Posted on 07/09/2002 9:18:28 PM PDT by kattracks
This summer, as many Americans head to oceans white with foam, some atypical reading is finding its way into beach bags alongside torrid romance novels and cool detective stories. Books about Islam are hot, and new ones are pouring off the presses.
The most lucid of the recent arrivals is Bernard Lewis' "What Went Wrong? Western Impact and Middle Eastern Response" (Oxford University Press, 2002). Princeton professor emeritus Lewis explains why Muslims of the Middle East, who once possessed the highest civilization and the top armies in the world, are on a five-century losing streak. He shows how Islam messed up by setting up obstacles to freedom, science and economic development. Essentially, Muslim collectivists did not trust individuals to think for themselves or go out on their own. Westerners were willing to live in Islamic countries and learn from them, but Imams never said, "Go west, young Muslim."
Another short book, Ravi Zacharias' "Light in the Shadow of Jihad" (Multnomah, 2002), shows how faulty theology leads to political and social dictatorship, and notes what happens to Muslim scholars who ask hard questions. Egyptian journalist Farag Foda: assassinated. Ali Dashti of Iran: disappeared during the revolution there. Professor Nasr Abu Zaid of Egypt: had to flee the country. Given that record of intolerance, it's childish to say that Muslims and Westerners can all get along if we just talk with each other.
For a tougher but deeply provocative read, try "Islam and Dhimmitude: Where Civilizations Collide" (Fairleigh Dickinson Univ. Press, 2002), by Bat Ye'or, an Egypt-born Jewish-French historian. She shows why the nature of Islam dictates against any pluralistic peace with Christians and Jews, and notes that "human rights" is a meaningless term within Islam: Muslims have rights but others (historically) are "dhimmi," members of conquered minorities allowed to live in Islamic society if they pay extra taxes, and put up with enormous scorn and abuse.
For a radical challenge to conventional views of Muhammad and Islamic scriptures, read Ibn Warraq's "What the Koran Really Says" (Prometheus, 2002). It's the fourth in a series of books by a Muslim-raised scholar who risks his life to argue that the Quran was not formulated until two centuries after Muhammad's death. This new book is the most technical of the four; "The Quest for the Historical Muhammad" (2000) is a better starting point for most readers. The general thrust is that many of Islam's elements were confused responses to cultural pressures, and that the real Muhammad was probably nothing like the myth.
Another new book, Chawkat Moucarry's "The Prophet & the Messiah: An Arab Christian's Perspective on Islam & Christianity" (InterVarsity Press, 2002), also goes right at the reliability of the Quran. Given that its earliest known fragments date from the second century of the Islamic era, textual critics would long ago have taken it apart if the Muslim world had any intellectual freedom. Moucarry also compares key Christian and Muslim doctrines and provides a handy appendix listing Muslim theologians and mystics.
In one pre-Sept. 11 book, "Muslims and Christians at the Table" (P&R Publishing, 1999), authors Bruce McDowell and Anees Zaka provide solid and readable sections on Muslim history and theology, and also show how to apply that knowledge as evangelistic opportunities arise. Practical reminders include never sit cross-legged with Muslims (showing the sole of your foot is considered offensive and an indication of disrespect, especially to elders) and never shake hands with a Muslim after petting a dog (dogs are considered unclean, but since Muhammad had cats, felines are OK).
The overall message of these six books is sobering. Since last fall many Americans have wanted to believe that Islam is naturally a peaceful religion, and if we forcibly remove a few bad apples we won't be pecked to death. We should pray that this is true, but we should take into account the scholarship that shows how and why Islam requires unending war -- with tactically useful truces -- between dar al-Islam (END ITAL) (Muslim territory) and dar al-harb (everything else).
Marvin Olasky is Editor of WORLD magazine, a TownHall.com member group.
©2002 Creators Syndicate, Inc.
This is an example of what I am talking about. This is completely worthless and irrelevent information. I don't get how people get mad at the dems for their general slander, avoiding the subject, and attacking the person instead of arguing the topic yet we do it so freely here on FR.
I agree in principle, but I think radiation treatment may be more efficacious.
It looked to me like Mark17 was saying the two religions are incompatable. The Bible tells us "No man comes to the Father but by me" and ".. there is one God, one mediator also between God and men, himself man, Christ Jesus, who gave himself a ransom for all ..."
If the testimony of Jesus is true, then Islam is indeed a false religion probably spawned by Satan. Although, I would interject that men can come up with an awful lot of evil on our own without Satan being involved.
I have to agree with you about "how people get mad at the dems for their general slander, avoiding the subject, and attacking the person instead of arguing the topic yet we do it so freely here on FR. " I was shocked at how they behaved on the democratunderground, and I see some of the same on FR. However, I do see thoughtful examinations of issues on FR but not on DU.
So the subject of the post is that Islam is fundamentally a violent, intolerant, hateful religion that suppresses individuality, freedom, love, and attempts to dominate anyone not in Islam. Is that what you are challenging?
Let's just get rid of it, get it out of the coutnry before it does more damage.
When you get into the part of using our religious principles to defend your point by using what God said, then you are doing the same thing they are doing (not by killing, but by thinking your religion is the right one).
I don't mean to start another discussion, but have you ever noticed the similarities between Christianity, Eastern religion, Greek and Roman mythology, Islam, etc. Many of these have the same basic principles, they just go about them in different ways. I don't proclaim to know what God thinks or does, but lets say the ONE God of the Universe made a docorine of a certain set of rules and standards to abide by. Now lets pretend that these words were told to millions and millions of people. You would have many, many, many different versions of the same story or doctorine. You would have extremists in both the liberal and conservative versions of this doctorine as well as different names for the same God. Now, the only assumption that we have to operate on in real life is the one God which we already believe in and the rest of the story could very possibly be a reality. Like I said, I am not saying that this is right, but it is something to think about. Why are we so sure that we have it right and everyone else on the face of the planet has it wrong? Again, I am not condoning the actions of terrorists or religious extremists of any brand, I am just saying that we should judge ourselves on the same playing field that we judge others (which we shouldn't be doing anyway if we are Christians).
I also do commend FR for its great debaters and discussions that we have even though we all say and do some stupid things. . . myself included. Did I just say that? :)
I do appreciate your time and effort that you spent in your argument. It is very valid, but only to those who believe that. This however does not constitute a majority of Islamic people.
As a quick example, dems portray conservatives by pointing out the wacko few and attributing those traits to all, just as many point out the wacko terrorists and attribute those traits to all Islamic people. Islamic people don't need to be "fixed," it is the people that have no value for human life.
You are now on ignore!
Why do people not want to be put into groups when someone is talking about them or their religion, but are fine doing it to other people. The point is that peaceful people are out there, and you can call them whatever you want, but they are Islamic. There are also angry people full of hate and death and you can call them whatever you want, but they too are Islamic.
I don't care if someone attacks my argument or even my character for that matter, but give me a reason of why you are doing it. It is just annoying when people get on here and just start with the name calling and no reasoning for what they post.
So to reiterate again, the name calling is fine, but give me a reason. Unless you are Pee Wee Herman, the I know you are but what am I logic doesn't work. You don't like Islam or its followers, and that is fine with me.
I also apoligise for asking you to support your opinion with facts and logic and will not ask you to do it again.
Very interesting, that Genesis 6. I think it was far more evil than meets the eye, unless one does an in depth study of it. After all, the Flood was the result.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.