![]() | |||||||||||
| |||||||||||
| Notices |
| | LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
| LI Senior Member Status: Offline Posts: 356 Reputation: 890 Rep Power: 22 Join Date: Jul 2005 Gender: Way of Life: Muslim | 'The criminal activities of terrorists have given the old western prejudice a new lease of life. People often seem eager to believe the worst about Muhammad, are reluctant to put his life in its historical perspective and assume the Jewish and Christian traditions lack the flaws they attribute to Islam. This entrenched hostility informs Robert Spencer’s misnamed biography The Truth about Muhammad, subtitled Founder of the World’s Most Intolerant Religion.' read the rest of the article here |
| | |
| LI Oldskool Status: Offline Posts: 1,228 Reputation: 2146 Rep Power: 20 Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: The Netherlands Gender: Way of Life: Atheist | Quote:
Firstly, an assumption that current anti-Islamic feelings are based on the collective memory of the Crusades. In my opinion they are not even based on religion, especially not in Europe. Anti-Islamic people can roughly be divided in two groups. First, there are the voters of anti-Islamic parties. They are generally lowly educated. I just don't believe they are somehow motivated by a historic bitterness about the Crusades, an event generally depicted in a very negative fashion throughout society. If people talk about it at all, which they don't. Discussing the Crusades is limited to historians in the West. The average Westerner couldn't care less about it. Besides, I have yet to hear anyone ever suggest that the Crusades were rightful and just. The second group is intellectuals like Robert Spencer or Daniel Pipes. Yet, they base their criticism not on religion but on Islams supposed anti-democratic and intolerant tendencies. Europe is considerably less religious than the US, yet I would cal Europe more 'Islamophobe' in general. This does not make sense if we consider religion the prime motivation behind Islamophobia. Secondly, Armstrong makes the mistake of wanting to separate politics from religion. She says: "Yet despite the religious rhetoric, these terrorists are motivated by politics rather than religion". I think this betrays here own Western approach to religion. This separation between Islam and politics is a false separation IMHO. Since when is Islam not about politics? Does it not rule about war and peace, does it not prescribe an Islamic form of government? Heck, the very people who commit this terrorism claim they do it for their religion, for the Ummah, for God. Go read Osama Bin Ladens 'Declaration of jihad against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places: Expel the Polytheists from the Arabian peninsula' and tell me it is 'political' and not 'religious'. The whole separation is a farce. Thirdly, understandably like other Armstrong has her own view and interpretation of Islam. Her interpretation of Islam does not allow terrorists acts, maybe she is right. But in all honesty, her view is irrelevant. It is not her view of Islam that is relevant to the West, it is the view of: 1. Muslims in general 2. Those who commit acts of terror in name of Islam She shouldn't be writing an article in the Financial Times directed at the British, she should be sending it in to the Muslim press aimed at Muslims. If she doesn't think it is part of Islam she should tell them, not us. Muslims are blowing up Muslims in terrorism by the tens of thousands in Iraq, Afghanistan, Algeria, Pakistan, Bangladesh, etc. If this is unIslamic she should preach to them and once the terrorist tactic loses popularity to the jihadist movement the likes of Robert Spencer will have nothing to write about. People in the West will stop associating Islam with terrorism if those who commit terrorism will also stop doing it in name of Islam. This whole idea that we're only making the link between the two because of bitterness of the Crusades does not make sense. The West now is not the same as the West during the Crusades. If people blow stuff up and say they are doing it for Islam, why are people so surprised when people take them seriously? Fourthly, I think her criticism of Christianity is warranted. It does indeed have a bloodthirsty history. Yet, Christianity is not by nature a legalistic religion. Unlike Islam it does not define how to govern, nor does it explain when war is justified and when not. Nor is it nationalistic like Islam with its concept of the Ummah. Nor did Christianity have a Prophet that was both ruler and commander in chief. It's dishonest to simply ignore these fundamental differences, differences not simply in content but also in approach. Nevertheless, she makes a good point. And yes, Christianity was abused (ie. interpreted wrongly) like perhaps now Islam is abused by some. I'm glad Christianity and Christians were tamed by the enlightenment. I hope something similar happens to Islam. But then again, perhaps I am simply subconsciously driven to this by a desire for revenge for the Crusades ;). All IMHO of course ;). | |
| | |
| LI Addict Status: Offline Posts: 5,095 Reputation: 7716 Rep Power: 29 Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Oklahoma, USA Gender: Way of Life: Christian | I read alot of Karen Armstrong's books during my post-graduate years. I think her heart is in the right place, but her own political ideology and her seeming obsession with connecting modern political realities with the Crusades, and making the assumption that those in the West actually care or know anything about it, sort of sidetrack any point she tries to make.
__________________
"Imagination was given to man to compensate him for what he is not, and a sense of humor was provided to console him for what he is."
|
| | |
| Limited Member Status: Offline Posts: 36 Reputation: 93 Rep Power: 0 Join Date: Apr 2007 Gender: Way of Life: Muslim | Unlike Islam it does not define how to govern, nor does it explain when war is justified and when not. Nor is it nationalistic like Islam with its concept of the Ummah. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wrong in fact, lucky for you I have studied Christianity when I was in high school. I can’t find the source but my teacher (who Christian by the way) taught us and made us learn quotes in order to get high grades. But anyways I remember studying about war and what Christianity and Islam perspective of war. To my surprise in was similar both religions said if act of worship is threatened, holy war must take place. And both religions have said that holy war (jihad) must be the last solution. Both religions have also said that both sides must talk through their problems. If you don’t believe search in the bible or elsewhere about holy war. By the way Romans used the name of Jesus (p.u.b.h) too rule many counties. Muslims in general know taken a life is haram, in fact it the biggest sin just like Christianity in the ten commandment. It says on the quran taking ones life is like taken the whole mankind. The quran also discourages suicide as those who take their own will suffer same pain in hell. And those who kill will burn in hell forever. So both religion is the same in a way it just those who that use religion in a wrong way. |
| | |
| LI Oldskool Status: Offline Posts: 1,552 Reputation: 2666 Rep Power: 14 Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: From Mars...To Sirius. Gender: Way of Life: Christian | And about crusades..As far as i know crusades were organised by christians just after muslims conquered Jerusalem, which is holy city for christians. And i read that muslim invaders destroyed many christian and jewish places of worship. And christian pilgrims were persecuted and sent away from Jerusalem.So i wonder, if in middle ages, Mecca was conquered by christians, wouldn't muslims organised and tried to fight it back? |
| | |
| Limited Member Status: Offline Posts: 36 Reputation: 93 Rep Power: 0 Join Date: Apr 2007 Gender: Way of Life: Muslim | And about crusades..As far as i know crusades were organised by christians just after muslims conquered Jerusalem, which is holy city for christians. And i read that muslim invaders destroyed many christian and jewish places of worship. And christian pilgrims were persecuted and sent away from Jerusalem.So i wonder, if in middle ages, Mecca was conquered by christians, wouldn't muslims organised and tried to fight it back? ================================================== ================================================== ================ Never heard what you have just said................but jerusalem is the holy city for both christians, muslims and jews. Plus jews are mainly the people that live in jerusalem today. Name me places where muslims destroyed christian and jewish places of worship...never of that. Plus muslims meant to let non muslims live in peace and worship whether it there country or not. |
| | |
| nusrat fanatic Status: Offline Posts: 6,243 Reputation: 28381 Rep Power: 58 Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: California Way of Life: Agnostic | Quote:
i also agree with the rest of what you've said above. each man thinks of his own fleas as gazelles question authority | |
| | |
| LI Oldskool Status: Offline Posts: 1,552 Reputation: 2666 Rep Power: 14 Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: From Mars...To Sirius. Gender: Way of Life: Christian | In the year 637 the armies of Islam lead by the Caliph Omar conquered the city of Jerusalem, the center of the Christian world and a magnet for Christian pilgrims. The city's Muslim masters exhibited a certain level of religious tolerance. No new churches were to be built and crosses could not be publicly displayed outside church buildings, but the pilgrims were allowed to continue their treks to the holiest shrines of Christendom (the pilgrims were charged a toll for access). The situation remained stable for over 400 years. Then, in the latter part of the 11th century, the Turks swarmed westward out of Central Asia overrunning all that lay in their path. Jerusalem fell to them in 1076. The atmosphere of tolerance practiced by the followers of Omar was replaced by vicious attacks on the Christian pilgrims and on their sacred shrines in the Holy City. Reports of robberies, beatings, killings, degradation of holy sites and the kidnapping for ransom of the city's patriarch made their way back to Europe. To the Europeans the Holy Land was now in the smothering grip of the Infidel and something must be done. http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/crusades.htm |
| | |
| LI Oldskool Status: Offline Posts: 1,552 Reputation: 2666 Rep Power: 14 Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: From Mars...To Sirius. Gender: Way of Life: Christian | Quote:
http://www.naciente.com/essay23.htm | |
| | |
| LI Addict Status: Offline Posts: 5,095 Reputation: 7716 Rep Power: 29 Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Oklahoma, USA Gender: Way of Life: Christian | The whole concept of a "just war" in the religious context of Christianity didn't exist until Pope Urban II initiated the 1st Crusade. Whether the perceptions are totally correct or not, the whole of Christendom believed the Turks were persecuting Christian pilgrims and the native Christians of those lands. The stated goal of the 1st Crusade was to "liberate" the Holy Land and reclaim the Holy Sepulchre for Christendom, not to created Frankish kingdoms in the Middle East, although that was the end result.
__________________
"Imagination was given to man to compensate him for what he is not, and a sense of humor was provided to console him for what he is."
|
| | |
| Protect the Muslims Status: Offline Posts: 1,928 Reputation: 8737 Rep Power: 30 Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Gender: Way of Life: Muslim | When Khalifah Umar r.a. conquered Jerusalem, he visited the church and when it came to prayer times, he was invited to pray inside but refused to do so for fear that the Muslims would tear down the church to build a masjid in its stead. Though no new churches could be built, the Muslims stay away from outright demolishing the other religions' houses of worship. On the other hand, after the defeat of the Fatimids at the hands of Crusaders, the latter entered Jerusalem and deliberately and mercilessly slaughtered its inhabitants, men, women and children alike. The invading army stampeded over the corpses and it was noted that blood ran ankle deep on the streets of Jerusalem. The city's terrified Jews seek refuge in the chief synagogue. The Crusaders set fire to it, with the Jews inside. That was the bloody triumph of the Crusaders. Quote:
Some taster: Quote:
|