Thread: Purgatory: How do Muslims see Christians? Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=000723
Posted by Plato's cat (# 11158) on
:
So how do we?
Not in a positive light I'm afraid.
Evangelical support (moral, political and financial) for the state of Israel poisons attitudes amongst many Muslims against the religion.
And the pope's ill-conceived remarks about Muhammad (pbuh) offended many.
But, as the saying goes, some of my best friends are Christian - and they are good people.
[ 15. June 2016, 18:46: Message edited by: Belisarius ]
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on
:
Your point is?
More importantly, why should we care?
Posted by Plato's cat (# 11158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Your point is?
More importantly, why should we care?
I refer you to Fr Cuthbert's post on his thread How Christians see Muslims, of the 21st April where he said:
'Thank you everyone for lots of food for thought on this topic which I began - How Christians see Muslims. I'm finding the discussion very interesting. I suppose it is inevitable that there are many different christian answers to the question. Much does seem to depend on how we understand the position of Jesus.
'I don't know Islam very well, and wonder if they would have a large variety of answers to the question 'How do Muslims see Christians?'
I replied there: 'Good idea!'
'I'll start a new thread entitled 'How do Muslims see Christians' then...'
Posted by Seb (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Your point is?
More importantly, why should we care?
Manners, manners. This isn't a Hell thread ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
Posted by Tazman (# 12891) on
:
Bloody hell, Preacher's Kid...this is a discussion board not a snake pit. Get out if you don't want in
Plato's Cat, I don't know how much milage this thread will have, as I don't think that there are many Muslims on board.
I think the question you pose is a difficult one to find a consensus on. As a Baha'i, I like most people who sincerely describe themselves as Christians. My background is Christian. I would say that the things I find difficult about Christian thought, not the people themselves, is the tendency to take the Bible literally, missing the spiritual clues.
Another thing I don't like is that some denominations are very closed to other religious thought, thereby not recognising the Divine Unity of religions as taught in the Qu'ran and the writings of the Baha'i Faith.
I don't like how in evangelical circles preaching is given, usually saying that Christianity/Jesus is the only way of salvation for a human soul, and then the alter call or call to pray something like a 'sinner's prayer', asking for on the spot forgiveness and conversion without thorough or independent investigation. Evangelical Christianity markets itself as the only way to God , relies heavily on emotionalism and fear and often leads to short term conversions rather than sustained change.
I don't like the doctrine of hell, as described by some as eternal.
I don't like how some people go to church to be told what to believe.
I don't like how Christianity stole Islam's civilizing powers during the Crusades, and yet the majority of people in the West are unaware that it was a Middle Eastern religion that was responsible for all the advancements it acheived, and has the Pope every apologised or thanked Islam?
I hate the fear and dogma that allows the Church to brainwash the African people into not using condoms, instead of promoting abstinence from sex outside of marriage (a much harder job to do, by far.) Allowing the spread of AIDS to devastate a continent.
I don't like the fact that two thirds of the New Testament was written by a man, and yet taken as infallible scripture, unquestionable in authority rather, than as opinion, no matter how exlemporary it may have been at the time. (I'm refering to the work of Paul.)
I don't like how some Christians of different denominations (and this seems to happen across the whole spectrum) fail to recognise each other as brothers.
I don't like how the early church threw out books, causing the books to be damaged or lost, including the remains of one which is dear to me, the Gospel of Mary Magdalene.
I don't like how some churches maintain that Jesus' mother, the Virgin Mary, remained a Virgin for the rest of her life. She was married, for St. Peter's sake!
I don't like how some Christians belive in satan and demons and see his work in every problem they come across, failing to recognise the necessity of personal responsibility and the part that chance plays in all things. And how the belief in demons is a damaging doctrine to those who suffer from mental illnesses, and how it demonises the mentally ill.
It frustrates me that some literally Bible reading Christians expect Jesus to come back out of the sky with a big trumpet in his hand, or, alternatively, wisk the good ones away in a spaceship.
Christianity is cliquey.
Christianity is blinkered.
Christainity is at war with itself and others (Iraq, anyone?)
Christianity is superstitious.
Christianity is divisive.
Christianity is diluted.
Christianity is luke warm.
Christianity is an excuse to get away with child abuse, a 'get out of jail free' card for paedophilic priests.
Christianity is not taking responsibility for searching for the truth anymore. It's going around in circles and blaming it on everyone else.
Now, CHRISTIANS, on the other hand, well, as Ghandi said, I'm not sure I've ever met one. The ones I might have met are just people, so I won't attack them, if I know my Kitab-i-Aqdas from my Book of Certitude.
I guess I'm not gonna get away with this too lightly. What do you really think, Plato's Cat?
Posted by Matins (# 11644) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Your point is?
More importantly, why should we care?
I'm with you. You have a Muslim wanting to start a conversation with Christians about how Muslims see Christians. He's telling us. Why should we care is a perfectly legitimate question.
Posted by GoodCatholicLad (# 9231) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Your point is?
More importantly, why should we care?
I agree I am always hearing this (mamby pamby voice) Oooh do they like us? Why not? Did we hurt their feelings? We are constantly be told about "diversity" and "the marketplace of ideas" and how wonderful it is, and on the face of it, it's fine with me BUT do the Muslims feel the same way? Do they care about our feelings? Are countries with large Muslim populations cater or care about the well being of their Christian, Jewish, Hindu or whatever minorities? This has to go both ways or you have jack.
The Muslim community I find near me are fine with all the above, but they tend to be professionals and have money but what I read about what's going on in France and Holland especially Rotterdam it sounds frightening.
Posted by matthew_dixon (# 12278) on
:
Tazman - you have managed to list a staggering number of all the flaws that Christianity has!
From what I know, most moderate Muslims have definite common cause with the moderate Christians - certainly they do round here - seeing that they have a faith to proclaim, trying to cope in a world of atheists and fundamentalists. Would be interesting for the Muslims on here to say what they think of us.
Posted by Fr Cuthbert (# 3953) on
:
I started the other discussion - How Christians see Muslims.
I'm pleased this one is going now. It helps to know how we see each other, and how we can relate. It helps us be courteous.
In Malaysia it seems some catholic churches are addressing God as Allah. The BBC report here on it.
An interesting but I'd say controversial action. I'd be very hesitant to do that myself.
Posted by lady in red (# 10688) on
:
quote:
orginally ranted by Tazman:
I guess I'm not gonna get away with this too lightly. What do you really think, Plato's Cat?
Well, time will tell whether you get away with it, but this bigotted little tirade has me, for one, very close to issuing my first Hell call.
Since when did were your personal preferences the arbiter of another faith?
Posted by Seb (# 14696) on
:
Allah just means The God as far as I know. similar to the Aramaic word for god (Elah or Alaha) which Jesus probably spoke. Arabic and Aramaic have similar root bases (semitic?).
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lady in red:
Since when did were your personal preferences the arbiter of another faith?
Since the thread title invites non-Christians (specically Muslims) opinion on Christianity, Tazman's expression of her view is a perfectly valid contribution IMO.
I could produce a not dissimilar critique myself - and an even more negative one of Islam. However, that is not the purpose of the thread, so I will just say that, pending all adherents of both faiths seeing the Light of Reason, if you could just get along, it would oblige the rest of us.
Posted by Tazman (# 12891) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lady in red:
quote:
orginally ranted by Tazman:
I guess I'm not gonna get away with this too lightly. What do you really think, Plato's Cat?
Well, time will tell whether you get away with it, but this bigotted little tirade has me, for one, very close to issuing my first Hell call.
Since when did were your personal preferences the arbiter of another faith?
Arbiter -
noun
1. a person empowered to decide matters at issue; judge; umpire.
2. a person who has the sole or absolute power of judging or determining.
I wasn't aware that it had. They are just opinions. Another criticism I have of all religious people, including and especially Baha'is, because that's who I have most contact with, is that they are very easily offended.
If you don't agree with any of my points, attack them, not me.
And it wasn't a tirade, it was a considered post! Did you consider your before you posted?
bigot
noun [C] DISAPPROVING
a person who has strong, unreasonable beliefs and who thinks that anyone who does not have the same beliefs is wrong.
At what point did you rationally decide that my post was bigoted? At what point did I say: 'That is That, and anyone who disagrees is wrong?'
Which of my points are unreasonable?
Call me to hell, I won't join you.
Posted by lady in red (# 10688) on
:
Tazman, your post was based on a list of stereotypes that have nothing to do with the way most Christians actually live. It was bloody rude.
You may not be answering it, but that won't stop me issuing it - Welcome to your very own hell-call
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tazman:
Another thing I don't like is that some denominations are very closed to other religious thought, thereby not recognising the Divine Unity of religions as taught in the Qu'ran and the writings of the Baha'i Faith.
Tazman, you raise many interesting points in this post, many of which I agree with, especially that which I quoted. Yet its nothing to do with the topic of this thread. The Divine Unity of religions would make an interesting topic itself, so why not start one and we'll get going on it!
Posted by Tazman (# 12891) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lady in red:
Tazman, your post was based on a list of stereotypes that have nothing to do with the way most Christians actually live. It was bloody rude.
You may not be answering it, but that won't stop me issuing it - Welcome to your very own hell-call
At what point did you miss it when i said 'I don't like christianity because...'
and at what point did i labour heavy criticism against the people (christians) themselves?
Enjoy your time in hell.
Posted by lady in red (# 10688) on
:
Yes I did see the 'I don't like Christianity because'... It was what followed the word 'because' that I thought was rude and offensive.
<sigh> I give up. Hell is the right place for this and I'm not going to talk about it anywhere else.
[ 26. May 2009, 09:49: Message edited by: lady in red ]
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tazman:
Christianity is cliquey.
Christianity is blinkered.
Christainity is at war with itself and others (Iraq, anyone?)
Christianity is superstitious.
Christianity is divisive.
Christianity is diluted.
Christianity is luke warm.
Christianity is an excuse to get away with child abuse, a 'get out of jail free' card for paedophilic priests.
Christianity is not taking responsibility for searching for the truth anymore. It's going around in circles and blaming it on everyone else.
I'm not too bothered by what you say about Christianity. (Plenty of people have been sincerely wrong before.)
However, I think this is the bit that lady in red took offence to. This part is a long list of unsubstantiated generalisations.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
We live in an area where Muslims are a small minority. When our son started primary school, there were two Muslims in his class - one boy and one girl. The boy's father approached me at the school gates and said he had been told we were Christians. How often did we go to church? Did our son go to Sunday school? etc. He said he was hoping to encourage his son to be friendly with Christian boys, who would understand the concept of religious obligation, rather than boys from irreligious homes, who wouldn't.
I have been teased by a Muslim friend, wearing the hijab, about the Western oppression of women, who deny themselves food in order to look slim in their jeans, when happy hijab wearers can scoff chocolate to their hearts content.
So, I think the Muslims I know think Christians are nice, but a bit deluded.
Does this get the OP question back on track?
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tazman:
Plato's Cat, I don't know how much milage this thread will have, as I don't think that there are many Muslims on board.
Indeed - there have been one or two over the years but Christians have shown ignorance and bigotry towards them - and towards me when I defend them.
So they give up and leave.
So they are quite right to see Christians as ignorant bigots.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lady in red:
Tazman, your post was based on a list of stereotypes that have nothing to do with the way most Christians actually live. It was bloody rude.
If you see what Christians have posted about Muslims on other threads, you will see stereotypes that have nothing to do with the way Muslims actually live.
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
Taz,
Did the universal house of justice ever come back to the issue of contraceptives after it regarded it as being against the spirit of the law of Bahaullah in 1967 ?
Posted by lady in red (# 10688) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by lady in red:
Tazman, your post was based on a list of stereotypes that have nothing to do with the way most Christians actually live. It was bloody rude.
If you see what Christians have posted about Muslims on other threads, you will see stereotypes that have nothing to do with the way Muslims actually live.
I never said they did. I just don't find it more acceptable when it's directed at Christians.
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
Sorry, missed my edit time, so had to wait, but the next question was -
Why is there one rule for Jews and another rule for all the rest of humanity in regards to enquiring about the Bahai faith and joining it?
Posted by Tazman (# 12891) on
:
Fletcher C,
I have honestly never heard anything about the UHJ declaring that about contraceptives. But 1967 was way before my time, and a new UHJ is elected regualary (every ? years). This is more recent (1981):
"As to birth control methods, the House of Justice does not wish to comment on the effectiveness or possible hazards of present-day contraceptive agents, and leaves it to individuals to decide what course of action they will take in light of the teachings and the best medical advice available..."
(Compilations, Lights of Guidance, p. 347)
No doubt they didn't wish to comment, eh?
As to one rule for Jews, another for any other investigating the Faith, I have no idea. Could you expand?
Lady in Red, I will not be joining you in Hell. I'm sorry that you took such offence, but I think that says more about you, than what I actually said.
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Plato's cat:
Evangelical support (moral, political and financial) for the state of Israel poisons attitudes amongst many Muslims against the religion.
That seems rather odd to me. The number of Christians who support Israel because the Israelis are mostly Jews must be (proportionately) rather small. The number who support Israel because the Palestinians are mostly Muslims must be tiny.
Most people who are pro-Israel that I know, are so for reasons that have nothing to do with religion - which is basically that Israel is more or less in the right (and that making your Palestinian neighbour live in a ghetto is marginally better than wanting to drive your Jewish neighbour into the sea, that exploding a bomb in a civilian area in the hope of killing a terrorist is slightly less wicked than doing so in the hope of killing a lot of civilians...that sort of thing).
If, by accident of history, the Jews were walled up in the West Bank and Gaza, and a number of them wanted to annihilate a Muslim 'Israel' which oppressed them, then almost all of the Christians I know would be just as critically supportive of that Muslim Israel's right to exist as they are of the real Jewish one. It's not about which religion each side follows - its about the politics. Why do the Muslims whom you know think otherwise?
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
From what I know of Bahai (which admittedly is very little), there are plenty of things to complain about in much the same way that there is much to complain about in Christianity. For instance, I think it is still the case that only men can be elected to the House of Justice (although you might be able to correct me on this one) even though the religious tenet suggested gender equality.
I know that in 1995 the house of justice said that if Jews asked about the religion they were to be given the facts, but not engaged in further conversation, that to convert they had to first become Muslims and then become Bahai, and if they were resident in Israel of ever intended to settle in Israel that they could not become converts to Bahai (which seems a little odd seeing that every Jew pretty much has that right and can avail of it if they wish; ie. how can you ever tell if they are going to settle in the future or not?)
A friend of mine was Bahai, which is partly why I know a little (but not a lot), and sadly on the subject of Jews he was deeply anti-semitic and used the faith as back up. Because he was so emphatic that this was Bahai teaching, and because (to be honest) I didn't believe him, I went to look at it for myself. Sadly we parted ways, but it left me with the feeling that Bahai isn't as peaceful and nice as it purports to be.
Posted by the_raptor (# 10533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Tazman:
Plato's Cat, I don't know how much milage this thread will have, as I don't think that there are many Muslims on board.
Indeed - there have been one or two over the years but Christians have shown ignorance and bigotry towards them - and towards me when I defend them.
So they give up and leave.
So they are quite right to see Christians as ignorant bigots.
Why is the above acceptable, when the below is not?
quote:
"there have been one or two over the years but Black people have shown ignorance and bigotry towards them - and towards me when I defend them.
So they give up and leave.
So they are quite right to see Black people as ignorant bigots."
I suppose it is okay to see Muslims as discrimanationist (™ the_raptor 2009) morons because of the above?
A negative stereotype based on the behaviour of a portion of a "majority" is still FUCKING UNACCEPTABLE DISCRIMINATION. This isn't hard leo, it isn't wrong when it happens to minorities and okay when it happens to majorities. It is always wrong.
quote:
"So they are quite right to see people whose names begin with l as ignorant bigots"
Posted by §Andrew (# 9313) on
:
Essentially this places Christianity beyond criticism. You can't say anything bad about Christianity, because then someone will point out mother Theresa, and he will demand that you don't make generalizations.
This is just silly.
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on
:
quote:
So how do we? Not in a positive light I'm afraid.
But they may not all be as prejudiced as you. I assume that you feel capable of representing the views of all muslims. But I'm sure you do them a disservice in so doing.
quote:
Evangelical support (moral, political and financial) for the state of Israel poisons attitudes amongst many Muslims against the religion.
I can understand your problem here but it is not helped by the rampant anti-semitism of too many islamic leaders.
quote:
And the pope's ill-conceived remarks about Muhammad (pbuh) offended many.
Grow up. It's called free debate.
Do you really think this is about religion? It's about basic civilisation. Like not abusing women, not persecuting homosexuals, freedom of speech.
Do I think all muslims are like that? Of course not. I don't judge a civilisation from a small sample of people I don't like. We have you to do that!
Posted by Plato's cat (# 11158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Cuthbert:
I started the other discussion - How Christians see Muslims.
I'm pleased this one is going now. It helps to know how we see each other, and how we can relate. It helps us be courteous.
In Malaysia it seems some catholic churches are addressing God as Allah. The BBC report here on it.
An interesting but I'd say controversial action. I'd be very hesitant to do that myself.
As an English speaking person, of course you would not normally address God by his Arabic name Allah. But 14 million Christians in the middle east do, and their Bibles begin thus:
In the beginning Allah created the heavens and the earth...
Posted by Plato's cat (# 11158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
We live in an area where Muslims are a small minority. When our son started primary school, there were two Muslims in his class - one boy and one girl. The boy's father approached me at the school gates and said he had been told we were Christians. How often did we go to church? Did our son go to Sunday school? etc. He said he was hoping to encourage his son to be friendly with Christian boys, who would understand the concept of religious obligation, rather than boys from irreligious homes, who wouldn't.
I have been teased by a Muslim friend, wearing the hijab, about the Western oppression of women, who deny themselves food in order to look slim in their jeans, when happy hijab wearers can scoff chocolate to their hearts content.
So, I think the Muslims I know think Christians are nice, but a bit deluded.
Does this get the OP question back on track?
Nice but deluded? Well the Quran says that they have 'gone astray' in their faith, by worshiping the Messiah. Muslims are unitarians - like Jews (and Jesus!)
Posted by Plato's cat (# 11158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Tazman:
Plato's Cat, I don't know how much milage this thread will have, as I don't think that there are many Muslims on board.
Indeed - there have been one or two over the years but Christians have shown ignorance and bigotry towards them - and towards me when I defend them.
So they give up and leave.
So they are quite right to see Christians as ignorant bigots.
I don't agree that Christians per se are bigots. I am constantly debating with Christians and the real bigots (in my experience) are the hate filed fundamentalists who seem to be everywhere these days (I'm in London).
But Catholics (Anglican and RC) are usually much more reasonable and pleasent to talk to, and many liberals don't believe Jesus was God anyway so our differences on Christology at least are minimal.
Posted by Plato's cat (# 11158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
quote:
So how do we? Not in a positive light I'm afraid.
But they may not all be as prejudiced as you. I assume that you feel capable of representing the views of all muslims. But I'm sure you do them a disservice in so doing.
quote:
Evangelical support (moral, political and financial) for the state of Israel poisons attitudes amongst many Muslims against the religion.
I can understand your problem here but it is not helped by the rampant anti-semitism of too many islamic leaders.
quote:
And the pope's ill-conceived remarks about Muhammad (pbuh) offended many.
Grow up. It's called free debate.
Do you really think this is about religion? It's about basic civilisation. Like not abusing women, not persecuting homosexuals, freedom of speech.
Do I think all muslims are like that? Of course not. I don't judge a civilisation from a small sample of people I don't like. We have you to do that!
Of course I'm not speaking on behalf of all Muslims, but I'm trying in my small way to give you some feedback as to how many of us view Christians. I was a committed Christian myself once upon at time so I am in the unusal position of having a view from both sides.
Your attitude is sadly typical of many extreme Christians when you tell us to grow up and accept insults to our religion. We will not. We do not worship at the shine of unrestricted free speech.
Many in the West today belive it is OK to insult Jesus or Muhammad or whoever, but it is for some reason not OK to insult a black man for being black. Muslims are more consistent. We should show respect for others' beliefs and not be offensive and immature.
[ 26. May 2009, 17:10: Message edited by: Plato's cat ]
Posted by Pottage (# 9529) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Plato's cat:
As an English speaking person, of course you would not normally address God by his Arabic name Allah. But 14 million Christians in the middle east do, and their Bibles begin thus:
In the beginning Allah created the heavens and the earth...
Yes, but... Allah is the word used by Arabic speakers of all faiths when referring to God. It is also the word used by Muslims when speaking of God regardless of whether they are speaking (or even can speak) Arabic. Because of this association I understand that Arabic-speaking Christians sometimes use a different formulation - Allah al ab - to reflect the fact that they think of God in a different way to their Muslim neighbours.
Because of that Muslim context it is disingenuous to ignore the fact that when someone is not speaking in Arabic but nevertheless chooses to use "Allah" as the word for God in their prayers they are clearly making some kind of point or engaged in some kind of stunt.
Back to OP, I can't help but think that we're just going to get a lot of anecdotes describing every possible feeling that (different) Muslims may hold in relation to Christians from warm friendliness and respect through to bitter hatred. I can't help but know, because I watch the news and because Google is my friend, that there are millions of people who profess Islam who would happily see me dead because I go to church. On the other hand one of the several Muslims I work with, who is conspicuously observant, was most put out when his little boy didn't get a speaking part in the Nativity play at his primary school last December.
Posted by Plato's cat (# 11158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pottage:
quote:
Originally posted by Plato's cat:
As an English speaking person, of course you would not normally address God by his Arabic name Allah. But 14 million Christians in the middle east do, and their Bibles begin thus:
In the beginning Allah created the heavens and the earth...
Yes, but... Allah is the word used by Arabic speakers of all faiths when referring to God. It is also the word used by Muslims when speaking of God regardless of whether they are speaking (or even can speak) Arabic. Because of this association I understand that Arabic-speaking Christians sometimes use a different formulation - Allah al ab - to reflect the fact that they think of God in a different way to their Muslim neighbours.
Because of that Muslim context it is disingenuous to ignore the fact that when someone is not speaking in Arabic but nevertheless chooses to use "Allah" as the word for God in their prayers they are clearly making some kind of point or engaged in some kind of stunt.
Back to OP, I can't help but think that we're just going to get a lot of anecdotes describing every possible feeling that (different) Muslims may hold in relation to Christians from warm friendliness and respect through to bitter hatred. I can't help but know, because I watch the news and because Google is my friend, that there are millions of people who profess Islam who would happily see me dead because I go to church. On the other hand one of the several Muslims I work with, who is conspicuously observant, was most put out when his little boy didn't get a speaking part in the Nativity play at his primary school last December.
yes if you watch Western TV and google is your friend (!) you might well end up with the silly idea that Muslims are out to get you!
The reality is as you find it in real life: your work friend and his concern about the nativity play...
Posted by Sarah G (# 11669) on
:
Welcome back after too long ashore!
One of the questions that pops up from time to time on Islamic discussion fora is the issue of whether Christians go to Hell. On the whole, despite a couple of dissenters who quote a range of pro-christian Quranic verses, the very large majority say we are, and their quotes and comments on abrogation seem to me to win the argument.
So even if Muslims don't much care for Christians, they can be reassured that our worst aspects will be paid for in Hell.
Would the above be a fair summary?
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Tazman
Your first post on this thread was a rant. Further it was a rant which had nothing to do with OP.
As we make clear, Hell is the refuge of the irascible, the contentious and the just plain pissed off. Got a complaint, a rant or a personal argument to settle? Do it there.
And if you don't like to post in Hell, that does not give you freedom to rant in Purgatory. Please don't do that again. If you want to start a discussion in Purgatory about your experiences and criticisms of the Christian faith, please feel free to do that. But remember Purgatory is for serious discussion. OPs should be worded accordingly.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
Posted by Plato's cat (# 11158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:
Welcome back after too long ashore!
One of the questions that pops up from time to time on Islamic discussion fora is the issue of whether Christians go to Hell. On the whole, despite a couple of dissenters who quote a range of pro-christian Quranic verses, the very large majority say we are, and their quotes and comments on abrogation seem to me to win the argument.
So even if Muslims don't much care for Christians, they can be reassured that our worst aspects will be paid for in Hell.
Would the above be a fair summary?
thanks for the welcome back!
Your post is not really relevant to the thread, but, yes, I would think that most Muslims would expect that Christians would end up in hell.
But I leave such matters to the God who is known as the most compassionate, the most merciful .
Posted by Pottage (# 9529) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Plato's cat:
yes if you watch Western TV and google is your friend (!) you might well end up with the silly idea that Muslims are out to get you!
The reality is as you find it in real life: your work friend and his concern about the nativity play...
No, self evidently the reality is both of those positions and many others besides.
I'm quite a news junkie and I watch Al Jazeera's news coverage too. Even though it doesn't reflect well on Islam and isn't the face that you would like your faith to present to the world it's a fact that plenty of violent extreme Muslims would cheerfully see me dead. I know and accept this to be true. But it doesn't mean I think ALL Muslims are out to get me. I don't think MOST, or even (proportionally to their many millions) MANY Muslims are out to get me.
I remember our trying to think this through at housegroup a year or so ago and concluding that many Muslims would actually be likely to be suspicious of Christians more than anything else. They might know, for instance, that Christians regard themselves as having a Commission to go out into the world and make new Christians and that would seem threatening.
Posted by Matins (# 11644) on
:
Why isn't it relevant?
You want to discuss how Muslims see Christians. Apparently, most of them view Christians as damned. I'm not exactly sure what you want to debate.
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
Forgive me for linking to a translation of Koranic verses - I understand that it is considered inappropriate to translate in some Islamic traditions, however we have little choice if we are to discuss it within an English speaking community.
This page contains translations of various statements in the Koran regarding people of the book.
How is:
quote:
2:62. Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.
Consistent with the idea that Christian go to hell by default ?
Posted by Plato's cat (# 11158) on
:
This may be a good time (for those who wish) to read a recent lecture delivered at Kings College London about Muslim perceptions of Western religious intention, entitled
'America as a Jihad State: Middle Eastern perceptions of modern American theopolitics'
The author, Tim Winter, is a friend of mine who lectures in Islamic Studies at Cambridge University (he is an English convert to Islam and is also known as Abdal-Hakim Murad).
I'm not expecting you to agree or disagree with his opinions, but perhaps gain an insight into how much of the world sees the American Christian scene.
Blogging theology
Posted by Plato's cat (# 11158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pottage:
quote:
Originally posted by Plato's cat:
yes if you watch Western TV and google is your friend (!) you might well end up with the silly idea that Muslims are out to get you!
The reality is as you find it in real life: your work friend and his concern about the nativity play...
No, self evidently the reality is both of those positions and many others besides.
I'm quite a news junkie and I watch Al Jazeera's news coverage too. Even though it doesn't reflect well on Islam and isn't the face that you would like your faith to present to the world it's a fact that plenty of violent extreme Muslims would cheerfully see me dead. I know and accept this to be true. But it doesn't mean I think ALL Muslims are out to get me. I don't think MOST, or even (proportionally to their many millions) MANY Muslims are out to get me.
I remember our trying to think this through at housegroup a year or so ago and concluding that many Muslims would actually be likely to be suspicious of Christians more than anything else. They might know, for instance, that Christians regard themselves as having a Commission to go out into the world and make new Christians and that would seem threatening.
My friend, you have nothing to fear from Muslims. We are not out to get you whatever you may think.
If you were to get to know Muslims in your community I'm sure you will find this to be true. Once again, please don't rely on the media for the truth about Islam (or much else?). Create your own life experiences based on personal contacts with real people.
[ 26. May 2009, 18:19: Message edited by: Plato's cat ]
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on
:
quote:
Your attitude is sadly typical of many extreme Christians when you tell us to grow up and accept insults to our religion. We will not. We do not worship at the shine of unrestricted free speech.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Extreme christian!
Actually I no longer self-identify as a christian although that may not be final.
I remember the debate about the Pope's statement and I think it is juvenile to take this as an insult as opposed to an opinion which you are free to disagree with. It is not in the same class as Rushdie's book which I would agree was an insult. I'm not sure that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion so enthusiastically distributed by nobody except Nazis and muslims is exactly academic history.
My main objection is that you have your view of christians conditioned by a small group of zionist fundies (who I think are moronic) and the leader of the RCC who is nothing to do with me, although in this case I would defend his speech, whilst not necessarily agreeing with it.
Posted by Tazman (# 12891) on
:
Barnabas: My apologies. It wasn't supposed to sound rantish. I was trying to engage with the question in the OP, unfortunately it came across as a very personal list of criticisms rather than a view of how I see Christians themselves. I am actually at a christian college p/t, and my peers are actually the lovliest people i get to spend any of my time with. Some of them may believe in demons and satan and some of them may believe that Christ will return in a big white cloud, but as actual human beings, they are among the best. The world would be a poorer place without them.
Fletcher C: I don't know, I have never heard anything like that and my gut instinct is that it is a nonsense, for some reason made up, by whoever. It just doesn't ring true with the sort of advice I hear from the UHJ. As to your Baha'i friend being anti semitic ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
and at the same time i hope nobody thinks that i am anti christian because that is absolutely and emphatically not true.
This is all giving me a bit of a headache, I think I'm going to disappear back to the private boards where religion isn't the subject of discussion. Safer territory, I think. :/
Posted by §Andrew (# 9313) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Plato's cat:
I'm not expecting you to agree or disagree with his opinions, but perhaps gain an insight into how much of the world sees the American Christian scene.
Blogging theology
Thanks for a fascinating read!
Posted by Pottage (# 9529) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Plato's cat:
My friend, you have nothing to fear from Muslims. We are not out to get you whatever you may think.
If you were to get to know Muslims in your community I'm sure you will find this to be true. Once again, please don't rely on the media for the truth about Islam (or much else?). Create your own life experiences based on personal contacts with real people.
I'm not your friend. I meet Muslims every day (save for some Sundays, admittedly). I have Muslim neighbours and colleagues, and spend some time in a local school which is overwhelmingly Muslim. I don't fear or distrust any of those people. I like some, dislike some, and have a hard time finding anything in common with quite a few. Pretty much the same as at church in fact. On the other hand a classmate of my youngest daughter lost her father to a bomb in Afghansitan last year, so I don't fool myself that every Muslim on the planet is equally amiable. YMMV.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
One of the interesting aspects of public sector employment in Canada is the presence of folk practising different religions and feeling comfortable with doing so-- friends inform me that for many years, the pressure to be conformist in general deportment is far greater with private sector employers-- although this situation seems to have been changed for the better. Working alongside Muslims for a number of years has exposed me to a wide variety of religious belief and practice in Islam, all the way from cosmopolitan Turks telling me that they are from Constantinople to certifiably psychotic Afghans.
Generally, my Muslim friends assume that Xns are Xn because of their ancestry, as they are because of theirs, and are perplexed by missionary activity, either from the Xn side or their own. Converts, other than those for marriage, are viewed with friendly perplexity.
On the grace in public thread, I noted that an Ismaili friend told me that he very much likes it when his children see Xns saying grace, as it instructs them that public religious observance is not peculiar to their faith, and that others who take their religion seriously are to be respected.
This brought to mind an observation which can be found in my preface to my Camino MW reports. After my return from Santiago, several Muslim colleaques quite perked up when they had heard that I had done what they called the Christian hajj. Small bundles of loukum and teeth-shivering pastries appear on my desk at Easter. Christmas cards appeared from a variety of Muslim colleagues. A Pathan colleague saw me in a restaurant and insisted that I join his family, instructing his scarfed daughters to shake my hand. I have even been dragged in to speak with an Ismaili youth group on pilgrimage and fasting among Christians.
I found that my pilgrimage experience seemed to intrigue Muslims. Conferring with a Muslim professor at a local university, he told me that western Christians were generally not regarded as serious in their religious practice-- our churches were not full, were rarely frequented for daily prayers, and fasting is not very visible; indeed, they assume that it does not happen at all. The substantial social contribution was regarded favourably, as was friendliness to other religions and hospitality to refugees, but... As well, that The Issue (as a certain Dead Horse topic is known among Anglicans) is discussed at all much discredits us. He further noted that Muslims and eastern Christians understood each other, and common patterns of fasting and alms-giving made clear to both sides who which individuals were serious in religious practice and who was a hypocrite.
He also noted that he found differences in small-town and large-city perceptions. In smaller centres, church life is a social and community activity and Muslims will see Christian life in that context. In cities, Christianity is often only seen in the form of television evangelists. If it be a comfort, he told me, they view most of their own imams as equally batty and equally to be distrusted.
Posted by Seb (# 14696) on
:
I must say its a pleasure to hear some reasonable comments about muslim people coming from non-muslims. In England, there are many muslims and I suspect this is why many of you are reasonable about them. When you rub shoulders with people, you realize they are just people.
In Australia, people are much more bigoted about Muslims but I suspect its because we don't have many yet...
Plato, I think your opening post was about politics, not religion. As a christian in Australia, I have nothing to do with the middle east ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Funny you said you were a christian and are now a muslim. opposite happened to me ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by Molopata The Rebel (# 9933) on
:
Sorry, I'm still struggling with the OP. It's too general.
What "Muslims" and what "Christians" do we mean?
Are we talking about how Christians and Muslims get on living as neighbours door-on-door?
Are we talking about Muslim masses who in different parts of the world have been subject to fanatic hate-mongering and have either never met a Christian or are led to see Christians simply as "the Others"?
Are we talking about how Muslims view Christians' relationship to God or rather their moral actions?
Are we talking about how different strains of Muslims theology see Christianity?
I fear at this point that most evidence we collect as a majority-Christian board is going to anecdotal, and describe only a very narrow part of the spectrum, making any discussion rather disjointed. I'm thinking that the person best positioned to answer the question is the OPer himself.
Beyond that, the only permissible generalism I can think of at the moment is that most practising Muslim regard practising Christians with greater respect than any atheist or agnostic. But that is only a comparative and arguably a bit banal.
Posted by Plato's cat (# 11158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pottage:
quote:
Originally posted by Plato's cat:
My friend, you have nothing to fear from Muslims. We are not out to get you whatever you may think.
If you were to get to know Muslims in your community I'm sure you will find this to be true. Once again, please don't rely on the media for the truth about Islam (or much else?). Create your own life experiences based on personal contacts with real people.
I'm not your friend. I meet Muslims every day (save for some Sundays, admittedly). I have Muslim neighbours and colleagues, and spend some time in a local school which is overwhelmingly Muslim. I don't fear or distrust any of those people. I like some, dislike some, and have a hard time finding anything in common with quite a few. Pretty much the same as at church in fact. On the other hand a classmate of my youngest daughter lost her father to a bomb in Afghansitan last year, so I don't fool myself that every Muslim on the planet is equally amiable. YMMV.
Afghansitan is a war zone! It doesnt suggest the nasty Muslims are out to get you .
By that logic I could argue that Christians are out to kill Muslims because there are Christians in the British army that is occupying by force a Muslim country. I think you are being paranoid.
Posted by Plato's cat (# 11158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Seb:
I must say its a pleasure to hear some reasonable comments about muslim people coming from non-muslims. In England, there are many muslims and I suspect this is why many of you are reasonable about them. When you rub shoulders with people, you realize they are just people.
In Australia, people are much more bigoted about Muslims but I suspect its because we don't have many yet...
Plato, I think your opening post was about politics, not religion. As a christian in Australia, I have nothing to do with the middle east
Funny you said you were a christian and are now a muslim. opposite happened to me
As you know, Muslims do not make a distinction between religion and politics, so my post encompasses both. Remember Tawheed?
Btw though you may not personally be involved in the middle east, your government is. It has troups occupying Muslim countries such as Iraq and Afganistan.
[ 27. May 2009, 07:32: Message edited by: Plato's cat ]
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on
:
PC, I suspect that the intervention of 'the West' in Middle-Eastern Musilm countries is not solely religiously motivated, but that the perceived religious aspect is largely incidental. Many powerful Western elites are just a happy to hang Christians out to dry as they are Musilims (Palestine, East Timor, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Turkey, Cyprus, etc.). If the West always ran to the defence of Christians and with the same rapidity to persecute Muslims then it might be a different story; but the pattern simple isn't there.
I can certainly understand how this (the Western occupation of Muslim countries) effects perception of 'Christians' (in the sense of 'Westerners') and may have something to do with the persecution of Christians in Muslim countries. Why is it that Muslims in Christian countries enjoy far greater freedom that Christians in Muslim countries?
K.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Plato's cat:
Btw though you may not personally be involved in the middle east, your government is. It has troups occupying Muslim countries such as Iraq and Afganistan.
I'm British. Yes, we invaded Afghanistan (legitimately, in retaliation for an attack on an ally and to save millions of Muslims from a crazy tyranny, though we may be failing to achieve that objective) and we invaded Iraq (illegitimately, we started it in order to save George Bush's face, though as a side-effect we may have sort of accidentally saved millions of Muslims from a slightly less crazy tyranny, admitttedly by killing a few hundred thousand of them first)
But that's got nothng to do with them being Muslims. This is the British government we are talking about. Over the centuries they have been involved in more wars overseas than any other government in history (probably more than the next half dozen put together). We started some of them. Its hard to think of a country we haven't had troops in. We bomb Buddhists and put Christians in concentration camps. We are an equal opportunity invader.
Posted by Pottage (# 9529) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Plato's cat:
I think you are being paranoid.
So I am "paranoid" although what I have said is that I believe a huge majority of the world's Muslims are NOT out to get me? Or because I have explained very clearly that I interact without distrust or difficulty with all the Muslims I encounter in my daily life, of which there are scores in an average week? You don't seem to be responding to what I am posting, but rather to be bashing out stock answers addressed to some imagined Bigot Of Straw. Perhaps that better suits whatever agenda prompted you to begin this thread.
What you said prompted you to start this thread was a post from Fr Cuthbert which you quoted and which finished:
quote:
'I don't know Islam very well, and wonder if they would have a large variety of answers to the question 'How do Muslims see Christians?'
To judge from your website you are a very experienced Muslim apologist and very likely you are better placed than any other Shipmate to inform us of the different perceptions of Christians held by various types of Muslim. A pity then that you have contented yourself with telling us effectively that all Muslims universally hold the same view of Christians. Muslims are all apparently a bit disappointed at Christians' stubborn wrongheadedness in matters of faith (though it seems you personally are a little at odds with the Qur'an as to what that means for Christians in the hereafter). And Muslims are all affronted at what they perceive to be "Christian" politics and a "Christian" tendency to disrespect Islam.
There are no differences in opinions between Muslims of different upbringing and cultural heritage? Or between Muslims of different generations? Or between Sunni, Shi'a and Sufi?
BTW I am conscious that Afghanistan is a war zone, albeit that the non-Muslim soldiers fighting and dying there are present at the request of the Muslim authorities whose (Muslim) soldiers are fighting alongside them. Was Madrid also a war zone? Central London in the rush hour? Bali's tourist district?
Posted by Seb (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Plato's cat:
Btw though you may not personally be involved in the middle east, your government is. It has troups occupying Muslim countries such as Iraq and Afganistan.
You think this implies religious war? Only deluded fundamentalists on both sides believe that ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Tell that to the Australian muslims Didn't realize my parents were actively killing their brethren in different countries!
Posted by the gnome (# 14156) on
:
Indeed. What sort of religious war was it when NATO bombed (Christian) Serbia in defense of (Muslim) Kosovars? Or when the US sent troops to (Muslim) Somalia to help protect UN humanitarian aid shipments?
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
Plato's cat, you said, in response to my earlier post
quote:
Nice but deluded? Well the Quran says that they have 'gone astray' in their faith, by worshiping the Messiah. Muslims are unitarians - like Jews (and Jesus!)
Would it be true, as it seems to me, that in an area with few Muslims, Muslims are more comfortable with Christians, than with atheists?
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tazman:
<snip>
This is all giving me a bit of a headache, I think I'm going to disappear back to the private boards where religion isn't the subject of discussion. Safer territory, I think. :/
I don't know how much this helps but apologies aren't easy, so you can be sure you'll be a whole lot more welcome now that you have apologised and that Hell thread has been closed.
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
The idea that the foreign policy and involvement in foregin military adventures in the modern era at least is to do with religious affiliation is absurd. Numerous wars, as everyone knows, have been fought between states populated by Christians, whilst wars and acts of military aggression have been perpetrated by Muslims against Muslims. Why is it different when nominally Christian states fight states within the Muslim world? Even the burden of a history of Western imperialism/colonialism doesn't account for the attitude that Muslim states are under a religiously-motivated attack by the West, because Western states have perpetrated imperialist aggression upon one another.
Meanwhile, Muslims in the West will simply have to accept Western political systems and political philosophy. They shouldn't presume to exploit liberal regimes in order to bring about illiberalism and Western regimes are crazy to allow the erosion of liberal political principles in an attempt to appease whinging and terroristic Muslims (not to say that the majority of Muslims resident in the West fall into these noisy and turbulent categories).
Posted by §Andrew (# 9313) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
The idea that the foreign policy and involvement in foregin military adventures in the modern era at least is to do with religious affiliation is absurd.
Is it though?
Lots of people see religious influences behind some policy making of the Bush administration, including some of their foreign policy and the way they behaved towards Muslim prisoners at Guantanamo and the secret prisons in foreign countries.
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
The religious beliefs of George Shithead Bush and various stray members of the military did not constitute the motivation for invading Iraq and Afghanistan.
Posted by §Andrew (# 9313) on
:
I don't doubt that the motives behind the decision to invade a foreign country are complex.
However, you can't say that religion does not influence policy making, exactly because leaders like the former president of the US, or the former prime minister of the UK had some pretty strong religious convictions.
Religion plays a great role in the US elections. The candidates know that, and try to reach towards that part of the population for whom the candidate's position on certain matters needs to conform to religious standards.
From anti-abortion groups supporting the Republicans, to the selection of Governor Sarah Palin as the candidate for the vice presidency of the world's most powerful country, religion had an important impact in politics.
The same applies for the way some men of religious convictions behaved in Iraq after the invasion. Or the religious "terrorism" that took place in the Gitmo against the Muslim prisoners.
It's very silly to pretend that the religious convictions of the members of the administration did not influence their policy making.
And the Muslim world isn't stupid. Yes, they might overreact, but they knew there were religious motives behind the co-ordinated efforts of some Western politicians with strong religious convictions of dominance in the Muslim world.
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on
:
I would partially agree with Andrew as in the US it seems that religious convictions do have a great deal of influence on policy making. I would argue however that this seems to be restrained only to social policies such as abortion, gay marraige etc. I am not convinced and have seen no evidence by Andrew or elsewhere that religious policy and foreign policy are connected anywhere else than inside the minds of the paranoid and those trying to whip up a mob.
I would argue that this is because the Gospel has nothing within it to provide fuel for religious war. Historically, religious conflict within Christianity has almost entirely been the result of medieval political power struggles under the most influential banner of the day. There is nowhere to turn in Christianity to argue that God is calling the faithful to temporal armed struggle. You have to look outside the teachings of Jesus and the apostles to find excuses for war.
Posted by Matins (# 11644) on
:
One more time...
Christians were split over invading Iraq.
Jews were split over the issue of invading Iraq.
Muslims were split over the issue of invading Iraq.
Atheists were split over the issue of invading Iraq.
Everybody was in favor of invading Afghanistan.
If the United States were trying to wage a war against Islam, we wouldn't have bombed Serbia. It was not in our best interest to do so (nor was Somalia). Our involvement in the politics of predominantly Muslim countries can be simply and rationally explained without ever mentioning Christianity.
Posted by Plato's cat (# 11158) on
:
Salam all
Being the sole Muslim voice here on this thread makes it very difficult to respnd to all the points made. My apologies for not responding in detail.
To reiterate, I do not speak for all Muslims, but only for myself. Islam does not have a priestly cast or magisterium, or any other intermediaries between the individual and God. But I am trying to represent (however poorly) what many of us feel in the current situation, both religiously and politicaly.
I think that powerful sections of the West ARE engaged in a fight against Islam, and are religiously motivated.
Just 2 examples:
1. The evangelical right in the US is a very powerful force influencing American foreign policy. Christians helped elect GW Bush, an evangelical Christian. The US is uncritically supportive of Zionism and Israel's genocidal campaign against the Palestinians. This causes huge resentment and anger in the Muslim world, which I share. Some Muslims see this as an excuse - contrary to the clear teaching of Islam - to kill civilians in Israel and the US. I understand their outrage but reject terrorism outright.
2. Recent documents come to light from the Department of Defense and the Pentagon in the US have revealed that official documents were routinely peppered with quotations from the Bible. Rumsfeld clearly saw his mission in explicitly religious terms when he invaded the two Muslim countries in question.
I could go on, but that's all I have time for at the moment. I'm busy preparing for an event this evening which I am chairing called: 'Islam and Terrorism: Is Islam a threat to the West?' I'm also giving a lecture at this event entitled 'Are Muslims in this country a threat to traditional British values?' (l'll be posting my contribution on my blog later).
Everyone is welcome to come, leave political correctness at the door, and ask challenging questions of the speakers (there are 5 of us). Its taking place in central London and more info can be seen here:
Muslim Debate Initiative
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
I very much doubt that Rummy's use of biblical quotations was anything other than cynicism on his part.
The pro-Israel lobby in the US has been primarily Jewish, though joined by some con-evos since the time of Reagan. Much of the US entanglement with Israel was an artifact of Cold War politics involving the US-USSR contest for world hegemony -- at this point it is mainly an anachronism, though the hijinks of various regional dictators and demagogues has only helped to maintain US support for Israel. However, if the con-evos were all that effective a force, our current POTUS would never have been elected.
Posted by Plato's cat (# 11158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
I very much doubt that Rummy's use of biblical quotations was anything other than cynicism on his part.
I dont agree. See the BBC report here:
Rumsfeld Bible texts
Posted by Matins (# 11644) on
:
One, the decision to put the quotes in the report was the decision of a major general (hardly the hightest levels of government). President Bush didn't even see them regularly. They are not evidence the United States was fighting a holy war against Islam. Why attack Iraq and set up a government potentially more loyal to the mullahs in Iran than those who put them in power? Nobody has answered the question about our intervention into Kosovo in which we killed Christians to protect Muslims. When was the last time a Muslim government killed other Muslims to protect Christians?
Two, the United States has always been supportive of Israel. It was the case before Evangelical Christians became an important block for Republicans. It would be supportive of Israel if Evangelical Christians weren't an important constituency. Americans as a whole are more sympathetic to Israel. If that causes Muslims to hate Americans, Muslims are going to be hating Americans for a long time to come.
Posted by Pottage (# 9529) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Plato's cat:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
I very much doubt that Rummy's use of biblical quotations was anything other than cynicism on his part.
I dont agree. See the BBC report here:
Rumsfeld Bible texts
I'm tempted to say that's paranoia, given the absence of any credible evidence that Rumsfeld personally was driven by religious zeal rather than, say political opportunism and greed for power and money.
But the fact that it's objectively pretty ludicrous is almost immaterial. If that's a widespread perception, even amongst Muslims possessed of a Western university education and cosmopolitan background then it's pretty significant in any event. In partial answer to the question posed in the OP it tells us one of the ways that (many) Muslims see Christians, and it's a way which differs substantially from the way Christians see themselves. It's a perception of "Christendom" that hasn't had a basis in reality for many centuries, as some sort of cohesive entity with a powerful, commonly-held ambition to attack and destroy Muslims, just because they ARE Muslims.
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Plato's cat:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
I very much doubt that Rummy's use of biblical quotations was anything other than cynicism on his part.
I dont agree. See the BBC report here:
Rumsfeld Bible texts
Yes, and what about the rest of my post (with which Matins seems to be in some agreement)?
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
Let me just add that historically the lack of sympathy on the part of Americans for the Palestinians has IMO had to do not with their being Muslims but with their being Arabs, in contrast to a largely European Israel. The Arabs have been viewed as backwards. This may be partly racism and partly a deplorable failure to realise the historic injustices done to the Palestinians, again because it's easier to identify with the Israelis who tend to look like so many of us Euro-Americans. Obviously a good portion of the Palestinians were/are Christian, although the Christian segment of the population has been drawn down due to emigration. The lack of American support for the Palestinians may stem from ignoble motives, but anti-Islamic feeling hasn't been a prominent factor in that. Rather, Superpower geopolitics were most determinative at the level of government policy, and anti-Arab/pro-European feeling at the level of the American on the street. Further, Americans have tended to see the Palestinian leadership as its own worst enemy, leading to a further loss of sympathy; and historically Yassir Arafat wasn't a figure who was personally appealing to most Americans (indeed, a little bit repulsive).
Posted by Molopata The Rebel (# 9933) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
PC, I suspect that the intervention of 'the West' in Middle-Eastern Musilm countries is not solely religiously motivated, but that the perceived religious aspect is largely incidental. Many powerful Western elites are just a happy to hang Christians out to dry as they are Muslims (Palestine, East Timor, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Turkey, Cyprus, etc.). If the West always ran to the defence of Christians and with the same rapidity to persecute Muslims then it might be a different story; but the pattern simple isn't there.
Quite so.
I would certainly hope that the religious convictions of a Christian political leader would have some influence on his/her decisions at the helm of state, otherwise I would have to question the content of their faith. Nevertheless, invading Iraq or Afghanistan, misguided perhaps, was hardly an exercise in subjugating Muslims but motivated by self-preservation or protection of interests.
It is a known fact that a lot of polemic slung around the Islamic promotes this kind of West=Crusaders-view (admittedly, G.W's script writers didn't help). However, it doesn't even start to stand up to closer scrutiny in any reasonably well-informed discussion.
Posted by Plato's cat (# 11158) on
:
If the views I have expressed on this thread are at all representative of most Muslims sentiments, and if the views expressed by the Christians on this thread (and others from the West) are at all representative of most Western sentiments, then we have here, in microcosm, a picture of what divides the West from the rest.
Very sad really, and it bodes ill for the future of our world...
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Plato's cat:
If the views I have expressed on this thread are at all representative of most Muslims sentiments, and if the views expressed by the Christians on this thread (and others from the West) are at all representative of most Western sentiments, then we have here, in microcosm, a picture of what divides the West from the rest.
Very sad really, and it bodes ill for the future of our world...
I don't understand what you mean by this. You have made comments stating why you see the western-led conflicts as in terms primarily of Christian vs Islam. Other have replied with disagreement and explained why in clear and reasonable terms. I would like to hear a response to some of the points raised. IMO there is no evidence that foreign policy is religiously motivated but I recognise that the US has shot itself in the foot time and again and has made it very easy for Muslim political commentators to argue this and for Muslims to see it in these terms.
I think the main problem is that, whatever westerners say and however many reasonable arguments and evidence we present that shows the wars were political rather than religious in nature and foundation, Muslims will not believe us. Bush was an idiot and so was Rumsfeld. There is a good reason why Church and state is explicitly seperated in the US and the actions of the idiot Right have shown the damage the narrowing of this seperation can cause, even if only in rhetoric and playing to the crowd. It should be a salutory lesson to the US and to the rest of the West that, even if religion and politics are seperated, it is important to make sure this fact is clear, and not muddy the waters with lazy quotations, thoughtless comments and low rhetorical tactics. For Muslims it seems that they don't understand this seperation of Church and state in the West and, looking at some of the political speeches and debates over the last decade, I can understand why.
Plato's Cat, do you think there is any hope? Can we offer any argument or evidence that would convince you and Muslims in general of our understanding that Religious War is an invention, not a reality? Or has the damage been done and the consequences to East/West relations irreversible. The Middle East has long memories after all and doesn't forget or forgive grudges easily. Is this the same for Western Muslims? Is there anything that can be done? Has Obama's election and more conciliatory and secular rhetoric helped the situation? Or is the level of mistrust and bitterness unchanged?
Posted by Seb (# 14696) on
:
No not sad really. Luckily life is much more complex, not this black and white.
I don't know anything about America except that it is a more religious country than Australia. We are essentially a secular country. Only ten percent of our population attend a sunday service at church.
There is no justification therefore in saying Australia is in a religious war against Islam in Iraq and Afghanistan. That's paranoia.
![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
I for one marched against the war in iraq and my parish priest is horrified at Israel.
Please don't brush us all with the same brush. That kind of attitude WANTS to start a war.
War is about power, not religion.
Posted by the_raptor (# 10533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Seb:
In Australia, people are much more bigoted about Muslims but I suspect its because we don't have many yet...
No it is because our (largest?) and most 'visible' Muslim* community (Lebanese) is rife with problems. They come from a failed state that endured a long civil war, and so the level of community and generational dysfunction is high and this gets blamed on them being Muslim. If our largest Muslim population was Pakistani shop keepers (as it was in Britain from the 60') there would be much less bigotry.
* Most people don't realize that around half of Lebanese are Christian.
Posted by the_raptor (# 10533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Plato's cat:
1. The evangelical right in the US is a very powerful force influencing American foreign policy. Christians helped elect GW Bush, an evangelical Christian.
Was. And Bush and co hung them out to dry. There is a reason the Republicans lost votes in 2004 and nearly got wiped off the map in 2008. The neo-con agenda is not closely linked to the evangelical right at all, in fact in a lot of places it goes directly against it. The only reason the neo-cons got the support they did is because far to many Christians will single issue vote (abortion, gay marriage etc).
And you could say exactly the above about any country with a Muslim majority. Should they stop Turkey joining the EU because the most popular party is religious?
And if what you said is true why would this Christian power bloc protect Israel? The smart thing to do strategically would be to let a fight break out, watch Israel nuke half the middle east, and then move in under the guise of peacekeeping. If we wanted to take out the Muslim world we would. There are probably 2-3 Muslim countries that have anything resembling a decent military. And the threat of terrorism is easily eliminated by internment camps.
The neo-cons were paying back Saddam for making them look stupid after Gulf War I and they used anything they could to get the support for it. Not engaging on a crusade.
Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on
:
There is a tremendous variety amongst our Muslim community in Australia.
If you look at Sydney - our largest, wealthiest and most economically stratified city (house prices) - you'll find the only Middle Eastern communities whose members live predominantly on the very upper middle class North Shore are the Armenians and the Iranians.
Of these the Iranians are mainly Muslim but mostly Shi'ite (some ethnic minorities in Iran: Arabs; Baluchis and Turcoman are Sunni but there are few of them here).
Most Iranians here are middle class - often US educated - refugees from the Ayaytollah's regime. There is a small but active Sufi minority. Some are Bahai.
Indo-Fijian-Pak Muslims vary. Some are Westernised and secular. Others are devout followers of the Tablighi Jamaat (conservative 'home missionary' - to other Muslims - variety). Some were/are extreme. Some very few have been imprisoned for alleged terrorist activities. One - a Dr Hanif - was wrongly suspected of being associated with terrorism and treated abominably by ASIO (our internal security service) and became a cause celebre. Australia's Dreyfus?
The Lebanese Muslims who live in the Lakemba area in Western Sydney are a special case. Basically they were simple folks from the less educated, often rural or West Beirut areas, whose lives were disrupted by the Lebanese Civil War of circa 1971.
The Australian Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (as it then was) made a recommendation that they not be admitted to this country en masse because they did not fulfill normal immigration criteria and would not integrate into our community.
This was overuled by the Minister, Philip Ruddock under the then Prime Minister, John Howard, of inglorious fame, due to political lobbying by Lebanese well up with the NSW Liberal Party. A disastrous decision IMHO. DIMA were right!
The religious leader of these people, Sheikh Tajieddin Al-Hillaly, to put it mildly a most controversial figure, justly IMHO accused of anti-Semitism and at least duplicity in regard to his statements about Australian women, was recommended for deportation, but, once again, was 'saved' by our Worst Prime Minister.
Alone amongst immigrant communities of any size, Lakemba's Lebanese Muslims have not intermarried with the general populace. Probably due to tightness of the community and economic deprivation.
The infamous Cronulla Riots highlighted the problems of Lebanese youth in Sydney. It also highlighted a stream of racism in our society which I would say is not general.
After these riots there was a real attempt by both sides to come together.
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on
:
There are where I live, really nice, friendly, muslim neighbours to me; we get on well with each other, respect each other, say we'll pray for each other when we have problems and take care of each other when necessary. Gifts and cards are given to us all at Christmas, Eid etc.
We can also joke with each other about varying beliefs, for example, the Lebanese muslim neighbours always enjoy music, and one other family don't let their children have music - different way of believing.
So we do see each other in a non-prejudiced way, which is really nice. And one elderly muslim man helped me with my spiky making of Christ's physical crucifixion head torture, because he could see it was spiking me a bit as I cut it off the plant and circled it.
Posted by Seb (# 14696) on
:
Amen daisymay ![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
Most of my best friends still remaining in Indonesia are muslim.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Plato's cat:
Muslim Debate Initiative
That website gets the nearest tube station for tonight's event wrong. If its at Birkbeck then its not Edgeware Road but Russell Square and Goodge Street (about equal distances). And if its room B34 then its two floors down and across the corridor from the room I am sitting in now.
Posted by Campbellite (# 1202) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tazman:
Lady in Red, I will not be joining you in Hell. I'm sorry that you took such offence, but I think that says more about you, than what I actually said.
"I'm sorry that YOU took offense"? What kind of apology is that?
What you said WAS highly offensive and inflammatory. Lady in Red was right to call you to Hell for it. Failing to respond in Hell only makes your offense worse.
Hie thee to Hell and offer a real apology.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
I fear that I will never forget the two Somali attendants at a parking lot which I used to cross through on my way to work. All throughout the winter, we exchanged cheerful fellow-suffers- of-winter nods at each other, and soon came to the intimacy (well, that passes for intimacy in Ottawa) of observations about the weather.
Clearly having heard that Easter was coming on the weekend, one of them poked his head out of his little (heated) watch hut to wish me a Very Happy Good Friday. He saw that I was a bit startled, and told me that he knew it was an important day for Christians. Indeed it was, I answered, but told him that the exchange of chocolate had to wait for Sunday.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Plato's cat:
As you know, Muslims do not make a distinction between religion and politics,
There's the rub. This is the reason why I don't trust Islam as far as I can see backwards and consider it codified bigotry. If you mix clean water with dirty water, you get dirty water. If you mix religion with politics, you get politics. Matters of faith become matters of fear and honesty becomes a crime.
"How do Muslims see Christians?" In way too many places in the world, especially if the Christian was once a Muslim, we appear to be seen as criminals. If this is not the case, then please inform us of the countries currently dominated by Islam where matters of faith are considered too important to be a concern of the government.
Posted by Kid Who Cracked (# 13963) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Campbellite:
quote:
Originally posted by Tazman:
Lady in Red, I will not be joining you in Hell. I'm sorry that you took such offence, but I think that says more about you, than what I actually said.
"I'm sorry that YOU took offense"? What kind of apology is that?
What you said WAS highly offensive and inflammatory. Lady in Red was right to call you to Hell for it. Failing to respond in Hell only makes your offense worse.
Hie thee to Hell and offer a real apology.
Am I the only one blinkered by all this hyper-sensitivity? Do we Christians even have the right to be personally offended in this manner?
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kid Who Cracked:
Am I the only one blinkered by all this hyper-sensitivity? Do we Christians even have the right to be personally offended in this manner?
No and no.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Campbellite:
quote:
Originally posted by Tazman:
Lady in Red, I will not be joining you in Hell. I'm sorry that you took such offence, but I think that says more about you, than what I actually said.
"I'm sorry that YOU took offense"? What kind of apology is that?
What you said WAS highly offensive and inflammatory. Lady in Red was right to call you to Hell for it. Failing to respond in Hell only makes your offense worse.
Hie thee to Hell and offer a real apology.
Campbellite
For info only.
That would be a bit pointless, not to say impossible, since
a) Lady in Red accepted Tazman's later apology
b) Marvin closed the Hell thread a day before your post.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on
:
I would suggest reading the works of sane, integrated, nonjihadist Muslims in the West: Ed Husain; Ziauddin Sardar and Irfan Yusuf (an Australian) spring immediately to mind.
Christianity; Islam and Judaism all sprung from the Middle East. A cauldron of war for 4000 years plus. Still the same.
Oh for the peaceful coexistence approach of Buddhism!
Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on
:
quote:
Oh for the peaceful coexistence approach of Buddhism!
Though according to the charity Open Doors Bhutan is the 11th worst country in the world for persecuting Christians.
From their website:
quote:
In 2008 the first-ever parliamentary elections were held, a new king was crowned and a new constitution guaranteeing more religious liberty was implemented. But Christianity still does not officially exist. Persecution comes mainly from the family, the community and Buddhist monks, who have significant influence. Believers meet in secret. They face discrimination in education and employment. Building churches is banned.
Posted by Plato's cat (# 11158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Plato's cat:
As you know, Muslims do not make a distinction between religion and politics,
There's the rub. This is the reason why I don't trust Islam as far as I can see backwards and consider it codified bigotry. If you mix clean water with dirty water, you get dirty water. If you mix religion with politics, you get politics. Matters of faith become matters of fear and honesty becomes a crime.
Islam deals with real life , with man as he is, which is sometimes dirty, nasty, brutish and short; it is not a faith that has become privatised, domesticated, purely 'spiritual' and unconcerned with mans political and social realities.
If you want a biblical paradigm then consider the life and ministry of Moses: Prophet, statesman, Law-giver, Judge, Leader of a nation, and Man of God.
Posted by the_raptor (# 10533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Plato's cat:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Plato's cat:
As you know, Muslims do not make a distinction between religion and politics,
There's the rub. This is the reason why I don't trust Islam as far as I can see backwards and consider it codified bigotry. If you mix clean water with dirty water, you get dirty water. If you mix religion with politics, you get politics. Matters of faith become matters of fear and honesty becomes a crime.
Islam deals with real life , with man as he is, which is sometimes dirty, nasty, brutish and short; it is not a faith that has become privatised, domesticated, purely 'spiritual' and unconcerned with mans political and social realities.
And Christianity doesn't? Wait, weren't you just accusing Christians of being bad for influencing politics to bring about religiously motivated goals? The evangelical right you were attacking earlier is exactly the type of Christianity that uses its faith everyday in the real world. I also know Salvationists and you could hardly accuse them of not living their faith in the face of the uglier realities of the world.
Make up your mind.
quote:
Originally posted by Plato's cat:
If you want a biblical paradigm then consider the life and ministry of Moses: Prophet, statesman, Law-giver, Judge, Leader of a nation, and Man of God.
Which is why most of us in the West would prefer to live in secular democracies. As long experience has shown us that self-proclaimed "Men of God" tend to be "dirty, nasty, brutish". King David was a man of God, but I prefer my political leaders to be accountable to the people for when they get people killed just so they can shag their wives.
I like the Queen but I have too much Irish Catholic blood in me to trust in the 'divine right of kings'.
Posted by Plato's cat (# 11158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by the_raptor:
quote:
Originally posted by Plato's cat:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Plato's cat:
As you know, Muslims do not make a distinction between religion and politics,
There's the rub. This is the reason why I don't trust Islam as far as I can see backwards and consider it codified bigotry. If you mix clean water with dirty water, you get dirty water. If you mix religion with politics, you get politics. Matters of faith become matters of fear and honesty becomes a crime.
Islam deals with real life , with man as he is, which is sometimes dirty, nasty, brutish and short; it is not a faith that has become privatised, domesticated, purely 'spiritual' and unconcerned with mans political and social realities.
And Christianity doesn't? Wait, weren't you just accusing Christians of being bad for influencing politics to bring about religiously motivated goals? The evangelical right you were attacking earlier is exactly the type of Christianity that uses its faith everyday in the real world. I also know Salvationists and you could hardly accuse them of not living their faith in the face of the uglier realities of the world.
Make up your mind.
quote:
Originally posted by Plato's cat:
If you want a biblical paradigm then consider the life and ministry of Moses: Prophet, statesman, Law-giver, Judge, Leader of a nation, and Man of God.
Which is why most of us in the West would prefer to live in secular democracies. As long experience has shown us that self-proclaimed "Men of God" tend to be "dirty, nasty, brutish". King David was a man of God, but I prefer my political leaders to be accountable to the people for when they get people killed just so they can shag their wives.
I like the Queen but I have too much Irish Catholic blood in me to trust in the 'divine right of kings'.
I was only responding to the post that claimed that religion and politics should not mix. Of course many Christians would not agree with this position. But Islam is a way of life, it does not comparmentalise man into differnt religious, political, spiritual boxes as we see in the West. It is holistic. If God is exists then he is the Lord of all things.
Posted by the_raptor (# 10533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Plato's cat:
I was only responding to the post that claimed that religion and politics should not mix. Of course many Christians would not agree with this position. But Islam is a way of life, it does not comparmentalise man into differnt religious, political, spiritual boxes as we see in the West. It is holistic. If God is exists then he is the Lord of all things.
"Christianity is a way of life" is exactly how my church and the church of many other Shipmates sees things. However those claiming to rule in God's name are nearly always frauds and tyrants.
Every "Christian" party in Australia is obsessed with trying to make people holy (by banning naughty things) instead of looking after the poor and dispossessed.
No thanks, I will vote for the non-religious parties that actually fulfill my religions priorities.
Posted by Campbellite (# 1202) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by Campbellite:
quote:
Originally posted by Tazman:
Lady in Red, I will not be joining you in Hell. I'm sorry that you took such offence, but I think that says more about you, than what I actually said.
"I'm sorry that YOU took offense"? What kind of apology is that?
What you said WAS highly offensive and inflammatory. Lady in Red was right to call you to Hell for it. Failing to respond in Hell only makes your offense worse.
Hie thee to Hell and offer a real apology.
Campbellite
For info only.
That would be a bit pointless, not to say impossible, since
a) Lady in Red accepted Tazman's later apology
b) Marvin closed the Hell thread a day before your post.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
I apologize for the ill timing. It was only after the fact that I saw it.
Posted by Molopata The Rebel (# 9933) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Plato's cat:
I was only responding to the post that claimed that religion and politics should not mix. Of course many Christians would not agree with this position. But Islam is a way of life, it does not compartmentalise man into different religious, political, spiritual boxes as we see in the West. It is holistic. If God is exists then he is the Lord of all things.
Then which political system or country in the Muslim world would you fathom as the best manifestation of this?
Posted by Matins (# 11644) on
:
Indeed
If Muslims see making their religious convictions the norm for national life via the political process, the secular democracies of Europe have to ask themselves if it makes sense to keep allowing Muslims to immigrate to their countries and eventually take part in the political process. My guess is they are hoping that Muslim immigrants come to embrace the secular democracy of their new home. I'm sure some do and some don't. In any event, those reading the comments of Plato's Cat and believing them to be the norm for Muslims might start to find the message of right wing groups wanting to limit immigration more and more appealing. Unless, as Molopata the Rebel suggests, there is some nation where Islam is the state religion where a majority of Western Europeans would prefer to live than their own nation. I can't think of one off the top of my head.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matins:
Indeed
If Muslims see making their religious convictions the norm for national life via the political process, the secular democracies of Europe have to ask themselves if it makes sense to keep allowing Muslims to immigrate to their countries and eventually take part in the political process. My guess is they are hoping that Muslim immigrants come to embrace the secular democracy of their new home. I'm sure some do and some don't. In any event, those reading the comments of Plato's Cat and believing them to be the norm for Muslims might start to find the message of right wing groups wanting to limit immigration more and more appealing. Unless, as Molopata the Rebel suggests, there is some nation where Islam is the state religion where a majority of Western Europeans would prefer to live than their own nation. I can't think of one off the top of my head.
Well, I was said to be compartmentalizing things. My faith certainly has an impact on my vote. However, the faith is to be the norm for the people the world over who actually have the faith. In Acts 2, for example, Peter told the folks to repent and be baptized. Does this mean I should demand the cops start locking up everyone who don't?
In Matthew 22:37-38 after being asked what was the greatest commandment Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'
Though the very nature of government is force, you cannot coerce heart, soul and mind out of anyone. Those can only be freely given.
The alternative is like what I said - Matters of faith become matters of fear and honesty becomes a crime.
Posted by Plato's cat (# 11158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matins:
Indeed
If Muslims see making their religious convictions the norm for national life via the political process, the secular democracies of Europe have to ask themselves if it makes sense to keep allowing Muslims to immigrate to their countries and eventually take part in the political process. My guess is they are hoping that Muslim immigrants come to embrace the secular democracy of their new home. I'm sure some do and some don't. In any event, those reading the comments of Plato's Cat and believing them to be the norm for Muslims might start to find the message of right wing groups wanting to limit immigration more and more appealing. Unless, as Molopata the Rebel suggests, there is some nation where Islam is the state religion where a majority of Western Europeans would prefer to live than their own nation. I can't think of one off the top of my head.
Hi there
there is no country in existence today that I would describe as Islamic. Most muslim majority countries are ruled by secular dictatorships (eg Syria).
I gave a talk a few days ago on whether Islam is a threat to British values, you can read it here:
Islam
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matins:
Indeed
If Muslims see making their religious convictions the norm for national life via the political process, the secular democracies of Europe have to ask themselves if it makes sense to keep allowing Muslims to immigrate to their countries and eventually take part in the political process. My guess is they are hoping that Muslim immigrants come to embrace the secular democracy of their new home. I'm sure some do and some don't. In any event, those reading the comments of Plato's Cat and believing them to be the norm for Muslims might start to find the message of right wing groups wanting to limit immigration more and more appealing. Unless, as Molopata the Rebel suggests, there is some nation where Islam is the state religion where a majority of Western Europeans would prefer to live than their own nation. I can't think of one off the top of my head.
It might be useful to note that many Muslim minorities rather like living in western secular states. My Ismaili and Ahmadi friends tell me that they are quite pleased that they can operate openly in Canada, and can put up signs at their mosques, without having them pulled down or worse. The Ismailis, in particular, value girls' education, and need not fear that their daughters will be prevented from going to school.
A former colleague, an Iraqi Sunni, said that western life makes for a purer Islam- on enquiry, he told me that there are few Muslims out of habit here. Moreover, religious Muslims were aware that they were being looked at critically by many and were being held to a higher standard of ethical behaviour, as Islam was being judged by their comportment. He did, however, admit that not all of his co-religionists had cottoned on to this.
Posted by §Andrew (# 9313) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by the_raptor:
"Christianity is a way of life" is exactly how my church and the church of many other Shipmates sees things. However those claiming to rule in God's name are nearly always frauds and tyrants.
Every "Christian" party in Australia is obsessed with trying to make people holy (by banning naughty things) instead of looking after the poor and dispossessed.
No thanks, I will vote for the non-religious parties that actually fulfill my religions priorities.
Christ is still considered to be the truth, the way, and the life by Christians, but they moved on. Which is why one sees most reasonable Christians oppose the implementation of many "Christian" ways as laws of the state.
Of course, things were not always this way.
During the middle ages, we had theocratic regimes in the Christian world. But unlike Islam, the Christian West moved beyond that.
Of course, this comes at a cost. Essentially it means that although they confess these things to be true (about how God wants men to live), they don't really believe them, hence they can be apathetic (or even supportive) towards the secular division between the law of men and the law of God.
Islam seems more consistent, as far as that point is concerned. But this comes with another problem; the "law of God" can make the lives of people very difficult.
[ 31. May 2009, 16:38: Message edited by: §Andrew ]
Posted by Molopata The Rebel (# 9933) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Plato's cat:
there is no country in existence today that I would describe as Islamic. Most Muslim majority countries are ruled by secular dictatorships (eg Syria).
Then why is that?
What of those Muslim-majority countries which are not secular?
Would it be possible to sketch an ideal Islamic state? What would it look like?
And to reiterate my last question, which country on earth comes closest to the ideal?
I think Andrew has made an important point. God's law is ultimately purveyed by men, therefore, it is not, IMO, easy to separate the two.
Posted by the_raptor (# 10533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by §Andrew:
Of course, this comes at a cost. Essentially it means that although they confess these things to be true (about how God wants men to live), they don't really believe them, hence they can be apathetic (or even supportive) towards the secular division between the law of men and the law of God.
Oh fuck off with your newly enlightened bullshit Andreas. Especially when you still don't have a clue about any brand of Christianity outside Orthodoxy. In my denomination we believe that preventing people from breaking the law of God does not make them any more Christian or in any way enhance their chance of ending up in heaven. The rich young man had kept the commandments since he was a child, but it wasn't enough.
So I vote for politicians that will take care of the orphaned and the oppressed, and not those that try and regulate personal sin.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by the_raptor:
Oh fuck off with your newly enlightened bullshit Andreas. Especially when you still don't have a clue about any brand of Christianity outside Orthodoxy.
And even then....
Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on
:
A politician trying to regulate personal sin would be like an old lady trying to fix a garage-door spring with a bobby pin.
Posted by the_raptor (# 10533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by the_raptor:
Oh fuck off with your newly enlightened bullshit Andreas. Especially when you still don't have a clue about any brand of Christianity outside Orthodoxy.
And even then....
Oh I know. But he has some inkling of a clue about some things in Orthodoxy (because that is where he came from). His punches at "Western Christianity" are mostly hitting the empty air of a holo-strawman built from TV and the liberal end of the Ship.
It is like a blind man trying to describe the Mona Lisa. Especially as he has the naivety to discount that any other current Christian on the Ship has had a crisis of faith and been where he is. Been there, done that, bought the shirt, try again.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leetle Masha:
A politician trying to regulate personal sin would be like an old lady trying to fix a garage-door spring with a bobby pin.
Are you speaking from experience?
Far too many politicians try to regulate personal sin.
Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on
:
Yes. On both counts. Fortunately, for the garage door, a good neighbour is now in charge of the problem--three 3-inch bolts worked their way out of the door-jamb, releasing the huge, heavy spring, so that I nearly dislocated both shoulders trying to raise the door this morning--walked into church looking like a cross between a crab and a wounded turkey.
The general shape of the result is what happens when an immovable object meets an irresistible force, if you get my meaning. If that garage door had crashed down on me, I wouldn't be here writing this; they'd be planning the panikhida.
Love in Christ,
Mary. Sin-tax paid, receipts obtained and filed.
Posted by §Andrew (# 9313) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by the_raptor:
So I vote for politicians that will take care of the orphaned and the oppressed, and not those that try and regulate personal sin.
You try to make a contrast between "personal sin" and helping the needy.
That won't do.
According to traditional morality, abortion is murder. Simple as that. If someone brutally murders an old person, your laws will demand that he goes to prison. And society will think this is a good thing.
Yet (according to traditional morality) innocent babies are brutally murdered all the time in Western societies, yet many Christian politicians instead of criminalizing abortion like they do with other forms of murder, they even facilitate it.
True, a few politicians do their best to oppose it. But we have Christian politicians who pass and accept and tolerate laws that make it legal. And we have people who don't mind living in such a horrible place, and voting for those horrible people, because they don't actually believe what they nominally assent to, that abortion is contrary to the will of God.
Only a few nutjobs actually believe that we are in front of a situation much much worse than the Holocaust, and the moment they say that, they become marginalized and called fundamentalists.
And they are fundamentalists. But simply because traditional Christianity, and traditional monotheism in general is fundamentalist.
Essentially, you are not just ignoring everything that doesn't fit with your imaginative distinction between helping the needy and personal sin. You are also rejecting the Torah itself, and the way ancient Israel and ancient Christian countries operated and worked, thinking you have got it right, when you are simply being inconsistent.
[ 31. May 2009, 21:36: Message edited by: §Andrew ]
Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yerevan:
quote:
Oh for the peaceful coexistence approach of Buddhism!
Though according to the charity Open Doors Bhutan is the 11th worst country in the world for persecuting Christians...
[/QUOTE]
Oh you little controversialist you.
Do you know much about India & the Himalayan regions abutting or are you an avid quoter of progressive organisations. ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
May I refer you to the website of St Joseph's College, North Point, Darjeeling, in pre 1947 India possibly the best Catholic school founded to educate the scions of the Raj. Laurence Durrell was once a pupil.
http://www.sursumcorda.org/visdetindex.htm
With the sahibs, including my own kin, having departed with the last lowering of the Union Jack, places like North Point & the even posher & more pukka St Pauls on the opposing mountain (no Indians admitted till 1940) became, thankfully, Indianised.
Both schools catered heavily for the sons of Army officers & higher civilians, plus boxwallahs (British businessmen) from Calcutta and tea planters (Darjeeling tea).
Students at both schools are mostly from Calcutta & Bengal but there are many from neighbouring countries like Bhutan.
I think the current Rector of North Point is still Father Kingley Tcherring SJ: a member of one of the most aristocratic families in Bhutan & a convert to Catholicism.
Interestingly,the Jesuits, long established in the community refused to baptise Father Kingley, who had to go to the Franciscans.
You might like to read or even communicate with him about the situation for Christians in his country.
The Bhutanese have been trying to retain their unique Himalayan culture against waves of Bangladeshi illegal immigrants trying to flee their particular failed state & are well aware of the dangers of the more fulminatingly conversion-or-nothing evangelists from North America & the West trying to flog their particular brand of spiritual firewater to them & thereby possibly destroy their whole culture the way we destroyed that of our Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander fellow citizens. 'First the missionaries & then... '
Sounds good doesn't it, Yerevan, 'persecuting Christians'?
Do you know much about the original spread of Buddhism 2500 years ago & its genuine coexistence with so many other religions in India till the great destruction of the great Buddhist university at Nalanda by the invading Muslims? Who invaded Burma & deposed Thibaw?
I think you're pretty ignorant there.
Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on
:
quote:
The Bhutanese have been trying to retain their unique Himalayan culture against waves of Bangladeshi illegal immigrants trying to flee their particular failed state & are well aware of the dangers of the more fulminatingly conversion-or-nothing evangelists from North America & the West trying to flog their particular brand of spiritual firewater to them & thereby possibly destroy their whole culture the way we destroyed that of our Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander fellow citizens. 'First the missionaries & then... '
So in other words its ok for the Bhutanese government to kick around their own miniscule Christian minority once they claim its to 'protect their culture' from the trillions of nasty evangelical missionaries no doubt massing on the Bhutanese border even as we speak, ready to take control and pave the way for an American invasion or whatever. Are you for real?
The rest of that post was too patronising to bother with.
PS I'm not sure where the "we" in the bit about wiping out Aborgines comes from. I think thats your problem...
[ 01. June 2009, 13:44: Message edited by: Yerevan ]
Posted by the_raptor (# 10533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by §Andrew:
Yet (according to traditional morality) innocent babies are brutally murdered all the time in Western societies, yet many Christian politicians instead of criminalizing abortion like they do with other forms of murder, they even facilitate it.
Except not all Christians think abortion is murder so your idea of inconsistency goes right out the fucking window. Holy Shit Andreas not every Christian agrees with "traditional morality". Considering you aren't a Christian anymore you don't even get to tell them that they are doin' it rong!
quote:
Originally posted by §Andrew:
But we have Christian politicians who pass and accept and tolerate laws that make it legal. And we have people who don't mind living in such a horrible place, and voting for those horrible people, because they don't actually believe what they nominally assent to, that abortion is contrary to the will of God.
Divorce is contrary to the will of God. Do you actually think the situation would be improved by Christians voting for Christian politicians to outlaw it?
quote:
Originally posted by §Andrew:
Essentially, you are not just ignoring everything that doesn't fit with your imaginative distinction between helping the needy and personal sin.
Yeah I remember the bit where Jesus said "and petition your rulers to make the civil law synchronized with religious law, for truly in persecuting the adulterous there I am".
quote:
Originally posted by §Andrew:
You are also rejecting the Torah itself, and the way ancient Israel and ancient Christian countries operated and worked, thinking you have got it right, when you are simply being inconsistent.
Wow ignoring the way ancient Israel operated! I wonder if it had anything to do with God through the prophets and the Son of God Himself saying ancient Israel had it all bloody wrong? And ancient Christian countries? What you mean the ones where the religion had been largely taken over by the secular authorities?
Yeah I can't see any reason to ignore how they operated. Oh wait we split from the Roman Catholic Church over these issues. How surprising then that today we wouldn't agree with those ancestors.
Not.
Maybe you should actually pick up a book on protestantism written by someone with actual academic credibility, because it is quite obvious you have no idea what you are talking about.
Posted by §Andrew (# 9313) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by the_raptor:
Except not all Christians think abortion is murder so your idea of inconsistency goes right out the fucking window.
Not all Christians think that NOW, BUT the historical position has been different. Therefore, what I said stands.
[ 01. June 2009, 17:15: Message edited by: §Andrew ]
Posted by Campbellite (# 1202) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by the_raptor:
So I vote for politicians that will take care of the orphaned and the oppressed, and not those that try and regulate personal sin.
That works for me.
Posted by the_raptor (# 10533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by §Andrew:
quote:
Originally posted by the_raptor:
Except not all Christians think abortion is murder so your idea of inconsistency goes right out the fucking window.
Not all Christians think that NOW, BUT the historical position has been different. Therefore, what I said stands.
And those historical Christians acted and voted differently then those today, which is why a place that still has strong "traditional morality" like Ireland still bans abortion. No inconsistency at all.
Posted by Russ (# 120) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by §Andrew:
traditional Christianity, and traditional monotheism in general is fundamentalist
Maybe traditionalism is fundamentalist, so the only non-fundamentalist Christians are those who wear their tradition lightly...
Would it be impolite to suggest that perhaps there are fewer of those among the Orthodox than among other Christian groups, so that it would be unsurprising if an Orthodox upbringing led one to confuse Christianity and traditionalism ?
Best wishes,
Russ
Posted by §Andrew (# 9313) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Maybe traditionalism is fundamentalist, so the only non-fundamentalist Christians are those who wear their tradition lightly...
Would it be impolite to suggest that perhaps there are fewer of those among the Orthodox than among other Christian groups, so that it would be unsurprising if an Orthodox upbringing led one to confuse Christianity and traditionalism ?
Fine, you can draw that distinction, PROVIDED one does away with the ecumenical councils. But most mainline Christians today, no matter how light on tradition they are, they have a nominal faith in the ecumenical councils.
Almost no one actually goes to say that the ecumenical councils are fundamentalist and they must be rejected.
Essentially we have people use their imagination to make a picture of Christianity they like. We are Christians, we accept the ecumenical councils, but we are light on tradition, i.e. we don't actually accept the ecumenical councils but our version of them which is not historically or theologically accurate!
It's the theology of the ecumenical council's that's fundamentalist. Not later church tradition.
And the councils are fundamentalist not because after that bad Constantine the Church was corrupted, but because the holy texts themselves are fundamentalist.
Are we going to revise the Scriptures as well?
Well, there are already plenty of people who say they are Christians and yet don't agree with many points of the New Testament.
I'm sorry, but in this case, words lose their meaning. We can't redefine what being a Christian means and claim continuity with the apostles and the ecumenical fathers at the same time!
Posted by Russ (# 120) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by §Andrew:
most mainline Christians today, no matter how light on tradition they are, they have a nominal faith in the ecumenical councils.
Almost no one actually goes to say that the ecumenical councils are fundamentalist and they must be rejected.
Essentially we have people use their imagination to make a picture of Christianity they like. We are Christians, we accept the ecumenical councils, but we are light on tradition, i.e. we don't actually accept the ecumenical councils but our version of them which is not historically or theologically accurate!
It's the theology of the ecumenical council's that's fundamentalist. Not later church tradition.
And the councils are fundamentalist not because after that bad Constantine the Church was corrupted, but because the holy texts themselves are fundamentalist.
Are we going to revise the Scriptures as well?
Well, there are already plenty of people who say they are Christians and yet don't agree with many points of the New Testament.
I'm sorry, but in this case, words lose their meaning. We can't redefine what being a Christian means and claim continuity with the apostles and the ecumenical fathers at the same time!
§Andrew,
Not quite sure I see where you're coming from, but I suspect there's an excluded middle here somewhere.
In between feeling bound to be totally obedient to the letter of the ecumenical councils, and rejecting them wholesale.
In between following the letter of the NT absolutely and living a self-invented Christianity with no connection to the historic teachings of Jesus.
"Wearing tradition lightly" means not cutting oneself loose from historical Christianity, nor subjecting oneself to it unthinkingly, but sort of living in tension with it.
Not sure if this is a good example or not, but you'll know the verse of the Gospels where the author has the Jews say "His blood be upon us and upon our descendants" or words to that effect.
Now it seems to me pretty unlikely that that line is an eyewitness observation - it reads as an editorial comment making a highly political point in the context of the early Church.
Now one could take the view that it's a line of the Gospel, so it must be true, and anyone who calls themselves Christian is bound to accept it and to think of the Jewish people and act towards the Jewish people accordingly.
Or one could take the view that this proves that anti-Semitism is right at the heart of Christianity and therefore want nothing more to do with Christians and their bigoted ideas.
But it's really not necessary to be so all-or-nothing about it. Loosen up a bit. We can be grounded in Christian tradition without being afraid to step outside it or re-interpret parts of it in the light of other parts.
Revise the Scriptures ? No, we shouldn't. However chauvinist or antisemitic they may appear.
In science, there is data and there is theory. A good theory has several characteristics - internal coherence is one, fitting the data is another, simplicity/comprehensibility is another.
Editing the data of Christianity to fit our current theory is bad practice. A theory that suggests that some of the data may have become corrupted may be the best-available theory, but only if it fits the rest of the data taken as a whole.
We're called to work out, in fear and trembling, the best theory we can, in the knowledge that anything we do is likely to be flawed in some way. And then to act on and live out that theory, and trust God for the rest.
CS Lewis described medieval culture as (loosely paraphrased) a book-oriented culture that had lost most of its books to the darkness and therefore clung to the ones it had as indescribably precious. We live in the internet age; we don't have to be like that any more.
Does this make any sense ?
Best wishes,
Russ
Posted by §Andrew (# 9313) on
:
Dear Russ
Sure, there might be influences. After all, no religion is created out of nothing; they all borrow things from their environment and the religions that came before them.
However, this does not make it alright for people to say "We accept the ecumenical councils" when they only mean that they take some influences from them and they go on to say things at odds with what the actual ecumenical councils said.
I think it has partly to do with poor education over what the ecumenical councils actually taught. I see many people in these boards saying they follow Nicea or Chalcedon, and if you discuss with them about it, you will find out that they mean they accept the Latin Creed which is a modification over the Creed of Constantinople and not Nicea, and the definition of Chalcedon, but, and here's the crucial part, without accepting the teachings that clarify what the creed or the definition means, nor accepting the other teachings or canons of the ecumenical councils.
In my view it's only because of the reputation of the ecumenical councils, and the fact that they were central to the Christian faith in the past, that people today feel the need to say they follow them, even though they know hardly anything about them and their teachings.
That's the conclusion I reached after spending much time on these boards.
But that's not traditional Christianity. What traditional Christianity teaches is there for all to see. It's not a bit mystery or something that's controversial. The texts are there.
I don't have a problem with people holding different views than traditional Christianity's. But I do have a problem when people assume that their views are in accordance with traditional Christianity when they aren't and when in fact they reject quite explicitly all those views traditional Christianity held.
And they do that for good reason, because they wouldn't feel comfortable with rejecting explicitly traditional Christianity and saying that they are having a different view, because traditional Christianity has accumulated much power in people's minds and they think that it is true (even though they would accept that there were some minor mistakes).
To put it differently, because most people equate traditional Christianity with orthodox Christianity, and they are not aware of what it actually teaches, they feel free to assume they are in continuity with it, and that therefore they are (in their mind) real Christians, when they are expressing views that have been rejected explicitly by traditional Christianity.
Posted by Plato's cat (# 11158) on
:
As this thread is supposed to be about 'How do Muslims see Christians?' I'll tell you how many of us view certain recent events in the UK.
I believe that Islamic values and traditional British values walk hand in hand, but before I discuss this I want to say a few words of a general nature.
The Western image of the typical Muslim is often an image of lethal anger. The television viewer watches, from the safety of his armchair, mobs on the rampage; “hallucinated automata”, to quote Wyndham Lewis’s phrase. He sees faces contort with fury and hears voices made hoarse by the shouting of slogans. If these were indeed religious manifestations, one would be justified in abandoning all hope for the future of Islamic spirituality. But they are nothing of the sort. “Anger”, said the Prophet, “burns up good deeds just as fire burns up dry wood”.
Anger can be a powerful manifestation of the disordered ego, and the very meaning of the word Islam implies the subordination of the ego to the spirit, its chastening and its purification. ‘Holy anger’, when the circumstances demand it, is detached, calm and just.
People who complain that Muslims refuse to fit in with what are called “civilised values” are unaware of just what is being demanded of Muslims. These values are part of the air we breath whether our politics are of the left or right, conservative or liberal. They are the Zeitgeist, the spirit of the age.
I think they can be summarised in four ways:
Firstly, man is now the measure of all things and nothing is to be judged in relation to an absolute or to a transcendent reality.
Secondly, man is both judge and criterion of judgement. There is no higher court of appeal or source of pardon.
Thirdly, whatever happens occurs within earthly time, for human existence stretches only from birth to death. Mans earthly life is therefore unconditionally important; to live is the supreme value, at death the game is over and lost.
Finally, there is the conviction that man is basically good; the evil which surrounds him is never his fault. It can only be blamed on institutions, on society, the economic system or defective education. Even MPs say their fraudulent expenses claims are entirely within the rules. Its not their fault!
These beliefs, so readily taken for granted, cannot be reconciled with Islam or traditional Christianity. What we do in this life echoes in eternity and we will be held to account for all our actions and thoughts by a God who is both completely just and the most merciful of all those who show mercy. Mankind is called to submit to Gods will, not to do our own will. As Jesus is reported to have said to his Lord, ‘May thy will be done, not mine’. This spiritual disposition is vanishing fast from Britain’s Christian churches, which have made some astonishing compromises with the spirit of the age. But Muslims see religion as a citadel resistant to decadence and changing tides of opinion, not as one strand in the pattern of modern life – the western way of life – but as an alternative to it. Those who have gone astray are invited to return and that is that. For Muslims there is one fixed mark, set down in the midst of times flow and that is the Faith as it came from God through the Prophet.
Recently the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland voted by 326 to 267 to uphold the decision to appoint a gay minister to a church in Aberdeen. The man in question, The Rev Scott Rennie, lives with his male partner. Muslims, and traditional Scottish Christians, find this decision astonishing for two reasons:
The very idea that men and women can actually vote , and by a majority verdict, alter God’s clearly expressed will, seems like presumption and blasphemy. The Christian churches, it seems, are trying desperately to keep up with the times and are in dereliction of their duty to be faithful to the revelation they received.
Secondly, God has expressly given us his commands in the Torah, the Gospel and the Quran. They cannot be changed. We, as Muslims, stand should to shoulder with those traditionalist clergy who resist these compromises with modernism. One of these ministers, the Reverend David Randall said, according to the BBC website, that he believed “a minister is somebody who ought to live by the Bible and we believe that the Bible’s teaching is quite clear in this matter – that marriage is the right and only context for sexual relationships.” And Muslims of course agree.
So not Islam is not a threat to traditional British values, which historically are based on Christian values, but their ally. Islam complements and reinforces them. I could duplicate many times over the same point: whether it be the sanctity of life, opposition to abortion on demand, the rejection of euthanasia and assisted suicide, or the respect and courtesy due to women, Muslims find a natural affinity with many traditional Christians in our churches, and hence with the best of British values and culture which were formed by the Bible and the teachings of Jesus.
But of course Islam is a challenge to the forces of atheist materialism that reduce the individual to a mere consumer of goods; it is a challenge to those hedonist philosophies that deny God and worship the man-made idols of short-term pleasure and greed.
So the enemy is not Islam, which like Christianity and Judaism shares a common origin in the faith of Abraham, the great prophet of God.
Posted by §Andrew (# 9313) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Plato's cat:
I believe that Islamic values and traditional British values walk hand in hand
Only if you assume traditional British values = conservative Christian values.
One might say, for example, that respect of other people's ways of life, like homosexuality, or atheism, and respect of other people's choices like pre-marital relationships and so on and so forth, is a traditional British value.
Essentially you agree with traditional Christianity, because both are conservative and oppose modern secularism and democracy, but is this agreement with traditional British values?
What exactly do you have in mind when you say traditional British values? Middle Ages Britain? But that would be anti-Islam. Modern Britain? But that would be pro other people's rights and contra "God's will as described in a holy book" to be implemented in the public life.
Something else?
I think that's worth discussing about.
As is the fact that Islam agrees with traditional, read: conservative, Christianity.
Posted by Plato's cat (# 11158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by §Andrew:
quote:
Originally posted by Plato's cat:
I believe that Islamic values and traditional British values walk hand in hand
Only if you assume traditional British values = conservative Christian values.
One might say, for example, that respect of other people's ways of life, like homosexuality, or atheism, and respect of other people's choices like pre-marital relationships and so on and so forth, is a traditional British value.
Essentially you agree with traditional Christianity, because both are conservative and oppose modern secularism and democracy, but is this agreement with traditional British values?
What exactly do you have in mind when you say traditional British values? Middle Ages Britain? But that would be anti-Islam. Modern Britain? But that would be pro other people's rights and contra "God's will as described in a holy book" to be implemented in the public life.
Something else?
I think that's worth discussing about.
As is the fact that Islam agrees with traditional, read: conservative, Christianity.
you make some excellent points, but before I reply, I'd like to read some other responses by shipmates...
Posted by Russ (# 120) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Plato's cat:
Muslims see religion as a citadel resistant to decadence and changing tides of opinion, not as one strand in the pattern of modern life – the western way of life – but as an alternative to it.
I think the "traditional British values" have something to do with letting the Muslims lead traditionally ordered Muslim lives, and letting the Jews lead strict Orthodox Jewish lives, and letting the hippies lead chemically-enhanced drop-out free-love lives and letting gay men live together and speak in camp voices and sleep in the same bed and decorate their flat in pink and purple if they wish to, so long as they're all polite to each other in public and don't jump the queue, and say "sorry, officer" if a policeman stops them because their brake lights aren't working.
No Muslim principle is threatening to "British values" if held as a private conviction about the right way to live. Any principle, of any religion or ideology, is potentially an issue if it is held in the form of a doctrine that the British state should enforce said principle upon those who do not hold it.
This tolerant pluralism does not depend upon acceptance of the sort of Enlightenment principles that you suggest; ask a dozen taxi drivers on the streets of London whether they agree that "man is the measure of all things" and you'll get a dozen different answers.
You may detect such principles at work behind recent actions of the Church of Scotland, but that organisation doesn't speak for the whole of Britain (it probably doesn't speak for more than a large minority of its own members).
The British believe in fair play, and playing by the rules (without, it must be said, always spelling out in complete detail exactly what the rules are).
Build your citadel, but don't create a public nuisance during Gardener's Question Time, no matter what you believe the word of Allah would have to say about the matter.
Any strand of Islam that stresses personal discipline rather than communal obedience, that can show to others the same respect that they wish others to show to them, should flourish in Britain.
Best wishes,
Russ
Posted by Seb (# 14696) on
:
Well said Russ. ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Act of Toleration 1689? Bring it on. The Brits are awesome.
Posted by Seb (# 14696) on
:
I seem to have a particular gift for ending threads. Wonder what that says about me.
Posted by IconiumBound (# 754) on
:
Having come to veiw this thread late, I am saddened by the tone of most posts in response to the OP theme "How do Muslims see Chrstians.
I agree with Plato's Cat's post midway through:
quote:
If the views I have expressed on this thread are at all representative of most Muslims sentiments, and if the views expressed by the Christians on this thread (and others from the West) are at all representative of most Western sentiments, then we have here, in microcosm, a picture of what divides the West from the rest.
Very sad really, and it bodes ill for the future of our world...
It seems that we Christians would rather leap to defend what we hear as being an attack rather than hearing it as another person' opinion. When a defensive response is given war begins.
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on
:
"War begins?" This War has been ongoing for well over one thousand years. The Jews count their warfare in the millennia.
This is very simple, really: either you participate or you refuse to engage. The way you participate is by joining one of the sides: you adopt an "us and them" perspective.
If, because of accident of birth, you find yourself IDed by "the other side" as "one of them", you still have a choice whether to engage or not. The way you refuse to engage is to be ecumenical: we are all far more alike than different religiously. And we all know that "God" never taught any of our forebears to slaughter innocents: that was manmade crap added into the dogma. If you believe this, then you can accept anyone who behaves humanely as a neighbor; let him adhere to whatever religious background he will....
Posted by Plato's cat (# 11158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IconiumBound:
Having come to veiw this thread late, I am saddened by the tone of most posts in response to the OP theme "How do Muslims see Chrstians.
I agree with Plato's Cat's post midway through:
quote:
If the views I have expressed on this thread are at all representative of most Muslims sentiments, and if the views expressed by the Christians on this thread (and others from the West) are at all representative of most Western sentiments, then we have here, in microcosm, a picture of what divides the West from the rest.
Very sad really, and it bodes ill for the future of our world...
It seems that we Christians would rather leap to defend what we hear as being an attack rather than hearing it as another person' opinion. When a defensive response is given war begins.
thanks for the support IconiumBound!
Posted by Seb (# 14696) on
:
Yes, the solution is to not break anything up into an "us" and "them". There is no such thing
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0