So if the Koran had a footnote at the bottom of every page which said something along the lines of “Draw Mohammed whenever you like”, would drawing Mohammed be as dangerous as it currently is, or less so?
The footnote is Sharia Law and yes as with Christianity there are extreme cults who think it their duty to execute you
Not sure if everyone can read Economist articles but: In Shia Muslims’ holiest site, a new openness to other faiths
That part of the world remains a disaster area, but this is an excellent first step.
It wouldn’t matter at all. Don’t you know that Muslims completely ignore whatever’s written in the Koran? Institutional foundations and ideas have no impact on human behaviour. Shame on you for suggesting that they might.
We’ve been over this one over and over. It’s not about making war, it’s about making treaties and ceasefires during an already extant war. The “and then kill them like a whole lot” comes after and the whole bit can be paraphrased as “respect your ceasefires to the letter and not one second more” (hence the “do not transgress”. In this case, it’s transgressing the terms of a treaty). Which is sensible.
Anyway, as to the OP : maybe it does, but it can’t get one. Muhammad claimed to be the seal of the prophets (i.e. the last one before Judgement Day. No furries.)
One crazy person – we put 'em in a sanatorium. A billion crazy people – we call it a “religion”.
This has nothing to do with “Christianity”. As far as I’m concerned, all Abrahamic faiths are cut from the same, sullied cloth. Daesh are terrorists; abortion clinic massacrers are terrorists; those use tanks against children with slingshots are terrorists – all of which should be expunged from the planet, for the good of our species’ survival.
Here, my concern lies with Islam - specifically: the Qur’an - and the scripture’s susceptibility to literal, barbarous interpretation; as we’re seeing manifested on a daily basis.
See my above response… and there seems to be a distinct obsession with Christianity around here… :dubious: Being stabbed or being shot is a much of a muchness, and continuous citing of comparative religions’ atrocities, seemingly in order to somehow qualify the specific barbarism in question, only demonstrates a desire to leave one’s head firmly buried in the desert sands.
Abbott’s (no pun intended) stupidity knows no bounds – to be sure. I only referenced the guy because, in this case, he touched on a point most pertinent to the subject matter du jour, and one which most others are too timid to even approach. (…something that, in and of itself speaks volumes).
As the Japanese say, baka mo ichidai ('Even the fool has one talent); and in this case, Tony Abbott - himself being abjectly retarded by his own brand of superstition worship - is exercising this single ‘talent’ appropriately.
And yet there seems to be an inordinate disparity between lunatic acts done in the name of “Jesus” and those enacted in the name of Islam. A curiosity indeed…
Sure, one might argue the 100,000-some lives Bush took was effectively in the name of [his] “God”… and the innumerable others that have died directly of indirectly from his actions were also “infidels” of democracy. But, at the very least, we can qualify his as state actions vetoed through disingenuous means. That, and as much as George W. should be dangling from the same gibbet Saddam occupied, I hardly think civilians were his targets… as distinct from those who shoot up crowded theatres and blow up bustling marketplaces.
I just want the wording of the Qur’an to be more ‘PG-13’ than it is now and less prone to perditious preachers’ pernicious predilections. Not to have its supposed core tenets vivisected and obtruded.
Not being an Islamic scholar, much less one versed in ancient Arabic - a prerequisite some imams claim is the only “true way” to understand the text - frankly, I don’t even know if the Qur’an is indeed ‘the book of peace’ its acolytes claim it to be… nor do I care. As long as it does not threaten the safety and well-being of free-thinking, secular society, people can read into it what they like. It’s when what they’re reading is imposed on me, that’s when we have a problem.
As far as I know, it’s the resolute, obdurate “word of God”; since its fabled conveyance to the Islamic prophet “Muhammad”, free from alloy. In fact, any deviation from its original form is considered blasphemy to Moslems… no?
Here’s the rub: Islam is immutable, unchanging and unyielding. This makes it more immune to the pejorative effects of modernisation and evolution than some other religious dogma – compare: Catholicism and female priests, homosexuality etc.
Ironically, this also undermines the religion; in that its relevance and compatibility to modern day, corporeal life are continually diminished. A foible I feel is coming to a head with the increasing instances of unsavoury acts we’re now witnessing and which are oft attributed, rightly or wrongly, to Islam.
Could we have a cite for that?
Perhaps I’m a bit rusty on my history, but I seem to recall that Islamic empires and nations have been attacking Christian ones, starting shortly after the founding of Islam and continuing up to today, with only short periods of interruption. Ever heard of the battle of Tours? Lepanto? Vienna? Didn’t Muslims rule Spain, Sicily, and the Balkans for centuries? Weren’t Syria and Palestine part of the Byzantine Empire until Muslims attacked and conquered them? Heck, didn’t the Byzantine Empire exist until the Ottoman Empire conquered it?
A skeptic might wonder, if it was the Christians who were aggressive and violent towards Muslims for “most of history”, how exactly did so many Christian countries and areas become Muslim countries and areas? Why were so many battles fought to repel Muslim invaders from Europe?
Generally, Christians and Jews are “people of the book” within Islamic thought. As such, in principle, they are not treated with the disdain that pagans are.
In practice, all three of these religions (at least, their supposedly ardent practitioners) at one time or another get on a high horse, do what they please, and find a way for a religious justification for it.
Not really. The two religions aren’t randomly distributed. Decades of colonialism, the resource curse, the discrediting of secular rule by brutal dictators - these things have fallen more heavily on (some) Muslims than on Christians, who were more apt to be colonizers, exploiters, and proppers-up or installers of dictatorships.
Do you believe that this disparity has existed for the last 1400 years, or is it a recent phenomenon?
I don’t think “we” have, as such, but I am in any case confident that a sufficiently determined believer could come up with an interpretation for that piece of scripture (indeed, almost any piece of scripture) to justify a self-interest.
This is just ridiculous. Islam conquered many more ‘christian’ lands than visa versa. In fact, where are the christian versions of Constantinople, Alexandria or hundreds of other places? Sure there were the Crusades, but what of the original Islamic Crusades?
And you conveniently ignore Asia.
The Christian version of Constantinople is Mexico City.
Depends on what you’re asking. Islam explicitly recognizes the legitimacy of both Judaism and Christianity and insists that Christians and Jews are entitled to respect and tradition.
That said, I don’t know too many Jews who are big fans of the phrase “Judeo-Christian culture” and most generally find such claims a bit obnoxious.
As to the “atheist” part, no Islam, like Christianity and Judaism doesn’t have much tolerance for those who deny the existence of God. However, it’s not like most Americans have huge love for atheists. In fact, polls show that Americans are more willing to vote for Muslims for high office than atheists.
As to how individual Muslims feel, well the answer is that most of us don’t really think about that and pick and choose. I myself don’t believe in God and don’t care about others who don’t.
A Muslim who doesn’t believe in God. I love it. (no sarcasm)
Well, that depends on whether you’re talking about what has been coined “terrorism” or general Islamisation / Islamic subjugation throughout the centuries – i.e., the Ottoman Empire et al.. Naturally, if you consider the span of Islamic history, its obtrusion is clear and the methods by which it has been applied have not always been congenial to the cultures it has enveloped.
However, I think it’s better to keep the discussion in the here and now, and not delve too far back in history; as this tends to lead to cul-de-sac, tu quoque arguments about who / which ideology is the lesser evil (as has already been demonstrated, in this very thread :rolleyes:), instead of addressing the issue/s at hand.
Again, for mine, all Abrahamic dogma are cut from the same cloth – I fundamentally do not distinguish between them. The only thing that sets Islam apart now, is its strong correlation to nihilist behavioural traits being elicited in some of its adherents. This is distinct from most other forms of comparable religious doctrine circulating today and thus should be scrutinised accordingly; without fear or favour.
Conquering one’s neighbors, if one had the means, was the norm on every inhabited continent.
If the matter at hand is whether there’s something inherent to Islam that causes behavior x, then the history of Islam is highly relevant.
We know that Islam is neither necessary nor sufficient for those behavioral traits (which are not at all nihilistic, by the way). So why not focus on the whole picture: the material causes, for instance?