the basic tennets of the religion… generally preached relgious tolerance and righteous action
and
… jihad as a physical war… is an abuse of the faith and using it to push for violent action is contrary to the preaching of Muhammad in the first place.
Please provide evidence (i.e., Islamic doctrinal teachings) to support these assertions.
Edit: Basically I’d like to see the parts of the Koran that support this.
Hello?
Do you have any evidence, or just your opinion?
It’s quite simple. You either take the Holy Book as a whole and try to derive the general message, or you can isolate and try to interpret verses the way so many violent groups have done. [/quote]
Using your methodology one could say that the general message of Mein Kampf was that Hitler merely wanted to make the Germans a better, healthier, happier people in order to improve all of humanity.
You could argue that Hitler wanted to make the world a better place for all of humanity, because he wanted everyone to be an Aryan. Only an extremist would isolate and interpret the passages about the Jews in a violent manner.
You could argue that the Nazis weren’t bad, they are just misunderstood, because people have wrongfully misinterpreted their actions.
[quote]
You act as if you’ve never considered or run across diverging interpretations of texts before. Coming from adults, this is very depressing. If supposedly educated people don’t have the philosophical level to understand that black and white are concepts out of this world, what does one expect of Somali children? [/quote]
I have come across different interpretations before, but I am also adult enough to be able to tell that some interpretations are really stretching the boundaries of what is plausible and when that happens it is motivated by wishful thinking.
[quote]
If you’re looking for The Truth, you should be asking God. Otherwise, people arguing whose interpretation of affair X is the right one gets old quite fast. I dare you to find any form of consensus on any single issue but that of the uniqueness of God and the divine legitimacy of Muhammad’s message among Muslims.
If you would consider an interpretation by a self-professed expert “evidence” (on the internet of all places), you’re probably looking at the wrong religion. And THAT, is just my opinion… [/quote]
“I dare you to find any form of consensus on any single issue but that of the uniqueness of God and the divine legitimacy of Muhammad’s message among Muslims.”
That is the crux of the matter. When one finally strips away all the bullshit, one of the few universal truths that apply to all Muslims is you chose to follow Mohammad, all Muslims consider Mohammad to be gods ultimate messenger.
If it is fair to say that Hitler was bad because he violated the Nuremberg Principles and it is fair to say all Nazi’s are bad because they follow Hitler, then it is fair to apply this same standard to Mohammad and his followers the Muslims.
Here is a part the Nuremberg Principles.
Principle VI
The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:
(a) Crimes against peace:
(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).
(b) War Crimes:
Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation of slave labor or for any other purpose of the civilian population of or in occupied territory;
murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the Seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.
(c) Crimes against humanity:
Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhumane acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial, or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime.
Mohammad violated parts A, B and C of the sixth Nuremberg Principle. Since all Muslims believe in the “divine legitimacy” of Mohammad, it is fair to say that all Muslims believe that his crimes against humanity had “divine legitimacy”. Since all Muslims think that one can serve god by committing crimes against humanity I would say that we are justified to be concerned about Islam.
I’m not a religious person in the slightest, but it irks me when some refuse to acknowledge qualitative differences between various religions. Some doctrines are simply more violent than others. All religions breed violence to a degree. That’s human nature. Religion, like government, provides a power structure for evil men to do evil things.
However, Islam used violence as a means of propagation from its very beginning. I don’t know how anyone can deny that when the history is absolutely clear on the issue. The same simply isn’t true of Christianity. Christianity manifested itself violently only when it became intrinsically linked with political power. Christianity spread in the face of violence; Islam spread through violence. Islams founder, and nearly every successive leader it had for centuries, was a conqueror.
So a serious question for Slimjim and Lixy: wherein lies the difference? if not doctrinal, what?
[quote]IvanDmitritch wrote:
I’m not a religious person in the slightest, but it irks me when some refuse to acknowledge qualitative differences between various religions. Some doctrines are simply more violent than others. All religions breed violence to a degree. That’s human nature. Religion, like government, provides a power structure for evil men to do evil things. [/quote]
No argument here.
Well, I don’t know how anyone can adopt your position either since “the history is absolutely clear on the issue”. Islam spread peacefully “from its very beginning”.
As opposed to…? Crack open a history book, will you?
That’s a load of crock! And you know it.
Mostly, yes. But again, if we’re going to get into your relativistic line, the spread of Islam was many folds more tolerant than Christianity. It’s merely a matter of common sense once you realize that Islam acknowledges all preceding monotheistic prophets. Christianity, on the other hand, treated Muslims as Jews treated Christians.
Yes, Mohammed was a conqueror (and a darn good one at that!). After his death, it’s really hard to speak of a “leader”. He was the last to have any kind of authority.
Besides, are you under the impression that Muslims worship him?
I’m not sure I understand the question. The difference between what and what?
However, Islam used violence as a means of propagation from its very beginning. I don’t know how anyone can deny that when the history is absolutely clear on the issue.
Well, I don’t know how anyone can adopt your position either since “the history is absolutely clear on the issue”. Islam spread peacefully “from its very beginning”.[/quote]
I’m confused. Just a few lines down in answer to my assertion that Islam spread through violence you said, “Mostly, yes.” So which is it?
[quote]The same simply isn’t true of Christianity. Christianity manifested itself violently only when it became intrinsically linked with political power.
As opposed to…? Crack open a history book, will you?[/quote]
As opposed to the nearly two hundred years following it’s birth during which time Christianity was not intrinsically linked with political power; during which time the Roman government, to varying degrees, tried to stifle it’s growth.
[quote]
Christianity spread in the face of violence;
That’s a load of crock! And you know it.[/quote]
Speaking of opening a history book. Christianity, despite Rome’s efforts to contain its growth (efforts that were often very violent), continued to spread throughout the 1st, 2nd and 3rd centuries. It did so, for the most part, through voluntary conversion – not through violence.
[quote]Islam spread through violence.
Mostly, yes. But again, if we’re going to get into your relativistic line, the spread of Islam was many folds more tolerant than Christianity. It’s merely a matter of common sense once you realize that Islam acknowledges all preceding monotheistic prophets. Christianity, on the other hand, treated Muslims as Jews treated Christians.[/quote]
Again, I’m referring to the rise of both religions. I completely agree that life for a Jew under 12th century Muslim rule was often much better than that of one under 12th century Christian rule.
[quote]
Islams founder, and nearly every successive leader it had for centuries, was a conqueror.
Yes, Mohammed was a conqueror (and a darn good one at that!). After his death, it’s really hard to speak of a “leader”. He was the last to have any kind of authority.[/quote]
Perhaps I should have said leaders. I didn’t mean to imply Islam was or is a unified movement. But it doesn’t much mater. Islam conquered everything between the west coast of Africa and India in just over 100 years. It didn’t do so with flowers, pleases and thank-yous.
No, I’m not. Where did I imply otherwise? But, others in this thread have done a fine job of explaining the important role he has in Islamic theology.
Regardless, he and his immediate successors crafted Islamic doctrine and used it to take – take being the operative word – control of a huge expanse of territory. And they used violence, all in the name of Islam, to do it. Compare that with Christianity’s founder and his immediate successors.
[quote]So a serious question for Slimjim and Lixy: wherein lies the difference? if not doctrinal, what?
I’m not sure I understand the question. The difference between what and what?[/quote]
The difference between the rise of Christianity, on the one hand, and the rise of Islam, on the other. I thought that was obvious.
However, Islam used violence as a means of propagation from its very beginning. I don’t know how anyone can deny that when the history is absolutely clear on the issue.
Well, I don’t know how anyone can adopt your position either since “the history is absolutely clear on the issue”. Islam spread peacefully “from its very beginning”.
I’m confused. Just a few lines down in answer to my assertion that Islam spread through violence you said, “Mostly, yes.” So which is it? [/quote]
Just like Christianity, Islam spread to all corners of the globe. In that sense, it is very reasonable to say that it “mostly” spread through violence.
But when we’re talking about “the very beginning”, you can’t possibly make the case that Islam didn’t ring true for many Arabs. You see, Islam spread despite violence in its very beginning. It brought a message of equality to many an oppressed Meccan.
[quote]The same simply isn’t true of Christianity. Christianity manifested itself violently only when it became intrinsically linked with political power.
As opposed to…? Crack open a history book, will you?
As opposed to the nearly two hundred years following it’s birth during which time Christianity was not intrinsically linked with political power; during which time the Roman government, to varying degrees, tried to stifle it’s growth. [/quote]
At this point, it would be constructive to define Christianity. Most early Christianity was pretty much a revival of Judaism, using the exact same texts and places of worship. Given how little we know about Jesus historically (and relatively to Mohammed), are we to talk about Christianity post-Nicaea? Pauline Christianity? What?
[quote]Christianity spread in the face of violence;
That’s a load of crock! And you know it.
Speaking of opening a history book. Christianity, despite Rome’s efforts to contain its growth (efforts that were often very violent), continued to spread throughout the 1st, 2nd and 3rd centuries. It did so, for the most part, through voluntary conversion – not through violence. [/quote]
True enough. Speaking of a “spread” is stretching it though. It was negligible compared to how it was spread later. Besides, I don’t think you’ll find many commonalities in the beliefs of what you’d call early Christians.
[quote]Islam spread through violence.
Mostly, yes. But again, if we’re going to get into your relativistic line, the spread of Islam was many folds more tolerant than Christianity. It’s merely a matter of common sense once you realize that Islam acknowledges all preceding monotheistic prophets. Christianity, on the other hand, treated Muslims as Jews treated Christians.
Again, I’m referring to the rise of both religions. I completely agree that life for a Jew under 12th century Muslim rule was often much better than that of one under 12th century Christian rule. [/quote]
I wouldn’t call the couple centuries after Jesus a “rise” of the religion.
[quote]Islams founder, and nearly every successive leader it had for centuries, was a conqueror.
Yes, Mohammed was a conqueror (and a darn good one at that!). After his death, it’s really hard to speak of a “leader”. He was the last to have any kind of authority.
Perhaps I should have said leaders. I didn’t mean to imply Islam was or is a unified movement. But it doesn’t much mater. Islam conquered everything between the west coast of Africa and India in just over 100 years. It didn’t do so with flowers, pleases and thank-yous. [/quote]
Well, it was a unified movement under Mohammed. And yes, it was spread through the sword (but obviously not exclusively). The idea was to build an empire though. I seriously doubt subsequent “leaders” gave much weight to ideology. But just like every other successful empire, it’s much easier to get the tax-payer to swallow the pill when you wrap it with some nice message of civilizing the Barbarians.
[quote]Besides, are you under the impression that Muslims worship him?
No, I’m not. Where did I imply otherwise? [/quote]
Just wanted to make sure we’re on the same page. People comparing Jesus to Mohammed are, in my experience, usually unaware of this fundamental difference.
I beg to differ. They focus on aspects of the Quran that suit them, and overlook the parts that don’t.
I can’t be bothered to reply to their jibber-jabber because don’t assume good faith.
Here we go. See…I wasn’t that wrong by inferring you’d compare Jesus to Mohammed.
Repeat after me: Jesus had a divine component and, as such, his actions were perfect. Mohammed, he was a man like you or me, with the particularity that he was chosen to deliver a divine message.
[quote]So a serious question for Slimjim and Lixy: wherein lies the difference? if not doctrinal, what?
I’m not sure I understand the question. The difference between what and what?
The difference between the rise of Christianity, on the one hand, and the rise of Islam, on the other. I thought that was obvious. [/quote]
Again, are we talking about “the rise” or just the early years? Because I don’t really see much of a difference between the rise of either (with the possible exception that Muslims were relatively nicer).
[quote]IvanDmitritch wrote:
I’m not a religious person in the slightest, but it irks me when some refuse to acknowledge qualitative differences between various religions. Some doctrines are simply more violent than others. All religions breed violence to a degree. That’s human nature. Religion, like government, provides a power structure for evil men to do evil things.
However, Islam used violence as a means of propagation from its very beginning. I don’t know how anyone can deny that when the history is absolutely clear on the issue. The same simply isn’t true of Christianity. Christianity manifested itself violently only when it became intrinsically linked with political power. Christianity spread in the face of violence; Islam spread through violence. Islams founder, and nearly every successive leader it had for centuries, was a conqueror.
So a serious question for Slimjim and Lixy: wherein lies the difference? if not doctrinal, what? [/quote]
This is an excellent post. I have been raising these same issues time and again. I doubt you will get an honest, intelligent answer that deals with these issues head on from either of them. They will use either diversion or outright denial.
[quote]lixy wrote:
IvanDmitritch wrote:
I’m not a religious person in the slightest, but it irks me when some refuse to acknowledge qualitative differences between various religions. Some doctrines are simply more violent than others. All religions breed violence to a degree. That’s human nature. Religion, like government, provides a power structure for evil men to do evil things.
No argument here.
However, Islam used violence as a means of propagation from its very beginning. I don’t know how anyone can deny that when the history is absolutely clear on the issue.
Well, I don’t know how anyone can adopt your position either since “the history is absolutely clear on the issue”. Islam spread peacefully “from its very beginning”.
[/quote]
What did I tell you, Lixy is going to use denial and dishonesty. Lixy you are such a weasel.
What about all the Jewish villages that Mohammad and his followers raided, killed all the men, dragged off the women and girls as slaves then forced them to have children?
Rape is an act of violence Lixy. So is killing people. Enslavement and deportation into slavery are classified as crimes against Humanity in the Nuremberg Principles.
Lixy was educated in a Roman Catholic school. Despite this he claims to not be aware of any of the early Christian martyrs. ie The ones who the Romans fed to lions in the Coloseum of Rome.
[quote]
Islam spread through violence.
Mostly, yes. But again, if we’re going to get into your relativistic line, the spread of Islam was many folds more tolerant than Christianity. It’s merely a matter of common sense once you realize that Islam acknowledges all preceding monotheistic prophets. Christianity, on the other hand, treated Muslims as Jews treated Christians. [/quote]
You have got to be kidding. Islam’s spread out of Arabia was very violent. Ethiopia’s Coptic Christian community had existed for almost 800 years before they were attacked by Muslims. All the North African countries that had been part of the Roman empire were Christian countries before Muslims invaded them and forced conversions to Islam.
Muslims attacked Christians. The crusades were Christianities response to 300 years of being relentlessly attacked by Muslims.
Early Christianity was a Jewish sect that allowed Gentiles to join. Jews and early Christians got along, it was the Romans who messed that relationship up.
Lixy why didn’t you mention anything about Islam’s relationship with the Hindus? Is it because in India there was absolutely no pretense of tolerance and the Muslims showed their true colors?
[quote]
Islams founder, and nearly every successive leader it had for centuries, was a conqueror.
Yes, Mohammed was a conqueror (and a darn good one at that!). After his death, it’s really hard to speak of a “leader”. He was the last to have any kind of authority. [/quote]
Finally a little bit of honesty. In order to be a conqueror Mohammad had to do a lot of killing and commit crimes against humanity. A religion built on such a foundation will teach that such behavior is acceptable. That is why we see his behavior emulated throughout Islamic history.
[quote]
Besides, are you under the impression that Muslims worship him?[/quote]
However, Islam used violence as a means of propagation from its very beginning. I don’t know how anyone can deny that when the history is absolutely clear on the issue.
Well, I don’t know how anyone can adopt your position either since “the history is absolutely clear on the issue”. Islam spread peacefully “from its very beginning”.
I’m confused. Just a few lines down in answer to my assertion that Islam spread through violence you said, “Mostly, yes.” So which is it?
Just like Christianity, Islam spread to all corners of the globe. In that sense, it is very reasonable to say that it “mostly” spread through violence.
But when we’re talking about “the very beginning”, you can’t possibly make the case that Islam didn’t ring true for many Arabs. You see, Islam spread despite violence in its very beginning. It brought a message of equality to many an oppressed Meccan.
[/quote]
I’m referring to what is commonly called the Muslim Conquest. I don’t remember the exact dates, but beginning early in the 7th c. through the middle of the 8th when Islamic armies conquered the area between the NW coast of Africa and India. Beginning with Muhammad and his immediate successors – the individuals who established and originally defined Islamic doctrine – Islam was propagated through armed conquest. That doesn’t mean many didn’t welcome conversion to Islam. The reason the Islamic conquest was so successful is because the religion unified the martial power of numerous autonomous groups in the near East; so, without a doubt, Islam “rang true” for many Arabs. However, that does not diminish in the slightest the fact that unlike Christianity, Islam, from its very inception, showed a decidedly militaristic (and therefor violent) face.
[quote]The same simply isn’t true of Christianity. Christianity manifested itself violently only when it became intrinsically linked with political power.
As opposed to…? Crack open a history book, will you?
As opposed to the nearly two hundred years following it’s birth during which time Christianity was not intrinsically linked with political power; during which time the Roman government, to varying degrees, tried to stifle it’s growth.
At this point, it would be constructive to define Christianity. Most early Christianity was pretty much a revival of Judaism, using the exact same texts and places of worship. Given how little we know about Jesus historically (and relatively to Mohammed), are we to talk about Christianity post-Nicaea? Pauline Christianity? What?[/quote]
Without getting into a debate over how quickly and to what degree Christianity developed schisms, how we choose to define Christianity doesn’t much matter. Rightfully so, in all its various permutations, Rome recognized it as a sect of Judaism. Unlike traditional Judaism, however, with it’s rather harsh code of religious observances, Christianity was sufficiently “open” that people readily converted. Roman officials began to see the new sect as a plague that threatened to undermine a unified Empire.
So, at various times and to varying degrees, Roman policy towards Christianity was often violent and otherwise oppositional. That, of course, would change, but only once Christians represented a very large minority within the Empire and individual Christians began rising through the imperial ranks. Up until that point, Christianity, as a whole, spread through voluntary conversion without a political/militaristic agenda – in stark contrast with Islam
[quote]
Christianity spread in the face of violence;
That’s a load of crock! And you know it.
Speaking of opening a history book. Christianity, despite Rome’s efforts to contain its growth (efforts that were often very violent), continued to spread throughout the 1st, 2nd and 3rd centuries. It did so, for the most part, through voluntary conversion – not through violence.
True enough. Speaking of a “spread” is stretching it though. It was negligible compared to how it was spread later. Besides, I don’t think you’ll find many commonalities in the beliefs of what you’d call early Christians.[/quote]
What was negligible? The degree to which it spread for roughly the first 300 years? That initial expansion was pretty substantial and arguably, by dint of chronology, much more inline with original Christian doctrine than subsequent political/militaristic expansion. Again, Islam represents the reverse. From it’s birth it utilized militarism.
[quote]Islam spread through violence.
Mostly, yes. But again, if we’re going to get into your relativistic line, the spread of Islam was many folds more tolerant than Christianity. It’s merely a matter of common sense once you realize that Islam acknowledges all preceding monotheistic prophets. Christianity, on the other hand, treated Muslims as Jews treated Christians.[/quote]
I don’t see your point. Without a doubt, Islam, at least nominally, is a more inclusive religion than Christianity. But that doesn’t at all speak to it’s militaristic nature, or lack thereof. Islam can acknowledge Christian and Jewish prophets all it wants, but that doesn’t diminish the fact it’s founders used violence as a primary tool of expansion.
[quote]Again, I’m referring to the rise of both religions. I completely agree that life for a Jew under 12th century Muslim rule was often much better than that of one under 12th century Christian rule.
I wouldn’t call the couple centuries after Jesus a “rise” of the religion. [/quote]
Why wouldn’t you? All one needs to do is look at the exponential numerical growth and the geographical expansion of Christian churches in the first 3 centuries to recognize an obvious “rise.”
[quote]Islams founder, and nearly every successive leader it had for centuries, was a conqueror.
Yes, Mohammed was a conqueror (and a darn good one at that!). After his death, it’s really hard to speak of a “leader”. He was the last to have any kind of authority.
Perhaps I should have said leaders. I didn’t mean to imply Islam was or is a unified movement. But it doesn’t much mater. Islam conquered everything between the west coast of Africa and India in just over 100 years. It didn’t do so with flowers, pleases and thank-yous.
Well, it was a unified movement under Mohammed. And yes, it was spread through the sword (but obviously not exclusively). The idea was to build an empire though. I seriously doubt subsequent “leaders” gave much weight to ideology. But just like every other successful empire, it’s much easier to get the tax-payer to swallow the pill when you wrap it with some nice message of civilizing the Barbarians.[/quote]
No arguments there. But that’s just my point. Islam has had, from its very beginning, a political, imperialistic agenda, and empires are born in violence. Islamic ideology, unlike Christianity, was from its inception every bit as political as it was religious. That is why it is an inherently more militaristic religion.
[quote]
But, others in this thread have done a fine job of explaining the important role he has in Islamic theology.
I beg to differ. They focus on aspects of the Quran that suit them, and overlook the parts that don’t.
I can’t be bothered to reply to their jibber-jabber because don’t assume good faith.[/quote]
Specifically, I’m referring to Muhammad as the ultimate role model for a good Muslim. That, I believe, is a correct interpretation of Islamic doctrine, yes? That’s not to say he’s thought to be infallible, but I think you’d be hard pressed to find a Muslim who sees the Muslim Conquest he started as an example of his infallibility. So, in that regard, the violent actions of Muhammad serve as an obvious “green light” to Muslims who wish to use their religion as a justification for violence. That’s altogether unlike Christianity, wouldn’t you agree?
[quote]Regardless, he and his immediate successors crafted Islamic doctrine and used it to take – take being the operative word – control of a huge expanse of territory. And they used violence, all in the name of Islam, to do it. Compare that with Christianity’s founder and his immediate successors.
Here we go. See…I wasn’t that wrong by inferring you’d compare Jesus to Mohammed.[/quote]
Well, yes, I do compare Jesus and Muhammad: they are both figure heads and founders of their respective religions. But as far as how Christians understand the nature of Jesus versus how Muslims understand Muhammad, obviously there is a huge difference. I don’t see how you would interpret the above paragraph as implying otherwise.
[quote]
Repeat after me: Jesus had a divine component and, as such, his actions were perfect. Mohammed, he was a man like you or me, with the particularity that he was chosen to deliver a divine message.[/quote]
Right. I would say personally that he claimed to be delivering a divine message and that he used that message as a tool to conquer an empire.
[quote]So a serious question for Slimjim and Lixy: wherein lies the difference? if not doctrinal, what?
I’m not sure I understand the question. The difference between what and what?
The difference between the rise of Christianity, on the one hand, and the rise of Islam, on the other. I thought that was obvious.
Again, are we talking about “the rise” or just the early years? Because I don’t really see much of a difference between the rise of either (with the possible exception that Muslims were relatively nicer).
Think it through and try to formulate it better.[/quote]
You know exactly what I’m asking you to answer. Christianity spread like a wildfire during its first few hundred years without the use of violence. Islam, on the other hand, used violent conquest from the very beginning. The former’s founders never even advocated armed violence (quite the contrary, in fact), the latter’s personally made use of it.
However, Islam used violence as a means of propagation from its very beginning. I don’t know how anyone can deny that when the history is absolutely clear on the issue.
Well, I don’t know how anyone can adopt your position either since “the history is absolutely clear on the issue”. Islam spread peacefully “from its very beginning”.
I’m confused. Just a few lines down in answer to my assertion that Islam spread through violence you said, “Mostly, yes.” So which is it?
Just like Christianity, Islam spread to all corners of the globe. In that sense, it is very reasonable to say that it “mostly” spread through violence.
But when we’re talking about “the very beginning”, you can’t possibly make the case that Islam didn’t ring true for many Arabs. You see, Islam spread despite violence in its very beginning. It brought a message of equality to many an oppressed Meccan.
I’m referring to what is commonly called the Muslim Conquest. I don’t remember the exact dates, but beginning early in the 7th c. through the middle of the 8th when Islamic armies conquered the area between the NW coast of Africa and India. Beginning with Muhammad and his immediate successors – the individuals who established and originally defined Islamic doctrine – Islam was propagated through armed conquest. That doesn’t mean many didn’t welcome conversion to Islam. The reason the Islamic conquest was so successful is because the religion unified the martial power of numerous autonomous groups in the near East; so, without a doubt, Islam “rang true” for many Arabs. However, that does not diminish in the slightest the fact that unlike Christianity, Islam, from its very inception, showed a decidedly militaristic (and therefor violent) face. [/quote]
We’re going in circles. I suppose that I’m just not willing to consider that Christianity started with Jesus or that the early sects, off-shoots of Judaism, could linked to Christianity we know today.
I would agree with you provided you state that you stop filing those guys under the generic “Christianity” banner. I’d take even quotation marks.
[quote]The same simply isn’t true of Christianity. Christianity manifested itself violently only when it became intrinsically linked with political power.
As opposed to…? Crack open a history book, will you?
As opposed to the nearly two hundred years following it’s birth during which time Christianity was not intrinsically linked with political power; during which time the Roman government, to varying degrees, tried to stifle it’s growth.
At this point, it would be constructive to define Christianity. Most early Christianity was pretty much a revival of Judaism, using the exact same texts and places of worship. Given how little we know about Jesus historically (and relatively to Mohammed), are we to talk about Christianity post-Nicaea? Pauline Christianity? What?
Without getting into a debate over how quickly and to what degree Christianity developed schisms, how we choose to define Christianity doesn’t much matter. Rightfully so, in all its various permutations, Rome recognized it as a sect of Judaism. Unlike traditional Judaism, however, with it’s rather harsh code of religious observances, Christianity was sufficiently “open” that people readily converted. Roman officials began to see the new sect as a plague that threatened to undermine a unified Empire.
So, at various times and to varying degrees, Roman policy towards Christianity was often violent and otherwise oppositional. That, of course, would change, but only once Christians represented a very large minority within the Empire and individual Christians began rising through the imperial ranks. Up until that point, Christianity, as a whole, spread through voluntary conversion without a political/militaristic agenda – in stark contrast with Islam [/quote]
Again, I’ll insist on making a distinction between the different movements that you just call Christianity. As an organized religion, it evolved and some of the fundamental precepts differed from church to the other.
[quote]Christianity spread in the face of violence;
That’s a load of crock! And you know it.
Speaking of opening a history book. Christianity, despite Rome’s efforts to contain its growth (efforts that were often very violent), continued to spread throughout the 1st, 2nd and 3rd centuries. It did so, for the most part, through voluntary conversion – not through violence.
True enough. Speaking of a “spread” is stretching it though. It was negligible compared to how it was spread later. Besides, I don’t think you’ll find many commonalities in the beliefs of what you’d call early Christians.
What was negligible? The degree to which it spread for roughly the first 300 years? [/quote]
Yes. Compared to “the rise of Islam” you’re referring to. And compared to how much Christianity spread afterwards.
What “original Christian doctrine”? I seriously doubt Jesus was out to establish an organized religion and I don’t know of many historians that would disagree.
[quote]Mostly, yes. But again, if we’re going to get into your relativistic line, the spread of Islam was many folds more tolerant than Christianity. It’s merely a matter of common sense once you realize that Islam acknowledges all preceding monotheistic prophets. Christianity, on the other hand, treated Muslims as Jews treated Christians.
I don’t see your point. Without a doubt, Islam, at least nominally, is a more inclusive religion than Christianity. But that doesn’t at all speak to it’s militaristic nature, or lack thereof. Islam can acknowledge Christian and Jewish prophets all it wants, but that doesn’t diminish the fact it’s founders used violence as a primary tool of expansion.
Again, I’m referring to the rise of both religions. I completely agree that life for a Jew under 12th century Muslim rule was often much better than that of one under 12th century Christian rule.
I wouldn’t call the couple centuries after Jesus a “rise” of the religion.
Why wouldn’t you? All one needs to do is look at the exponential numerical growth and the geographical expansion of Christian churches in the first 3 centuries to recognize an obvious “rise.” [/quote]
It’s not the growth per se that I’m challenging here. It’s the idea that Christianity in 300 years grew by nearly as much as Islam in a tenth of that period. If you’re going to use the term “rise” to refer to the Islamic expansion, then surely you must find something more appropriate to reflect the scale differences.
[quote]Islams founder, and nearly every successive leader it had for centuries, was a conqueror.
Yes, Mohammed was a conqueror (and a darn good one at that!). After his death, it’s really hard to speak of a “leader”. He was the last to have any kind of authority.
Perhaps I should have said leaders. I didn’t mean to imply Islam was or is a unified movement. But it doesn’t much mater. Islam conquered everything between the west coast of Africa and India in just over 100 years. It didn’t do so with flowers, pleases and thank-yous.
Well, it was a unified movement under Mohammed. And yes, it was spread through the sword (but obviously not exclusively). The idea was to build an empire though. I seriously doubt subsequent “leaders” gave much weight to ideology. But just like every other successful empire, it’s much easier to get the tax-payer to swallow the pill when you wrap it with some nice message of civilizing the Barbarians.
No arguments there. But that’s just my point. Islam has had, from its very beginning, a political, imperialistic agenda, and empires are born in violence. Islamic ideology, unlike Christianity, was from its inception every bit as political as it was religious. That is why it is an inherently more militaristic religion. [/quote]
Again, enclose “Christianity” in quotation marks!
Islam was political, no doubt about that. Any more than other religions? I’m not so sure.
I’ll give you that it had an imperialistic agenda though. And if you don’t disambiguate “Christianity”, one would go with the codified religion that had an imperialistic agenda too.
[quote]But, others in this thread have done a fine job of explaining the important role he has in Islamic theology.
I beg to differ. They focus on aspects of the Quran that suit them, and overlook the parts that don’t.
I can’t be bothered to reply to their jibber-jabber because don’t assume good faith.
Specifically, I’m referring to Muhammad as the ultimate role model for a good Muslim. That, I believe, is a correct interpretation of Islamic doctrine, yes? That’s not to say he’s thought to be infallible, [/quote]
I really don’t see how that works. If he’s not infallible, how is it that he can be considered “the ultimate role model”? The Quran has harsher reprimands than it does praises towards the prophet.
And if he’s the ultimate role model, how is it that Muslims aren’t getting 13 brides?
You wouldn’t. Here’s one.
And if you want a more notable person than the anonymous guys on the internet, I suggest you read Malek Chebel.
Sorry, but I won’t give you that one. Texts (let alone Holy ones) have been used to justify all sorts of things. I have personally seen the same Quranic verses being used to justify X and X not. And the actions of Mohammed are used in a similar manner.
And no, I don’t see it as “altogether unlike Christianity”. It is altogether unlike Jesus’ teachings, but surely not unlike Christianity.
[quote]Regardless, he and his immediate successors crafted Islamic doctrine and used it to take – take being the operative word – control of a huge expanse of territory. And they used violence, all in the name of Islam, to do it. Compare that with Christianity’s founder and his immediate successors.
Here we go. See…I wasn’t that wrong by inferring you’d compare Jesus to Mohammed.
Well, yes, I do compare Jesus and Muhammad: they are both figure heads and founders of their respective religions. [/quote]
Nope. Jesus didn’t found Christianity. I have yet to see any historical evidence that he even attempted to establish a new religion.
Christians and Muslims agree that Jesus had a divine component. The discord is about him not being the son of God.
[quote]Repeat after me: Jesus had a divine component and, as such, his actions were perfect. Mohammed, he was a man like you or me, with the particularity that he was chosen to deliver a divine message.
Right. I would say personally that he claimed to be delivering a divine message and that he used that message as a tool to conquer an empire. [/quote]
Suit yourself.
You’d be hard-pressed though, to find much personal gain that he derived from said empire. Whether “he claimed” or not, evidence points to the fact that he truly believed in what he was preaching.
[quote]So a serious question for Slimjim and Lixy: wherein lies the difference? if not doctrinal, what?
I’m not sure I understand the question. The difference between what and what?
The difference between the rise of Christianity, on the one hand, and the rise of Islam, on the other. I thought that was obvious.
Again, are we talking about “the rise” or just the early years? Because I don’t really see much of a difference between the rise of either (with the possible exception that Muslims were relatively nicer).
Think it through and try to formulate it better.
You know exactly what I’m asking you to answer. Christianity spread like a wildfire during its first few hundred years without the use of violence. Islam, on the other hand, used violent conquest from the very beginning. [/quote]
It’s not the same scale. Neither in time periods nor in spread. It’s not even close.
Because of that, I don’t see much to compare.
This would be more constructive if we took the time to define what Christianity is, when it appeared, who founded it, etc. Else, we’ll keep going in circles.
Yes, Jesus didn’t do much armed violence. And yes, Mohammed made use of it. Concluding that Islam is inherently more violent than Chrisianity (in the face of historical records) is quite a leap.
Yes we are. We are simply coming at this from completely different perspectives and an internet message board simply isn’t the proper venue for fully understanding each other. My background is in Roman history and, in so far as it relates to the Roman Empire, the history of Christianity. And you clearly have an inside perspective on Islam that I don’t share.
Furthermore, we seem to be defining things differently. When I use the term “Christian,” for instance, I’m using it in much the same way a contemporary Roman would in the 2nd c. AD. The term predates any “organized religion.” Furthermore, I have a feeling your understanding of the degree of doctrinal differences amongst early Christians is grossly overstated. And I find it ironic that you refer to Islam’s incredibly rapid expansion, but fail to acknowledge the obvious reason for it – militarism – as a defining characteristic of Islam. But, again, you and I are just coming at this from completely different perspectives.
So, honestly, I don’t think it’ll do us, or anyone else for that matter, any good to continue. But thanks for the spirited debate.
Not all of us are going in circles. Some of us are going in a progressive straight line. But there are people like Lixy who refuse to accept facts and keep turning the discussion back by forcing us to have to repeat ourselves.
There were 3 casualties on the aggressors’ side in the Battle of the Trench. Yathrib stood the siege for quite a couple of weeks during which they (i.e: Mohammed and the crew) lost 6 men ,the faith of which is unknown – we only know that they were protecting their city.
Not much of a battle from a spectacular standpoint, but quite significant for a student of military strategies.
Why, oh why did the inhabitants of Yathrib kill three aggressors in what was immediate and undeniable self-defense?
There were 3 casualties on the aggressors’ side in the Battle of the Trench. Yathrib stood the siege for quite a couple of weeks during which they (i.e: Mohammed and the crew) lost 6 men ,the faith of which is unknown – we only know that they were protecting their city.
Not much of a battle from a spectacular standpoint, but quite significant for a student of military strategies.
Why, oh why did the inhabitants of Yathrib kill three aggressors in what was immediate and undeniable self-defense?
[/quote]
Yes, everything is “self-defense” from the Muslim viewpoint: Muslims are defending themselves from unbelief and polytheism when they wage jihad.
None of Muhammad’s battles were particularly spectacular in any respect, but they set the precedent for a pattern of behavior.
