|
Post by James Hannam on Jan 24, 2009 21:04:03 GMT
We have been discussing on a few threads the history of Christianity and Islam. The discussion has been characterised by the "et tu?" mode of argumentation from both sides.
Let me state from the outset that all successful religions have a violent side and that this is justified in their scriptures and by many of their most learned theologians. Pretty much throughout its history, Christianity has viewed non-Christians as fair game. Although this was tempered by just war theory, it was never clear to what extent this applied to non-Christians. For instance, the ban on using missile weapons in 1215 specifically exempted those fighting infidels or heretics.
It so happens that from the eighteenth century onwards, religious policy ceased to matter much in foreign affairs and we can debate why this might have been so. But before that, it would be quite impossible to call Christianity a religion of peace. It was instead a religion that attempted to direct violence outwards and curtail certain unacceptable practices.
Islam is in the same boat. Finding Koranic injunctions to violence is no harder than finding them in the Old Testament. The great conquests across Asia and north Africa were encouraged and not curtailed by theologians. While the Ottomans would have been no less acquisitive if they had not been Muslims, there was no tradition within Islam that its conquests of Christian states (as opposed to its even more effective conquest of Muslim areas) was wrong or forbidden.
However, both Muslims and Christians can point to specific pacific traditions within their faiths - Sufis (as far as I know) and Quackers for instance. These traditions have become more pronounced in recent years and we should continue to encourage them.
The question seems to me, how best to isolate extremist elements? It has always been my hope that Muslims and Christians will recognise their common opponents and concentrate their (strictly rhetorical) fire on them.
Best wishes
James
|
|
|
Post by krkey1 on Jan 24, 2009 22:56:37 GMT
James
I fear you will never be able to separate violence from religion, or from any movement for the simple fact that man is a violent creature. You will always find people willing to use violence and others who justify their violence because of circumstances. The only question is does the movement encourage of discourage violence
The issue becomes far more tricky though with religion. Islam for example was founded by an incredibly violent individual. I hate to say it but a Muslim who consistently follows the example of Mohammad is going to be terrorist himself. Christianity does have violent elements, but it's founder was a man of peace. Therefore Christianity has a natural leaning toward peace and Islam is just the opposite. Truth be told that might be why Christianity has renounced much of the sword while Islam still uses it and always will.
Whether a religion is peaceful or violent ultimately comes down to it's founding. Buddhism is probably the least violent religion in history in part because of Buddha. Islam is the most violent surviving religion because of Mohammed. One shudders to think of the founder of the Aztecs.
If you think Sufism is peaceful look at Chechnya and Beslan.
|
|
|
Post by bjorn on Jan 25, 2009 1:17:27 GMT
The challenge here is human nature, IMH(though not very scholarly)O.
Loooking at the primary sources from above, like a Martian or any stray bug eyed monster, Christianity (based on the NT) is hard to avoid viewing as rather nonviolent, while Islam (based on the Quran and immediate tradition) is not quite so.
As all religions and world views are more influenced than not by human nature, it is mandatory to evaluate which tradition is the best to counteract tendencies to violence and cencorship.
And, anyhow, to strive for the common good - without any religion or anti-religion driving their visions or violence through. In short, impossible.
|
|
|
Post by James Hannam on Jan 25, 2009 11:14:44 GMT
I'm not sure it is fair to call Muhammad 'incredibly violent'. He was a military leader and a successful one, but being a soldier does not make one unusually, let alone incredibly violent.
I would also point out that one of the major benefits of religion is that it allows much larger groupings of humans than any other factor. For that reason, Islam's spread through conquest probably led to a large net reduction in wars.
Finally, although Christianity initially spread peacefully, it was lucky that the Roman Empire already existed, created, of course, by uncompromising use of the sword.
Best wishes
James
|
|
|
Post by zameel on Jan 25, 2009 13:38:25 GMT
Finding Koranic injunctions to violence is no harder than finding them in the Old Testament It is difficult to ascertain whether people have actually read the Qur'an before making conclusions like the above. The film Fitna by Geert Wilders is an extreme example of a reading of the Qur'an that is clearly prejudiced, biased and selective. All you have to do is read some of the "violent" passages in the Qur'an, and even a literal translation will tell you how severely he laws of fighting are curtailed: Fight in the way of God against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! God loveth not aggressors. And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. But if they desist, then lo! God is Forgiving, Merciful. And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for God. But if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression. (2:190-194) Make ready for them all thou canst of (armed) force and of horses tethered, that thereby ye may dismay the enemy of God and your enemy, and others beside them whom ye know not. God knoweth them. Whatsoever ye spend in the way of God it will be repaid to you in full, and ye will not be wronged. And if they incline to peace, incline thou also to it, and trust in God[/b]. (8:60-61) - Fitna quotes this omitting the last sentence. Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! God is Forgiving, Merciful. And if anyone of the idolaters seeketh thy protection, then protect him so that he may hear the Word of God, and afterward convey him to his place of safety. That is because they are a folk who know not...Will ye not fight a folk who broke their solemn pledges, and purposed to drive out the messenger and did attack you first? (9:5-13) - the verses speak of idolaters who broke a peace treaty; the previous verse commands maintenance of that treaty with those who did not break it Whoso fighteth in the way of God, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward. And why should ye not fight in the cause of God and of those who, being weak, are ill-treated (and oppressed)?- Men, women, and children, whose cry is: "Our Lord! Rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from thee one who will protect; and raise for us from thee one who will help!" (4:74-75) Sanction is given unto those who fight because they have been wronged; and God is indeed Able to give them victory; Those who have been driven from their homes unjustly only because they said: Our Lord is God - For had it not been for God's repelling some men by means of others, cloisters and churches and oratories and mosques, wherein the name of God is oft mentioned, would assuredly have been pulled down. Verily God helpeth one who helpeth Him. Lo! God is Strong, Almighty (22:39-40) By looking at the complete passages, it is clear war has been sanctioned for defensive purposes for the oppressed and down-trodden. The restrictions outlined in the verses are espoused in the prophetic teachings as not to kill women, children, old men, worshippers, non-combatants, not to take down trees or kill people using fire. By our standards, battles in the Prophet's day were skirmishes and long periods of susained negotiations than actual "wars". For example, the great battle of Badr resulted in approximately seventy deaths and lives lost on both sides during he prophet's lifetime numbered no more than a thousand. A useful talk in this regards: www.srcf.ucam.org/~uaq20/eiw2008/VR0003.mp3 . Fred Donner, Muslim historian, observed there is no unambiguous attitude the Qur'an presents to the question of war, hence jurists are capable of transitioning between expansionist and non-expansionist interpretations of Jihad depending on the context. Articles I recommended earlier on the subject of Qur'anic exegesis and law: users.tpg.com.au/dezhen/jihad_and_the_modern_world.html and www.zaytuna.org/seasons/seasons2/53-64%20Seasons.pdfA late verse in the Qur'an is categorically clear on the Muslim attitude to non-Muslims: " God forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for God loveth those who are just. God forbiddeth you only those who warred against you on account of religion and have driven you out from your homes and helped to drive you out, that ye make friends of them. Whosoever maketh friends of them - (All) such are wrong-doers" (60:8-9) However, both Muslims and Christians can point to specific pacific traditions within their faiths - Sufis (as far as I know) Absolute pacifism would be heresy to the Muslim conscious, as the prophetic ideal was to stamp out injustice and bring social order. Sufis were an integral and important segment of the Muslim majority - they were not an isolated few. Many theologians and jurists also followed Sufi turuq (traditions) - see www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/ahm/fgtnrevo.htm (Islamic Spirituality: The Forgotten Revolution). It is not true to say Sufis did not engage in Jihad: Shah Jalal the famous liberator of Sylhet in Bengal during the fourteenth century was a Sufi warrior who fought the tyrant ruler of the town (many legendary accounts of miraculous feats during war exist). And much more recent the Algerian hero Abd al-Qadir al-Jaza'iri of the nineteenth century was also a Sufi warrior who in fact fought on the side of Christians in Damascus against the oppressive Druze of that area, for which he was honoured by the French. However a legitimate question can be whether modern industrialised warfare constitutes Jihad. According to Mawlana Wahiduddin Khan of Delhi since many of the Jihad principles are violated, like the chivalric virtue of one to one fighting, the prohibition of indiscriminate killing and mass-mobilisation of populations and using fire to kill, Jihad does not apply in the modern world. I largely agree with this, but I would add: which tradition best curtails unjust and merciless violence. The Christian treatment of Jews in Europe (e.g. see: www.religioustolerance.org/jud_pers.htm), of the Native Americans and of Muslims in Bosnia during the 90s ("The violence in Bosnia was a religious genocide in several senses: the people destroyed were chosen on the basis of their religious identity; those carrying out the killings acted with the blessing and support of Christian church leaders; the violence was grounded in a religious mythology that characterized the targeted people as race traitors and the extermination of them as a sacred act; and the perpetrators of the violence were protected by a policy designed by the policy makers of a Western world that is culturally dominated by Christianity" - Michael Sells) are some examples of Christian bigotry, brutality and barbarism. Since Islam has an inherent developed tradition of just war, where the chivlaric virtue of the warrior is honoured and prized but injustice (as in the Crusades) is not, restrictions against mutilation (muthla), torture and indiscriminate killing exist. Most of the military victories were swift and often peaceful (e.g. Saladin's capture of Jerusalem). Islamic law has also long dealt with terrorism - hiraba in legal terminology; see: users.tpg.com.au/dezhen/jackson_terrorism.html.
|
|
|
Post by zameel on Jan 25, 2009 13:48:44 GMT
I hate to say it but a Muslim who consistently follows the example of Mohammad is going to be terrorist himself. Christianity does have violent elements, but it's founder was a man of peace. Therefore Christianity has a natural leaning toward peace and Islam is just the opposite. Truth be told that might be why Christianity has renounced much of the sword while Islam still uses it and always will The prophet Muhmmad in Mecca (until he was 53, ten years before his death) was a peaceful religious leader, persecuted under the idolaters of the town and he was forbidden by divine command not to react. It was in Medina, where rather unexpectedly leadership was thrust onto him, that it became a religious duty to defend Muslim land against hostile enemies (the first verses on martial law 22:39-40 make this clear). Jesus never become the ruler of a land and yet committed violence at the temple - which Muhammad never did. Had Jesus ruled over land, would he idly sit back to allow hostile imperialist neighbours destroy Christian territory? That Christianity has a natural leaning towards peace is not only blatantly untrue but extreme bigotry. "Islam was a far more tolerant and peaceful faith than Christianity" (Armstrong).
|
|
|
Post by krkey1 on Jan 25, 2009 17:06:15 GMT
Who cares what Karen Armstrong has to to say! The fact she is a will known politically correct leftist shill does not help her credibility
[....]
Crusades- Completely justified. Muslims had been attacking Christians for centuries, finally Christians struck back. I suppose you think the Allied Powers in World War II were unjust for leveling Germany starting in 1944.
Native Americans- Both sides fought. We won, they lost. That is the nature of things.
Bosnia- What about Muslims killing Christians? Both sides have done tit for tat killings for centuries
Jews- Certainly wrong but what about PRESENT Muslim treatment of Jews in Europe and throughout the world?
As I said earlier man is violent. But to pretend Islam is naturally peaceful is impossible. To pretend Mohamed is a moral man when he is having sex with a six year old girl was laughable then and certainly laughable now. Jesus' cleansing of the temple was just and you and I both know it.
|
|
|
Post by James Hannam on Jan 25, 2009 17:38:41 GMT
I have edited the post above, not because it was 'hate speech' or anything similar but merely because I felt it overstepped the bounds of civliity I hope for on this board.
We have all (including me) been getting rather too heated of late and I hope we can restore a level of politeness to the dialogue.
Best wishes
James
|
|
|
Post by travis on Jan 25, 2009 18:40:40 GMT
Well, considering I’m the person who instigated this line of rhetoric, I think I should clarify my position on Islam and violent religions in general. You know, to promote a better understanding between people and all that mushy liberal stuff.
I think most westerners, and particularly Americans like myself, are somewhat predisposed to hold an unfavorable view of Islam. Ignorance is a part of that, compounded with the fact that Islam only ever seems to make the news when there’s a suicide bombing or a violent protest somewhere in the world. Now it’s obviously unfair to go on what terrorists and nuts say about their religion and then claim that this is the totality of that faith. I don’t think Muslims are bad or violent people, nor do I begrudge them the right to have a faith that is different from my own. Though I do have disagreements with Islam both theologically and culturally, I respect their decision to be Muslim and absolutely support their right to peacefully practice their religion.
I realize we all want to see only the best within our religious traditions and it’s understandable that we would want to share it with others. I think Zameel should be admired for coming on to a predominantly Christian board and discussing something he cares deeply about, and really, taking on all comers in order to defend it. While we may have disagreements, I bare no ill towards him and in the future I’ll try to be more respectful in articulating my disagreements.
We can go tit for tat on this for a long time, the Ottoman caliphate’s murderous expansion, the inhumane treatment of dhimmis under Islamic rule and the slaughter of thousands of Hindus upon Islam’s expansion into India, and this Is just off the top of my head. I’m curious though, what is it within the Christian tradition that you think is causal for the barbaric actions listed above? Particularly in light of the fact that Islam claims to supersede Christianity, if there is a doctrine within Christianity itself that promotes the aforementioned despicable actions, how does Islam avoid it? And who’s fault is it, Jesus’ or maybe Paul’s?
|
|
|
Post by krkey1 on Jan 25, 2009 18:47:15 GMT
James. As I said in email your house, your rules. Wish you hadn't edited my post though. Zameel I can only advice you to really look into the life of Mohamed. He did numerous things that went far beyond the needs of a military leader fighting a defensive war. If he had not been the founder of a major current religion he certainly would be regarded by modern historians as just another 7th century barbarian and nothing more. I think if you truly study this issue you will see why people such as me completely reject the notion of Mohamed being a moral person, much less God's Prophet. Here are some resources on the web www.faithfreedom.org/challenge.htmwww.answering-islam.org/Muhammad/index.htmlwww.thereligionofpeace.com/Muhammad/myths-mu-home.htmI hope this post doesn't get the editors scissors. Historical truth can be painful at times but it still needs to be said.
|
|
|
Post by hawkinthesnow on Jan 27, 2009 21:48:40 GMT
Christianity became a violent religion when it was officially adopted as the State religion. All States need to use force at some time or another. Prior to that, Chrsitians appear to have been Pacifists. Jesus is reputed to have told Peter to put up his sword because "they that live by the sword shall perish by the sword". There is also the passage in the Sermon on the Mount about "turning the other cheek", and "going the extra mile", all specific enough pieces of advice to a people living under a foreign government that could make arbitrary demands. Whatever I read of Jesus in the gospels indicates that his programme was in opposition to that of groups who sought the overthrow of the Roman invaders by force.
|
|
|
Post by zameel on Jan 28, 2009 12:56:37 GMT
Crusades- Completely justified. Muslims had been attacking Christians for centuries, finally Christians struck back. Muslims could just as easily argue they were liberating the Jews - precisely what Muhammad Hamidullah calls "idealist war", bringing justice and security to the world. And Jews did welcome their Moorish rulers in the Iberian peninsula, and preferred them over the Christians. Eastern Christianity prospered under the Muslims and they preferred their Muslim rulers over the Crusaders. Besides, anyone who believes the Crusades (from the eleventh to the thirteenth century) were "completely justified" is clearly deluded. Even those who defend the Crusades, like Robert Spencer, do not give such unmitigated support for the Crusades. The Crusaders did not differentiate between combatant and non-combatant, civilian and non-civilian. Thousands of women and children were brutally murdered. Tens of thousands of Jews were killed, undoubtedly due to the anti-semitic racism (spawned by an anti-judaic theology) of the European Christians. The total death toll of the Crusades most probably reached over a million people, which can in no way be justified in light of Muslim victories. It seems clear what the Christians were attempting to do was "purify" the holy lands by exterminating and expelling non-(true)Christians, whereas Muslims had no intention to exterminate the non-Muslim population, and their tolerance of the People of the Book eventually extended to Hindus, Sabeans, Zoroastrians, creating perhaps the most cosmopolitan civilisation since the Persians. Where are the Muslim crusades to justify the Crusades? Did Muslim ulema (religious authorities) sanction the indiscriminate murder of an infidel nation, as Pope Urban had done with the Crusades? Native Americans- Both sides fought. We won, they lost It seems common to ignore war crimes during wars: Native American children were deliberately thrown overboard to drown, entire villages and settlements were destroyed by burning, women and children were not spared, starved entire populations. Here's how one governer described it: "It was a fearful sight to see them thus frying in the fire and the streams of blood quenching the same, and horrible was the stink and scent thereof; but the victory seemed a sweet sacriface, and they gave the praise thereof to God, who had wrought so wonderfully for them, thus to enclose their enemies in their hands and give them so speedy a victory over so pround and insulting an enemy" Bosnia- What about Muslims killing Christians? The 92-95 religious genocide and ethnic cleansing can in no way be justified by preceding riots and tensions. Hundreds of thousands of men, women and children were killed with the blessing of the church and for purifying the race; tens of thousands of women were raped and forced to kill their own children to humiliate them. Again, war crimes and crimes against humanity should be separated from war itself which is a neutral term (can be good or bad). www.haverford.edu/relg/sells/reports.htmlAs Sells writes of the UN "A language of “all sides are guilty,” “these people are killing one another,” and “civil war” was used to equate victim and perpetrator and to deny any moral responsibility for forceful action to stop the atrocities." There were many myths and lies surrounding the Bosnian genocide. genocideinbosnia.blogspot.com/2005/08/myth-of-islamic-fundamentalism-in_27.htmlJews- Certainly wrong but what about PRESENT Muslim treatment of Jews in Europe and throughout the world? Yes that too is certainly wrong and I wouldn't say it is justified but understandable in light of the unjust occupation of Palestinian lands by Israel. Of course, Muslim rage now extends beyond simply Israel and borders on anti-semitism, but it was triggered by that event. Jewish mistreatment of Muslims however is far worse as Illan Pappe, Richard Falk, Noam Chomsky, Norman Finkelstein, Sara Roy and other Jewish scholars will tell you (a good documentary is: Occupation 101 available on youtube). Christian expulsion, extermination (e.g. of 12000 Jews in Toledo in 1354) and hatred of Jews (due to the accusation of deicide hence eternal blame as found in the writings of Church Fathers like Origen and Jerome) does not compare. Muslim scrpiture absolved Jews of the crime of killing Jesus (let alone killing God) (4:157) although it retold many of the old crimes of the Jewish people found in the Old Testament itself, and represents an ambivilent attitude to them depending on their character (Qur'an 3:75). To pretend Mohamed is a moral man when he is having sex with a six year old girl was laughable then and certainly laughable now Previously Christians did not criticise Muhammad for marrying a young girl but did (hypocritically) criticise him for polygamy. It is only of recent times by our moral values that we retrospectively apply a different judgement to the past. Marriage at that age was common (http://mac.abc.se/home/onesr/d/aam2_e.pdf) and women were known to be grandparents at 18. The Prophet consummated the marriage when Aishah was nine not six, that is when she reached puberty. On the hypocrisy of claiming this to be morally unacceptable read: www.islamic-awareness.org/Polemics/aishah.html (The Young Marriage of Aisha, Robert Squires)
|
|
|
Post by zameel on Jan 28, 2009 13:23:40 GMT
the inhumane treatment of dhimmis under Islamic rule Again, the typical Islamophobic rhetoric of essentialising "Islamic rule" and " the inhuman treatment of dhimmis". There were periods when they were treated inhumanely but they were in fact much better off under Muslim rule. Jews and Christians would attend univerisities together with Muslims and were paid from the public funds. Although legally disallowed, the Umayyads and Abbasids (for centuries) allowed Christians to build new churches and many examples of churches being built at that time exist. Jews and Christians made independent autonomous communities where they could practice their own laws (intra-faith). Nestorian Christians in fact prospered (religiously) under Muslim rule ("A Dominican monk from Florence, by name Ricoldus de Monte Crucis, who visited the East about the close of the thirteenth and the beginning of the fourteenth century, speaks of the toleration the Nestorians had enjoyed under Muhammadan rule right up to his time : " Et ego inveni per antiquas historias et autenticas aput Saracenos, quod ipsi Nestorini amici fuerunt Machometi et confederati cum eo, et quod ipse Machometus mandauit suis posteris, quod Nestorinos maxime conseruarent. Quod usque hodie diligentcr obseruant ipsi arraceni"). Umar I was reputed for having paid for Christian medical treatment from the public funds (bayt al-mal), and in his dying days said "I commend to his care the dhimmis who enjoy the protection of God and of the Prophet; let him see to it that the convenant with them is kept, and that no greater burdens than they can bear are laid upon them." (Ibn Sa‘d). There were many later forgeries to the reports about Umar's decisions concerning the dhimma to justify later mistreatment of them (e.g. the inauthentic pact of Umar). Christians (and Jews) held many official high positions: e.g. Akhtal father of St John of Damascus was Abd al-Malik b. Marwan’s counseller; Ibrahim a Christian was in charge of the public treasury (bayt al-mal) at the time of the Abbasid caliph Mu‘tasim (833-842), and was given a grand funeral under Mu‘tasim who was overwhelmed with grief at his death (Ibn Abi Usaybi‘a). Nasr b. Harun the prime minister of the Buwayhid ruler Adud al-Dawla (949-982) was a Christian (Ibn al-Athir). Harun al-Rashid (the famous Abbasid caliph)’s physician, Gabriel, was a Nestorian Christian and received 800,000 dirhams per year. The Umayyad and Abbasid dynasties highly regarded their Christian compatriots. Saladin's (from the Ayyubid dynasty of Egypt) treatment of not only his Christian subjects but his enemies has gone down in history as some of the greatest acts of justice, mercy and chivalry. Muhammad Marmadule Pickthall an early British convert to Islam (and renowned translator of the Qur'an and traveler) writes: One of the commonest charges brought against Islam historically, and as a religion, by Western writers is that it is intolerant. This is turning the tables with a vengeance when one remembers various facts: One remembers that not a Muslim is left alive in Spain or Sicily or Apulia. One remembers that not a Muslim was left alive and not a mosque left standing in Greece after the great rebellion in l821. One remembers how the Muslims of the Balkan peninsula, once the majority, have been systematically reduced with the approval of the whole of Europe, how the Christian under Muslim rule have in recent times been urged on to rebel and massacre the Muslims, and how reprisals by the latter have been condemned as quite uncalled for.
In Spain under the Umayyads and in Baghdad under the Abbasid Khalifas, Christians and Jews, equally with Muslims, were admitted to the Schools and universities - not only that, but were boarded and lodged in hostels at the cost of the state. When the Moors were driven out of Spain, the Christian conquerors held a terrific persecution of the Jews. Those who were fortunate enough to escape fled, some of them to Morocco and many hundreds to the Turkish empire, where their descendants still live in separate communities, and still speak among themselves an antiquated form of Spanish. The Muslim empire was a refuge for all those who fled from persecution by the Inquisition.
The Western Christians, till the arrival of the Encyclopaedists in the eighteenth century, did not know and did not Care to know, what the Muslim believed, nor did the Western Christian seek to know the views of Eastern Christians with regard to them. The Christian Church was already split in two, and in the end, it came to such a pass that the Eastern Christians, as Gibbon shows, preferred Muslim rule, which allowed them to practice their own form of religion and adhere to their peculiar dogmas, to the rule of fellow Christians who would have made them Roman Catholics or wiped them out.
The Western Christians called the Muslims pagans, paynims, even idolaters - there are plenty of books in which they are described as worshiping an idol called Mahomet or Mahound, and in the accounts of the conquest of Granada there are even descriptions of the monstrous idols which they were alleged to worship - whereas the Muslims knew what Christianity was, and in what respects it differed from Islam. If Europe had known as much of Islam, as Muslims knew of Christendom, in those days, those mad, adventurous, occasionally chivalrous and heroic, but utterly fanatical outbreak known as the Crusades could not have taken place, for they were based on a complete misapprehension. I quote a learned French author:
"Every poet in Christendom considered a Mohammedan to be an infidel, and an idolater, and his gods to be three; mentioned in order, they were: Mahomet or Mahound or Mohammad, Opolane and the third Termogond. It was said that when in Spain the Christians overpowered the Mohammadans and drove them as far as the gates of the city of Saragossa, the Mohammadans went back and broke their idols.
"A Christian poet of the period says that Opolane the "god" of the Mohammadans, which was kept there in a den was awfully belabored and abused by the Mohammadans, who, binding it hand and foot, crucified it on a pillar, trampled it under their feet and broke it to pieces by beating it with sticks; that their second god Mahound they threw in a pit and caused to be torn to pieces by pigs and dogs, and that never were gods so ignominiously treated; but that afterwards the Mohammadans repented of their sins, and once more reinstated their gods for the accustomed worship, and that when the Emperor Charles entered the city of Saragossa he had every mosque in the city searched and had "Muhammad" and all their Gods broken with iron hammers."
That was the kind of "history" on which the populace in Western Europe used to be fed. Those were the ideas which inspired the rank and file of the crusader in their attacks on the most civilized peoples of those days. Christendom regarded the outside world as damned eternally, and Islam did not. There were good and tender-hearted men in Christendom who thought it sad that any people should be damned eternally, and wished to save them by the only way they knew - conversion to the Christian faith.
It was not until the Western nations broke away from their religious law that they became more tolerant; and it was only when the Muslims fell away from their religious law that they declined in tolerance and other evidences of the highest culture. Therefore the difference evident in that anecdote is not of manners only but of religion. Of old, tolerance had existed here and there in the world, among enlightened individuals; but those individuals had always been against the prevalent religion. Tolerance was regarded of un-religious, if not irreligious. Before the coming of Islam it had never been preached as an essential part of religion.
For the Muslims, Judaism, Christianity and Islam are but three forms of one religion, which, in its original purity, was the religion of Abraham: Al-Islam, that perfect Self-Surrender to the Will of God, which is the basis of Theocracy. The Jews, in their religion, after Moses, limited God's mercy to their chosen nation and thought of His kingdom as the dominion of their race.
Even Christ himself, as several of his sayings show, declared that he was sent only to the lost sheep of the House of Israel and seemed to regard his mission as to the Hebrews only; and it was only after a special vision vouchsafed to St. Peter that his followers in after days considered themselves authorized to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles. The Christians limited God's mercy to those who believed certain dogmas. Every one who failed to hold the dogmas was an outcast or a miscreant, to be persecuted for his or her soul's good. In Islam only is manifest the real nature of the Kingdom of God.Rest of the article: www.zaytuna.org/articleDetails.asp?articleID=51It should also be noted the jizya tribute was taken in lieu of not serving in the military - some Christians e.g. in Antioch who did serve in the military did not pay the jizya. Of course women, children and the poor did not have to pay. The Zakat was in fact more taxing than the jizya (although the jizya was seen as a humiliating tribute). A useful book: The Spread of Islam in the World by Sir Thomas Arnold (http://www.archive.org/stream/preachingofislam00arno/preachingofislam00arno_djvu.txt) what is it within the Christian tradition that you think is causal for the barbaric actions listed above? Particularly in light of the fact that Islam claims to supersede Christianity, if there is a doctrine within Christianity itself that promotes the aforementioned despicable actions, how does Islam avoid it? And who’s fault is it, Jesus’ or maybe Paul’s? Certainly anti-Judaism (due to deicide and painting Judas as a bad Jew); supersessionism and replacement theology too, leading to racism, arrogance and white-supremacy, and Christian soteriology - there is no place for infidels in the Christian hell according to early theologians whereas Muslim theologians like Ibn Arabi, Ghazali and Ibn Taymiyya allowed room for God's mercy to overwhelm non-Muslims too. This is not of course down to Jesus or Paul but a mix of Roman politics and the theology the church fathers. As Michael Sells writes: "While the Christian Gospels contain injunctions against violence, they also contain passages that validate the promised land, threaten nonbelievers with eternal torment, blame Jews for the death of the redeemer Son of God, and envisage cosmic war against the forces of the Antichrist. All these themes have been used to generate ideologies of violence. Christianity’s history of inquisition, pogrom, conquest, enslavement, and genocide offers little support for assertions that Islam’s sacred text or its prophet entail a propensity for violence greater in degree or different in kind" (The New Crusades, p. 5)
|
|
|
Post by zameel on Jan 28, 2009 13:48:48 GMT
Zameel I can only advice you to really look into the life of Mohamed. No, it is clear you are the one unwilling to read real scholarly literature on Muhammad's life, and instead you rely on others doing your dirty work, hence multiple links without any sound arguments or annotations. He did numerous things that went far beyond the needs of a military leader fighting a defensive war Like? Which are completely devoid of scholarly content. It is worthy of note the articles in the latter link promote Ibn Ishaq as a reliable source when it suits and rejects it when it doesn't suit. Here (http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Muhammad/myths-mu-meccan-persecution.htm) no coherent argument is carried through and the woman, hailed as Islam's first martyr, was called Sumayya (mother of the famed Ammar b. Yasir) not Umm Sumayya. Why can you not read Islam from scholars on Islam (Muslims and non-Muslims), rather than apologists for Christianity which generally repeat the old Orientalist myths and lies, see www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/orientalism.html. Roger Du Pasquier writes: The West, whether Christian or dechristianised, has never really known Islam. Ever since they watched it appear on the world stage, Christians never ceased to insult and slander it in order to find justification for waging war on it. It has been subjected to grotesque distortions the traces of which still endure in the European mind. Even today there are many Westerners for whom Islam can be reduced to three ideas: fanaticism, fatalism and polygamy. Of course, there does exist a more cultivated public whose ideas about Islam are less deformed; there are still precious few who know that the word Islam signifies nothing other than 'submission to God'. One symptom of this ignorance is the fact that in the imagination of most Europeans, Allah refers to the divinity of the Muslims, not the God of the Christians and Jews; they are all surprised to hear, when one takes the trouble to explain things to them, that 'Allah' means 'God', and that even Arab Christians know him by no other name. Islam has of course been the object of studies by Western orientalists who, over the last two centuries, have published an extensive learned literature on the subject. Nevertheless, however worthy their labours may have been , particularly in the historical and and philological fields, they have contributed little to a better understanding of the Muslim religion in the Christian or post-Christian milieu, simply because they have failed to arouse much interest outside their specialised academic circles. One is forced also to concede that Oriental studies in the West have not always been inspired by the purest spirit of scholarly impartiality, and it is hard to deny that some Islamicists and Arabists have worked with the clear intention of belittling Islam and its adherents. This tendency was particularly marked for obvious reasons in the heyday of the colonial empires, but it would be an exaggeration to claim that it has vanished without trace. These are some of the reasons why Islam remains even today so misjudged by the West, where curiously enough, Asiatic faiths such as Buddhism and Hinduism have for more than a century generated far more visible sympathy and interest, even though Islam is so close to Judaism and Christianity, having flowed from the same Abrahamic source. Despite this, however, for several years it has seemed that external conditions, particularly the growing importance of the Arab-Islamic countries in the world's great political and economic affairs, have served to arouse a growing interest of Islam in the West, resulting for some in the discovery of new and hitherto unsuspected horizons. (From Unveiling Islam, by Roger Du Pasquier, pages 5-7)
|
|
|
Post by krkey1 on Jan 28, 2009 16:27:36 GMT
Zameel
So far I have been to two Muslim countries. In both those countries I saw women treated worse the dogs, religious minorities attacked. I saw the mass graves of Shiite and Sunni Muslims. So don't you dare tell me I don't know what Islam is.
Do you think it is a coincidence that Muslim countries have the worst record for human rights?
Zameel do you think it is a coincidence that Muslims are attacking Jews in Europe?
Do you think it is a coincidence that Muslims are demanding special rights in European countries?
Do you think it is a coincidence Muslims riot and loot anytime they do not get their way?
Do you think it is a coincidence in the 21st century that of all the religions that only Islam has a dedicated band of merry social paths dedicated to murdering nonbelievers.
Do you think it is a coincidence that almost every modern conflict on the globe is nonbelievers fighting Muslim aggression?
Do you think it is a coincidence that the age of marriage for a girl in Iran is nine? That is the age Mohamed forced himself on Aisha.
Do you think it is a coincidence that Muslims are the poorest and most ignorant people on the planet?
The world knows what Islam is. We know what your Prophet was.
The only time Islam was ever prosperous was when it stole from others.
Did your Prophet have to rape a nine year girl. Fake religious revelations to get his adopted sons wife? Massacre Jews. Order poets assassinated? Pretend to get an Revelation from God. ( Unless you believe God would write something as silly as the Qu'ran) . Did he have to be a slave raider. I could go on and on but none of this was necessary from a military perspective. The cold fact of the matter is Mohamed was nothing more then a 7th century David Koresh, and much like Koresh he liked little girls too. I hope this comment doesn't get censored it is just the truth.
So far all you have managed to do is call any source that shows Mohammed for what he is unscholarly. What was unscholarly about them? In response you just quote the scholarship of future Dhimmis. Don't you think it is odd that Muslim countries do not practice the Islam you believe to be authentic. How did the terrorist get so confused?
Wake up man. No one who knows anything about Islam and watches the news will fall for your apologetic dribble. I predict now you will just call me a racist cause that works with weaker minded Westerners. Does it even disgust you that a fifty year old man would force himself on a nine year old.
|
|