chrisruzin.net :: Muslim Watch 1 (November 22, 2002)

Isn’t religion a wonderful thing? For all the good that it preaches, religion (Christianity, Islam, whatever) has turned out to be the most destructive force ever conceived by man.

It looks like Islam is going through that terrible stage Christianity went through 600 years ago.

I agree with pretty much everything you said. I guess what I was trying to say, didn’t sound exactly the way I meant it to in a nutshell. I wasn’t trying to say that religion itself was the problem, but that it becomes a problem in the hands of the wrong people. Just like guns or anything else that can be abused.

I have read portions of the Koran over the years, and I find Islam to be far less forgiving than Christianity or Buddahism. The amount of violence being taught in the Koran would probably get an NC-17 rating if it were a movie, as opposed to the R rating that the old testament would get.

Humans are very defensive about their beliefs, whether it’s religion, or a couple of rednecks in a bar arguing over makes of pick-up trucks.

Overall Chris, I think we are on the same page, or at least in the same chapter anyway. It’s just that one of us is a little more passionate about how we feel about the whole thing.

Well, time for another Paxil, and I’m off to bed.

Peace.

LMAO… sounds like a good one.. as long as it’s not abused.

To say that Christianity preaches by love and Islam preaches by conversion through the sword is an entirely ignorant and erroneous statement.

Christianity relied on the military might of the Roman Empire, Charlemagne, the Crusades, and the imperial reach of the European powers through forced conversions (i.e. the indigenous population of the New World) and more innocuous institutions all over the globe such as schools and hospitals.

Islam too has its share of military history associated with political aspirations and machinations, but the “conversion by the sword” phrase lends to a more simplistic understanding of history as perpetuated by Orientalist scholarship.

Within 100 years of the death of the Prophet, Muslim armies reached into the Iberian peninsula of Europe in the East, and the Punjab region of Asia in the West. Success was due in large part to the collapse of both the Byzantine and Persian Empires, wherein the Arabs came to fill the power vacuum.

Contrary to popular belief, Muslim armies targeted the (often corrupt) LEADERSHIP of these regions and left the indigenous population to practice their religion. In fact, Egypt remained predominantly Christian for several years (well over 100) after the Arabs brought the city under Islamic rule. Christians (and other non-Muslims) were extended rights and benefits as the Ahl al-dhimma (The Protected People) and were obliged to pay a jizya tax to contribute to their protection; whereas Muslims had their own taxation system through the institution of Zakat, one of the five pillars of Islam. An etymological breakdown of the word “Convivencia” (a Latin term used by European scholars to describe Muslim-ruled Spain) will show the general tenor of life under Muslim rule there.

It is thus also erroneous to say ” [A] Muslim kills an infidel for simply being a Jew or [an] American, [and] he will go to heaven and make out with 100 virgins” because, first the Qur’an states that if a person were to kill human being it is as if they killed all of mankind; and second, a Muslim is FORBIDDEN to use force UNLESS someone prevents him/her from practicing their religion OR attacks his/her home. The historical example of the Convivencia as cited above would be sufficient evidence to disprove your bold statement, therefore it goes without saying that such actions you describe would in fact be a sin in Islam.

to continued…

...continued from last post…

It is not my goal however to excuse the misdeeds of those who do so under the guise of Islam. Indeed the Muslim invasions into India under Mahmud of Ghazi and the rule of the Dehli Sultanate were abhorrent, and as you put it, ”[an] abuse of power.” However after the Mughals disposed of the corrupt Sultanate, the world came to know one of the most benevolent and wise rulers in all of human history, Akbar the Great, who preached tolerance for the multitude of faiths in India.

Finally, beyond the initial lateral movements out of the Arabian peninsula marked by the early Islamic expansion, how does one explain the expansion of Islam into regions that definitely did not have the backing of military or political institutions? Beyond the Deccan into the South, and into Bengal in the West, many conversions in India were done through Sufi preachers who targeted the downtrodden and abused low-caste segments of society. Islam spread through Central Asia and into China via the Silk Road by caravan merchants not warriors. Further still Islam spread by seafaring merchants into Southeast Asia without the aid of their armies many thousands of miles away.

I agree with Chris that Islam is fundamentally different from Christianity in this respect. It is true that Christianity was spread, in many cases, from top down, i.e. the emperor or prince converted and then declared all his subjects Christian, but I do not recall conversions by economic means analogous to the Islamic tax (jizya) on so-called “protected peoples” = second class citizens.

By the way, the whole concept of the dhimmi “protected peoples” sounds a whole lot nicer on paper (not that it sounds that good even on paper) than it is in practice. For example, in modern day Pakistan, we’ve heard of Christians being slaughtered while worshipping by Muslim gunmen. What harm is this handful of Christians doing in this sea of Muslims that they merit such horrible treatment? If the same happened in a Mosque in the US, there would be riots and bombings from Muslims all over the world.

The real fundamental difference is that the concept of holy war is an aberration in Christianity whereas it is an integral part of Islam. And the holy war in Islam is not purely defensive, it is one of the mechanisms of spreading the Islamic faith.

The differences between Christianty and Islam are evident in their founders. Jesus was voluntarily poor and celibate while Mohammed accrued wealth and wives; Jesus explicitly shunned worldly power and violence; Mohammed embraced it.

Michael

i think rus’ original argument was very true, religion is a cause or contribuing factor to many of the wars and disputes that man has had down the ages. I think it is the argument that itsman thats wrong and not religion is a totally erroneous one, there’s not much a man or even hundreds of men can do to change their own religion, man does have a snful side but i would argue tat this is emphasized, not held back by the confrontationalof religous beliefs. It doesn’t mater how many religions preach “don’t kill” if they also teach that their religion is the only right one and all others of wrong. I’m not saying that religions should change their views or that they can because obviously they all believe that they are right and that they have a divine right to do whatever they want but i do think that arguing that its all down to the individual men and that religion, even catholicism, is automatically a good thing no matter what the situation is is a very wrong and misleading argument

oh by the way chris, you really do kno nothing about islam do you? the concept of Jihad is that it is only right to defend your faith with violence and your life when you and your fellow believers are under threat of death and you are being persecuted because of you faith. its such bigoted beliefs that islamics “got heave and sleep with 1000 virgins” that alow right wing bigots like you to show you true colours. The bombings and such by muslims recently ar being prpetrated by a twisted few and it would be good t remembe that, meanwhile while there are still christian guerillas in afrca and catholic ira terrorising people in ireland why don’t you look toyour own house?

michael, the reason othr religions wern’t taxed under catholcism was because they were relentlessly persecutedand those that stood up for their beliefs were murdered i.e. the spanish inquistion. there is no islamic equivalent to this kind of systematic oppression.

I think this is a questioin of morality. Although most would say that people have a choice about there own morals and religion, and so only the individual person is responsible for his/her actions is a fallacy. If you are brought up with Islam as your faith in a strict Isalmic family the lack of broad views can be the equivalent of forcing faith, neliefs and morals. If you know nothing but Islam then you do not really have freedom of choice because religion, by is very nature, is extremist.

Religion causes war, but religion is just an expression of mans’ nature. I, threfore, think that there is religion to blame for many deaths but ultimately it is a failng of man but not necessarily the individual that commits horrific acts in the name of religion.

It would not be a cold blooded killing if it was truly dictated by religion. And also, all religions have to be extremist in their views even if the views are not extremist

I’d just like to say that I’m with Tom on this one. I like your writing style, CHRIS. Printing random WORDS in block capitals is a really EFFECTIVE way of trying to win an argument. Chris you say that “And because there are also Christian terrorists, then what the Muslim extremists are doing should be ignored?” Your original post is based purely against the Muslim religion, and I have read other posts in which you give your stereotypical Christian bashing of Muslims and then when somebody retorts you say you aren’t anti Muslim. I’m just trying to think why you ignore terrorist sects of other religions that are making attacks all around the world and hone in on Muslims, like a lot of people I know these days are.

it appears that i am not the only one who is setting up straw men now chris, i did not call you a “right wing bigot” because you disagreed with the teachings of another religion i did it because elieve you have fundamentally maligned islam and got their belief system wrong, just because you have a copy of the koran does not mean you can say what their views are on any subject at all, after all the bible says one whole lot of crazy rubbish and yet most christians do not believe it’s more wacky chapters, i think it is you tha is wrong basing your whole argument against islam on the actions of a few and the untaught reading of the koran, if you were islamic and read the bible what would you think of christianity?

Its quite simple Chris. Simple, plain English. Think it through. Its not like its a complex paradox.

You can believe in an ideal to an extremist extent without the ideal being extremist.

No dumbass, it means if a religion says you must eat cheese three times a day, then you should never miss those three pieces of cheese, not even if there was a worldwide cheese shortage. I think Tom raised a GOOD point. Every religion has different sects that interpret the teachings of that religion differently, this includes Christians, Muslims and other religons. So EVEN though you think that Islam says it’s ok for people to go out and murder people, it doesn’t mean that muslims, think that way, and you should thank your God that the majority of them don’t. There are Muslim terrorists, just like there are CHRISTIAN terrorrists, and you shouldn’t be so ignorant so as to say that Islam teaches people to kill. Correct me if I’m wrong, but does the old testament not teach “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth”. If this isn’t an advocation for violence then I don’t know what is.

Looks like T.V. has forced your beliefs again Chris. “Even Muslims who have been on TV have acknowledged this fact.” I find that pathetic.