Ricky:

ray


1. Islam's beginning is tied in with national conquest. Early Christianity is not a national movement. Yes, Christianity later developed a violent history, but that is hundreds of years after its founding.

Please consider the earliest years of Mohammed when he was preaching tolerance and acceptance. Probably more to do with his own circumstance . As he gained tribal support force became used. However, how is that different from most other majority religions? As soon as Christianity achieved secular support and power the Pagans started being executed, and blasphemers had their tongues torn out...

The difference is the timeline. Mohammed went from tolerance to conquest within his lifetime. As you say, circumstances changed and in 12 years he went from peace to war. For Christianity we are looking at a few hundred years. I'm saying that's different. I guess you are saying that 12 years and 300 years are basically the same thing.

Ricky:

Ray


2. The Quran is much more violent than the New Testament. The standard retort here is that the New Testament adopts the Hebrew Bible, which is also filled with substantial violence. However, the New Testament is partially set up in opposition to the Hebrew Bible. The sacred Christian text is anti-violence.

Many scholars disagree with your version of the Quran . However, whether or not the NT was essentially about tolerance and acceptance, that wasn't the interpretation that Christians used after they gained power was it? If the religion s so inherently good, then how could it be used in such evil ways?

I didn't say Christianity is inherently good. I said it's central text is anti-violence. People in power did what people in power do.

Ricky:

Ray


3. The key prophet of Islam waged war; the key prophet of Christianity did not.

Christ was executed as a threat to the Empire. He is often considered to be a revolutionary..

Another non-sequitur. Being executed because you are considered to be a threat to the empire is different than waging war. Or do you think they are the same thing and that is the meaning of your post?

Ricky:

Ray


4. The Quran advocates conquest. The New Testament does not.


Despite this nuance.,

So if something doesn't support your world view it is a nuance? I would think the central text of a religion is more than a nuance. I do agree with you that historical record is important. I also agree that Christianity has often created havoc. But that doesn't mean we should ignore other points of discussion.

ray

I'm saying that's different. I guess you are saying that 12 years and 300 years are basically the same thing.

The circumstances were the same. Mohammed managed to achieve power faster than Paul's successors in the Christian church.
Once in power, neither religion was entirely a force for good. Tolerance and acceptance dissolved when it became possible to control through force.


ray

I didn't say Christianity is inherently good. I said it's central text is anti-violence. People in power did what people in power do

Yes. And continue to do.
Modern Christians use the bible as rationale to keep women subjugated and to maintain institutionalized discrimination against homosexuals. It wasn't so long ago that the Bible was also used to justify discrimination against racial minorities including things like inter racial marriage.
The Bible didn't change. Peoples interpretation of t did, as a result of the evolution of the moral gyroscope of society
.
Muslims use their scriptures the same way Christians used, and continue to use theirs... And the interpretation of the Islamic verses will change as ideas of the world change the Muslim world.

ray

So if something doesn't support your world view it is a nuance? I would think the central text of a religion is more than a nuance

There is a debate within Islam about the nature of Jihad....
Just as at one time there was a debate within Christianity about whether there was a mandate from God to convert the non-believer. (And not through gentle persuasion often....)

Religion evolves. Its a construct of man and as man changes he changes his interpretation of his revealed scriptures. (In fact, we know that the actual words of both the Bible and Quran have been changed in the past..... )

Examples of Christian extremism do not seem particularly relevant, either in terms of time (the remote past) or in terms of importance to the religion. It's either a small problem now or it happened in the past....which obviously means it's not a problem now. Religion is not a separate thing from societies where it is practiced and Christianity in Western societies has adapted to be tolerant of other religions and not to advocate using violence against non-believers

The problem with Islamic extremism is that it is a major problem today, its adherents can find support for that what they do in the Quran, and intolerance is a central tenet of the religion. Islamic states (except for Turkey and maybe there are other exceptions but at least the majority) mandate unequal treatment of women, intolerance and punishment towards non-believers. Somehow modernity has happened without the practice of Islam being affected. There is no sign of that changing, at least with regard to Arabs.

It is simply not accurate to equate Christian extremism and Islamic extremism in the present. And if you think Islam is going to change you have to explain why it has been unaffected by several hundred years of modern progression in the West in individual rights, women's rights, and tolerance.

freeman3

And if you think Islam is going to change you have to explain why it has been unaffected by several hundred years of modern progression in the West in individual rights, women's rights, and tolerance

.

Isolation from competing ideas and societies. Enforced by those in power.
Continues unto today in Saudi Arabia for example where a tribe seeks to maintain power as a monarchy.

Islamic nations that have opened up to competing ideas did change the way their religion is practiced. The most glaring example s that of Muslims living in the West. But take Iran before the revolution.
There was, and for many in Iran's largest cities, remains a more progressive interpretation of the religion.

freeman3

Religion is not a separate thing from societies where it is practiced and Christianity in Western societies has adapted to be tolerant of other religions and not to advocate using violence against non-believers

Tell that to homosexuals or women.
The whole point Freeman3 is that you can't defeat ideas militarily. They are reborn and rise again if the underlying conditions do not change.
The fundamental thing that must change is exactly hat happened to Christianity. The renaissance opened up the intelligentsia to new ideas (reborn from the Greeks) . It took hundreds of years for Christianity to be reshaped from the violent tool it was for centuries. (The Swerve is a great book abut this change).
It will take Islam a while but with modern communication ... maybe a generation for some significant change? But what comes first? Secular education .
If that is driven either by dictators or modern democracies ... then change will occur.
Who is likely to let that happen? An open engaged Iran I think. The emirates and KSA are too interested in maintaining power. Iran is a more diverse and dynamic society. Egypt as well is a likely candidate for this kind of change.

The important thing Ricky is that there is no evidence that Islam is changing. If anything, the interpretations of it are becoming more extreme. And Christianity did not prevent gay and women rights in the West because people are not required to adhere to Christian doctrine. How are women and homosexuals doing in Saudi Arabia?

To think that Islam will change is to express a hope but otherwise there is no foundation for it. What evidence is there that it has been influenced by the last 400-500 years of Western ideas about individual rights, women's rights, ending cruel punishment for minor crimes, and of course tolerance? If it has not been affected in that time span, why would things be different now? It is wishful thinking to believe that Islam will adapt to conform to western norms.

freeman3

The important thing Ricky is that there is no evidence that Islam is changing.

Again, its how people use their religion, or their interpretation of religion that changes. Not the religion. Not if its a scripturally based religion that doesn't change the scriptures.
So how do Muslims living in western nations live their faith? Is it different than others in the world? How could that happen if religion were as conforming as you seem to suggest.
I could say the same of Muslims in Indonesia, or other nations... They live their religion differently then someone in Iraq. Fact is, there is a significant different between Muslims in many middle eastern nations.... Kurds are Muslims... and you accept that they are a tolerant, modern people, no?

Freeman3

If anything, the interpretations of it are becoming more extreme

.
Yes, that has happened. The Taliban , Wahabism. But then Christianity has its deep conservatives too.

Freeman3

And Christianity did not prevent gay and women rights in the West because people are not required to adhere to Christian doctrine

Today. In some parts of the West women have fairly equal rights ...
But how long has this been the case that women have had equal rights? maybe 50 years, or maybe less if Patricia Arquette is right.(And she is...)
How long that homosexuals have been accepted as equal? Hasn't even happened in the US yet .
That's down to the influence of Christian churches. (Well maybe religion generally, but mostly Christians) )
Within the arc of history your claiming significant advantage for Christian tolerance when its really only a very, very recent phenomenon within Christianity. And over that long period of time Islam often was more tolerant of minorities whilst heretics burned, and Jews were murdered in pogroms in Europe.

I get it that you want an immediate solution to the problems that fundamental, extreme Islam has become in the hands of both despots using it to control their kingdoms, and the recently arrived sociopaths.
I don't think there is an immediate solution.
But I do think the long term solution is going to come from within the Islamic community. And I do think that change is occurring in the way many Muslims practice their faith.
We'd probably notice we more if we were visiting mosques regularly.... An interesting take follows.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/erasmus/ ... ming-islam

I read your link Ricky but all I found in it was a hope that Islam will reform itself. The thing that might cause reform in Islamic countries is the simple recognition that without reform they will not be able to compete with the West. That is the driver of change. That is why Turkey was found as a secular Muslim state. That is why Japan ended its samurai-class system after contact with the West and adopted western ideas. This is not happening in the Middle East. Maybe having oil controlled by an elite changes that equation. But the ideas espoused by Islamic extremists are not reasonable or rationally related to beating/competing with the West in any sense. So they are doomed to failure. Hopefully, the failure of an extreme interpretation of Islam to provide an answer to beating the West will stimulate reform. But it hasn't happened yet and there is no way to know if it will happen in any kind of reasonable time-frame.

By the way, you are quite a bit a bit off on the treatment of women. The feminist movement in American started in the mid-19th century. Changes in law allowing women to control and own property started occurring in the late 19th Century. Women were influential in getting Prohibition passed and in other social reform and got the vote in 1920. It has not just been the past 50 years, it has been a long process. There is no evolution going on with regard to women's rights in Saudi Arabia.

freeman3

Maybe having oil controlled by an elite changes that equation

.
Any time a small elite is in control of governance this happens. Example: China had a large exploration fleet and magnificent sailing vessels under Zheng. The ruling Ming dynasty eventually saw exploration and the opening up to the world as a threat to their existence and destroyed the fleets and banned travel.
The Japanese did much the same until forced to open up.
Today the KSA is only just opening up more to the outside world. (although its elite children do get modern educations.)
Oil only changes the dynamic because it so quickly changed the rulers wealth. The dynamic is always the same. An elite gives way to democratic aspirations... (And the dynamic does have push back. Witness the difference in the US between the middle class of the 50's and 60's and today and the loss of political sway to corporate money.)

freeman3

But the ideas espoused by Islamic extremists are not reasonable or rationally related to beating/competing with the West in any sense. So they are doomed to failure. Hopefully, the failure of an extreme interpretation of Islam to provide an answer to beating the West will stimulate reform. But it hasn't happened yet and there is no way to know if it will happen in any kind of reasonable time-frame

.
we agree. But the question really is, what's a reasonable time frame? Measured against the arc of history, a generation isn't much.
That's why I think limited military involvement by the West is the best course. Muslims will eventually figure out that ISIS doesn't deliver long term.

Freeman3

By the way, you are quite a bit a bit off on the treatment of women. The feminist movement in American started in the mid-19th century. Changes in law allowing women to control and own property started occurring in the late 19th Century. Women were influential in getting Prohibition passed and in other social reform and got the vote in 1920. It has not just been the past 50 years, it has been a long process. There is no evolution going on with regard to women's rights in Saudi Arabia

The feminist movement started in the mid 19th century. Sure. But for most of the history of Christian dominance women were chattel as they are in the KSA.
The gains made by women were hard won and mostly came after the singularly important step of winning the vote. With that power more change came, and more quickly. But women in the US still don't enjoy wholly equal rights protection. (Equal pay for one. )
As for the evolution of women's rights in the Middle East, I agree that it is stuck at a point that Christianity was some 300 years ago. And its stuck there because the ruling elite family uses its conservative form of Islam to keep control. As they send their women abroad to gain an education, things are starting to change... There are women in places never seen before I the KSA. Doctors, professors, engineers, pilots ....
I maintain that change happens much more quickly today then 300 years ago. Once the dam breaks, Saudi women will much more quickly move to gain liberties than the 150 years it has taken in the west. (Measured from when women really started working for rights as you rightly note was the mid 19th century.) They will probably be lead by the educated elite, who have studied abroad and learned of different societies. And the dynamic between the conservative religious leaders, and the need to keep the 35 million Saudi citizens away from democracy will push against their demands.
But at some point, accommodations will be made to keep the 35 million from revolting and with each accommodation the pressure for more will continue... Its inevitable.
Perhaps in the KSA it will be controlled as it was in the West. Well, maybe it seems controlled because we forget all the revolutionary events of the period from 1755 to 1848 in Europe. A period of great turmoil and constant conflict. A period that was actually much more tumultuous then today...

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/activists-is-militants-kidnap-dozens-of-christians-in-syria/ar-BBhUuu4

Islamic tour guides from ISIS/ISIL have catered and planned a surprise field trip for approximately 70 Christians in what is being called a "culture exchange" between the two faiths.

Obviously, the "Crusaders" that are occupying Syria are being avenged and taken on this nice all expenses paid trip by peace-loving activists in the Islamic religion.

Yes, this is sarcastic, but if all this forum is going to talk about is 1500 year old history, then I can add just as much with spoof.

Maybe we should try to stay on topic and discuss ISIS/ISIL and what we should do to stop them. That is if you think they should be stopped.

bbauska wrote:http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/activists-is-militants-kidnap-dozens-of-christians-in-syria/ar-BBhUuu4

Islamic tour guides from ISIS/ISIL have catered and planned a surprise field trip for approximately 70 Christians in what is being called a "culture exchange" between the two faiths.

Obviously, the "Crusaders" that are occupying Syria are being avenged and taken on this nice all expenses paid trip by peace-loving activists in the Islamic religion.

Yes, this is sarcastic, but if all this forum is going to talk about is 1500 year old history, then I can add just as much with spoof.

There is a little more to this story. Militia from the same Christian communities recently joined up with the Kurdish peshmerga and were helping to push ISIS back. So as much as it can be spun as just anti-Christian because of Islam, it may well be more about punishing those who oppose them, whoever they are.

bbauska wrote:Maybe we should try to stay on topic and discuss ISIS/ISIL and what we should do to stop them. That is if you think they should be stopped.

The question is not whether they should be stopped, but whether it's for us to do it. And of course whether the end justifies the means.

And I have talked about that. Because as freeman brings up the ideology, part of it seems to involve them defeating the armies of "Rome" at Dabiq and then sacking Constantinople. And then, another army would arise, and push ISIS back,to Jeruslam where the few thousand remaining jihadis will somehow defeat the arrayed armies when Jesus arrives to kill the anti-Messiah leading their enemies and usher in the End of Days.

It's a bit bizarre, to say the least.

But away from theoretical discussions, stuff is actually happening:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/mid ... story.html

In late January, however, Islamic State fighters suffered a setback as Iraqi Kurdish forces seized a stretch of the key highway at the town of Kiske, west of Mosul.

The Islamic State is still using the highway, detouring onto back roads to get around Kiske. But if the Iraqi Kurdish fighters can maintain and expand their hold on the road, the Islamist extremists “will be under a kind of siege in the area. It will be very hard for them” logistically, said Hisham al-Hashemi, an Iraqi researcher who is an expert on the radical group.

abcnews.go.com/Politics/iraqi-ground-offensive-retake-mosul-launched-early-april/story?id=29088913

U.S. military officials believe that the Iraqi offensive to retake Mosul from the militant group ISIS could come as early as April and involve between 20,000 to 25,000 Iraqi troops.

The plan could be delayed depending on training and equipment schedules for the Iraq troops that would be involved in the offensive, a U.S. Central Command official said, noting that ISIS is on the defensive and that the U.S. military plan against ISIS is “slightly ahead of the campaign.”

http://www.vox.com/2015/2/23/8085197/is-isis-losing

It's certainly true that ISIS remains a terrible and urgent threat to the Middle East. The group is not on the verge of defeat, nor is its total destruction guaranteed. But, after months of ISIS expansion and victories, the group is now being beaten back. It is losing territory in the places that matter. Coalition airstrikes have hamstrung its ability to wage offensive war, and it has no friends to turn to for help. Its governance model is unsustainable and risks collapse in the long run.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 61457.html

Recent reports suggest infighting is growing between the ranks of foreign fighters as Isis tries to recover from bombing campaigns against its strongholds in Iraq and Syria.

The Jordanian airforce recently claimed to have degraded Isis’s capabilities by 20 per cent after air strikes against militants were intensified in retaliation for the death of pilot Lieutenant Muath al-Kasaesbeh. Isis is also believed to be suffering financially of late as their supply routes between core territories are damaged.

Sajad Jiyad, Research Fellow and Associate Member at the Iraqi Institute for Economic Reform, said one of the biggest issues to have caused friction between fighters in the past surrounded the decision to keep Yazidi children and women as sex slaves.

Some good news then with regard to ISIS. The less we have to do the better.

Are you saying that these 70-100 people are militia? I did not get that from the news sources I have read.

bbauska wrote:Are you saying that these 70-100 people are militia? I did not get that from the news sources I have read.

No, I'm saying that the reason behind their taking may not simply be about religion, as much as about reprisals for people taking up arms against them.

The reports I've heard and seen aren't very clear on who has been taken and a lot of people fled the area.

freeman3 wrote:Some good news then with regard to ISIS. The less we have to do the better.

Indeed. Quite happy for us to supply assistance to more local forces, and that includes air support. If the Syrian civil war can be resolved, both sides would likely turn on ISIS - they just fear each other more at the moment.