Southern Baptist Leader calls Muhammad a pedophile

kiwimac

Bishop of the See of Aotearoa ROCCNZ;Theologian
Supporter
May 14, 2002
14,985
1,519
63
New Zealand
Visit site
✟590,115.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Utrecht
Marital Status
Married
Politics
AU-Greens
Ray K asked

Instead of acknowledging problems with Islam or directly refuting the charges on Falwell.com, you are instead counter-attacking Christianity. That is the misdirection I am talking about.

Did the Prophet Muhammed marry a 9-year-old girl? Yes or no.

Did he have more wives than the Q'ran permits? Yes or no.

Lets see if we can answer these questions. :yum:

There is considerable discussion among Muslims about Muhammad's marriage to Aisha ('Ayeesha)

Please note these URL's

http://www.angelfire.com/on/ummiby1/wives1.html
http://www.angelfire.com/on/ummiby1/wives2.html

This one is particularly good >>>>http://www.aol40.com/aisha.htm

Try this one too
http://www.themodernreligion.com/prophet/prophet_aisha.htm

Couple of points:

1: it was not unusual for parents to marry their girl children off to older men, not for the sake of the men's lusts but in order to secure their daughter's future.

2: This kind of thing was nornal at the time & had been normal practive for several hundred years all across the middle east, you may recall Mary of Nazareth was married to the much older Joseph (some commentators put her age as 12-14 at marriage)

3: reading modern concerns back into times past is very bad history, not to mention plain stupid!

4: As for the number of wives Muhammad took, it seems likeliest that he toiok the number he did out of a feeling of responsibility for them, a number of them being widows of those who fought for him in the clan wars during the establishment of Islam.

Kiwimac :holy:
 
Upvote 0
Originally posted by kiwimac
1: it was not unusual for parents to marry their girl children off to older men, not for the sake of the men's lusts but in order to secure their daughter's future.

2: This kind of thing was nornal at the time & had been normal practive for several hundred years all across the middle east, you may recall Mary of Nazareth was married to the much older Joseph (some commentators put her age as 12-14 at marriage)

OK. So I'll take these two points as conceding that Mohammed did indeed marry a 9-year-old girl. After all, neither of the excuses presented are sufficient to justify a 50+ year old man having sex with a 9-year-old girl.

I'll take that as an affirmative on the 'pedophile' claim.

3: reading modern concerns back into times past is very bad history, not to mention plain stupid!

No, it is not stupid. Slavery was not OK long ago simply because it was commonly accepted. Neither were non-consensual marriages of grown men to 9-year-old girls.

If those things were 'OK' then they would still be acceptable in today's society.

4: As for the number of wives Muhammad took, it seems likeliest that he toiok the number he did out of a feeling of responsibility for them, a number of them being widows of those who fought for him in the clan wars during the establishment of Islam.
[/B]

OK, so I'll take that as a "yes" on the "too many wives" question.

Thanks for your honesty.
 
Upvote 0

kiwimac

Bishop of the See of Aotearoa ROCCNZ;Theologian
Supporter
May 14, 2002
14,985
1,519
63
New Zealand
Visit site
✟590,115.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Utrecht
Marital Status
Married
Politics
AU-Greens
Ray K,

Did you ACTUALLY read any of the URLS?

You CANNOT read modern day morals BACK into earlier times!

Muhammad was no more a pedophile than Joseph!

Get a bloody life, mate!

Kiwimac
 
Upvote 0

Sauron

Well-Known Member
Jun 14, 2002
1,390
7
Seattle
✟2,482.00
Originally posted by Ray K
OK. So I'll take these two points as conceding that Mohammed did indeed marry a 9-year-old girl.

Not conclusive.

Muhammad married eleven times - mostly to cement alliances or to take widows under his (economic) wing.

The particular wife in question that has spawned so many (rather silly) charges of pedophilia is A'isha bint Abu Bakr. Her age is not certain:

http://www.answering-christianity.com/wives.htm


OK, so I'll take that as a "yes" on the "too many wives" question.

Your "too many wives for the Quran" allegation also fails, for religious reasons. Muhammad's marriages were seen as templates, or archetypes, of the eleven kinds of permissible marriage in Islam. Allah used Muhammad to demonstrate each one of these marriages, and the circumstances under which such marriages were permitted, or even encouraged. Each marriage situation has guidelines and rules, which serve as a object lesson for Muslims, on how to order their own marital situations:

http://www.themodernreligion.com/women/w_polyplural.htm

I think this particular mistake nicely illustrates how presumptuous it is of an outsider to Islam to try and judge the religion, without knowing the full social, religious, and historical context.
 
Upvote 0

Sauron

Well-Known Member
Jun 14, 2002
1,390
7
Seattle
✟2,482.00
Originally posted by Ray K
Simply that any government that derives its legal system from a religion is necessarily combining church and state.

As I pointed out to you, at least two of the forms of sharia are derived from the Napoleonic code and the British legal system. This is a holdover from colonial times. When it came time for these newly-independent countries to create a national law framework, it was easier to simply continue the law system that the European colonial power had put in place. So what they did was make a half-hearted attempt to call this "sharia", but they reverse-engineered the justification for the laws. So for example, a law against drug trafficking existed as a result of the Napoleonic code. After independence, Iraqi legates started with that conclusion, and worked backwards to find some Koranic verse or legal principle, no matter how obscure, that they could claim was the sharia underpinning that point of law. But in reality, it was the Napoleonic code.


I read a while back that Turkey was the only Muslim (or maybe Arab) country with a constitutional separation of church and state.

1. It isn't the only Muslim country with separation of C/S, as we have discussed here.

2. It can't be the only Arab country with separation of C/S, since Turkey isn't an Arab country at all.

I don't understand why Afghanistan is exempt. They implemented sharia and many Muslims I've spoken to argued that it was the truest implementation of Islamic law (this was before the fall of the Taliban)

You're getting lost in the argument again. Once more:

1. You made the claim that "prosletyzing Muslims are CONSTITUTIONALLY ALLOWED to convert non-Muslims. They are not expelled from the country for conversion",

2. I said "you are wrong, except for Afghanistan". I exempt Taliban-era Afghanistan because that govt, and its laws, do not exist anymore.

3. So in order for your statement to be true in the PRESENT, you need to show me countries where this claim still holds.

As for your point that Muslims have claimed that Taliban-era Afghanistan was the truest form of sharia - I have seen and read scholars who claimed that the Taliban had actually betrayed sharia, and were imposing their opinions on the people. Here's an excellent article from the Christian Science Monitor:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/0920/p1s3-wosc.html

And here is a book by a Pakistani journalist that details how the Taliban were hypocrites in their own application of sharia:
http://www.epinions.com/content_36171452036


You list 3 points, but gloss over the fact that points 1 & 3 are about Islam. 1) American support for Israel is a religious issue to many Muslims (well, from reading their comments).


American foreign policy in the Mideast? No; that's not a religious issue. For one thing, it spans far more than just the Israeli issue. It also includes Americna intervention in Beirut, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, etc. And it also includes the complex issues of petroleum politics. It's primarily a political issue, with some religious overtones when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian topic.

But even when discussing the ISR-PAL issue, these people are far more upset over the loss of territory, homes, businesses, and the marginalization of several million Palestinians than they are about the religious factor.

2) the stationing of US forces in Arabia is described as "infidels in the Holy Land"

By some on the fringe, yes this is true.

It may not be about Islam as you see it, but it was certainly about Islam to the Muslims who were involved in
the attack.

So? That doesn't make it about Islam. Rationalizations are easy to find; people have sprayed graffiti and tried to defend themselves by saing "it's about free speech". The truth is that it was vandalism, pure and simple.

Just because the 50 or so people involved in the attack saw it as an Islamic issue DOES NOT MAKE IT AN ISLAMIC ISSUE for the entire body of believers. Nor does it make it an Islamic issue for Muslims in general.

Do not assume that your conception of Islam is the one that all Muslims share.

My conception of Islam is far closer to the general mainstream, than the conception of Islam held by the 50 or so al-Quaeda attackers.

Your mistake is in assuming that they hold the mainstream view - they categorically do not. Your view is analogous to saying that Fred Phelps and his band of anti-gay bigots are the mainstream of christianity.


Because it collapsed into religious fundamentalism? You tell me what you think. All I know is that significant attacks are being made on U.S. soil, Muslim terrorists are trying to acquire nuclear weapons, and there is no widespread condemnation of these attacks from the majority of Muslims.

"All you know is..."

Then let me suggest that your problem is a serious lack of exposure. After the 9/11 attack, every Arab embassy in the world sent condolences to the USA. Moreover, opinion polls in these countries show that the majority of citizens simultaneously reject the terrorism and teh attempt to connect to Islam, but at the same time expressing rage at American foreign policy.

Here are some small examples:
http://islamicity.com/articles/Articles.asp?ref=IC0206-443
http://www.al-islam.org/begin/index.html

A link to a Muslim jurist who categorically rejects the use of force as being founded in sharia:
http://www.muslim-lawyers.net/news/index.php3?aktion=show&number=78

And here is a page with 37 separate links and references to moderate voices in the Arab world, including those who have criticized the Taliban:
http://www.arches.uga.edu/~godlas/nineeleven.html


My opinion is because they abandoned Greek thought.

OK, I admit that this totally absolutely confuses me. :confused:

It is your claim that the Islamic empires waned not because of:
a. improved technology of the west;
b. European expansion of trade into the New world;
c. the industrial revolution in the West;
d. the Age of Enlightenment;
e. superior European military technology;

But because they abandoned Greek thought? Would you care to elaborate and substantiate that point?



Muslim "liberators". The classic example of the victors writing the history.

Again: you don't know enough of the history here to be making such sweeping statements. What makes you think that, on a comparative scale, life under a Muslim rule might not be preferable for some cities/peoples?

Wouldn't that depend, a priori, on how bad life was for them in the first place?

And it's entirely inconceivable to you, I suppose, that a particular population that had been ruled by Byzantium, or by the Sasanid Persians, might prefer life under the Muslims?


How did Indian Hindus feel about their Muslim "liberators"? What about the European
Christians?

I did not say that the example of Muslims-as-liberators was how things were *everywhere*, so your strawman here isn't working. In fact, I believe I pointed out several conditions/reactions to the conquest.


My opinion is also that the West is too powerful now. However, my concern is that the West does not recognize the potential for real problems and keeps pretending that Islam is somehow compatible with Western ideals. At this point, I have seen nothing to indicate that it is.

Your argument presents a false dichotomy. Islam can be different from the west, without being a mutually exclusive incompatibility.

And, for the record, I am not convinced that it Islam is incompatible in the sense you obviously mean here; i.e., that it is something that the west should be afraid of.

To put this another way: 99% of the Muslims in the world wouldn't care less about the US, if the three things I mentioned before were rectified:

1. American foreign policy in the Mideast;
2. US support of the corrupt Saudi regime, and
3. the stationing of US military forces on Saudi soil.

You are engaged in blaming the victim here, when you blame the Muslims for responding to these three items. Bluntly, if the US doesn't like the reaction, then the US should cease from taking the initial actions that caused the reaction.

Are these the prominent individuals like Salman Rushdie who have a death sentence hanging over their heads, or people like Ibn Warraq that are forced to write anonymously?

As I mentioned - you are vastly underinformed about the state of Islamic thought and dissidence on these matters. You know a half-dozen facts about Islam, and from those facts have hobbled together a crippled viewpoint that has been systematically shown to be flatly wrong.


That's a cop-out. It is very common for the defenders of a religion to characterize violence from their religion as coming from a distorted "fringe" element, or that the violence has nothing to do with the religoin.

Your position is ridiculous. When a particular viewpoint is only held by 1% of the people, it is BY DEFINITION a fringe viewpoint. Period.

So when someone says that viewpoint XYZ doesn't represent the mainstream thought of that religion, it is not a cop-out. It is a statistical fact.


Poppycock. If you want to absolve Islam of the massacre of Christians, then you must absolve Christianity of its atrocities against other religions.

Red herring again. I am not absolving anyone. I am providing useful context and background information. Which, as we have seen from the holes in even your own arguments, is sorely needed.

Are you willing to pretend that all religious persecution in history is better explained by other motivations?

All? No. Most persecution? I would say so. I think people use religion as a rationalization to do the things they want to do anyhow - but cannot find the proper moral grounds to carry out. If they can somehow wrap their hatred in the cloak of religion, it lends an air of morality to it, and removes the need to question the motivations from a truly critical standpoint.



Instead of acknowledging problems with Islam or directly refuting the charges on Falwell.com, you are instead counter-attacking Christianity. That is the misdirection I am talking about.

As I indicated - it's not misdirection. I am providing sorely needed background info, to a country that is in the throes of near-hysteria over Muslims.

Did the Prophet Muhammed marry a 9-year-old girl? Yes or no.

Did he have more wives than the Q'ran permits? Yes or no.

Answered in another post.
 
Upvote 0
Originally posted by kiwimac
You CANNOT read modern day morals BACK into earlier times!

You keep saying that, and I don't completely agree with it. We are, after all, talking about a 50+ year old man marrying a 9-year-old girl.

I don't think everyone in ancient history gets an ethical free pass. Otherwise, who are we to judge slave-owners in 19th-century America?


"Get a life" = I have no more points to make?
 
Upvote 0
Originally posted by Sauron


As I pointed out to you, at least two of the forms of sharia are derived from the Napoleonic code and the British legal system. This is a holdover from colonial times. When it came time for these newly-independent countries to create a national law framework, it was easier to simply continue the law system that the European colonial power had put in place. So what they did was make a half-hearted attempt to call this "sharia", but they reverse-engineered the justification for the laws. So for example, a law against drug trafficking existed as a result of the Napoleonic code. After independence, Iraqi legates started with that conclusion, and worked backwards to find some Koranic verse or legal principle, no matter how obscure, that they could claim was the sharia underpinning that point of law. But in reality, it was the Napoleonic code.


OK. I understand your point now. However, grounding laws in a religious text is a dangerous precedent for any country espousing separation of C/S (dang, we really need a word for that)

1. You made the claim that "prosletyzing Muslims are CONSTITUTIONALLY ALLOWED to convert non-Muslims. They are not expelled from the country for conversion",

2. I said "you are wrong, except for Afghanistan". I exempt Taliban-era Afghanistan because that govt, and its laws, do not exist anymore.

3. So in order for your statement to be true in the PRESENT, you need to show me countries where this claim still holds.

LOL. Afghanistan doesn't count anymore because the government was toppled a few months ago. OK, I'll let you know if I find out of any more.

Like I said, I gather my opinion from other Muslims, not from the media or Christian sources. So when you criticize my interpretation, you are criticizing what has been explained to me by everyday Muslims, not the 1% "fringe" element of the religion.

Then let me suggest that your problem is a serious lack of exposure. After the 9/11 attack, every Arab embassy in the world sent condolences to the USA. Moreover, opinion polls in these countries show that the majority of citizens simultaneously reject the terrorism and teh attempt to connect to Islam, but at the same time expressing rage at American foreign policy.

Look. I understand that before 9/11 I was ignorant of Islam. So I actively looked for Muslim discussion groups and got involved in several discussions over many months.

Let's just say that "moderate" Islam was a miniscule minority among the Muslims I talked to. Most were in favor of removing Jews from Israel (by force if necessary), sympathized with Al-Quaeda and supported the Taliban. Their support for the Taliban evaporated when their fantasy bubble about U.S. soldiers getting massacred turned out to not come true.

OK, I admit that this totally absolutely confuses me. :confused:

It is your claim that the Islamic empires waned not because of:
a. improved technology of the west;
b. European expansion of trade into the New world;
c. the industrial revolution in the West;
d. the Age of Enlightenment;
e. superior European military technology;

But because they abandoned Greek thought? Would you care to elaborate and substantiate that point?

"Greek thought" represents rationalism and naturalistic philosophy. When Islam embraced that and followed the intellectual path established by the Greeks, their empire thrived. When they abandoned it for whatever reason, their power waned. All five of those European advances you listed can be directly traced to the adoption of Aristotelian education in Europe and the resulting Renaissance.

Again: you don't know enough of the history here to be making such sweeping statements. What makes you think that, on a comparative scale, life under a Muslim rule might not be preferable for some cities/peoples?

Because Muslim rule came by invasion, not by other countries spontaneously converting to Islam because it was a superior culture.

Your argument presents a false dichotomy. Islam can be different from the west, without being a mutually exclusive incompatibility.

To me it is secular or not-secular. If you think that a secular Islamic country can thrive (maybe Iran once the current regime is overthrown), then I would agree they are not mutually exclusive.

You are engaged in blaming the victim here, when you blame the Muslims for responding to these three items. Bluntly, if the US doesn't like the reaction, then the US should cease from taking the initial actions that caused the reaction.

OK. Exactly why are U.S. Armed Forces on the Arabian Peninsula. At the request of an Arab government (Saudi) to liberate an Arab country (Kuwait) from another (Iraq).

All Saudi Arabia has to do is ask the U.S. to leave.

Your position is ridiculous. When a particular viewpoint is only held by 1% of the people, it is BY DEFINITION a fringe viewpoint. Period.

Id guess 50% of the Muslims I've conversed with have held these "fringe" views. Maybe I'm just hanging out with the wrong crowd of Muslims.
 
Upvote 0
Not that I agree with Baptists on much of anything, but the guy is right.
Muhammad was evil, as is islam, and the man was indeed a pedophile as are many others in islamic countries.

People should be more concearned with protecting the children instead of being afraid to offend their molestors!
 
Upvote 0

Messenger

Simplicity of Life
Jan 15, 2002
1,179
37
55
Missouri
Visit site
✟17,227.00
Faith
Christian
Southern Baptist Leader calls Muhammad a pedophile...
Amen a Christian man who speaks the truth!!!!
Same Baptist also stated that Homosexuality is Sinful...imagine that 2 truthful statements from one man!
I live in St. Louis where the Baptist had to get locked in to keep the protestors out....The protestors claim Baptist are killing our children by telling them it is against God to be a Homosexual...imagine all the criminals killed once he preaches it's Sinful to steal, kill, ect....Pretestors not wanting to hear the truth but rather live a lie.

I'd take 2 seconds of truth over years of lies.
Love and God Bless.
 
Upvote 0

Sauron

Well-Known Member
Jun 14, 2002
1,390
7
Seattle
✟2,482.00
Originally posted by Ray K

OK. I understand your point now. However, grounding laws in a religious text is a dangerous precedent for any country espousing separation of C/S (dang, we really need a word for that).

There's a danger that some fundamentalist nutcase could tinker with it, yes.


LOL. Afghanistan doesn't count anymore because the government was toppled a few months ago. OK, I'll let you know if I find out of any more.

Afghanistan doesn't count because that govt no longer exists.

We're still talking about your claim that proseltyzing Muslims can get someone expelled from the country, right? I assume that you had some other country as an example. And that you weren't hanging your entire argument on a single case.

Because if you did NOT have some other country(s) besides Afghanistan, then basically what you're admitting here is that Afghanistan was the only example you ever had in the first place.

So then, with only one example to point to, can you please explain why you felt justified in extrapolating your claim to ALL Muslim countries? Sounds like either intellectual sloppiness here, or an attempt to smear with a broad brush.


Like I said, I gather my opinion from other Muslims, not from the media or Christian sources. So when you criticize my interpretation, you are criticizing what has been explained to me by everyday Muslims, not the 1% "fringe" element of the religion.

And like I told *you*, talking to the everyday Christian isn't going to be the same as sampling the totality of christian viewpoints.

Don't get me wrong - I applaud the fact that you are getting information from the "horse's mouth". But it would be incorrect of me to form my opinion by talking to my christian nextdoor neighbor, because he/she only knows one part of the religion: the part they subscribe to.

Look. I understand that before 9/11 I was ignorant of Islam. So I actively looked for Muslim discussion groups and got involved in several discussions over many months.

1. I think that is great. You're showing a lot of intellectual impartiality by doing so - as opposed to the other 99.99% of the country that is simply caught up in hating "ragheads".

2. Our debate here is another step in this process of discovery.

Let's just say that "moderate" Islam was a miniscule minority among the Muslims I talked to. Most were in favor of removing Jews from Israel (by force if necessary), sympathized with Al-Quaeda and supported the Taliban. Their support for the Taliban evaporated when their fantasy bubble about U.S. soldiers getting massacred turned out to not come true.

Just out of curiosity - can you tell me where these Muslims were from (country, I mean)?


"Greek thought" represents rationalism and naturalistic philosophy. When Islam embraced that and followed the intellectual path established by the Greeks, their empire thrived.
No. The Muslims took all they could from Greece, of course. But they also took from India, Iran, and anywhere else they could get it. The administration of the caliphate at Baghdad was a tremendous undertaking. The empire created think-tanks whose sole responsibility was investigating all kinds of science, for hte express purpose of administering an empire.

But the historical background also needs to be remembered. During the time that Islam was able to do this, there were also power vacuums in Africa, Europe and Asia that made such an empire possible. Had the Islamic empire in Baghdad, Damascus or Cairo been created during the Renaissance period instead of 7,8, or 9 hundred years earlier, then it would have been crushed.

When they abandoned it for whatever reason, their power waned.

Who said they abandoned it?

All five of those European advances you listed can be directly traced to the adoption of Aristotelian education in Europe and the resulting Renaissance.

No, they cannot. You are grossly oversimplifying things if you think that superior military, colonial expansion in the New World, etc. are the fruits of Greek thought.

Here; read this interactive website on "Islam: Empire of Faith" from PBS:
http://www.pbs.org/empires/islam/


Because Muslim rule came by invasion, not by other countries spontaneously converting to Islam because it was a superior culture.

Are you sure that it was by invasion? Are you sure that there weren't cases where the native population welcomed the invaders, assisted them, and rose in rebellion against their previous government?

(Hint: you've been wrong in all cases before when you've made this kind of sweeping assertion. You should therefore consider my query to be a "trick question", because I already know the answer to it.)


To me it is secular or not-secular. If you think that a secular Islamic country can thrive (maybe Iran once the current regime is overthrown), then I would agree they are not mutually exclusive.

I will admit that it is harder for Islamic countries to secularize, because they have not had 300 years of slow secularization.

OK. Exactly why are U.S. Armed Forces on the Arabian Peninsula. At the request of an Arab government (Saudi) to liberate an Arab country (Kuwait) from another (Iraq).

No. They are in place to protect American and western access to cheap oil.

All Saudi Arabia has to do is ask the U.S. to leave.

Which the house of Saud does not want, because the oil is the foundation of their power.


I'd guess 50% of the Muslims I've conversed with have held these "fringe" views. Maybe I'm just hanging out with the wrong crowd of Muslims.

Since I know many more Muslims first-hand than you do, I would say that your self-evaluation is correct.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Sauron

Well-Known Member
Jun 14, 2002
1,390
7
Seattle
✟2,482.00
Originally posted by TorahsDisciple
Not that I agree with Baptists on much of anything, but the guy is right.
Muhammad was evil, as is islam, and the man was indeed a pedophile as are many others in islamic countries.

People should be more concearned with protecting the children instead of being afraid to offend their molestors!

Wow. I've rarely seen so many bald-faced lies, emotional assertions, and biased nonsense strung together in a single post. Congratulations. :rolleyes:
 
Upvote 0

Sauron

Well-Known Member
Jun 14, 2002
1,390
7
Seattle
✟2,482.00
Originally posted by Messenger
Southern Baptist Leader calls Muhammad a pedophile...
Amen a Christian man who speaks the truth!!!!
Same Baptist also stated that Homosexuality is Sinful...imagine that 2 truthful statements from one man!
I live in St. Louis where the Baptist had to get locked in to keep the protestors out....The protestors claim Baptist are killing our children by telling them it is against God to be a Homosexual...imagine all the criminals killed once he preaches it's Sinful to steal, kill, ect....Pretestors not wanting to hear the truth but rather live a lie.

I'd take 2 seconds of truth over years of lies.
Love and God Bless.

I take it back. Here's a post with almost the same amount of nonsense and assertions in it. How *do* you people manage to cram so much misinformation into such a small amount of text?
:scratch:
 
Upvote 0
Originally posted by Sauron
So then, with only one example to point to, can you please explain why you felt justified in extrapolating your claim to ALL Muslim countries? Sounds like either intellectual sloppiness here, or an attempt to smear with a broad brush.


I smear with the brush I was given. Let me put it this way -- I left one Muslim forum in complete disgust. They certainly said nothing to give me the opinion that there is a moderate Muslim view.

All I heard were incredible conspiracy theories about the West turning Muslims against each other, how "perfect" a true Islamic society would be (but all current Islamic societies are not 'true')... I saw all non-Muslims (Christians, Jews, Hindus, atheists, etc) mocked and reviled for being ignorant for denying Allah. I saw the rationalization of why apostasy should be punishable by death, along with homosexuality and adultery. I saw the same fundamentalist ignorance of science that I've seen for years in Christian circles. Did you know that by disproving evolution, you can prove the existance of Allah and the truth of Islam? Even more amazing, this can be done with the exact same arguments used by Christian fundamentalists!

This was not one or two people. This was the majority of the forum.

And like I told *you*, talking to the everyday Christian isn't going to be the same as sampling the totality of christian viewpoints.

Yes, but it is the everyday Christian and every Muslim that I have to interact with. The true meaning of a religion is irrelevant if none of the followers adhere to it.

Don't get me wrong - I applaud the fact that you are getting information from the "horse's mouth". But it would be incorrect of me to form my opinion by talking to my christian nextdoor neighbor, because he/she only knows one part of the religion: the part they subscribe to.

True. But it would be an accurate opinion of your neighbor. How many concurring Christians would you require before you started drawing generalizations?

2. Our debate here is another step in this process of discovery.

Yes, obviously your input is being considered.

Just out of curiosity - can you tell me where these Muslims were from (country, I mean)?

England, mostly. I found it humorous that many of them pined for sharia but had plenty of reasons why they were unable to move to a country that implemented sharia.

No. The Muslims took all they could from Greece, of course. But they also took from India, Iran, and anywhere else they could get it. The administration of the caliphate at Baghdad was a tremendous undertaking. The empire created think-tanks whose sole responsibility was investigating all kinds of science, for hte express purpose of administering an empire.

Well, Greek science was obviously the dominant influence simply because the intellectual accomplishments of other societies paled in comparison. The sacking of the House of Wisdom at Baghdad was one of a long list of blows to human knowledge.

But the historical background also needs to be remembered. During the time that Islam was able to do this, there were also power vacuums in Africa, Europe and Asia that made such an empire possible. Had the Islamic empire in Baghdad, Damascus or Cairo been created during the Renaissance period instead of 7,8, or 9 hundred years earlier, then it would have been crushed.

And I am telling you that the Renaissance would not have occurred in Europe without the re-acquisition of Greek works. What were the 13th-century universities teaching in Europe? Aristotle!

Who said they abandoned it?

You know, I read a book called the "History of the Arab people" (or something like that) some time ago and it talked about how increasing Islamic fundamentalism eventually shut down the study of knowledge that did not directly corroborate the Q'ran. I read it in passing, so unfortunately I cannot give you more information than that -- but that is where that opinion comes from.

No, they cannot. You are grossly oversimplifying things if you think that superior military, colonial expansion in the New World, etc. are the fruits of Greek thought.

True. Colonial expansion definitely accelerated European dominance. But by 1500, the tide had already turned against the Arab countries.

Here; read this interactive website on "Islam: Empire of Faith" from PBS:
http://www.pbs.org/empires/islam/

Did. Nothing new there.

Are you sure that it was by invasion? Are you sure that there weren't cases where the native population welcomed the invaders, assisted them, and rose in rebellion against their previous government?

Without supporting information, I don't see how anyone would rely on that very unusual explanation. Are you talking about Spain? If you are, that was definitely an invasion even though I've heard it described by Muslims as "welcoming the Muslims"

I will admit that it is harder for Islamic countries to secularize, because they have not had 300 years of slow secularization.

Not my problem. Why should we wait 300 years for Islam?

No. They are in place to protect American and western access to cheap oil.

That also. But the U.S. DID liberate Kuwait under the sanction of the United Nations. That cannot be denied no matter what political or economic spin is placed on history.

Which the house of Saud does not want, because the oil is the foundation of their power.

So blame them, not the U.S.

Since I know many more Muslims first-hand than you do, I would say that your self-evaluation is correct.

Fair enough.
 
Upvote 0

Sauron

Well-Known Member
Jun 14, 2002
1,390
7
Seattle
✟2,482.00
Originally posted by Ray K
I smear with the brush I was given. Let me put it this way -- I left one Muslim forum in complete disgust. They certainly said nothing to give me the opinion that there is a moderate Muslim view.

Can you tell me what the forum was?

Just a note: do you consider people who post to online forums to be a representative sample of their religion?


All I heard were incredible conspiracy theories about the West turning Muslims against each other, how "perfect" a true Islamic society would be (but all current Islamic societies are not 'true')... I saw all non-Muslims (Christians, Jews, Hindus, atheists, etc) mocked and reviled for being ignorant for denying Allah.

The parallels to christian online forums should become obvious about now, yes? :rolleyes:

I saw the rationalization of why apostasy should be punishable by death, along with homosexuality and adultery. I saw the same fundamentalist ignorance of science that I've seen for years in Christian circles. Did you know that by disproving evolution, you can prove the existance of Allah and the truth of Islam? Even more amazing, this can be done with the exact same arguments used by Christian fundamentalists!

Yep.

So my next question is: what is the root of the problem? Is it christianity? Is it Islam? Is it religion in general?

Or (as is my belief) is the true root cause fundamentalism - whether christian, jewish, muslim, or whatever?

I've been trying to coax you to this conclusion. Do you perceive the difference between your position now, and mine?


Yes, but it is the everyday Christian and every Muslim that I have to interact with. The true meaning of a religion is irrelevant if none of the followers adhere to it.

All I am saying is: make sure you sample from several different areas, and don't form your opinion from one group. If I were to attend a Baptist church for investigative purposes, that would NOT tell me what the majority of christians thought about any one topic.

I fail to see why this principle is so hard for you to grasp.

Moreover, your claim that you cannot be held accountable, because you are only getting your info from Muslims - well, that claim doesn't exactly wash. Let's remember: you were making claims about (1)Muhammad being a pedophile and/or (2) marrying more wives than the Koran permits. I know for a fact that you are NOT getting either (1) or (2) from any Muslim you are interacting with. No Muslim would make such a derogatory remark. Ditto for your information about Islam propagating only by invasion, or your claims abou the history of science and technology in the caliphates.


True. But it would be an accurate opinion of your neighbor. How many concurring Christians would you require before you started drawing generalizations?

Don't play stupid. You know that this is a subjective process, that requires a person to accumulate some body of knowledge.

I would first find out how mainstream their group was, before I made any assumptions about where their viewpoints fell on the spectrum of ideas.

And I might spend 20 minutes perousing a site such as the BBC World News service:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/people/features/world_religions/islam.shtml

England, mostly. I found it humorous that many of them pined for sharia but had plenty of reasons why they were unable to move to a country that implemented sharia.

No, wait - these people were *originally* from England? Or were they immigrants to England, from somewhere else?


Well, Greek science was obviously the dominant influence simply because the intellectual accomplishments of other societies paled in comparison.

:sigh:

1. Greek science was NOT the dominant influence on Islamic technology. It had its place. But so did Iran, Rome, China, India, etc. If I had to put my finger on it, I would say that it was Islamic empire's role in acting as a "technology broker", an agent of fusion of ideas, that was the single largest reason for their success.

2. Moreover, the intellectual accomplishments of other societies did not pale in comparison Greek thought -take China, for example. And Islam imported many ideas and pieces of technology from China.

Here is the relevant section from Britannica, on technology and Islam:

Islam
The Islamic world had become a civilization of colossal expansive energy in the 7th century and had imposed a unity of religion and culture on much of southwest Asia and North Africa. From the point of view of technological dissemination, the importance of Islam lay in the Arab assimilation of the scientific and technological achievements of Hellenic civilization, to which it made significant additions, and the whole became available to the West through the Moors in Spain, the Arabs in Sicily and the Holy Land, and through commercial contacts with the Levant and North Africa.

India
Islam also provided a transmission belt for some of the technology of East and South Asia, especially that of India and China. The ancient Hindu and Buddhist cultures of the Indian subcontinent had long-established trading connections with the Arab world to the west and came under strong Muslim influence themselves after the Mughal conquest in the 16th century. Indian artisans early acquired an expertise in ironworking and enjoyed a wide reputation for their metal artifacts and textile techniques, but there is little evidence that technical innovation figured prominently in Indian history before the foundation of European trading stations in the 16th century.


Note above that this article is describing the history of technology as it relates to the West. So when it says "From the point of view of technological dissemination, the importance of Islam lay in the Arab assimilation of the scientific and technological achievements of Hellenic civilization,", the article is tracing the development of ideas and technology in the West. Islam's role in that, as far as the west is concerned, was in capturing the ideas of Greek society, and re-transmitting them back into Europe.

But that is not the same as saying that Greek thought was the major influence on *Islamic* technology.

Here's another link, from the University of Calgary, on the role of various societies in transmitting technology to Islam:
http://www.ucalgary.ca/applied_history/tutor/islam/learning/

This is an excellent volume on the history of tranmission of technology to Europe. I have this copy, and it gets frequently loaned out to friends:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/A...4433319/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-5371553-7164752


And I am telling you that the Renaissance would not have occurred in Europe without the re-acquisition of Greek works. What were the 13th-century universities teaching in Europe? Aristotle!

1. My argument is more than just the Renaissance. I also mentioned colonialism, capitalism, etc. as well. There is no direct connection between Greek thought and these other items.

2. Now zeroing in on just the Renaissance - the emergence of the Renaissance is vastly more complex than your argument makes it out to be. Re-acquiring Greek works, by themselves, would not have sparked a Renaissance in Europe. They simply weren't enough. The reason there was a Renaissance (from a technology and invention standpoint) was due to transmission of technology, primarily from the Mideast, back into Europe.

3. Finally, your assertion that the re-acquisition of Greek thought played a major part in the Renaissance - that is seriously questionable. Britannica again:

from Europe, history of

The Renaissance
Few historians are comfortable with the triumphalist and western Europe-centred image of the Renaissance as the irresistible march of modernity and progress. A sharp break with medieval values and institutions, a new awareness of the individual, an awakened interest in the material world and nature, and a recovery of the cultural heritage of ancient Greece and Rome--these were once understood to be the major achievements of the Renaissance. Today, every particular of this formula is under suspicion if not altogether repudiated.

Nevertheless, the term Renaissance remains a widely recognized label for the multifaceted period between the heyday of medieval universalism, as embodied in the Papacy and Holy Roman Empire, and the convulsions and sweeping transformations of the 17th century.


You know, I read a book called the "History of the Arab people" (or something like that) some time ago and it talked about how increasing Islamic fundamentalism eventually shut down the study of knowledge that did not directly corroborate the Q'ran. I read it in passing, so unfortunately I cannot give you more information than that -- but that is where that opinion comes from.

There was a point late in the Ottoman period where this was correct. But this was way after the Baghdad caliphate, and the Fatimid caliphate in North Africa. This was under the Turks in Istanbul. There was a hadith (Arabic saying) that came to embody this idea - when translated, it says, "Every innovation is a straying (from the path); and every straying will wind up in hell fire." What this meant is that whenever anyone had a new idea - whether about politics, science, or technology - they couldn't position it as something new. That would have been a sure way to get the idea rejected. So they (once again) set about looking for a precedent in Islam or the Koran somewhere, to provide a reverse-engineering for the idea. So instead of democracy being a new idea imported from the West and the US, it was positioned instead a revival of an ancient Bedouin concept. :rolleyes:


True. Colonial expansion definitely accelerated European dominance. But by 1500, the tide had already turned against the Arab countries.

You are WAY off the mark here with your chronology. In the 1500s, the Ottoman Empire was the greatest empire in the world. The height of the Ottoman EMpire was under Suleyman the Magnificent, who ascended in 1687.

University of Calgary again:

http://www.ucalgary.ca/applied_history/tutor/endmiddle/ottoman.html

Constantinople itself was captured in 1453, sending a shock wave across Europe. With the fall of Byzantium, a wave of Byzantine refugees fled to the Latin West, carrying with them the classical and Hellenistic knowledge that provided additional impetus to the burgeoning humanism of the Renaissance.

Athens fell in 1456 and Belgrade narrowly escaped capture when a peasant army led by the Hungarian Janos Hunyadi held off a siege in the same year. Nevertheless, Serbia, Bosnia, Wallachia, and the Khanate of Crimea were all under Ottoman control by 1478. The Turks commanded the Black Sea and the northern Aegean and many prime trade routes had been closed to European shipping. The Islamic threat loomed even larger when an Ottoman beachhead was established at Otranto in Italy in 1480. Although the Turkish presence in Italy was short-lived, it appeared as if Rome itself must soon fall into Islamic hands. In 1529, the Ottomans had moved up the Danube and besieged Vienna. The siege was unsuccessful and the Turks began to retreat. Although the Ottomans continued to instil fear well into the sixteenth century, internal struggles began to deteriorate the once overwhelming military supremacy of the Ottoman Empire. The outcome of battles was no longer a foregone conclusion and Europeans began to score victories against the Turks.


Without supporting information, I don't see how anyone would rely on that very unusual explanation. Are you talking about Spain? If you are, that was definitely an invasion even though I've heard it described by Muslims as "welcoming the Muslims"

No, I am talking about several cities, areas, etc. that were so thoroughly oppressed, that *anything* would have been an improvement. Islam (in the expansion period, anyhow) did away with social classes, caste systems, etc. So anyone who was part of society that was built on such a structure might welcome a chance to level the playing field.

Not my problem. Why should we wait 300 years for Islam?

It is your problem - if you have to live with these people and are going to be affected by any of their actions.



That also.

No, not "that also". Preservation of cheap oil was the ENTIRE point. Preservation of cheap oil was not an added benefit, it was THE ENTIRE AND ORIGINAL GOAL.

But the U.S. DID liberate Kuwait under the sanction of the United Nations. That cannot be denied no matter what political or economic spin is placed on history.

No one is denying it. But the US doesn't go blithely around the world, randomly liberating countries just because they ask us to. You're confusing ends and means here.

Liberating Kuwait was not the goal. It was a means to the end (cheap oil) - but it wasn't the end.


So blame them, not the U.S.

Really, really stupid reponse from you. I expected more critical reasoning than that.

I blame the US, because we are the ones who:
1. have the dependence on cheap oil in the first place;
2. have been meddling in that area for years;
3. ordered our troops to go to Saudi Arabia in the first place.

We don't need the Saudis permission to leave. We only needed their permission to come over. We could leave anytime we want to.
 
Upvote 0
Sauron said:
Upon what grounds do you think that Islam is an ideological threat to the West?

Considering that Islam is a religion with almost zero following in the west, and nowhere on the horizon is it making any significant inroads?

How many acts of (fundimental Islamist) terrorism against the West do we need to list for you to see a threat? Islam is the fastest growing religion in the West.

Islam's growth in the USA as measured by new mosques constructed is over 40% in the last 10 years. It is among the fastest growing religions in the US with estimates of over 6 million members
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Edge

Regular Member
Jul 8, 2002
150
1
✟7,795.00
Faith
Christian
Um, fish? This thread's been dead for months now, and Sauron (wrongly) banned.

And "Islamic terrorism" is the result of the misguided actions of a few extremists, not a reflection on an entire religion. Islam is indeed the fastest growing religion in the US (and the world, actually), but that doesn't make it a "threat", ideological or otherwise.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums