|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Islam. A religion of peace?
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I rather like the theory that the prophet Muhammad in fact never existed, that there was no sudden conquest by Arabian tribes, and that Islam is really the result of an elaborate religious-political cover story for Persian conquests of Byzantium invented by Persian rulers who had converted to the Arabian form of the Christian heresy we know as Ebionism.
It's probably bollocks, but I have not so far read a serious academic debunking of these claims, they have been around for a while now, and they do seem to have at least some historical evidence going for them.
If it's probably bollocks, why would you expect a serious academic debunking to even exist? I've seen no scholarly refutations of this ground-breaking book, either...
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
Here is a criticism of Islam which cannot be applied to Christianity: in Islam, Muhammad is considered the perfect man and exemplar for humanity.
You think the NAME of the perfect man matters, then?
No. I think his character matters.
I see. So Jesus being a perfect man in Christianity is completely different and beyond criticism because he was a GOOD man in your eyes.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Demas
Ship's Deserter
# 24
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
Here is a criticism of Islam which cannot be applied to Christianity: in Islam, Muhammad is considered the perfect man and exemplar for humanity.
You think the NAME of the perfect man matters, then?
No. I think his character matters.
I see. So Jesus being a perfect man in Christianity is completely different and beyond criticism because he was a GOOD man in your eyes.
Well yes, Jesus was a good man. Is this controversial around here?
Let me make it simple: My criticism isn't that Islam has a revered founder who is considered the perfect man. As you point out, so does Christianity. My criticism is that the man who is considered by Islam to be the perfect man and exemplar of humanity is Muhammad.
--------------------
They did not appear very religious; that is, they were not melancholy; and I therefore suspected they had not much piety - Life of Rev John Murray
Posts: 1894 | From: Thessalonica | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
Well yes, Jesus was a good man. Is this controversial around here?
It took me precisely one bit of googling to find a demonstration that Jesus is not universally admired. Your perception might be that he was good. My perception might be that he was good. But that isn't the point. The point is that people have differing views of the moral qualities of Jesus just as they have differing views of the moral qualities of Muhammad. The fact that you think Jesus was a good man and Muhammad was bad man doesn't prevent someone else from thinking the exact reverse.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jon in the Nati
Shipmate
# 15849
|
Posted
quote:
My criticism is that the man who is considered by Islam to be the perfect man and exemplar of humanity is Muhammad.
You think Muhammad sucks, and the fact that he sucks but Muslims think he is so great reflects badly on Muslims. We get it.
You really showed those Muslims. "Our founder can beat up your founder..."
[ 07. August 2014, 03:37: Message edited by: Jon in the Nati ]
--------------------
Homer: Aww, this isn't about Jesus, is it?
Lovejoy: All things are about Jesus, Homer. Except this.
Posts: 773 | From: Region formerly known as the Biretta Belt | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Demas
Ship's Deserter
# 24
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The fact that you think Jesus was a good man and Muhammad was bad man doesn't prevent someone else from thinking the exact reverse.
Well, duh. No kidding. Your point?
quote:
Originally posted by Jon in the Nati:
quote:
My criticism is that the man who is considered by Islam to be the perfect man and exemplar of humanity is Muhammad.
You think Muhammad sucks, and the fact that he sucks but Muslims think he is so great reflects badly on Muslims. We get it.
You really showed those Muslims. "Our founder can beat up your founder..."
Our founder owned no slaves, led no armies, ordered no executions. In any contest Jesus would be the one beat up.
--------------------
They did not appear very religious; that is, they were not melancholy; and I therefore suspected they had not much piety - Life of Rev John Murray
Posts: 1894 | From: Thessalonica | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The fact that you think Jesus was a good man and Muhammad was bad man doesn't prevent someone else from thinking the exact reverse.
Well, duh. No kidding. Your point?
That your criticism is highly subjective and essentially meaningless to anyone but yourself. And certainly not a form of criticism that can be levelled at Islam but not Christianity - which is where you chimed in, claiming that you did in fact have a criticism that was unique.
[ 07. August 2014, 06:00: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Demas
Ship's Deserter
# 24
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The fact that you think Jesus was a good man and Muhammad was bad man doesn't prevent someone else from thinking the exact reverse.
Well, duh. No kidding. Your point?
That your criticism is highly subjective and essentially meaningless to anyone but yourself. And certainly not a form of criticism that can be levelled at Islam but not Christianity - which is where you chimed in, claiming that you did in fact have a criticism that was unique.
This is obscurantist relativist nonsense.
Muhammad is no more the perfect man and exemplar for humanity than Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar or Oliver Cromwell.
Islam considers Muhammad to be the perfect man and exemplar for humanity so I criticise it for that.
Christianity does not consider Muhammad to be the perfect man and exemplar for humanity so I do not criticise it for that.
--------------------
They did not appear very religious; that is, they were not melancholy; and I therefore suspected they had not much piety - Life of Rev John Murray
Posts: 1894 | From: Thessalonica | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
I'm sorry, I don't think that's true. I think here in the US there is a horrible strand of racism that is an element in treating Islam as something "other."
American racism is real (and I've been on the receiving end of it). But Muslims do not make up a sizable portion of the US population and most Americans know very few if any Muslims. If you asked 20 years ago about Muslims most people would point to the Nation of Islam - African-American converts like Muhammed Ali or Malcolm X. Many African-Americans born since the 1970s have Islamic names even if they are not Muslim - Aisha, Jamila, Kareem, etc.
Then of course there were many Bosnian refugees who came in the 1990s, who where white.
Following Islamist terrorist attacks like the first Twin Towers bombing, Al Qaeda, 9/11, etc. Islam became associated with terrorism and that's when the anti-Islam sentiment as linked with Middle Eastern and South Asian people began to grow - because of fears that they want to inflict harm on Americans.
This differs to the UK where the vast majority of Muslims that people come in contact with are immigrants, therefore anti-Islam tends to be tied up with racism and xenophobia.
In sum: Americans weren't particularly anti-Islam before Al-Qaeda/Islamist terrorism because Islam was not significant enough in American society - except as an offshoot of the black power movement.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The fact that you think Jesus was a good man and Muhammad was bad man doesn't prevent someone else from thinking the exact reverse.
Well, duh. No kidding. Your point?
That your criticism is highly subjective and essentially meaningless to anyone but yourself. And certainly not a form of criticism that can be levelled at Islam but not Christianity - which is where you chimed in, claiming that you did in fact have a criticism that was unique.
This is obscurantist relativist nonsense.
Muhammad is no more the perfect man and exemplar for humanity than Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar or Oliver Cromwell.
Islam considers Muhammad to be the perfect man and exemplar for humanity so I criticise it for that.
Christianity does not consider Muhammad to be the perfect man and exemplar for humanity so I do not criticise it for that.
It is not so much 'relativist' as 'relational' in the sense that the relevant claim is "the leader of our religion is perfect".
If you're going to insist that the particular name of the particular leader of the particular religion is a key component of the criticism, then of course your criticism is going to be unique. Every criticism will be. Claiming that politician X is corrupt will be completely separate from claiming that politician Y is corrupt because politician X is not politician Y. Claiming that Shipmate A broke the rules is going to be completely different from claiming that Shipmate B broke the rules, because they are two different people.
I simply disagree that a criticism of Islam that you're making is somehow fundamentally different from a criticism of Christianity that you're not making, but could be made, just because the name of the leader of Islam is different from the name of the leader of Christianity. Which was the point in issue. Not whether or not I might agree with any specific criticisms of Muhammad. Unless and until you make specific criticisms of the behaviour or character of Muhammad, criticisms that can't possibly be made of Jesus, then the two religions and two leaders are completely interchangeable.
And that's my problem with most criticisms of Islam that are made on the Ship. They are so generic that you can do a quick find-and-replace, removing "Islam, Muslim, Muhammad, Quran" and substituting "Christianity, Christian, Jesus, Bible" and the sentence you end up with still makes perfect sense. It's like a religious algebra. You could create a template sentence with instructions like 'insert name of disliked religion', 'insert name of holy book of disliked religion' etc etc and from it you could generate a huge percentage of the Ship's discourse on this subject.
[ 07. August 2014, 08:50: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Demas
Ship's Deserter
# 24
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It is not so much 'relativist' as 'relational' in the sense that the relevant claim is "the leader of our religion is perfect".
No, that is not the relevant claim. I specifically said I am not criticising Islam for thinking someone is perfect. There is nothing wrong with thinking someone is perfect, if they are perfect.
quote:
Unless and until you make specific criticisms of the behaviour or character of Muhammad, criticisms that can't possibly be made of Jesus, then the two religions and two leaders are completely interchangeable.
Muhammad owned slaves, led armies and ordered executions. See also my very first post, where I specifically compared the response of Jesus and Muhammad in very similar situations involving women caught in adultery.
--------------------
They did not appear very religious; that is, they were not melancholy; and I therefore suspected they had not much piety - Life of Rev John Murray
Posts: 1894 | From: Thessalonica | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Your very first post that I can find on this thread says this:
quote:
Jesus was, I believe, a better person preaching a higher morality than Muhammad.
Clearly peaceful and warlike Christianities, and peaceful and warlike Islams have been constructed by adherents, but both Christians and Muslims have historically found it hard to completely ignore the character of their founders.
I can't see anything about a woman caught in adultery there. All I can see is a bland "X was, I believe, a better person preaching a higher morality than Y".
You are finally getting onto something with owning slaves and ordering executions though.
Not that Christians have shown enormous evidence of believing that Christianity forbids slavery or the death penalty...
[ 07. August 2014, 09:26: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
In sum: Americans weren't particularly anti-Islam before Al-Qaeda/Islamist terrorism because Islam was not significant enough in American society - except as an offshoot of the black power movement.
In the eighties there was a notorious Batman storyline in which the Ayatollah Khomeini appointed the Joker as Iranian Ambassador to the United Nations.
Middle Eastern terrorists have been turning up in the American popular culture that's made it to the UK for as long as I can remember. It may have been more anti-Middle Eastern than anti-Islam as such I suppose.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
In the eighties there was a notorious Batman storyline in which the Ayatollah Khomeini appointed the Joker as Iranian Ambassador to the United Nations.
Because the Shah of Iran was a friend to the US, which by the way welcomed a large number of political refugees from Iran in the 1980s. Again - political not racial.
Batman comic books were not mainstream in the 1980s. I was a kid then, it was all TV shows like GI Joe, Transformers, and He-Man. The "odd" kids read comic books (no offense!).
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Demas
Ship's Deserter
# 24
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I can't see anything about a woman caught in adultery there. All I can see is a bland "X was, I believe, a better person preaching a higher morality than Y".
The links from the names Jesus and Muhammad in my post were to the pericope adulterae and to a Bukhari hadith.
Who do you think displayed the higher, truer morality? In which person do we see the light of God's nature? Whose example should we all take as perfect example to humanity?
--------------------
They did not appear very religious; that is, they were not melancholy; and I therefore suspected they had not much piety - Life of Rev John Murray
Posts: 1894 | From: Thessalonica | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
When you have been on the Ship a little bit longer, anglocatholic, you will learn that it is not done to either say anything negative about Islam,
I think, rather, you will find it is not the done thing to level accusations at Islam that could be made against Christianity word-for-word but aren't.
All conceivable aspects of Christianity are criticized, analysed and defended incessantly on the Ship without anyone questioning whether the debate itself is somehow improper, but the same cannot be said for debates regarding Islam, which are invariably choked off on an assumption of bad faith in even raising them.
There is no deep, ethical underlying principle here – it is simply currently fashionable to criticize Christianity and unfashionable to publicly criticize Islam (even if you don’t support it), in the same way as it used to be unfashionable to criticize communism (even if you weren’t a communist, or sympathetic to communism).
It was, and did, involve the fear of being seen to be making any sort of common cause with People Like Them (who naively dislike Islamist extremism and communist dictatorship) instead of People Like Us (who realise that the whole thing is just a bigotted beat-up by the neo-fascist media).
One way of looking at the reluctance to critically discuss Islam or the persecution of Christians, is to imagine a reversal of the present situation.
Suppose that militant groups who explicitly identified as Christian were carrying out indiscriminate terrorism across the world; kidnapping groups of Muslim women; using armed coercion in an effort to impose a repressive, murderous, misogynistic Christian theocracy on various countries, and wherever possible curtailing the freedom of Muslims, under threat of dire penalties, to practise and propagate their religion.
Under those circumstances it would be perfectly reasonable for Muslims to be upset in solidarity with their co-religionists, to openly ask questions about the extent to which these extremists represented Christianity, and to demand that moderate Christians distance themselves from, and condemn, the extremists’ activities.
It would not be reasonable to tell the Muslims that they should just put up and shut up, because extremist Muslims have also acted inappropriately, and because just asking the questions and having the discussion might hurt moderate Christians’ feelings.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
When you have been on the Ship a little bit longer, anglocatholic, you will learn that it is not done to either say anything negative about Islam,
I think, rather, you will find it is not the done thing to level accusations at Islam that could be made against Christianity word-for-word but aren't.
All conceivable aspects of Christianity are criticized, analysed and defended incessantly on the Ship without anyone questioning whether the debate itself is somehow improper, but the same cannot be said for debates regarding Islam, which are invariably choked off on an assumption of bad faith in even raising them.
There is no deep, ethical underlying principle here – it is simply currently fashionable to criticize Christianity and unfashionable to publicly criticize Islam (even if you don’t support it), in the same way as it used to be unfashionable to criticize communism (even if you weren’t a communist, or sympathetic to communism).
It was, and did, involve the fear of being seen to be making any sort of common cause with People Like Them (who naively dislike Islamist extremism and communist dictatorship) instead of People Like Us (who realise that the whole thing is just a bigotted beat-up by the neo-fascist media).
One way of looking at the reluctance to critically discuss Islam or the persecution of Christians, is to imagine a reversal of the present situation.
Suppose that militant groups who explicitly identified as Christian were carrying out indiscriminate terrorism across the world; kidnapping groups of Muslim women; using armed coercion in an effort to impose a repressive, murderous, misogynistic Christian theocracy on various countries, and wherever possible curtailing the freedom of Muslims, under threat of dire penalties, to practise and propagate their religion.
Under those circumstances it would be perfectly reasonable for Muslims to be upset in solidarity with their co-religionists, to openly ask questions about the extent to which these extremists represented Christianity, and to demand that moderate Christians distance themselves from, and condemn, the extremists’ activities.
It would not be reasonable to tell the Muslims that they should just put up and shut up, because extremist Muslims have also acted inappropriately, and because just asking the questions and having the discussion might hurt moderate Christians’ feelings.
I think you're missing the basic qualitative difference between criticising one's own house and throwing stones into a neighbouring one.
You're right: every inch of Christianity is gone over. Because we actually know something about it. The criticisms are specific, which is exactly what I've been talking about.
I've actually learnt quite a bit on the Ship about branches of Christianity somewhat different from my own (Orthodox in particular), because the discussion has had some detail to it.
If someone actually came up with some informed commentary on Islam, then I'd be quite interested, but informed commentary on Islam is horribly thin on the ground around here. I would say I know very little about Islam indeed, but frankly I can't recall the last time someone who popped up to debate Islam actually gave me the impression they knew more about it than I did.
I don't agree with all of what you've just posited would be an appropriate response to Christian terrorists (what, you mean like Timothy McVeigh?). But what you've posited is a darned sight more nuanced than most of what actually occurs on the Ship in relation to Islam.
[ 07. August 2014, 10:22: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
One of the best arguments I've heard about Islam and whether or not Islam as it is now is faithful to or properly representational of what is in the Koran was made by an Ismaili imam.
He said that Islam is still, in relative terms, a young religion and that to compare it with the other religions "of the book" was to compare a child or teenager to a fully-formed adult and a senior citizen.
What struck me particularly was when he pointed out that Islam now can be viewed as being at the same stage as Christianity 600 years ago. If you look at 15th century Christianity you find the same outbreak of fundamentalist unrest and the same extremism, with the Inquisition as well as the stirrings of reform.
He said the only thing that concerned him was that the fundamentalists in Islam may get such a stranglehold that they prevent any beginnings of debate about whether or not it is possible for Islam to be an interpreted religion, rather than one that follows blindly the Koran and Haddith.
Of course, as an Ismaili he comes from a strand of Islam that is viewed with varying degrees of intolerance by other moslems, but I think he may have a point.
(edited to remove a repetition)
[ 07. August 2014, 10:43: Message edited by: L'organist ]
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mrWaters
Shipmate
# 18171
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
What struck me particularly was when he pointed out that Islam now can be viewed as being at the same stage as Christianity 600 years ago. If you look at 15th century Christianity you find the same outbreak of fundamentalist unrest and the same extremism, with the Inquisition as well as the stirrings of reform.
He said the only thing that concerned him was that the fundamentalists in Islam may get such a stranglehold that they prevent any beginnings of debate about whether or not it is possible for Islam to be an interpreted religion, rather than one that follows blindly the Koran and Haddith.
Islam is much younger than Christianity and this may explain why it is seen as very conservative and even intolerant. I do share the concern over lack of debate inside the religion. Even though there is no overall authority controlling the message, I do not believe there are any major discussions about faith inside Islam. I hope I'm wrong.
A lot of us may consider Muhammad as a immoral man according to our standards. There are proofs for that, however here we come to the cultural relativism. Can we expect other cultures to come together towards the end of history? Obviously not. Clash of civilizations? Possibly...
Baumann writes about the liquid world and liquid modernity. Some may also consider "our world" as postmodern, some even consider it as decadent. Apparently the crude, fundamental version of Islam is a cure for this uncertain world. Maybe because everything is simple for them.
Posts: 80 | From: Aberdeen | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Then they are no different from the vast majority of Christians.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mrWaters
Shipmate
# 18171
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Then they are no different from the vast majority of Christians.
According to Wikipedia and this page majority of Christians are Roman Catholic. Even with fairly small changes in the church's recent history, the debate is very much alive and has been for decades. Lately the debate started to be openly conducted in Vatican. Additionally about 50 years ago there was a real revolution for the Roman Catholic Church in the form of Second Vatican Council.
Posts: 80 | From: Aberdeen | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mrWaters:
According to Wikipedia and this page majority of Christians are Roman Catholic.
This is an important point - Christianity has global religious institutions. Islam does not.
When some cult leader like David Koresh or Jim Jones claims they are practicing Christianity, we have something to check them against. We can ask the Vatican or Canterbury "Is this Christianity?" RCC/Orthodox/Anglican leadership can openly condemn certain activities and say they are not consistent with the faith and in so doing capture most of what the world understands as Christianity.
Islam has no analogue, so opposition to fringe Islamist claims about the religion comes from a disparate group of people, none of whom has the authority to speak definitively in the eyes of the world's Muslims.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mrWaters
Shipmate
# 18171
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
When some cult leader like David Koresh or Jim Jones claims they are practicing Christianity, we have something to check them against. We can ask the Vatican or Canterbury "Is this Christianity?" RCC/Orthodox/Anglican leadership can openly condemn certain activities and say they are not consistent with the faith and in so doing capture most of what the world understands as Christianity.
Try checking a small independent Christian Church.
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Islam has no analogue, so opposition to fringe Islamist claims about the religion comes from a disparate group of people, none of whom has the authority to speak definitively in the eyes of the world's Muslims.
Technically a caliph is the person in Islam that has the authority. The newest caliph is Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi of ISIS. Thankfully no one recognizes him so far.
Posts: 80 | From: Aberdeen | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mrWaters:
Try checking a small independent Christian Church.
Every national and global Baptist organization made a pretty public show of disavowing Westboro Baptist Church and reminding the media that it was unaffiliated to any Baptist governing body.
Not saying that stopped them, but if someone says "All Baptists are like WBC" it's pretty easy to refute.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
Well yes, Jesus was a good man. Is this controversial around here?
Let me make it simple: My criticism isn't that Islam has a revered founder who is considered the perfect man. As you point out, so does Christianity. My criticism is that the man who is considered by Islam to be the perfect man and exemplar of humanity is Muhammad.
Is it the case that Muhammad is considered within Islam to be the perfect man and exemplar of humanity? Surely he is considered to be a prophet, as is Jesus?
It is only Christians who consider Jesus to be the Son of God, and therefore perfect. None of the earlier recognised prophets were perfect, far from it!
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Higgs Bosun
Shipmate
# 16582
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Is it the case that Muhammad is considered within Islam to be the perfect man and exemplar of humanity? Surely he is considered to be a prophet, as is Jesus?
It is only Christians who consider Jesus to be the Son of God, and therefore perfect. None of the earlier recognised prophets were perfect, far from it!
From what I recall from a day a few years back on Islam from someone from St Ethelburga's, Islam regards all of its prophets to have led a sinless life. That includes Mohammad and Jesus, but also such characters as David. His business with Bathsheba was all made up, it seems.
I finished the day being impressed by the devotion of muslims to their way. For instance, the reason they pray five times a day is to keep themselves closer to God for the times inbetween. However, I was also struck by its lack, there is no grace, there is no relation to the Father, there is no Holy Spirit to be alongside and indwelling.
Posts: 313 | From: Near the Tidal Thames | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
In the eighties there was a notorious Batman storyline in which the Ayatollah Khomeini appointed the Joker as Iranian Ambassador to the United Nations.
Because the Shah of Iran was a friend to the US, which by the way welcomed a large number of political refugees from Iran in the 1980s. Again - political not racial.
Batman comic books were not mainstream in the 1980s. I was a kid then, it was all TV shows like GI Joe, Transformers, and He-Man. The "odd" kids read comic books (no offense!).
Also, just speaking as a Batman fan, Batman went kind of....weird in the 80s.
Also the religion which is probably majority-white is neo-Paganism.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arminian
Shipmate
# 16607
|
Posted
Do we turn a blind eye towards the abuses of Islam ? Of course. Why ? OIL
Posts: 157 | From: London | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arminian:
Do we turn a blind eye towards the abuses of Islam ? Of course. Why ? OIL
Who is the 'we' here? Our countries, the Ship, Christianity in general?
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
It might be helpful to read this obituary in light of the rather negative expression in the OP.
Yes, anecdotes are not the whole story, but I'm sure I could find a similar story in the positive light to match every Lee Rigby situation. After all, where did Abou ben Adhem come from?
And you don't have to go very far back in history to see the other side of Christianity: the lynchings in the Deep South of the US were all done by good, white Christians, and you can see that the interactions of Northern Irelanders or Christian (Orthodox/RC) were not always sweetness and light any more than Sunni/Shia splits continue to be.
It seems that the only way to reduce religious violence is to develop societies in which the religions do not really matter.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I was responding to your last sentence mrWaters about the historically vastly indistinguishable People of the Book. Which is unfair on Islam who has often been far more tolerant, altogther less vile, treacherous, oppressive, murderous.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Let's just say that, like the Curate's Egg, every group has its good and bad parts.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I can't see anything about a woman caught in adultery there. All I can see is a bland "X was, I believe, a better person preaching a higher morality than Y".
The links from the names Jesus and Muhammad in my post were to the pericope adulterae and to a Bukhari hadith.
Who do you think displayed the higher, truer morality? In which person do we see the light of God's nature? Whose example should we all take as perfect example to humanity?
You could argue that the latter showed a higher morality whereas Jesus seemed to be condoning adultery.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Higgs Bosun:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Is it the case that Muhammad is considered within Islam to be the perfect man and exemplar of humanity? Surely he is considered to be a prophet, as is Jesus?
It is only Christians who consider Jesus to be the Son of God, and therefore perfect. None of the earlier recognised prophets were perfect, far from it!
From what I recall from a day a few years back on Islam from someone from St Ethelburga's, Islam regards all of its prophets to have led a sinless life. That includes Mohammad and Jesus, but also such characters as David. His business with Bathsheba was all made up, it seems.
I finished the day being impressed by the devotion of muslims to their way. For instance, the reason they pray five times a day is to keep themselves closer to God for the times inbetween. However, I was also struck by its lack, there is no grace, there is no relation to the Father, there is no Holy Spirit to be alongside and indwelling.
Thank you, that's interesting.
If Muhammad was supposed to be perfect along with all of the prophets, and perfection is what people should be aiming for, do we vary in our ideas as to what perfection is?
Surely violent, aggressive behaviour which is oppressive to fellow human beings who are loved by God cannot be a feature of this perfection.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
No He didn't.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Demas
Ship's Deserter
# 24
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
You could argue that the latter showed a higher morality whereas Jesus seemed to be condoning adultery.
Well duh, no kidding. You could argue all sorts of abhorrent things, including that Jesus was acting immorally when he prevented that women being stoned to death.
I know you don't believe that to be true though.
What is it about this topic that causes rational intelligent Christians to be so eager to deny the existence of truth?
--------------------
They did not appear very religious; that is, they were not melancholy; and I therefore suspected they had not much piety - Life of Rev John Murray
Posts: 1894 | From: Thessalonica | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
A Muslim classmate of mine at university gave a talk at the Islamic student society where he argued that the Koran suggests it's ideal to have just one wife, because it says you can have four if you love them equally, and for nearly all men this is impossible.
He was taken aside quietly afterwards and told he would not be asked to speak again.
Can you explain why he wouldn't be allowed to speak again. Was his explanation considered too lax, or too conservative?
I'm not sure if lax and conservative are the right terms for this issue! Many of the Islamic students were international and in their home countries polygamy is legal. That is, they fully intended to take more than one wife in the future. So they were not happy to hear my friend's comments and several complained to the group's president.
It was hard to find the right terms!
It sounds as if the problem at that meeting was cultural before it was theological; the speaker and listeners were Muslims who came from different worlds. Official polygamy must be difficult in the West because Muslim women are influenced by Western expectations of romantic love and exclusivity, along with companionate marriage. Additionally, the demands of Western life make it practically impossible for the average middle class man to support several non-working wives and their children.
Adultery (which is a form of polygamy) is also a part of Western culture, of course. There are British men who live in a discrete wife + mistress situation (which seems to be how it works for the Muslim men in the link I posted before), have a few 'babymothers' who live off the state, or move from one woman to another, perhaps with some overlap. But these situations are usually seen as morally problematic, even if they're accepted as inevitable. The whole polygamy thing must seem less complicated culturally and financially for the sorts of Middle Easterners who can afford to study at British Universities.
Regarding the OP, I suppose Islam promotes 'peace' in the sense that everyone knows where they stand and what's expected of them in a Muslim-dominated culture. Christianity seems more ambiguous, allows more room for interpretation, and hence creates more moral and intellectual confusion. In the long term I suppose that means you simply have to create democracy and secular institutions. I can see why Islamic societies wouldn't necessarily prioritise these developments, though.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Demas
Ship's Deserter
# 24
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Higgs Bosun:
From what I recall from a day a few years back on Islam from someone from St Ethelburga's, Islam regards all of its prophets to have led a sinless life.
Muhammad (PBUH) is not only a prophet, he is The Prophet, the final prophet, the Seal of the Prophets. No further prophet will arise before the end of time and judgment. Abraham's message to the Jews and Jesus' message to the Christians was corrupted, but Muhammad has corrected our misunderstandings. God commands us in the Qu'ran to take Muhammad as our example.
Muhammad is not of course considered the Son of God by Muslims, nor is he considered a child of God (no one is). Islam doesn't put the same overtones on sinlessness as Christianity does, so a claim of sinlessness doesn't equal a claim to divinity.
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Surely violent, aggressive behaviour which is oppressive to fellow human beings who are loved by God cannot be a feature of this perfection.
Why not?
--------------------
They did not appear very religious; that is, they were not melancholy; and I therefore suspected they had not much piety - Life of Rev John Murray
Posts: 1894 | From: Thessalonica | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
A Muslim classmate of mine at university gave a talk at the Islamic student society where he argued that the Koran suggests it's ideal to have just one wife, because it says you can have four if you love them equally, and for nearly all men this is impossible.
He was taken aside quietly afterwards and told he would not be asked to speak again.
Can you explain why he wouldn't be allowed to speak again. Was his explanation considered too lax, or too conservative?
I'm not sure if lax and conservative are the right terms for this issue! Many of the Islamic students were international and in their home countries polygamy is legal. That is, they fully intended to take more than one wife in the future. So they were not happy to hear my friend's comments and several complained to the group's president.
I am curious - do any younger Muslims who are from countries where polygamy is legal get involved in the secular polygamy movement, or is it kept entirely separate? It surprises me that there's no attempt to present polygamy in a more modern light by the Muslims who believe in it.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
If it's probably bollocks, why would you expect a serious academic debunking to even exist? I've seen no scholarly refutations of this ground-breaking book, either...
Or indeed this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sacred_Mushroom_and_the_Cross
From your link:
quote:
To some biblical scholars in Britain, the new book looked like the psychedelic ravings of a hippie cultist. To others, it was merely an outlandish hoax. One described it as reading "like a Semitic philologist's erotic nightmare."
Far out, man!
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I think you're missing the basic qualitative difference between criticising one's own house and throwing stones into a neighbouring one.
You're right: every inch of Christianity is gone over. Because we actually know something about it. The criticisms are specific, which is exactly what I've been talking about.
I've actually learnt quite a bit on the Ship about branches of Christianity somewhat different from my own (Orthodox in particular), because the discussion has had some detail to it.
If someone actually came up with some informed commentary on Islam, then I'd be quite interested, but informed commentary on Islam is horribly thin on the ground around here. I would say I know very little about Islam indeed, but frankly I can't recall the last time someone who popped up to debate Islam actually gave me the impression they knew more about it than I did.
I find your stance quite curious.
You seem to be suggesting that no religions or worldviews except Christianity should be discussed critically on the Ship because we know less about all of them than we do about Christianity.
On those grounds, we would have to disqualify ourselves from suggesting anything negative about fascism/Nazism.
My impression is that a number of Shippies are reasonably knowledgeable about Islam, and if their comments are going to be inevitably mixed up with other comments of the mindless "Yar boo sucks to all ragheads" variety, well, that's the way the Ship operates.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
If it's probably bollocks, why would you expect a serious academic debunking to even exist? I've seen no scholarly refutations of this ground-breaking book, either...
Because there is a considerable amount of historical and linguistic data being used in the argument against Muhammad's existence. I say data here in the limited sense that history, numismatic and linguistics of ancient languages can produce factual claims, and I acknowledge that I do not have any serious background myself to judge this. However, when such data is being used in argument, wrongly, usually some academic can be bothered to say that either the data is false or falsely interpreted. That's not exactly what is happening here though... To quote myself in part from a PM I exchanged about this:
"FWIW though, here's a more serious academic who has come to the same conclusion: Muhammad Sven Kalisch. And another German who is pushing this idea is Professor Ohlig. These ideas are probably outside of the academic mainstream though: Spiegel article.
Again, as I have said, it's probably bunk. But I have not so far seen a direct refutation of the theories. The opponents are not saying things like "It is false to claim that there is no early documented mention of Muhammad". They are rather attacking the counter-sugestions as incompatible with other evidence. So it seems to me that at least there are some serious problems with the early history of Islam, which perhaps have not been discussed enough prior to this challenge."
Personally, I find the convergence of a linguistic claim (the Qur'an may have extensive Syriac language roots) and a numismatic claim (the earliest Caliphate coins show a man holding a cross, with the inscription 'Muhammad', which means 'chosen one' in Syriac) and a military history claim (the Persian empire had the troops and intention to smash Byzantium in the way that early Islamic conquest is supposed to have done, and Persian sources say that they did) to be interesting, at least.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
You could argue that the latter showed a higher morality whereas Jesus seemed to be condoning adultery.
Well duh, no kidding. You could argue all sorts of abhorrent things, including that Jesus was acting immorally when he prevented that women being stoned to death.
I know you don't believe that to be true though.
What is it about this topic that causes rational intelligent Christians to be so eager to deny the existence of truth?
Whose truth?
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by anglocatholic:
A study of the Quran yields 109 passages where Muslims are exhorted to kill non-Muslims.
Whose study? Your study? If so, give me some examples, suras and ayets.
I'd still like an answer to this - maybe you are still doing your research so as to answer.
Maybe you are on holiday.
Or maybe you just lit the fuse and vanised.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Since this is clearly something that is going to go around and around, with most participants saying, roughly speaking, "you don't know what you are talking about" to just about everyone else, could we move it to DH or farther? Please?
Messing up Purg with "facts" that have little to do with anything is not helpful.
It may explain why peace in the Middle East is impossible, of course: not enough people actually believe that the "other guy" is really there at all, what you see is just a cardboard cutout on a sand dune.
I read John Bagot Glubb's (Glubb Pasha) book on the history of the Arab Empires in the 800 AD to 1100 AD era, which was just as depressing as anything today - and the same happens back as far as recorded history goes (including the Bible as some approximation of "history") None of the religions have had any effect on this at all, except to make it momentarily worse.
[ 08. August 2014, 10:50: Message edited by: Horseman Bree ]
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
JoannaP
Shipmate
# 4493
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
"FWIW though, here's a more serious academic who has come to the same conclusion: Muhammad Sven Kalisch. And another German who is pushing this idea is Professor Ohlig. These ideas are probably outside of the academic mainstream though: Spiegel article.
That Spiegel article rather backfired here. If his best proof of Muhammad's existence is quote:
How would we, for example, prove the existence of Charlemagne?
then he is on very shaky ground. He then goes on to basically assert that people that long ago did not write fiction... ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
It seems to me that, using his standards, one could claim that there is evidence that Romulus and King Arthur existed.
--------------------
"Freedom for the pike is death for the minnow." R. H. Tawney (quoted by Isaiah Berlin)
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 1877 | From: England | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Demas
Ship's Deserter
# 24
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
What is it about this topic that causes rational intelligent Christians to be so eager to deny the existence of truth?
Whose truth?
Sophomoric nonsense, which I am sure you do not believe.
[ 08. August 2014, 11:34: Message edited by: Demas ]
--------------------
They did not appear very religious; that is, they were not melancholy; and I therefore suspected they had not much piety - Life of Rev John Murray
Posts: 1894 | From: Thessalonica | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Surely violent, aggressive behaviour which is oppressive to fellow human beings who are loved by God cannot be a feature of this perfection.
Why not?
If David's behaviour with Bathsheba is dismissed as a lie so that he can be held up as a perfect human example, surely this indicates recognition of the knowledge that treating people in this way is evil.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
