Comments on That was the original decree of Islam and it remains unchanged.............

Go to Mohammed: Defend the Faithful, Destroy Infidels - Add a comment - Go to That was the original decree of Islam and it remains unchanged.............

Hi Goldenmean

still missing you...you where good.  Hope you are enjoying summer

posted by mysteria on June 20, 2008 at 11:08 PM | link to this | reply

GoldenMean Your Friends Here Miss You

Hope and feel all is well your way...

posted by mysteria on June 19, 2006 at 3:17 PM | link to this | reply

And can the good Catholics stop the bad Catholics from propagating hate

against Muslims?

Or is there something like good Muslims and bad Muslims or good Catholics and bad  Catholics? Or is about human beings and inhuman beings?

 

posted by Straightforward on May 9, 2006 at 9:20 PM | link to this | reply

However, I wholly agree...

...that we shall always have to guard with force against the camel.

I really think we're being most unkind to camels.

posted by Dyl_Pickle on December 9, 2005 at 6:48 PM | link to this | reply

I do not want to give the camel space in my tent.

Rather I want to give the other merchants place in my tent, so that they don't go join the camel and help him take over my tent by force.

I want to get all the merchants on our side so they don't go to the camel's side.

In other words, don't appease the camel -- or Hitler or Saddam or Islamic Fundamentalists. Weaken the camel by isolating him.

posted by Dyl_Pickle on December 9, 2005 at 6:46 PM | link to this | reply

Correction: what Muslim FUNDAMENTALISTS are doing all over the world

posted by GoldenMean on December 8, 2005 at 11:00 PM | link to this | reply

Excellent comment as always, Dylan

DV, I can agree with all your points, and still insist that Islam is more prone to violence and oppression than other religions, as it is being manifested today in the world. It seems to attract many violent people, who use its doctrines to justify their violence. But even without the Jihadist terrorists, it is the only religion that actively seeks to establish complete control of society and government. Other than perhaps the Catholic city-state of the Vatican and the tiny Buddhist state of Butan (both remnants of earlier religious eras), it is the only religion that has taken over entire countries in modern times, and set up religious dictatorships.

Jesus said that his kingdom was not of this world. In contrast, Mohammed spent his life using his religion to take over his world, by military force and religious law, and to suppress every other religion he encountered. Many of his followers are carefully following Mohammed's excellent example.

And I am afraid that no matter how we correct our behavior to reduce the grievances of the Islamic Jihadists, they will find plenty of excuses to continue their religious offensive against us, filthy immoral infidels that we are.

In their own Arab culture, there is an old story that illustrates the stubborn persistence of the Muslim fundamentalists, or at least that is what I will use it for. In the following story, consider the camel to be the Muslim extremists, whether they be Jihadists, Wahhabis, Muslim rioters in France, or those seeking the rule of Sharia (Islamic law) in Canada and other Western countries. Consider the Arab merchant to be everyone else, either moderate Muslim or infidel:

It was a freezing winter night in an oasis in the desert of Arabia. The travelling Arab merchant had pitched his small tent and warmed it with his two prized oil lamps. He had tied his camel to a palm tree with a long rope, long enough to allow the camel to reach water and grass.

The Arab merchant soon discovered that the rope allowed the camel to reach his tent as well, for after the camel drank and ate his fill, the shivering beast walked straight to the closed flaps of the warm tent. As the Arab sipped a cup of hot spice tea, he heard the camel braying in a pitiful voice: "O master merchant, the winter wind bites and the night cold stings... would you allow me to put just the tip of my nose into your warm tent, so that I may breathe the warm air and smell the spice tea?"

The Arab, a fair and reasonable man, took pity on the camel and consented to the nose in the tent, which the camel quickly pushed into the tent flaps.

After a few more sips of tea, the Arab heard the camel shivering and soon the camel brayed once more in a submissive voice: "O fair master, it is getting colder and my ears are hurting... could I please put my whole head into your blessed warm tent, so that my ears can warm up and stop hurting?"

The Arab replied: "This is a tent of my own making, by the sweat of my own brow and the blisters of my own hands, and it is not for camels. But still, I am a fair and reasonable man, with liberal compassion, so I will let you put your whole head in." The camel quickly stepped forward and put not only his head in the tent, but his neck and shoulders as well. The Arab noticed this, as well as the smell of the camel now, but graciously said nothing, to avoid offending the camel.

After a few more sips of spice tea, the Arab heard shivering outside the tent and the the camel's pitiful voice yet again: "O wise master of great liberal compassion, the cold wind is stronger now, and my tail and hindquarters are suffering... could I please put them in the tent now?"

The Arab consented. Being a fair and reasonable man, he assumed the camel to be fair and reasonable as well, and assumed that the camel meant to take his head out of the tent, turn around and back into the tent to warm his hindquarters. But the camel, finally getting the full consent he wanted all along, walked completely into the small tent, forcing the Arab to drop his tea and scramble out the other end of the tent to avoid being trampled. The Arab now found himself shivering in the cold, with a large and powerful camel in his tent. The camel did not answer his pleas or demands, for everyone knows that camels cannot speak.

In other words, "give them an inch and they will take a mile." Muslims do it much slower than the camel, but that is what they are doing all over the world.

posted by GoldenMean on December 8, 2005 at 10:39 PM | link to this | reply

The debate between Golden Mean and Noorah has been very civil...

as well as serious. Golden, I couldn't help but notice that you referred to the French rioters as "poor" Muslims. I think I get your point -- if it is that they should not be given the sympathetic label "poor" -- but the fact remains that for people living in poverty and largely excluded from the broader society, the appeals of violent leaders are more salient, helping expand the numbers of people committed to violence.

The West has done plenty to give Muslim Arabs legitimate grievances. There are also Muslims with wholly illegitimate grievances. But as long as legitimate ones exist, it is going to be easier for the ones with illegitimate ones to exploit the legitimate ones to gain more followers. Angry, unemployed young men are relatively easy targets for the appeals of violent zealots.

It would really help to reduce the causes of their anger -- of course, only to the extent of valid accommodations, such as opening up employment opportunities, citizenship, etcetera, while still fighting the theocrats, the sexists, the aspiring tyrants, as much as necessary.

But a big part of the fight against Islamic extremists is subtracting from the ranks of their potential followers, and that goal is ill-served by policies that make Arabs worse off, whether by supporting dictatorships or the denial of Palestinian sovereignty. If we seriously addressed these issues, I think we'd find Islam in general would come a long way toward being a more benign force in the world, if only because its extremists would find themselves more and more isolated, and because moderate Arab peoples and states would do more to help us capture the remaining terrorists (because we've done more to help them).  

posted by Dyl_Pickle on December 5, 2005 at 5:17 PM | link to this | reply

Short version "sound bite" of previous comment

There are no more Christian Inquisitors in Spain or anywhere else in the world to burn us at the stake, but there are Islamic Jihadists all over the world to blow us up. And there IS enforcement of religious law in every Islamic state where religious authoriites control the government. Religion becomes the law. There is no equivalent to this today in any other religion that I know of.

posted by GoldenMean on December 3, 2005 at 9:01 PM | link to this | reply

Noorah

First, welcome to Blogit! I am always glad to see a truly thoughtful person join the discussion/debates.

I was perhaps over-anxious to get the informed opinion of a Muslim, but I did ask if I could assume you were Muslim. That means I had not assumed it yet, obviously.

I have some experience outside my own little culture-box, as you do. I was raised as a Baptist, but with friends I have attended services and ceremonies of Catholic, Methodist, Episcopal, Ba'hai, Hindu, Buddhist and Spiritualist persuasions. Long ago, I took two classes in Scientology. My wife is a casual Buddhist. I have yet to attend a service at a mosque, though I was recently invited. I once sponsored a devout Muslim at a US Army officer school, a captain from the Jordanian army, and we talked a lot about the difference between our cultures.

Now perhaps we know each other a little better. Your last comment reminded me of the earlier comment here by Ariel70, and here is what I replied to him:

"I have researched the Spanish Inquisition myself and written elsewhere on it. There is no doubt that it was a horrific atrocity, many times worse than Muslim atrocities in Spain. And of course there were Christian atrocities against Muslims in Spain. There are atrocities on all sides, if we dig deep enough, but each side tries to ignore its own atrocities and expose the other side's atrocities.

Before and after the Inquisition, Christianity was generally a less violent religion than Islam, I think it is fair to say. What worries me about Islam is the strong tradition of persecution of women and non-Muslims that is available to Muslim authorities whenever they are able to take complete control of any country, region or city. Iraqi terrorists are doing it whenever they can, in Fallujah and elsewhere. They will do it in Europe or America when they get the chance."

Noorah, I am painfully aware of the violent atrocities in the history of almost every religion. I studied most of them long ago. But the word "history" is key. Islam seems to be going through its violent phase RIGHT NOW, putting all of us in danger. We are in no danger from the Spanish Inquisition, and it is not likely for Christianity to ever go through such an extreme phase again. Christianity has matured to some degree, as a whole. It's past violence produced a strong reform movement (Protestant) which eventually defeated the violent fundamentalists.

Today, Christians no longer burn people at the stake. Today, Jews no longer stone people to death.... BUT MUSLIM GOVERNMENTS CUT OFF THE HANDS OF THIEVES, in Iran and perhaps other countries. They beat people, torture people, and hang people for breaking Islamic laws. Religious police roam the streets of Mecca and Tehran, carrying canes or whips to enforce Islamic law upon citizens in the shops and streets.

Other religions already had their violent phases in history. They do concern me. Islam is in its violent phase RIGHT NOW. Look at the indicators: Islamic terrorist cells in almost every Western country, trying to bomb us into submission.....The Islamic sniper Malvo and his boy accomplice (remember them?)..... Massive violent riots in France by "poor" Islamic youths..... the assassination in Holland of journalists critical of Islam..... the recent Muslim attacks in America on convenience stores owned by Muslims who choose to sell alcohol....

In Iran, members of the government have vowed to destroy Israel with atomic bombs, and they are working feverishly to produce such bombs, while lying to the world about it.

My advice to you is to look carefully at the differences between Islam and other religions, for the differences are becoming increasingly dangerous, while most Muslims will not admit them. It is not the majority of peaceful Muslims I am worried about. It is the oppressive, fundamentalist Mullahs, Imams, and Shieks who are deciding the future of Islam. And they want a return to the oppressive Sharia (Islamic law) as taught by Mohammed. Right now, Muslims in Canada are demanding that they be allowed to enforce Sharia in areas where they are a majority.

And as you say, Noorah, Islam is the fastest-growing religion in the world. That doesn't make it more desirable or more correct. That makes it more powerful and more able to enforce what it wants on its followers and the rest of us. And what it wants to enforce is the Sharia, the Islamic law as required by Allah and Mohammed.

posted by GoldenMean on December 3, 2005 at 8:09 PM | link to this | reply

Atrocities of Christians or Confuscists Routinely Ignored

Your sources should be broadened as you conveniently or inadvertantly leave out any of the historical brutalities of Christianity and forced conversion, expulsion, killing and torture of Non-Christians during The Spanish Inquisition. Atrocities of not only witches, gypsies, atheists, and esoterics of different religions, other 'heretics', but Jews also. These atrocities were carried out during The Spanish Inquisition because of their affluent financial status in Spanish society. Once again, politics and the Church converge to inflict pain and suffering.

In fact, there is probably NOT 1 religion on this Earth that has not had its own distress, rebellion, wars or dissention. For example how long have the Bhuddist Tibetans been seeking their own independent (non-Chinese controlled) state? There have been very bloody battles, uprisings, and wars there for a long time. They have struggling to exist without Chinese Confuscist law and way of life (politics playing a role here too). Thus it is an exclusive thought or idea to say Islam is the bloodiest religion, and that is was spread only by the sword because in fact that is not true. Peaceful conversion and reversion was done in the past is still happening today. A matter of fact Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world--ONLY BY PEACEFUL MEANS.

To be the fastest growing religion means that not all of what you are writing is true. Furthermore, with all due respect you are misunderstanding what you are reading.

As I mentioned earlier, I come from an Atheistic background about 2 generations back, so as someone who has studies several religions I still find it hard to believe people are accepting a religion which meaning of the name comes from the word Salam (Peace). Religions are institutions that have been abused by many unfortunately, thus forcing intelligent people to ask questions like, Why? What is my purpose in life?

Assumptions and conclusions made that are disproportionate to any population or group acting as a label,etc. without all-inclusive objective "research" can be dangerous too. Even if one studies for years there is always more to learn as there is not anyone who can claim to know everything. Humbly speaking, one who is knowledgeable cannot rule out that there is always new or unfounded or hidden knowledge somewhere.

Sincerely,
Noorah

posted by noorah on December 3, 2005 at 3:08 PM | link to this | reply

Opinions or Misinterpretations?

GoldenMean, You say that you are a "future 'dhimmi'" (meaning you are relocating)but to what country may I ask? Or were you formerly Muslim?

If anyone disagrees they must be Muslim, right? Another misconception! People who are multi-religiously knowledgeable can come to the same conclusions as I have, and I have had personal experiences where that is so to support that as I have also been a member of small forums.

Just trying to understand from what inspiration/intention the assumptions and your understandings/misunderstandings come from. You may be surprised but I come from an Atheistic family background from 2 generations back. Although, I have studied the Bible New Testament and Old, Torah and Qur'an as well as other spiritual ideals such as scientology, Hindu teaching as well as Bhuddist teachings, etc.. I have visited and attended Hindu temples, Sikh Temples, Baptist Churches, Protestant churches, Catholic Churches, Jewish temples and Mosques. Furthermore, I have worked with and have friendships with people from ALL faiths throughout my life.

As I am one only of many who were searching for answers to questions that all religions bring. My ancestors are of British and Scottish descent and as I look back in history, as you will find Muslims didn't invent the idea "terrorist" bombimgs the Irish Catholics used this tactic to demoralize the British people and kill key British Protestant politicians for decades to has success in seceding eventually from Great Britain. It was and still is political not a religious war. Did anyone call them Irish Catholic terrorists? Just separatists or mild terminology terrorists was and is still rarely used. Even before the London bombings, the Londoners were accustomed to such horrid terror plots and bombings. Genocide and terrorism have been rampant in Africa for centuries but the whole world has ignored it with tribes killing each other such as the Tsutsies and Hutus in Rwanda (political motivation seen here) and if one looks carefully it is in almost all cases, etc. to name one of hundreds of examples. Today the definition for something that was not originated by Muslims continues to be misworded to mean and include only 'Muslim terrorists'. This is the general "collective thought" amongst those who are ignorant not people who know and remember history as it was. Don't get me wrong terrorism no matter what its face or religion appears to be IS WRONG and NOT SUPPORTED or JUSTIFIED by any of the 3 Major Holy Books: Bible, Qur'an or Torah. People are only happy to point out faults or something not understood by them and put it on a posterboard, but find ONE PERSON to point out the faults in the of the popes and kings over history who changed the Bible to their own suiting primarily for political control. The papacy was a political position as well as a spiritual position in old feudal societies all over the world and still having influence on laws. Check out the recent documentary and interviews, 'balanced' with Christian, Jewish and Muslim commentaries available on videotape of "The Crusades: The Crescent and the Cross" aired last week on (I think)the History Channel.

I noticed that one of your sources written recently are among many books written recently by people who are buying into "terror mania" books that sell based on what people want to hear not the truth, primarily politically based because only a handful had existed 4 years ago but anybody can write a book...smile.

Have you ever visited spiritual places other than your own? It helps to open the mind to understanding through experience not only in books which can be misunderstood easily without consultation from those who are more knowledgeable. If you are interested there are interfaith debates and lectures available through videotape.

I have a challenge for anyone to not let news or books formulate opinions solely about other religions. Every human being should search for their own answers and talk to people, and not be willing to be "spoon-fed" by media, politics, etc. as the true essence of any religion is lost in that. Everyone who questions ANY religion should search and live as part of that in daily lifestyle and associate closely to those to truly understand the meaning of it. Believe it or not, I know of an amazing man who actually did that and excelled in it. He lived and studied for many years in each religion. Furthermore he excelled in a spiritual level of Zoroastrianism, Hinduism, Bhuddism, Chritianity, Judaism, and Islam.

I don't have much time perhaps I will continue my response later to more questions you have posed. Again, it is still a pleasure to have such an engaging exchange, even though we may disagree. I am a new blogger and this is first ignited exchange I have had writing in my first week and a half.

Regards,
Noorah

posted by noorah on December 3, 2005 at 11:34 AM | link to this | reply

And what about the "dhimmi"?

Noorah, the main point of my blog was to point out how Islamic states treat the unbelievers and the women living under their control. Iran and Saudi Arabia do not give us much to hope for. In Saudi Arabia, women cannot drive cars. Iran is extremely harsh on followers of other religions, especially the Ba'hai, who are constantly attacked, imprisoned, harassed and discriminated against, just because of their religion.

The Taliban's religious dictatorship in Afghanistan still lives on in the hearts of the Islamic Wahhabi fundamentalists as the ideal Islamic state. If they can, they WILL establish such a state again, perhaps in Iraq. The Qu'ran would seem to support that. Do you support the interpretation of the Qu'ran that has been made evident to the world in the governments of Saudi Arabia, Iran, and the Taliban's Afghanistan? This potential future "dhimmi" would like to know.

posted by GoldenMean on December 3, 2005 at 6:57 AM | link to this | reply

Also, another question about the consortium

Noorah, do you happen to know if the consortium's findings included any opinion on the Hadith, the sayings of Mohammed that are separate from the Qu'ran? It is my understanding of Sharia (Islamic law) that it is based not only on the Qu'ran, but also largely based upon the Hadith. And it is very obvious to me that the Hadith is the source of most of the justification for Islamic violence and terrorism. It is the Hadith, not just the Qu'ran, that needs to be addressed by the honorable international consortium.

posted by GoldenMean on December 3, 2005 at 6:38 AM | link to this | reply

Noorah

Thanks for the great input here. Can I assume that you are a Muslim? I am glad, and encouraged, that an international consortium of Muslims has agreed that there is no support for terrorism in the Qu'ran. Unfortunately, the hordes of Islamic terrorists seem to disagree with that. And I am sure that the international consortium did not include terrorists groups.

But regardless of scripture, I wonder if you can give me an informed opinion as to why Islam seems to be the only religion in the world whose extremists (and legitimate governments) are still cutting off peoples' body parts (heads of infidels, hands of thieves), and using their own bodies as bombs to commit mass murder in an act that they believe is holy?

posted by GoldenMean on December 3, 2005 at 6:24 AM | link to this | reply

International Consortium: Nothing In The Qur'an Supports Terrorism

Last month there was an International Consortium of all Muslims sects from all over the world who also disproved your theories written earlier (...of course everyone has a right to an opinion) researching all versions of Qur'an and DID NOT FIND ANY SUBSTANTIATION FOR SUPPORT OF ANY FORM OF TERRORISM. So I think you need to do a lot more research such as comprehensive historical research as well as possible interfaith research than pulling out a sentence here or there to support such theories that sound more like propaganda.

Whether you like it or not there is a correlation between Torah, Bible in Aramaic and Qur'an, a lot has been edited out.
Food For Thought: All that is available seems like less for those thisty for knowledge.

posted by noorah on December 2, 2005 at 4:45 PM | link to this | reply

Spreading Untruths: Most Muslims are Not Terrorists

--You cannot claim to know everything unless you get to know a 'real' Muslim as with any other religion there are misconceptions and prejudices and propaganda easily construed by mass ignorance of people, even those who claim to have read the Qur'an... as there are explanations/interpretations according to circumstances in history that are usually studied in conjunction as well, as with the Bible and Torah.

--A Qur'an can be misunderstood especially since there are deeper levels than the literal, even Muslims can misunderstand if not knowledgeable enough about history and circumstances of events.

--LET'S STICK TO THE POINT: To isolate any verse that you quoted IF VERIFIABLE is misused, misleading, twisted and USED TO SPREAD HATRED FOR MUSLIMS, thus any Buddhist, Jew, Christian, Hindu or Confuscist can understand with clarity your goals here.

posted by noorah on December 2, 2005 at 4:27 PM | link to this | reply

It is precisely because the Saudi elite is so bad...

...that it's so unconscionable that we have continued to coddle them, all to secure our oil supplies. I am all for drilling for oil at home if that would help, but that's a short-term solution. There just isn't enough oil at home to meet our needs much longer, and unchecked drilling would eventually do serious harm to the environment. You don't have to be a rabid environmentalist to agree with that. The long-term solution really is going to have to be a combination of less energy use on our part altogether, and cleaner, renewable energy sources. The first one is probably the toughest sell. It goes against the grain of our culture -- "We want it, we want it now, we want as much as we want, and damn the consequences!"

Once we really get investing in solar, wind, fuel cell, biomass, etc. for energy sources, we can become energy independent and have sufficient supplies, but we are going to have to accept reasonable limits on our consumption as well. As long as the fossil fuel industries are among the most powerful forces in Washington, though, that won't happen. What's in the interest of their profits isn't necessarily what's best for the country, and we need a political leadership that understands that. 

posted by Dyl_Pickle on November 28, 2005 at 7:29 PM | link to this | reply

Sleeping wit h the devil

Yes, we have supported dictatorships to secure oil supplies. Our greatest support has gone to Saudi Arabia. You wouldn't believe how corrupt the Saudi royals are. But the Saudi royal family is TRULY sleeping with the devil, in the form of the Wahhabi extremists they have bankrolled and coddled, even providing them with terrorist training camps in Saudi Arabia. The royals were on the verge of bankruptcy, until the recent increase in the price of oil. They will probably stave off disaster for a few more years now. Their recent/current "crackdown" on Muslim terrorists in Saudi Arabia is probably a joke, just for show.

Dylan, you really should get this book:
"Sleeping With the Devil," by Robert Baer (ex-CIA)

It focuses on our dealings with Saudi Arabia, their corruption, and their dealings with their own Muslim extremists. Baer risked his life during and after his CIA career to obtain this information, and it reads like a super-spy thriller, but it is all too true. His opening scenario on how easy it would be for terrorists to stop the flow of Saudi oil with just a few well-placed bombs is truly terrifying.

Any corruption of US officials/companies dealing with Saudi Arabia pales in comparison to what the Saudi elite are doing. They are destroying their own country, for lives of luxury and power. I don't know how to wean ourselves off of Saudi oil, but I hope our government is looking for ways. New drilling in Alaska would be a help, as would building new refineries, but the environmentalists block every attempt.

It seems our country is now split into rabid factions, single-issue factions, who cannot or will not see the big picture, or the larger national interest. Everyone is intent on their own personal "jihad" of one sort or another. The spirit of compromise seems to be dead, on all sides. I shudder to see what is coming next, because it can't be good.

posted by GoldenMean on November 27, 2005 at 10:29 PM | link to this | reply

I agree they have to see the evil and fight the evil themselves.

I'm saying some ill-advised U.S. policies have created justified anger and resentment among many Arabs.

We have supported dictatorships in order to secure oil interests, and helped arm the faction of Israel that wishes to take over all of Palestine by force.

I'm all for fighting extremist jihadists. What I'm against is policies that hurt other Arabs, the good or potentially good ones.

posted by Dyl_Pickle on November 27, 2005 at 1:24 PM | link to this | reply

Dylan

As to your last paragraph, I too believe in the general goodness of most Muslims. But I am worried about their willingness to oppose the jihadists. As the saying goes: "All that evil needs to succeed is for good people to do nothing to oppose it."

We should not have to "lure" the good Muslims away from sympathizing with the violent jihadists/Wahhabis, who want to establish oppressive Islamic states. They should see the evil of the Muslim radicals and oppose it for themselves. But still we must try to lure them, and one part of doing that is by pointing out the true values and doctrines of the jihadists/Wahhabis, and that is mostly what I am doing here.

posted by GoldenMean on November 27, 2005 at 5:12 AM | link to this | reply

Dylan

Great comment, all true, and very wise observations on your part. Christian extremists do want to give some parts of their religion the force of law. But mostly they are doing it in a non-violent manner, and by participating in the political process and political debate. And the laws they want to enforce, like banning abortion and allowing prayer in school, are pretty mild.

Compare this to the oppressive actions of the Jihadists/Wahhabis against women and Muslim heretics, when they gain control of an area. Like in Saudi Arabia and Iran, they try to enforce the complete Sharia, the body of Islamic Law as taught by Mohammed. Which requires oppression of women and non-Muslims as second-class citizens.

Any Muslims please correct me if I am wrong here.

Dylan, I just think that as Americans/Europeans, we need to be more aware of the possible dangers of growing Muslim populations in our countries and elsewhere.

posted by GoldenMean on November 26, 2005 at 3:42 PM | link to this | reply

Golden Mean,

I am just now reading this post and all the comments. Very interesting discussion.

One problem is that some in the United States take a much more absolute view of Islam than you do, and yours is pretty tough. One of their main objections to Islam is theological: "The true God isn't Allah with his prophet being Mohammed, but the Father with his son the Christ!"

No amount of Islamic reform could accommodate this objection. And that is the problem with fundamentalist religion when it turns public, i.e. into an unwillingness to tolerate unbelievers even outside of church or mosque. In my view, fundamentalist Christianity -- in some of its prevalent forms in the U.S. -- is just as disposed as Islam to establish itself as the state religion.

What else could those rightish Christians mean by constantly reminding us, "The Constitution doesn't say anything about a separation of church and state!"? They are not telling us that the Constitution does not contain those literal words. Rather they are implying that the Constitution permits the church and state to act together for the promotion of conservative Christian beliefs and practices.

They haven't succeeded in so uniting church and state because obnoxious liberals -- who over time become appreciated and vindicated, if only by default -- fought to keep church from controlling state and vice versa. But if we left it up to fundamentalists, I very much doubt they would have put up any kind of barrier between church and state.

It's definitely true that Islam -- if we took it as an average quantity, the magnitude being the degree of fundamentalist statism prevalent in the faith -- is far behind Christianity in terms of adopting progressive secular tolerant reforms. It doesn't help that we support corrupt, tyrannical regimes in places like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, and the right-wing faction within Israel, for economic and strategic interests. That causes many Arab Muslims to become angry with the West, its chief exponent being the U.S., and terrorists come exploit their resentment. If we stopped depending on M.E. oil, and adopted a more even-handed stance between Israel and Palestine, more Arabs would see reason to find fault with jihadist appeals.

It's true that you cannot appease the jihadists. But you can lure non-jihadists away from jihadists by showing respect toward Arabs and Muslims in general, and that's what we cannot do if we say things like, "Islam is a violent religion that wants to take over the world." Making small rhetorical accommodations for Islamic reforms is not enough. We have to project belief in the general goodness of all non-jihadist Muslims, even if we believe (but don't say out loud) that the goodness is largely latent. If it's there at all -- the goodness, that is -- we have to tap into that, not stir up the bad tendencies by having policies that antagonize Muslims in general. 

posted by Dyl_Pickle on November 26, 2005 at 5:44 AM | link to this | reply

Xeno-x

All to true, my friend. There is need for spiritual liberation from oppressive religious doctrine all over the world. You and I, and most of Blogit, are most familiar with the excesses of Christianity because that is our culture.

But I urge everyone to educate themselves more about Islam, because it truly is trying to take over the world, and has the best chance of succeeding. It has the most violent radicals, and most of the moderate Muslims sympathize with them.

I recommend 3 excellent books I am in the process of reading:

Sleeping With the Devil, by Robert Baer (ex-CIA)
Atomic Iran, by Jerome R. Corsi, PhD
The West's Last Chance, by Tony Blankley

These books will open blind eyes and scare the hell out of you.

posted by GoldenMean on November 20, 2005 at 6:56 AM | link to this | reply

just one more thing

religious self-righteousness
is common among all religions
a history of Christianity tells us all that.
The Church refused to allow dissension -- still does.
Christian missionaries basically go with the attitude that their religion is superior to those of the lands the visit.
indigenous peoples were "converted" to Christianity, by Spaniards, Englishmen, U.S., etc., wkthou regard for their native sensibilities --
Christianity itself has been spread through conquest -- not by armies of the religion itself, but by the countries, like England, France, the U.S., etc., conquering.
original Christianity did not have to conquer, it became the religion of Constantine, thus, of the Roman Empire, a conquering force.
History is rife with accounts of Christian intolerance, from The Church, through the Anglican Church, from which the Puritans fled, through the Puritans themselves, who devastated the local indigenous populace and drove Roger Williams to found Rhode Island, through various missionary activities throughout the world which have led to bad feelings with various populaces.
etc.
this underscores the need for a new world religious perception -- one that transcends religious boundaries and unites all religions.

posted by Xeno-x on November 19, 2005 at 1:48 PM | link to this | reply

Finding more on jizya tax

Apparently no Islamic country today imposes a tax called "jizya" on non-Muslims, but it may be incorporated into a tax code that disguises it... more research to follow. In Egypt, there are Muslim mafia-type groups that extort "jizya" payments from Christians and kill them if they stop paying. Similar to mafia rackets elsewhere, but this is a RELIGIOUS mafia.

Many Muslim clerics and journalists are calling for a return to "jizya" tax. Here is a link to the Middle East Media Research Institute with search results for jizya

posted by GoldenMean on November 16, 2005 at 11:14 PM | link to this | reply

Interesting spin

I found this favorable definition of jizya tax, on the glossary of a Pakistani Muslim website:

"jizya--
A tax imposed on non-Muslims in a Muslim state meant to compensate the state for the protection given to non-Muslims who are not permitted to serve in the military."

This brings up another Muslim discriminatory practice which I was not aware of: non-Muslims cannot serve in the military of an Islamic state.

posted by GoldenMean on November 16, 2005 at 10:42 PM | link to this | reply

Ariel70

I have researched the Spanish Inquisition myself and written elsewhere on it. There is no doubt that it was a horrific atrocity, many times worse than Muslim atrocities in Spain. And of course there were Christian atrocities against Muslims in Spain. There are atrocities on all sides, if we dig deep enough, but each side tries to ignore its own atrocities and expose the other side's atrocities.

Before and after the Inquisition, Christianity was generally a less violent religion than Islam, I think it is fair to say. What worries me about Islam is the strong tradition of persecution of women and non-Muslims that is available to Muslim authorities whenever they are able to take complete control of any country, region or city. Iraqi terrorists are doing it whenever they can, in Fallujah and elsewhere. They will do it in Europe or America when they get the chance.

Some references I have found concerning Muslim atrocities in Spain are as follows. I do not vouch for their accuracy, but they claim to be historical:

"On December 30, 1066, the Jewish vizier of Granada, Spain was crucified by an Arab mob that proceeded to raze the Jewish quarter of the city and slaughter its 5,000 inhabitants. The riot was incited by Muslim preachers who had angrily objected to what they saw as excessive Jewish political power." --- Norman Stillman, The Jews of Arab Lands, 1979, pp. 59, 284.

"It must be said that the Almoravid period in Iberia was the lowest point of Muslim history in the Peninsula. The Almoravids occupied large parts of Southern Iberia but, in the 50 odd years they were present, never really controlled considerable territory. There was great territorial flux due to endless conflict with Christians and Arabs alike. The Almoravids were fanatical Islamic "purists" who twisted religion to suit their pursuit of power (much like the Taliban). These people were extermely repressive and responsible for numerous social and cultural abuses/atrocities. So feared and hated were the Almoravids that some of the Arab califs actually joined forces with Christian kingdoms to defeat them. A good example of the level of hatred for the Almoravids is found in the town of Tomar in Portugal. In the aftermath of an early 10th century town siege the Christian knights captured approximately 6,000 Almoravid troops and beheaded them all in the city's main square." ---- comments in a review of a new book Slavery, Terrorism and Islam by Dr. Peter Hammond

In an encylopedia, I found a reference to a Muslim warlord Al-Mansur, who attacked and looted Barcelona in 985, Santiago de Compostela in 997, and destroyed the monastery of San Milan.

Moorish Spain by R. Fletcher records the destruction of Cordova, Zarajoza and Merida, where all adult males were executed and all women and children were enslaved. In 1066 all the Jews of Grenada were slaughtered and in 1126 the Christians of Granada were deported to Morocco.


Among all this, I have found that many writers praise the Muslim rulers of Spain for their tolerance of Jews and Christians, so apparently it was a mixed bag, but I am sure that the non-Muslims were still treated as second-class citizens and I know that they were required to pay the jizya tax, over and above the taxes Muslims paid.

I hope this helps, and thanks for reading.

posted by GoldenMean on November 16, 2005 at 10:26 PM | link to this | reply

Xeno-x

I will gladly read more of alt-muslim when I get time.

posted by GoldenMean on November 16, 2005 at 5:15 AM | link to this | reply

Golden mean

I have just come across your comment, re my posts on the Spanish Inquisition by chance.

The Muslim invasion of Spain in the 8th century was but one of many incursions into Spain by Visigoths, Franks and many other races, so it is unjust to single the Moors out as being the sole perpetrators of an " atrocity".

As far as I am aware - and I am willing to be corrected on this point - once Moorish rule was established in Spain, the Jews and adherents of other religions, or pagans, were accorded more or less full tolerance, albeit subject to certain restrictions. Almost every town, and even small village here in Spain has its Juderia -Jewish quarter - testifying to the fact that Jews were in fact tolerated by the Moors.

Pray tell me : what  evidence exists of Moorish persecution or massacre of Jews? What are your sources for your statement that Moorish occupation of Spain was an " atrocity"?

You seem to imagine that I have some sort of anti-Christian bias in writing of the Spanish Inquisition, and this is discourteous to to me, for as is surely well known by now to all in here, although  I am an atheist, I do respect Christians and their beliefs.

It will be made clear in later posts that the Spanish Inquisition was a grotesque perversion of true Christianity ; and was an offence against God. Jesus;s adjuration to His followers to " Love one another" was totally ignored by the Inquisitors.

posted by ariel70 on November 16, 2005 at 5:12 AM | link to this | reply

Xeno x

Of course, individual Muslim rulers may be more tolerant of their dhimmi than other rulers. But even in Jerusalem, the showcase of Muslim tolerance, the following has happened. Muslims forced Christian pilgrims to Jerusalem to pay a special tax. All Christians and Jews had to pay the jizya tax, which was often increased. Muslim rulers banned any displays of the cross. In 772, the Caliph Al-Mansur ordered the hands of Christians and Jews in Jerusalem to be marked with a distinctive symbol. In 789, Muslims beheaded a monk who had converted from Islam and attacked the Bethlehem monastery of Saint Theodosius, killing many more monks. In the ninth century, the persecutions in and around Jerusalem grew so violent that large numbers of Christians fled to Constantinople and other Christian cities. More persecutions in 923 destroyed many additional churches, and in 937, Muslims went on a Palm Sunday rampage in Jerusalem, plundering and destroying the Church of Calvary and the Church of the Resurrection.
-----Moshe Gil, A History of Palestine 634-1099

So, even in Jerusalem, showcase of Muslim tolerance, Muslims enforced Islamic law at all times and became violent whenever they wished. And their gold-domed mosque (Dome of the Rock), was built after the church on that site was destroyed, was it not?

posted by GoldenMean on November 16, 2005 at 4:37 AM | link to this | reply

Thanks for the comments

Ukie:
Yes of course the world needs more love, but it also needs more justice when love falls short.

Ariel:
If you are going to write about the Spanish Inquisition, a Christian atrocity, you might also consider writing about the earlier Muslim conquest of Spain, an atrocity of Islam. Where Islam gains complete control, it is very similar to an Inquisition. Just look to the current religious persecution of heretical Muslims and non-Muslims in Iran, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, and in Afghanistan until we stopped it. "Inquisition" is an integral part of most Islamic states. Iran viciously persecutes those of the Ba'hai faith within its borders. I believe that the Ba'hai faith started in Iran, and the Ayahtollah Kohmeini vowed to wipe it out.

Other commenters:
Thanks, I will answer you tomorrow night.

posted by GoldenMean on November 14, 2005 at 9:29 PM | link to this | reply

love love love love...

don't you see... that's what the world needs now, is love sweet love.

posted by FerretLover on November 14, 2005 at 12:10 PM | link to this | reply

somehow...

we must love one another.

posted by FerretLover on November 14, 2005 at 12:01 PM | link to this | reply

Xeno et al

When the Jews were expelled from Spain in 1483 and 1609, it was Muslim countries that gave them refuge.

Every town and even small villages in Spain has its former juderia ; Jewish quarter.

I'm about to post the first part of a series of pieces on the Spanish Inquisition this evening, and I hope that it might offer a different perception of Muslim?jewish historical relations

posted by ariel70 on November 14, 2005 at 9:19 AM | link to this | reply

and about the sayings in the holy books

there is one

"they say 'lord, lord', but do not the things that I say."
boy has this applied to Christians.
Maybe Moslem books to talk about certain kinds of violence. First I doesn't seem that you have read the posts of ALT.MUSLIM. I think you should. That would inform you.
Secondly, though, actions speak louder than words, and it does seem that Christians have commited a lot of atrocities in the name of their religion.
This is what is called hypocritical.
repent.

posted by Xeno-x on November 14, 2005 at 9:13 AM | link to this | reply

the history of Muslims

is not as you suggest.
Christians and Jews alike enjoyed much freedom in Jerusalem under Muslem rule, the Moslem rulers allowing the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and Church of the Nativity among others to remain and flourish for centuries. I don't see any anti-Christian or Jihad like activity there.
There has been and is a "Jewish Quarter in Jerusalem, and in Spain before the good Christians took it over, Jews were a substantial part of the populace among their Moslem Brethren. Compare this to the good King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella and the Church once Spain became wholly Christian -- this began the Spanish Inquisition against Jews.
If I had been Jew at that time, I would have preferred Moslems over Christians any day.
It is only during the past several decades, when Jews wanted a homeland in the Holy Land and European nations conquered and exploited Arabs that Moslems had a problem with the West -- and yet, the churches in Jerusalem remained mainly untouched.
Moslem radicalism to the degree that we have now is a recent development in response to actions by Christian countries.
There is a saying, "If you are not part of the solution, then you are part of the problem."; and you, my friend, do appear to be part of the problem.
repent.

posted by Xeno-x on November 14, 2005 at 9:10 AM | link to this | reply

G.M.

But here in the U.S. on the U.S. homeland we are in much more danger of being killed by a radical Christian than we are of ever seeing a radical Muslim do anything harmful to us. All one needs to do is look at our recent history. More murders and hate crimes are committed by Christians. We have only had two terrorist attacks by Muslims here on the U.S. homeland, while we have had many, many more by Christians, just not to the same scale, and since there is a large number of Christians in the country who do all they can to get such things under played and forgotten as soon as possible, they do not get much attention.

The point is not about what the holy books say, but about how their beliefs in those faiths are expressed.

I personally am not at all worried about Muslims doing any harm to me or my family, but I do fear for the craze Christians out there who are believing the end times are near and are doing insane things to deal with the sinners and doers of evil. Those Christians are mush more likely to do me or my family harm than the Muslims are if we are to study the recent history of our country.

posted by kooka_lives on November 14, 2005 at 8:56 AM | link to this | reply

Kooka

A very interesting point. But you try to equate Christianity with Islam, and one of my points is that they are not equal. If you like, I can find many quotes from the New Testament that call for tolerance and non-violence, and many more quotes from the Koran and Hadith that call for extreme intolerance, violence, and subjugation of women and non-believers. If I were to rate religions on a scale of 1 to 10 for intolerance and violence, I would give Christianity a 4 and Islam a 10. Christianity went through its centuries of extreme violence and came out of them with a strong reform (Protestant) movement. Even during those dark centuries, Inquisitors were hard-pressed to find New Testament verses to justify their violence. There are two or three verses they used, but the meaning of the verses is unclear and open to interpretation.

At any rate, Christians are NOT beheading people, blowing themselves up at weddings, or burning thousands of cars and buildings and killing people in violent riots. I think we should put more effort in assessing and countering the threat to our civilization from radical Muslims, not from radical Christians.

posted by GoldenMean on November 14, 2005 at 5:05 AM | link to this | reply

Good post, but the focus is wrong

For a whole lot of what is said here seems to be true about most organized religions. Christianity itself follows a lot of those ideas.

To rephrase one part of your post-

"To the devout Christian, the ultimate objective is always to have an Christian government. All that is lacking is power of enforcement. Christian belief demands religious governance at whatever level it can enforce: from communities to cities to nations to the world. There is no desire for Christians to have separation of church and state. There are no basic freedoms for all, there is no basic human equality, there is no impartial justice for believer and non-believer alike. There is only enforcement of the Bible."

We are very much seeing this right now in our own country where the Christians are trying to turn all laws and rulings into what follow their religious beliefs, not what allows for freedom. That is the main reason as to why Bush got his second term after all. He claimed that he would help back up the idea of Christian beliefs controlling the laws of this country, even if that meant taking away people's freedoms.

The basic ideas here can be found in the practices of most organized religions. The problem as you pointed out is no the religion itself, just how it is taught and how it is followed. But the majority of religious beliefs do have these same problems attached to them due to people being able to abuse religious beliefs in such a way. Yet another great reason as to why I ma against organized religion. I would rather see religious beliefs become personal and meaningful, instead of easy to abuse and a means to control others.

posted by kooka_lives on November 13, 2005 at 8:32 PM | link to this | reply

Ariel

Thank for your kind words and good advice. I keep trying to shorten my posts, but I just get carried away. But this post should appear with an empty line between paragraphs-- if it doesn't then I need to figure out what is wrong. That is the way it appears on my screen.

posted by GoldenMean on November 13, 2005 at 1:08 PM | link to this | reply

Goldenmean

Your post is very good, and ought to be widely read, both within blogit and without.

If I may offer some sound advice, which might help you to be more widely read, try splitting your text into smaller bites, with a double space between, and don't make your posts too long. Post them in two or more parts.

Many people in her simply won't read dense text, nor long posts.

Good luck with your blog

 

posted by ariel70 on November 13, 2005 at 3:53 AM | link to this | reply

Religion can bring out the BEST or the WORST in people

I think you should reconsider. Religion does not CAUSE hatred and separation, but it is the most effective organization for hateful people to use to express and act on their hate.

But on the positive side, all religion, Islam included, can inspire loving people to come together in love and do a great deal to help the poor and others in need, establishing hospitals, orphanages, homeless shelters, soup kitchens, etc.

Like anything else in human experience, religion can accomplish great good or great evil. Let us not throw out the baby with the dirty bath water.

posted by GoldenMean on November 12, 2005 at 11:58 PM | link to this | reply

I believe.....

All religion is dangerous and is the cause of hatred and separation of people.

posted by RckyMtnActivist on November 12, 2005 at 11:21 PM | link to this | reply