# The Truth About Islam



## Makalakumu (Jun 16, 2004)

A lot of misconceptions regarding Islam have been floating around.  Please feel free to discuss what you think of this religion and give some good sources to we can all learn from each other.   :asian: 

upnorthkyosa


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 16, 2004)

I'll start with some questions...Can anyone explain to me the difference between Sunni and Shi'ite muslims?  Why did the split occur?  How come there is such animosity now?  Is Al-qaeda composed of Sunni, Shi'ite or both?  How about the Taliban?


----------



## Phoenix44 (Jun 16, 2004)

According to my kid (sigh), the split between the Sunni and Shiite came shortly after Mohammed died. The first caliph (the spiritual leader) after Mohammed died was not a member of Mohammed's family. This was OK with some Muslims--the Sunni. Another faction--the Shiites--believed that only a member of Mohammed's family should be caliph. The bloodshed started almost immediately.


----------



## Cruentus (Jun 16, 2004)

Here's a good site from the Sunni Muslim Org. I find Chapter 3 to be very informative.

http://www.islam-guide.com/

Here is an excerpt on teachings on terrorism:

What Does Islam Say about Terrorism? 
Islam, a religion of mercy, does not permit terrorism.  In the Quran, God has said:


 God does not forbid you from showing kindness and dealing justly with those who have not fought you about religion and have not driven you out of your homes.  God loves just dealers.  (Quran, 60:8)

The Prophet Muhammad  used to prohibit soldiers from killing women and children,1 and he would advise them: {...Do not betray, do not be excessive, do not kill a newborn child.}2  And he also said: {Whoever has killed a person having a treaty with the Muslims shall not smell the fragrance of Paradise, though its fragrance is found for a span of forty years.}3

Also, the Prophet Muhammad  has forbidden punishment with fire.4 

He once listed murder as the second of the major sins,5 and he even warned that on the Day of Judgment, {The first cases to be adjudicated between people on the Day of Judgment will be those of bloodshed.6}7 

Muslims are even encouraged to be kind to animals and are forbidden to hurt them.  Once the Prophet Muhammad  said: {A woman was punished because she imprisoned a cat until it died.  On account of this, she was doomed to Hell. While she imprisoned it, she did not give the cat food or drink, nor did she free it to eat the insects of the earth.}8

He also said that a man gave a very thirsty dog a drink, so God forgave his sins for this action.  The Prophet  was asked, Messenger of God, are we rewarded for kindness towards animals?  He said: {There is a reward for kindness to every living animal or human.}9

Additionally, while taking the life of an animal for food, Muslims are commanded to do so in a manner that causes the least amount of fright and suffering possible.  The Prophet Muhammad  said: {When you slaughter an animal, do so in the best way.  One should sharpen his knife to reduce the suffering of the animal.}10 

In light of these and other Islamic texts, the act of inciting terror in the hearts of defenseless civilians, the wholesale destruction of buildings and properties, the bombing and maiming of innocent men, women, and children are all forbidden and detestable acts according to Islam and the Muslims.  Muslims follow a religion of peace, mercy, and forgiveness, and the vast majority have nothing to do with the violent events some have associated with Muslims.  If an individual Muslim were to commit an act of terrorism, this person would be guilty of violating the laws of Islam. 

 :asian:


----------



## Tgace (Jun 16, 2004)

Than how do these Islamic schools in the mid-east justify the violent approach they teach? There are probably just as many contradictory readings in the Quran as there are in the Bible.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 16, 2004)

Doesn't the Koran also call for _Jihad_?  If so, upon who are the followers of Mohammed to _Jihad_?  Maybe this is wrong, but I read that Islam started as a peaceful religion and that the beginning of the Koran is filled with the ideals of peace, then as Islam began to be spread by the sword, the later Koran became more violent.  

I wonder if Islam has multiple versions of the Koran just as christianity has multiple versions of the bible?


----------



## StraightRazor (Jun 16, 2004)

You dont see a lot of people using Christianity as a tool to whip up soldiers into a killing frenzy. Islam seems to have become a handy religon to do just that. Why and How I cant figure.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 16, 2004)

StraightRazor said:
			
		

> You dont see a lot of people using Christianity as a tool to whip up soldiers into a killing frenzy. Islam seems to have become a handy religon to do just that. Why and How I cant figure.



Christianity has been used to whip people into killing frenzies.  Look at the Crusades.  The Protestant Reformation.  Ireland.  Ect...


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jun 16, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Doesn't the Koran also call for _Jihad_?  If so, upon who are the followers of Mohammed to _Jihad_?  Maybe this is wrong, but I read that Islam started as a peaceful religion and that the beginning of the Koran is filled with the ideals of peace, then as Islam began to be spread by the sword, the later Koran became more violent.
> 
> I wonder if Islam has multiple versions of the Koran just as christianity has multiple versions of the bible?


Nobody escaped the Spanish inquisition, and it wasn't all that Spanish.


----------



## OULobo (Jun 16, 2004)

I always heard, for what hearsay is worth, that Shi'ites are the more mystical and ritualistic.


----------



## StraightRazor (Jun 16, 2004)

ummmm...I mean "today", if you want to go down the "well your religon did it a few hundred years ago so dont lecture me about what mines doing today" path well I dont know where to go from there.


----------



## StraightRazor (Jun 16, 2004)

ummmm...I mean "today". Dont see a lot of Catholics on the news calling for Crusade!! But somehow "Jihad" seems to have to be accepted as tolerance of anothers religon. If priests were actively calling for abortion clinic bombings all hell would break loose "today".


----------



## MA-Caver (Jun 16, 2004)

When I was waiting tables in Dallas, I had several friends who were of the islamic faith. They knew I was Christian but that didn't stop them from being good friends with me. And that is just what they were; good, honest, decent and gentle friends. One of them was a devout follower and he "repented" at the mosque every chance he got for the things that his religion forbade against while he was working waiting tables (handling of pork and other things).
From my interaction with these (and other) _true_ muslims I've no beef with the faith or with the individual people. 
There are those who twist the words of their prophet to suit their means. Since they are masters of propaganda (think Gobbels, Himmler, Hitler, Stalin, Castro and Mao) they will find those desiring to express their dissatisfaction with how things are dealt with others in a violent and inappropriate manner, that is often contrary to their proposed beliefs. 
Thanks Tulisan for the posting of exerpts of the Quran... 
I sincerely doubt that if we were to point out these descrepancies between their so called belief in martyrdom and what it actually says in their Quran that they would even listen.  A mind convinced against it's will, is of the same opinion still. These young guys (and women) wanted to believe something and the crafty and wily will find ways to take advantage of it. 
 :asian:


----------



## StraightRazor (Jun 16, 2004)

sorry...I reposted instead of editing. #@$% computer is killing me!!


----------



## Matt Stone (Jun 16, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> ...the later Koran became more violent.
> 
> I wonder if Islam has multiple versions of the Koran just as christianity has multiple versions of the bible?



The Koran/Qu'ran has never been edited, rewritten, or otherwise changed.  It is written in the original Arabic, and (from what I was told by a Muslim friend) Muslims are encouraged to learn to read and speak Arabic so to better understand what is written.

To change even a single word in the Koran/Qu'ran presumes to edit the word of God Himself, and whoever does so is punished in Hell.

There are no "multiple versions."  Muslim scholars are very particular on this issue.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 16, 2004)

Matt Stone said:
			
		

> The Koran/Qu'ran has never been edited, rewritten, or otherwise changed.  It is written in the original Arabic, and (from what I was told by a Muslim friend) Muslims are encouraged to learn to read and speak Arabic so to better understand what is written.
> 
> To change even a single word in the Koran/Qu'ran presumes to edit the word of God Himself, and whoever does so is punished in Hell.
> 
> There are no "multiple versions."  Muslim scholars are very particular on this issue.



That is very interesting...I figured that since there were corrupted versions of the Bible that stated that Jesus hated people who weren't white, that there must be something similiar occuring in the religion of Islam.


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 16, 2004)

Matt Stone said:
			
		

> The Koran/Qu'ran has never been edited, rewritten, or otherwise changed. . . . . There are no "multiple versions." Muslim scholars are very particular on this issue.


Thank you for making this point. This was my understanding as well. 

Also, it is a tenet in the Christian belief system that 'Faith Comes Through Hearing, and Hearing the Word of God' ... I was taught this means the teachings in the bible must be read aloud (as opposed to read silently, to yourself) to build faith and belief in the teachings. I also understand that practitioners of Islam believe this facet of religious learning to a greater degree than their Christian cousins. Hearing the Quran read aloud, in its original Arabic is crucial to proper practice of the faith.

Mike


----------



## MisterMike (Jun 17, 2004)

Read aloud...to build faith and belief?

Not so. But I have heard this in regards to prayer. In other words, you do not pray without speaking.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jun 17, 2004)

> You dont see a lot of people using Christianity as a tool to whip up soldiers into a killing frenzy.


 Good example - individuals (not "a lot of people", but I think the majority of the Muslim world is also not looking for jihad) who have murdered doctors and bombed abortion clinics, and threaten others.  

Not a lot of people, but wackos are out there.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 17, 2004)

Just as the Christian world has those individuals who either for personal, financial, or presumes spiritual gain will do muder, destruction and other harm, so does Islam.

Christian intollerance is at par with Islamic intollerence.
Both religions share a common root, are good moral guidelines for living ones life, and are positive directions.  Unfortunately a small portion of those claiming to follow them do harm.


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 17, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> Read aloud...to build faith and belief?
> 
> Not so. But I have heard this in regards to prayer. In other words, you do not pray without speaking.


Romans 10:14-18
14 But how are men to call upon him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without a preacher? 15 And how can men preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who preach good news!" 16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel; for Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?" 17 *So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ*. 18 But I ask, have they not heard? Indeed they have; for "Their voice has gone out to all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world."

Strange that an Athiest would be familiar with this scripture, eh?


----------



## MisterMike (Jun 17, 2004)

So you think it means reading aloud to yourself? I kind of took it to mean from a preacher. But yes, a pretty deep insight from an Athiest


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 17, 2004)

I, too, took it to mean a preacher speaking the words from scripture. 

I take this teaching of the bible to mean that the words must be spoken. However, I don't know that this passage, or any of the others related to 'Hearing', teach that the spoken word *must* be from another, but certainly there is a difference between SPEAKING and HEARING.

Anyhow ... I believe a basic tenet of Islam is that the verses of the Quran are also supposed to be spoken.  I am open for correction if this is incorrect.


----------



## loki09789 (Jun 17, 2004)

StraightRazor said:
			
		

> ummmm...I mean "today", if you want to go down the "well your religon did it a few hundred years ago so dont lecture me about what mines doing today" path well I dont know where to go from there.


The foundational religious problem in Ireland/N.Ireland was the difference between Protestant and Catholic Christians.  It is current events and there are 'Christian sects' now that abuse the bible for violence (Branch Dividian ring a bell?).  There are Christian fundamentallists who justify murdering doctors over abortion because of religion.  Mid-East orthodox christian factions are just as prone to extremist tendencies as Muslims are.  All current events.


----------



## loki09789 (Jun 17, 2004)

Double posted.


----------



## loki09789 (Jun 17, 2004)

Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> Just as the Christian world has those individuals who either for personal, financial, or presumes spiritual gain will do muder, destruction and other harm, so does Islam.
> 
> Christian intollerance is at par with Islamic intollerence.
> Both religions share a common root, are good moral guidelines for living ones life, and are positive directions. Unfortunately a small portion of those claiming to follow them do harm.


Well said Bob, but the common root you speak of is more substantial than just good morals. What Christians know as the Old testament, Jews know as the Torah is what scholars call the Pentuegent (sp?) and is also included in the Koran as part of the sacred text. Muslims, scholarly/conservative/educated, reasonable ones at least learn about Abram/Abraham, Moses, Samuel.... and even recognized Jesus as a great profit - though not the Messianic figure of Christanity.

As far as Jihad.... Within the Islamic faith (as explained to me by my theological professor at college and a muslim co worker from years back) Jihad is generally taught as a personal mission against an injustice NOT a license for violence. A personal Jihad is like saying "I will not stand for starvation/abuse/intolerance/...." and then acting on it. Christians would call this a mission of charity or community service or "faith in works." I am not up on my Jewish Mitzvah stuff, but if I remember correctly part of the right of passage for a boy or girl into adulthood is to understand the responsibility of acting on principle.

As outsiders, the perception of Jihad as a license for violence is partly perpetuated because of fundamental/extremist muslims who are reading into Jihad and using for their own destructive goals and our lack of real understanding of the religion. If you hear the work nigardly (sp?) and only associate the root with a derogatory term for Black people, you might be offended. Within literary circles the term "nigardly" is an archaic term for an evil or "black/dark (as in dark side of the force)/evil" thing to do. Understanding changes perception.  The media doesn't educate, it perpetuates...I mean 'informs' us.

The general public in America associates the term Jihad with terrorists more than Muslim.


----------



## Flatlander (Jun 17, 2004)

Islam in its suchness does not promote violence in any way, but there are places in the Q'uran which can be taken out of context, from what I've heard (never read the book), in conversation with many middle eastern muslim friends.  My understanding is, there are fanatics who use this selective truth twisting in order to "brainwash" the most loyal and easily influenced.  They are predators who use humans as pawns to further their political agendas.  This is much easier for them to do over there, as the large majority of the population is very devout, which facilitates an easier twisting of the minds of the impressionable.  These people feel the "need" to die for their cause, and actually believe it is the will of God.  They are religiously trained according to the precepts *chosen* by their teachers, and do not get a representative education of the true meaning of Islam.  

Therefore, it would be unfair to relate their actions to Islam at all.  One could accomplish the same feat using any other religeon, I would imagine, but obviously for them, Islam is the way to go, as it is the predominant faith practiced, and offers the side benefit of us painting all muslims with the smae brush.

Good thread, excellent topic, and one I think we should all try to understand.  These are simply my opinions, based upon numerous discussions with people who have immigrated to Canada for primarily political and safety reasons from Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran.

As a side note, I would like to offer that these folks have worked for me as their immediate supervisor.  I have found them all to be hardworking, honest, devoted to their families, and generally honourable people.  I have employed people educated in their homelands as doctors, scientists, engineers, journalists, etc., who would work for $5.00 per hour plus tips, that they may feed their families, provide for their children, and save a little to send back home.  These are selfless qualities that I have rarely, if ever, found in a Canadian born citizen.


----------



## heretic888 (Jun 17, 2004)

*Not so. But I have heard this in regards to prayer. In other words, you do not pray without speaking.*

*chuckles* Then be sure to tell all those monks practicing contemplative prayer that they are doing it "wrong".


----------



## MisterMike (Jun 17, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> *Not so. But I have heard this in regards to prayer. In other words, you do not pray without speaking.*
> 
> *chuckles* Then be sure to tell all those monks practicing contemplative prayer that they are doing it "wrong".



Well I would if I thought all religions were the same..buuuuut I don't.


----------



## heretic888 (Jun 17, 2004)

*Well I would if I thought all religions were the same..buuuuut I don't.*

"All religions"?? I'm talking about Christianity, dude.

Never heard of Christian monastic traditions?? C'mahn....


----------



## MisterMike (Jun 17, 2004)

*"All religions"?? I'm talking about Christianity, dude.* 

Guess I missed that part, dude.

*Never heard of Christian monastic traditions?? C'mahn....* 

Yea, 'cuz there's sooo many. They're spreading like McDonalds. Please point me to some and it's reference in the New Testament.


----------



## heretic888 (Jun 17, 2004)

Another topic. Another time. Laterz.


----------



## OULobo (Jun 17, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> *
> Yea, 'cuz there's sooo many. They're spreading like McDonalds. Please point me to some and it's reference in the New Testament.*


*

Wait, are you saying you've never heard of Christian monks traditions. There are a dozen Catholic ones alone.*


----------



## MisterMike (Jun 17, 2004)

*Wait, are you saying you've never heard of Christian monks traditions. There are a dozen Catholic ones alone.* 

And they are where?

I've heard of them from 100's of years ago and I'm sure some exist today.

My understanding is that they meditate on God and this is OK as compared to meditating on "nothing."


----------



## OULobo (Jun 17, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> *Wait, are you saying you've never heard of Christian monks traditions. There are a dozen Catholic ones alone.*
> 
> And they are where?
> 
> ...



The Jesuits run about 10 different schools here in Cleveland alone and are constantly bringing more priests into the fold from missions run all over the world. The Marionists raise hundreds of thousands of dollars a year for the prayers and services they dedicate to the sick or dead. The Cappuccines, yes the coffee ones, still exist and practice in seclution in Italy. The list goes on and on, the Francescans, the Dominicans, the Benedictines, the Augustinians, the Carmelites. Most are still active in their communities and are recruiting. Many do meditate on religious subjects, but you are right, I don't think any meditate on "nothing", like a Zen practitioner might.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jun 17, 2004)

For Catholicism, try Ignatius Loyola's "Spiritual Exercises;" for Protestantism, Barbara Lewalski's work on the Puritan poets is a good place to  start.

Personally, it looks to me as though Christianity and Islam share one unfortunate thing: they have within them writings that legitimate all sorts of  violences. 

The obvious point, too, is that there are as many Islams as there are Christianities. You're pretty safe with Sufis and the Ba'hai; you're pretty safe with the Amish, Mennonites, Quakers. You are not terribly safe with the Wahhabis, the Tridentines, the rabid let's-rebuild-the-Temple so the Messiah can come Zionists, and Pat Robertson's crowd. 

And what all these safe, minority groups share is that they get laughed at a lot by the more-mainstream faithful--laughed at, for trying to live in the way they believe, laughed at for emphasizing non-violence, laughed at for putting their souls before money. Silly them.


----------



## MisterMike (Jun 17, 2004)

OULobo said:
			
		

> The Jesuits run about 10 different schools here in Cleveland alone and are constantly bringing more priests into the fold from missions run all over the world. The Marionists raise hundreds of thousands of dollars a year for the prayers and services they dedicate to the sick or dead. The Cappuccines, yes the coffee ones, still exist and practice in seclution in Italy. The list goes on and on, the Francescans, the Dominicans, the Benedictines, the Augustinians, the Carmelites. Most are still active in their communities and are recruiting. Many do meditate on religious subjects, but you are right, I don't think any meditate on "nothing", like a Zen practitioner might.



Thank you OULobo. I guess the debate came out of differing definitions. I would call Meditative Prayer just meditation and Prayer is spoken. That was my approach - I'll try to be more wordy next time


----------



## heretic888 (Jun 19, 2004)

*Many do meditate on religious subjects, but you are right, I don't think any meditate on "nothing", like a Zen practitioner might.*

Nope, sorry.

In most (I'd say all) of the Christian contemplative prayer traditions, prayer is culminated in meditation on the "ineffable/indescribable" nature of God. It isn't very well-known because it is the very _highest_ level of development in the practice, and is not something your first-year monks would be too good at.

"Verbal prayer", as you put it, is generally considered beginner's practice. Which is probably why it is so common among the Christian masses, and not the adepts.

Seriously, these guys (and gals) have been doing this stuff for centuries. It goes back to the days of Constantine, if not earlier. Guys like Meister Eckhart, Clement of Alexandria, Origen of Alexandria, Ignatius of Loyola, or Teresa of Avila, or John of the Cross would be good examples --- as would Dionysius Areopagite (probably the earliest canonical work of mysticism in the Catholic tradition).

As far as Islam goes, I have a personal affinity for Sufism. Good stuff.

Laterz.


----------



## mantis (Oct 9, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> A lot of misconceptions regarding Islam have been floating around. Please feel free to discuss what you think of this religion and give some good sources to we can all learn from each other. :asian:
> 
> upnorthkyosa


 i just found this.. put it on another thread
http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/charts/christianity_islam.htm


----------



## mantis (Oct 9, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I'll start with some questions...Can anyone explain to me the difference between Sunni and Shi'ite muslims? Why did the split occur? How come there is such animosity now? Is Al-qaeda composed of Sunni, Shi'ite or both? How about the Taliban?


 The split happened at the time of the 3rd and 4th Khalif (Emperor, leader.. their names are Ali, and Othman)
 The shiites had a political opinion that any leader has to be from the "house" meaning from the family of the prophet Muhammad, which is in favor of Ali (the prophet's cousin)
 after several political conflicts they decided to withdraw from the general islamic nation, the Sunni's (Sunni = a follower of the "way" of the prophet: way= sunna)
 Shiites belives changed over time, and they gave their "imams" (religious leaders) the rights that catholic priests gained from people in the west!
 Shiites make about 60 million people around the world (most of them in Iran, and souther Iraq) whereas Sunnis make the rest of the 1.3 billion followers of the faith.
 The groups you mentioned are 100% Sunni's. Shiites do not really believe in "jihad" unless they're told to do so by their "imams", whereas sunnis gave no leader any authority to decide for them, rather they only follow the teachings of the Qura'an (the Muslim holy book) and what was reported to be said by the prophet (called Hadith)


----------



## mantis (Oct 9, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Than how do these Islamic schools in the mid-east justify the violent approach they teach? There are probably just as many contradictory readings in the Quran as there are in the Bible.


 unfortunately people collpase in front of the media's pressure on them so they deny the existence of violence in Islam
 in fact, the Qura'an itself challenges the world to find a single contradiction in it. it is the people who tend to be ashamed of what they believe and deny some facts.
 Violence does exist in this religion, just as much as it does exist in any other religoin including christianity and buddhism. the difference comes in "where violence is justified"
 these places are something like self-defense, if using violence returns a greater benefit to the majority of people than the disadvantage of using violence. 
 There is a saying by the 1st muslim khalif, he said: "the strong amongst you is weak until I take what he owes people from him, and the weak amongst you is strong until i return his rights"  implicitly declaring one of the instances violence is used.


----------



## mantis (Oct 9, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Doesn't the Koran also call for _Jihad_?  If so, upon who are the followers of Mohammed to _Jihad_? Maybe this is wrong, but I read that Islam started as a peaceful religion and that the beginning of the Koran is filled with the ideals of peace, then as Islam began to be spread by the sword, the later Koran became more violent.
> 
> I wonder if Islam has multiple versions of the Koran just as christianity has multiple versions of the bible?


 Yes jihad is mentioned and has the following ruling:
 1. mandatory if any of the muslim land is occupied, or any muslim person is imprisoned
 2. Mandatory on at least 1 person (meaning if at least one person does it it will suffice) and that includes teaching non-muslims about islam, or spreading islam EVEN if using the sword is only way to do so
 Islam does not deny using the sword, but most of the time it was spread by non-muslims watching the muslim life and embracing it (example: how yemeni merchants spread islam to africa, and south east asia. people were impressed by the honesty of those merchants)
 and No, there is ONLY one version of the Quran, memorized by heart by tens of millions of people (example at least 20% of pakistan knows the Quran by heart) 
 if you get an american muslim, an african, an asian, arab, and a turkish: they will all recite the same words in the same way with the same tone!
 btw, the original collected copy of the Quran is in a museum in Turkey.


----------



## mantis (Oct 9, 2005)

StraightRazor said:
			
		

> You dont see a lot of people using Christianity as a tool to whip up soldiers into a killing frenzy. Islam seems to have become a handy religon to do just that. Why and How I cant figure.


 this post is at least a year old
 if you are still around and wanna elaborate i would be more than happy to answer


----------



## mantis (Oct 9, 2005)

OULobo said:
			
		

> I always heard, for what hearsay is worth, that Shi'ites are the more mystical and ritualistic.


 the majority of Siites believe in the existence of 12 leaders (imams)
 who represent 'reformers' or leaders who added something to their faith. 
 the last one of them is believed to disapper in a cave and that he will come back later towards the end of this life.
 There are a lot of sects within Shiism and most of them conflict with the basics of the islamic faith and the core creed


----------



## mantis (Oct 9, 2005)

StraightRazor said:
			
		

> ummmm...I mean "today". Dont see a lot of Catholics on the news calling for Crusade!! But somehow "Jihad" seems to have to be accepted as tolerance of anothers religon. If priests were actively calling for abortion clinic bombings all hell would break loose "today".


 i heard bush saying it twice, and i see his armies invading muslim countries like there's no tomorrow!
 i mean come on, he says he talks to God!


----------



## mantis (Oct 9, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> That is very interesting...I figured that since there were corrupted versions of the Bible that stated that Jesus hated people who weren't white, that there must be something similiar occuring in the religion of Islam.


 the way it was preserved is interesting
 basically by keeping it memorized by a huge number of people!
 each one of those persons who has it memorized does have a "lineage" meaning you can trace him back to the prophet! just like in martial arts


----------



## mantis (Oct 9, 2005)

MA-Caver said:
			
		

> When I was waiting tables in Dallas, I had several friends who were of the islamic faith. They knew I was Christian but that didn't stop them from being good friends with me. And that is just what they were; good, honest, decent and gentle friends. One of them was a devout follower and he "repented" at the mosque every chance he got for the things that his religion forbade against while he was working waiting tables (handling of pork and other things).
> From my interaction with these (and other) _true_ muslims I've no beef with the faith or with the individual people.
> There are those who twist the words of their prophet to suit their means. Since they are masters of propaganda (think Gobbels, Himmler, Hitler, Stalin, Castro and Mao) they will find those desiring to express their dissatisfaction with how things are dealt with others in a violent and inappropriate manner, that is often contrary to their proposed beliefs.
> Thanks Tulisan for the posting of exerpts of the Quran...
> ...


 islam classifies non-muslims into 2 categories: 
 1. enemies: those who draw their swords to fight islam or muslims: like the crusaders
 2. friends: those who do not strive to kick muslims out of their homes, and do not wish to change their religions. and you happen to be from the second category, that's why they have to be friendly with you!
 not only that, but if you are a jew, or a christian living in their countries you do enjoy special treatment because the muslim prophet Muhammad told the people that he will be asked by God about what muslims do to those, and therefore muslims should be very careful dealing with those. btw jews and christians are called "people of the book" (meaning those who recieved a book from God: Torah, and the Bible)


----------



## mantis (Oct 9, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Thank you for making this point. This was my understanding as well.
> 
> Also, it is a tenet in the Christian belief system that 'Faith Comes Through Hearing, and Hearing the Word of God' ... I was taught this means the teachings in the bible must be read aloud (as opposed to read silently, to yourself) to build faith and belief in the teachings. I also understand that practitioners of Islam believe this facet of religious learning to a greater degree than their Christian cousins. Hearing the Quran read aloud, in its original Arabic is crucial to proper practice of the faith.
> 
> Mike


 the Qura'an is only recited out loud in the prayers that happen at night (the one dawn, sunset, and night prayers) and that's because the chances that people are not working and can attend the mass prayer is much more than during the day!
 the Qura'an is not recited loudly in the rest of the 5 daily prayers. 
 in fact, Islam teaches muslims that low-voiced recitation promotes humbleness and concentration


----------



## Old Tiger (Oct 9, 2005)

*deleted


----------



## Ray (Oct 10, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I wonder if Islam has multiple versions of the Koran just as christianity has multiple versions of the bible?


As I understand it, sometime after the "passing" of Muhammad there were some multiple versions but the caliphate took steps to ensure spurious versions were destroyed.  I understand that there is only one in Arabic, that it is the correct rendering and that all translations into other languages are "interpretations."


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Oct 10, 2005)

mantis said:
			
		

> islam classifies non-muslims into 2 categories:
> 1. enemies: those who draw their swords to fight islam or muslims: like the crusaders
> 2. friends: those who do not strive to kick muslims out of their homes, and do not wish to change their religions. and you happen to be from the second category, that's why they have to be friendly with you!
> not only that, but if you are a jew, or a christian living in their countries you do enjoy special treatment because the muslim prophet Muhammad told the people that he will be asked by God about what muslims do to those, and therefore muslims should be very careful dealing with those. btw jews and christians are called "people of the book" (meaning those who recieved a book from God: Torah, and the Bible)


What you are referring to is the two abodes. In Islam the world has only two abodes, the abode of Islam (_dar al-Islam) _and the abode of war (_dar al-harb)_. Dar al-harb directly translates "a country belonging to the infidels which has not been subdued by Islam." 
http://answering-islam.org.uk/Books/Hughes/index.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dar_al-Harb
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/

According to some more modern Islamic scholars, the seperation point is whether or not Muslims can practice islam freely in the country they live.

The classical interpretation, and the one taken by "extremists" is that not everyone must be islamic, as evidenced by the fact that many non-islamics live in islamic nations...BUT everyone must live under Islamic law. 

Now, we should make that clear. The Islamic world divides up the abode of War in to two groups, Children of the Book and Pagans. 

For those who are non-Islamic, but are considered "Children of the Book" (i.e. Jews, Christians, Zoroastians, and Mendeans) it is sufficient to merely submit to an Islamic ruler, then they are free to exercise their beliefs. With pagans, they are also allowed to accept Islamic rule, but they are more restricted in their practices and freedoms. Some more extreme Islamic beliefs say that anyone considered pagan must either convert, or killed. 

Again, if you're a Child of the Book, you can practice your religion freely by merely accepting Islamic rule.

If you don't live under Islamic law, then you are said to live in the abode of war. Therefore, it the is the duty of every Muslim to bring you under islamic law by the word or sword.

So it is a misunderstanding that the Radical Islamic fundamentalists want to kill all non-muslims or make them convert. They merely desire to bring everyone under Islamic rule.


----------



## Kane (Oct 11, 2005)

Islam (like Christianity) has many contradictions. There are peaceful quotes that do say killing is wrong, while there are other verses that support the Jihad and say that you must cut the throat of the infidel.

 I think in general religious fundie conservatives and rad politically correct liberals have the wrong impression about Islam. Religious conservatives believe that Islam is a religion of death and destruction that is far more barbaric than Christianity, when in fact Christianity and Islam have about the same violence in it (maybe Islam a little bit more). Politically correct liberals believe Islam is a religion of peace, similar to something like Buddhism when in fact the religion is far more, if not more violent the Christianity!

 Islam though has a lot of strange laws, similar but still even stranger than some Christian practices. Musical religions are banned and according to Islamic law (Shariah, Hadith, Sunnah, Quran) musical instruments are items used by the Satan. Eating with your left hand is also considered evil and satanic. Dogs are considered unclean, and are discourages as animals you shouldn't keep. Men and women are also not permited to talk to each other (opposite sex). Like in Judaism pork is banned.

 By the way check out these threads;

http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6766

http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=8939

http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6640&highlight=Eating+Left+Hand


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Oct 11, 2005)

Kane said:
			
		

> Islam (like Christianity) has many contradictions. There are peaceful quotes that do say killing is wrong, while there are other verses that support the Jihad and say that you must cut the throat of the infidel.
> 
> I think in general religious fundie conservatives and rad politically correct liberals have the wrong impression about Islam. Religious conservatives believe that Islam is a religion of death and destruction that is far more barbaric than Christianity, when in fact Christianity and Islam have about the same violence in it (maybe Islam a little bit more). Politically correct liberals believe Islam is a religion of peace, similar to something like Buddhism when in fact the religion is far more, if not more violent the Christianity!


Let me preface this by saying that i'm agnostic, so I don't have a theological horse in this race. I'm merely pointing out the obvious.

Islam explicitly states it's the duty of Muslims to engage in Jihad against the abode of War, in order to bring everyone under Islamic law, and bring "peace" to the world. That's the only interpretation possible if you take every verse of Islamic teachings literally. Fortunately, most muslims are a little more selective, many aren't.

When we talk about violence in Christianity, we are really being a bit disingenuous because we are lumping things in to Christianty that aren't explicitly in Christianity. 

The only violence referenced as doctrine in the bible, is in the old testament, which Christ expressly stated was no longer the law in the same sense it was formerly interpreted.

The second lumping we are doing is lumping in to christianity what the Popes did to gain and maintain power. The reason they were able to usurp christianity, is that there weren't very many bibles, all of them were in latin and only the church was allowed to interpret doctrine anyway, so the Laity had to take the word of the Popes for what was doctrine.

Now, we all have access to the New Testament. Taking the literal word of Christianity and the literal word of Islam, I defy anyone to find one single command of Christ that would be intereted by any reasonable person as inciting anyone to violence. 

Christ stated specifically: "John 13:34-A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another." 

It seems very clear what Christ's stance on violence was. What's furthermore, christianity in the first years was one of pacifism and forgiveness in the face of violence. It was by peaceful martyrdom and non-violence that christianity slowly took over the Roman empire. What ultimately brought violence in to the church was the "Romanification" of the church.

In contrast, from the very beginning Islam was violently expansionist. Mohammad himself was a warlord, who spread Islam as much by the sword as the word. Many pagans died under the sword of Mohammad and his followers.

Again, I say this not to defend Christianity, but to point out what should be obvious with any honest examination of the differences. I just have to wonder why it's considered "enlightened" to ignore painful truths. 

Ultimately I agree with the idea that dogmatic religious belief of any sort is often a source of human misery. But the attempt to paint Christianity as just as violent as Islam at it's core is a bit disingenuous and ignores certain clear realities. 

When we say Islam is a religion of peace, we are correct from a certain point of view...Islam is tolerant and peaceful under ideal conditions. The problem is the idea that "Peace" is only for the abode of Islam, not the abode of War.

I know it's heresy in the modern day to point out the obvious, but the evidence is overwhelming. The problem is that we have been indoctrinated in to believing that any negative assertion about another religion automatically makes us "intolerant" and "bigoted" no matter how obvious that conclusion is based on the evidence.  We have a cultural blind spot that could be fatal.  

That isn't to say that millions of Muslims aren't peace loving people. Many have turned a literal interpretation of Islam in to a very uplifting spiritual message. It is to say that literal interpretation of Islamic teachings by large numbers of people can lead to violence and war.


----------



## Kane (Oct 11, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Let me preface this by saying that i'm agnostic, so I don't have a theological horse in this race. I'm merely pointing out the obvious.
> 
> Islam explicitly states it's the duty of Muslims to engage in Jihad against the abode of War, in order to bring everyone under Islamic law, and bring "peace" to the world. That's the only interpretation possible if you take every verse of Islamic teachings literally. Fortunately, most muslims are a little more selective, many aren't.
> 
> ...


 Yes you are correct to a certian extent, and Islam definatley has more violence in its scriptures than Christianity. However if you do talk to many fundie Christians they will tell you, for example the first 5 books still apply to modern times. Of course I forgot to ask why doesn't he kill adulterers and homosexuals, because the the first five books clearly state this must be done.

 Although I have a lot of respect of Jesus, he did not say that he came to abolish to Jewish law, rather to fullfill it. If it said otherwise, Christianity wouldn't have the track record it has. A lot of genocide has been commited under the name of the Christian God, from the crusades to the Native Americans. Columbus himself viewed Native Americans as "heathens" because they did not follow the Holy Trinity. There are also verses in the Bible that, that although do not encourage violence, do teach intollerance of people who follow other religions.

 In the end even if Islam is more violent than Christianity, both have their verses of intollerance and even violence and it is up to the adherents not to follow these verses.


----------



## Kane (Oct 11, 2005)

Christianity itself is a very contradicting religion. Jesus did teach nonviolence, but the Old Testament clearly does not. It makes people wonder why on Earth do people still follow the Old Testament.

  The Puritans believed in witches because of a verse in Exodus, and looked where that lead!

 Christianity at its core is Jesus, which makes it non violent at the core but many thing surrounding the core are far more violent, as in the first 5 books.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Oct 11, 2005)

Kane said:
			
		

> Yes you are correct to a certian extent, and Islam definatley has more violence in its scriptures than Christianity. However if you do talk to many fundie Christians they will tell you, for example the first 5 books still apply to modern times. Of course I forgot to ask why doesn't he kill adulterers and homosexuals, because the the first five books clearly state this must be done.
> 
> Although I have a lot of respect of Jesus, he did not say that he came to abolish to Jewish law, rather to fullfill it. If it said otherwise, Christianity wouldn't have the track record it has. A lot of genocide has been commited under the name of the Christian God, from the crusades to the Native Americans. Columbus himself viewed Native Americans as "heathens" because they did not follow the Holy Trinity. There are also verses in the Bible that, although do not encourage violence, they do teach intollerance of people who follow other religions.
> 
> In the end even if Islam is more violent than Christianity, both have their verses of intollerance and even violence and it is up to the adherents not to follow these verses.


What you've done is seperate bizarre interpretations of doctrine based on the individual desires of certain adherents from the actual words. That's necessary in order to make Christianity a "violent religion".

It is not necessary, however, to make that case about Islam, as all that is needed is to read the actual words IN context. It is very clear on certain points about the duties of it's adherents to engage in "Jihad" against the abode of War. That's not a sectarian interpretation, but a literal interpretation.

That's my point. Christianity taken literally, as it's reported founder had spoken and declared, is a religion of peace. Christ never raised a sword or an army, nor did he condemn those who tacked him up on a cross. In fact, he cautioned his followers not to engage in violence in his defense. Hardly a religion easily translated in to violence. It took a thousand years to be perverted to that extent. 

It takes going outside of the literal word of Christianity to try and make the case for the inherent violent nature of the religion, which is a disingenuous argument. 

As for genocide in the new world, it wasn't a result of the worship of god, it was the worship of GOLD. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





I sense, in essence however, that we agree on the main point...That dogmatic religious belief is anachronistic in the modern world and leads to more problems than it solves. Which is why Islam has created such a problem. While most people in the US and the rest of the western world consider themselves "Christians", most of them believe "Just in case". Only a small element are actually what would be considered devout to the point of being radicals. 

The arab world, however, with it's limited educational opportunities, is ripe for the expansion of certain kinds of radical, extremist Islamic ideologies that breed terrorism and war. 

In the increaslingly secular west, organized religion is beginning to decline as a political force. In the Islamic world, it is rising as a source of political ideology. That's the big difference between the two. The only answer is secularization.

http://www.secularislam.org/


----------



## Kane (Oct 11, 2005)

Yes you are right Jesus was a non-violent man, many other people in the Bible however were not. If we were to follow the Bible literally as a theocracy, and as the supreme law of the land, society would be very similar to how Iran is right now. In fact the Puritan government of the 1600s is exactly how Iran is today. There are many verses of war in Bible (ie Deau. 20) and many of verses of intollerance that have lead to many of the acts of genocide in the past.

 Even some of the teachings of Paul are questionable in many ways, especially in relation to Jesus and non-violence.

 I'm not saying Christianity is all about violence, but you can't say if you follow the Bible literally it is non-violent. If this was the case Christianity would had a less bloody past.

 Look at Hindu or Buddhist history compared to Muslim and Christian history. Far less war and conflict and it is based on the fact that Hindus and Buddhists are never suggest to be violent in any form.


----------



## Kane (Oct 11, 2005)

Columbus although wanted gold more than anything did justify his treatment on the Native Americans on the fact that they were heathens who did not follow the holy trinity. The fact that he used religion to justify anything says a lot, you will not see a hindu or buddhist do the same (almost never).

 I do believe that the Middle East should become secular, but we should not necessarily force it upon them. That is to say we shouldn't go to war in Iran because of the reason. Hopefully the new democratic Iraq will shine light into the Middle Eastern world and end theocracies for good.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Oct 11, 2005)

Kane said:
			
		

> Yes you are right Jesus was a non-violent man, many other people in the Bible however were not. If we were to follow the Bible literally as a theocracy, and as the supreme law of the land, society would be very similar to how Iran is right now. In fact the Puritan government of the 1600s is exactly how Iran is today. There are many verses of war in Bible (ie Deau. 20) and many of verses of intollerance that have lead to many of the acts of genocide in the past.


 Again, you have to refer to the old testament to declare christianity violent. Yet, Christ himself declared himself the fulfillment of the law. What he meant by that, was that all the sins of the old testament that seperated man from god, were paid for by him. In return, it was the duty of christians to LIVE as HE lived. Period. It seems very clear that living as christ does not include violence of any sort toward another.



			
				Kane said:
			
		

> Even some of the teachings of Paul are questionable in many ways, especially in relation to Jesus and non-violence.
> 
> I'm not saying Christianity is all about violence, but you can't say if you follow the Bible literally it is non-violent. If this was the case Christianity would had a less bloody past.


 If you follow the teachings of Christ literally, the only conclusion is non-violence. The bloody history of Christianity has less to do with christ, and far more to do with the Romanification of Christianity and the subsequent European intrigues of the next 2000 years. Christianity became a tool of the popes to insure and gain power. Many acts of the catholic church had absolutely nothing to do with the bible. You won't find anything in the bible on indulgences, for example, a major sticking point that helped lead to the Protestant Reformation. 



			
				Kane said:
			
		

> Look at Hindu or Buddhist history compared to Muslim and Christian history. Far less war and conflict and it is based on the fact that Hindus and Buddhists are never suggest to be violent in any form.


 It has been suggested that the teachings of christ were inspired by the diffusion of Buddhist teachings in to the middle east. Whether that is true or not, it is clear that Christ himself was a pacifist in the sense that he did not engage in violence against others, and he instructed those that followed him to act in the same manner. I'm not sure how it can get any clearer. 

Any actions taken by christians to the contrary, is done so under their own authority, not under the authority of the literal instructions of Christ.



			
				Kane said:
			
		

> Columbus although wanted gold more than anything did justify his treatment on the Native Americans on the fact that they were heathens who did not follow the holy trinity. The fact that he used religion to justify anything says a lot, you will not see a hindu or buddhist do the same (almost never).


For the record, however, buddhist and hindu terrorist organizations do exist.  There are large numbers of violent acts committed in the Kashmir region, among other places.  Any religion can serve the foundation of a fanatical belief system.  The problem comes, however, when a religion is already pre-designed to inspire fanatical violence.  

The difference between buddhism and christianity is this....Buddhism is as much a philosophy as a literal religion. Many versions of Buddhism have eliminated the religion entirely. Zen Buddhism even has a saying "If you meet the Buddha, kill the Buddha" meaning that it is entirely internal and there is no external religious source. Comparing the two is like apples and oranges.



			
				Kane said:
			
		

> I do believe that the Middle East should become secular, but we should not necessarily force it upon them. That is to say we shouldn't go to war in Iran because of the reason. Hopefully the new democratic Iraq will shine light into the Middle Eastern world and end theocracies for good.


 I sincerely hope that happens as well.


----------



## mantis (Oct 11, 2005)

Kane said:
			
		

> Islam (like Christianity) has many contradictions. There are peaceful quotes that do say killing is wrong, while there are other verses that support the Jihad and say that you must cut the throat of the infidel.


 what is 'jihad' anyway?
 everybody makes it sounds like it's plain killing.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Oct 11, 2005)

mantis said:
			
		

> what is 'jihad' anyway?
> everybody makes it sounds like it's plain killing.


 I think i've explained Jihad already, at least to the extent that it's the duty of all Muslims to fight against those in the abode of War, and bring them in to the abode of Islam.  They may not (necessarily) always mean killing...only if that's what it takes.  

No matter how you try to spin some things as being "nuanced", they really don't get any better.


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 11, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> The difference between buddhism and christianity is this....Buddhism is as much a philosophy as a literal religion. Many versions of Buddhism have eliminated the religion entirely. Zen Buddhism even has a saying "If you meet the Buddha, kill the Buddha" meaning that it is entirely internal and there is no external religious source. Comparing the two is like apples and oranges.



Try telling that to Father Thomas Keating --- or any number of the monastic contemplatives in Christian history.

This dichotomy between "Christianity" and "mysticism" is by and large a historical fantasy that ecclesiastical leaders have invented to confirm their own authority. The reality is an altogether different matter.

Laterz.


----------



## mantis (Oct 11, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> No matter how you try to spin some things as being "nuanced", they really don't get any better.


 at least you're being  honest about not willing to open your mind
 thank you


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 11, 2005)

To further elaborate on a point I made earlier...



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Zen Buddhism even has a saying "If you meet the Buddha, kill the Buddha" meaning that it is entirely internal and there is no external religious source. Comparing the two is like apples and oranges.



I am suddenly reminded of a few excerpts by St. Dionysius, an early Christian mystic, that might pertain to this discussion:

"If we want to truly understand God we have to go beyond all names and all attributes. He is both God and not-God." (_The Divine Names_)

"It is beyond every limitation and also beyond every denial." (_Mystical Theology_)

And, my personal favorite:

"Don't suppose that the outward form of these contrived symbols exists for its own sake. It is a protective clothing, which prevents the common multitude from understanding the Ineffable and Invisible. Only real lovers of holiness know how to stop the workings of the childish imagination regarding the sacred symbols. They alone have the simplicity of mind and the receptive power of contemplation to cross over to the simple, marvellous, transcendent Truth the symbols represent." (_The Letters_)

Sometimes, people forget that apples and oranges are both fruit.

Laterz.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Oct 11, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Try telling that to Father Thomas Keating --- or any number of the monastic contemplatives in Christian history.
> 
> This dichotomy between "Christianity" and "mysticism" is by and large a historical fantasy that ecclesiastical leaders have invented to confirm their own authority. The reality is an altogether different matter.
> 
> Laterz.


 Well, again, since i'm not a believe in anything, who's actually right is a moot question. I'm more concerned with the obvious and inevitable consquence of a given belief...in this case, the natual result of commanding followers that it is their duty to wage Jihad against others to bring them under Islamic law.



			
				mantis said:
			
		

> at least you're being honest about not willing to open your mind
> thank you


 It's obvious you miss the point. I don't need to open my mind, as all religion is based on the same root. As a non-believe, I feel my mind is far more open than any religious fundamentalist. When I refer to spinning, I refer to your attempt to alter the meanings, ever so subtly, so they appear less provocative, such as pointing out that violence isn't (necessarily) the only way to "wage Jihad". That's nice, but it avoids the core issue.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Oct 11, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> To further elaborate on a point I made earlier...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


  Well, again, as someone who doesn't believe in either religion, i'm merely pointing out the obvious differences devoid of a passionate belief in either.

Again, if we want to make the point that Islam "could" be a very mystical, peaceful religion, and is viewed so by a large number of it's adherents then you can make that point.  

But to make the point that at it's core, taken literally, it literally is fundamentally peaceful and does not incite violence as a core requirement of it's literal interpretation, is being a bit disingenuous.  The reason for that disingenuous stance is obviously a cultural blindness in the west, self imposed for the purposes of appearing "open minded" and "tolerant".  It blinds some to obvious realities that create huge problems


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 11, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> I'm more concerned with the obvious and inevitable consquence of a given belief...in this case, the natual result of commanding followers that it is their duty to wage Jihad against others to bring them under Islamic law.



Sure. But, y'see, here's the thing...

Religious traditions don't exist in temporal and cultural vacuums, untouched by the trials and tribulations of the real world. Times change, people change, and religions change. Any given religion, including Islam, is inevitably a product of the time and place it finds itself in.

Therefore, like Christianity, we shouldn't rigidly hold Islam to any given injunction or teaching found in a millenia-old religious scripture. Christians don't subscribe to everything expounded in the Bible (reference the Pastoral Letters' excerpts on the treatment of women and slaves in the 'Bible, Hell, and Other Topics of Casual Delight' thread), nor do liberal Muslims subscribe to every single thing taught in the Koran.

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 11, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Again, if we want to make the point that Islam "could" be a very mystical, peaceful religion, and is viewed so by a large number of it's adherents then you can make that point.



Islam does have its mystical component, as found in Sufism.

However, I am unsure as to how Sufism is viewed by a majority of Muslims, although its apparently quite popular in the West.  



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> But to make the point that at it's core, taken literally, it literally is fundamentally peaceful and does not incite violence as a core requirement of it's literal interpretation, is being a bit disingenuous.  The reason for that disingenuous stance is obviously a cultural blindness in the west, self imposed for the purposes of appearing "open minded" and "tolerant".  It blinds some to obvious realities that create huge problems



I would agree with you here, except for the position that this somehow represents the "core" or "essence" of Islamic teachings. My feeling is that literalism (as St. Dionysius spoke about) always represents a shallower or "surface" understanding of a religion's teachings. I feel the mystical practices and experiences represented in Sufism are a much closer approximation to the "core" of Islam.

It is true, however, that many in the West are willfully ignorant of the full scope of Muslim teachings and history.

Laterz.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Oct 12, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Sure. But, y'see, here's the thing...
> 
> Religious traditions don't exist in temporal and cultural vacuums, untouched by the trials and tribulations of the real world. Times change, people change, and religions change. Any given religion, including Islam, is inevitably a product of the time and place it finds itself in.
> 
> ...


 Y'see, here's also the thing... It isn't me that's holding Islam to given injunctions and teachings found in a millenia-old religious scripture...It's a large number of it's adherents. That's the PROBLEM. 

Liberal muslims are like most Americans...They believe in Islam...mostly, but they don't buy it wholesale. The secularization of Islam is a good thing, just as has been the secularization of other religions.



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> Islam does have its mystical component, as found in Sufism.
> 
> However, I am unsure as to how Sufism is viewed by a majority of Muslims, although its apparently quite popular in the West.


So is Kabbalah and other envogue mysticism.  A lot of "Religions of the week" clubs have popped up over America.  However, to even insinuate it's even close to what the founders of Islam, and the majority of muslims believe is a stretch.  



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> I would agree with you here, except for the position that this somehow represents the "core" or "essence" of Islamic teachings. My feeling is that literalism (as St. Dionysius spoke about) always represents a shallower or "surface" understanding of a religion's teachings. I feel the mystical practices and experiences represented in Sufism are a much closer approximation to the "core" of Islam.
> 
> It is true, however, that many in the West are willfully ignorant of the full scope of Muslim teachings and history.
> 
> Laterz.


 Well, again, when we're talking about the "Core" we have to go with A) What the founder viewed as it's purpose B) What his followers viewed as the purpose and C) What has been viewed as it's purpose throughout most of it's history.   

A few years of mystic reinterpretations does not alter a thousand years of history.  

As for "spritualism" itself, i've always found it as much crap as organized religion...it's just designed to make those who consider themselves clever and trend setting...feel more clever and trend setting.  That's why the Modanna's of the world spend large amounts of time and money studying things like Kabbalah.  Just my view.


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 12, 2005)

To summarize:

1) How the adherents of Islam view their religion and the Koran will vary, often radically, from country to country. This is why I stated that any given religion is a product of the _time and place_ it finds itself in, regardless of what its holy book states or what its founder(s) proclaimed way back when.

2) Religion, strictly speaking, cannot become "secularized" --- although it may become more welcoming to secular philosophy and science (which, again, depends on the historical and cultural climate it finds itself in). Rather, I would say it is nations themselves that "secularize", meaning that the institutions of State and Religion become formally separated (by law, anyway).

3) The modern accusation that mystical lineages like Islam's Sufism, Judaism's Kabbalah, Orthodox Christianity's Hesychasm, and Catholic Christianity's Desert Wisdom traditions are in any way "envogue", "religions of the week", "trendy", "spiritualism", or even historically recent owes completely to widescale ignorance of the totality of these traditions.

I would suggest perusing the following articles:

Wikipedia: Kabbalah

Wikipedia: Sufism

Wikipedia: Hesychasm

Wikipedia: The Philokalia

Wikipedia: Theosis

The Place of Tasawwuf
in Traditional Islam

The majority of these traditions are centuries old, with Kabbalah dating as far back as the intertestamental Talmudic period, Hesychasm dating as far back as the 4th century CE, and Sufism dating as far back as the 12th century CE.

"Spiritualism", by contrast, is a modern Western movement that dates back to the 19th century CE.

4) Claiming to know what the founder(s) of a given religion did or did not teach is extremely difficult, as many religious texts are based on second-hand or word-of-mouth information. In addition, many are subject to inadequate translations and/or intentional distortion and revision of earlier texts. In any event, I'd argue the core experiences and phenomenology that originated a given religion is more important than verbal proclamations by any one person.

5) Simply arguing the "core" or "essence" of a religion is what the majority of its adherents practice is nothing short of an Appeal To Popularity and Appeal To Common Practice.

Laterz.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Oct 14, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> To summarize:
> 
> 1) How the adherents of Islam view their religion and the Koran will vary, often radically, from country to country. This is why I stated that any given religion is a product of the _time and place_ it finds itself in, regardless of what its holy book states or what its founder(s) proclaimed way back when.
> 
> ...


 Dogmatic belief in superstition is dangerous...it's made even more so when the "Core stated" beliefs of that religion are designed to motivate to violent action when confronted with other cultures. Spin it how you like, it always ends up the same in action.


----------

