Leave a comment below!
NO! It's a religion of peace I tell you!
I don't see how any opinion from almost 200 years ago can be relevant to today's situation.
Just think how long ago this statement was made. It was even before your civil war.
In this time there were only steam powered cars, no phones, little travel between continents. John Q Adams, even though one of your presidents, would have had little access to the world of Islam.
This leads me to ask what information or experience did he base his opinion on? Far less than we have today - so for this reason I think we can only see his opinion as an interesting titbit of history and not something with any logical force.
To sum all this up, you bringing up this quote to explain why we should hate Islam is equivalent to if I brought up a quote about all women being witches from the 1800s to justify why everyone should hate woman. Basically the quote is irrelevant.
Dave C.:
I deny outright that an opinion 200 years old (or 2000 years old) is, perforce, less accurate, persuasive, informed, etc., than an opinion today. I deny that the age of an opinion logically impinges on its cogency.
While there is no question that we moderns have discovered more discrete facts about the world in some disciplines, I see no reason to believe that we have greater wisdom. In fact, I am inclined to believe that our ancestors had significantly greater wisdom in many disciples. When it comes to that thing call religion, for instance, it is clear to me that we live in among the most ignorant of all ages.
We need to acquaint Dave with Belloc. Two hundred years ago learned folks were much closer to the threat of Islam. Indeed, within living memory, I suspect, or a generation or two. Prescient, is a word we overuse but it could properly be ascribed to Belloc's views on Islam since they were written more than 50 years ago!
And, Belloc is a good read, his prose is forceful, his logic compelling.
I'm thinking your arguments procede along the following lines:
The validity of any source, no matter where or when, is determined by it's opposition to Islam.
Hence you can call up anything that agrees with your thoughts that 'Islam is wrong' - from JQ Adams to Belloc - and no doubt a thousand others.
However, this is slightly dangerous, from your perspective, for the following reason. It can entail that any opinion that does not support the threat of Islam is invalid.
To illustrate, I can point out that Jesus said 'Love one another as I loved you'. John 13:34. One another includes those of other religions.
I'm pretty sure that you don't want to say that God's word is invalid.
So, to end with a question, how do you reconcile your position on Muslims with John 13:34.
Hi Dave, If someone is wrong and consistently being led into error doesn't it take great love to inform them of their error, even when they threaten you with violence for helping them?
There is a greater depth to 'love' than you are assuming.
Well said, Pat. Dave's picture of love is quite impoverished indeed if he thinks it precludes criticism or rebuke. Dave seems also to have some difficulty distinguishing a religion from its adherents; thus, to condemn Islam is to condemn all Muslims. This is quite wrong.
Interesting:
I have several arguments.
1) You're idea that it takes great love to inform them of their error relies on the idea that Islam is wrong.
I'd like to point out that Islam also worships Jesus - our deity.
See:
http://www.islamonline.net/
lived...hGuestID=a3sJmP
If you're saying that Islam is wrong, then aren't you also denying Christ?
2) If you are showing Love, why only shine it on Muslims. Why why not Bhuddists, why not Lutherins, why not people who worship money more than God. I think you are just aiming at a group which you find easy to criticise .
3) I don't think you are acting out of Love. Love is about caring, nurturing. I only see accusations on your page. There is no attempt at understanding.
4) It doesn't take great love to inform people of their error. As many people know, it's very easy to criticise others, especially people who have no access to reply.
It takes great love to work with them , understand
them and grow with them. I see you criticising Muslim's but I don't see you doing anything to understand them.
Hence, you are acting out of some other motive other than Love - and there is less depth to 'love' than you are assuming.
Reading Paul's comments:
thus, to condemn Islam is to condemn all Muslims. This is quite wrong.
I believe your arguement is that you can say that Islam is wrong without condeming all Muslims.
Perhaps, but not with statements like "[H]e [Muhammad] declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind . . . The precept of the Koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God."
It's not that you are discussing Islam that upsets me, but that you are misrepresenting it and in the process inciting racial hatred.
While I certainly agree with the crowd here that it's absurd to argue that anything old is necessarily irelevant, that's beside the point.
You may have adressed this before (link?) but it would be helpful, Mr. Cella, if you would outline what you think America(Christendom, or the West, whatever)'s approach to Islam should be. Most of what I've seen from you are like this quote simple assertions that Islam itself (not fundamentalism, or perversion of it) is a fundamental and intractable menace. I'd say that most Americans (me included) favor some kind of coexistence with Islam, that is we don't think we should seriously make an effort to a) convert them all to Christianity, or b) kill them all. Therefore the conventional wisdom is an aim similar to the President's - encouraging Islamic pluralism and discouraging violence. You haven't so much as said it but it's safe to glean that you think this is a flawed strategy - that Islam is incapable of either pluralism or peacefulne
... peacefulness, therefore that effort is pointless (that would be the implication of this quote anyway.)
So what is it? Coexistence, conversion, or war? (And please don't give me that it's already war - I'm asking you what we should persue and while some muslims would certainly see themselves in such a conflict with us we are not by any stretch persuing a war of extermination against Islam)
So far I've seen you hint darkly that Islam itself is the real problem without dealing with the implications of that position. If Islam itself is the problem, what should we do?
and Dave, criticizing someoone's opinions - even relgious ones is not inciting "racial" hatred. Muslim is not an ethnicity.
Dave - I have to take issue with your statement that Muslims worship Jesus, just the same as Christians do. This is blatantly false.
Islam recognizes Jesus as a prophet, but does not recognize Him as the Son of God/second member of the Trinity. So they do not worship Him anymore than they worship Mohammed (and undoubtedly Mohammed is given greater reverence), and in denying the deity of Christ, deny one of the essentials (probably THE essential) of Christian doctrine.
Other religions also recognize Jesus as a great person, as Islam does, but only one sees Him as the human manifestation of God. By your logic, a Christian who argues that Hinduism or Buddhism is wrong is also saying Christianity is wrong. This doesn't make sense at all.
Stress:
Agree that criticizing someone's opionons is not, in itself, racial hatred. For example, philiosophy, and other academia thrives through this methodololgy of criticism.
However, I do believe that stating to an audience that another group of people a source of danger, which I believe Paul is doing, without real evidence, is inciting fear and other unhappy emotions (what I poorly called racial hatred here for want for a better word). To get an idea of where I think free speech ends and incitement to hate starts see http://allfreeessays.com/student...ive_essay.html)
(Also, IMHO, not everything old is irrelevant, but I prefer to get my social observations about today's society from today's observers rather than from one's who lived 200 years ago. How could they know about the world in which I live? However, I still admire Plato, Aristotle and Jesus for their ideas.)
That said, I strongly agree with your idea - would be helpful, Mr. Cella, if you would outline
That said, I strongly agree with your idea - would be helpful, Mr. Cella, if you would outline what you think America (Christendom, or the West, whatever)'s approach to Islam should be.
JB.
True.
I thought that argument was a bit loose when I wrote it - however I still found it very interesting that Muslims recognised Jesus as a prophet.
Cheers
Dave
Hi Dave, I'm not sure whether your 1st reply is addressed to me or Paul but I will reply anyway.
1) You already answered that in the negative, as JB prompted.
2) The Christian message is for all people, though not all people have a religion based on violence as a means for spreading its message, therefore the Christian message is quite urgently required for those people.
3) Not sure what you are citing here.
4) But continuing to correct error in the face of violence takes love - Muslims deserve the Truth.
Stress:
You are perfectly right to complain about my elusiveness on this; but I must plead that I still have not settled on an opinion about what is the best course of action vis-a-vis Islam.
Extermination is an option no moral man can consider. Conversion has been attempted by many a greater Christian than I (St. Francis, for example), and it has largely failed. No rival to the Christian system has been as intractable in this area.
Coexistence is simple necessity, but it does not require that we force confrontation where none yet exists (by, say, bringing more Muslims into the West). I would favor a kind of quarantine policy: wherever possible, we reduce the incidence of Muslim-Western contact.
Practical ideas for such a policy might include: 1) A moratorium on all Muslim immigration into America, until such time as we are satisfied that Islam has gotten its house in order. 2) Removing our military presence, as much as possible, from civilian centers in the Muslim world. 3) Abandoning the pretense of imagining that we can forcibly remake the Muslim world in our image.
Paul:
Hi,
I'd like some clarification:
1) What constitues 'house in order'? Can you elaborate?
2) What about where the military is needed - for example in rebuilding efforts?
3) Is remaking the Muslim world in 'our image' still required, even if not done by force.
Interested to know your thoughts.
Dave:
Your assertions are increasingly incoherent. I deny my Lord because I critize another religion? I am a racist because I print a criticism of another religion from one of America's most accomplished statesmen? These absurdities refute themselves.
Pat:
It seems we have different ideas on what constitutes Love. I hope yours works out for you.
Cheers
Dave
Dave (didn't see your latest comment until just now):
1) When Muslims are not murdering people all over the globe in the name of their religion. When we are satisfied that Islam (whether from its extremists or from its orthodox) presents no threat to our nation.
2) Obviously we cannot just abandon Iraq. But we do not need to be in the cities. We can establish bases in unpopulated areas, from which to strike if our allies are in need, but out of the way of the terrorists.
3) No. No remaking of Islam is required or even desired. Efforts at conversion, of course, will be ongoing, but they will be peaceful. What part Islam has to play in history is a question I leave for prophets.
On "I deny my Lord because I critize another religion" - Agree, it was a loose argument. I was surprised to learn recently that Islam recognised Christ as prophet and this crept into the argument.
On "I am a racist". Not a racist - but I was trying to express the idea of 'religious intollerance' as a form of behaviour as bad as racism. Bad use of word I'm afraid.
On "because I print a criticism of another religion from one of America's most accomplished statesmen", please see previous arguments. To restate my position, I think you are selectively quoting people from the past who support your views and then claiming them valid - rather than the other (better) way around.
But moving on:
1) Can we apply the same criteria to
Christianity? Is the Christian House in order? Are Christians committing crimes in the name of their religion. The Australian Courts in the 'Catch the Fire' case seems to think so.
How does this work with 'Freedom to Lifers' who kill ab
How does this work with 'Freedom to Lifers' who kill abortionist doctors? Does their house need to be ordered?
Should we separate these movements for the rest of society until they are put in order.
Also why cut off the whole religion for the actions of a tiny minority - it seems rather harsh?
2) Agree with the first point. But I don't think moving into unpopulated areas is any protection from terrorists - I think if they want to terrorise, they will be able to cross any distance.
3) What, in your opinion, is the best way to convert others?
In all relationships there is a give and take dynamic. Only rarely can a single party in a relationaship be blamed for a breakdown in communication and the out break of an argument or a fight. This appplies to interacting with your spouse, children, and even in international relations. There has been an unprecidented collapse or breakdown of our relationship with the muslim world. Our (the West's) rleationship with the Muslim world has never been good. If we continue to assume that the fault of our failed relationship lies souly with the muslims, we will never solve this problem. Dismissing muslims and islam as violent will only help to perpetuate the conflict. We need to examine ourselves as well as study islam in order to understand and overcome this conflict once and forall. Allowing 200 year quotations of former presidents, with out even knowing the context of the quote, to guide our approach to this conflict will not solve anything.
I am amazed by the willfull ignorance of Conor and Dave.
Conor:"We need to examine ourselves as well as study islam in order to understand and overcome this conflict once and forall."
Dave:"Also why cut off the whole religion for the actions of a tiny minority - it seems rather harsh?"
The (once Christian) West has opened its doors to Islam - the reverse is not true. The West is politically indifferent to Islam within its own borders. Yet the "actions of a tiny minority" reap havoc globally regardless of the native religions encountered, but you two still say we should look at ourselves.
Q: How many people have to die till your conscience is satisfied that peacefull methods have been tried? Aren't you being rather vainglorious sacrificing others at the alter of your forgiveness?
I can only tolerate Islam so long as Islam will tolerate me.
That quote from John by Dave is taken out of context, but you could then quote, "Love you enemies, bless those that curse you." as further evidence of what we should do which would be spurious. Christians are not pacifists and are not called to be. We are told to take a sword with us for protection on outr journeys.
The Koran hasn't changed in 200 years. Adams was right then as he would be right now.
Islam is a cult of death camoflaged in ancient religious practices that have spiritual value like prayer, pilgrimage, purity and so forth.
The Thuggies were spiritual, too, but a little more upfront about worshipping murder.
Allahu akbar means - Allah is greatest. Not God, but that my Allah is greater than your Yahweh or Jesus or Buddha or God.
Thankyou Conor. I agree.
Pat:
You say:
The (once Christian) West has opened its doors to Islam - the reverse is not true.
I disagree.
Check out Dubai in the Arab Emeriates - a vivid mix of Western commericialism and Muslim values.
Dubai has.
(http://www.tripadvisor.com/ShowTopic-g295424-
Dubia_in_August_places_to_stay_things_to_do_and_no
t_do-k18372-i872-Dubai.html)
There are also examples for Muslim cultures in Asia.
On "Q: How many people have to die till your conscience is satisfied that peacefull methods have been tried? Aren't you being rather vainglorious sacrificing others at the alter of your forgiveness?"
I ask:
Q: How many people have to die till your conscience is satisfied that violent methods don't work? Aren't you being rather vainglorious sacrificing others at the alter of your self righteousness?
Mark:
On,
"Allahu akbar means - Allah is greatest. Not God, but that my Allah is greater than your Yahweh or Jesus or Buddha or God."
How different is that to Commandment no 1, 'Thou shalt have no other gods before me.'
PS. Also, in my reply to Pat, I meant Dubai and the Muslim countries in the Asia have opened their doors to Western society by the statment Dubai has.
Just Curious...
Has anyone here actually read the Koran?
Conor,
Indeed I have read the Koran. It's a little better than reading the Book of Mormon but not much. Keep in mind that one third of the Koran is gibberish. I mean that literally. It is untranslatable ungrammatic arabic gibberish. The Koran we read in English clears out the rubbish, but it's in the original.
Dave, allahu akbar doesn't mean God. There is another word in Arabic which means God. Allah refers to a moon God. This is the god that impressed Mohammed. He means that Allah is bigger and stronger than all the other gods and not that Yahweh, Jesus, Rama, the Great White Spirit are all manifestation of the One True God, which is what the Judaic God is, and what the Christian Trinity is.
You must judge the tree by its fruit. Islam is evil just as Mohammed was. It doesn't mean that every Muslim is, or that the religion doesn't have a good day or year now and then.
He he Dave, I see you cite the exception that proves the rule - and really, where are these "Muslim cultures in Asia" that have "a vivid mix of Western commericialism and Muslim values."? Do you mean Indonesia or Malaysia? The former only exists on Western aid and the latter slowly becoming what you claim it to be, after many years of western aid.
Conor: yes I have attempted to read the Qur'an but find that my desire to punish myself is not great enough. Perhaps I could cite the footnote from the King Fahd online english translation of the Qur'an on Jihad: "(V.2:190) Al-Jihād (holy fighting) in Allāhs Cause (with full force of numbers and weaponry) is given the utmost importance in Islām and is one of its pillar (on which it stands). By Jihād Islām is established, Allāhs Word is made superior, (His Word being Lā ilaha illallāh which means none has the right to be worshipped but Allāh), and His Religion (Islām) is propagated. By abandoning Jihād (may Allāh protect us from that) Islām is destroyed and the Muslims fall into an inferior position; their honour is lost, their lands are stolen, their rule and authority vanish. Jihād is an obligatory duty in Islām on every Muslim, and he who tries to escape from this duty, or does not in his innermost heart wish to fulfil this duty, dies with one of the qualities of a hypocrite."
Mark, Perhaps Mohamed was speaking in tongues as many Christians do with great enthusiasm on a regular basis.
Pat et al., perhaps Paul is right that Islam needs to sort itself out. It took Christianity what, a 1000 years to stop invading the Middle East to conquer holy lands and convert Muslims. Are we still doing that? 'Take this Democracy and like it, Damn It!' All religious texts contain contradictions and ambiguities. There are a bunch of Muslims focusing in on the "convert by the sword passages." There are a bunch of others concentrating on the 2 other methods for spreading the word: 1) with the heart, 3)with the tongue. Christianity requires the spreading of the faith as well, and only in recent centuries, has this been done peacefully (see: the Crusades, or the Spanish Inquisition).
The only point that I will concede on this matter is that Islam is behind the times and has not yet fully evolved past the urge to spread its religion with force. But Then again Musl
But Then again Muslims world wide also feel that their culture and religion and values are under attack from the West. I think some feel a sense of desperation, and are turning to violence because the Koran justifies violence when necessary. That is why I think we need to examine our approach to the Muslim world, and try to respect their needs and desires. Attempting to isolate the Muslim world might be a glorious return to Cold War-esque geo-politics, but Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world, and ignoring it, isolating it and continuing to disrespect it is dangerous.
Conor:
A little history - the middle east was Christian long before Isalm even showed up (ca 700 AD). Islam displaced Christianity by the sword; the Crusades were an attempt to REgain the land taken by Islam.
Spanish Inquisitiion - note Spanish not Catholic. The SI was a government sponsored endeavor to root out muslims, mostly, after the current expulsion from Spain. Having been under the muslim sword for centuries, the new Spanish government was little leery of them.
The ecclesiastical (Church) courts took over because the Spanish courts were too brutal and unfair, and most clerics had a better education than the government bureaucrats running the courts.
Conor, you also miss a rather pivotal distinction:
When Christians spread the Word by the sword, they were acting contrary to their Founder;
When Muslims spread their word by the sword, they are acting according to their founder.
big difference.
Having said that, the best hope is a Westernizing of Islam. Not all will accept it, but hopefully most will.
As for John Adam's observations, since 700 AD Islam has been at war with the world. Sometimes we have contemporary blindness - that is, we can only see our current slice of history and, to our peril, minimize the relevance of observations made by those in the past. Historical trends can sometimes only be seen in terms of decades or centuries (the previous post on birth control is a good example).
Dave:
Another problem we moderns have is equating progress in technology and increase in factual knowledge with wisdom. While we may have much better technology (email vs. carrier pigeons), we seem to possess a heck of a lot less wisdom. We are probably close to the Bronze Age in the Wisdom category.
Selected responses:
C Matt: Yes. I agree. We were much wiser when we burnt witches, kept slaves and kept women as chattels. My point, I think you're idealising the past.
2)
In philosophy, there's a type of false argument called a 'straw man'. Under this idea, the attacker sets up a false representation of their rival and then proceeds to hack at it. I think there's a strong case to argue that we are doing that with Islam - setting up straw men and then proceeding to point out that they are made of straw.
3)
Ask yourself, who profits (in a monetary sense) from your hatred of Islam. I think the answer is arms dealers, the military, sensationist book writers, companies that profit from citizen's fears (such as gun manufacturers, newspapers which print the skewed 'truth').
Not Christians, not Muslims - mainly corporations. Ask yourself, in your hatred of Islam, are you making yourself another person's puppet?
Pat:
You say 'I see you cite the exception that proves the rule'
Exceptions, according to logic, don't prove rules. They convert statements like 'All x's are y's' into 'Not all x's are y's'.
Unfortunately, it seems we may not only disagree on what love is, but also on what logic is.
(Sorry, inflamatory I know, but I thought it was a cool catchphrase).
You can kid yourself with all the sophistry you like Dave. It's a straightforward phrase meaning you cite one exception to the standard or general way of things.
ie. you can only name Dubai whereas I can name the entire Mid East, Africa and wherever Islam takes hold of nations and gov'ts.
Furthermore your understanding of the history of the crusades is lame. "It took Christianity what, a 1000 years to stop invading the Middle East to conquer holy lands and convert Muslims." There was no Islam in these lands till approx 670 AD following. These Christian, Judaic and polytheistic lands were conquered by Islam. The Crusaders sought to take back what they felt was theirs, historically and as prophesised. You've got the cart before the horse unfortunately.
In terms of sophistry, I only needed to point out an exception to disprove the statment:
The (once Christian) West has opened its doors to Islam - the reverse is not true.
which I did.
To continue, can you express in terms of a percentage how much of Islam do you think falls into the category of those not open to the West and those open to the West.
---
I make no claims on history of the crusades: As you suspect, my understanding of the history of the crusades is lame.
However, I would be interested if you could explain what the difference between a Crusader and a Muslim conquering the lands in approx 670 AD (if in fact they did do this).
To my eye they both seem to be people who conquer other's lands thorugh violence and the only difference between them is the religion they do it in the name of.
What makes one evil and the other heroic?
BTW - My favourite crusade is the Children's Crusade when all the kids who went off to war but got sold into slavery. Ht
Http://www.historyguide.org/anci...t/
children.html
Kind of makes you wonder who's side God was on that day.
dude, you need to update
Ahh, well, it's impossible to argue with folks determined to be invincibly ignorant about history and reality.
Islam is evil. Who profits from that truth? Nobody as yet. I would if I could, but with with idiots like Bush running around saying Islam is a religion of peace, I haven't found a big market for anti-muslim diatribes.
Oh, yes, Iraq has oil. I guess that's why the price has gone way down, which is nothing compared to all that Kuwaiti oil we still have that we took from our successful war for oil there.
Hi Dave, this is HAL speaking, the margaritas are ready by the pool - you'll be in Dubai in 10 minutes. Reality has been altered so that you may remain comfortable in your self constructed delusion. The inflight soundtrack is brought to you by Rammstein. If at any time you feel uncomfortable just click your heels 3 times and repeat "There's no place like home, there's no place like home...."
So, despite the personal insults from Pat, Mark, and others I am actually in part coming around to their side. I still have't read the Koran so I really shouldn't judge the book, but some articles I have read on the web indicate that Islam sactions violence against nonbelievers. However, I find it hard to belive that all muslims buy into that practice. Rather it seems that a minority are exploiting the koran's sactions as an excuse for murdering westerners. They are able to garner emotional support for their actions from non-violent muslims because of condescending and exploitative policies of the West towards the Middle East. Again, we need to examine our approach and find a way to meet thier needs as well as our own. Killing all the terrorists will never happen, we need to find away to undermine their appeal.
Conor, I was just returning Daves' love in kind
Where you say "... condescending and exploitative policies of the West towards the Middle East. Again, we need to examine our approach and find a way to meet thier needs as well as our own." I think you should keep in mind that we are all responsible for our actions, regardless of our circumstances, and that applies to muslims.
I know of no-one or no nation that has not been 'exploited'. During WWII there was a saying here in Oz that the yanks were "overpaid, oversexed, and over here." Regardless of the self motivation of the USA as a result of Pearl Harbour, we Ozzies owe our existence today to American military superiority. Thankfully the sepos also believed in 'liberty'.
If you want to read the Qur'an it is online at (http://www.qurancomplex.org/Quran/Targama/
Targama.asp?nSora=2&l=eng&nAya=190#2_190)
Conor:
I think you described my position too.
I want to judge the Islamic religion, not by looking at the Koran, but by looking at the Islam people themselves.
From my readings, I've found quotes from people I trust that 'Terrorism is the abnormality in Islam - not the normality'. Every society has it's brutes (including mine) and I'm not prepared to make any decisions on the whole of the group based on the actions of a tiny few.
In viewing Islam as the enemy, as some people here are want to do, it reminds me of something Ghandi said 'The quickest way to defeat an enemy is to turn him into a friend.' This can be done by understanding, patience and love.
Pat: which part of Australia are you in?
Mark: Some of the people profiting from a hatred of Islam would include HalliBurton - the arms manufacturere - because countries will buy bombs to protect themselves and the military complex. Money that is now being diverted to these people could be used for better purp
Money that is now being diverted to these people could be used for better purposes - such as religious education.
Cheers
I want to judge the Islamic religion, not by looking at the Koran, but by looking at the Islam people themselves.
But the Koran IS Islam, according to its own adherents. Its like wanting to judge Christianity without the Scriptures or Judaism without the Torah, or Communism without the Communist Manifesto. Its nonsense.
And how does Halliburton, an oilfield service company that does not sell arms, profit from arms sales? For that matter, Michael Moore profits handsomely from a hate of Islam. Otherwise, there would be no Farenhiet 911 for him to make.
If you do not want to judge using the Koran, what you are really saying is that the only good Muslim, is a bad one. I don't disagree that there are many Muslims (probably the vast majority) that do not want to follow the jihadists. But does that mean they are following, or not following Islam, if the Holy Book of Islam, the Koran, says they should do jihad?
I think I see the problem now:
Some of you guys are arguing:
The Koran is a reflection of who the Muslim's are as a people.
I'm arguing the Koran is not a reflection of who the Muslim's are as a people.
Thus if the Koran is full of violence, you say Muslim's are violent and I say, if the Koran is full of violence it doesn't necessarily follow that Muslim's are too. It depends on their interpretation of the text. You got to look at the people themselves to work this out.
I think comparisons can be drawn with Christianity. There is only one Bible, but it's false to say that all Christians are the same. They range from the Fundamental to those who don't go to church. The same can be said for Jewish and Torah, Bhuddists and any group you like - including anti-abortionists, gun lobbists etc.
You say "Judge the Muslims by their Koran", I say, "Judge the Muslim's by understanding the Muslim's"
I think you get a better picture of a person by working directly wi
I think you get a better picture of a person by working directly with them rather than implying stuff from other sources.
Halliburton - I thought it was an arms dealer (my mistake) It's a private miltary contracter - which still makes profit from war - which is still my point - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halliburton. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Pri...tary_contractor
c matt:
You say "But does that mean they are following, or not following Islam, if the Holy Book of Islam, the Koran, says they should do jihad?"
Very interesting question. I don't know. It does reach into the heart of the question - what is a Muslim?
I suspect it comes done to levels of moderation or various people's interpretations.
A similar example can be drawn with any religion. For example, does it mean that a Jewish person is following or not following Judaism if they drive to the Synagoge on Saturday instead of walking? Or don't have a Bartmitza?
(Please forgive my lame knowledge of Judaism here)
Hi Dave, I live near Sydney.
IMO a major difference between being a Muslim who follows the Qur'an and a Christian who follows the Bible is that Christians look to not "this world" but the "world to come." We are not to be "of this world."
Islam on the other hand is very much founded 'in this world' and seeks to implement Allahs laws right here, right now - thus Sharia.
Christianity has gone through the seperation during the Reformation.
The Qur'an is very specific as to its laws and it is beholden on all muslims to "submit" to Allahs laws. In fact the word 'islam' means submission to god's laws. As such you will find that Muslims who observe the Qur'an are obsessive in doing everything according to god's law, from which hand to use in the toilet, how to wash, how to pray etc It is precise in its commandments.
Christians have been liberated from 'law' by receiving the Spirit which informs 'the law'.
As a Christian and a Westerner we need to observe
Cont'd
As a Christian and a Westerner we need to observe our command to 'love' yet on the other hand we are responsible, as are all adults to children, gov'ts to citizens, to ensure the safety and liberty of our people. Thus it would be a dangerous form of fundamentalism to enact Christian love in our diplomatic and political relationships with other nations.
Sorry to be so long winded.
Dave,
You really should stop digging when the top of the pit is above your head. I've been following the author and contributors on this sight for quite some time and I've observed that you better have your argument well prepared lest you be made to look foolish. I'd say from these postings that your argument needs some work.
It certainly needs some work. It really is not for Christians or Jews or secularists to enter into the debate of what Islam is. That is for Muslims to answer.
C matt's interpretation of Dave's position is nicely phrased: "what you are really saying is that the only good Muslim, is a bad one." This is the rub. Dave, Conor (and many others) want us to take our view of Islam, not from its faithful adherents, but from its apostates.
This is like asking us to judge Christianity by a sociological evaluation of the nominal Christians, or "credit card Catholics," as one of the nuns who taught me described them. It is a fool's errand.
"'The quickest way to defeat an enemy is to turn him into a friend.' This can be done by understanding, patience and love."
While the fellow is sawing your head off your neck? This is worse than naive.
Dave, there are no "friends" among nations. The are countries with common principles and interests, and those are subject to change on a dime.
Nor can there be true friendship between religions. Respect, perhaps, and tolerance certainly.
Pat:
I'm not sure what your position is on conversion of non-Christians - but I'll direct this one to you.
You say: We are not to be "of this world."
Then why care for this world. Why not cut yourselves off from the rest of the world, turn off your blogs, and your conversion and commit yourselves to sole the worship of God.
Why do Christian's care what non-Christians believe if they are not of this world? Why preach?
Phil G: Thanks for the feedback. Any arguments in particular you think need work?
Paul: It really is not for Christians or Jews or secularists to enter into the debate of what Islam is. That is for Muslims to answer.
I agree - which makes your quote from John Quincy Adams look foolish.
Any perhaps your own views too - when you say 'Islam is evil'.
Dave, Conor (and many others) want us to take our view of Islam, not from its faithful adherents, but from its apostates.
A nice summary. Correct on my part.
But what I also
A nice summary. Correct on my part.
But what I also want you to do is not judge all apostates by the actions of the fatihful (to use your words) becuase 99.9% of Muslim's are apostates (Your view). To attempt to say that all Muslims of being terrorists and blood thirsty evil doers is morally cupable.
In future, instead of using the word Muslims, I would like to see you use the words 'extremists' or 'terrorists' or some such distinction to make this clear. It's only fair.
mark butterworth:
Strangely, I agree.
While the fellow is sawing your head off your neck? This is worse than naive
It probably is too late at that point. It makes sense to try and befriend them before it gets to that stage. For example, while the parties are still talking to each other.
Nor can there be true friendship between religions. Respect, perhaps, and tolerance certainly.
I can accept that. But villication of the other won't achieve this respect and tolerance. Only m
I can accept that. But villication of the other won't achieve this respect and tolerance. Only mutual understanding will.
Correction:
In my reply to Paul I meant apostates (Your words).
not
apostates (Your view).
Apoligies.
Two new arguments:
Paul says:
This is like asking us to judge Christianity by a sociological evaluation of the nominal Christians, or "credit card Catholics," as one of the nuns who taught me described them. It is a fool's errand.
I think Paul recognises that there is a difference between credit card Catholics and real Christians - such as himself.
I think with this distinction, Paul would argue, it would be wrong if St Peter let the credit card Christian's into heaven based on the actions of the faithful - such as Paul and co.
Or to send the real Christians to hell with the cc Christians because of the actions of the credit card Christian's.
I think he would argue that there is a difference between the credit card Christians and the real Christians. And I'm guessing that Paul would want each group treated differently.
In Islam, there are the extremists and the apostates. In his comments Paul applies the same brush to each - the apostates (Paul's words
In his comments Paul applies the same brush to each - the apostates (Paul's words) can be judged with the extremists. All Muslim's are warlike, etc, etc, etc.
As I think Paul would argue with the Christian example, I argue the Muslim groups (the extremists and the apostates (Paul's words)) should be not be identified as a single group. I think it is morally irresponsable to do so.
Sorry - only one argument.
Only one argument, yes, and a very sloppy one. The whole point about the "credit card Catholics" or "nominal Christians" is that they are not really Catholics or Christians. It is for them that Christ reserves those terrible words in Matthew 7: "I never knew you."
By the same token, apostate Muslims are not Muslims, for by definition an apostate is one who renounces his faith.
Therefore it is, strictly speaking, quite absurd to say that apostate Muslims are Muslims at all.
Now: do I think that most Muslims are basically peaceful people? Yes. But do I pass from that to nodding dumbly when it is said that Islam is a religion of peace? No, I do not.
Now: do I think that most Muslims are basically peaceful people? Yes. But do I pass from that to nodding dumbly when it is said that Islam is a religion of peace? No, I do not.
Good. It seems we are approaching consensus.
When you say the word 'Muslims' you mean the extremists.
When I hear the word 'Muslims' I think the whole Muslim community - not only those in Sadi Arabia and Iran, but all Muslim's everywhere.
Hence, when you say 'Muslim's are wormongering' you are saying ' Extremist Muslim's are war mongering' - which is easy enough to accept. Some Christian groups through history have been 'war mongering' - ie Crusaders.
But because of your loose speech what I hear is, and what I guess a lot of your readers also hear, in your words that 'Muslims are war mongers' is 'All Muslim's everywhere are war mongers' which is false and is false witness against your neighbour.
The same goes for the word Islam. When you take about Islam, you are not t
When you talk about Islam, you are not talking about Islam as it is practised, but Islam as it is written in the Quaran (which it may well be as you describe).
In future, I would advise making your definitions very, very clear. Make sure you say "Extremists" instead of Muslims and "Islam if taken absolutely literally from the Quran" instead of just "Islam".
To do otherwise, just brings about confusion and makes things worse.
Dave:
"Hence, when you say 'Muslim's are wormongering' [sic] you are saying ' Extremist Muslim's are war mongering'"
Except that I never said Muslims are warmongering.
Here is a fine example of the almost comical sloppiness of your arguments: you hinge a good part of your rebuke to me upon things I have not said.
Paul wrote:
[H]e [Muhammad] declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind . . . The precept of the Koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God.
Paul wrote:
[H]e [Muhammad] declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind . . . The precept of the Koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God.
and said that it was richly illuminating - which I take to mean you agree.
If that isn't saying that Muslim's are warmongers - I don't know what is.
Dave:
How can this be so obscure to you? Adams' statement concerns (1) Muhammad and (2) the Koran. Both of his judgments can be checked against, respectively, Muhammad's personal history and the Koran.
If Adams' is wrong is his conclusions, then the burden of your position is to demonstrate that; if he is right, then his statement stands.
It is not defamation, or incitement or anything else to express facts. Even the despised Alien and Sedition Acts of early American history retained an absolute defense of truth.
I can agree that a truth occurs when a statement matches up with what has occured. This is not in dispute.
What I am disputing is why you bring this up. My guess is it is to incite hatred against Muslims.
The action is not bad because it false (a misrepresentation of an event) but because of it's purpose. By purpose, I mean, through your choice of what truths you display you designed to give a incorrect view of what today's Muslim's are.
This can be also seen in your lack of balance in your quotes.
Hey Dave,
I have an idea . Why don't you go to a fanatical islamic country declare your christianity via essays, pamplets and/or newspapers but insist you respect islam as peaceful religion and see if you still beleive its a peaceful religion.
Commenting by HaloScan
