Islam and The Others

Askel, you've continued this perversion of fact about long enough, dontcha think?... (Besides ... the idea our federal government -- who slaughtered Americans at Waco and waged a "moral" war in Serbia -- can somehow discern Good from Evil a mere two weeks after using Scripture to defend their electing to fund the use of "excess" human lives for so-called humanitarian research and profit, is ludicrous.)

I am absolutely certain your intellect is sufficient to grasp the FACT that what Bush funded with federal dollars was research using the remains of already killed embryonic humans, but limited that funding to NO money for killing more embryos for research.[He can do little or nothing to stop private dollars employ in that heinous search; it is up to the somnambulent congress to act forthrightly, and that is one area that the president has neglected to demand work on).

The administration placed federal dollars behind research on cell lines derived from what were once living embryonic human beings, but made a vital distinction that NO FEDERAL DOLLARS would be used for further killing and exploitation. You are allowing your hatred for the Bush family and thus this administration to color your otherwise clear expositions. Give it a rest, Lady, the truth is not as dried in your coloration as you would have us believe.

Now you will no doubt insult me by accusing me of distracting from the theme you chose for this thread. ... That would be typical of your current methodology, sadly. You have raised the specter I just addressed, whether you agree with my assessment or not, and that was unnecessary of you, and certainly grows beneath you more and more.

Thanks for reminding to link the Lewis quote.

I understand your point on radical Islam.

However, when I'm talking about communist repression and terror "under cover of Islam", it's not some vague notion -- that's just the facts. They weren't exactly covert about it until 1991.

The beauty of both prongs -- undermining Christianity and co-opting radical Islam -- is that they do indeed capitalize perfectly on the raw material at hand.

And, had "radical Islam" truly enjoyed a unbroken continuity, I doubt very seriously it would have needed the organizing, training, sponsorship and continued support of Soviet and Chinese communists.

It's like pretending the IRA suddenly pulled itself up by its own bootstraps when, in actuality, it was just a matter of the Soviets' finally appreciating and electing to control the potential for an IRA contribution to World Revolution.

I know we're going to disagree here, but I truly think the confection of Israel was a calculated move in many respects. It's easy to see why the West's Oligarchs were interested in a "sustainable" geopolitical toehold in the shifting sands of the Middle East. Shoot, made 'em look almost moral overnight despite their take on WWII's slave labor, the personal effects of MILLIONS and the dividends of war which inevitably land in the pockets of those alert always to the opportunity to turn a profit on human suffering.

It's the Soviet sponsorship of some of the Zionists that bugs the hell out of me. Surely they were bent on having a most magnificent means of focusing the Middle East (and the world, for that matter, given Uncle Sam's having drawn sole babysitting duty in perpetuity).

It's like some hypnotist's gem swinging in front of the wholly disparate and -- by all appearances -- defeated factions of Islam throughout the region. With the right amount of turmoil and baiting (thanks to Soviet sock puppets like Arafat), one could pretty much use Israel to control relations between the US and the OPEC barons, even.

(Though just outright siding with them, as Putin did the other day, is always good for laughs and lends a certain aura of "power" to the princes.)

"Already-been-killed" embryos?

So ... if they've "already been killed" they were never "created equal" in the first place?

I forget to split that hair correctly, don't I?

Embryonic stem cells testing has had NONE of the truly extraordinary successes of adult stem cell testing. Adult stem cell testing has resulted in NONE of the rank horror shows ensuing from the use of unborn stem cells: no Parkinson's patients ending up worse off ... no one dying because they've suddenly got bone and hair growing in their brain.

So what's the point of perpetuating this Loser technology which operated SOLELY on the calculated manufacture and destruction of innocent human life?

Why attract the "Best and the Brightest" to Uncle Sam's embryonic stem cell research unless no Private Corporations find ESCR as "hopeful" as Laura Bush, Nancy Reagan, Christopher Reeves and Mary Tyler Moore and -- like your typical NEA grant -- this money is rather part of an agenda than real science?

I guess we'll just wait until Uncle Sam hits PAYDIRT with his "already been killed" embryos and we'll see what happens then.

Not like we have a choice ... only Mothers wanting to kill their children have that sort freedom in America these days.

Okay ... but, if Ishmael was Abraham's son, he and Isaac still are brothers, right?

Does the religious fervor of the Crusades "linger" over the Western mind or shape our culture?

Tell you what ... I'll flag you to the next big Libertarian-Christian or Catholic-Protestant free-for-all and you can decide for yourself. =)

A despairing member of the Muslim-ArabAgitProp tag team?

I must have been busy busy busy cutting and pasting while you posted to me ...

Very often, deceived by the Evil One, men have become vain in their reasonings, and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and served the creature rather than the Creator. Or else, living and dying in this world without God, they are exposed to ultimate despair.333

It ain't me, babe ...

Here's my take... You can parse the words in the Koran and probably find lots of different concepts, just like you can in the Bible or most other religious texts. And every religion has a few crazies that either take something way too literally or take something out of context in the religious writings. So you can't blame Christianity for giving us Jim Jones, David Koresh or whomever, and you probably cannot blame Islam for giving us Osama. But you have to ask why Islam seems to create so many more fanatics than Christianity or Judaism.

I would venture to say that the answer lies in the heart of Islam itself. In Islam, the belief is that Allah (God) dictated the words of the Koran to Mohammed. What Mohammed wrote was exactly God's word. So a translation from Arabic is not really a valid Koran. Compare this to Christianity: the King James Bible is considered just as valid as a Bible written in Norwegian or Tagalog. Since Allah supposedly spoke the exact words in the Koran, there's no room for reinterpretation.

If someone tried to follow the Old Testament to the letter, they'd get arrested. There are things in Leviticus and Deuteronomy that are just plain crazy. So we don't follow them. We don't stone our kids when they misbehave, we don't say you can go to the next country and grab a woman if you like her and bring her back here and make you her wife. But since we believe that God didn't write the Bible directly, it doesn't much matter.

There are those in the Islamic world who've ignored the more harsher parts of the Koran -- after all, this book is about 1500 years old. But many don't. It's not as easy for them to maintain their belief system while doing this. So you wind up with a sizable portion of Muslims believing in the most rigid form of Islam.

This most rigid form, however, isn't really compatible with the 21st century. The subjugation of women, the prohibition on interest rates, the polygamy, and all the rest essentially stop a modern society from functioning. There's no marketplace of ideas, no technological improvements, and without interest rates, no monetary system possible. This brings poverty (unless there's an overabundance of natural resources), which brings more fanaticism.

Of the 30 skirmishes around the world today, 28 involve Islamic countries ... so we know whom it is which no longer has tolerance nor cooperation.

Believe me ... I'm not out to defend the likes of Hashim Thaci or any totalitarian Islamic despot or his militant followers.

I think, though, that oil, drugs and (thanks to its heretical errors and historical failure to abide by the more truthful precepts of Islam where human dignity is concerned) the almost effortless co-opting of Islam into a world revolution chaos-making machine is the true reason for the turmoil.

For all the talk of Islam's historical incursions and the horrific display of demonic brutality on the 11th, most of the brunt in carnage, destruction and suffering is too concentrated on the perps themselves to consider them waging any sort of successful action.

Hopeless, ignorant and angry inner-city blacks wreak a lot of havoc when they riot, loot and burn down their own neighborhoods. We don't exactly consider them a tenable threat to destroying gated communities the burbs in likewise fashion as a result.

Thanks very much, actually.

I know it will sound weird coming from a Catholic when so many around here think I'd stand on my head if the Pope told me to but -- as a believer -- I believe a true test of heresy is how closely associated with or founded on a single man is the sect.

The Pope is a bishop and his power comes from sitting in Peter's chair. Mohammed -- like Calvin or Luther -- is an individual who Systematized his faith and imposed his personal interpretation on others.

I'm also taken by your observations on the literal nature of the texts and the exclusivity inherent in one tongue. I'm hopeful a Muslim will weigh further in on that.

I can understand their concern ... it's the primary reason the Church lays it all down in Latin and simply translates into every other language ... but didn't realize there was any problem with translation, however perfect, being less than authoritative or true.

I guess that's the trouble with having no Magisterium for quality control ... =)

I best lay off else RnMomof7 will get me for propagandizing! Regards.

Hatout seems to be going "Haminahaminahamina"!

Thanks Hogwaller.

Not true. Ibn Khaldun wrote a critical view of the Hadith concerning the Mahdi in the 14th century. Islam has a long history of critical self-analysis.

This is of absolutely no value for the larger Islamic movement with respect to its external relationships. The umma has its own self-critical components but this is not an externalizing process. Islam simply does not have a long history of critical analysis particularly with respect to its history and the falsehoods of the treatment of Jews and Christians under Islam.

Radical Islam, however, resembles Inquisition-era Catholicism more than it resembles classical Islam. It defies self-analysis, and will meet critique with punishment and death. I prefer to call it Reactionary Islam.

Radical Islam resembles several historical processes and components of traditional Islam. Islam's central component has been the Jihad. This is how Islam spread fundamentally and how it maintained its reach. Radical Islam merely advances the continuation of this notion. To be sure,most of the Jihadic movements in contemporary Islam lack the material power to extend the Jihad as expansively but nevertheless these movements maintain the potential for this process and the ideological basis for same.

In the classical Islamic world view, each individual is directly accountable to God. This is given lip service in Radical Islam, but The Taliban have shown what they are really about, and they are completely antithetical to Islam. Abu Bakr, the first Caliph (632-634) said in his inaugural speech:

The Taliban believes fundamentally in the sacredness of the umma. They believe that Jews, Christians, and the infidels such as Hindus or Buddhists have merely a consticted "toleration" as the basis for their existence. This is no different than "classical Islam". All outside of the umma are dhimmi. Indeed, I would suggest they are a lot like the Abbasids since the identification or singling out of the Hindus for example was an Abbasid novelty (re the Jews and Christians then). They import quite consistently the pact of Umar. There are a number of similarities. It is arrogance to suggest that the Taliban are not true to Islam.

Islam, like Christianity and Judaism, is a beautiful religion, and one I've studied along with the other two. It breaks my heart that barbarians like The Taliban and Osama have hijacked its good name, and I hope they die quickly so we can rebuild this world under the Law of God, which Moses, Jesus and Mohammed are in agreement upon. Honor God, honor each other.

What is your view of Israel?

What is your view of Israel?

Hey ... don't go getting my Islam thread deleted, now ... =)

Seriously, though ... I'd really like to host a thread with you on the question of Israel and Judaism. I'll see if I can't find an appropriate post that touches on some questions I have (and have been asking ad infinitum).

Same rules as the "Political Murder" thread ... we'll just ignore any posters who try to start sumpin'.

(I just read your post ... )

WHAT???

What sort of Zionist who, by necessity, predicates the righteousness of Israel's confection, protection and support on a (Jewish) religious belief that God "said so" gets off dismissing all of Christianity and Islam with some lame apology for knowing little and caring even less to understand?

I have to admit ... I'm totally floored and not a little disappointed.

Mohammed -- like Calvin or Luther -- is an individual who Systematized his faith and imposed his personal interpretation on others.

Sorry, but I can't let this one stand. It's great to have a civil discussion on Islam to try to understand it, but for someone from one of the most hierarchial authoritarian religious systems on earth to compare the bloody General Mohammed to theologians Calvin and Luther is just too much. Last I checked it was the Roman church who first burned Protestants and just recently (officially) ended the Inquisition. No one used force to make the first Evangelicals (the original name for Protestants) follow Luther or Calvin--they did because for the first time they could read the Bible--in their own language no less. No historian will dispute it was the power of the Reformers' ideas (straight from Scripture), that won converts not the power of the sword like Mohammed.

Yes later Protestants, like the Romanists at the time, used force--regretably, and wrongly--and Calvin did go along with Geneva's government in executing one heretic (while the Roman Catholic church was burning them by the dozens), other than that, both Luther and Calvin were wholey against using force to propagate the good news of the finished work of Jesus.

To be fair to those of you following the Bishop of Rome, no matter what your feelings are either way, there simply is no comparision in how Islam was and is spread--by warfare--and how persons, for the most part have freely chosen the Christian faith, be it Roman, or Evangelical.

And, had "radical Islam" truly enjoyed a unbroken continuity, I doubt very seriously it would have needed the organizing, training, sponsorship and continued support of Soviet and Chinese communists.

Again (since we've discussed this in another context before), you're confusing the materiality (labour and materials) to sustain the process of "radical Islam" (the Jihad) with the theological process itself. It would be like saying because the Greek and Armenian Christians were the economic (and exploited as dhimmi) backbone of the Ottoman Empire that in reality the Ottoman Empire was a Christian empire. This is foolishness. The Jihad was able to spread by exploiting whatever served its purpose. The Jihad is able to "spread" ideologically and to a limited extent geopolitically because of petro-dollars. We are now well aware of the vast network of banks and Saudi funding for Islamicist movements internationally. Of course, maybe we have the ironic reality that our need for oil is the source of Islamicist growth!

It's the Soviet sponsorship of some of the Zionists that bugs the hell out of me. Surely they were bent on having a most magnificent means of focusing the Middle East (and the world, for that matter, given Uncle Sam's having drawn sole babysitting duty in perpetuity).

Let me move this one to a consideration of what I see is a fundamental "understanding" necessary in this Islamic mess. This is seen seminally in the Arab Islamic and greater Islamic treatment of Israel. I'm going to suggest to you that the problem with Islam is that it has tended to become the handmaiden of Pan Arab nationalism. In other words, where Islam has fundamentally gone wrong is that Arab nationalism has tended to vitiate a maturing of Islam. I believe the Lewis quote captures this notion quite well. So we see in Turkey largely the absence of Pan Arab nationalism (except in those elements in the Islamic community which are thankfully repressed by the Turkish government). Turkey is, as you know, an ally of Israel. I don't want to get into the other geo-political considerations of this relationship my point is that if Arab nationalism is severed from Islam Islam has the opportunity to apply Western reform concepts such as the hermeneutical principles developed in the Reformation, Counter-Reformation and Enlightenment period.

Hence your criticism of RnMomof7 is entirely misplaced. Jesus said, "Be wise as serpents and harmless as doves." I think you kind of want the latter without a rigorous application of the former. This is a recipe for disaster. It's all fine to want to come together as Jews, Christians, and Muslims (Hindus, Buddhists, etc.), recognizing the theological differences of course, but it is quite another matter to ignore or minimize the current irreconciliable and dangerous elements which exist in a large part of the Islamic world and which also infect a significant portion of the Islamic community domestically.

I'm disappointed that you're so impressed by this piece. He says, for example, that Islam recognizes both Christianity and Judaism as religions based upon divine revelation - and then goes on to explain that they disagree with virtually everything written in the Bible.

God didn't create man in His image, and didn't walk in Eden. Abraham offered Ishmael, not Isaac, as a sacrifice. Moses never struck the rock in anger, David never commited adultery with Bathsheba, and Jesus - who was not the Son of God - was not crucified. Just what divine revelation is he speaking of???

A brief study of the koran/qu'ran will demonstrate that he quoted the highest sounding, most kind and tolerant passages, while choosing to leave out the many passages that prohibit friendship with Jews/Christians, and encourage their slaughter instead.

He can speak of peace and tolerance and "can't we all get along" all he wants, but Islam has been violent and intolerant from the start, in the koran, in the hadith, throughout history, and into today's current events. Remember what Jesus said about the tree and its fruit.