlightenment even though they were influenced heavily by christian thought.