Islam vs Christianity

[tinybear]

I remember right after 9/11 when George W Bush declared his war against terrorism, he said that it wasn't a war against Islam or Muslims. Now, who's he kidding? His use of the word "crusade" in his speech was quite telling. Of course he's against Islam. He's the Great White Christian crusading against the Muslim ragheads. And are we surprised? No. Islam and Christinanity are fundamentally incompatible with each other, right? Those who claim the USA's crusade against terrorism isn't about a war on Islam is either ignorant or hypocritical. What do you think? Read this article:

http://raptureready.com/rr-islam.html

[Downwiththestereotype]

On the contary ISlam and Christianity really arent that different in the grand scheme of things, Ther are both faiths descended from the stories of Abraham, There moral guidlines and theoilogys are quit similair, they have some of the same prophets, although at differeing levels of importance such as Jesus and Moses, they both have guidlines on ways of life and being which are similiar, and they both promote capitalists esq systems (how convinient for the saudi's and the bush's)

The point is that they ARE fundamentally compatible, it i the small details that are different not the main sturcture of the religions, and yet those small details are enough to cause conflict. Thats been true of all societies, just look at Northan Ireland with the catholic / protestand clashes, those 2 religions are about as close as you can get for mainstream religions.

Any hint of a war on islam is just to cover up real agendas and attract the evangelist america. If it was truly about justice and freedom and whatever bullshit bush enjoys spouting, the crusades would be into saudi wghich has an appauling human rights record.

Anyway Im about to get in a very bad mood, Im off to the pub.

[tinybear]

"More Americans are coming to realize that while many Muslims lead peaceful and tolerant lives, those who truly believe that the Qur'an represents the divine words spoken by Allah will not be tolerant or peaceful toward the "People of the Book": the Qur'an's designation for Jews and Christians.

As Sura 9:29 of the Qur'an declares: "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, [even if they are] of the people of the Book, until they pay the Jizya [a special higher tax rate] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."

Many contemporary theologians depict the Crusades as Christianity's war against Islam, but they have it dead wrong. For Islam was on the march centuries before the Crusades, having conquered the Christian lands of Egypt, Syria, North Africa and Spain by the time Pope Urban II had declared the first Crusade.

To this day, the enmity continues. Just last year, a Muslim cleric in Indonesia called upon his fellow believers to fight "belligerent infidels" who are Christians.

Christians who believe that all people are equal in dignity before God need to realize that this idea is not taught in traditional Islam. Muslims who do believe in this equality of dignity have been influenced by the West, but within the Muslim community they are typically shouted down by the more fervent and louder voices of Islamic militants."

Read more at : http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...3/104356.shtml

[castille]

Its funny how Americans hate Muslims so much. I mean I've never seen this kind of hatred before. Hell, I've seen ultranationalist hatred, but they're mostly limited to insecure teenage boys. But this whole Muslim thing is, as the United States states, a "Crusade". I wonder if Bush will march into Tripoli, slaughter every inhabitant, and stick their heads on a +1 Longsword?

For Islam was on the march centuries before the Crusades, having conquered the Christian lands of Egypt, Syria, North Africa and Spain by the time Pope Urban II had declared the first Crusade.

Well technically, Egypt and North Africa were never Christian nations to begin with. They were converted forcibly by the Romans. Initially they had been what Christians sneeringly label "pagans".

[lobeworm]

Well technically, Egypt and North Africa were never Christian nations to begin with. They were converted forcibly by the Romans. Initially they had been what Christians sneeringly label "pagans".

Well technically the Black Christian population living in America were Pagans too, but they seem to be into the whole chrisitian deal wholeheartidly. Would they be happy if they were converted into Islamics? to answer my own rhetoric question, probably not.

I do however belive that the Qoran is a much better account of the events of ancint times then the bible, from what i have read it seems a lot less contradictoral. It was probably never romaned up like the bible either, glorifying Jesus to an unholy extent. In fact most of Christianitys and Islams incompatibilitys lie with the Christian teachings.

[RickSp]

Quote by: tinybear "More Americans are coming to realize that while many Muslims lead peaceful and tolerant lives, those who truly believe that the Qur'an represents the divine words spoken by Allah will not be tolerant or peaceful toward the "People of the Book": the Qur'an's designation for Jews and Christians. ... Christians who believe that all people are equal in dignity before God need to realize that this idea is not taught in traditional Islam. Muslims who do believe in this equality of dignity have been influenced by the West, but within the Muslim community they are typically shouted down by the more fervent and louder voices of Islamic militants." Read more at : http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...3/104356.shtml

Excuse me if this sort of bigoted nonsense really pisses me off. Of course using an article written by Paul Weyrich in Newsmax as a source gives it all away anyway. Weyrich is as dismal an example of intolerant fundamentalist Christian as one is likely to find. Anyone can cherry pick from the "sword verses" of the Koran and with suitable ignorance of context make them say horrible things. The exact same thing can be done from the Talmud or the Christian bible.

If you want to learn about Islam, Newsmax is not the place to do it. Come to think of it Newsmax is hardly the place to learn much of anything.

[PDJane]

Islam is a fundamentally peaceful and more egalitarian religion than either Christianity or Judaism.

The problem is not with the word, but with the interpretation, which is the main problem with Christianity and Judaism too. Islam is a more unified religion; the Koran is the writing of one man, instead of the musings of many. Muslims are admonished, by the way, to live in peace with the adherents of the other branches of the Abrahamic religions. The difficulty is not that they hate the west, but that they hate the policies of the Americans. One can hardly blame them. However, the islamist agenda is, in part, a reaction to western greed and in part a difference in worldview. Since the Koran is written by one man, at the dictation of God, adherence to the word becomes the only way to obtain the favour of God. That is why interest of the iman in the minutiae of life; because it is the way back to God's favour.

The article referenced above is absolute nonsense. Not only does it patently not understand Islam, it isn't really told from a Christian viewpoint either. The "end times" stuff is pathetic and nihilistic, no matter who is spouting it

The Islamic nations were, by the way, quite civilized before the march of Christianity. Were they "on the march?" No more so than any other nation or religion. Christianity and Islam lived in relative peace for some time.

The confluence of the discovery of oil and all its uses, the rise of Zionism after the last world war, and the conquest of the middle east by Britain, Germany and France, destroyed the peace of the middle east and left the predominantly muslim nations struggling for their existence.

I tend to agree with Rick; I do think you need to be reading something with a wider viewpoint and a clearer view of history and the world.

[jeffl]

Quote by: Downwiththestereotype ...The point is that they ARE fundamentally compatible, it i the small details that are different not the main sturcture of the religions, and yet those small details are enough to cause conflict. Thats been true of all societies, just look at Northan Ireland with the catholic / protestand clashes, those 2 religions are about as close as you can get for mainstream religions.

While the small details are real enough, i don't think they're sufficient to cause the level of violence we see in the mideast and elsewhere.

Any hint of a war on islam is just to cover up real agendas and attract the evangelist america. If it was truly about justice and freedom and whatever bullshit bush enjoys spouting, the crusades would be into saudi wghich has an appauling human rights record. Anyway Im about to get in a very bad mood, Im off to the pub.

This is more like the truth; and more like the traditional response.

Quote by: RickSp Excuse me if this sort of bigoted nonsense really pisses me off. Of course using an article written by Paul Weyrich in Newsmax as a source gives it all away anyway.

Thanks, Rick, for identifying the source; and i share your anger.

Most people of all faiths can live with these minor differences. This violence serves afew, and many who couldn't care less pay with their money and their lives.

If you consider the secret machinations that go on in these organized power structures, civil structures; Islam is exactly what it had to be for where and when it was and is. The sad thing is, and you can see it in the muslim, the hindu, the christian, the hebrew, and the buddhist structure; the sad thing is that there is this secret structure of 'sensible corporate fecundity,' that seems to embrace pop culture to the exclusion if any real collective effort.

[castille]

I've never seen a single major religion become good. Most begin with great intentions, then along the way they sort of become a twisted form of their intended self.

Christianity starts off with love and peace, then you get crusaders killing children across Africa and Middle East.
Islam is supposed to be about structure and peace, but now theres suicide bombers blowing each other up.
Buddhism was supposed to be about understanding and peace, but you get crazy feudal dictators like the Dalai Lama and fanatical warrior monks.
And finally, weirdest one is certain sects of paganism, which started off as local beliefs and ended up as a bunch of insecure goth kids trying to out-depress each other and rebelling against mummy and daddy.

[G. Adams]

Theres a little more to Paganism than teenage rebellion, castille. The majority of pagans I know are adults for a start, and i know a lot of them.

[John the Wise]

"Crusade" means nothing against Muslims. Crusade means a war for the sake of God (if there can be such a thing). To use G Dubya's reasoning, this is a War against terrorism and Gods on our side. There were other crusades declared by the Church, other than the ones against the Arabs. There were crusades in Prussia, and in Southern France, against christian heretics.

Islam is a fundamentally peaceful and more egalitarian religion than either Christianity or Judaism.

I agree that Islam is fundementally peaceful, but how is it more egalitarian?? Most of the founders of the faith thought of Mohammed as a Prophet to Arabs, exclusivly.

[RickSp]

Quote by: John the Wise "Crusade" means nothing against Muslims. Crusade means a war for the sake of God (if there can be such a thing). To use G Dubya's reasoning, this is a War against terrorism and Gods on our side. There were other crusades declared by the Church, other than the ones against the Arabs. There were crusades in Prussia, and in Southern France, against christian heretics..

The word "crusade" has a different meaning from the perspective of most Arabs. It is viewed as Western aggression intended to destroy Islam.

Quote by: John the Wise I agree that Islam is fundementally peaceful, but how is it more egalitarian?? Most of the founders of the faith thought of Mohammed as a Prophet to Arabs, exclusivly.

Only about 20% of all Muslims are Arabs.

[John the Wise]

The word "crusade" has a different meaning from the perspective of most Arabs. It is viewed as Western aggression intended to destroy Islam.

And they would be wrong. No crusade was ever designed to destroy Islam.

Only about 20% of all Muslims are Arabs

It wasnt always that way. Even after they conquered most of the world (they meaning the Muslim arabs) they were reluctant to allow the conquered people to convert. It was only until much later did the Caliphs decide to make Islam a more universal faith. And it wasnt until after the Ottomans (Non-Arab Turks) came that Arabs became a minority among muslims.

[RickSp]

Quote by: John the Wise And they would be wrong. No crusade was ever designed to destroy Islam.

Oh really? Your opinion on the topic is not shared by most in the Middle East, nor for that matter by the Catholic Encyclopedia

The Crusades were expeditions undertaken, in fulfilment of a solemn vow, to deliver the Holy Places from Mohammedan tyranny.

Quote by: John the Wise It wasnt always that way. Even after they conquered most of the world (they meaning the Muslim arabs) they were reluctant to allow the conquered people to convert. It was only until much later did the Caliphs decide to make Islam a more universal faith. And it wasnt until after the Ottomans (Non-Arab Turks) came that Arabs became a minority among muslims.

I do not think your representation of history is accurate and regardless of what was, Islam is the fastest growing world religion. Of the top ten largest Islamic countries only one, Egypt, is Arabic. Indonesia, Pakistan, India, Nigeria, China, Bangladesh, Iran, Turkey, and Sudan are not.

[John the Wise]

Since the Middle Ages the meaning of the word crusade has been extended to include all wars undertaken in pursuance of a vow, and directed against infidels, i.e. against Mohammedans, pagans, heretics, or those under the ban of excommunication

.

Crusade does not mean a war against Muslims. There were crusades against muslims, to gain control of the Holy Land. No Crusade was fought to destroy Islam. They were fought to remove some muslims from Palestine, but not against the muslim faith. But all that is beside the point, the point is that just because Bush said crusade doesnt mean that we want to destroy Islam

........and regardless of what was.........

What once was is my point. Islam wasnt founded on the idea that the faith would be universal, it was founded on the idea that Arabs, as the decendents of Abraham and his son Ishmael, were chosen by God. It wasnt until later that non-arabs were even allowed to convert.

[RickSp]

Quote by: John the Wise . Crusade does not mean a war against Muslims. There were crusades against muslims, to gain control of the Holy Land. No Crusade was fought to destroy Islam. They were fought to remove some muslims from Palestine, but not against the muslim faith. But all that is beside the point, the point is that just because Bush said crusade doesnt mean that we want to destroy Islam.

Eight crusades were fought to drive Islam out of the "Holy Lands", which is to say, what we now term the Middle East. Jerusalem is one of the Islamic holy cities so claiming the crusades to recapture Jerusalem were not fought to destroy Islam is a real stretch.

George Bush is only an explictly Christian president who attacked the heart of Islam without provocation and whose armies now occupy the seat of the last Islamic caliphate as well as several sacred cities. Whether or not one gets upset about Bush using the word "crusade" it is understandable how the brutal invasion of an infidel army might be considered a new "crusade" against Islam.

Quote by: John the Wise What once was is my point. Islam wasnt founded on the idea that the faith would be universal, it was founded on the idea that Arabs, as the decendents of Abraham and his son Ishmael, were chosen by God. It wasnt until later that non-arabs were even allowed to convert.

First of all I think your interpretation is as wrong as your definition of a "crusade". Secondarily you wrote "I agree that Islam is fundementally peaceful, but how is it more egalitarian?? " Presumably you mean how is it more egalitarian today? You did use the present tense. Your repeated assertions related to early Islam are beside the point.