Islam: religion, or cult?

[SackAttack]

I don't think I can honestly call this anything but a cult after seeing this (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/03/23/afghan.christian.ap/index.html) story on CNN.

I mean, seriously. Dude can be executed for converting to another faith? I'd heard rumblings along those lines previously, but I think this is the first example I've seen of Muslim clerics calling for the execution of somebody who leaves the faith.

If the choices are belief or death, how can a faith have true adherents?

I may disagree with things our government does with respect to my own beliefs, but if these are the kind of things that can happen when religious fundamentalists gain political power, maybe a completely secular government ain't such a bad thing after all.

[SirFozzie]

Oh yeah. This thread will end well/

[SackAttack]

I don't know how else to say it, Foz.

This isn't a handful of people kidnapping someone, making demands, and killing him.

This is a state putting a guy to death for the "crime" of believing in a different God, and the religious leadership of a "faith" telling the government that if they don't kill the guy, well, then, they'll just incite the populace to murder him.

I draw a distinction between a handful of hotheads and a government with its head this far up its ass.

[SackAttack]

Dola,

The amazing thing is that the cleric quoted in that article was apparently anti-Taliban...so he's somewhere left of that, but not so liberal with regards to his "faith" that a guy has the right to reconsider his beliefs without being put to the sword.

[tanglewood]

State =! Religion.

Would you have said that 16th Century Catholicism was a cult? By this definition it clearly was. There is, and always has been, a big divide between what a religion and its teachings stand for and how those teachings are manipulated by those in power. These types of things happen in middle-eastern Islamic states because of their cultural and political climate, not their religious sentiment.

[SackAttack]

State =! Religion.

Would you have said that 16th Century Catholicism was a cult? By this definition it clearly was. There is, and always has been, a big divide between what a religion and its teachings stand for and how those teachings are manipulated by those in power. These types of things happen in middle-eastern Islamic states because of their cultural and political climate, not their religious sentiment.

The state has passed the laws in this case.

The religious leaders are calling for the person's execution, regardless of what the state decides regarding the application of the law. If the state kills him, goal achieved. If the state bows to Western pressure, the clerics will exhort the population to conduct vigilante "justice."

I understand that state != religion, but in this case, the state has chosen to enact the tenets of Islam into the rule of law, and the end result is that somebody may die, either at the hands of the state or the faith, for having made a decision unpalatable to both leadership groups.

[Karlifornia]

Imagine there's no heaven,
It's easy if you try,
No hell below us,
Above us only sky,
Imagine all the people
living for today...

Imagine there's no countries,
It isnt hard to do,
Nothing to kill or die for,
No religion too,
Imagine all the people
living life in peace...

[law90026]

I think the distinction needs to be drawn between the religion itself and how the religion is applied in real life. One state's decisions in relation to Islam does not make Islam a cult.

I live in South-East Asia, where Islam is one of the major religions in the region. Here, you will find an entire range of how Islam is practiced, from very moderate (Singapore) to fundamentalist (parts of Indonesia).

What I understand from my Moslem friends is that their faith actually advocates peace. In certain respects, it's exceedingly similar to Christianity. However, it's also very easy to twist their faith into a weapon for zealots, especially because a lot of the Muslims in my region are very poor.

[Marc Vaughan]

I think the distinction needs to be drawn between the religion itself and how the religion is applied in real life. One state's decisions in relation to Islam does not make Islam a cult.
I agree wholeheartedly with this - as should most christians imho ... after all otherwise christianity would be denounced instantly as a cult because of the crusades ...

The majority of religions imho are well natured and believed and practiced in a good manner by the majority of their converts - there will always however be those who use religions as tools to gain power and influence, either because they believe their 'God' wants them to or simply because of greed ... this doesn't make any of the religions more likely to be right or wrong imho, its just human nature.

[Honolulu_Blue]

All religions are just cults with a lot of members.

[CraigSca]

Btw, isn't the Islamic God the same God as the Christian one?

[Marc Vaughan]

Btw, isn't the Islamic God the same God as the Christian one?
Depends entirely on your point of view really - most Christians/Islamics would claim not and that the 'God' of the other religion doesn't exist and is 'false' ...

However some do take the stance that they'll all looking at the same God from different viewpoints ...

[Qwikshot]

This is simply being against anything Western (which Christianity is).

They won't even let him live in exile, because they are afraid others will leave to go in exile.

[fantastic flying froggies]

All religions are just cults with a lot of members.

ding ding ding! We have a winner!

[Warhammer]

Btw, isn't the Islamic God the same God as the Christian one?

Yes, they are. Somewhere, Muhammed taught that Muslims should respect Jews and Christians as the forefathers of their fate, but that was lost somewhere through the years.

However, the older I get, and the more I learn about Islam, the more I believe it is a cult. I agree that it is ridiculous to be given the choice of conversion or death. You can't portray the Prophet in any form of drawing. You cannot question the Prophet. You cannot question the Koran. The entire world is divided in to two houses, the House of Submission and the House of War. Muslims must not rest until the entire world is under the House of Submission (which coincidentally conveniently is at odds with respect of the Hebrews and Christians).

This method was used by the Church in Spain during the inquisition, however, that phenomenon was not repeated throughout the Christian world. In Spain, this began during the Reconquista and it was a collaboration between the Church, people, and the state. The result was the eventual expulsion/conversion of the entire Moorish and Jewish population of Spain which eventually led to her becoming a second rate power (many of those that emigrated were from the middle class, leaving Spain with a small middle class.

During this time Protestants were not much better as they massacred Catholics as well. This whole period of European history was a struggle between rulers under the guise of a religious struggle. In many cases, religion was simply a tool that rulers used. Heck, most of the northeastern colonies of the US were founded by settlers from another colony that were forced out, or decided to found their own religious refuge.

[flere-imsaho]

All religions are just cults with a lot of members.

He speaketh the truth.

[ISiddiqui]

Would you have said that 16th Century Catholicism was a cult?

Damn you, you stole my example! :D

To be consistant, if you are catagorizing Islam as a cult for the current policies of Afghanistan (which are very strict comparatively), then Christianity has been a cult for much of its history in Europe.

[Grammaticus]

Just for reference, here is Websters definitions:

Cult:
Etymology: French & Latin; French culte, from Latin cultus care, adoration, from colere to cultivate -- more at WHEEL
1 : formal religious veneration : WORSHIP
2 : a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents
3 : a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of adherents
4 : a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator <health cults>
5 a : great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad b : a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion

Religion:
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back -- more at RELY
1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

[M GO BLUE!!!]

This is a state putting a guy to death for the "crime" of believing in a different God...
I wouldn't go so far as to say that Muslims believe in a different God, so much as the same God with a different belief system.

The main differences between Jews, Muslims and Christians isn't the God worshiped so much as the Profit listened to.

Essentially they are wanting to put this man to death not for denying God, but for denying Muhammed (but to them it is the same thing.)

[Butter]

All religions are just cults with a lot of members.

Not to harp here, but I'll third this.

[Crapshoot]

Btw, isn't the Islamic God the same God as the Christian one?

Yes. Islam recognizes many of the Biblical characters, but shares the belief with Judaism that Jesus was not the prophet (but an important man nonetheless).

As for Sack - wow.

[Warhammer]

Just for reference, here is Websters definitions:

Cult:
Etymology: French & Latin; French culte, from Latin cultus care, adoration, from colere to cultivate -- more at WHEEL
1 : formal religious veneration : WORSHIP
2 : a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents
3 : a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of adherents
4 : a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator <health cults>
5 a : great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad b : a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion

Religion:
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back -- more at RELY
1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

In this case, I think we are hitting on definitions 3 and 5....

[ISiddiqui]

Unorthodox? It does have over a billion adherants now. And #5? That refers to movies or books, not religion.

[Warhammer]

Unorthodox? It does have over a billion adherants now. And #5? That refers to movies or books, not religion.

Yep, unorthodox. How many of those are Muslims because of fear? For everyone of these guys that we are talking about, there are at least a few that do not take the leap.

Also, re-read #5, person, idea, movement, or work... I am obviously looking at one item here, person (Mohammed). You could easily make the case that Islam is the cult of Mohammed.

Look at the history of the early Church, there was a great number of religious debates. In many cases, these were settled peacefully. Sometimes they were settled by the sword. However, in the case of Islam, the penalty for leaving the religion is death. I don't think you'll find that any where in Christianity.

I truly believe that Mohammed started Islam to gain power. It makes sense, he was a warrior and he promised his followers paradise on earth and in heaven. Look at Judaism and Christianity. If anything, they promise the opposite. Your reward is not in this life but the next. We are taught to change minds and hearts, not to kill those who disagree. Granted, during the Crusades this was not taught. Again, that was a political/social issue, not a religious one.

[CamEdwards]

Just an FYI for anyone in the DC area. There's going to be a rally in support of Abdul Rahman outside the Afghan Embassy at noon today. The address is 2341 Wyoming Ave NW.

[QuikSand]

Also, re-read #5, person, idea, movement, or work... I am obviously looking at one item here, person (Mohammed). You could easily make the case that Islam is the cult of Mohammed.

If you accept that logic... how is that any sort of distinction from a religion? What about the cult of Jesus, which its the same definition just as well. Or the cult of the torah?

Pointless semantic argument.

[Warhammer]

If you accept that logic... how is that any sort of distinction from a religion? What about the cult of Jesus, which its the same definition just as well. Or the cult of the torah?

Pointless semantic argument.

Good question, Christianity does not discourage you to question your faith. Yes, it is centered around one person, but you can debate his teachings, his existence, etc. It is not a sin to do so. In many cases it is encouraged to strengthed your beliefs. Look at what the Amish do. Live in a community, then you get sent off for a year or two, so you can decide if you will accept the Amish way of life.

If anyone questions Mohammed, whether Muslim or not, you are insulting Muslims. Look at what happened in Denmark a few months back. Did you hear what some of the Muslim leaders were saying? That is where I draw the line between the connotation of "cult" (which is more in line with definitions 3 and 5) and the denotative meaning of "cult."

Heck, the first few definitions of "cult" pretty much say that all religions are. Of course SackAttack is using the word connotatively, not denotatively.

[Crapshoot]

Yep, unorthodox. How many of those are Muslims because of fear? For everyone of these guys that we are talking about, there are at least a few that do not take the leap.

Also, re-read #5, person, idea, movement, or work... I am obviously looking at one item here, person (Mohammed). You could easily make the case that Islam is the cult of Mohammed.

Look at the history of the early Church, there was a great number of religious debates. In many cases, these were settled peacefully. Sometimes they were settled by the sword. However, in the case of Islam, the penalty for leaving the religion is death. I don't think you'll find that any where in Christianity.

I truly believe that Mohammed started Islam to gain power. It makes sense, he was a warrior and he promised his followers paradise on earth and in heaven. Look at Judaism and Christianity. If anything, they promise the opposite. Your reward is not in this life but the next. We are taught to change minds and hearts, not to kill those who disagree. Granted, during the Crusades this was not taught. Again, that was a political/social issue, not a religious one.


Roffle - this is hilarious - especially the arguement about Mohammed. Did a little birdie tell you that ?

As for Christianity, my biblical knowledge is weak, but wasn't an entire city sentenced to death for being sinners ?

[QuikSand]

Of course SackAttack [like everyone else] is using the word connotatively, not denotatively.

Which is why tring to connive something out of the dictionary definition ir the rhetorical equivalent of a parlor trick.

[Warhammer]

Roffle - this is hilarious - especially the arguement about Mohammed. Did a little birdie tell you that ?

As for Christianity, my biblical knowledge is weak, but wasn't an entire city sentenced to death for being sinners ?

No, your biblical knowledge is not weak. I am also not a strict literalist of the Bible. Others will lambast me for that I am sure. Find for me Soddom and Gemorah and I'll buy the story.

Yes, little birdies do come and tell me things. Cite something specific about my argument about Mohammed. It is against their teachings, and punishible in a number of ways, to portray Mohammed in any way in an image. You cannot question their teachings, or you are punished.

Prove me wrong, rather than asking me about little birdies. If I stand corrected, great. I learned something, but I stand by what I have learned.

[Ksyrup]

This is simply being against anything Western (which Christianity is).

They won't even let him live in exile, because they are afraid others will leave to go in exile.

So Islam = Cuban National Baseball Team? :D

[sachmo71]

The guy will be excused because of mental illness. This will come up again, but maybe Karzai can be out of the kill-zone by then.

[Warhammer]

Which is why tring to connive something out of the dictionary definition ir the rhetorical equivalent of a parlor trick.

Which is why I was not the one to bring it up. I merely pointed out that what we were discussing were definitions #3 and 5.

Again, connotation and denotation are completely different things. I can use the n word denotatively using the #3 definition according to Webster's, but would be insane to do so because of its connotation.

So quit saying that I am playing tricks when I am trying to clear the air and pointing out what the discussion is about. Otherwise, the question is Islam a cult is ridiculous because by the first definition all religions are cults, so there is no either or. But, using common useage (connotation) the question makes perfect sense and is up for debate.

Use some common sense. :rolleyes:

[QuikSand]

Use some common sense.

I'd have been completely with you had you focused on definition #3, which is clearly the intent here. However, your overbroad use of definition #5 is what I'm referencing as a cheap trick, and I still think rightly so. That (weak, in my opinion) definition could be expanded to include any group of people whose ideas are in any way organized together... religious or otherwise. They're trying to explain things like the Rocky Horror Picture Show, not the world's great faiths.

I completely agree with you short of that, though -- that the real debate here is whether the holdings of Islam (and/or how they are interpreted in this case) render that faith as "unorthodox or spurious" (and candidly, the billion followers probably isolate the latter of the two).

[RendeR]

Religion != State

Cult == Religions in all forms

Cult == Accepted if its one of the popular ones.

Thinking != acceptable within cults


Draw your lines where you will.

[Warhammer]

I'd have been completely with you had you focused on definition #3, which is clearly the intent here. However, your overbroad use of definition #5 is what I'm referencing as a cheap trick, and I still think rightly so. That (weak, in my opinion) definition could be expanded to include any group of people whose ideas are in any way organized together... religious or otherwise. They're trying to explain things like the Rocky Horror Picture Show, not the world's great faiths.

I completely agree with you short of that, though -- that the real debate here is whether the holdings of Islam (and/or how they are interpreted in this case) render that faith as "unorthodox or spurious" (and candidly, the billion followers probably isolate the latter of the two).

Fair enough. I would think #5 would include the David Koresh's of the world, but I can see your point.

[finketr]

So, is hinduism a cult or religion?
christianity?
buddhism?

where do you draw the line?

as someone already stated, what about the inquisition? Theoretically, Catholics went around and killed the muslims and jews of spain if they didn't "convert".

fwiw, Jews, Christians and Muslims all worship the same god.

As for Rahman, if he is executed by the state then he's a martyr.

[flere-imsaho]

Pointless semantic argument.

Quite. For this discussion to be in any way meaningful, one must define the terms. What is a cult? What is a religion? Unless this is done, you're not going to get anywhere, what with "one man's cult is one man's religion" and all that.

Perhaps you won't get anywhere even if you do, though. It strikes me that the discussion so far has centered on broad generalities. "Muslims can't question their religion", for instance. This is patently false. I know a number of Muslims personally who do, in fact, both study and question their religion. I would hazard a guess to say that the practice is not unknown amongst Muslims living, especially, in predominantly non-Muslim cultures. Maybe not the majority, but certainly not unknown.

Furthermore, this broad generality is easily reproduced for Christianity, which rather kills the argument. There are members of this board, even who have said that it is not their role to question God (the Christian God), and they are certainly not alone in the United States.


The more interesting, and I feel useful, discussion on this topic revolves around the question of why Islam has not developed a reform movement of any significance. Both of its nearest comparisons (i.e. widely-accepted monotheistic religions), Christianity and Judaism, have done this, although it took 1500 years for Christianity and until the 19th century for Judaism.

On one hand, is Islam merely lagging behind these other two? Does it need a few more centuries to develop a reform movement of significance? My inclination is to say no. I think the development of a reform movement is only partly based on the religion's age.

Both Christianity and Judaism developed reform movements in a large part through exposure to significant cultural shifts in the way their constituent societies thought. For Christianity, Humanism. For Judaism, the Enlightenment.

It is here, I think, that a kernel of truth lies. Islam's most influential "home" societies are, generally, the Arab states. These states appear to have never gone through significant changes in the way their societies think. The reason for this, I think, is fairly simple: it serves the interest of the largely feudal (or theocratic) leaders of these states to keep their public bound to a particular way of thinking, and so free thought is not only not encouraged, but in many cases actively discouraged.

The modern world, however, now offers too many avenues for exposure to free thought to be completely suppressed. I think this is the impetus for the radicalism we see within Islam today. What we may see as a cultural war between the "West" and "Islam", has at its heart a struggle between the "true believers" of Islam and what they see as a dilution or liberalisation of the faith (which is probably one part true and one part a fiction constructed by themselves - i.e. they see that which is not truly there).

Based on this, I do think we'll see a significant reform movement within Islam at some point, but I think a lot of blood will be shed before it truly happens. It's hard to be certain, though.

There are, however, a number of significant external factors. Although we always live in "uncertain times", and this is always credited for people turning back to religion, it is perhaps more truthfully the case in the early 21st century. The uncertainty of one's place in the world economy, and the rush to secure vital natural resources has, I think, made a significant number of people unsure about their place in the world. Turning back to religion has always been a likely avenue for these people. Is this happening in the Islamic world? I'm sure of it. It is happening in the Christian world, after all. Furthermore, it is happening in the Christian world after about a century of unprecedented movement forward in secularism.

Anyway, I'll stop now before I ramble further. If you got this far, congratulations. :)

[Ryche]

Personally I think the only difference between a cult and a religion is the degree of acceptance the faith received in the general public. If the general public thinks the followers are wackos, it's deemed a cult. If it's viewed as an 'acceptable' faith, it's a religion. All religions started as cults.

And as far as the Muslim god, my understanding is that Islam is to Christianity as Christianity is to Judaism. The Quran is essentially a third testament, building on the first two. Jesus is revered in Islam as a prophet, but is considered a normal human.

[BYU 14]

I think the distinction needs to be drawn between the religion itself and how the religion is applied in real life. One state's decisions in relation to Islam does not make Islam a cult.

I live in South-East Asia, where Islam is one of the major religions in the region. Here, you will find an entire range of how Islam is practiced, from very moderate (Singapore) to fundamentalist (parts of Indonesia).

What I understand from my Moslem friends is that their faith actually advocates peace. In certain respects, it's exceedingly similar to Christianity. However, it's also very easy to twist their faith into a weapon for zealots, especially because a lot of the Muslims in my region are very poor.

This sums it up well for me. It is a religion that in some areas is practiced with extreme passion. This makes it easy in many areas for clerics to turn these fiercely devoted followers into maniacal Zealots, who will seemingly overlook one of the most basic principles of Islam (Peace) for the perceived greater good of the religion itself.

[Dutch]

Quite.

Thank you, Higgins.

[Telle]

as someone already stated, what about the inquisition? Theoretically, Catholics went around and killed the muslims and jews of spain if they didn't "convert".


Well, you're close there, but not quite. During the times of the Spanish Inquisition, Jews and Muslims were forced to either convert to Christianity or leave the country (and generally could not take any wealth or many possessions with them). Given the hardship faced with leaving their homes penniless, many chose to convert. But then they were closely scrutinized to determine if they had converted back to their old religions.. any evidence or accusation of such and they were snatched up by the Inquisition. If they had been found to be converted from Christianity back to their old religion and did not repent, they were put to death. Also, during the Protestant Reformation, any Catholics who converted to Protestantism (or were suspected of such) got the same treatment. So basically we have the same situation here as in the originally mentioned article.. if you're part of the religion and you leave it, you're put to death.

[Anthony]

i don't view Islam as a cult, just extremist and outdated.

i know for Roman Catholicism - my faith (i'm non-practicing) - we've had Vatican "updates" (for lack of a better word) twice. this is where we got the whole "no meat on Fridays during Lent" and all that crap. Islam, as far as i can see, hasn't "modernized" itself. civilized people just don't go beheading others anymore. by and large women are considered equals. tolerance of other views and faiths is the norm across the board. the actions of Muslims are that of centuries ago, quite literally a different world from where we are now.

i had hoped that by taking the extremist government out of Afghanistan they'd implement a balance of theocratic and secular rule. apparently that's not the case.

which goes back to "what are we doing in these places?". we've liberated these people, let the chips fall where they will. they know no other way of life other than the way it's been. being civil and reason are traits that have escaped these cultures. and when you say "you can't let the actions of an extemist few reflect on a moderate whole" i say if the silent majority didn't agree with insurgents and extremist way of life they'd speak out. being liberated they certainly have the tools and resources and ability to do so.

they want to live like this. so, let them.

[EagleFan]

How about this simple equation:

Islam = cult of animals who do not respect human life
Muslim = religion
Chritianity = religion


Seems pretty straight forward. It's sad that we're in the 21st century and there are still animals around like that who will attempt to "justify" their terroristic and barbaric actions by using religion as a motivation.


Oh, have fun twisting my words to be whatever you want to jump on me about but I really don't give a damn since I know I'm right.

My only "wish" is that the world can someday actually see and understand my "vision" which is a world where people can believe whatever the hell they want as long as they don't practice anything that involces the need to kill other humans because of this "belief". A world where people know how to live in a society where everyone can respect the other person and not have to act like ignorant jerks. A world that would be better for all involved, but there are not enough people who are intelligent enough to accept and understand this idea to make it a reality.

If you can find a way to make that a bad thing, that would be just sad on your behalf.


Okay, I have a plane home to go catch, have fun all.

[Dutch]

Although we always live in "uncertain times", and this is always credited for people turning back to religion, it is perhaps more truthfully the case in the early 21st century. The uncertainty of one's place in the world economy, and the rush to secure vital natural resources has, I think, made a significant number of people unsure about their place in the world. Turning back to religion has always been a likely avenue for these people.

It's called hope. That's why stupid people turn to religion when things go bad and intellectuals blow their brains out. ;)

[Solecismic]

According to the dictionary definitions, cult is a broader term that encompasses all of religion, but with one distinction (among its many meanings) that indicates that a cult is "generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader."

That's what we think of when we talk about cults. And many extremist Muslims in Europe and the Middle East would fall into that category, while most in Singapore and America would not.

Technically, the terms are equivalent. But the connotations that go along with the word "cult" essentially turns this into a semantic argument. Because of this, you insult a religion by calling it a "cult," just as you insult a woman by calling her a "little girl."

As far as religions go, many have pointed out that Christianity has had its moments of evil. Many, many moments of evil. That's mostly in the past now. Now it's the extremist Muslims' turn, and they seem to be determined to be remembered for this.

That's not to say Christianity today is perfect by any means. Right now, our government is run by people who want to control what we say, what we see and what we do purely on the basis of what many (including me) find to be archaic religious grounds. They are mostly peaceful people, but their views are just as offensive to me as the views of the extremist Muslims. Since violence carries with it an immediate need to defend, obviously the extremist Muslims must be fought first.

[Qwikshot]

According to the dictionary definitions, cult is a broader term that encompasses all of religion, but with one distinction (among its many meanings) that indicates that a cult is "generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader."

That's what we think of when we talk about cults. And many extremist Muslims in Europe and the Middle East would fall into that category, while most in Singapore and America would not.

Technically, the terms are equivalent. But the connotations that go along with the word "cult" essentially turns this into a semantic argument. Because of this, you insult a religion by calling it a "cult," just as you insult a woman by calling her a "little girl."

As far as religions go, many have pointed out that Christianity has had its moments of evil. Many, many moments of evil. That's mostly in the past now. Now it's the extremist Muslims' turn, and they seem to be determined to be remembered for this.

That's not to say Christianity today is perfect by any means. Right now, our government is run by people who want to control what we say, what we see and what we do purely on the basis of what many (including me) find to be archaic religious grounds. They are mostly peaceful people, but their views are just as offensive to me as the views of the extremist Muslims. Since violence carries with it an immediate need to defend, obviously the extremist Muslims must be fought first.

To me I think it would be incorrect to state that this is Islam's period of darkness. Even at their inception, there was a great deal of aggressiveness to their religion. By in part, I believe due to zealotry, but also because that was how it was done. The raids on African towns where women and children are dragged off are no different than what some Muslims did at the start. An no religioin is clean in this matter of convert or die...

I think most people are less open minded to Islam because it is deemed aggressive. It is also political.

It's big news that Muslims in Michigan want to adopt a sharia (apologize for spelling) but we accept that Jewish Orthodox completely remove themselves from society just like the Amish.

The greatest difference in the fears of Islam is that unlike other religions in this day and age, the extremism allows for suicide (and taking a few people along with them) and that some countries are dominated by it rather than influenced by it. That a nation like Iran could develop nuclear weapons to hit infidels in Israel and Europe is frightening as much as a sleeper cell flying planes into buildings.

To ignore it, further allows infiltration. To combat it, raises the ire of the entire Muslim nation.

[GrantDawg]

I may be ignorant of the true beginnings of Islam, so someone please correct my interpretation. Can we fairly say there was a fundamental difference between the beginnings of Christianity and Islam? Christianity began peaceful and existed peaceably for over 250 years before it was subverted for political/war like purposes. Islam was warlike from the very beginning. Am I wrong on that?

[st.cronin]

A cult is a religion you don't respect? That seems to me to be about the size of it.

And the Biblical/historical references are backwards - there is a Biblical story (pre-dating Christianity, so more accurately described as part of the Jewish tradition) which tells of God destroying a city of sinners, but He did make a point of saving the one good man in the city.

But the first thing Muhammed did after writing the Koran was raise an army, and massacre a city.

I'm sure somebody will yell at me for pointing that out.

[st.cronin]

I may be ignorant of the true beginnings of Islam, so someone please correct my interpretation. Can we fairly say there was a fundamental difference between the beginnings of Christianity and Islam? Christianity began peaceful and existed peaceably for over 250 years before it was subverted for political/war like purposes. Islam was warlike from the very beginning. Am I wrong on that?

You are not wrong, but you will be accused of being intolerant if you point that out.

[ISiddiqui]

But the first thing Muhammed did after writing the Koran was raise an army, and massacre a city.

Uh... and which city was that?

[GrantDawg]

You are not wrong, but you will be accused of being intolerant if you point that out.

I should hope not because I'm far from intolerant. I do believe many hold a peaceful view of Islam at this time, and I hope that some day that would be the only view. I do believe it is valid to point out there is a definite difference in the beginings of these two religions, and at least some of the differences we see now come from those beginings.

[ISiddiqui]

I should hope not because I'm far from intolerant. I do believe many hold a peaceful view of Islam at this time, and I hope that some day that would be the only view. I do believe it is valid to point out there is a definite difference in the beginings of these two religions, and at least some of the differences we see now come from those beginings.

Perhaps... though its more a reaction to similar things than simply saying, let's take this whole thing over. In dealing with threats to life, Jesus seemed to 'turn the other cheek' (though I'm surprised of the lack of assassination attempts), while Muhammed decided to stand his ground and fight. Perhaps the differences are a result of the differences in the opponents (the Romans seemed to be less into wiping out Jesus as the Meccans were to Muhammed).

[st.cronin]

Uh... and which city was that?


I believe it was Medina, although I'm not at home and thus don't have access to my library. I may be mixing up my holy sites.

[st.cronin]

Perhaps... though its more a reaction to similar things than simply saying, let's take this whole thing over. In dealing with threats to life, Jesus seemed to 'turn the other cheek' (though I'm surprised of the lack of assassination attempts), while Muhammed decided to stand his ground and fight. Perhaps the differences are a result of the differences in the opponents (the Romans seemed to be less into wiping out Jesus as the Meccans were to Muhammed).


huh???? Do you not know what happened to Jesus?

[ISiddiqui]

I believe it was Medina, although I'm not at home and thus don't have access to my library. I may be mixing up my holy sites.

Medina? There was no massacre in Medina. In fact Muhammed didn't have an army at all when he came to Medina.

Are you thinking of Banu Quaryza? Because that would be an entirely different situation; a case where that tribe was suspected of aiding the enemy in a Meccan attack. It was indeed regrettable, but wasn't some sort of surprise attack in the middle of the night to kill everyone.

huh???? Do you not know what happened to Jesus?

Personally, I've never heard of any assassination attempts before Jesus was crucified.

[GrantDawg]

Perhaps... though its more a reaction to similar things than simply saying, let's take this whole thing over. In dealing with threats to life, Jesus seemed to 'turn the other cheek' (though I'm surprised of the lack of assassination attempts), while Muhammed decided to stand his ground and fight. Perhaps the differences are a result of the differences in the opponents (the Romans seemed to be less into wiping out Jesus as the Meccans were to Muhammed).


That underlines the differences again. Muhammed fought for the physical while Jesus was looking to a spiritual kingdom. The Romans were not interested in Jesus because He never pushed for land or power. Whereas Muhammed followed after the more Old Testament idea of power here, and added a spiritual element of paradise later.

I'm not trying to argue superiority here, just pointing out a difference. Christianity later was used for political means and commited great atrocities. Islam also had a history of peace and great cultural and scientific progress. I'm just exploring a difference.

[GrantDawg]

Personally, I've never heard of any assassination attempts before Jesus was crucified.

There were a couple by Biblical accounts where Jesus was able to basically disappear from danger.

[Klinglerware]

there is a Biblical story (pre-dating Christianity, so more accurately described as part of the Jewish tradition) which tells of God destroying a city of sinners, but He did make a point of saving the one good man in the city.


Yes, and I do believe that these guys had a song about it:

http://www.grudge-match.com/Images/villagepeople.jpg

Sodom and Gomorrah
This is the story, of Sodom and Gomorrah.
Two cities that were full, of hatred and lust.
Because their crimes were great.
Because of all their lust.
The Lord decided destruction, was a must.

This is what he said,
"(Give me) Give me,
(Fifty good men) just give me fifty good men,
(And I) and I'll, (Spare the whole city)
And I'll spare the whole city.
Give me, forty good men.
To destroy you all, would be a pity.

Chorus:
Oh - Sodom and Gomorrah, Sodom and Gomorrah.
Cities with one man you can trust.
Sodom and Gomorrah, Sodom and Gomorrah.
Cities full of hatred and lust.
Sodom and Gomorrah, Sodom and Gomorrah.
Judgment Day is very close by.
Sodom and Gomorrah, Sodom and Gomorrah.
The flames will reach up high to the sky.

God sent two angels (to) Sodom and Gomorrah.
They were met by Lot, who bowed to the ground.
They went in to his home, before they could sit down.
The wicked men of Sodom, gathered 'round.

Here's what the angels said,
"(Give me) Give me,
(Thirty good men) give me thirty good men,
(And I) and I'll, (Spare the whole city)
And I'll spare the whole city.
Give me, twenty good men.
To destroy you all, would be a pity.
(Repeat Chorus)

The angels found one good man in Sodom and Gomorrah.
One man who did not have, a heart full of lust.
They told him to leave, to take his family,
and run to the mountains, for safety.

Their final warning was,
"(Give me) Give me,
(Just ten good men) give me just ten good men.
(And I) And I'll, (Spare the whole city)
And I'll spare the whole city.
Give me, just two good men.
To destroy you all, would be a pity.
(Repeat Chorus)

[ISiddiqui]

That underlines the differences again. Muhammed fought for the physical while Jesus was looking to a spiritual kingdom. The Romans were not interested in Jesus because He never pushed for land or power. Whereas Muhammed followed after the more Old Testament idea of power here, and added a spiritual element of paradise later.

The Meccans weren't going after Muhammed because he wanted land or power, fyi. Arab society was (and is still somewhat) very close knit, with family tribes being more important than other considerations. Add to this that the Arabs in Muhammed's day were polytheists. The Kaaba in Mecca was a huge tourist area for pilgrammage and was filled with polythesitic Gods. Muhammed denounciated polytheism and the whole reason to come to the Kaaba. What was worse was that his tribe, the Quraysh tribe, was the group in control of the Kaaba. So he started to be persecuted by them and his family clan withdrew their protection of Muhammed's immediate family and his followers, which caused him to flee to Medina.

He didn't seem to be one for land. After he took Mecca, the rest of Arabia was joined by tribal treaties, but those tribes stayed in control of their areas. There was no centralized governance of Arabia at the time.

[MrBigglesworth]

I may be ignorant of the true beginnings of Islam, so someone please correct my interpretation. Can we fairly say there was a fundamental difference between the beginnings of Christianity and Islam? Christianity began peaceful and existed peaceably for over 250 years before it was subverted for political/war like purposes. Islam was warlike from the very beginning. Am I wrong on that?
Christianity was a cult for most of it's early history. As soon as it gained a foothold, there wasn't an end to major wars. The late Roman empire is full of wars. European history from 500-1945 is pretty much one war after another. Christians got to the New World and killed off the indigenous people and brought over slaves from another continent.

Islam gained a large following in a sparsely populated area, allowing them to take over a large amount of territory quickly. During their expansion period, and even as late as the Ottoman Empire, they were known for being among the most tolerant conquerers of others' religion.

Despite st cronin's agreement, I think it is very unfair to call the history of Islam 'warlike' and just attribute the warlike nature of Christianity to subversion. As far as I know, Islam does not have a history of conquering for the express purpose of changing someone's religion.

[MrBigglesworth]

That underlines the differences again. Muhammed fought for the physical while Jesus was looking to a spiritual kingdom. The Romans were not interested in Jesus because He never pushed for land or power. Whereas Muhammed followed after the more Old Testament idea of power here, and added a spiritual element of paradise later.

I'm not trying to argue superiority here, just pointing out a difference. Christianity later was used for political means and commited great atrocities. Islam also had a history of peace and great cultural and scientific progress. I'm just exploring a difference.
I think that misses the fundamental point that Islam branched off from Christianity at right around the time that you are saying that Christianity was subverted for political reasons. It seems logical to me that they would have similar worldviews at that time due to their similar origin, not from some inherent weakness of Islam.

[Telle]

That underlines the differences again. Muhammed fought for the physical while Jesus was looking to a spiritual kingdom. The Romans were not interested in Jesus because He never pushed for land or power. Whereas Muhammed followed after the more Old Testament idea of power here, and added a spiritual element of paradise later.

I'm not trying to argue superiority here, just pointing out a difference. Christianity later was used for political means and commited great atrocities. Islam also had a history of peace and great cultural and scientific progress. I'm just exploring a difference.

Actually, I think it's somewhat debatable as to whether or not that's a historically correct interpretation of the beginnings of Christianity. I read a book recently that made a pretty compelling case that Jesus was claiming the throne of David and planning a Jewish uprising.. and that's why the Romans wanted him gone.. and that it was Paul that created the whole idea of Jesus being divine and all the stuff that stems from that.

[st.cronin]

Despite st cronin's agreement, I think it is very unfair to call the history of Islam 'warlike' and just attribute the warlike nature of Christianity to subversion. As far as I know, Islam does not have a history of conquering for the express purpose of changing someone's religion.

What happened to that slamheadagainstwall smiley.

Leaving Christianity aside ... Are you kidding? The basic PC history of Islam goes, Mohammed wrote the Koran, then there was this huge Islamic Empire. Where do you think that Empire came from? Were all these folks converted by Sufis? There are many, many, many examples of Muslim clerics and scholars throughout history (starting with Mohammed), and even today, justifying conversion at the point of a sword. Pointing this out is considered impolite to the peaceful muslims, but to pretend it's not true is silly.

[ISiddiqui]

There are many, many, many examples of Muslim clerics and scholars throughout history (starting with Mohammed), and even today, justifying conversion at the point of a sword.

That's actually considered a no-no in the Koran, IIRC. Conversion at the point of a sword goes against the requirement that the person make a free choice. Recall that you had many non-Muslims live in Muslim territories in early Islam, who were not forced to convert, but instead had to pay a tax, etc.

[st.cronin]

That's actually considered a no-no in the Koran, IIRC. Conversion at the point of a sword goes against the requirement that the person make a free choice. Recall that you had many non-Muslims live in Muslim territories in early Islam, who were not forced to convert, but instead had to pay a tax, etc.

That's all true; this is a case where the peaceful Muslims clearly have the Koran, and some historic examples, on their side. The opposing argument is definitely made, though, quite explicitly by the Wahabbis, among others.

[timmynausea]

My religion is better than yours.

[GrantDawg]

Christianity was a cult for most of it's early history. As soon as it gained a foothold, there wasn't an end to major wars. The late Roman empire is full of wars. European history from 500-1945 is pretty much one war after another. Christians got to the New World and killed off the indigenous people and brought over slaves from another continent.



But how did it gain "foothold?" It was the use of a political leader for his own purposes. The first two hundred years was not one seeking political gain, but of peace. It was later used for political purposes because of the rapidly growing number of adherents even after great persecution where still growing rapidly. You're talking about events several hundred years after the fact. Further, I admitted the atrocities committed by those later in the name of Christianity. So, how exactly are you disagreeing with me?

[GrantDawg]

Actually, I think it's somewhat debatable as to whether or not that's a historically correct interpretation of the beginnings of Christianity. I read a book recently that made a pretty compelling case that Jesus was claiming the throne of David and planning a Jewish uprising.. and that's why the Romans wanted him gone.. and that it was Paul that created the whole idea of Jesus being divine and all the stuff that stems from that.

Possible, but completely speculation because there is no historical evidence of such. Even given your view, you'd have to give by historical fact the early church was peaceful and taught a message of peace.

[GrantDawg]

I think that misses the fundamental point that Islam branched off from Christianity at right around the time that you are saying that Christianity was subverted for political reasons. It seems logical to me that they would have similar worldviews at that time due to their similar origin, not from some inherent weakness of Islam.

Actually, if your view is correct, then it looks like Islam branched of because of disagreeing with the worldview of the Christians. If they agreed, why would they "branch off?"

[MrBigglesworth]

What happened to that slamheadagainstwall smiley.

Leaving Christianity aside ... Are you kidding? The basic PC history of Islam goes, Mohammed wrote the Koran, then there was this huge Islamic Empire. Where do you think that Empire came from? Were all these folks converted by Sufis? There are many, many, many examples of Muslim clerics and scholars throughout history (starting with Mohammed), and even today, justifying conversion at the point of a sword. Pointing this out is considered impolite to the peaceful muslims, but to pretend it's not true is silly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_islam#The_zenith_of_Islamic_power
The majority of the population of this new empire was non-Muslim, and aside from a protection tax (jizya) and other restrictions, the conquered people found their religions tolerated. Indeed, Muslim authorities often discouraged conversions, since this would erode the tax base. Under the Umayyads, would-be converts had to find an Arab patron who would adopt them into his tribe. Once they were honorary Arabs they could convert.

Nevertheless, most of the populace eventually converted to Islam. Whether this was a fast or a slow movement is a topic hotly debated in academia, and only to be settled by meticulous country-by-country studies.
If you don't believe wikipedia, Google is a wonderful tool. Just do a search for islam and tolerance. They weren't perfect by any measure, but compared to the Christians of the same time period their tolerance was amazing. Maybe some call for conversion at the point of the sword, but it's not a fair comparison of the zealots of Islam with the pacifists of Christianity, you have to look at the entirety of both.

[Crapshoot]

That's actually considered a no-no in the Koran, IIRC. Conversion at the point of a sword goes against the requirement that the person make a free choice. Recall that you had many non-Muslims live in Muslim territories in early Islam, who were not forced to convert, but instead had to pay a tax, etc.

Ditto. If anything, in the middle ages, the Ottoman Empire provided a safer haven for Jews and other escaping the Christian persecution. In India, the Muslim Mughals (descendants of the Mongols) ruled a majority Hindu India for a couple of hundred years, with complete respect for the religion.

[st.cronin]

I don't think you can say Islam 'branched off' from Christianity. Jesus was a Jew, so Christianity is rightly considered a transmission of the Jewish faith. But Mohammed was neither a Christian nor a Jew.

[flere-imsaho]

How about this simple equation:

Islam = cult of animals who do not respect human life
Muslim = religion

Fascinating.

[MrBigglesworth]

Actually, if your view is correct, then it looks like Islam branched of because of disagreeing with the worldview of the Christians. If they agreed, why would they "branch off?"
You don't have to disagree with every part of a worldview to branch off. Lutherans had much in common with Catholics. You don't think it makes sense that early Islam would look more like contemporary Christianity than early Christianity? I just think you are making the basic mistake of attributing the corruption of Christianity to subversion of the faith by humans, while attributing the same corruption of Islam to the inherent nature of the religion.

[GrantDawg]

Actually, if your view is correct, then it looks like Islam branched of because of disagreeing with the worldview of the Christians. If they agreed, why would they "branch off?"


Never mind on this. It took me second, but I think I'm getting you. At the time of the root of Islam, those wearing the name Christian where war-like. Gotcha. Still doesn't change what I was saying from the beginnings of Christianity. Unless you can find some early Christian armies or some prevalent early church teaching of physically conquering territory, there were no earthly political aspirations in early Christianity. History tells us they were persecuted heavily for the exact opposite reason (they would not fight back).

[Dutch]

Ugh.

Just got back from the rally outside the Afghan Embassy, which was reasonably well attended for D.C. standards (about 50 people). There were four news crews there, including a producer for Andrea Mitchell. Every, and I do mean EVERY question, was designed to produce a soundbite of a conservative upset with Bush over this. It was appalling. I finally had to say something to him about this not being a left vs. right issue, or a Republican vs. Democrat issue, or even a Christian vs. Muslim issue. It's simply a human rights issue.

Of course if that actually GETS on the nightly news, it'll be chopped up like the last episode of South Park and I'll be propositioning children, I'm sure.

News crews have families to feed. They can't earn a decent living telling American how happy we are! They need division. They need angst. Even if it means generating their own views.

[CamEdwards]

Ugh.

Just got back from the rally outside the Afghan Embassy, which was reasonably well attended for D.C. standards (about 50 people). There were four news crews there, including a producer for Andrea Mitchell. Every, and I do mean EVERY question, was designed to produce a soundbite of a conservative upset with Bush over this. It was appalling. I finally had to say something to him about this not being a left vs. right issue, or a Republican vs. Democrat issue, or even a Christian vs. Muslim issue. It's simply a human rights issue.

Of course if that actually GETS on the nightly news, it'll be chopped up like the last episode of South Park and I'll be propositioning children, I'm sure.

[MrBigglesworth]

I don't think you can say Islam 'branched off' from Christianity. Jesus was a Jew, so Christianity is rightly considered a transmission of the Jewish faith. But Mohammed was neither a Christian nor a Jew.
From same wikipedia article mentioned earlier:
Muhammad claimed that he had been chosen by God, like the Hebrew prophets before him, to preach repentance, submission to God, and a coming day of judgment. He said he was not preaching a new religion, just reviving the old and pure tradition that the Christians and Jews had debased.

[MrBigglesworth]

Ugh.

Just got back from the rally outside the Afghan Embassy, which was reasonably well attended for D.C. standards (about 50 people). There were four news crews there, including a producer for Andrea Mitchell. Every, and I do mean EVERY question, was designed to produce a soundbite of a conservative upset with Bush over this. It was appalling. I finally had to say something to him about this not being a left vs. right issue, or a Republican vs. Democrat issue, or even a Christian vs. Muslim issue. It's simply a human rights issue.

Of course if that actually GETS on the nightly news, it'll be chopped up like the last episode of South Park and I'll be propositioning children, I'm sure.
I haven't really been following this, but I doubt Bush came out in favor of this, so why would conservatives me upset with Bush over this?

[GrantDawg]

You don't have to disagree with every part of a worldview to branch off. Lutherans had much in common with Catholics. You don't think it makes sense that early Islam would look more like contemporary Christianity than early Christianity? I just think you are making the basic mistake of attributing the corruption of Christianity to subversion of the faith by humans, while attributing the same corruption of Islam to the inherent nature of the religion.


Nope, you are reading in to my statements. Both religions are/were corrupted by humans. But, I am suggesting there is a more basic warrior mentality in Islam than in Christianity, and by your statements it probably stems from the worldview of their beginings (if you believe they are completely human in origin).

[st.cronin]

I haven't really been following this, but I doubt Bush came out in favor of this, so why would conservatives me upset with Bush over this?

Bush has practically come out in favor of it. Unless he's changed his pov in the last two days, he had basically said "it's up to Afghanistan, although I wish they wouldn't do it."

Utterly disgraceful, but, well, I'm not sure what he would be expected to do. I expected harder words.

[Raiders Army]

No Sonic Temple reference yet?

[MrBigglesworth]

Bush has practically come out in favor of it. Unless he's changed his pov in the last two days, he had basically said "it's up to Afghanistan, although I wish they wouldn't do it."

Utterly disgraceful, but, well, I'm not sure what he would be expected to do. I expected harder words.
I guess I can see the case for stronger language, but, really, what options does he have? Afghanistan is threatening to explode, looking to be under the thumb of the Americans is the last thing the Afghan government needs. Anti-government people will just demonize the Afghan rulers like the hardliner Iranians did after the 'axis of evil' comment, and the Afghan government will have to go totalitarian to maintain order. I don't envy Bush's situation at all. But to add my ubiquitous Bush bash that I am sure everyone is waiting for, it is a situation of Bush's own creation.

[MrBigglesworth]

Nope, you are reading in to my statements. Both religions are/were corrupted by humans. But, I am suggesting there is a more basic warrior mentality in Islam than in Christianity, and by your statements it probably stems from the worldview of their beginings (if you believe they are completely human in origin).
As an agnostic I believe both to be completely human in origin. Sorry if I was misreading your statements, but I still think you have to look at the time periods that they both shared and not focus on the time Christianity was small and had no power. When both Islam and Chritianity have had power, they have gone out of their way to fight wars.

[GrantDawg]

As an agnostic I believe both to be completely human in origin. Sorry if I was misreading your statements, but I still think you have to look at the time periods that they both shared and not focus on the time Christianity was small and had no power. When both Islam and Chritianity have had power, they have gone out of their way to fight wars.


Agreed, but I was stating the basic premise of Christianity as evidenced from it early history was not one of even gaining earthly power, wheras Islam did have an earthly power element (which had grown into the Christiasn faith by that time) from its very begining. Am I wrong?

[ISiddiqui]

What exactly do you mean by 'earthly power element'? It was a missionizing faith, that's true. I don't know of anything saying if you were a Muslims you would gain earthly power though.

[Dutch]

When both Islam and Chritianity have had power, they have gone out of their way to fight wars.

When anybody has power they do that.

[GrantDawg]

What exactly do you mean by 'earthly power element'? It was a missionizing faith, that's true. I don't know of anything saying if you were a Muslims you would gain earthly power though.


I'm using "earthly power" in the sense of political control over territory.

[SackAttack]

CNN.com is reporting that the accused is expected to be released in the next few days. No word yet on whether they're going to release him on grounds of insanity, or what.

Next week or so is going to be real interesting to watch unfold.

[BrianD]

CNN.com is reporting that the accused is expected to be released in the next few days. No word yet on whether they're going to release him on grounds of insanity, or what.

Next week or so is going to be real interesting to watch unfold.

Is it true that this guy converted 15 years ago and was just found out now because his family turned him in following a dispute? That seems troubling.

[st.cronin]

Is it true that this guy converted 15 years ago and was just found out now because his family turned him in following a dispute? That seems troubling.

That's how it was being reported, anyway.

[BrianD]

That has a very 1984/Gestapo feel to me. It also has the feel of political maneuvering. There is some scary stuff going on over there.

[WVUFAN]

I don't remember anywhere in the Bible where it states you kill someone for coverting to another religion.

Or anywhere in the Bible where it says that all non-believers either convert or die.

The Islamic religion is the single biggest threat to peace in this world today.

[flere-imsaho]

When anybody has power they do that.

Gandhi.

[flere-imsaho]

Is it true that this guy converted 15 years ago and was just found out now because his family turned him in following a dispute? That seems troubling.

Converted to Christianity in 1990.

Moved to Germany in 1993.

Moved back to Afghanistan in 2002.

Attempted to regain custody of his daughters sometime after this.

Family was annoyed by this, turned him in.

Edit: And yeah, I had to dig for that. It's sometimes amazing how difficult it is to find actual facts.

[MrBigglesworth]

I don't remember anywhere in the Bible where it states you kill someone for coverting to another religion.

Or anywhere in the Bible where it says that all non-believers either convert or die.
Then the LORD said, "The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous 21 that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know." ...Then the LORD rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah—from the LORD out of the heavens. 25 Thus he overthrew those cities and the entire plain, including all those living in the cities—and also the vegetation in the land.
Moral: those that turn against God deserve to get smited. It doesn't take much to go from there to killing those that turn their back on God, does it?

[Daimyo]

I don't remember anywhere in the Bible where it states you kill someone for coverting to another religion.

Or anywhere in the Bible where it says that all non-believers either convert or die.
.
16 Only in the cities of these peoples that the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, you shall not leave alive anything that breathes.

17 "But you shall utterly destroy them, the Hittite and the Amorite, the Canaanite and the Perizzite, the Hivite and the Jebusite, as the LORD your God has commanded you,

18 so that they may not teach you to do according to all their detestable things which they have done for their gods, so that you would sin against the LORD your God.

2 and when the LORD your God delivers them before you and you defeat them, then you shall utterly destroy them You shall make no covenant with them and show no favor to them.

3 "Furthermore, you shall not intermarry with them; you shall not give your daughters to their sons, nor shall you take their daughters for your sons.

4 "For they will turn your sons away from following Me to serve other gods; then the anger of the LORD will be kindled against you and He will quickly destroy you.

5 "But thus you shall do to them: you shall tear down their altars, and smash their sacred pillars, and hew down their Asherim, and burn their graven images with fire.

34 "So we captured all his cities at that time and utterly destroyed the men, women and children of every city. We left no survivor.

1While Israel remained at Shittim, the people began to play the harlot with the daughters of Moab.

2For they invited the people to the sacrifices of their gods, and the people ate and bowed down to their gods.

3So Israel joined themselves to Baal of Peor, and the LORD was angry against Israel.

4The LORD said to Moses, "Take all the leaders of the people and execute them in broad daylight before the LORD, so that the fierce anger of the LORD may turn away from Israel."

5So Moses said to the judges of Israel, "Each of you slay his men who have joined themselves to Baal of Peor."

14Moses was angry with the officers of the army, the captains of thousands and the captains of hundreds, who had come from service in the war.

15And Moses said to them, "Have you spared all the women?

16"Behold, these caused the sons of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, so the plague was among the congregation of the LORD.

17"Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately.

33"They shall not live in your land, because they will make you sin against Me; for if you serve their gods, it will surely be a snare to you."

17"The city shall be under the ban, it and all that is in it belongs to the LORD; only Rahab the harlot and all who are with her in the house shall live, because she hid the messengers whom we sent.

[CraigSca]

You guys are all quoting Old Testament. The world and the message changed when Jesus was born.

[dawgfan]

The Islamic religion is the single biggest threat to peace in this world today.
Yes, let's blame an entire religion for the warped view of certain extremists within that religion.

There is without question a very dangerous combination that exists between certain Arabic cultural mores and power-hungry extremist Islamic clerics, but it is ignorance to claim that the entire Islamic religion is a danger to the rest of the world.

[MrBigglesworth]

In plain talk:
If a man or woman living among you in one of the towns the LORD gives you is found doing evil in the eyes of the LORD your God in violation of his covenant, 3 and contrary to my command has worshiped other gods, bowing down to them or to the sun or the moon or the stars of the sky, 4 and this has been brought to your attention, then you must investigate it thoroughly. If it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, 5 take the man or woman who has done this evil deed to your city gate and stone that person to death.
"If a man or woman contrary to my command has worshipped other gods, take the man or woman who has done this evil deed to your city gate and stone that person to death."

[Daimyo]

You guys are all quoting Old Testament. The world and the message changed when Jesus was born.
I was just responding to WVUFAN who said Bible which obviously includes both. The New Testament is all about peace and compassion even if many of its followers usually aren't. :)

[Klinglerware]

You guys are all quoting Old Testament. The world and the message changed when Jesus was born.

But the Old Testament is still in the Bible, since I last checked. Abortion clinic bombers and Christian Identity adherents have used Old Testament verses like the one below as the justification for their actions:

http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Num/Num025.html

[Dutch]

Gandhi.

I would say so too.

But a quick check of wiki shows him on the wrong side of a debate (the Partition of India) that would have apparently led to all out civil war. His Congress approve the partitioning of Muslim provinces that did not want to be a part of the new independent India. During that period, 5,000 Indian's were killed in wide-spread violence and the Indian Congress finally got it's wishes and over-ruled Gandhi....paving the way for partition and non-violence. That was odd to read it in that light.

[st.cronin]

It is entirely possible to draw a line from certain 'Christians' to certain 'Muslims.' Where you run into trouble is when you then assert that because this particular x is like that particular y, therefore both worldviews are equally wrong. That's when you end up sounding like Bush: Gosh, it sure would seem like a bad thing for Afghanistan to execute that man. The question isn't is Christianity better and more peaceful than Islam.

[Crapshoot]

I would say so too.

But a quick check of wiki shows him on the wrong side of a debate (the Partition of India) that would have apparently led to all out civil war. His Congress approve the partitioning of Muslim provinces that did not want to be a part of the new independent India. During that period, 5,000 Indian's were killed in wide-spread violence and the Indian Congress finally got it's wishes and over-ruled Gandhi....paving the way for partition and non-violence. That was odd to read it in that light.

And that's one perspective on the Issue. It wasn't "his" congress- he refused the political role as a leader of the Congress Party. The root cause for partition was the debate between Nehru and Jinnah about power- If Nehru had let Jinnah be Prime Minister of the unified India, there would have been no Pakistan.

[Mac Howard]

Just a couple of points:

Rahman is not being prosecuted because he's a Christian. His crime is his rejection of Islam. It's not a subtle difference.

Christians, Jews, Buddhists etc can all live and follow their faith in Afghanistan, indeed all states claiming Sharia Law (at least Sharia Law says so if politicians don't always practise that) tolerate these religions providing they don't criticise Islam. But converting from Islam to another religion or a Muslim becoming agnostic or atheist is seen as rejecting Islam and the Koran demands the death penalty for that. But the crime only applies to Muslims who lose their faith (hence the fatwa on Salman Rushdie). A lifelong Christian would not be prosecuted let alone executed.

The Christian influence on Islam is not that of the Christian faith we know today or even the Catholic Church of the middle ages. The influence is that of Gnosticism. This is the "christian" religion that developed in Egypt following the Jewish diaspora 40 years after Jesus. Many followers of this version of christianity did not believe Jesus to be divine but believed him to be a prophet. The christians that Mohammed would be aware of would be Gnostics. At the time of Mohammed many Europeans would still be pagans, not christians. Christianity, in the form of the Catholic Church, only became the dominant force it was in the Middle Ages around the 11th century.

The reason that Islamic society flourished so much more than Christian society was because the societies of Europe were fundamentally anarchies following the defeat of the Roman Empire by the barbarians. For around 5 centuries - the Dark Ages - Europe was made up of anarchistic fiefdoms continuously at war with little in the way of civilisation. The world of Islam was relatively stable and responsible for most intellectual and cultural development in those times. The Catholic Church grew to dominate religion in Europe over this 500 years as it was seen as a refuge from the tyrannical behaviour of the rulers.

The Muslim world, however, seems to have ceased development around the 15/16 th centuries. They have never experienced anything equivalent to the Protestant Reformation that was essentially a revolt against authoritarian, institutionalised religion (the Catholic Church). Today's Islam, certainly that of the Arab world, is much closer to the pre-reformation Catholic Church than to the relatively tolerant Christian faiths we know - a religion whose clerics control every aspect of the lives and thoughts of its adherents. Only in western societies has that control been relinquished (and not always there).

I would argue that Islam is now seeing its own "reformation" in the form of the conflict with the western world we now see. Let's hope this reformation will not be followed by the 100 years of bloody war the Christian world experienced.

[RendeR]

I don't remember anywhere in the Bible where it states you kill someone for coverting to another religion.

Or anywhere in the Bible where it says that all non-believers either convert or die.

The Islamic religion is the single biggest threat to peace in this world today.


1: Go read your bible and pay attention this time

2: See #1

3: Even *I* am not this utterly and flagrantly ignorant.


Your thoughts here and ideas behind them are the single greatest threat to peace in the world.

[flere-imsaho]

But a quick check of wiki shows him on the wrong side of a debate (the Partition of India) that would have apparently led to all out civil war. His Congress approve the partitioning of Muslim provinces that did not want to be a part of the new independent India. During that period, 5,000 Indian's were killed in wide-spread violence and the Indian Congress finally got it's wishes and over-ruled Gandhi....paving the way for partition and non-violence. That was odd to read it in that light.


Yes, but it doesn't mean I'm wrong. Let's recap:

When both Islam and Chritianity have had power, they have gone out of their way to fight wars.

When anybody has power they do that.

Did Gandhi, when he gained power, go out of his way to fight wars?

[Galaxy]

I don't remember anywhere in the Bible where it states you kill someone for coverting to another religion.

Or anywhere in the Bible where it says that all non-believers either convert or die.

The Islamic religion is the single biggest threat to peace in this world today.

And religious right wings are the biggest threat to freedom and ecomocial strength in our country today.

[Mac Howard]

The prosecutors have dropped the case against Rahman. Now the problem is protecting him from the local population who don't have the same sensitivity to foreign opinion.

[GMO]

I'm not sure that the Muslim religion can always be called intolerant, but it seems that there is a prevailing idea in the Westen world that everyone in the world thinks the same way as we do in the Western, Christain-based, world. This could be very wrong. People in other parts of the world may not have the same basic beliefs as we do e.g. tolerance for diverse ideas, equality of people, democracy is the best form of government etc.
The Western world can get into a lot of trouble if it presumes everyone's basic beliefs are the same as ours.
We forget that we have had a few hundred years of writing and debates about these ideas. Other areas of the world may have not had this background.

[GMO]

Just a couple of points:

Rahman is not being prosecuted because he's a Christian. His crime is his rejection of Islam. It's not a subtle difference.

Christians, Jews, Buddhists etc can all live and follow their faith in Afghanistan, indeed all states claiming Sharia Law (at least Sharia Law says so if politicians don't always practise that) tolerate these religions providing they don't criticise Islam. But converting from Islam to another religion or a Muslim becoming agnostic or atheist is seen as rejecting Islam and the Koran demands the death penalty for that. But the crime only applies to Muslims who lose their faith (hence the fatwa on Salman Rushdie). A lifelong Christian would not be prosecuted let alone executed.

The Christian influence on Islam is not that of the Christian faith we know today or even the Catholic Church of the middle ages. The influence is that of Gnosticism. This is the "christian" religion that developed in Egypt following the Jewish diaspora 40 years after Jesus. Many followers of this version of christianity did not believe Jesus to be divine but believed him to be a prophet. The christians that Mohammed would be aware of would be Gnostics. At the time of Mohammed many Europeans would still be pagans, not christians. Christianity, in the form of the Catholic Church, only became the dominant force it was in the Middle Ages around the 11th century.

The reason that Islamic society flourished so much more than Christian society was because the societies of Europe were fundamentally anarchies following the defeat of the Roman Empire by the barbarians. For around 5 centuries - the Dark Ages - Europe was made up of anarchistic fiefdoms continuously at war with little in the way of civilisation. The world of Islam was relatively stable and responsible for most intellectual and cultural development in those times. The Catholic Church grew to dominate religion in Europe over this 500 years as it was seen as a refuge from the tyrannical behaviour of the rulers.

The Muslim world, however, seems to have ceased development around the 15/16 th centuries. They have never experienced anything equivalent to the Protestant Reformation that was essentially a revolt against authoritarian, institutionalised religion (the Catholic Church). Today's Islam, certainly that of the Arab world, is much closer to the pre-reformation Catholic Church than to the relatively tolerant Christian faiths we know - a religion whose clerics control every aspect of the lives and thoughts of its adherents. Only in western societies has that control been relinquished (and not always there).

I would argue that Islam is now seeing its own "reformation" in the form of the conflict with the western world we now see. Let's hope this reformation will not be followed by the 100 years of bloody war the Christian world experienced.

I agree with much of what you write but not all.

The Western part of the Roman Empire was in chaos following the fall of Rome in the 400s.
However the Eastern Roman Empire was still thriving. Constantinople was it's capital (now called Istanbul) and this part of the world was more Greek-speaking. It did not fall to the barbarians.

The Eastern Empire had a rich history of knowledge and inquiry.

In the 600s there were a series of wars between the Eastern Roman Empire and Persia (Sassonians). It was just after this, when the Eastern Empire was weak and exhausted after the long wars, that the Muslims attacked and conquered much of the Eastern Christian world (North Africa, much of the Middle East, Spain).
So the Muslims inherited the knowledge and traditions of this part of the Christian Eastern Empire.

It could be said by some that the Crusades were an attempt to retake this part of the Christian world.

Some parts of this area of the world did have differences with the Christianity of Constantinople but almost all of it would still be very recognizable as Christianity. Some vestiges of these different brands of Christianity still survive in some places (e.g. Iraq, Coptic Christians in Egypt) and it is still very much Christian-looking.

[astrosfan64]

State =! Religion.

Would you have said that 16th Century Catholicism was a cult? By this definition it clearly was. There is, and always has been, a big divide between what a religion and its teachings stand for and how those teachings are manipulated by those in power. These types of things happen in middle-eastern Islamic states because of their cultural and political climate, not their religious sentiment.

In answer to your question yes I would. The Spanish Conquistors were no different. The Crusades weren't much different. Christianity has matured through the years and has "grown up" a bit and isn't as cultish as it once was.

Islam, because the area is still quite unstable and underdeveloped has not reached that level of maturity yet.

[King of New York]

There's no question that, at its origins, Islam accepted the concept of religiously meritorious warfare and holy war, while Christianity had a strongly pacifist streak for the first three centuries or so of its existence. There's no question that in the century after Muhammad's death in 632, Arab Muslims conquered land from Spain to western India. Christianity was fairly slow to accept the idea that there could be such a thing as a holy war, where death = martyrdom; this first ones (very minor and local affairs) were in the ninth century, and only with the First Crusade in 1095 did Christianity really embrace holy war. (Ironically, by that time, the concept of jihad, which is rooted in certain Koranic texts, especially sura nine, but was only fully articulated in the century after Muhammad's death by Islamic scholars, had become a dead letter except perhaps in Central Asia. It would be revived as a response to the crusades, though.) The first conquests that were carried out in the name of Christianity would be, I guess, Charlemagne's conquest of the pagan Saxons around 800.

So how to explain the difference? Well, there are different ways of answering this. If you are a Christian, you might explain it in terms of the personalities and character of the two founders of these religions. Jesus of Nazareth was a peaceful guy, Muhammad was not, or so the argument goes. I think that most historians, though, after bracketing off any recourse to supernatural explanations, would emphasize the circumstances in which these two religions arose. Jesus of Nazareth had no army, and his followers had no army until the early fourth century, when the Roman Emperor Constantine converted. He was a controversial figure among a people that was itself subject to foreign military occupation--and had been on multiple occasions in the past. Given those circumstances, it is not surprising that early Christian teaching would be marked by its strong pacifism. Muhammad, after going to Medina, had an army under his control. Because he had an army, he used it, and because he used it, the idea that one could/should wage war on behalf of one's religion entered Islam at a relatively early date.

Mad props to the poster who pointed out that the Spanish Inquisition had no jurisdiction over Jews and Muslims, only over Christians suspected of heresy.

[astrosfan64]

I work in the computer field. Well actually, I work in the oil industry, but in the software dept of an oil field instrumentation company. I work with many programmers. To celebrate our bonus I throw a Bonuspaluza festival at my house.

I bring this up because two of the guys I work with are Muslims. One guy is a rule following Muslim. He doesn't drink and he eats only meat that is a certain way. He doesn't eat swine etc...

The other guy is like many christians I know. He believes in his religion, but doesn't follow all the rules. He celebrates Ramadan and follows the rules of that holiday. He doesn't eat swine, but he pretty much breaks all the rest. He doesn't do prayer every day. He doesn't eat the proper prepared meats. He drinks/parties and goes clubbing. He dates girls of all races and religions.

Both guys are very cool. Both guys were welcomed into my home. Here is the thing. One guy the rule follower grew up in India. (not a very terror oriented area, but is actually the 2nd largest muslim country in the world).

The other guys grew up in the USA and his parents are from Pakastan. This guy is sort of like Kuman from Harold and Kumar.

The rest of the guys at the party were either Christian, Hindu or a combination of their own beliefs like me.

It isn't the religion, it is the development of society in certain areas.

[ISiddiqui]

It isn't the religion, it is the development of society in certain areas.

I believe you've hit on it. In poorer countries or countries with out and out discrimination, it is very easy to whip up religious sentiment. However, the US has been very welcoming of Muslims, and thus their kids tend to grow up to be very liberal compared to the rest of the Muslim world. I believe a good part of it is that the society doesn't shun them. Quite frankly, I think the best place in the world to be a Muslim is in the US, even with all the after 9/11 paranoia.

[astrosfan64]

I believe you've hit on it. In poorer countries or countries with out and out discrimination, it is very easy to whip up religious sentiment. However, the US has been very welcoming of Muslims, and thus their kids tend to grow up to be very liberal compared to the rest of the Muslim world. I believe a good part of it is that the society doesn't shun them. Quite frankly, I think the best place in the world to be a Muslim is in the US, even with all the after 9/11 paranoia.

It is pretty simple really. Most christians stopped following the rules of the old testiment. Things about sacrafice, killing people for working on a Sunday etc... The extreme muslim groups still follow their outdated rules in the Koran. At least in this underdeveloped areas.