| Aug 13th, 2005 02:14 PM |
| KevinTheOmnivore |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ziggytrix
My argument is that mainstream Islam is not concerned with the violent conversion of nonbelievers to Islam.
|
Right, but what are they concerned with? That seems to me to be the real question. The topic wasn't how is Islam spread (which is where the convo went), but rather, what Western behavior has helped inculcate bad behavior on the part of extremist muslims.
I don't think that Wahhabists or "extremists" are concerned with converting the West either. I do however believe that they want to hurt the West, and the question is do we remain open and tolerant and pluralistic in order to feel really good about ourselves, or do we start to take a firm stance against those who might hurt us?
I personally don't care if people want to be muslim, and no, I don't hate them. I would love to live in a warm, feel-good society where we all live side-by-side and go bowling together on Fridays. But look, for example, at the Scandinavian countries. granted, it's one slightly xenophobic society clashing with another, but it hasn't been a pleasant transition with their new muslim neighbors.
Is it our weakness that they hate? Is it our willingness to be open to almost anything that conveys weakness to them...? Would there actually be a better coexistance if we got tougher?
Quote:
|
I just didn't want to ASSUME that he was a Christian just because he seems to have something against Muslims.
|
And had he provided you that info up front, the whole conversation could've been avoided. Be up front about your Christianity, and we'll just figure out what you think aboout Islam. The system is flawless. Maybe we can have like a jesus fish emoticon to speed it up.
|
| Aug 12th, 2005 08:02 PM |
| ziggytrix |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Zero Signal
Let's throw out the last 1500 years of Islamic history, shall we?
How exactly HAS it been spread? With rose petals and songs and dancing?
|
BTW, if you're interested in a different side of the story read this. It's Islamic propaganda tho, so I do expect you to take it with a grain of salt.
here's a sample quote if you don't wanna read the whole thing
Quote:
A. J. Arberry has also pointed out that the reason for the spread of Islam is Islam itself and its religious values. (Aspects of Islamic Civilization, p.12) He states:
The rapidity of the spread of Islam, noticeably through extensive provinces which had been long Christian, is a crucial fact of history.. The sublime rhetoric of the Quran, that inimitable symphony, the very sounds of which move men to tears and ecstasy". (M. Pickhtal, The Meaning of the Glorious Quran, p.vii)
Arberry continues:
This, and the urgency of the simple message carried, holds the key to the mystery of one of the greatest catalysms in the history of religion. When all military, political and economic factors have been exhausted, the religious impulse must still be recognized as the most vital and enduring.
Brockelman, who is usually very unsympathetic and partial, also recognizes the religious values of Islam as the main factor for the spread of Islam. (History of the Islamic Peoples, p.37) Rosenthal makes his point as follows:
The more important factor for the spread of Islam is religious law of Islam (Sharia which is an inclusive, all-embracing, all-comprehensive way of thinking and living) which was designed to cover all manifestations of life. (Political Thought in Medieval Islam, p.21)
|
or if you prefer, a more neutral (and in my opinion more credible) version:
Quote:
Many historians have questioned whether these conversions to Islam were in fact genuine transformations and acceptance of the new religion, or whether it was performed by physical force or other pressures by Muslim conquerors (i.e. a convenient strategy to succeed in trade). "It is now apparent that conversion by force, while not unknown in Muslim countries, was, in fact, rare." (15) Instead, most people who adopted the new faith did so voluntarily, and such force was condemned by religious teachings. As the Qur'an proclaims, "Let there be no compulsion in religion." (16) Also in his authoritative commentary and translation, 'Ali further explains that compulsion is incompatible with Islam because "religion depends upon faith and will, and these would be meaningless if induced by force." (17)
Even when these conversions were voluntary there is the question of motivation. Did they convert out of true faith or social and political advantages to be gained by membership? "It seems more realistic to recognize that in most cases worldly and spiritual motives for conversion blended and cannot be differentiated." (18) What matters in the end is that not only did the religion spread quite rapidly, but many of those who converted for worldly reasons either personally embraced Islam on spiritual grounds or their descendants did. The means may have been financial expedient, but the end for many was a firm, convicted embrace of a new religion.
Rapid conversion to Islam was rare. In order to make it a more permanent force, it was introduced gradually and reinforced over time until full adherence to the doctrines of Islam was completed. Trading was vital to this process because of the continued return of traders after periods of letting the new religion acclimated to the new culture, and vice versa. Such slow immersion in the three regions under study was also important in that it permitted the local culture the opportunity to modify the religion to the local culture and the traditions of the local community (within shari'a (Islamic law) of course).
Interestingly enough, according to Robinson, popular culture in the non- Arab regions where Islam became a major religion attributes the introduction of Islam to holy men. That is local tradition in southeast Asia, central Asia and China, and sub-Saharan Africa attributed the introduction of Islam almost exclusively to holy men. Further scrutiny of remaining records, however, reveals that many of these holy men often doubled as traders, or arrived in the company of traders and on their ships, so either way the trading process played a vital role in the spread of the religion.
|
source: http://www.american.edu/TED/spice.htm
|
| Aug 12th, 2005 07:41 PM |
| ziggytrix |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore
By contrast, if a state building in Texas wants to display the 10 Commandments, we have a huuuge debate over the matter, one which roles all the way up to the highest court in the land. THIs, to me, is also why your relativity argument doesn't fly.
|
But I'm not arguing that Islamic theocracies aren't 5 centuries behind the Western ones in terms of development. There were times when a man could be locked up or killed for heresey in European Christian societies. And they called those times the Dark Ages with good reason. Islamic culture could certainly stand to have it's own Renessaince.
My argument is that mainstream Islam is not concerned with the violent conversion of nonbelievers to Islam.
Quote:
|
No, you misunderstand. I LOVE the idea of qualifying what you post on the board, ESPECIALLY if we disagree with you....! That way, when you talk about religion and Christianity, I can ask that you provide your own stance on the matter, thus disqualifying EVERYTHING that you may say on the matter....! FANTASTIC!
|
Uh right. I just didn't want to ASSUME that he was a Christian just because he seems to have something against Muslims. It wasn't so I could disqualify everything he had to say. I just like context. If you'll scroll up, you'll see where I said I felt context is important.
|
| Aug 12th, 2005 04:51 PM |
| KevinTheOmnivore |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ziggytrix
"In contrast to the Bible, therefore, we are presented with a text that is none other than the transcript of the Revelation itself; the only way it can be received and interpreted is literally."
There are schools of Muslim thought that don't believe this, and there are schools of Christian thought that say the Bible IS the literal word of God.
|
Fair enough, but that doesn't address the actual size of the content matter by comparison, not to mention the difference in how the writings in each one were transcribed.
You may not believe that the literal interpretation straight verbatim from the mouth is the way to go, but you can still argue then that the writings in the Qur'an should be taken more literally than what's in the Bible.
That's why I don't like your equivalence argument, because it assumes that both books were written and compiled under VERY similar circumstances, which I don't believe to be the case.
Also, there's a key distinction you're missing here. Maybe both books have really bad literal interpretations, so you thus shouldn't interpret either literally. Okay, for sake of argument, I'll grant you that.
Where I see a problem is that muslim nations are actually ruling and judging their people based off of these interpretations, and often codifying some of the more questionable positions in the Qur'an. By contrast, if a state building in Texas wants to display the 10 Commandments, we have a huuuge debate over the matter, one which roles all the way up to the highest court in the land. THIs, to me, is also why your relativity argument doesn't fly.
Quote:
|
If you are referring to the 2 questions I asked of Zero as my "stupid little quiz" you can go fuck yourself. I didn't ask YOU a god damned thing.
|
No, you misunderstand. I LOVE the idea of qualifying what you post on the board, ESPECIALLY if we disagree with you....! That way, when you talk about religion and Christianity, I can ask that you provide your own stance on the matter, thus disqualifying EVERYTHING that you may say on the matter....! FANTASTIC!
|
| Aug 12th, 2005 03:43 PM |
| ziggytrix |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Zero Signal
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ziggytrix
2. Do you believe all the propaganda you're cut'n'pasting here?
|
Perhaps you can tell me where it is incorrect. |
Quote:
|
The sentence means ‘surrender and you will be safe’, or in other words, ‘surrender or face death’.
|
Person 1 says A. A could be construed as B. Therefore person 1 said B.
This is a fallacious argument and one that I can find repeated VERBATIM on several very anti-Islamic websites. I was wondering if you unquestioningly believed Mohammed signed all his letters "surrender or die!"
|
| Aug 12th, 2005 02:49 PM |
| ziggytrix |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore
If you can't respond to the substance of what I said, then don't, but don't blame your stupid little quiz on us.
|
"In contrast to the Bible, therefore, we are presented with a text that is none other than the transcript of the Revelation itself; the only way it can be received and interpreted is literally."
There are schools of Muslim thought that don't believe this, and there are schools of Christian thought that say the Bible IS the literal word of God.
If you are referring to the 2 questions I asked of Zero as my "stupid little quiz" you can go fuck yourself. I didn't ask YOU a god damned thing.
|
| Aug 12th, 2005 10:18 AM |
| Zero Signal |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Helm
what you said only where Islam put Christianity blah blah blah
|
|
| Aug 12th, 2005 08:32 AM |
| KevinTheOmnivore |
If you can't respond to the substance of what I said, then don't, but don't blame your stupid little quiz on us.
|
| Aug 11th, 2005 06:31 PM |
| ziggytrix |
<double post>
|
| Aug 11th, 2005 06:29 PM |
| KevinTheOmnivore |
Do the same contextual arguments really apply to the Qur'an? I've generally heard otherwise, since the Bible and the Qur'an primarily have stylistic differences. The Qur'an is shorter than the Old Testament, and a little longer than the New. This leaves little wiggle room.
Since you won't believe me, I have cited a "scholastic" resource:
http://www.themodernreligion.com/sci...-bucaille.html
As we have noted earlier, experts in Biblical exegesis consider the books of Old and New Testaments to be divinely inspired works. Let us now examine, however, the teachings of Muslim exegetes, who present the Qur'an in quite a different fashion.
When Muhammad was roughly forty years old, it was his custom to retire to a retreat just outside Mecca in order to meditate. It was here that he received a first message from God via the Angel Gabriel, at a date that corresponds to 610 A.D. After a long period of silence, this first message was followed by successive revelations spread over some twenty years. During the Prophet's lifetime, they were both written down and recited by heart among his first followers. Similarly, the revelations were divided into suras(chapters) and collected together after the Prophet' death (in 632 A.D.) in a book: the Qur'an. The Book contains the Word of God, to the exclusion of any human additions. Manuscripts dating from the first century of Islam authenticate today's text, the other form of authentication being the recitation by heart of the Qur'an, a practice that has continued unbroken from the time of the Prophet down to the present day.
UNCORRUPTED NATURE OF THE QUR'AN
In contrast to the Bible, therefore, we are presented with a text that is none other than the transcript of the Revelation itself; the only way it can be received and interpreted is literally. The purity of the revealed text has been greatly emphasized, and the uncorrupted nature of the Qur'an stems from the following factors:
First, as stated above, fragments of the text were written down during the Prophet's lifetime; inscribed on tablets, parchments and other materials current at the time. The Qur'an itself refers to the fact that the text was set down in writing. We find this in several suras dating from before and after the Hejira (Muhammad's departure from Mecca to Medina in 622 A.D.) In addition to the transcription of the text, however, there was also the fact that it was learned by heart. The text of the Qur'an is much shorter than the Old Testament and slightly longer than the New Testament. Since it took twenty years for the Qur'an to be revealed, however, it was easy for the Prophet's followers to recite it by heart, sura by sura. This process of recitation afforded a considerable advantage as far as an uncorrupted text was concerned, for it provided a system of double-checking at the time the definitive text was written down. This took place several years after the Prophet's death; first under the caliphate of Abu Bakr, his first successor, and later under the caliphate of Omar and in particular that of Uthman (644 to 655 A.D.) The latter ordered an extremely strict recension of the text, which involved checking it against the recited versions.
---
Oh, my answers:
1. Yes
2. Just as much as you're believing the crap you're pasting. I ADORE message board litmus tests.
|
| Aug 11th, 2005 06:22 PM |
| ziggytrix |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore
2. Just as much as you're believing the crap you're pasting. I ADORE message board litmus tests.
|
Um, I quoted religious texts & dictionary entries. If that's crap, then I'm done with this discussion. You guys have fun talking about how Islam is inherently evil and let me know if I can be any assistance in wiping them off the planet, thanks! 
|
| Aug 11th, 2005 05:56 PM |
| Helm |
what you said only where Islam put Christianity blah blah blah
|
| Aug 11th, 2005 05:25 PM |
| Zero Signal |
Let's throw out the last 1500 years of Islamic history, shall we?
How exactly HAS it been spread? With rose petals and songs and dancing?
|
| Aug 11th, 2005 05:03 PM |
| Helm |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Zero Signal
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ziggytrix
If you said that Christianity has not been spread by spilling the blood of millions of people and oppressing millions or billions more under their iron fist, then you would be incorrect.
|
True Christianity hasn't been spread like that. The Inquisition was simply a means for the Catholic Church to destroy those who they saw as a threat to their power. The Crusades were sent to free Jerusalem from the Muslims. |
Ziggy, don't bother.
Edit: ok I'll bite:
True Islamic faith hasn't been spread like that. Terrorist attacks were simply a means for Islamic fundamentalists to destroy those who they saw as a threat to their way of life.
|
| Aug 11th, 2005 04:44 PM |
| Zero Signal |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ziggytrix
If you said that Christianity has not been spread by spilling the blood of millions of people and oppressing millions or billions more under their iron fist, then you would be incorrect.
|
True Christianity hasn't been spread like that. The Inquisition was simply a means for the Catholic Church to destroy those who they saw as a threat to their power. The Crusades were sent to free Jerusalem from the Muslims.
|
| Aug 11th, 2005 04:42 PM |
| Zero Signal |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ziggytrix
It means "surrender to God and you will be safe". Jesus practically said the same thing.
|
Stalin might as well have said it with that faux sincerity of peacefulness, considering the bloodshed that Islam wrought to spread itself.
Two questions:
1. Are you a practicing Christian, Zero?
Yes.
2. Do you believe all the propaganda you're cut'n'pasting here?
Perhaps you can tell me where it is incorrect.
[/quote]
|
| Aug 11th, 2005 04:32 PM |
| ziggytrix |
If you said that Christianity has not been spread by spilling the blood of millions of people and oppressing millions or billions more under their iron fist, then you would be incorrect.
|
| Aug 11th, 2005 04:30 PM |
| Zero Signal |
Being based on murder at its core and using conquest to spread your beliefs are two different things. If you said that Islam has not been spread by spilling the blood of millions of people and oppressing millions or billions more under their iron fist, then you would be incorrect.
Semantics, perhaps.
|
| Aug 11th, 2005 04:29 PM |
| ziggytrix |
Last time a Muslim tried to talk to me about Islam he didn't threaten me with violence after I let him know I wasn't interested in practicing a religion. Was he a bad Muslim?
Quote:
|
. The sentence means ‘surrender and you will be safe’, or in other words, ‘surrender or face death’.
|
It means "surrender to God and you will be safe". Jesus practically said the same thing.
Two questions:
1. Are you a practicing Christian, Zero?
2. Do you believe all the propaganda you're cut'n'pasting here?
|
| Aug 11th, 2005 04:24 PM |
| Helm |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Zero Signal
I wasn't making them out to be based on murder (and if that is how it seemed, then I apologize)
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by also
Islam is spread by the sword. If you will not convert, then you will be destroyed. The Qu'ran makes that emphatically clear.
|
Not a lot of room for construsion there...
|
| Aug 11th, 2005 12:20 PM |
| Zero Signal |
Quote:
While it may be possible to deceive those who do not speak Arabic or those who do not know much about Islam, propaganda like this does not fool someone who knows the Arabic language and the teaching of Islam, a religion that was established by violence and still believes in violence as a principal and as a way of life. The relationships between Muslims themselves and between them and all other nations have always been based on terror and still is. Islam and Salam are two incongruous words that share no common ground either in name or in substance.
In order to find the meaning of a certain word in the Arabic dictionary, it is essential to search for the three letter infinitive verb which is called the root. Many words can be derived from the same root, but they don't necessarily have to have any similarity in their meaning. The word Islam, which means ‘submission’, is derived from the infinitive Salama. So is the word Salam which means ‘peace’ and so is the verb Salima which means ‘to be saved or to escape from danger’. One of the derivations of the infinitive Salama means ‘the stinging of a snake’ or ‘The tanning of the leather’. Hence, if the word Islam has something to do with the word Salam i.e. ‘Peace’, does that also mean that it must be related to the ‘stinging of the snake’ or ‘tanning the leather’?
Muhammad used to send letters to the kings and leaders of the surrounding countries and tribes, inviting them to surrender to his authority and to believe in him as the messenger of Allah. He always ended his letters with the following two words: "Aslem, Taslam!". Although these two words are derived from the same infinitive Salama which is the root of Salam, i.e. ‘Peace’, neither one of them implies the meaning of ‘peace’. The sentence means ‘surrender and you will be safe’, or in other words, ‘surrender or face death’. So where is the meaning of ‘Peace’ in such a religion that threatens to kill other people if they don't submit to it?
|
|
| Aug 11th, 2005 12:04 PM |
| ziggytrix |
Not you personally. It's just all the rage right now.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Houghton Mifflin Company
Arabic ’islām, submission, from ’aslama, to surrender, resign oneself, from Syriac ’ašlem, to make peace, surrender, derived stem of šlem, to be complete.
|
maybe that's ironic?
|
| Aug 11th, 2005 11:48 AM |
| Zero Signal |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ziggytrix
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Zero Signal
Maybe you could read down a few verses...
|
Not while I'm busy taking things out of context to make a whole religion out to be based on murder!  |
I wasn't making them out to be based on murder (and if that is how it seemed, then I apologize), but Muslims saying that it is a religion of peace is a bending of truth at best.
|
| Aug 11th, 2005 11:47 AM |
| Zero Signal |
Also, stop equating Christians with the stipulations of the Law of the Old Testament until you understand it what the Law was given for. The Law was not taken away in the New Testament, but Christians are not bound by it either.
|
| Aug 11th, 2005 11:46 AM |
| ziggytrix |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Zero Signal
Maybe you could read down a few verses...
|
Not while I'm busy taking things out of context to make a whole religion out to be based on murder!
|
Topic Review (Newest First)
