11 Sep 06
After debating in some other threads about Islamic fundamentalism I have come to realize some things. Islam appears to have changed significantly from its original roots. It was not always a religion of fundamentalism and fanaticism. In fact, the Islamic world was once a beakon of intellectual thought during the Dark Ages.
http://www.time.com/time/europe/magazine/printout/0,13155,901051121-1129488,00.html
Also the Islamic world at one time was one of the most liberal places of tolerance toward other religions. So why the change? For example, why do we now have the President of Iran chasing out liberal intellectuals and attempting to censor those of opposing view points as another thread pointed out and why must the Zionists be thrown into the sea without thought given to the possibility of diplomacy? Where did the tolerance go towards other religions and where did the persuit of knowledge and intellectual thought disappear?
11 Sep 06
Originally posted by whodeyThe Crusades, western imperialism and aggressive Zionism.
After debating in some other threads about Islamic fundamentalism I have come to realize some things. Islam appears to have changed significantly from its original roots. It was not always a religion of fundamentalism and fanaticism. In fact, the Islamic world was once a beakon of intellectual thought during the Dark Ages.
http://www.time.com/time/europ ...[text shortened]... wards other religions and where did the persuit of knowledge and intellectual thought disappear?
11 Sep 06
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungPuh-lease....That had nothing to do with it. This did:
The Crusades, western imperialism and aggressive Zionism.
"This terrible sense of inferiority before the unbelievers is coupled with the innate fundamentalism of Islamic life and theology which has gripped the religion since the 12th century. In its early centuries, Islam was characterised, if not by religious toleration, than at least by an openness to innovative discovery and science which generally causes a civilisation to advance ahead of its rivals. Thus, the Islamic nations advanced far ahead of the petty Catholic European states, being justly renowned for their advances in fields such as optics, mathematics, chemistry, astronomy, and governmental philosophy3. However, around the 12th century, this attitude of inquiry was gradually replaced by the present attitude of anti-innovation and societal regression, in large part due to the influence of the Damascene theologian al-Taymiya (1263-1328 AD). The son of a theologian of the Hanbalite school (the strictest of the four major schools of Islamic law), al-Taymiya proved even more reactionary, and his hatred of all heretics (even Muslims who disagreed with strict orthodoxy, such as Ismailis and Shi'ites) caused him to advance an extreme position against innovation of any kind, coupled with an advocacy of a return to the strict interpretation of the Qur'an. This sort of return to the 7th century has been, for all practical purposes, the position taught uniformly throughout Islam since al-Taymiya. Various revival movements, such as the Wahhabi movement and the Sudanese Mahdism, have served to retain this strict and unyielding interpretation of the Qur'an, with its concommitant intolerance and hatred for all non-Muslims4. For many, perhaps most, Muslims, the way of altering the inferior status in which they find themselves vis-á-vis the Judeo-Christian West is to return to an idealised past when the Qur'an was followed perfectly and Islam ruled. For some Muslims, this is attained by purging the Muslim world of all foreign influences interjected by the infidels, and by returning to the military advancement of Islam, the jihad, believed to be the will of Allah. For more Muslims, it simply means to try to advance Islam by any means, whether through the military, propaganda, subterfuge, or otherwise. Indeed, most Muslims are "fundamentalist" in the sense that they hold to a strict interpretation of the Qur'an. The difference between the militant and the peaceable Muslim is similar to that between the revolutionary and the democratic socialist: one is willing to use even violence to achieve the ultimate end, while the other contents him or herself with "working within the system" to realise the goal of Islamisation and bringing the world into Dar es-Salaam."
From: http://www.studytoanswer.net/islam_myths.html
11 Sep 06
Originally posted by Crusader ScottDue to the source of that exerpt, I strongly suspect the author of heavy bias. I recommend everyone keep in mind that this was published by
Puh-lease....That had nothing to do with it. This did:
"This terrible sense of inferiority before the unbelievers is coupled with the innate fundamentalism of Islamic life and theology which has gripped the religion since the 12th century. In its early centuries, Islam was characterised, if not by religious toleration, than at least by an openness ...[text shortened]... the world into Dar es-Salaam."
From: http://www.studytoanswer.net/islam_myths.html
"Study to Answer.Net
A Resource for a Reasoned, Respectful, and Ready Defence of the Christian Faith"
11 Sep 06
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungDid the handle "Crusader Scott" give the game away a little too? Or was it the asinine use of "puh-leese"?
Due to the source of that exerpt, I strongly suspect the author of heavy bias. I recommend everyone keep in mind that this was published by
"Study to Answer.Net
A Resource for a Reasoned, Respectful, and Ready Defence of the Christian Faith"
11 Sep 06
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI'm sure someone of your wit and sense of humour could use 'pur-leease' in a sentence and have the room in stiches, though.
Did the handle "Crusader Scott" give the game away a little too? Or was it the asinine use of "puh-leese"?
Pur-leease.
Is that how it works?
11 Sep 06
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThe Crusades, apparently, were not considered that big a deal by the Muslim world when they were happening, the people of Syria and environs excepted, of course. The Crusades have however been incorporated into modern-day Muslim revanchisme (along with the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and other edifying texts). To serve as effective propaganda their impact and importance have been exaggerated--not that the Crusaders didn't massacre the population of Jerusalem, but the Crusades were not viewed as a catastrophe of the order of, say, the Mongol invasions, when kingdom after kingdom fell and the world truly seemed as though it was coming to an end. (The poet Rumi's spiritual poetry arose in the wake of the Mongol menace, which added its own stamp to Islam; the ferocious Timurlaine was a Mongol Muslim who interpreted the Koran in a particularly Mongol way).
The Crusades, western imperialism and aggressive Zionism.
11 Sep 06
Originally posted by whodeyYou need to look at each country in particular and take it from there. Ask why the situation in Iran is the way it is now (look at the last two shahs, the revolution, and the other revolution, not to mention the war with Iraq); look at Palestine and the various players involved there; look at Turkey (a secular state). Stop consulting biased sites--even when their information is accurate, their rhetoric is slanted. I believe you have a sincere desire to know what is "wrong" with your fellow human beings the Muslims; with compassion and historical perspective try to put yourself in their shoes.
After debating in some other threads about Islamic fundamentalism I have come to realize some things. Islam appears to have changed significantly from its original roots. It was not always a religion of fundamentalism and fanaticism. In fact, the Islamic world was once a beakon of intellectual thought during the Dark Ages.
http://www.time.com/time/europ ...[text shortened]... wards other religions and where did the persuit of knowledge and intellectual thought disappear?
The Muslims themselves have been asking what is wrong with their world ever since Ali was murdered (rise of the Shiah--do you understand the difference between Shiah & Sunnah? If you really care about these issues, find out--from a book, preferably). Tension between state and Islam has existed since the death of Mohammed; for example; the court at Baghdad was decidedly un-Islamic in its luxurious decadence. From time to time reformers have arisen in attempts to purge Islam of decadence and return to what the reformers thought was real Islam, with mixed results. Very diverse, very complex--no single Islam ever, except under Mohammed himself; no easy answers.
11 Sep 06
Originally posted by whodeyIt is a reaction to their culture and religion being threatened by western foreign policy.
After debating in some other threads about Islamic fundamentalism I have come to realize some things. Islam appears to have changed significantly from its original roots. It was not always a religion of fundamentalism and fanaticism. In fact, the Islamic world was once a beakon of intellectual thought during the Dark Ages.
http://www.time.com/time/europ ...[text shortened]... wards other religions and where did the persuit of knowledge and intellectual thought disappear?
12 Sep 06
3 edits
Originally posted by Crusader ScottI wonder, who here disagrees with this assessment? Is Islam not unique in this regard? I know of many liberal interpretations of the Bible in Christiandom but not with the Quran in the world of Islam.
Indeed, most Muslims are "fundamentalist" in the sense that they hold to a strict interpretation of the Qur'an.