Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 61 to 67 of 67

Thread: On Islam's strength's and weaknesses.

  1. #61

    Default Re: On Islam's strength's and weaknesses.

    Quote Originally Posted by sumskilz View Post
    As you note, Christianity is more concerned with orthodoxy, whereas Judaism is more concerned with orthopraxy. I would argue that Islam is intermediate between the two. The five pillars are orthopraxic, but the Shahada, the sincere profession of which is what makes one a Muslim, is a profession of belief.
    The Shahada is a very minimalist profession of belief, and the differences between major Islamic groups like the Sunni and Shiite are not based on theological differences. Islam might have a borrowed a few elements from Christianity, but it is clearly far more shifted toward Judaism than Christianity, as they adherence to dietary laws and practices like circumcision shows.. I would not call Islam intermediate, that implies Islam is more equal distant between the 2 religiojs than it is. Islam is very clearly biased toward Judaism, their practices show it.

    There are many essential beliefs in Islam, deviation from which is largely seen as heresy, in Judaism there is arguably only one, and even that is subject to a wide range of abstract and mutually exclusive interpretations. [/Quote]


    Practices such as circumcision, opposition to iconography, and the prohibition on eating pork aren’t necessarily evidence of Rabbinic influence since they are derived from texts venerated by both Christians and other Jewish movements. There were also Christians who followed Mosaic law. One common theme in early Islamic texts, is polemics against Jews and Christians for not following their own texts. Though not universally the case throughout history, Islam, and particularly early Islam, preferred more straightforward readings.
    Such Christians groups that practiced Mosaic law did so because it seems because they regarded themselves as Jews as well as Christians. Early Christianity arose direftly from Judaism, all the.dirst Christians were Jews. Such groups that practiced Jewish laws, and they were very much in a very small minority if they still existed by the 7th century, did so as a carryover legacy from the times when Christianity was just a Jewish sect. Islam was never a Jewish sect, nor did it ever claim to be, so the situation is different.

    As for your claim for Islam's claim for straight forward interpretation, that is highly debatable. The Koran is never specific as to what text of theirs the Jews and Christians are not followings and how they are specifically ciolating. In a manner all to typical odnthr Koran, if makes accusations without giving specifics. The Koran off makes claims.that are not supported by the facts, the New Testament does not speakmof Muhammad as Islam.says. The Muslims.attempt.to use the Gospel of John's to support its claims that the Gospels speakmof Muhammad is certainly not straight forward interpretation, pulling the verses they want to use out of a clear context and changing the meaning of true Greek word Comforter to suit their argument.

    The same thing is seen is seen when they use the Old Testament verses of Moses' prophecy of another prophet being sent after Moses. The Muslim interpretation of those Old Testament verses is not straight forward. Nor are the Muslim interpretation od Koranic passages always straight forward either.
    ..

    UAn example is the story about Muhammad having two Jewish adulterers stoned to death in accordance with a straightforward reading of biblical law, despite the local Jewish community claiming this was not their custom. The closest Rabbinic parallels are those stories you mentioned, although those stories may well have had an independent life circulating as folktales in addition to ending up in the Talmud.

    Something not touched on in your post, is the concepts in Islam of Heaven, Hell, Satan, and the nature of good and evil as a dichotomy, all of which appear to derive from Christian influence, as they are somewhat foreign to Rabbinic Judaism, especially the Rabbinic Judaism of the time.
    Yes, but non Rabbic Judaism was more significant increase the past as much as 10% of Jews rejected the core of Rabbinic Judaism, rhhe Oral Torah. And Indonr find the Muslim teachings of Hell and ressurection of the dead as different from Rabbinic Judaism teaching and the the Talmud as you make out. The idea of the 7 Heavens comes more from the Talmud tha the New Testament. A few elements of Islam do have a little more in common with Christianity than Judaism, but they are outnumbered by the ones where Islam has more in common with Judaism.

    In contrast, the Muslim approach to law is quite similar to Rabbinic Judaism, though such an approach has its roots largely in pre-Christian, pre-Rabbinic Hellenistic Period Judah.
    Which supports my point that Islam has more in common with Judaism than Christianity, but I will acknowledge that Islam.also has some.elements in common with Christianity over Judaism.

    I think it’s safe to say, that a great deal of what differs in Islam from Christianity or Rabbinic Judaism, is a product of cultural filters, and the predilections and needs of the early Muslim leadership. Islam in the days of its expansion seems to have sold itself as a return to the true monotheism that Jews and Christians had each deviated from in different ways. That said, I’ll throw something else on the table. Check out the Wikipedia article on Ebionite Christianity. Whether one wants to characterize their religion as more Christian or more Jewish is of no interest to me, but with regard to potential influence on Islam, it’s notable that the latest evidence of their existence is communities in the Hejaz.
    I agree, that Islam was its own religion, notnjust a repackaged Judaism or Christianity, however much it may have borrowed from each. Innthr 7th century, the Ebionites, if they still existed by then, were just a fringe group. Islam using the views of groups.like the Ebionites to represent Christianity is like using a group like the Alawites to represent Islam and nor know anything directly from the Koran.

  2. #62

    Default Re: On Islam's strength's and weaknesses.

    Whew, reading through this thread gave me a headache.....
    As a white European Muslim growing up in a country with pretty much an even amount of Christian Catholics, Orthodox and Muslims, something you won't find anywhere else in the world, I've seen the best of multi faith relations, and the absolute worst, with my own eyes. So the points I'm about to make have actual validity, unlike some of the uneducated knee jerk points by some of you in here.


    I will simplify everything for you all in a few short points.

    1) The biggest problem with Islam today is one that's always been a problem, it began in a tribal place and spread to other tribal places... By tribal I literally mean uncivilized state of mind, and limited mental capacity, basically the majority of Christians are first world Westerners, while most Muslims are third world residents. To use an analogy, I would say The difference is like comparing a city dwelling university educated person, to a tribal villager.
    Basically these people are still living in the same state of mind and by the same backwards tribal standards they have for thousands of years before Islam came to them, and mix these traditions with Islam, so that's what the West sees and believes it's actually Islam.

    2) Today's Islam is facing basically the same problem the Christian Church faced in Medieval times, mostly Fanaticism, corruption and disunity... The most powerful and loudest voices in Medieval Christianity were corrupt Popes, Clergy, Leaders/Crusaders who warred and killed more of their own fellow Christians than they did Muslims, much like the same way today's extremists have killed more Muslims in their lands than westerners.


    3) Now the biggest misconception about Islam today is that Non Muslims seem to believe that Saudi Arabia and other middle eastern countries speak for all Islam, and that makes speaking out against Islam so easy, it's why simpletons love to think of it this way.
    The truth is, Saudi Arabia is actually pretty much hated by the rest of the Islamic world, Why, you may ask?
    well for starters the Saud family came into power early last century by killing direct descendants of the Prophet Muhammad, I mean just imagine let's say the Papal States took over as leaders of the worldwide Christian faith by killing a descendant of the Prophet Jesus?
    I mean it'd be insane to judge a whole religion by the actions of such an entity, yet here is Islam today being judged in that exact manner.


    I can't comprehend nor wrap my head around the fact that it hasn't even been a hundred years since we've seen what the rise of Nationalism and Religious Fanaticism can turn the world into, it amounted to 2 WORLD WARS!! yet here we are again, seemingly going backwards to those same tendencies. We are literally failing as humans today, and with so many tools to better ourselves at our disposal, it's incomprehensible to me how this is happening.

  3. #63

    Default Re: On Islam's strength's and weaknesses.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sagat View Post
    Whew, reading through this thread gave me a headache.....
    As a white European Muslim growing up in a country with pretty much an even amount of Christian Catholics, Orthodox and Muslims, something you won't find anywhere else in the world, I've seen the best of multi faith relations, and the absolute worst, with my own eyes. So the points I'm about to make have actual validity, unlike some of the uneducated knee jerk points by some of you in here.


    I will simplify everything for you all in a few short points.

    1) The biggest problem with Islam today is one that's always been a problem, it began in a tribal place and spread to other tribal places... By tribal I literally mean uncivilized state of mind, and limited mental capacity, basically the majority of Christians are first world Westerners, while most Muslims are third world residents. To use an analogy, I would say The difference is like comparing a city dwelling university educated person, to a tribal villager.
    Basically these people are still living in the same state of mind and by the same backwards tribal standards they have for thousands of years before Islam came to them, and mix these traditions with Islam, so that's what the West sees and believes it's actually Islam.
    All very true. The vast majority kf Muslims reject the radical Jihadist Muslim views. But even if 99.99% of the Muslims reject such terrorist views, with a population of a billion Muslims that still leaves a a 120,000 would be terrorist and suicide bombers, and they can and have done a lot of damage.

    The tribal Muslims of the 3rd World have influenced a number of Muslims of the 1st World. Many of ISIS fighters were recruited from 1st World Muslims. The 1st World Muslim born in the US, Nidal Hisan, was guilty of the Fort Hood shooting. Omar Mateen, guilty of the Orlando Night Club shooting, was a 1st World Muslim born in the US. And white American Muslim convert John Walker Lindh was fighting for the Taliban.

    While these 1st World Muslim terrorist represent an very tiny fraction of the Muslim population, they still represent a much greater percentage of terrorist than rhe Muslim population of the US. The rate that even a 1st World Muslim will become terrorist is sti much higher than his white non Muslim counterpart.


    2) Today's Islam is facing basically the same problem the Christian Church faced in Medieval times, mostly Fanaticism, corruption and disunity... The most powerful and loudest voices in Medieval Christianity were corrupt Popes, Clergy, Leaders/Crusaders who warred and killed more of their own fellow Christians than they did Muslims, much like the same way today's extremists have killed more Muslims in their lands than westerners.
    True, but the reach of Medieval Christianity was much more limited than modern Islam, Medieval Christians could not travel and carryout terrorist attacks as modern Muslims did with 911. Muslim terrorist attacks are world wide, wherever Muslims are found. Sri Lanka, Spain, US, East Africa, West Africa, Indonesia, India, Pakistan,and so forth.

    Nor did Christianity have potential access to nuclear weapons, and finally, medieval times were many centuries ago. The issue is what is happening now, not many centuries ago. While Islam has in most cases abandoned thr medieval mindset, there are still plenty of Muslims still with a medieval mindset who also have access to modern weapons.

    ISIS was more than just a handful of dissatisfied Muslims, which is a problem.

    3) Now the biggest misconception about Islam today is that Non Muslims seem to believe that Saudi Arabia and other middle eastern countries speak for all Islam, and that makes speaking out against Islam so easy, it's why simpletons love to think of it this way.
    The truth is, Saudi Arabia is actually pretty much hated by the rest of the Islamic world, Why, you may ask?
    well for starters the Saud family came into power early last century by killing direct descendants of the Prophet Muhammad, I mean just imagine let's say the Papal States took over as leaders of the worldwide Christian faith by killing a descendant of the Prophet Jesus?
    I mean it'd be insane to judge a whole religion by the actions of such an entity, yet here is Islam today being judged in that exact manner.
    Unfortunately. Saudi Arabia has been using their Petro dollars to promote their influence and their brand of Islam. While only a small number of 1st World Muslims sucumb to Saudi influence, there are some that still do. And since Saudi Arabia controls Mecca, it does focus world attention on Mecca.

    Also, I don't know if any country where Muslim dominate where non Muslims are not treated as second class citizens. In the Mideast, where many Muslims still live, only 2 Muslim countries allow non Muslim men to legally marry Muslim women. The problem with the Islamic world is a lot.more than just Saudi Arabia.


    I can't comprehend nor wrap my head around the fact that it hasn't even been a hundred years since we've seen what the rise of Nationalism and Religious Fanaticism can turn the world into, it amounted to 2 WORLD WARS!! yet here we are again, seemingly going backwards to those same tendencies. We are literally failing as humans today, and with so many tools to better ourselves at our disposal, it's incomprehensible to me how this is happening.
    Neither World War I nor World War 2 was the result of religious fanaticism. Nationalism, yes. But not religion. Catholic France and mostly Protestant Britain fought against Protestant/Catholic Germany and Christian Germany was allied with Muslim Ottoman Empire, religion wasn't a factor.

    Nor was a religion was a factor in World War 2, where Christian US allied itself with officially athiest Soviet Union.

  4. #64

    Default Re: On Islam's strength's and weaknesses.

    Appreciate the reply, and to make myself clearer that last point about the World Wars yes it was mostly Nationalism like I wrote, (especially WW1) but the reason I also mentioned Religious Fanaticism is because that was very prevalent after WW2 broke out, it didn't necessarily start the conflict, but it perpetuated it to a large degree.
    The obvious example would be what the Nazi's did to the Jewish people, but that type of religious/ethnic divide took place in many theatres throughout WW2.

    One example would be my country of Yugoslavia which was split on multiple sides of Religious divide once WW2 broke out, even though we were ethnically the same people of same Slavic blood. The Catholic Croatians, Orthodox Serbs, and Muslim Bosniaks they all basically did their own thing separately, even warring with each other at times.
    It's why after WW2, Tito the Yugoslav Communist leader began his rule with an iron fist and suppressed Nationalism heavily and to a certain degree Religious freedom as well. He saw what we did during WW2 and knew it had to be suppressed, certain degree of freedom was sacrificed to keep Yugoslavia peaceful, and we see what happened shortly after he died.

  5. #65

    Default Re: On Islam's strength's and weaknesses.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sagat View Post
    Appreciate the reply, and to make myself clearer that last point about the World Wars yes it was mostly Nationalism like I wrote, (especially WW1) but the reason I also mentioned Religious Fanaticism is because that was very prevalent after WW2 broke out, it didn't necessarily start the conflict, but it perpetuated it to a large degree.
    The obvious example would be what the Nazi's did to the Jewish people, but that type of religious/ethnic divide took place in many theatres throughout WW2.
    What the Nazis did to the Jews was ethnically based, it was not based on religion. Even if the Jews had converted from Judaism, the Nazis would have treated them the same - Jews were genetically inferior, not religiously inferior. Having Jewish blood in your ancestry was a problem, even if you were agnostic.

    To the Nazis, religion was simply a tool to support their nationalism. They combined all the different Christian churches into one national church, ignoring the different theologians that created the different churches in the first place. Th

    One example would be my country of Yugoslavia which was split on multiple sides of Religious divide once WW2 broke out, even though we were ethnically the same people of same Slavic blood. The Catholic Croatians, Orthodox Serbs, and Muslim Bosniaks they all basically did their own thing separately, even warring with each other at times.
    Religion was a stand in for ethnicity. Religion was just the way ethnic identity was centered, the conflict was really an ethnic one. I contend the Ulstermen in Northern Ireland who want to remain part of the UK show their loyalty by being fiercely Protestant. Their loyalty to the UK is what makes them Protestant, not being Protestant is what made them loyal to the UK.

    It's why after WW2, Tito the Yugoslav Communist leader began his rule with an iron fist and suppressed Nationalism heavily and to a certain degree Religious freedom as well. He saw what we did during WW2 and knew it had to be suppressed, certain degree of freedom was sacrificed to keep Yugoslavia peaceful, and we see what happened shortly after he died.
    As.a Communist Tito would be fundamentally hostile toward all religion, and nationalism went against Communist philosophy, although Communist would harness nationalism towards it's own end, just as the Nazis utilized religion to support their state.

  6. #66
    basics's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Scotland, UK.
    Posts
    9,073

    Default Re: On Islam's strength's and weaknesses.

    Quote Originally Posted by conon394 View Post
    You really should not its nearly incoherent babble.
    conon394,

    Hislop is worth reading because of the time and energy he placed on referring to linguistical authorities to build his case but the one thing I don't agree with him on is that the antichrist will come out of the Roman Catholic church. Of course Rome is anti christ since popes are said to be in place of Christ which we know they aren't. The beast, Satan, will however by miraculous signs and wonders have to be Jewish if that people are to join in the one world system that is to precede the return of Jesus Christ so in my estimation that is what we have to look for, not the institution of Rome for Scripturally it is already condemned by Paul. That said Hislop does give a great insight as to how false religion came about. Does that mean no Roman Catholics can be saved? Of course not as in the church that I attend there are two ex Catholics, one ex Muslim and one ex Jew whom God in revealing Jesus Christ to them were converted by being born again of the Spirit of God.

  7. #67

    Default Re: On Islam's strength's and weaknesses.

    Quote Originally Posted by basics View Post
    conon394,

    Hislop is worth reading because of the time and energy he placed on referring to linguistical authorities to build his case but the one thing I don't agree with him on is that the antichrist will come out of the Roman Catholic church. Of course Rome is anti christ since popes are said to be in place of Christ which we know they aren't. The beast, Satan, will however by miraculous signs and wonders have to be Jewish if that people are to join in the one world system that is to precede the return of Jesus Christ so in my estimation that is what we have to look for, not the institution of Rome for Scripturally it is already condemned by Paul. That said Hislop does give a great insight as to how false religion came about. Does that mean no Roman Catholics can be saved? Of course not as in the church that I attend there are two ex Catholics, one ex Muslim and one ex Jew whom God in revealing Jesus Christ to them were converted by being born again of the Spirit of God.
    Hislop's book is from 1916, and scholarship has improved a lot since then. New ancient documenrs, such as the Dead Sea scrolls, have come to light since Hizlop wrote the Two Babylon, and I suspect, much of what he says so be out-od-date, superceded by new sources not available to him, or rather unsupported speculation. A number of the sources he refers to are not primary sources from ancient times, but more contemporary sources of someone stating an opinion, not fact. For example, his opinion that both Buddhist and Catholic generating the relics of saints came our of the Osiris myth is really not supported by any real facts. There is no evidence that the ancient Egyptians ever venerated the bones of the carved up Osiris, or signs they used relics like the Catholics and Buddhist. Or that either Buddhist or most Catholics were aware of the Osiris legend. His speculation

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •