Well, my point was that Christianity plays no, or very little, role in the lives of majority of Westerners (specially the younger generation)...Islam on the other hand plays not only major but most of the times a central role in the lives of its followers...
After the secular onslaught, Christianity just 'fell' in Europe. Islam has dealt with Secular onslaught in better way (no doubt it too has taken hits though)...
Absolutely. Death fatwas, honor killings, and terror. Those are indeed much better ways than verbal persuasions to keep the flock in line. And please do not tell me the stale line that honor killings have nothing to do with Islam. It may be tribal in origins, but if it serves the purpose, then it is related to Islam.
Well thats just fact. Islam does not have any central authority...and this fact helped Islam (and still does) to spread all across the globe...faster and farther. "Qur'an" is seen as the prime authority since it has never been changed or atleast today it has just one universal version..There are many religious scholars in Islam today but no one can claim to be the central authority for global Islamic community.
Islam's growth is based more on higher birth rates than through conversions, forced or not. It is irrelevant if the Quran has been changed or not. This is in no way any definitive that the Quran is somehow a 'more holy' book than the Bible. I find this to be a rather juvenile attempt by the Muslims in trying to make Islam a superior religion. The absence of a central authority is in no way a better facilitator of growth than the existence of one. That growth comes from birth and prosyletizing. Believers do not need permission to spread the word of God/Allah/Buddha/Quetzacoalt/FSM. All religions tacitly grant that permission from the moment when the believer is matured enough to feel his/her faith.
Every religion is"FOREVER at risk of having diverse but repugnant actions done 'in the name of (that religion)" ...no?
Sure. But we do not see Buddhists or Shintoists commit horrific acts that are to the scale of Christians and Muslims have in history in the name of their religions, do we? Do note that neither Buddhists nor Shintoists have any sort of centralized religious authority. Buddhists do not cry 'Buddha is Great' while lopping off someone's head.
Isn't this what OP discusses? Islam DOES have 'political aspect' in its wider ideological framework. Not only this, but Islam also has economic, social, military,legal aspects etc. This is what makes Islam "stronger" or "more resilient" or say "more successful" than Christianity and any other religious tradition in the world.
This is what makes Westerners scared probably? My professor, while smirking, once told that Islam has been creating revolutions where ever it goes. Then he became serious and said "This is because of the fact that Islam has the vocabulary and mechanisms to deal with political disorders, oppression, and conflict etc. These things are not present in Christianity. Many people hence have used Islam to bring reforms or revolution against political order that oppresses them" (We were talking about fundamentalism in religion and 1979 revolution)...
We can also say that this make Islam nosy and oppressive. Islam is perfectly suited for 'sheeple', in other words, those who are borderline medical imbeciles who needs guidance in every aspects of their lives. Islam is perfectly suited for those who crave temporal political power over spiritual enlightenment, after all, prefix any declaration with 'It is Islamic...' or 'According to Muhamad (PBUH)...' and who can tell if the person is speaking truly from a spiritual perspective or from crass desire?
It looks to me that temporal political power is what
YOU really want over spiritual enlightenment. Which is more important, quiet and anonymous alms to the poor or loud public display of piety according to petty rules as dictated by Islam? Jesus condemned the Pharisees for exactly the behaviors that Islam advocates. If Jesus is alive today, he would condemn the Christian churches for their wealth, ostentatious display of the same, preening from their leaders, and the idolatry the average Christians have for those same leaders. Then he would turn his ire to Islam and the Muslims.
No. I would rather have Pakistan with more 'political, economic, and military' power. I don't see Islam as a nationality. Also I despise wahabi "islam"--A disease that is spreading in Pakistan unfortunately.
What I said was not about Pakistan but about the seemingly the brazen desire for temporal political power at the expense of spiritual enlightenment by the Muslims, notably in this discussion.
You asked if the political aspect of any religion is an advantage or disadvantage. It is a deceptive question and I do not mean to say you are a deceitful person. Rather...What is an advantage or disadvantage have nothing to do with spiritual enlightenment. An advantage is an amoral thing. The opposable thumb is an advantage that we have over the lower orders. It allows us to wield pen and sword with equal dexterity. So take a look at your Islamic countries and explains how are those countries 'superior' to us. After all, within those borders, you have no contestant political powers, right? It is Islam 24/7/365. It is Islam, all channels, all the time.
If regulating every aspects of a person's life, from sunrise to sunset, from how many times to pray during the day to which hand to use after personal toiletry, leads to spiritual enlightenment, then the Muslims should be the most spiritual, equal, fair, intelligent, wise, knowledgeable, serene, the men studly, and the women beautiful. And from all these human qualities their countries would be most wealthy but generous even to a fault, powerful but benevolent, intelligent but humble, and knowledgeable but always exploring. But...Look at your 'Islamic' countries today...Are they 'Islamic'? How about only in style but not in substance?
The Japanese islands have scarce natural resouces, even worse off than Muslim countries. In WW II, the Japanese were bombed nearly back to the Stone Age, then their country was occupied by foreign powers. Their religion of Emperor worship was destroyed. And yet in one generation --
ONE GENERATION -- they surpassed the Muslims in terms of everything but population. They have no central religious community to tell them what to do from sunrise to sunset. Is that lack a 'disadvantage'?
So tell us how is having a strong political component and all those regulations in Islam an advantage? To whom? I doubt your professor can help you there, and an immam can only rage at you for your lack of faith.
Or should the question be rephrased as --
'OVER WHO?' And since I have to ask this question, it only confirms what we non-Muslims have known so far: That the Muslims are far more interested in brazen political control than of inner spiritual enlightenment despite their loudly trumpeted piety. Exactly what Jesus condemned.
C'mon gambit, everyone is not taliban or Boko Haram.
But enough of you are. The thing with Christian extremists is that they usually like to keep to themselves with limited contact with the rest of humanity. Their extremism is nearly always heavily tainted by something else, like deep seated hateful white supremacist mentality, or apocalyptic end timers, or discredited sect like the polygamous fundamentalist Mormons who were disavowed by mainstream Mormonism, or extreme peaceniks like the Amish and the Mennonites.
The Muslim extremists have no problems living among the infidels. They do not need the label 'Taliban' in order to have the Taliban-like mentality. They enjoy being religious troublemakers and the fear they instilled. Unlike the Christian white supremacists or the peacenik Amish who calls their beliefs distinct from mainstream Christianity, Muslim extremists prefers to call theirs -- mainstream Islam. So if there is no central religious and moral authority in Islam, what make your declarations about what they are any more religiously valid than what they call themselves? If they do not care about what fatwas levied upon whatever they say and do and continues on whatever they say and do, it is precisely because of that lack of a central religious and moral authority.
Well, U.K Muslim community does have some problems (Effigy burning, Anjem Chaudry, Sharia brigaes blah blah) but they don't represent even 2% of the UK Muslims living in England.
But the other 98% benefits from their actions -- fear from the non-Muslims. If not respect, then fear is an equal prize.
What is a 'coward'? In order to be a coward, I must know what are my duties and responsibilities, and that those duties and responsibilities can have adverse consequences. Then I do nothing out out of fear of the consequences. The best example is a cowardly soldier.
So what are we to call those 98%? Cowards or just plain lazy? If the beliefs of those 2% are 'extreme', then should not the beliefs of the 98% be
EQUALLY EXTREME by the relativistic perspective? It is both easy and lazy to laugh at the 2%. You 98% may even deign to display for us non-Muslims a morsel of distaste for them. But the reality is that
IF you 98% really care about the image of Islam, then the fact that you do quite nothing means you are both cowardly and lazy.
Also, you did not answer my question:
How will the 'clash' look like? What will West do during that clash? ?
Deportation of Muslims, millions of them, back to Islamic lands? or what?
I already told you what that clash will look like, or at least how it began -- with the murder of Theo van Gogh.
The intellectual and social conflicts are already underway. The political aspect of it is inevitable. Here is where you made a serious mistake: That you think a strong religious component in your religion equals the absence of a strong political component in other areas of our non-Islamic life.
A freedom loving secularist will fight just as hard for his liberties as an Islamist would fight to subjugate him, in both the intellectual and physical arenas. Try ordering a libertine to stop his frequent visits to the brothels and see what happens.
Why not? Why do you think that situation will not become better in coming decades?
Because Muslims have no respect for non-Muslims. I have been to a couple Muslim countries. I know.
Generalized statement..Many people will find Islam more "common sensical" than trinity doctrine of Christianity..
This is where you are seriously wrong. Most Christians know full well the appropriate analogy of water, ice, and steam to represent the Trinity of the Godhood. Even the Christianity hater and comedian Bill Maher in his religion mocking movie 'Religulous' was duly impressed and had no comeback.
Interesting insight. Thats probably the problem. You Westerners probably take idiots like Anjem Chaudry and their hollow slogans too seriously..while we Muslims just laugh at the retardness of them and go on and live our lives.
If only Theo van Gogh was merely laughed at...
Laughing can only hurt feelings. But a knife to the heart usually does much worse. I have never had a knife stuck in my chest but am willing to bet it would not be pleasant. We non-Muslims can only wonder how many of you 98% laughed at Theo as he lay dead in the street.
Offcourse there is no "central" authority but many Islamic Scholars do condemn idiots and their action in the name of Islam...
Name me just ONE, just one, Islamic scholar who condoned the recent sharia brigade? EVERY SINGLE SCHOLAR, IMAM etc condemned those actions and declared them against Islam.
It is pointless. Just as religions in the West are
a la carte, so are imams and scholars in Islam. But it is odd that you asked. How about the Salman Rushdie affair? The signs said: 'EXTERMINATE THOSE WHO SLANDER ISLAM' and 'BEHEAD THOSE WHO INSULT ISLAM'. Certainly is inline with what Khomeini issued upon Rushdie, no?
Or how about this religious authority?
BBC NEWS | UK | Profile: Sheikh Abdullah al-Faisal
Al-Faisal spent years travelling the UK preaching racial hatred urging his audience to kill Jews, Hindus and Westerners.
In the tape recorded after 11 September, he said: "The way forward is the bullet. Our motto is 'might is right'".
In another tape - Rules of Jihad - thought to have been recorded before 11 September, he said Jihad had been declared against India.
"You are only allowed to use nuclear weapons in that country which is 100% unbelievers," he said.
But throughout the trial he denied he had intended to incite people to violence.
Instead he argued his talks came from the Koran and if he was on trial so was the holy text.
Al-Faisal dared us non-Muslims to put the Quran on trial. Your objections are hollow. Do not tell us non-Muslims that your Quran have not been altered. If
YOU contest what Al-Faisal interepreted from the Quran, then effectively the Quran have been altered. If not in words, then in spirit. It was altered by Osama bin Laden, by the Taliban, by Khomeini, and finally --
YOU.
Like I said:
a la carte.
There is no one state of Islam. Turkey is Muslim, so is Malaysia, Indonesia etc... While on the other hand, Afghanistan and Pakistan are also Muslim
disagree
...
Current state of Muslim countries can not be blamed solely on Islam...
Sure it can: The lack of a central religious and moral authority.
Think about it.
There is
NOTHING in the Bible that says there must be a central religious and moral authority for Christendom. And yet the Catholic Church ruled for hundreds of years. Apostolic succession through the ages, started with Peter. Even with the splinter we have today, all the sects and their leaders are equally respected by mainstream Christians and their differences lies in esoteric theology and barely in doctrines. Catholic priests can be married, provided such a priest was already married before ordination, and after he has been ordained, he must be chaste, not celibate. But there is nothing in the Bible about clerical celibacy.
So if the Christian sects can serve their common religion and a same God, as well as being a collective central moral authority without violating Biblical principles, what is there to prevent the Muslims from doing the same? Nothing.
Why were Catholics and Protestants killing each other in Northern Ireland? Politics.
Why are Sunnis and Shias killing each other now? Religion.
So do say that the Muslims have no need for a central religious and moral authority. If anything, given your image in the world and the sorry conditions in your countries, you need such an institution more than ever. Could such an institution make things any worse?
West has a HUGE, HUGEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE role in the backwardness of Muslim countries too..but thats another topic...
Spare us all this false emotional bond. Not one of the Muslims of this generation have any personal knowledge and experience of what happened to the Muslims of the past. You may rightly claim an intellectual stake. But not an emotional bond. When you have your own countries, governments, and freedom to practice your religion and to prevent others from practicing theirs in your countries, you no longer have any rightful claims of emotional bond to whatever injustices that occurred in the past. Muslim countries are not conquered but courted, like in how they were courted by the superpowers during the Cold War. Your leaders came from you, not from us, and if they were bad leaders, that is a reflection of the nature of your societies.
This has never happened on any, even slightly, significant scale. Even TALIBANS did not do this on institutionalized scale. The bold part is *specifically* forbidden in Islamic Law.
But it does happens. It may not be institutionalized, but why should it need to? And since it does happens, past and present, it further erodes your claim that the Quran has never been changed.
) ?
