Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does Islam need a Reformation?
CanadianSteve
Member (Idle past 6473 days)
Posts: 756
From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 1 of 300 (226572)
07-26-2005 8:20 PM


As per the advice of an adminsitrator, this topic is suggested for Comparative Religions.
Many Muslims and non Muslims see that the Islamic world has been at theological war with itself almost since the faith's advent, one that carries over to this very day. It explains the global battle between Islamists and non Islamists, a battle which has spilled over to our part of the world both because of our involvement in the Islamic world, and because of Islamic immigration to the West.
Prominent Muslim writers Stephen Schwartz and Irshad Manji have both wavered on the question of a Reformation. Schwartz initally argued that a Renaissance is what is needed, saying that Wahabbism represneted a prior reformation gone very, very bad. But not too long ago he revisited the quesion. In a rceent article, Manji (and Masoor Ijad) wondered if there osn't something intrinsic to the faith that gives rise to Islamism and its violence. If so, then that is an argument for a reformation, such that the peaceful, spiritual side to the faith is its only side.
I realize that some will consider the proposal for this topic to be, in and itself, more than contentious, and even, in some manner or another, racist and bigotted. Yet, there are enough entirely peaceful, democratically minded Muslims wondering exactly this. Surely they are neither racist nor bigotted against their faith. This is, perhaps, the hidden, but essential, question, the answer to which may be the solution to Islamism's - not Islam's - war on Islamic and Western democracy.

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by nator, posted 07-28-2005 9:31 AM CanadianSteve has replied
 Message 293 by macaroniandcheese, posted 08-16-2005 2:29 PM CanadianSteve has replied

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 300 (226673)
07-27-2005 6:38 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 300 (226682)
07-27-2005 7:49 AM


CanadianSteve,
I hope we can discuss this in a rational and dispassionate manner. If you have cooled down now, I would be happy to be your partner in this discussion. Because I am a Muslim and I am also concerned by the Islamists.
Having said that, you asked whether there is something intrinsic in Islam that leads to Islamism and violence. Well, the Qur'an did have some rules of warfare, and it does give Muslims licence for retaliatory violence. [But also note that it does not condone aggression--Muslims should only fight if attacked first]. However the Qur'an also taught that violence should be stopped if aggression and oppression has ceased.
The Islamist ideology itself emerged from a set of factors: post-colonialism, a general dislike of Western domination, and ideas from early 20th century revivalist thinkers like Jamaluddin al-Afghani, Abul A'la Maududi, and Sayyid Quthb. The establishment of Israel is also a major factor, given the violent ways used to displace the native Palestinians [Jews could've bought their lands and move in peacefully, but the violence's already done]. And most importantly, for today's Islamist terrorists, they're a direct product of the US, who trained them, have them radicalized, and used them against the Soviets during the cold war. This is only apparent when you realize that many al-Qaeda leaders and their supporters used to fought in Afghanistan.

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by CanadianSteve, posted 07-27-2005 5:17 PM Andya Primanda has replied
 Message 14 by Faith, posted 07-28-2005 2:01 AM Andya Primanda has not replied
 Message 15 by Faith, posted 07-28-2005 7:28 AM Andya Primanda has not replied

CanadianSteve
Member (Idle past 6473 days)
Posts: 756
From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 4 of 300 (226847)
07-27-2005 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Andya Primanda
07-27-2005 7:49 AM


Andya, I thonk you'd have a hard time pointing to anything i've said that reflected an irrational or angry or hostile tone. It appears that simply by suggesting that there may be an issue, that constitutes untoward behaviour.
Moreover, the arguments I offer are not mine alone by any means, nor even exclusively those of non muslims. They are, rather, those of respected, moderate, demcoratically-minded Muslims as well.
You wrote: "The Islamist ideology itself emerged from a set of factors: post-colonialism, a general dislike of Western domination, and ideas from early 20th century revivalist thinkers like Jamaluddin al-Afghani, Abul A'la Maududi, and Sayyid Quthb."
I would argue that islamism is only the name of the latest itineration of the movement. There is a reason why Mohammed conquered huge swaths of land, most of it to that point Christian, and some of it Jewish. There is a reason why Islam eventually conquered Spain, and made it to the gates of Vienna in the 1600's. In our present time, Islamists are warring against Hindus in India, against Bhuddists in Thailand and Cambodia, against Christians and Animists in Africa and the Phillipines, and against Muslims in iraq and elsewhere too. This is not about a response to the west.
You wrote: "The establishment of Israel is also a major factor, given the violent ways used to displace the native Palestinians [Jews could've bought their lands and move in peacefully, but the violence's already done]."
In fact, the Jews did buy their land from the Ottomans, who treated the region as the largely desolate, far-flung rump of their empire that it was. Moreover, Israel was established by the UN, perhaps the only nation to have been established with such legitimacy, rather than through war. (And don't overlook that the Jews had had a 2,000 year continuous presence in Israel until muslims invaded the land in the 7th centruy and pushed almost all the Jews out.) Earlier, the League of Nations has voted to establish a tiny Jewish state, alongside the newly established 20 or so Arab Muslim states. But the british and Arabs reneged.
You wrote: "And most importantly, for today's Islamist terrorists, they're a direct product of the US, who trained them, have them radicalized, and used them against the Soviets during the cold war."
It is true that the US financed them to help defeat the Soviets, but the US did not create them. Consider this: The first major islamist movement in recent history were the Wahabbis in the 18th (19th?) century. The first in the 20th century was the Islamic Brotherhood, based in Egypt, and which arose 50 years or so before Afghanistan. The next major Islamist movement was the Shia response to the Sunni Wahabbis and Brotherhood, Khameini's Islamist revolution in iran. That, too was before Afghanistan, as was the US embassy hostage crisis.
With respect to this comment of yours:
"the Qur'an did have some rules of warfare, and it does give Muslims licence for retaliatory violence. [But also note that it does not condone aggression--Muslims should only fight if attacked first]. However the Qur'an also taught that violence should be stopped if aggression and oppression has ceased."
I have heard that said, and hope it to be true. But millions upon millions of Muslims disagree with that interpretaion. Indeed, the global islamist movement completely disagrees. They argue that the House of Islam / House of War notion means that any who do not accept Islam have declared war upon it. Therefore, it is defensive for Muslims to attack non Muslims who refuse to accept the faith. Moreover, most the Sword Verses makes no reference to the argument, drowned out by all the other passages that state otherwise.
My view is this: Islam has much that is wonderful, peaceful, spiritual. But the Sword Verses, much of Sharia Law, and much of the Hadith, are calls to war and oppression of Muslims and non Muslims both. And thus, for most of its history, right up to and including today, the faith has been at war with itself. There are those like you, good people, peaceful people, who see it one way. And then there are the Islamists who see it, with solid theological reasoning and historical reference, otherwise. How do we empower those like you, and not only weaken the Islamists now, but into the future? Bear in mind that many good Muslims raise children who are drawn to Islamism. Indeed, the british born London bombers apparently came from good homes. One, at least, was a truly good person, well-liked, great with kids, generous, and, seemingly, totally assimilated in liberal demcoracy. How could such a person have gone so wrong? How scary that such a person could have gone so wrong. How do we prevent that from happening?
I know that the faith says that the Koran is inerrant and perfect, and cannot be altered at all. My suggestion is for there to be a koranic edit. That is much less intrusive than a reformation, which will by definitoon be an impossibility to many, if not most, Muslims. The edit would assume that the Arabic language of Mohammed's time is different than today, and thus easily misunderstood. To ensure that there is no way, absolutely no way, for the Koran to be read as anything but peaceful, for Jihad to mean nothing but spiritual improvement, it would be argued that the koran needs to be updated to today's vernacular, and then so edited. this would meet one prominent Muslim's call for not a reformation, but "Islamic Renaissance."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Andya Primanda, posted 07-27-2005 7:49 AM Andya Primanda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by AdminJar, posted 07-27-2005 5:25 PM CanadianSteve has replied
 Message 9 by Jazzns, posted 07-27-2005 7:34 PM CanadianSteve has replied
 Message 16 by Andya Primanda, posted 07-28-2005 8:33 AM CanadianSteve has replied

AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 300 (226852)
07-27-2005 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by CanadianSteve
07-27-2005 5:17 PM


Notice
You make quite a few assertion as though they were fact.
The UN did not create Israel. Israel came about through a series of conflicts between peoples, just as most nations come about. Israel declared itself a state, it was recognized by others but it was an act performed by Israel, not the UN.
You also make broad assertions about the war verses, what they mean and who supports given interpretation.
If you do not want this thread shut down, you will have to begin supporting such assertions. In addition, simply citing others who hold similar opinions will not be accepted as adequate support.

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
Message 1
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by CanadianSteve, posted 07-27-2005 5:17 PM CanadianSteve has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by CanadianSteve, posted 07-27-2005 5:34 PM AdminJar has not replied
 Message 7 by CanadianSteve, posted 07-27-2005 5:36 PM AdminJar has replied

CanadianSteve
Member (Idle past 6473 days)
Posts: 756
From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 6 of 300 (226853)
07-27-2005 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by AdminJar
07-27-2005 5:25 PM


Re: Notice
Israel was created by UN Resolution 181. As for the war Verses, I can present a great many of them, and will later if that is demanded, but have to run for now.
Here, quickly, are some references to the theological battle as to the meaning of those verses:
http://answering-islam.org.uk/Terrorism/by_the_sword.html
Sucuri WebSite Firewall - Access Denied
And one site amongst dozens where the verses are found:
"164 Jihad Verses in the Koran -- Passages in the Quran about Islamic Holy War" compiled by Yoel Natan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by AdminJar, posted 07-27-2005 5:25 PM AdminJar has not replied

CanadianSteve
Member (Idle past 6473 days)
Posts: 756
From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 7 of 300 (226854)
07-27-2005 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by AdminJar
07-27-2005 5:25 PM


Re: Notice
UN Resolution 181
"Independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem, set forth in Part III of this Plan, shall come into existence in Palestine two months after the evacuation of the armed forces of the mandatory Power has been completed but in any case not later than 1 October 1948. The boundaries of the Arab State, the Jewish State, and the City of Jerusalem shall be as described in Parts II and III below."
Page Not Found | Yale University

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by AdminJar, posted 07-27-2005 5:25 PM AdminJar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by AdminJar, posted 07-27-2005 5:39 PM CanadianSteve has replied

AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 300 (226856)
07-27-2005 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by CanadianSteve
07-27-2005 5:36 PM


Re: Notice
Yup. Oft quoted. Compare the boundaries to what exists and you'll find that like so many UN resolutions, there is little connection to reality.
The world is as it is, not as you would wish it to be.
Israel exists because they declared themselves a State and other nations recognized that claim. The UN resolution is but a footnote to history.

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
Message 1
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by CanadianSteve, posted 07-27-2005 5:36 PM CanadianSteve has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by CanadianSteve, posted 07-28-2005 12:41 AM AdminJar has not replied

Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 9 of 300 (226884)
07-27-2005 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by CanadianSteve
07-27-2005 5:17 PM


Context of "War" Verses.
From your first link:
Still, the primary meaning of jihad is physical combat. According to Reuven Firestone, professor of medieval Judaism and Islam at Hebrew Union College in Los Angeles
Forgive me if I do not immediatly accept the expert analysis of one man and this one in particular. Not to say that he couldn't be right, but I am highly skeptical given little information here. Personally, when I want to know what a word means in a culture I go ask the people of that culture. Being that I am an Arab and am part of that culture I know that jihad means exactly what it is by definition and, like many words in Arabic, is given more specific meaning given the context in which it is used. Jihad means "struggle". You can go on a jihad against poverty, a jihad against the job market, against the weeds in the backyard. This is how it is used and it is going to take much more than the "expert" opinion of a Hebrew scholar to change my mind.
In yet other places, the Quran seems to command offensive warfare against unbelievers:
Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But God knoweth, and ye know not. (2:216)
Lets take a look at the next two verses:
[2.217] They ask you concerning the sacred month about fighting in it. Say: Fighting in it is a grave matter, and hindering (men) from Allah's way and denying Him, and (hindering men from) the Sacred Mosque and turning its people out of it, are still graver with Allah, and persecution is graver than slaughter; and they will not cease fighting with you until they turn you back from your religion, if they can; and whoever of you turns back from his religion, then he dies while an unbeliever-- these it is whose works shall go for nothing in this world and the hereafter, and they are the inmates of the fire; therein they shall abide. [2.218] Surely those who believed and those who fled (their home) and strove hard in the way of Allah these hope for the mercy of Allah and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
Looks like it is pretty plain to me that it is saying that it is better to fight and die than loose your faith.
Then there is:
But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them: for God is Oft- forgiving, Most Merciful. (9:5)
Lets take a look at 9:4 the immediate preceeding verse:
[9.4] Except those of the idolaters with whom you made an agreement, then they have not failed you in anything and have not backed up any one against you, so fulfill their agreement to the end of their term; surely Allah loves those who are careful (of their duty).
And then the immediate following verses:
[9.6] And if one of the idolaters seek protection from you, grant him protection till he hears the word of Allah, then make him attain his place of safety; this is because they are a people who do not know.
[9.7] How can there be an agreement for the idolaters with Allah and with His Apostle; except those with whom you made an agreement at the Sacred Mosque? So as long as they are true to you, be true to them; surely Allah loves those who are careful (of their duty).
As soon as you put the verse back into its context, it certaily looks less and less about conversion by the sword.
Fight those who believe not in God nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by God and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book (Christians and Jews), until they pay the jizya [tribute] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. (9:29).
Nowhere here does or in the surrounding verses is there a call to convert the People of the Book by the sword. In fact, if you read ahead you will find that it is talking specifically being assaulted by the "polytheists":
[9.36] Surely the number of months with Allah is twelve months in Allah's ordinance since the day when He created the heavens and the earth, of these four being sacred; that is the right reckoning; therefore be not unjust to yourselves regarding them, and fight the polytheists alltogether as they fight you all together; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil).
When you read the sura as a whole your position is destroyed. In context it talks about defense of your belief against agression toward both you and your religion. No where is it saying to go out and convert by force.
In the Moderation Procedures thread AdminJar agreed that you need to address the issue of the context of these verses. You when a rebuttal is presented to you in an honest debate it cannot be brushed aside. When holmes brought this to you attention you brushed it off. I will not let you do this via the guidelines of this forum. If you want people to honestly debate with you you must honestly debate as well. Please address the context and how it changes the meaning of the verses from their quote mined listing on the site you sourced which makes them seem like verses condoning conversion by the sword.

Organizations worth supporting:
Electronic Frontier Foundation | Defending your rights in the digital world (Protect Privacy and Security)
Home | American Civil Liberties Union (Protect Civil Rights)
AAUP (Protect Higher Learning)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by CanadianSteve, posted 07-27-2005 5:17 PM CanadianSteve has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by CanadianSteve, posted 07-28-2005 1:05 AM Jazzns has replied
 Message 12 by CanadianSteve, posted 07-28-2005 1:38 AM Jazzns has replied
 Message 13 by CanadianSteve, posted 07-28-2005 1:55 AM Jazzns has not replied

CanadianSteve
Member (Idle past 6473 days)
Posts: 756
From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 10 of 300 (226922)
07-28-2005 12:41 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by AdminJar
07-27-2005 5:39 PM


Re: Notice
The UN resolution declared Israel a state. Immediately afterwards, Israel was attacked by 5 Arab armies. After that war, Arab states maintained a state of war with terrorist attacks on israel and other intimidation and hostility. In 1967 they closed shoipping to israel in defiance of international law, ordered the UN peacekeeping troops to leave, and amassed troops and combat equipment alongside all borders of Israel. The first attacks came from Jordanian controlled West Bank. Being small and vulnerable, and not being able to keep virutally the whole nation on combat alert - because almost evrryone is in the reserves given the small population - Israel led the first major attack in destroying the Egyptian airfoce. After the war, Israel immediately offered to return it all in exchange for peace. The answer from the Arab conference was the infamous three no's: No to negotiation, no recognition of Israel, no to peace. But Israel never gave up hope, and so returned a huge chunk of what it won when Egypy eventually agreed to the offer of land for peace. That offer exists for all other parties, should they, too, agree to negotiate towards peace.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by AdminJar, posted 07-27-2005 5:39 PM AdminJar has not replied

CanadianSteve
Member (Idle past 6473 days)
Posts: 756
From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 11 of 300 (226925)
07-28-2005 1:05 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Jazzns
07-27-2005 7:34 PM


Re: Context of "War" Verses.
There are many scholars who see it that way. here is an article where the writer, pipes, disagrees with the non martial interpretation. But bear in mind that Pipes believes "Islam will be whatever Muslims make of it," and that "moderate Islam is the answer."
What is Jihad? :: Daniel Pipes
With respect to India
Inside Every Progressive Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out - David Horowitz
A Pipes article on a new and very scholarly book on "The History of Jiahd."
Inside Every Progressive Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out - David Horowitz
"Muhammad’s conquests: During his years in power, the prophet engaged in an average of nine military campaigns a year, or one every 5-6 weeks; thus did jihad help define Islam from its very dawn. Conquering and humiliating non-Muslims was a main feature of the prophet’s jihad.
The Arab conquests and after: During the first several centuries of Islam, “the interpretation of jihad was unabashedly aggressive and expansive.” After the conquests subsided, non-Muslims hardly threatened and Sufi notions of jihad as self-improvement developed in complement to the martial meaning."
Another source, Bat Y'eor
Author describes history of jihad :: Campus Watch
A book review of irsha maji's book: The Trouble With Islam
Atheism and Agnosticism
There are other sources as well.
But, please understand my view: Islam has a wonderful side, and the Sufis haev an especially spiritual interpretation (although they have been influenced by Hinduism). And Jiahd has a good side to it as well. The porblem is the flip side to each. And hence why I - as do many Muslims for that matter, see a need for something to be done. I suggest a koranic edit. Others a Renaissance. Others a reformation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Jazzns, posted 07-27-2005 7:34 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Jazzns, posted 07-28-2005 9:19 AM CanadianSteve has replied

CanadianSteve
Member (Idle past 6473 days)
Posts: 756
From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 12 of 300 (226932)
07-28-2005 1:38 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Jazzns
07-27-2005 7:34 PM


Re: Context of "War" Verses.
I disagree with your interpretation of the texts. For while it is fuzzy with respect to demands to convert jews and Christians - depends on what passages - there are parts clearly derogatory towards both, there are parts clearly demanding that they get peace only when they are subjugated (pay the poll tax), and there are passages calling for infidels (non Jews and Christians if you will, who are not "believers") to be killed. Rememeber, this isn't just about Islam and Jews and Christians, but others too. That Mohammed led many, many battles, and won a large empire in the process, speaks volumes for his understanding of Jihad.
Here's an article on islam and "The People Of The Book."
Page not found | National Review
Abd bear this in mind: I am not calling for an islamic reformation. I am calling for a Koranic and Hadith edit such that the passages of which we speak, and others like them, cannot possibly be seen as other than as you believe them to mean. Here's why. Let's say you're right in your interpretation. The problem remains that millions upon millions of Muslims disgaree with you - even if they;re in the minority. Of course, I'm referring to the global Islamist movement. So, how do we deal with the fact that so many comprising a vast movement disgree with you, and believe in imperialist, martial Jihad? You're sure as heck are not going to convince them that you are right, and neither will many wonderful, peaceful, democratically-minded Muslims. And that they cannot be convinced says that the Koran is suffuciently fuzzy on this such that either meaning can be drawn. Hence, why i suggest an edit making only your take on it possible. Hopefully, then, over a generation or two, this version will come to so predominate, that the islamist view if diminshed forever.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Jazzns, posted 07-27-2005 7:34 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Jazzns, posted 07-28-2005 9:09 AM CanadianSteve has replied

CanadianSteve
Member (Idle past 6473 days)
Posts: 756
From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 13 of 300 (226933)
07-28-2005 1:55 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Jazzns
07-27-2005 7:34 PM


Re: Context of "War" Verses.
Here's an article that deals with some of your points.
Inside Every Progressive Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out - David Horowitz
Again, I am not actually taking sides in this debate. I am saying, though, that it appears that either interpretation is valid or, at least, is amenable to belief and persuasion. And thus, both sides will have legions of followers unless something is done. several suggestions have been made:
Pipes says moderate Muslims must become entirely ascendant and ensure the faith will be as they see it and make of it.
Manji suggests that, maybe, a reformation is needed.
Schwartz, a Muslim himself and respected author, suggests a Renaissance, arguing that Wahabbism was the most unfortunate reformation. Later, though, Schwartz did write that, maybe, a new reformation isn't a bad idea.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Jazzns, posted 07-27-2005 7:34 PM Jazzns has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 14 of 300 (226934)
07-28-2005 2:01 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Andya Primanda
07-27-2005 7:49 AM


Islam's beginnings
There's plenty of evidence that Islam started its career by force and violence. Here is a brief description of its original conquests as described in a monumental work on Christian history written in the late 19th century. There is an abundance of references cited, in fact you have to scroll through quite a list of them to get to the text:
HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH*
Christianity made its conquest by peaceful missionaries and the power of persuasion, and carried with it the blessings of home, freedom and civilization. Mohammedanism conquered the fairest portions of the earth by the sword and cursed them by polygamy, slavery, despotism and desolation. The moving power of Christian missions was love to God and man; the moving power of Islm was fanaticism and brute force. ...
Islm in its conquering march took forcible possession of the lands of the Bible, and the Greek church, seized the throne of Constantine, overran Spain, crossed the Pyrenees, and for a long time threatened even the church of Rome and the German empire, until it was finally repulsed beneath the walls of Vienna. The Crusades which figure so prominently in the history of mediaeval Christianity, originated in the desire to wrest the holy land from the followers of "the false prophet," and brought the East in contact with the West.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Andya Primanda, posted 07-27-2005 7:49 AM Andya Primanda has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by jar, posted 07-28-2005 8:37 AM Faith has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 15 of 300 (226963)
07-28-2005 7:28 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Andya Primanda
07-27-2005 7:49 AM


Mohammed's violent conquests
Here's more from that same chapter of the History of the Christian Church. (I've been reading through it, and have only read half so far as it's quite long). It gives an objective and sympathetic portrait of Mohammed and his mission it seems to me. However, it does confirm the violent aspects of the religion, as well as the peaceable aspects, based on Mohammed's own retreat from peaceful conversion to making converts by force:
HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH*
After his call, Mohammed labored first for three years among his family and friends, under great discouragements, making about forty converts.... Then he publicly announced his determination to assume by command of God the office of prophet and lawgiver, preached to the pilgrims flocking to Mecca, attacked Meccan idolatry, reasoned with his opponents, answered their demand for miracles by producing the Koran "leaf by leaf," as occasion demanded, and provoked persecution and civil commotion. He was forced in the year 622 to flee for his life with his followers from Mecca to Medina (El-Medina an-Nab, the City of the Prophet), a distance of two hundred and fifty miles North, or ten days’ journey over the sands and rocks of the desert.
This flight or emigration, called Hgira or Hidshra, marks the beginning of his wonderful success, and of the Mohammedan era (July 15, 622). He was recognized in Medina as prophet and lawgiver. At first he proclaimed toleration: "Let there be no compulsion in religion;" but afterwards he revealed the opposite principle that all unbelievers must be summoned to Islm, tribute, or the sword. With an increasing army of his enthusiastic followers, he took the field against his enemies, gained in 624 his first victory over the Koreish with an army of 305 (mostly citizens of Medina) against a force twice as large, conquered several Jewish and Christian tribes, ordered and watched in person the massacre of six hundred Jews in one day,156 while their wives and children were sold into slavery (627), triumphantly entered Mecca (630), demolished the three hundred and sixty idols of the Kaaba, and became master of Arabia. The Koreish were overawed by his success, and now shouted: "There is but one God, and Mohammed is his prophet." The various tribes were melted into a nation, and their old hereditary feuds changed into a common fanatical hatred of the infidels, as the followers of all other religions were called. The last chapter of the Koran commands the remorseless extermination of all idolaters in Arabia, unless they submit within four months.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Andya Primanda, posted 07-27-2005 7:49 AM Andya Primanda has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024