That’s generally a good way to ensure you repeat someone.
Too late.
What a pathetic statement. In what way is everyone born a muslim? What makes a newborn infant a muslim? Or have any other religion? Newborns don’t have any religion. Those things are learned later. “Everyone is born a Christian, they just don’t learn about god correctly, so they lose their way.” Same difference. Still a load of crap.
Despite your opinion of what Islam calls for, there are plenty of Muslims who claim Islam calls for death of apostates.
Oh please. I’ve heard this exact argument made regarding christianity, and it’s as stupid here as it is there. The religion is the customs and the way people practice it. That the people have different interpretations hardly makes one the only true path and all the others no longer that religion. What proof do you have that your version is the correct interpretation of Islam, and everyone else’s (like the ones who advocate killing apostates) are wrong? Absolutely none. You have your interpretation, your understanding, but you have no proof, because there can be no proof of such a thing.
But all of those arguments are irrelevant. Regardless of whether or not yours is the correct Islam, there are plenty of people claiming to be Muslims in Islamic countries who have killed apostates - whether they were right in Allah’s eyes or not, they did it under their belief it was his will. You might can argue that Allah will/has punished them for it, but you can’t make it to not have happened.
That just speaks of the limits of your knowledge. There are plenty of people who’ve converted away from Islam. There’s a woman (Tasmin?) who is from Bangladesh. She left Islam and was criticizing it very publically. She had to leave her country and hide in England because they put a fatwa on her head. I’ll try to remember to look up her name. Okay, that’s only one example, but it’s a fairly publicized one.
Oh, NOW we’re getting away from the topic? Too late. That happened on page 1.
Hey Arnold, I think it’s time this thread went to Great Debates. There’s too much proselytizing going on above.
I agree, the proselytizing is crowding out the historical analysis. But I am very close to finishing Karen Armstrong’s “A Short History of Islam,” which promises to hold, if not the answer to the OP, then at least some interesting possibilities. I’ll try to wrap it up ASAP and post my findings in a day or so.
Oh, there’s a web site somewhere called “answering Islam,” which contains testimony from people who have converted away.
The Shariah was developed as a political reaction to palace corruption in the mid-700s. I am in no position to judge whether it may thus be considered “true”
Islam.
Since you seem adamant on this apostasy point, perhaps you would be kind enough to supply some sort of evidence or reasoning behind your thinking, rather than just stating blindly ‘It IS!!’ without knowing for yourself. Other than the Qur’an which is the word of God, where else is Islamic law going to come from? You acknowledge that the punishment is domestic law which is not something I’ve disputed. But that doesn’t mean it’s Islamic law. If you’re so certain of the contrary, perhaps you’d care to dig out where it says this (a real source, not hearsay please). By the way, the only thing binding on the Islamic faith is the Qur’an. If a man makes law in the name of Islam, it’s neither binding, nor Islamic.
The difference between be you and I is that at least I respond to your points with valid arguments, and then raise my own points in support. You have not responded to any one of my points with any sort of argument stronger that ‘It is!!’.
Irishman,
I’m not sure what your first two points were trying to get at, but I don’t think they were constructive in any way. And I do consider my points to be quite brief, but not so brief that it does not provide all the necessary information. I do like to make my points, and back it up with something concrete. If you find the reading a little heavy going, then perhaps you’d better stick to bedtime stories!
With regards to my point about everyone being born a muslim, I understand you may object to such a point, but I wouldn’t dare call it a pathetic statement. You seem to be quite ignorant in forgetting that I am talking from an Islamic point of view, something I think I have a little more experience of than you do. Of course, if you knew a little more about Islam, it background and how it works, you’d understand on what basis I can make this statement. Hell, you may even accept it as I do! However, judging from your response I don’t think you are, so why don’t you just sit back and accept it! I don’t think you’re in a position to qualify or comment my arguments. These are the words of Allah the Almighty, your creator! You may call Him by any other name, but He is still the same, and He will punish the non-believers! Don’t be so foolish to dismiss what you do not understand. There is only ONE correct religion. It is up to you to follow the religion you believe to be correct. I’ve made my choice. For the reasons I have given I belief Islam to be the correct religion to follow, and according to the teachings of Islam, because it is the correct one, everyone is initially born a muslim. You can accept this if you wish, or you can reject it, but I’ll thank you for not making any further derogative remarks about Islam, or any other religion for that matter. It’s not your place, and it offends!
Incidentally, I have provided a reason for the belief that everyone is born a muslim. You, as yet, have not provided as sound a reason for debunking this argument and suggesting an alternative view, and this approach remains fairly consistent throughout your post. You have a right to an opinion, but all I ask is at least qualify it to give it some weight. Otherwise your arguments are meaningless and pointless.
We seem to be dwelling over the same point about the death penalty, and I’m sick of discussing this. I’ve made my points very clear, and on several occasions. If you choose not to read, or take each point in turn and dismiss then, then I’m afraid I cannot discuss it any further with you. I do wish you’d come to me with something a little more concrete, and not follow the masses like a bunch of dumb sheep!
Religion is NOT customs and the way people practise it! That is one of the daftest statements I’ve read so far. I’ll give you an example so simple even you should understand. By Islam, Muslims are forbidden to eat anything made from pig (pork, ham, bacon, gelatine etc). If every Muslim ignored this and started eating pork every Sunday in the name of Islam, by your statement this action would seem to be consistent with the teachings and practise of Islam. But it’s so blatent that it is not. It’s expressely forbidden, so how it can become a part of the Islamic religion is beyond me. Perhaps you’d care to explain?
Pre-marital sex seems to be an everyday occurance for many of my Christian friends. I don’t think Christianity condones this. Yes this seems to happen so much more among Christians than it does amongst Muslims because Islam expressely forbids it. Yet, by your logic one could assume pre-marital sex is a characteristic of the faith of Christianity. I don’t really think this argument of yours can hold much water!
I have not now, nor have I ever said that my sect is the one that will enter Paradise. That is something I cannot say, because I honestly don’t know (incidentally, Christians who also say this would prove to be right, Christianity will also be split into a similar amount of sects). But what I can do is read and understand the Qur’an for myself, and follow it the way I believe it teaches us. Other than that, there is little else I can do. Hence the reason I reiterate again and again, you have to go back to the primary source of information. If you follow others, you’re bound to go wrong somewhere because you’re following their interpretation of it. You have to find out for yourself!
I have my interpretation, and understanding, but the difference is I am referring to the Qur’an, whereas you refer to the actions of other Muslims. There is more proof that my way of thinking is correct in the eyes of Islam because I follow the Qur’an, than there is in you (a Kafir I might add) quoting the actions of other Muslims. You’ve no proof that they’re any more correct than I am! But I’ve stronger evidence than yours which would suggest that I’m correct, and you’re wrong. Find out for yourself, don’t just copy and blindly follow what others have done or are doing.
What’s your point? I don’t understand what you’re trying to get at. If you’re trying to get at the law about killing Kafir again, by this statement alone you seem to accept that it may not be Allah’s will (and therefore not Islamic) to start killing apostates. Just because someone did something in the name of Islam, does not mean his actions were Islamic. I can’t see why you don’t understand that and your statements seem to contradict each other. You won’t accept the point, yet you’ll state it clearly!
OK, I missed that one, and if there are more, then all of those too (can’t be very well publicised then, can they?)! I’ll accept there are those who turn away from Islam, but how can they repent and revert back if they’re killed by their fellow man under the belief they’re acting under Allah’s will? None of you who will not accept my arguements are still to debunk ONE yet! There are also other issues to consider. Maybe this woman converted because of the way she was treated in the name of Islam. But if her mistreaters were practising incorrectly, then is Islam really the reason she left, or did she leave because of her lifestyle and blame it on Islam (or their view of it). That, in itself, is a very complex area also and cannot be discussed effectively in a short space of time.
And you, my friend, did nothing except serve to further help the divide! Now, rather than challenging Islam with hearsay and unfounded belief’s, I believe it would be a good idea to return to the original topic of this discussion. I fear it may turn into a religious war should this avenue be pursued any further, and this is not going to be the one I will fight you in.
Everybody, back in your corners! We’re going to have a nice, civil discussion if it KILLS us!
Jay, I think I speak for everyone on the board when I say we are impressed by the depth of your knowledge and the sincerity of your beliefs. However, we must ask that you accept that that’s what they are – beliefs. They are not objectively verifiable. It should come as no surprise that Christians do not accept these statements. As you note, many Muslims do not accept all your statements. The CONTENT of the various religions is not the subject here. Rather, it’s the historical factors that led to their spreading that we ought to be focusing on.
Lighthouse, Irishman, and anyone else who feels the need to respond – please, we’ve all said our piece. Let’s stick to the subject of the original post.
(I include myself in this. There’s an awful lot in Jay’s posts that gets under my skin, but they have nothing to do with the topic.)
I was going to save this for the weekend, but to help us get back on track, I’ll post it now:
RESTATEMENT
In “Triumph of the Straight Dope,” Cecil, explaining why Christianity spread and flourished, claimed it’s sophistication, complexity, coherence, and emotional power made it vastly superior to the various pagan religions of the Mediterranean / Europe. Then he goes on to say, “Tellingly, Christianity made less headway against the religions of the East, which offered a worldview which was equally compelling.” (Though he does not mention them by name, I assume he refers to Buddhism and Hinduism.)
This gave rise to my question: given that those religions are indeed compelling, how did Islam manage to flourish in such formerly Buddhist/Hindu places as Indonesia and Bangladesh?
Inherent in this question – though perhaps not explicit, so I’d better make it explicit now – is the understanding that ALL FOUR of these religions are complex, compelling, coherent, sophisticated, and deeply spiritually satisfying. There is no way to objectively say that Religion A is more coherent than Religion B, or Religion C is more compelling than Religion D. So, THERE IS NO POINT IN DISCUSSING THE CONTENT OR MERITS OF THE DIFFERENT RELIGIONS.
(Sorry, I don’t mean to yell. But I need to get everyone’s attention here.)
I just want to have a (hopefully) calm discussion of the objective historical, political, and/or social factors which led to the various religions spreading the way they did.
This is a touchy subject, I think we can all agree. And no one wants a “religious war.” So, let’s all make a pact. If you are reading a post, and you feel your anger building and the hairs starting to rise on the back of your neck, DO NOT respond to the post point-for-point. Instead, issue a brief, friendly corrective: “Hey! Beruang! You’re getting off-topic. We’re supposed to be discussing objective history, not personal beliefs.” Then we can all get back to the business at hand.
Hoping it’s not to late to salvage what has been a very interesting thread,
If you mean beliefs within my own religion (ie the apostacy points), then I’m afraid I’d have to disagree with you on that point. They are facts within Islam. If you mean religious beliefs (ie everyone being born a muslim in the eyes of Islam), then yes, those are Islamic religious beliefs, none of which you have to accept (nor did I expect you to), but all the same they need to be respected as they are religious beliefs.
As for why Islam spread more quickly and successfully over the other religions, I think that it’s a combination of a lot of things. The crusades and conquests probably spread the word of Islam to regions where it was unheard of. Once introduced, maybe because of internal reasons people decided to embrace it.
Back to the apostacy point again, but from a different angle. Regardless of whether or not Islam punishes those who convert to other religions, fact is it’s happening. This fact may also be reason why Islam was embraced so willingly and openly over other religions back in the days. The fear of death was (and still is) real which would aid the thought that those who wanted to convert, could not do so under their free will without something harsh happening to them by way of punishment.
Another point again to look at is the way other religions spread. I have absolutely no idea, so chances are I’m probably wrong about this. But maybe the way other religions were spread was flawed in some way that Islam wasn’t, and it was this flaw that prevented the take up of the various religions.
I disagree. The original question was about why Islam spread so quickly. It made no distinction between internal and external causes.
Furthermore, if these so-called external factors are the result of Islamic doctrine, then they ARE on-topic. I’m not sure if the military conquests can be attributed to Islamic teaching, but the death penalty certainly is. That makes it an internal cause, not an external one.
Additionally, I would argue that causes which are cultural, rather than doctrinal, are fair game as well. After all, the question was about the spread of Islam itself – not about which Islamic doctrines caused it to spread.
Sine I’ve already posted Islamic sources – sources which affirm what is already common knowledge – your objection is irrelevant. There is the Qu’ran, and there is the Shari’ah (aka Islamic Law). You may not consider the Shari’ah to be binding, but countless Moslems do, and they have enshrined it in their federal law.
Sine I’ve already posted Islamic sources – sources which affirm what is already common knowledge – your objection is irrelevant. There is the Qu’ran, and there is the Shari’ah (aka Islamic Law). You may not consider the Shari’ah to be binding – to be part of God’s Law – but countless Moslems do, and they have enshrined it on a national basis.
I appreciate your sentiment, Beruan. I promise to refrain from further comments on Jay’s position. Suffice to say that his view does not reflect the view of many Moslems on Islam. Since the topic is why Islam spread, rather than the “correctness” of Islam, such objections are irrelevant to the original topic.
BTW, I daresay that the historical factors should include the “content” of Islam – but only insofar as such content helps explain Islam’s large numbers. This includes growth by conversion, growth by birth, and virtually zero attrition.
I appreciate that it is very difficult to draw a line between religion and history – especially since we are talking about religious history.
In that regard, whatever practices a religious group observes are fair game. Even if not everyone in the religion accepts the practice, if it had an effect on how the religion spread, then yes it is relevant to this topic.
Discussions of what the practice is based on, how many people in the religion accept or follow the practice, whether the practice reflects the “tre” religion or is a misinterpretation – those sorts of things we should be dealing with only very briefly. Say your peice, and move on. The important thing is not whether the practice is legitimate or not, but whether it had an effect.
Finally, I hope we can all agree that discussions of whether a religion is true, or whether religion A is more true than religion B, and so on, are truly off-topic.
