 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
Heresson
|
 |
of frogs
Jun 2000
time: 06:17
|
|
Humans are humans, and unfortunatelly even nominal obediance to a peaceful ideology doesn't change them enough.
However, while Islam had input in making Arabs more civilised, it was from the start involved in politics too much, and as such, it was involved in brutal conflicts from the start.
It's not about the massacre of Banu Qurayza even, but in general.
Muhammad was a politician. Brilliant, but yet a brutal one.
For me, he is no example of morality in any way.
I hate the voices such as "yeah? And what about the crusades?"
There's a fundamental difference.
While Christians may be objective in this and other matters, can condemn brutal actions in the name of Christianity, the Muslims can not, at least not to the extent Christians are able to.
Simply because it's due to political actions that Islam became a world religion, and the actions themselves were a part of Muslim history from the start, from Muhammad through all the caliphs.
Christians did not start as a political faction. We can always "come back to the (peaceful) roots".
Muslims can not. That's a difference, and that's a problem.
Being part of a religion whose founder was a politician, You can not seriously criticise deep involvement of religion into politics.
There's no "give to emperor what's his, and to God what's His" in Islam.
Muslims lived in a theocracy since Muhammad, and the law was based on what was claimed as words of God and example of his prophet.
If You don't deny the rightfulness of the hadiths,
You can not be a deeply religious Muslim and do not want the law to be based upon sunnah and Al-Qur'an Al-Karim.
The questioning of sunnah however is questioning of centuries of Muslim tradition, a part of Muslim word so deepened into it that treaten as something essential in it.
And I know just one example of getting rid of the sunnah, and it's modern-day Libia...
And even if You abandon sunnah, there's still Al-Qur'an that's left. And if it gives You direct sollutions to some problems, how can You ignore the will of God?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Pekka
|
 |
em seu burro dos pais!
Feb 2002
time: 07:17
|
|
I don't see religion as a bad thing.
religion 
Stupid people 
THat's like blaming the metal workers who manufactured the substances used in gun manufactury, who then made the guns which was used to kill a person.
Religion is just fine. It's those aggressive loud bastards who make it seem bad. They use it as a weapon, to attack someone, or to gain themselves from it, be it money, be it more power, be it better status in society.
Where as the wise people and the good folks, the normal ones, they don't 'use' it. They just take comfort from the content, use it as a guideline to live their lifes, they use it to learn and uphold their faiths and stuff. That's it. That's the only function religion is supposed to have.
It's not supposed to do what it's now doing everywhere, ESPECIALLY in the islamic communities most recently.
I blame people, not the religion.
Stupid people should be shot anyway.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wernazuma III
|
 |
Decolonize!
Aug 2000
time: 06:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Heresson
I hate the voices such as "yeah? And what about the crusades?"
There's a fundamental difference.
While Christians may be objective in this and other matters, can condemn brutal actions in the name of Christianity, the Muslims can not, at least not to the extent Christians are able to.
Simply because it's due to political actions that Islam became a world religion, and the actions themselves were a part of Muslim history from the start, from Muhammad through all the caliphs.
Christians did not start as a political faction. We can always "come back to the (peaceful) roots".
Muslims can not. That's a difference, and that's a problem.
Being part of a religion whose founder was a politician, You can not seriously criticise deep involvement of religion into politics.
There's no "give to emperor what's his, and to God what's His" in Islam.
|
You won't believe it, Hereson, but this is, basically, what I always argue.
Only with one exception. While it is *possible* for some Christian thinkers to "return" to the gospel on the mountain (?), this is not representative for Christianity. More often, pointing to these "peaceful roots" is part of an unfair argumentation from the Christian side, analogue to the "But you had Crusades and witchhunt"-defense from muslims [remember what I said about "Hey, look what YOU did?"-arguments generally?]. It's unfair, because only few Christian branches really concentrate so much on these parts, quakers maybe. Catholicism is not imaginable without "tradition" and papal dogmata, like islam is not imaginable without sunna. And the protestants with their "sola scriptura" very often focus much on the Old Testament elements of Christianity. So pointing to thew possible reduction of Christianity to the outstanding pacifist elements is not fair, unless you're member of a tiny minority within Christianity. And to argue with single phrases like "give to emperor what's his, and to God what's His" is like muslims arguing with the verse: "There is no force in religion"...
But you're right, the degree of self-reflection and judging the own past is much higher in Christian societies. But I believe this is more fruit of enlightenment than inherent to Christianity itself. No, I'm not claiming enlightenment for agnostics and atheists, part of it was developed within a Christian frame, but it's not "inherent" to any belief-system and I hope the muslim world will find ways to deal with their own history and a way for self reflection. Inner islamic criticism and discussion is mostly very flat, but it's not impossible. Lamentably, progressive and modern [insider: not backwards  ] thinkers and developments are rather marginalized and threatened than taken into account in muslim world, but they exist.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Albert Speer
|
|
Puerile Polemic
Mar 1999
time: 00:17
|
|
why is it that apolyton is so anti-islam. it's really sickening.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Impaler[WrG]
|
 |
Cheif Manufacturing Officer of Morgan Industires
May 2002
time: 22:17
|
|
Islam = religion of peace
Arabs = culture of violence
I belive that their exists a layer of ethical and moral norms that runs deeper then religion and which tend to run along ethnic divisions. Everyone picks up these norms from their society regardless of their exposure to any particular religion or lack their of and it incorporates as a core belief at a very early age.
Religius teachings are created with an intent to modify and critique the existing ethical status quo. Jesus and Mohamed weren't working with blank slates they were saying "dont do that thing which is currently the norm". For the most part though religions fail to change a societies core beliefs because people learn from example not from words. All priests become hypocrites who educate another generation of hypocrites.
Religions are esentialy meaningless labels that conseal the underlying cultural core. Historicaly the introduction of a new religion to a group of people has had almost no effect on their behavior as the words of any religion can be bent to justify anything which is adsactly whats done. Only major societal upheaval such as war, ocupation, migration and mixing with another culture can change core cultural belief (this very often happens along with changes in religion which can result in an apearance that religion changes behavior).
The real question becomes: Why is Arab Culture so much more violent then Western Culture?
Answer: Western culture WAS just as violent untill resently. It became much more tolerant ecause of the very even Protestant/Catholic split which precipitated some major internal violence in Western Civ. Neither side could wipe out the other so a stalemate developed. Out of that stalmate the Enligntenment concept of "live and let live" grew and was incorporated as a core belief. No such equivilent process has yet happened in Arab culture. What Cristianity and Islam puport to "teach" is totaly irrelivent, they only apear to be significant because +80% of each culture is a member of the dominent religion. If every single Cristian converted to Islam and every Muslim to Cristianity it wouldn't change the situation one bit.
Last edited by Impaler[WrG] on 11-12-2004 at 23:45
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ramo
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:17
|
|
quote:
No , they imply that that mob which did the killing was childish , uneducated , poor , mostly unemployed , and foolish . |
So just maybe, violence is an aspect of people and their specific circumstances, and not a religion that a billion people belong to.
quote:
This is the third time I am saying this - look to the holy books for the principles driving a religion |
Which is why you brought up 16th century conflicts between Vijaynagar and the Deccan states...
Yes, look at the principles of the religions. There is a concept of religious self-defence in Islam, part of the concept of Jihad, but that is an aspect of most major religions - including Hinduism (as molly pointed out, look at the concept of the warrior caste).
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:17.
Apolyton Time is 00:17. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
10-12-2004 23:38
|