Originally posted by vistesdI don't think I understan you correctly. But I think you want to summarize this debate. "All religons are the same"
Vistesd: The question does arise as to how so many Christians have committed so many atrocities over the centuries in the name of their religion, if they were following the loving Christ.
Lucifershammer: Simply because they weren't.
Ahosyney: If you will say that I will say they are not Muslims too.
________________________________
Makes my day. 🙂
Am I correct?
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by louisXIVJesus walked on water, Mohammad rode on a camel...
It's interesting to compare Jesus' and Mohammed's life. To resume it, one could say the following:
Jesus washed his disciples' feet, Mohammed washed off the blood of the swords of his followers!
The life of Jesus could be imitated without hesitation in every point, but I would not advice anyone to do the same with Mohammed. It would make out of him a murderer, thief, rapist etc...
How do you explain that Mohammed lived such a terrible life?
Jesus healed the lame, Mohammad lamed the healthy...
We could go on and on...
Originally posted by ahosyneyNo, not the same—though often not so different as people assume, at least with regard to underlying ideals. My purpose here has been to point out that we often assume things about other religions without having studied them thoroughly—or only studying them from people whose goal is to show how bad the other religion is. If I want to understand Islam, I will read Muslim scholars (as well as “neutral” scholars of comparative religion); the same if I want to understand Hinduism or any other religion. If I really want to understand the religious texts, I will try to learn at least something of the language in which they are expressed. (for example, I am hampered by the fact that I know no Arabic at all—though I have a small idea how the language works, since I know a little hebrew, and they are both Semitic languages that work on a consonantal root system). That kind of thing.
I don't think I understan you correctly. But I think you want to summarize this debate. "All religons are the same"
Am I correct?
“Makes my day” is a euphemism that means something made me happy, or that I agree with: in this case, it was in response to you and lucifershammer’s combined responses. Sorry for the confusion...
Originally posted by vistesdNo problem at all. Actually I like your way. And I agree with you. But that what I try to do, at least with Christianity. But I surprised that many attack Islam just because they listen to media and non-muslims and repeat what they say. No one really try to read about Islam to see if what he know right or wrong.
No, not the same—though often not so different as people assume, at least with regard to underlying ideals. My purpose here has been to point out that we often assume things about other religions without having studied them thoroughly—or only studying them from people whose goal is to show how bad the other religion is. If I want to understand Islam, I wil ...[text shortened]... , it was in response to you and lucifershammer’s combined responses. Sorry for the confusion...
Originally posted by vistesdSo why hasn't the muslim world put out a death warrent on Bin Laden?
Some who call themselves Muslims also take liberties with the Qur’an to justify aggression, oppression and atrocities—such as Osama Bin Laden, the Taliban, suicide bombers across the board.
Anti-terrorist fatwas seem to have been slow in coming, but here are some—
Spanish Muslims proclaimed a fatwa against Bin Laden in March of 2005 [2]. They said ...[text shortened]... ll the extremists. (It’s also, perhaps, going to take better media reporting of them.)
In Pakistan where he seems to be holed up, there is a lot of support for him and the Pakistani government is almost treating him with kid gloves. It seems Muslim law is still looking the other way because they see a common enemy in christianity.
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseAs a technical matter, the “Muslim world” does not speak with one voice—any more than, say, Congregationalist churches. (See my prior posts here on fatwas.)
So why hasn't the muslim world put out a death warrent on Bin Laden?
In Pakistan where he seems to be holed up, there is a lot of support for him and the Pakistani government is almost treating him with kid gloves. It seems Muslim law is still looking the other way because they see a common enemy in christianity.
Why did not the civilized, intelligent, German Christians stand against Hitler when he was coming to power? (A few did; not the majority church, however.)
But that is not an answer either—I know you well enough for that! The broader question may be, “Why do members of any group that professes certain virtues that you and I would agree upon, allow their group to be used by some for purposes that run exactly counter to those virtues?” Fear, complacency, disempowerment?*
Do me a favor—since this thread has been specifically Christian versus Muslim in tenor, and I think your critique goes far deeper than that—take a look at my last post in the “7 Questions” thread, where I have tried, probably badly, to at least put the “core” question...
_________________________
* I want to point out that, although I think the Islamic protests need to get broader and more vocal—as does, say, Abou el Fadl—the media coverage of such is not always great. For example, from Karen Armstrong’s biography of Muhammad:
“Far more coverage was given, for example, to the Muslims who vociferously supported Ayatollah Khomeini’s fatwa against British author Salman Rushdie than to the majority who opposed it. The religious authorities of Saudi Arabia [hardly liberals!] and the sheikhs of the prestigious mosque of Al-Azhar in Cairo both condemned the fatwa as illegal and un-Islamic: Muslim law does not permit a man to be sentenced to death without trial and has no jurisdiction outside the Islamic world. At the Islamic Conference of march 1989, forty-four out of the forty-five member states unanimously rejected the Ayatollah’s ruling. But this received only cursory attention in the British press and left many people with the misleading impression that the entire Muslim world was clamouring for Rushdie’s blood.”
This example is dated—but I recall the sparse coverage in the US given to Muslim denunciations of 9/11 (often relegated to page 3, etc.).
But then, how many people are reading Abou el Fadl’s book?
Originally posted by vistesdI would add a fourth factor -- the majority may, in some cases, actually support the principles of the extreme faction. This, I think, is what is happening across the Muslim world at the moment.
The broader question may be, “Why do members of any group that professes certain virtues that you and I would agree upon, allow their group to be used by some for purposes that run exactly counter to those virtues?” Fear, complacency, disempowerment?
Originally posted by louisXIVThe fact that you chastise ahosyney for taking this verse out of context and misreading it and
Originally posted by ahosyney
[b]Luk 19:27
But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.
I'm very sorry Sir, but next time you quote from the Bible, please take note of the context. (Doing that is called exegesis by the way...) Jesus is telling a parabel, a story if this is easi ...[text shortened]... and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven.[/b]
yet do not recognize that you did exactly the same thing with his Holy Book is very telling,
indeed. It tells me that you are trying to remove a speck from his eye while ignoring the log in
your own.
Nemesio
Originally posted by ivanhoeAre you seriously alleging that the Crusades were just some sort of preemptive strike?
One must not forget that the crusades were an answer to the expansion of Islam to the west. Nowadays it is not done to emphasise this and the current liberal fashion, parroting the present extremist Jihadists, even turns things 180 degrees by stating that past and present Jihad is an answer to the crusades.
And you're not pro-war in Iraq?
Nemesio
Originally posted by HalitoseEver heard that story about a road, Hell, and good intentions?
There may be a subtle difference between "intent" and "execution" (bad pun intended).
Just because the Crusades might have had good intentions doesn't
mean that the Church (or its constituents) should find them defensible. That Ivanhoe would claim that the 'liberal media' has
hijacked the truth about the Crusades sounds an awful lot like
defending them as the rational response to Muslim expansion.
And, it sure does indeed sound a lot like how Bush defended and
continues to defend his decision with Iraq.
Nemesio