Christianity vs Islam

[SquirleyWurley]

I remember hearing back in college days (early 90's) that Islam had certain traditions or tendencies to be very supportive of the community and its members in various ways, that generosity to the Muslim community was very important in Islam.

[WorldWarrior]

73 different denominations of Islam do not all interpret the Qur'an the same way--any more than all the several hundred Christian sects and denominations all intepret the entire Bible in the same way.

To say that all Muslims believe the same things about the Qur'an--while knowing that Christians don't even come close to agreeing on how to interpret the Bible--is not the most lfact based thing to say.

[WorldWarrior]

"In the real world it is Islam and Muslims who are the terrorists."


Islam is not a "terrorist." Islam is a religion.



FFlee says--
"I have never read of an example of Islamic generosity or even civility in the ME."




Are you saying that One Billion+ Muslims are *not* generous? That they are *not* civil?

Perhaps I am misunderstanding this statement?

[Faithfulee]

Individually they can be nice people of course

But the fact remains that virtually all terrorism in the world today is committed by Muslims..

I can name a hundred Christian Charities, can you name a Muslim one that does other than serve Muslims??

That is a big difference between Islam and Christianity.

[SquirleyWurley]

WW,

But there is still a question of the THEMES and TENOR of the historical development and progression of various religions.

In Hinduism on Caste you have initially apparent silence on the subject, then some references to it but it seems flexible and not so horrible, and then it becomes quite rigid and horrible, and then you have various modifications and re-interpretations which are flexible or more tolerant or counteract the horrors.  On the subject of war you repeatedly have questions of fulfilling duty and also questions of escaping the illusions of glory or greed and also challenges to be peace-making and other-worldly.  Of the various foundational figures, they are varied, and many of them were recluses and visionaries, not military figures.  Some had military episodes.  It is far too varied to generalize farther.

In Judaism on the subject of acquiring land or dominating others you have in the Pentateuch initially the story of wandering and having children/progeny, then the story of slavery and freedom in the course of a confrontation with power, and then the story of settling and conquering, but then since the Pentateuch you have the story of troubled judges, kings, and prophets, with a critical stance towards the power-holders and priests etc., leading to prophetic calls for justice and mercy, and then repeated rabbinical dialogues on how to deal with other people while remaining Jewish and apart, etc.  If you call Abraham the founder, he didn't lead an army or call for an army, he just was lead by a vision of progeny.  If you call Moses the founder, his fight was to get his people out of slavery and to enter Canaan to claim a place for his people and settle there and his fighting revolved around these things, his laws otherwise dealing with defense and not expansion once settled, or laws dealing with the temple or matters of social/legal principles once settled.

In Christianity on the subject of leadership, domination, conquest, you have a message of serving and peace instead of vengeance or worldly power, with visions of a future date when Christ will descend out of the clouds.  The founding figure is Jesus, who did not lead a riot or an uprising on Palm Sunday, and told Pilate that his Kingdom was NOT of This World.  The founder was crucified and forgave people while on the cross, and he certainly did NOT call upon anyone to seek vengeance for him, even under those circumstances.

In Gnosticism of various kinds you have a repeated disdain for those who rule/dominate whether it is religious or political powers, and the heavenly rulers/archons are portrayed in the same terms (with the imagery of the hierarchies of Roman military units and governors) deemed ignorant and abusive and worldly, and the spirit is said to be DEFINITIVELY beyond this world and its rule/fate, etc.  The founders of various sects seem to have been visionaries, philosophers, or recluses, alienated by the ways of worldly power, and at any rate many of them focused upon Jesus who was not a military leader.

In Buddhism needless suffering is the focus of the 4 Noble Truths, the heart of the religion, and any leadership or military activity which causes needless suffering can easily be deemed ignorant, by the most simple of reasoning.  When the founder started his religion he did not do so militarily, and did not resort to military action afterwards.

In Islam you have Mohammad.  He claimed to be the last prophet and to be THE interpreter of previous Abrahamic religion, and what he said, what he claimed was revelation, and what he did, involved military conquest and forced conversion, etc.  You can't get around that.  It is distinctive when you compare it to other religions, the style and tenor of the violence in the religion is very distinctive.

[WorldWarrior]

SW--I see your post and I appreciate the thought you've put into it. I can't give it the attention it deserves tonight. I hope to be able to answer your points tomorrow when I have more time to devote to it.

[Faithfulee]

Wurley

Your post summarizes quite ell the differences between Christianity and Islam

In Christianity on the subject of leadership, domination, conquest, you have a message of serving and peace instead of vengeance or worldly power, with visions of a future date when Christ will descend out of the clouds.  The founding figure is Jesus, who did not lead a riot or an uprising on Palm Sunday, and told Pilate that his Kingdom was NOT of This World.  The founder was crucified and forgave people while on the cross, and he certainly did NOT call upon anyone to seek vengeance for him, even under those circumstances.

.. . . . . . .

In Islam you have Mohammad.  He claimed to be the last prophet and to be THE interpreter of previous Abrahamic religion, and what he said, what he claimed was revelation, and what he did, involved military conquest and forced conversion, etc.  You can't get around that.  It is distinctive when you compare it to other religions, the style and tenor of the violence in the religion is very distinctive.

It is important for the whole world do know the difference,  or at least to recongize the call of Islam to violence and terrorism.

I don't know how people can be so blind to this reality.

[Faithfulee]

I revive this here rather than start another topic

"Sharia law is hate"

because the message does stand in contrast to Christianity,  a religion of Love.

From Jihad Watch today

It is good to see someone turning the Islamic supremacists' charge that opposing them is "hatred" back on them, and exposing the real haters. "Billboards announce: 'Sharia law is hate,'" by Drew Zahn for WorldNetDaily, August 8:

An organization in Florida plans to educate what it perceives as an increasingly culture-tolerant public about the horrific dictates of Islamic law by purchasing billboard space with a simple, but confrontational message: "Sharia law is hate."

The Central Florida chapter of the United American Committee, a nonprofit group that seeks to educate Americans on the threat of Islamic extremism, is raising money to purchase a six-month contract to display the billboard, which the group hopes will awaken the public to discussing the full extent of Islamic law.

Some have regarded the captulation of al Sadr's army and refocusing it toward a social service organisation as a "cure all", when it fact al Sadr's goal is the same as that of OBL.  That is to destroy democracy and instill Sharia law world wide. 

Some examples from the article

"Under Sharia law if you are accused of stealing, a hand and foot from opposite sides are amputated. If you are caught having an affair, the woman is stoned to death and the man is given 80 lashes. If you change religions, you can be charged under apostasy laws and given the death sentence by a legal Sharia court. If you want to marry a nine-year-old child, Sharia law condones pedophilia, because Mohammad married Aisha at six and consummated the marriage at age nine. I find these and many more practices of Sharia law despicable and hateful," said Kornman.

Wikopedia has a good section on Sharia Law and will be a good resource for discussion

Christians should not be fooled into believing that the Islamic understanding of peace and justice is anything that a Christian, and especailly a Christian American can tolerate.

For all non-Muslims AND Christians, we must appreciate and keep intact the US Constitution and the "Separation Claus" that has served us so well all these years.

God Bless America

[Lilly]

"Sharia law is hate"

because the message does stand in contrast to Christianity,  a religion of Love.

I think you've incorrectly contrasted Shariah Law with Christianity.  Every nation that exists has laws by which its citizens must live.  Islamic countries have Shariah Law.  In the United States we live by a secular law, not a Christian one.  Our laws may be influenced by a predominately Christian population in some cases, but there is no "Christian Law" that governs any nation on earth.  If Islamic countries decide to live by Shariah Law, that's there right under God.  Other nations have some pretty awful laws as well, but they have been given the authority by God to govern their own nations.  God will judge them just as he will judge us. 

For all non-Muslims AND Christians, we must appreciate and keep intact the US Constitution and the "Separation Claus" that has served us so well all these years.

God Bless America

I agree and for that reason you may want to discuss this on the politics board.

[SquirleyWurley]

I for one do not believe in any 'right to self rule', 'self determination of nations' etc.  Those are ideologies, myths, empty rhetoric.

No one has a 'right' to implement Sharia laws, or any Jewish or Christian parallels which would punish 'heresy', adultery, homosexuality, etc. by imprisonment or death, etc.

Overturning a tyrannical regime (such as Sharia Law) is the RIGHT THING to do, and no one has a right to impose such draconian measures on their neighbors.

[Lilly]

I for one do not believe in any 'right to self rule', 'self determination of nations' etc.  Those are ideologies, myths, empty rhetoric.

If man doesn't rule himself, who rules him in your view?

No one has a 'right' to implement Sharia laws, or any Jewish or Christian parallels which would punish 'heresy', adultery, homosexuality, etc. by imprisonment or death, etc.

There is no parallel to Shariah Law within Christianity.  Heresy is determined by the church, not a nation. The Christian church has no authority to imprison nor put to death.  Laws concerning adultery or homosexuality in any society are determined by the authorities that govern that society.  In the US those laws are determined by our democratic process where "the people" have the ultimate say through their representatives.  That's not an ideology, myth or empty rhetoric, that's reality.

Overturning a tyrannical regime (such as Sharia Law) is the RIGHT THING to do, and no one has a right to impose such draconian measures on their neighbors.

So you're going to impose your laws on others according to what you think is right?  You will have to raise a powerful army, and it will still be man determining for himself what laws he lives by since you are just a man.

[Acumen]

Well said Lilly.

[SquirleyWurley]

If man doesn't rule himself, who rules him in your view?

I'm talking about a different subject.  Germany had no right to pass laws which persecuted Jews, totalitarian states don't have a right to be totalitarian.

There is no parallel to Shariah Law within Christianity.  Heresy is determined by the church, not a nation. The Christian church has no authority to imprison nor put to death.

Calvin's Geneva comes to mind, Puritan Massachusetts comes to mind, Catholic Spain during the Inquisition comes to mind...  They are parallel enough.

Laws concerning adultery or homosexuality in any society are determined by the authorities that govern that society.  In the US those laws are determined by our democratic process where "the people" have the ultimate say through their representatives.  That's not an ideology, myth or empty rhetoric, that's reality.

Up unto a point that is a reality except that 'the people' are checked/corrected by constitutional limitations re: the bill of rights, rules involving the function of the branches of government, etc.  The majority is not supreme without check.  That's a good thing.

Overturning a tyrannical regime (such as Sharia Law) is the RIGHT THING to do, and no one has a right to impose such draconian measures on their neighbors.

So you're going to impose your laws on others according to what you think is right?  You will have to raise a powerful army, and it will still be man determining for himself what laws he lives by since you are just a man.

What is your point?  Whether or not one takes a specific action or not is another matter.  I'm just denying that any state has a right to brutalize its own citizens and deny their civil/human rights in the way that a state does when it operates under Sharia law.

[Lilly]

I'm talking about a different subject.  Germany had no right to pass laws which persecuted Jews, totalitarian states don't have a right to be totalitarian.

Says who?  The only power on earth that could stop the Germans from persecuting Jews or end totalitarian regimes are the other nations of men.  They do that through war.

Calvin's Geneva comes to mind, Puritan Massachusetts comes to mind, Catholic Spain during the Inquisition comes to mind...  They are parallel enough.

These are examples of the church using civil authorities or civil authorities using the church, but there is no civil law laid out in Christianity.  The Christian church has no military or law enforcement.  Leaders of the church must combine with the state in order to punish people or go to war and that's a perversion of Christianity.

Up unto a point that is a reality except that 'the people' are checked/corrected by constitutional limitations re: the bill of rights, rules involving the function of the branches of government, etc.  The majority is not supreme without check.  That's a good thing.

The constitution can be amended by the people.  There is no constitutional right that cannot be changed by the people.  In the US the people are the supreme authority, not the constitution.  Checks and balances in our government are checks on the three branches of government, not the people.

I'm just denying that any state has a right to brutalize its own citizens and deny their civil/human rights in the way that a state does when it operates under Sharia law.

Who's going to stop the state from doing that?  There's no one on earth with ultimate control dictating rights to men and restraining the nations.  The only rights man has are those he guarantees for himself through his own power.  The people are guaranteed rights by the nation in which they live, and nations are kept in check by other nations.  Man governs himself on this earth.

[Acumen]

SW: I'm just denying that any state has a right to brutalize its own citizens and deny their civil/human rights in the way that a state does when it operates under Sharia law.

Lilly:  Who's going to stop the state from doing that?  There's no one on earth with ultimate control dictating rights to men and restraining the nations.  The only rights man has are those he guarantees for himself through his own power.  The people are guaranteed rights by the nation in which they live, and nations are kept in check by other nations.  Man governs himself on this earth.


Better yet, why would an atheist assume that no state has a right to brutalize its citizens?  What moral criteria do they appeal to establish such a right?

[SquirleyWurley]

Lilly,

Yes, it's human beings who use their power to assert themselves who will have their say.  Re: the constitution, it is designed to limit human beings who might wish to presume to use government power inappropriately.  The people may wish to pass a law, the legislature is the most representative body, but they may be vetoed by one man, or their law may be overturned by some judge and that may be upheld by higher courts.  Thankfully, our country is a democratic republic and not a pure democracy.

Acumen,

How can anyone assert anything on any basis and claim it has any reality?  An atheist may do so, a religious person may do so.  Each may be challenged by the reason (or lack thereof) of another being.

[Acumen]

How can anyone assert anything on any basis and claim it has any reality?  An atheist may do so, a religious person may do so.  Each may be challenged by the reason (or lack thereof) of another being.

I know how the religious person can do it, but I'm sort of confused how an atheist can provide a reasonable answer. 

Atheists do not have the luxury of appealing to an objective standard of morality determined by the perfect reasoning of a perfect God, but rather must rely on pliable, relativistic standards that are dependent upon an ever-changing culture within a given society.  In moral relativism, there are no absolute rights.  Slavery is morally right in one generation, but wrong in the next.  There is no appeal to an external standard outside the passion-based caprice of the masses.

[metis]

I know how the religious person can do it, but I'm sort of confused how an atheist can provide a reasonable answer. 

An atheist may have just as much of a moral approach as a theist might.  Each of us, no matter what we may or may notm believe in, will establish "right" versus "wrong" on some sort of criteria.  Even a theist has to decide whether they are going to follow the dictates of their religion in its entirety.  

[Faithfulee]

"Sharia law is hate"

because the message does stand in contrast to Christianity,  a religion of Love.

I think you've incorrectly contrasted Shariah Law with Christianity.  Every nation that exists has laws by which its citizens must live.  Islamic countries have Shariah Law.  In the United States we live by a secular law, not a Christian one.  Our laws may be influenced by a predominately Christian population in some cases, but there is no "Christian Law" that governs any nation on earth.  If Islamic countries decide to live by Shariah Law, that's there right under God.  Other nations have some pretty awful laws as well, but they have been given the authority by God to govern their own nations.  God will judge them just as he will judge us.

For all non-Muslims AND Christians, we must appreciate and keep intact the US Constitution and the "Separation Claus" that has served us so well all these years.

God Bless America

I agree and for that reason you may want to discuss this on the politics board.

That is indeed a good place to discuss that point but it is pertinent here also.

Contrary to your assertion not all Muslim nations live under Sharia law.  Turkey is a progressive Muslim nation that lives under civil law, not Muslim law.  In recent weeks Muslims have tried to take the nation into one ruled by Shirria law.  A disaster was averted, thank God.  What seems to happen when Sharia law prevails (like Talaban ruled Afghanistan)  is that the religous leaders are satisified and the government turns into a dictatorship (like Iraq) where they can do whatever they please so long as it conforms to Sharia law and bows to the clerics.  To most Westerners, this is an intolerable situation.

The best defense to this is Democacy and one run under Civil law not Religious law.  I hope you understand this, and I will be pleased to discuss it further if you don't or dont agree.

Also note that Osama Bin Laden has engaged Western civilization with his two goals,  Destroy Democracy and install Sharia law worldwide.  That is the crux of the worldwide war against Islamic fundamentalism. 

[Faithfulee]

I for one do not believe in any 'right to self rule', 'self determination of nations' etc.  Those are ideologies, myths, empty rhetoric.

No one has a 'right' to implement Sharia laws, or any Jewish or Christian parallels which would punish 'heresy', adultery, homosexuality, etc. by imprisonment or death, etc.

Overturning a tyrannical regime (such as Sharia Law) is the RIGHT THING to do, and no one has a right to impose such draconian measures on their neighbors.

You get it Wurley, but it is not as not as easy as that.  When you have predominantly Muslim countries, the clerics prevail of government and eventually prevail and therafter it is the clerics (that the pols are beholden to rather than the public).