The Star, the Crescent, and the Cross (not the scenario)

[Mott1]

He's saying correctly that the Abrahamic religions have a great capacity for fighting it out with each other.

Ah, my bad. Now that I review his post, I mistook combatible with compatible.
There are many people that believe their were periods in history where these two religions were actually compatible. Thats why I asked.

 

[Mott1]

I lived the better half of my life as a Muslim, and what I found to be an undeniable fact is that all the other great religions stress universalitic ethics, or group-membership-neutral spiritual goals and practices. All religions, in terms of their highest and most profound message, spoke to all humanity, even across religions. There seemed to be spiritual truths that were universal and shared among all.
Islam is bereft of this kind of higher truth. The Quran is not like other spiritual books at all.

What I have found perplexing when debating Islam with secular Muslim apologists, is their failure to grasp Muhammads moral conduct and its affect on the modern world today. Muslim apologists have the misconcieved belief that Islamic extremists have distorted or perverted the teachings of Islam to suit their agenda; that Islam is truly a religion of peace. They declare this firmly and confidantly without doing any real in-depth research on the "theology" of Islam.

One does not have to look far to see that life in an Islamic country is different from life in the West. For example our laws are antithetic to the Islamic Sharia Laws. Our laws and moral values are derived from the Judo-Greco-Christian philosophies, Sharia Law and Islamic morals are derived from the Quran and the actions of Muhammad. The difference begins with Muhammad.
Today when so many invoke Muhammads deeds and words to justify actions of violence and bloodshed, it is important to become familiar with this pivotal figure.

Why does the life of Muhammad, founder of Islam, matter today? Fourteen centuries have passed since he was born. Millions of Muslim have died since then. Surley Islam, like other religions has changed over 14,000 years right? Wrong.
Contrary to what Muslim apologists believe, religions are not entirely determined (or distorted) by the faithful over time. The actions and words of the founders of a religion remain central, no matter how long ago they lived.
The idea that believers shape religion is derived from the philosophy of deconstructionism, which basically teachs that if the reader alone finds meaning, there can be no truth (and no religious truth); one persons meaning is equal to another's. Ultimately, according this philosophy we create our own "truths".
Yet for the religiously devout all across the world, the words of Jesus, Moses, Muhammad, Krishna, and Buddha mean something far greater than any individual reading them. Even to the less-than-devout reader, the words of these great religious teachers are clearly not equal in their meaning.

These are a few verses from the Quran and the Bible to demonstrate just how diametrically opposite the moral philosophies of Muhammad and Jesus are.

"Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you"
Jesus (Matthew 5:44)

"Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into the hearts of the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, whom you may not know, but whom Allah doth know"
Quran 8:60


"...if anyone strkes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also..."
Jesus (Matthew)

"Will ye not fight a folk who broke their solemn pledges, and purposed to drive out the messanger and did attack you first?"
Quran 9:13


"All who take the sword will perish by the sword"
Jesus Matthew 26:52

"Know that Paradise is under the shades of the swords (jihad in Allah's cause)"


Through the words of Muhammad and Jesus, we can draw a distinction between the core principles that guide the faithful Muslims and Christains (and even the post-Christian secular West). These principles are important. The followers of Muhamad read his words and strive to emulate him by imitating his actions, which leads to an expression of faith quite different from Christians and the secular West.

 

[C~G]

/End of rant.

And your point exactly is again what Mott1?
I have seen you done this hundred times already.
Repeating doesn't make it anymore true. Are you suggesting that other religions are more spiritual in sense of being more peaceful while Islam isn't?

Personally I believe muslims have to go big revolution in order to cope with the modern way of living just like christians had to do hundreds years ago in order to separate church and the state and create really secular nations. Unfortunately even in the west the religion does raise it's ugly head (just a catchy phrase, not a bash) now and then in forms of certain leaders and their supporters.

Most of the problems rising in muslim world IMO are more based into sociological and economical problems rather than Islam alone which isn't to say it's not part of the problem. But you do make it sound like it's alone to blame for every bad there has been, is or will be.

Edit: Changed the final sentence for clarifying.

 

[Dionysius]

Why does the life of Muhammad, founder of Islam, matter today? Fourteen centuries have passed since he was born. Millions of Muslim have died since then. Surley Islam, like other religions has changed over 14,000 years right? Wrong.

a century is a hundred years, not a thousand. just thought you`d like to know.

i think the one of the reasons islam has not changed very much is the fact that muhhammed made a complete collection of all his sayings that he actually said and removed innaccurate ones. means less dissagreement, anyway.

 

[Mott1]

And your point exactly is again what Mott1?
I have seen you done this hundred times already.
Repeating doesn't make it anymore true. Are you suggesting that other religions are more spiritual in sense of being more peaceful while Islam isn't?

Hi C~G,
I'm not suggesting that Islam is less peaceful, I am saying that its teachings are not peaceful at all.
This is a religion thread, I do not believe my post is out of topic. You and I may have discussed some of the premise above once, but It is a subjuct open to debate.

Personally I believe muslims have to go big revolution in order to cope with the modern way of living just like christians had to do hundreds years ago in order to separate church and the state and create really secular nations. Unfortunately even in the west the religion does raise it's ugly head (just a catchy phrase, not a bash) now and then in forms of certain leaders and their supporters.

Well thanks to separation of church and state, the West is much less influenced by religions ugly head.
In our previous discussion we agreed on very little, but what we did agree on is that Islam needs to be reformed, the Muslim World needs to adopt secularism in order to be compatible with the modern world. This needs to be initiated by the moderate element in Islam, however the moderates are not easily distinguished from the orthodox. Moderates are not all in the same camp when it comes to Islamic theology.
You stated the Muslims need to initiate a revolution, however history dictates that with revolution comes bloodshed and violence.

Most of the problems rising in muslim world IMO are more based into sociological and economical problems rather than Islam alone which isn't to say it's not part of the problem. But you do make it sound like it's alone to blame for every bad there has been, is or will be.

I agree to the extent that Islam is the root cause of the problem and its progeny, Islamic theocracy, creates the social and economical problems.

 

[aneeshm]

@ Mott1

You have spent the better part of your life as a Muslim . I would like your opinion on a thread of mine , where I take and defend a position exactly similar to yours ( the difference being that I was never a Muslim , but have bothered to study its theology and jurisprudence in some detail ( as far as a layman can ) ) .

The thread is called : Clearing up misconceptions about Islam ( the religion ) , and a request . . . . . .

Is my position in that thread justified ? I base my criticism of Islam solely on three things - the Quran , the Hadith , and the way jurists through the ages have interpreted them .

 

[C~G]

Hi C~G,.

Thank you for friendly answer.

I'm not suggesting that Islam is less peaceful, I am saying that its teachings are not peaceful at all.

That is what I feared in the first place.

Well thanks to separation of church and state, the West is much less influenced by religions ugly head.
In our previous discussion we agreed on very little, but what we did agree on is that Islam needs to be reformed, the Muslim World needs to adopt secularism in order to be compatible with the modern world. This needs to be initiated by the moderate element in Islam, however the moderates are not easily distinguished from the orthodox. Moderates are not all in the same camp when it comes to Islamic theology.

Personally I don't believe there can be any "unified" revolution of Islam. It happens piece by piece over time as the geopolitical situation allows.

You stated the Muslims need to initiate a revolution, however history dictates that with revolution comes bloodshed and violence.

It will need probably bloodshed years to come.

I agree to the extent that Islam is the root cause of the problem and its progeny, Islamic theocracy, creates the social and economical problems.

I think the issue is more complicated especially if you think how the situation could evolve.

This is a religion thread, I do not believe my post is out of topic. You and I may have discussed some of the premise above once, but It is a subjuct open to debate.

I agree it's open for debate.
I'm not sure am I one up to it because I'm not big fan of Islam either. My views are just less radical than yours.

 

[Mott1]

@ Mott1

You have spent the better part of your life as a Muslim . I would like your opinion on a thread of mine , where I take and defend a position exactly similar to yours ( the difference being that I was never a Muslim , but have bothered to study its theology and jurisprudence in some detail ( as far as a layman can ) ) .

The thread is called : Clearing up misconceptions about Islam ( the religion ) , and a request . . . . . .

Is my position in that thread justified ? I base my criticism of Islam solely on three things - the Quran , the Hadith , and the way jurists through the ages have interpreted them .

Very interesting thread. I briefly perused through the replies and counter arguments, had I known about the thread I would have contributed. I Agree entirely with your position, however It seemed like the focus of your argument became obscured by generalizations early on. Your character and your "precieved agenda" became the primary focus of the thread, were as the initial argument you posed became a distant second.
BTW interesting links on Islam and India, coincidentally I am currenty doing some research on "Hind va Sind" and those links will come in handy.

 

[aneeshm]

Very interesting thread. I briefly perused through the replies and counter arguments, had I known about the thread I would have contributed. I Agree entirely with your position,

Thank you . Very few people even bother to think about it , instead I'm just dismissed as a "fanatic" , even though I'm an agnostic .

however It seemed like the focus of your argument became obscured by generalizations early on. Your character and your "precieved agenda" became the primary focus of the thread, were as the initial argument you posed became a distant second.

That happens when political correctness dominates discussion , and one of its imperatives is that anybody criticising Islam is by definition a bigot , who you have to attack with all sorts of accusations - fanatic , Islam-hater , Islamophobe , and so on . Then there were the attacks on my character , as you rightly noted , and on some mythical agenda which I was supposed to have .

BTW interesting links on Islam and India, coincidentally I am currenty doing some research on "Hind va Sind" and those links will come in handy.

They are links which portray the Islamic impact on India from a Hindu point of view . They are also a chronicle and compilation of the acts of destruction which Islamic invaders have carried out since their first coming into India . The list of destroyed temples is huge - it runs into hundreds of pages . The list , ironically enough , is compiled by Muslim historians , who were very proud that they were destryoing infidel temples . The list is sickening - as bad as the holocaust , if not much worse ( it is estimated that 80 million non-Muslims were killed in India for religious or other reasons by Islamic invaders over the time of Islamic domination of India - compared to 6 million Jews during the Holocaust ) .

 

[aussieboy]

As you espoused, aneeshm, the Muslim majority, to put it in the words of another Indian, Dinesh D'Souza, prefer the jihad of the pen or heart to the jihad of the sword. Islam historically has considered both, plus the jihad of the sword, all legitimate. But those who only follow the first two, but not the latter, are considered by the likes of Bin Ladn to be apostates.

While 'mainstram liberal' Islam seems to hold sway among Muslims living in the West, especially American Muslims, it is sad to see that such reform has not reached their countries of origin, including, of course, Pakistan.

Nonetheless, perhaps this surge of extremism and Islam as its original, shall give way to a Muslim version of the Reformation, which, as we all know, made Christianity as a whole, my denomination included, moderate.