I am curious. Do you think history is cyclical or linear?
Putting aside the question of the legitimacy of Islam because I really don't care about the answer, didn't Christianity have the same barbarism and intolerance 100 years ago, 200 years ago, 600 years ago?
Let me first make clear I am not trying to justify what these nutjobs in the Phillipines have done. It's the broader philosophical question of the cyclical nature of history that intrigues me. There was a time when Islam was the center of enlightenment, scientific advancement, literature, arts, etc. At that time, Europe was in the dark ages and the Church was engaging in unspeakable atrocities and I can see the Muslims of that time talking about Christian behavior much the same way Christians speak of Muslims today.
Is it the nature of history that everyone gets their turn at the crazy wheel or is it linear? If it is linear, is it appropriate to expect all people to be at the same level of enlightenment?
Israeli Soldiers shoot and kill young Palestinian boys, but does this discredits the entire Jewish Faith?
-Or-
I believe dogs are cute. Thousands of people who think does are cute committed murders last year, does that discredit all dog lovers?
Woah hang on II, Meg is using my ice-cream/gay argument against me!
Good one Meg, one point on the board for you.
No, my assertion about Islam is that it asks questions that beg to be answered:
Why is Jesus mentioned more and higher than Muhammed???
Does it say to convert-or-kill or not?
What about the Galatians 1:18 warning and Muhammed's vision 200 years later?
As far as Christian Atrocities: The same jerks who thought the world was flat ran what passed for the Church. I cannot pretend to defend a militant and difinitvely non-Christian view from so called Christian leaders (ala Pat Robertson, anyone?).
your ice-crewm gay argument? can you run that one past me again?
wait, i found it:
"I like vanilla bean ice cream. Am I subject to different rights than those who prefer choclolate-wait, better say strawberry(to avoid the Nagen cliche)?"
No, you're not subject to different rights. That's the way it should be. There is no reasonable reason to differentiate between chocolate/vanilla ice cream eaters. And there is no good reason (it's gross, is not a good reason) to differentiate between homosexuals and heterosexuals.
One misconception among Christians about Islam is that the word kafir (which loosely translates to infidel) means non-Muslim. That is, in fact, an error. The word kafir means atheist so most of the parts of the Quran that talk about killing the kafiroon (plural of kafir) have to do with those who deny the existence of God.
II, I am pretty sure you are actually not correct there from a basis of Quran.
Here is what I find:
a Qur'anic definition of Kafir is: 1)according to the the Qur'an, one who is ungrateful
to the blessings showered by Allah, the Almighty (sometimes is used to describe Muslims of a different sect as in this site
http://al-islam.org/organization.../msg00044.html)
2)In a religious context it generally means a person who is not of the belief that God is only one and that Mohammad is His final messenger.
http://www.answers.com/topic/kafir-2
Only when used out of direct religious context does it come to mean something like "athiest"...
In order to keep discussions on a level board I choose to accept the books (Bible vs Quoran) as text reference and that eliminates the broader geralities applied from outside.
The first link didn't work. The second link also had the following: "The noun kufr means "not believing in God" or "blasphemy, atheism." The reminder of the discussion of how to define "kafir" is subject to "fiqh", study of Islamic law and each school of Islamic jurisprudence approaches the subject differently. The word kafir is the word in the Quran. Anything more is interpretation.
It would be impossible to square the principle of Christians and Jews being "ahl al kitab" (people of the book) with them being "kafiroon". That's contradictory.
Apologies on the links. I just googled the term "kafir definition" and reviewed the first page of links.
While I understand your perspective of "square the principle of Christians and Jews being "ahl al kitab" " I meant that for the sake of argument assume either/or/both are true books and therefore the guide for the discussion. By extension the Quoranic definition of kafir or kaffir becomes restricted to those who are not under the Islamic Allah belief falling under the aceptance of the Quoran as true.
Therefore Jews & Christians would be Kafir based on the use in the Quoran.
Which differs from your initial definition.
On the question of cyclical versus linear, it is difficult to pin down.
I would have to go with cyclical, but only as far as education fails to explain or teach history. "Those who do not know the past are doomed to repeat it"
Also, your take of cyclical is that the Christians will take on some kind of massive crusade again. Very doubtful as the control of the church and military are vastly different from when England initiated the crusades. Usually the cycles in history are similar activities taken by different peoples. For instance, I would equate today's Iranian president with Hitler.
I would also submit that Iran's church and miltary are in a similar control system as England's was during the Crusades.
Commenting by HaloScan
