Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Tempers run rather high on these topics, and perhaps its just not possible to agree on a premise, on which we might build a reasonable debate. But might I ask that we try?
Perhaps for a start we might agree that the holy books of a faith, even if they are the word of God, have parts that are considered more or less important? So when the bible says:
If a man has sex with a woman on her period, they are both to be cut off from their people
~Leviticus 20:18
it is not currently taken literally. But other sections (thou shalt not kill ) are taken to be laws. The hierarchy of information is a matter of interpretation, and one that changes over time. For example early Christians were generally pacifists (thou shalt not kill) but religious law on the matter change with political circumstance to form 'just war' theory, where killing was OK in certain circumstances.
I do not mean to say that God doesn't exist, let us just say that God's word is intended to be interpreted in different ways, by different people and at different times.
The same is true of Islam, the Koran does not say that woman must be veiled, and it does forbid killing. But the Juris prudence of Islamic law changed, in reaction to the colonial struggle. Allowing for increasing killing to become more acceptable.
My suggestion here is simply that Islam's violent interpretation now is a subject of the colonial struggle, and of the dictators in power at the moment, and not the cause of violence. This is why tackling 'Islam' as the problem is such an error, but that tackling politics is the answer. This is why revolutions in Egypt could be such a good thing.
In the Cold war it was considered acceptable to support dictators to maintain our short-term interests, isn't in time to look to the long-term, to democracy?
While it is clear that OT Law was applied to the Ancient Israelites, the same cannot be said of the hateful commands in the koran. Yes--islam is a major part of the problem.
My suggestion here is simply that Islam's violent interpretation now is a subject of the colonial struggle, and of the dictators in power at the moment, and not the cause of violence. This is why tackling 'Islam' as the problem is such an error, but that tackling politics is the answer.
Colonialism did not cause Islam to be violent, although one could be forgiven for coming to that conclusion if one only looked at the last two hundred years of history. Islam was violence right from the time of its founder Mohammad. It waged war on all of hte other tribes in Arabia, including Mohammad's own people when they rejected him as a prophet. After Mohammad's death his band of warriors spread out conquering in virtually every direction. Two hundred years after Mohammad's death the Islamic empire spread over one thousand miles and all of that territory had been acquired through violent conquest.
Expansion ended after the Muslim forces lost the battle of Viennna in 1529. From then on they fell farther and farther behind in technology -- an increasingly important component of successful warfare. Contact between Europe and the Islamic world was not very frequent until the age of colonialism. Colonialism, and much later oil dependancy, brought Muslim and non-Muslim societies back in to closer contact and close contact always opens the possibility for conflict but it is incorrect to see colonialism as a cause of that conflict. The cause remains the mandate in Islam to spread the faith until it covers the entire world.
I left Christianity over 40 years ago after living in asia for an extended period of time and being exposed to oriental forms of higher belief. Reading this thread reminds me of the overriding conclusions I came to at that time that prompted me to abandon Christianity and related faiths.
In the Three Major monthiestic religions there is only one God and they all believe in that same God.
In Islam the basic tenant is "There is only one God and Muhammud is His Prophet".
In Judaism, it is "There is only one God and he shall remain nameless".
In Christianity, "There is only one God and his Son is Jesus Christ."
I realized that all three religions believe in the same God and came to the conclusions that all interpretation after that fact was political and divisive. My question was, "How can so many people believe in the same God and implement his teachings so differently?" I came to realize that the different interpretations of the same God were man's efforts to control his societies and were strictly political in nature.
I subsequently followed the path of Buddha and determined that we each are responsible for our own salvation and enlightenment rather than a stated dogma interpreted by others. I still feel that way today. I hold Christianity, Islam and Judaism as so much human posturing, all aimed at redifining the same God they all revere.
Edit to add: I hope this post is not too abstract or off topic. If so, mods are free to delete it.
By the way, yes, it does. Since it does, it's important. How important depends on a myriad of factors....which could fill volumes, much less 2000 words.
Colonialism did not cause Islam to be violent, although one could be forgiven for coming to that conclusion if one only looked at the last two hundred years of history. Islam was violence right from the time of its founder Mohammad. It waged war on all of the other tribes in Arabia, including Mohammad's own people when they rejected him as a prophet. After Mohammad's death his band of warriors spread out conquering in virtually every direction. Two hundred years after Mohammad's death the Islamic empire spread over one thousand miles and all of that territory had been acquired through violent conquest.
Expansion ended after the Muslim forces lost the battle of Viennna in 1529. From then on they fell farther and farther behind in technology -- an increasingly important component of successful warfare. Contact between Europe and the Islamic world was not very frequent until the age of colonialism. Colonialism, and much later oil dependancy, brought Muslim and non-Muslim societies back in to closer contact and close contact always opens the possibility for conflict but it is incorrect to see colonialism as a cause of that conflict. The cause remains the mandate in Islam to spread the faith until it covers the entire world.
I think that we can all agree that judging actions taken in the 6th century, isn't really productive, certainly the rise of Islamic society was one of violent expansion, but, frankly, its difficult to say not to say that you any society: British (took over 1/3 of the world invented concentration camps), American (cough genocide cough) Russia (expanded in the 19th century) French (good old Napoleon, the last time France was cool).
The question is one of: 'does Islam really CAUSE Islamic people to try and kill all non-Islamic people'. If this hypothesis were correct, one would expect not to have any examples of peaceful governments in Islamic countries, whereas Jews, Christians at et live in peace, and where wars are relatively infrequent.
Yet, the Ottoman empire stood for 600 years, as a relatively peaceful, stable Islamic government. Furthermore the empire contained a significant Christian and Jewish population, who were allowed to live in the empire as Christians/Jews. In fact, this peace was only shattered, when Christian Europeans and Russians started to invade!
After the Sykes Picot agreement in the interwar period, Britain and France went out of their way to mess up the long term stability of the Middle East. For example, we created the state of Jordon, an area of little natural researches, put a non-local leader on the throne, both in an attempt to keep it divided and weak.
In reaction to this colonialism, the Muslim Brotherhood rose up. In reaction to continued American/Soviet intervention in the region, Islamic scholars/radicals stated re-interpretations of Islamic law, to justify to anti-colonial struggle.
It seems to me then, then in answer to the question: 'is Islam a religion that CAUSES violence against Jews, Christians and war' we can conclude that the evidence points solidly to no.
While it is clear that OT Law was applied to the Ancient Israelites, the same cannot be said of the hateful commands in the koran. Yes--islam is a major part of the problem.
The thing is, the Koran, in different political circumstances can be interpretative in a totally different way. For example:
Koran doesn't day women should be veiled
Koran says you can't kill
Koran says you should have a 'democracy like system'
All that's required is a better political prospect!
I think that we can all agree that judging actions taken in the 6th century, isn't really productive
7th century, actually.
Quote:
The question is one of: 'does Islam really CAUSE Islamic people to try and kill all non-Islamic people'. If this hypothesis were correct, one would expect not to have any examples of peaceful governments in Islamic countries, whereas Jews, Christians at et live in peace, and where wars are relatively infrequent.
Islam does not call for non-Muslims to bi killed. They are given three choices:
1 convert to Islam
2 Agree to live as protected (subjugated) people -- 'dhimis'
3 war
Most non-Muslims whose lands have been conqured have chosen option #2 where their taxes (that non-Muslims did not have to pay) kept the Islamic societies functional, and their inventions (free from Islamic ideological restrictions) kept scientific progress on par with or even superior to the rest of the world. In fact, the Muslim world really didn't start to decline until more and more of these non-Muslims converted or emigrated outside of good old Dar-al-Islam (land of Islam). Without these sources of revenue and science, the Muslim world fell behind. The Muslim work ethic is pretty poor for the most part because for most of their history there have always been non-Muslims (either slaves or dhimis) to do the work.
Quote:
Yet, the Ottoman empire stood for 600 years, as a relatively peaceful, stable Islamic government. Furthermore the empire contained a significant Christian and Jewish population, who were allowed to live in the empire as Christians/Jews...
They were allowed to live as second class people because they provided useful service and income. Their lives were always hanging by a percarious thread while they lived in Muslim lands. Armenian Genocide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Quote:
In reaction to this colonialism, the Muslim Brotherhood rose up. In reaction to continued American/Soviet intervention in the region, Islamic scholars/radicals stated re-interpretations of Islamic law, to justify to anti-colonial struggle.
The Muslim Brotherhood was founded in 1928. The catalyst that lead to the founding of the Muslim Brotherhood was the abolition of the Caliphate in 1924. That had a much bigger impact on Muslims worldwide than colonialism did. In fact, colonialism was very minor in the Middle east compared to other parts of the world. The Middle East remains largely unchanged culturally despite European colonialism. Their belief system remains intact and their populations far outbread the few Europeans who attempted to colonize the region. Muslims might be upset with their resources being used by Europeans (Mercantilism) but they don't see any threat from colonization.
Quote:
It seems to me then, then in answer to the question: 'is Islam a religion that CAUSES violence against Jews, Christians and war' we can conclude that the evidence points solidly to no.
If you read what Mohammad commanded his followers to do to non-Muslims (including People of the Book) it is clear that Islam IS a cause of violence (when it is trong enough to initiate that violence). It doesn't need modern scholors to interperate it. Mohammad's instructions (which to Muslims mean Allah's instructions) are spelled out clearly in the Qur'an.
"Islam does not call for non-Muslims to bi killed. They are given three choices:
1 convert to Islam
2 Agree to live as protected (subjugated) people -- 'dhimis'
3 war"
But it would seem that Turkey has managed to create a state without this stipulation.
The problem is that any religion can and has been interpreted to justify violence. So, the question isn't can Islam be interpreted to be peaceful, and lend itself to a relatively peaceful nation state. If there were no elements in the Koran that were peaceful, you might have a point. But there seems to be endless ways to be a peaceful Muslim. We might begin with:
'La Ikrah fid Din' (there should be no coercion or compulsion to join the faith)
“The leader of a people is truly their servant”
all Muslims are to respect and preserve human life (5:32)
Look, I’m sure that we could have a delightful day quoting scripture at one another, but my suggestion is this:
Religion can be interpreted in many ways
There is scope in Islam for a peaceful interpretation, one of charity, and forgiveness
In many Islamic countries the Koran is read to give a violent message
If then, the Koran can be read in two ways, but is read in one, then it is not logically possible to see the Koran as the cause
There must be an outside reasoning for one interpretation being taken over another
This is what need to be considered
For example, Jihad (meaning striving) has come to be thought of as meaning something more like 'Holy war'
As for another example, woman being covered up, is based on the verse 'men and women should lower their breast and be humble before God' . It seems quite possible to read this in another way.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
