Abuse of the Islamic faith or it is the Islamic Faith, or Islamic faith gives the political unction

Status
Not open for further replies.

Anton Bruckner

Puritan Board Professor
Abuse of the Islamic faith or it is the Islamic Faith, or Islamic faith gives the political unction for revolution for perceived oppression.

I am listening to the Jerry Springer show on the liberal station, Air America Radio, and he is of the opinion that the terrorists abuse the Islamic faith, kinda like what Tony Blair said. On the other hand, others are of the opinion that terrorism and militancy is innate in Islam, then others think that Islam provides the political unction, the courage to use violent means against perceived oppression.

So what is the deal with this. Is there an orthodox Islam, if so, what is it, or is Islam all relative depending on one's interpretation of it? I mean i did glance through a couple pages of the quran, and found a lot of contradictions.
 
Originally posted by Slippery
I am listening to the Jerry Springer show on the liberal station, Air America Radio, and he is of the opinion that the terrorists abuse the Islamic faith, kinda like what Tony Blair said. On the other hand, others are of the opinion that terrorism and militancy is innate in Islam, then others think that Islam provides the political unction, the courage to use violent means against perceived oppression.

So what is the deal with this. Is there an orthodox Islam, if so, what is it, or is Islam all relative depending on one's interpretation of it? I mean i did glance through a couple pages of the quran, and found a lot of contradictions.

I think the key is two-fold:

1. History of Islam
2. History of Mohammad

I think both of these point to violence and war. Terrorism is a technique, so is "terrorism" explicitly supported by the history of Islam or Mohammad? That will be more difficult to establish.

No, I don't believe it is a bastardization of Islam, but in-line w/ the historic faith.

openairboy
 
Nope, I don't listen to AirAmerica, I happen to listen to Jerry Springer who so happens to be on AirAmerica hehehehhe, big difference.:bigsmile: And I constitute their online NY Market heheheehe.

Jerry Springer seems to be the most reasonable of liberals, I figure its because he is a lawyer and politician by trade. of course I disagree with him on abortion, gay marriages etc, etc, but at times I do find him insightful.

Anyway back to the Islamic thingy. I also think that violence and militancy is innate in the religion, as per the behavior of its founder, as well as the contents of its holy book. I also think that this propensity to violence and militancy is exacerbated when a muslim person perceives themselves being wronged by an "infidel culture". But because of political correctness politicians have to say that terrorism is a corruption of the religion, instead of an avenue that the innate militancy of the religion is made manifest.
 
Islam has been a murderous religion from the beginning. It swept through Africa (virtually destroyin the Church there) and Europe as as far as Spain in the west and Austria in the east before it was beaten back. After that Islam became a little more scholarly and thoughtful (the Egyptians and Alhomads are good medieval examples of this). The extremists, however, continue represent traditional Islam. Its religion desires to bring all nations under its control through conversion or the sword.
 
and swept through Africa it did. Can you imagine if Augustine was to return from the dead today, and see that his home town in Algeria is fully islamic. yikes.
 
So, is democratic politicals forced to concede to islam being an equitable and peaceful religion, or is it that the politicians are cowards.
 
Originally posted by kevin.carroll
Islam has been a murderous religion from the beginning. It swept through Africa (virtually destroyin the Church there) and Europe as as far as Spain in the west and Austria in the east before it was beaten back. After that Islam became a little more scholarly and thoughtful (the Egyptians and Alhomads are good medieval examples of this). The extremists, however, continue represent traditional Islam. Its religion desires to bring all nations under its control through conversion or the sword.

I agree completely. Jihad has been the historical outworking of this satanic religion since the beginning. Besides terrorism (Koran 8:60 is often invoked by modern terrorists), slavery of Christians in Africa is an ongoing issue. War against Jews and Christians has been the consistent theologically and culturally based pattern for centuries. I do acknowledge the scientific debt the West owes to Islamic scholars. We use Arabic numerals, for instance. But violence is truly at the core of the Islamic religion. I will not soon forget the pictures of Palestinians celebrating the 9/11 massacre. I pray for the conversion of Muslims and the destruction of their false religion.
 
I firmly believe the world-wide majority of Muslims are peaceful and nonviolent, however, they may be the ones who hold to a watered-down, liberal form of Islam, the same as has happened with Christianity. Quite possibly it's the conservative fringe element who are taking things literally, and as the Quran intends to be taken?


"We condemn these terrorists and what they have done," said Munir Shah, the imam of the Stratford Street mosque near the Leeds neighborhood that police were searching. "We refuse to call them Muslims. They are not. Islam does not agree or teach about the killing of innocent people."

from: Fox Story

[Edited on 7-14-2005 by Rick Larson]
 
Originally posted by Slippery
So, is democratic politicals forced to concede to islam being an equitable and peaceful religion, or is it that the politicians are cowards.

I think it is both. Democratic politicals, I believe, are "forced" to be consistent w/ their enlightenment principles and that is to neuter religion. Sure, Islam, Christianity, etc., can exist, as long as they stay in-line with "democracy". Part of the current administrations agenda is to 'evangelize' the middle east w/ democracy and neuter Islam (separation of Church & State). This idea doesn't exist in Islam, but Christians have enabled it in the West.

It's a bit like first century Rome. The Ceasar's didn't mind Christians being there until they disrupted the civil peace, namely, Jesus Christ is Lord.

openairboy
 
Recent quotes of interest:

Vice President Dick Cheney, Responding to Comments from Amnesty International Calling the Guantanamo Prison the "Gulag of Our Time":

"These people have been treated far better than they could be expected to have been treated by virtually any other government on the face of the Earth."

Representative Duncan Hunter (R-CA), on the Treatment of Prisoners Held at Guantanamo in Light of Calls By Human Rights Advocates to Close the Prison:

"The guy who wanted to drive that plane into the building at the World Trade Center is going to dine tomorrow on lemon fish with two types of vegetables, two types of fruit, and then he will be afforded his taxpayer-funded Koran, taxpayer-funded prayer beads and oil so he can pray, presumably to kill more Americans."

Nationally Syndicated Columnist Ann Coulter, on the Differences in Meals Provided to U.S. Soldiers, American Travelers and the Suspected Terrorists Detained at Guantanamo Bay:

"American soldiers make do with C-rations. Dinner on an America West flight from New York to Las Vegas consists of one small bag of peanuts. Meanwhile, one recent menu for suspected terrorists at Guantanamo consisted of orange-glazed chicken, fresh fruit crepe, steamed peas and mushrooms, and rice pilaf. Sounds like the sort of thing you´d get at Windows on the World "“ if it still existed."
 
I have got into long debates on this before and as many of you know my thoughts on Islam can be rather strong.

Modern, liberal Muslims are not much different from modern liberal Christians - they are apathetic and their "god" is not the God of their holy book but rather the god of humanism, human rights etc... I have a strong dislike for liberal Muslims who by definition (as liberal Christians do also) rob the name of all meaning and are not really Muslims/Christians at all.

I do not believe the Jihadist Muslims of today at their extreme are "orthodox" Muslims either.

I think for the sake of simplisity we pretend their are only two sides in this debate. The Muslims I respect the most are those "moderate" right wingers. Maybe it is that I have been taught by such people and have friends among this group - I do not know. They seem to put "Allah" first. They are able to discuss real issues and they do not mind giving answers to your questions that are "Islamic" and "Qu'ranic".

While the Arabic term "Jihad" means "a struggle to please God" and NOT "holy war" the concept of a violent struggle does fit into the term Jihad which the terrorists have taken out of linguistic context.

I believe the Qu'ran supports certain wars and not others. It has a mixture of peace and violence within it. The ultimate goal is peace but sometimes war must be used to get there.

I remember my teacher stand up and say "There is One King and it is Allah!" she was extreme to me anyway. She was pro peace but did not rule out war as a last resort. Once you make this consession you then must take into account that some Muslims think modern day terrorism is their "last resort".

In conclussion I believe some of what the terrorists today is Qu'ranic and "orthodox Muslim" while I believe other things are NOT. For example the Qu'ran is against the destruction of women, children and that industry which keeps the environment alive. There are rules for war within Islam and the terrorists are in breach of them. For the left wing Muslims to say Islam is pure peace on the other hand is like the Open Theists saying God is out of control - they are ignorant of their own scripture.
 
I am sure many of us can see something of this debate in Christianity also - it hinges on what is peace? Is it being lazy, ignoring issues and living a 'peaceful' life where everything is swept under the carpet? Or is it taking action against problems with eventual peace being the goal? Is it solving problems and/or is peace and instant thing or is it a goal? Was their 'peace' in the first place for these terrorists to destroy and can conflict create peace?

Different people see it different ways.
 
One of the pundits out there is fond of reminding people, "You don't justify bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior by the other side." I don't mean this comment to be an "apology" for militant Islam--

There might be a web-site out there, maybe it's written in Arabic, that's entitled: "Democracy--Ideology of Peace?" and then runs down a list of hundreds of deliberate, indiscriminate, careless, erroneous, and "collateral" incidents, that have resulted in the deaths and maimings of thousands of innocent lives. Appended might be a fairly long list of wars/police-actions/interventions that have been undertaken explicitly (without ambiguity) in the name of this ideology in the last hundred years.


How much of our collective problems, fears, and uncertainties would evaporate if, instead of secular messianic missions, we determined to mind our own business a bit more, backed off from an aggressive, pugnacious posture, and stopped thinking so self-righteously about ourselves?

Just something to think about....
 
Originally posted by Contra_MundumThere might be a web-site out there, maybe it's written in Arabic, that's entitled: "Democracy--Ideology of Peace?"
There are hundreds (if not thousands) of such sites, videos and forums. They do not just ask if Democracy is an ideology of peace but they also ask it of Christianity and other ideologies. So many sites cry out against the western injustice and how they see themselves treated wrongly.

I have seen a video where a dead child is paraded about as a victim of the Israeli democracy. I have seen footage of Palestinians being mowed down - thrown from their feet in convulsions - a graphic protest at what some Arabs saw as democratic brutality of the west. I have seen Arab women covered in traditional dress being beaten by Israeli soldiers. The whole theme was - is the west really out for peace? Unfortunatly for this recording the conclussion reached was thus - no the west is not out for peace and shall never be. It is the enemy. Peace shall never reign as long as the Democratic, Jewish-Crusader alliance stands. It declared war on the United States and showed Mujahadeen preparing for death. It praised the attacks on western civilians as steps in this struggle for peace.

This is their thinking. They see us as the war-mongering, peace-breaking enemy which kills their 'innocent civilians' and is out to destroy their society.

[Edited on 16-7-2005 by Abd_Yesua_alMasih]
 
To prove a point allow me to quote a fatwa from the World Islamic Front.

The Arabian Peninsula has never -- since Allah made it flat, created its desert, and encircled it with seas -- been stormed by any forces like the crusader armies spreading in it like locusts, eating its riches and wiping out its plantations. All this is happening at a time in which nations are attacking Muslims like people fighting over a plate of food. In the light of the grave situation and the lack of support, we and you are obliged to discuss current events, and we should all agree on how to settle the matter.

All these crimes and sins committed by the Americans are a clear declaration of war on Allah, his messenger, and Muslims. And ulema have throughout Islamic history unanimously agreed that the jihad is an individual duty if the enemy destroys the Muslim countries. This was revealed by Imam Bin-Qadamah in "Al- Mughni," Imam al-Kisa'i in "Al-Bada'i," al-Qurtubi in his interpretation, and the shaykh of al-Islam in his books, where he said: "As for the fighting to repulse [an enemy], it is aimed at defending sanctity and religion, and it is a duty as agreed [by the ulema]. Nothing is more sacred than belief except repulsing an enemy who is attacking religion and life."


On that basis, and in compliance with Allah's order, we issue the following fatwa to all Muslims: The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty Allah, "and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together," and "fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah."

(source here)

:candle:
 
To give some credit... (if we insult more than we have to then that does more harm than good).

When Muhammed started out he was all for peace between Christians and Jews - correct

As Islam got stronger fighting broke out - correct.

This was because Islam was stronger - partly.

Islam grew - it became a threat. Christians and Jews turned upon it.
 
Originally posted by Paul manata
"Orthodox" Islam has always been about peace when they're in the minority. History shows that when they get in charge, peace and tollerence are out the window. This is why the Koran starts out with Muhammed saying that Jews and Christians were brothers, but after he got in charge it was, kill the infidel.

Do not trust the "peace movment" of Islam.

:ditto:

I would add that this is true of Romanism as well. Both religions have strong similarities in that they are works-based (compare Lent and Ramadan) and both are highly political (sharia and papal supremacy over the princes of the earth). Both religions like to ingratiate themselves in pluralistic societies and slaughter the innocent when they gain the ascendancy. That is the historical record.

[Edited on 7-16-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]
 
This post is not "for" or "against" any other post. It's just one man's way of looking at things.

Christianity is the religion of eschatology; it is the true religion. It alone transcends the present human condition.

Bhuddism is the religion of negation. It seeks transcendence at the cost of all individual meaning. It denies the human condition.

Judaism (Phariseeism, O.T.-based religion shorn of God's grace and hope in the Messiah) is the religion of law, of discipline. It does not transcend the human condition.

Islam is the religion of vengeance. Muhammed was a "man of sword," and he left his inescapable imprint on the faith he founded. It, too, focuses it attentions on the state of man as he is, and so fails to transcend the human condition.


With these comments I do not deny that one finds (for example) characteristics of "law" in Christianity or Islam. But I am speaking of what I see as a defining trait. Since Islam is ultimately about man and power, it is very natural that it should be a "political religion." To define the diffrence between a Christian and an Islamic social order, I would say that in Christianity, while we prefer a Christian magistrate who considers God's ways in the conduct of his office, Christianity can afford to ignore (in the religious sense) godless ones. For Islam that is impossible. Every slight against Islam by a higher power is an offense to be marked and grudged, until the tables are turned. To pardon a slight is noble, indeed. But "seventy-times-seven"? That is not Islam.

"Islam" means "submission" (not "peace" as is so often asserted). The "peace" is the peace of fixity. Everything in its place and hierarchy. It is static. It is the peace of death. It includes "willing" submission and "enforced" submission. Islamic dominated societies are not especially conducive to social mobility. But what is one sure way to rise? Success in battle (provided it is a holy struggle). It is a quite natural extension of the personal, inward struggle. Because Islam is about man, and man is more than "I", it is also "us", our struggle. And even if one should die on earth for the stuggle, he must (there is no question!) he must rise to the sensual paradise (man-centered again). It is one of their few promises--God will repay their sacrifices.

Zeal for God is expressive in outward acts. Man is the agent of bringing submission. Temptation also comes from without (in Islam, man is basically good), therefore, it is not at all irrational that sin and temptation be attacked outwardly. Shame attatches outwardly. Thus the prevalence of "honor" killings in Isalmic dominated countries (this is a murder, usually of one's kin--usually female, sister or cousin--who's behavior is thought to have been dishonorable to the family). These actions are often unprosecuted, or are deemed "crimes of passion" and are dealt with lightly.

Submission, fatalism, sufferring, waiting for the tables to be turned, VENGEANCE. This is Islam. It would take much more than a web-post to discuss the interplay of custom and cluture and religion. Islam developed out of a specific culture, and that culture fed it, strengthened it, and was in turn shaped by it. Christianity has not been dominant in that part of the wolrd so long, that cultural Christianity there has also been more affected than affecting. This is not to say that as a sub-culture, Christianity fails to be distinctive. But you and I will be less apt to notice the differences, because our culture is greatly different.

The world has yet to see an Islamic culture that is transformed by the gospel. The Greco-Roman world was transformed. The barbarian cultures were transformed. Egyptian culture, Polynesian culture, others were transformed. And yes, there was reverse-influence as well, some innocuous and some damaging. The world may well be Christian one day, but don't expect that means a McDonalds in every neighborhood. Or American-style government everywhere. People are different! Viva la diference! But we still wait to discover what a formerly Islamic society will look like. I'm sure it won't happen with armies and imports. Those are just more external enemies for Islam to fight against.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top