What's the problem with Islam, anyway?

[aelf]

You're like Yazdagird who loses one battle after another and moves away to a new field just to be defeated there as well. You escape from one field of battle to another, but continue to claim you were not defeated.

What defeat? I can barely understand what you're saying, especially in the last few posts while you do not seem to comprehend my criticism of your arguments, the chief point of which has never changed. This seems more reminiscent of an Iraqi minister of information moment.

"not an outright bigot" means I am a bigot according to you, just not "outright"

This is what I said:

I'm getting the passive-aggressive vibe of someone who is not an outright bigot but is prejudiced against a certain group anyway, since you seem to be oscillating between "I don't think Islam is bad" and "Look, the Prophet said this!".

The exact meaning should be clear enough. You seem to have this nasty habit of fixating on certain words without paying attention to context.

Again I ask:
if not holy book
if not words of the founder of religion
if not the religious law
if not the current muslim states' law
if not the islamic history
if not the words of any living or dead muslim scholars, politicians etc
can be associated with islam, what can? Islam seems to be for you something of other reality.

You either fail at reading comprehension or are simply being disingenuous. No one has denied that all of these can be associated with Islam. That's a trivial point. However, they cannot be seen independently of context and used to construct criticisms of Islam as a whole that would stick. What you've done is to cite a few examples from them to prove that Islam is backward, while ignoring the fact that there are plenty of moderate Muslims who are able to reconcile their faith with all that we value in modern societies. And when pressed on this point you simply state that you do not think the moderates bother themselves with these questions. That's a plainly presumptuous and arrogant answer.

As well as defending against such criticism should mention what is this value. Aelf is saying "you ignore the implications", but he does not say what they are himself, because then he'd have to mention himself that some, if not most, of these implications are negative.

I've said what these implications are so many times. Do you actually understand English?

the meaning is contextual, you'd have to read our discussion. Aelf denies importance of all these things in "painting an image of islam".

And now you come up with a new catchphrase, "painting an image of Islam". I shudder to think of what flexible meanings could be ascribed to this evocative phrase.

 

[Squonk]

Do you actually understand English?

You either fail at reading comprehension or are simply being disingenuous.

What defeat? I can barely understand what you're saying, especially in the last few posts while you do not seem to comprehend my criticism of your arguments, the chief point of which has never changed. This seems more reminiscent of an Iraqi minister of information moment.

Once again the only thing you are capable of are ad personam attacks. I pity you. Your chief "criticisement" is, appart from hurling insults, that, whatever one says, it can not be a criticisement of islam as a whole. I ask you, what would constitute a valid criticisement of islam, then?

What you've done is to cite a few examples from them to prove that Islam is backward,

Oh, and not telling truth, that is another strategy of yours. I never claimed islam is backward.

while ignoring the fact that there are plenty of moderate Muslims who are able to reconcile their faith with all that we value in modern societies.

I never denied the existance of moderate muslims, nor did I ignore that fact. I claimed that there's a problem in islam with that reconcilation. It's quite obvious, and you yourself, saying that "there are muslims who are able to reconcile..." admit existance of that problem.

And when pressed on this point you simply state that you do not think the moderates bother themselves with these questions. That's a plainly presumptuous and arrogant answer.

I've said that my guess (by which I imply I am not sure of it) most muslims (which directly implies that most muslims are not extremsts; it also implies some muslims did overcome this problem) do not have a clarified opinion in this subject, but if they do, they will tend (which suggests some will not) to defend Muhammad (which is a safe guess imo, and which does not imply they will necessarily defend similar actions done today) and muslim tradition (which is more problematic, but defending it does not necessarily mean a will to implement it).

here is a direct quote:

I believe majority of muslims simply ignores this subject, do not have a clarified opinion on it, but if they do, they will tend to defend Muhammad and muslim tradition in some way rather than condemn them. But I may be wrong, it's just a guess.

I've said what these implications are so many times.

I was referring to your particular post.
Anyway, what are the implications of these "bad quotes"? Do they have influence on shari'a, law and politics in muslim world in your opinion, or do they not? And if they do, what are they?

And now you come up with a new catchphrase, "painting an image of Islam". I shudder to think of what flexible meanings could be ascribed to this evocative phrase.

...

So you're only making yourself appear to be painting Islam in a bad light,

in order to paint something in a bad light.

 

[Traitorfish]

If you actually did (read the discussion), you wouldn't say so, as early on, I've written that I believe islam will overcome the problems I'm talking about etc.

And if so, clearly they can not be essential to islam.
I believe the essence of islam is 5 pillars of it. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that essence (if one believes in God), au contraire.

But a religion is more than its "essence".

That assumes a monolithic nature, which is self-evidently not the case- if it were, then every detail you list would be essential. Only that which is communal to all forms of contemporary Islam can be deemed innately reflective of the religion, which is true of none of the "associated" details you suggest.
You can talk about prevailing trends or schools of though within Islam, or Islamic culture, but you can't make generalised statements about the nature of contemporary Islam without recognising that doing so implies a communal and therefore essential nature to the observations made. After all, even if you are not making these assertions about Islam in itself, you are making them about contemporary Islam, which, in this context, is almost interchangeable.

never denied the existance of moderate muslims, nor did I ignore that fact. I claimed that there's a problem in islam with that reconcilation. It's quite obvious, and you yourself, saying that "there are muslims who are able to reconcile..." admit existance of that problem.

Only if "reconcile" is taken to suggest a previous incompatibility, which I would suggest is a less than fully accurate reading; the suggestion was that these Muslims reduce both their faith and Western culture to more essential terms, and find no conflict, rather than suggesting that the are obliged to knowingly redesign their faith, something which assumes a more monolithic nature of individual belief than is true for the non-fanatical.

 

[Squonk]

That assumes a monolithic nature, which is self-evidently not the case-

Every discussion needs some level of generalisation. If no generalisation can be made, it's impossible to discuss islam at all.

if it were, then every detail you list would be essential. Only that which is communal to all forms of contemporary Islam can be deemed innately reflective of the religion, which is true of none of the "associated" details you suggest.

I disagree with you. Let us try to think what is essential for christianity: really nothing but faith that there's God and that Jesus was an important person delivering a message from him. Not Trinity nor even sign of a cross would fall into a cathegory of something accepted by all branches of christianity. When it comes to islam, not even the 5 pillars of islam are really accepted by all branches of it. Again we'd have to just say that muslims are people who believe in God and that Muhammad someone with a message from him. And of course, with footnotes that while definition of christianity may include islam, it is not part of it. That definition of islam may include baha'is etc, but baha'ism is not islam etc.
So I believe that it's justified to describe a religion by what is predominant in it, was predominant, or at least is/was characteristic to it. That doesn't mean it has to apply to all its forms.

You can talk about prevailing trends or schools of though within Islam, or Islamic culture, but you can't make generalised statements about the nature of contemporary Islam without recognising that doing so implies a communal and therefore essential nature to the observations made. After all, even if you are not making these assertions about Islam in itself, you are making them about contemporary Islam, which, in this context, is almost interchangeable.

being so strict would render any discussion about islam senseless, because there could be always a small sect that doesn't accept this or that. it's not as if I am making general statements about islam as the only one in this thread.

There are few groups in islam that do not have sharia as part of their doctrine (which doesn't mean that all adherents of these denominations that do want to implement it as state law). Even fewer denounce Al-Qur'an, if these may be called muslim at all. So I don't understand that I can not speak about Al-Qur'an and shari'a as being something important for islam.

Only if "reconcile" is taken to suggest a previous incompatibility, which I would suggest is a less than fully accurate reading; the suggestion was that these Muslims reduce both their faith and Western culture to more essential terms, and find no conflict, rather than suggesting that the are obliged to knowingly redesign their faith, something which assumes a more monolithic nature of individual belief than is true for the non-fanatical.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/reconcile

1. To reestablish a close relationship between.
2. To settle or resolve.
3. To bring (oneself) to accept: He finally reconciled himself to the change in management.
4. To make compatible or consistent: reconcile my way of thinking with yours. See Synonyms at adapt.

All of these definitions suggest previous problems: if one has to reestablish a relationship, it must have been broken; if one has to settle something or resolve, it means there was a problem to settle or resolve. If one has to bring oneself to accept, it means he didn't accept it originally. If something is made compatible or consistent, it means it wasn't compatible or consistent previously.

please explain what you mean exactly by "reduce both their faith and Western culture to more essential terms", I don't want to misunderstand you.

If you mean that the reconcilation doesn't have to be, well, conscious ("knowingly redesign"), and that they are preoccupied with more down-to-earth life, that is similar to what I think myself; that I guess most muslims do not have a clarified opinion, but they live their life in accordance with the general values that exist in their society.

 

[Traitorfish]

Every discussion needs some level of generalisation. If no generalisation can be made, it's impossible to discuss islam at all.

There's a difference between those generalises which legitimately simplify, and those which actively obscure, and you are frequently risk falling into the latter.

I disagree with you. Let us try to think what is essential for christianity: really nothing but faith that there's God and that Jesus was an important person delivering a message from him. Not Trinity nor even sign of a cross would fall into a cathegory of something accepted by all branches of christianity.
When it comes to islam, not even the 5 pillars of islam are really accepted by all branches of it. Again we'd have to just say that muslims are people who believe in God and that Muhammad someone with a message from him. And of course, with footnotes that while definition of christianity may include islam, it is not part of it. That definition of islam may include baha'is etc, but baha'ism is not islam etc.
So I believe that it's justified to describe a religion by what is predominant in it, was predominant, or at least is/was characteristic to it. That doesn't mean it has to apply to all its forms.

Those are all very poor examples- in each case, you have reduced each faith past it's essential tenants, and then reclaimed them when appropriate "Islam may include Baha'ism, but Baha'ism is not Islam"- thus allowing you to assert a very bizarre taxonomy. Every one of those religions, while sharing basic Abrahamic tenets, has certain qualities which are common to every sub-section of that faith, but exclusive to that faith, and which represent the essential nature of that faith. Both Christians and Muslims recognise Jesus as sent by God, yes, but the former recognise him as the final prophet, as the Messiah, and as god himself, while the latter recognise him only as the penultimate prophet, and recognise Muhammad as an additional, final prophet. Thus the essential nature of both Christianity and Islam are arrived at.
Now, this isn't perfect, because the labels are somewhat subscriptive- at what do we draw the line between Christianity and Messianic Judaism? Do we draw a line at all?- but Islam, at least, is understood to stem from a single base branch of Abrahmic religion, which, as I said, recognises Muhammad as the final prophet of God and the Koran as the word of God as transcribed by Muhammad, so we can start from there.

being so strict would render any discussion about islam senseless, because there could be always a small sect that doesn't accept this or that. it's not as if I am making general statements about islam as the only one in this thread.

Why assume that the small sects are irrelevant? If they can be demonstrated to occupy a legitimately consist position, then they contribute to the analysis of the religion's essential form. The vast majority of Christians believe in the trinity, after all, but those few "small sects" that do not make it clear that the trinity is not an essential part of Christianity.
You are free to discuss trends tendencies within Islam, but these must be recognised as such, and not treated as a unanimous interpretation of the religion.

There are few groups in islam that do not have sharia as part of their doctrine (which doesn't mean that all adherents of these denominations that do want to implement it as state law). Even fewer denounce Al-Qur'an, if these may be called muslim at all. So I don't understand that I can not speak about Al-Qur'an and shari'a as being something important for islam.

You can, but you must be careful about the manner in which you do so. The Koran is an inanimate body of text, and Sharia a highly disputed set of abstract concepts, so you can only deal with interpretations as they exist, rather than simply issuing your own- that is simply a pantomiming of Islam, not a critical examination of it's contemporary practice.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/reconcile

1. To reestablish a close relationship between.
2. To settle or resolve.
3. To bring (oneself) to accept: He finally reconciled himself to the change in management.
4. To make compatible or consistent: reconcile my way of thinking with yours. See Synonyms at adapt.

All of these definitions suggest previous problems: if one has to reestablish a relationship, it must have been broken; if one has to settle something or resolve, it means there was a problem to settle or resolve. If one has to bring oneself to accept, it means he didn't accept it originally. If something is made compatible or consistent, it means it wasn't compatible or consistent previously.

please explain what you mean exactly by "reduce both their faith and Western culture to more essential terms", I don't want to misunderstand you.

If you mean that the reconcilation doesn't have to be, well, conscious ("knowingly redesign"), and that they are preoccupied with more down-to-earth life, that is similar to what I think myself; that I guess most muslims do not have a clarified opinion, but they live their life in accordance with the general values that exist in their society.

I meant that moderate, Westernised Muslims are not compromising their faith, but stripping away non-essential layers of religious (and often purely cultural) padding until they find that basic Western values (or their interpretation of them) and Islam (or their interpretation of it) are compatible. That does not suggest that Islam was ever incompatible, merely that the particular form they adhered to was incompatible (if it indeed was; the talk of "reconciling their faith" often relies on the questionable presupposition that "native" Islam is necessarily incompatible with Western democratic values).

 

[bernie14]

There's a difference between those generalises which legitimately simplify, and those which actively obscure, and you are frequently risk falling into the latter.

that is an opinion

.....Islam, at least, is understood to stem from a single base branch of Abrahmic religion, which, as I said, recognises Muhammad as the final prophet of God and the Koran as the word of God as transcribed by Muhammad, so we can start from there.

isnt that what he said?

".....we'd have to just say that muslims are people who believe in God and that Muhammad someone with a message from him."

Squonk

.....The Koran is an inanimate body of text, and Sharia a highly disputed set of abstract concepts, so you can only deal with interpretations as they exist, rather than simply issuing your own- that is simply a pantomiming of Islam, not a critical examination of it's contemporary practice.

but isnt that what sharia is all about, some guys interpretation based on what that guy believes GOD wants? the argument goes something like "how can western societies decide legal matters by a vote....most people know nothing about god's will, therefore, the decisions need to be made by clerics"....as if these people could really even begin to comprehend "the mind of god"(if there is one)...how narcissitically preposterous

I meant that moderate, Westernised Muslims are not compromising their faith, but stripping away non-essential layers of religious (and often purely cultural) padding until they find that basic Western values (or their interpretation of them) and Islam (or their interpretation of it) are compatible. That does not suggest that Islam was ever incompatible, merely that the particular form they adhered to was incompatible (if it indeed was; the talk of "reconciling their faith" often relies on the questionable presupposition that "native" Islam is necessarily incompatible with Western democratic values).

so i guess u r answering the op's question.....sharia is what's wrong with islam....because if EACH person of faith acts according to EACH's interpretation, and respects the rights of others to their own interpretation, well then, we dont have a problem

 

[Squonk]

There's a difference between those generalises which legitimately simplify, and those which actively obscure, and you are frequently risk falling into the latter.

Please point where exactly I do, it's hard to discuss at this level of generalisation - about islam, or about my own words.

Those are all very poor examples- in each case, you have reduced each faith past it's essential tenants, and then reclaimed them when appropriate "Islam may include Baha'ism, but Baha'ism is not Islam"- thus allowing you to assert a very bizarre taxonomy. Every one of those religions, while sharing basic Abrahamic tenets, has certain qualities which are common to every sub-section of that faith, but exclusive to that faith, and which represent the essential nature of that faith. Both Christians and Muslims recognise Jesus as sent by God, yes, but the former recognise him as the final prophet, as the Messiah, and as god himself, while the latter recognise him only as the penultimate prophet, and recognise Muhammad as an additional, final prophet. Thus the essential nature of both Christianity and Islam are arrived at.

Not all christians consider Jesus to be the final prophet (for example mormons apparently don't, additionally the New Testament mentions there'll be prophets after Jesus. May I add: prophets, in plural, so that no-one would think it's about Muhammad. I believe that arabic language is more specific in this regard, as it distinguishes between rasul and nabi, one would have to check arabic bible), nor God. It is possible that all christians consider Jesus to be Messiah, but so do muslims:
So you're wrong if you think that this is what distinguishes them. Also, the definition of "La ilaha illa Allah wa Muhammad rasuluhu" is empty if one doesn't know what were Muhammad's teachings, just as definition of christianity as the religion based around Jesus is empty if one doesn't know his teachings.

recognises Muhammad as the final prophet of God and the Koran as the word of God as transcribed by Muhammad, so we can start from there.

There were and are islamic groups that claim there were prophets who came after Muhammad. There are also islamic groups that claim that the real messanger from God was in fact Ali, not Muhammad, or even that Ali was God, or some other shiite imam was God etc. There are islamic groups that do not obey the most basic religious duties prescribed by Coran.

Why assume that the small sects are irrelevant? If they can be demonstrated to occupy a legitimately consist position, then they contribute to the analysis of the religion's essential form. The vast majority of Christians believe in the trinity, after all, but those few "small sects" that do not make it clear that the trinity is not an essential part of Christianity.

Yet it'd be strange to describe christianity without any mention of the trinity, or to describe islam without mentioning a pilgrimage to Mecca.
If I find them irrelevant it's mostly because they are relatively small, very heterodoxical and may be considered separate religions.

You are free to discuss trends tendencies within Islam, but these must be recognised as such, and not treated as a unanimous interpretation of the religion.

I encourage you to find some post of mine referring to something as (apart from belief in existance of God and that Muhammad is a prophet) unanimous in islam, or any post of mine that claims that all muslims are so and so, or do that or that.

You can, but you must be careful about the manner in which you do so. The Koran is an inanimate body of text, and Sharia a highly disputed set of abstract concepts, so you can only deal with interpretations as they exist, rather than simply issuing your own- that is simply a pantomiming of Islam, not a critical examination of it's contemporary practice.

Please, don't be offended, but describing sharia as "a highly disputed set of abstract concepts" is completely erroneous. It is, in fact, opposite: a set of very down-to-earth and detailed regulations concerning all aspects of life. I wouldn't call it "highly disputed" either. You seem to be gravely mistaken on the subject what sharia is. Sharia doesn't need interpretation. It IS a set of interpretations of the holy text and sunna.
I may remind you that I didn't post interpretation of the hadiths and coranic verses of my own. I quoted them.
And if I claimed anything about muslim duties etc - I repeated what muslim jurists said. I do not usually read the jurists's work, but recently I've been forced to brief through some parts of Kitab al-Umm of Ibn ash-shafi'i as well as through one another book which's title I forgot, but may look it up if you want me to. I recalled one specific part, where the jurist answered a question if muslims can burn orchards and palm-trees of enemy at war (I don't recall if it was about houses as well), and he claims that yes they can, because Muhammad when he was at war with some tribe burned some of their palms. That's how shari'a works, it is about very specific, practical laws. And this example in fact shows a problem: not only was such act considered bad in gahiliyya times, I believe (that's why I was surprised by it and remember it), but it'd fall under cathegory of war crimes today. I believe that definite most of muslims would not accept such behaviour as anything good, and most of them most likely don't know the story about Muhammad and this tribe, nor Ibn ash-Shafi'is or whoever's opinions in this matter. It's of no importance for the essence of islam. But I guess that if they did know the story and the legal opinion in such matters, that may - and from a religious point of view should - influence their opinion to say that such behaviour is acceptable.

I meant that moderate, Westernised Muslims are not compromising their faith, but stripping away non-essential layers of religious (and often purely cultural) padding until they find that basic Western values (or their interpretation of them) and Islam (or their interpretation of it) are compatible. That does not suggest that Islam was ever incompatible, merely that the particular form they adhered to was incompatible (if it indeed was; the talk of "reconciling their faith" often relies on the questionable presupposition that "native" Islam is necessarily incompatible with Western democratic values).

You claim that Islam (or their interpretation of it) is compatible with basic western values if they strip away the non-essential layers of religious padding. What constitutes the "non-essential layers" and what constitutes the essential core? And why do you believe that this core shall be compatible with basic western values? Shall one peel one "layer" of islam after another until there's nothing incompatible? That'd simply mean that the core is what's compatible with western values, that it's western values which decide what's important in islam, and what's not.

 

[Traitorfish]

Ok, honestly, this has gotten far to bogged down in irrelevant details and obscuring accusations and counter-accusations, so I'll just reiterate my basic point: the majority do not dictate the essence of a category. That is found by reducing all members of a category to their unanimously shared qualities, acknowledging every difference as a variation with the category. (Of course, that's easier said than done, given that the establishment of these categories often requires a concept of their essence, risking the creation of an impossible circle; it's often best to base the boundaries of reasonably consistent self-identification, however that is determined...) As such, Islam, even the sub-set of Islam represented by contemporary Islam, cannot be reduced to generalisations based on prominent, even majority trends and tendencies. They are hardly irrelevant in such a discussion, but must be acknowledged in their proper context if they are to be useful, and that demands some attempt to distinguish between Islam-in-essence, and Islam-as-is (let alone Islam-as-mostly-is or Islam-as-sometimes-but-significantly-is).

 

[Holycannoli]

Islam has a history of violence and that is why we should be wary of it. I don't have the time to go into the details, but I remember a post by a former user detailing the various actions of Islamic countries leading up to the first Crusade. It took centuries of conquest before the Christian nations fought back.

You know how many people outright deny the reasons for the Crusades? It's one of the most common historical fallacies. The Crusades were a result of muslim violence and conquest, not a cause. They don't like teaching that in school though, it's not politically correct, so you will constantly hear all the wrong reasons for the Crusades, and find very few people who actually know what happened prior to them.

Even when they find out, they're so stubborn they'll just deny the facts and continue to hold on to their false views. The Crusades were not some terrible barbaric christian conquest of muslim sovereign lands, they were a reconquest of sovereign christian lands conquered by muslims.

Can't wait to see how many people here try to deny this

The Inquisition suffers from similarly false views made popular by Mel Brooks and other false ideas, mostly claiming that it was the church that was responsible for the atrocities (most of which are fiction, like the carnival-like atmospheres of torture chambers) This link explains it better since it's complicated, and even wikipedia seems pretty accurate. Most of the falsehoods people believe can be traced back to the Black Legend.

It was still brutal especially by today's standards, fueled by conspiracy theories, political and power rivalries, but it wasn't some grand act designed by the church to torture and kill non-christians and/or drive them out of spain. Again, it's not taught except in dedicated collegiate-level courses (if you're lucky) so most only know the false popular history.

What's this have to do with the OP? Not a whole lot. To the OP, it's a clash of cultures and religions like has been seen throughout history, with it's inevitable violent conclusions. I won't go far into my personal views, but there's a reason why certain religious groups seem to regularly employ terrorism and extreme violence, and other religious groups and religions never seem to. Those groups are twisting the teachings of their religions. That includes a lot of so-called "Christians" and "Christian churches", most recently that idiot in Florida. All people see are those twisted teachings, especially in the case of muslims (when's the last time you saw on the news something positive a muslim group did?). It looks like all the peaceful, moderate muslims are keeping hush, or fanning the flames in the case of the NYC mosque, so it's no wonder there's a "problem".

 

[Lone Wolf]

The Crusades were a result of muslim violence and conquest, not a cause.

They were neither.

 

[Dachs]

You know how many people outright deny the reasons for the Crusades? It's one of the most common historical fallacies. The Crusades were a result of muslim violence and conquest, not a cause.

They were a result of the monastic reforms of the tenth and eleventh centuries, of the Papal-Imperial power struggle that started in earnest in the 1040s, of millennialist ideas that had become somewhat popular in Western Europe...and, almost as an afterthought, because some Muslims were fighting with some Christians for reasons that had little to nothing to do with Islam or Christianity, and especially nothing to do with Catholicism.

 

[Berzerker]

Some have said that Jesus set aside capital punishment in John 8 when He did not call for the woman caught in adultery to be stoned. But remember the context. The Pharisees were trying to trap Jesus between the Roman law and the Mosaic law. If He said that they should stone her, He would break the Roman law.

Why? It was probably illegal (Roman law) to execute a Roman citizen but I dont think that protection extended to everyone. The Romans stayed out of the internal affairs of the Jews for the most part, and if the NT is to be trusted it appears Pilate was dragged into it by Jewish interests for political reasons, not because the Jews couldn't execute Jesus, or an adulteress.

If He refused to allow them to stone her, He would break the Mosaic law (Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:22).

He broke Mosaic divorce laws... and Sabbath law... and more.

Jesus' answer avoided the conflict: He said that he who was without sin should cast the first stone.

If he was avoiding it why'd he say anything? He could have kept quiet... He wasn't avoiding it, he indicted her accusers and they backed off because of their shame. He attacked them... He attacked their credibility... Notice how Jesus said absolutely nothing about any laws, Roman or Jewish? He could have told them to take the adulteress to the proper authorities. But they're hypocrites too... He attacked them as well...

Since He did teach that a stone be thrown (John 8:7), this is not an abolition of the death penalty.

Thats one crackpot theory, this is what Jesus did and said:

But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."

See, nothing about laws saying this or that and its clear Jesus is telling them to drop their stones and leave - and thats exactly what they did. To turn that into Jesus' endorsement of executing people is Whomever came up with that gem must think they're without sin, they're certainly without a clue...

In other places in the New Testament we see the principle of capital punishment being reinforced. Romans 13:1-7, for example, teaches that human government is ordained by God and that the civil magistrate is a minister of God. We are to obey government for we are taught that government does not bear the sword in vain. The fact that the Apostle Paul used the image of the sword further supports the idea that capital punishment was to be used by government in the New Testament age as well. Rather than abolish the idea of the death penalty, Paul uses the emblem of the Roman sword to reinforce the idea of capital punishment. The New Testament did not abolish the death penalty; it reinforced the principle of capital punishment.

Jesus or Paul, you cant follow both... And I wouldn't put too much stock in Paul's writings from a Roman jail cell, he may have been kissing some Roman ass or talking about what govt should strive to be rather than declaring Caesar to be the enforcer of Jesus' will... Those bastards were not serving as God's "sword" on Earth... Cheese and Crackers, who do you think "The Whore of Babylon" referred to? Rome and its govt...

 

[Squonk]

Ok, honestly, this has gotten far to bogged down in irrelevant details

Au contraire, I believe the discussion has gotten too general.

so I'll just reiterate my basic point: the majority do not dictate the essence of a category.

let me reiterate my point as well: even definition of islam, if it was to encompass all of its branches, would be too general to really say anything about muslims. And accepting your stance would effectively deny any possibility of any claim or discussion about islam but that definition, of course unless "the context is given". But what't the context is also a matter of discussion.

Indeed you point to an interesting paradox. Because to write a definition of islam by common beliefs of its adherents would require previous defining of who's islam's adherent, and that'd require definition of islam...

Please, tell me: what is the "essence" of islam, in your opinion?

As such, Islam, even the sub-set of Islam represented by contemporary Islam, cannot be reduced to generalisations based on prominent, even majority trends and tendencies. They are hardly irrelevant in such a discussion, but must be acknowledged in their proper context if they are to be useful, and that demands some attempt to distinguish between Islam-in-essence, and Islam-as-is (let alone Islam-as-mostly-is or Islam-as-sometimes-but-significantly-is).

I'm happy you acknowledge the relevancy of major trends in islam to a discussion about islam. I'll say to you what I've said to aelf: wherever I fail to provide context in your opinion, please provide it yourself, not just say "you can't say that without the context", without saying what this alleged context is.

Again, your words require defining of islam-in-essence and islam-as-it-is.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Please, tell me: what is the "essence" of islam, in your opinion?

Fluffy bunnies.

 

[Squonk]

They were a result of the monastic reforms of the tenth and eleventh centuries, of the Papal-Imperial power struggle that started in earnest in the 1040s,

that I agree with, but that's not the only cause.

because some Muslims were fighting with some Christians for reasons that had little to nothing to do with Islam or Christianity, and especially nothing to do with Catholicism.

I think you're overemphasising the secondary role of islam and christianity in this conflict. may I also remind you that orthodox church and catholic church were not fully separated, and it was about holy lands of christianity, so it's not right to say it had "nothing" to do with catholicism.

They were neither.

i think they were both, and more. Crusades weren't direct result of early muslim conquests, but they were indirectly caused by them, as if Jerusalem wasn't conquered by Arabs in VII century, it wouldn't have been in non-christian hands in XI century, and popes wouldn't be able to call for its retaking

crusades in the Middle east were, on another hand, a more direct result of muslim violence and conquest in XI century, that is of Seldjuk Turks' progress, devastation of the holy places and harassement of pilgrims.

They could not be treaten as a cause of existance of muslim violence and conquest themselves, as they existed earlier, but they can well be treaten as a cause of further deterioration of muslim-christian relations and further violence towards indigenous christians.

 

[Squonk]

Fluffy bunnies.

if so, I'll convert

 

[Tee Kay]

Well, it's a matter of perspective isn't it? One could focus on the Clash of Civilizations scale, putting everything in the context of the ultimate showdown of ultimate destiny between the people of the cross and the people of the crescent. Or everything is just due to Human Nature (TM) and the eternal struggle for power between people, leaders and tribes which does not always obey religious divides, and the main role of religion being something to be manipulated as a means to power.

We could debate this for days. Or several millennia. Give or take.

 

[Squonk]

one can say that, but if someone needs to manipulate religion, it's because it has significance of its own. I believe both clearly religious factor and the factor of religion being used as a disguise for elterior motives is important and should be taken into consideration.

 

[Brian Shanahan]

one can say that, but if someone needs to manipulate religion, it's because it has significance of its own. I believe both clearly religious factor and the factor of religion being used as a disguise for elterior motives is important and should be taken into consideration.

One manipulates a religion (well religious belief in genenral) because they see it as the most convenient way to power and dominance over others. All major religions have gon through that stage, e.g. the Christian faith is largely a construction of Paul and the later Church Councils in order to fit the teachings of Jesus into their own faith.
Luther chopped and changed his own theology to suit his political needs.
A lot of European monarchs used the inquisition to relieve themselves of what they thought were undesirables in their own lands. Quite often too these people actually conformed to doctorine.
In a similar vein Islam has been used and abused by many people down the ages in order to further their goals. I'm fully convinced that bin Laden, for example, is just using the general situation to try and further his own goals, a la the religious divisions created by the British to ensure a loyal population in Ireland.

 

[Squonk]

I think Osama honestly believes he fights for islam, I see no reason to doubt it. I also see no reason to think that St Paul or councils consciously deviated from Christ's teachings. If there's a political motive in their action, I think it's subconscious: out of several possibilities of interpretation, one would probably chose the one which is best for his motives, even without realising that.