multiculturalism at fault for terrorism?

[Zero Signal]

Originally Posted by Helm

what you said only where Islam put Christianity blah blah blah

[ziggytrix]

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.

[ziggytrix]

Originally Posted by Zero Signal

Perhaps you can tell me where it is incorrect.

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!"

[KevinTheOmnivore]

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.

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!

[ziggytrix]

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.

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.

[ziggytrix]

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

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:

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

[KevinTheOmnivore]

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?

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.