Christ Christianity Christians - Muhammad Islam Muslims

[D_Tim McGnaw]

Well, that's a slippery slope. There are at least 10 mil Muslims who wish harm on all us non-Muslims. How's that for starters?

Which ones and where? And what is the slippery slope?

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

Islam, or fundamentalist Muslims?

What other kind of Muslim is there?
Muslims must believe that the Qur'an is the revealed word of God.
Is that not a definition of a fundamentalist?
"Fundamentalist," as used among Christians, has virtually no counterpart among Muslims.
Many deeply reverent Christians believe that the Bible is largely myth.
But few Muslims would ever express a like sentiment about the Qur'an.
I suspect the distinction you're really after is that between extremist and moderate.

 

[nudeyorker]

Most of us (Westerners) can distinguish between the actions etc of the former, but we don't seem to want to with the latter.

Why are we so willfully ignorant of Muhammad and Islam?

I think I have an idea, but please, what are your thoughts?

I don't know if it's the answer you are looking for, but I am friends with a couple who are Muslim and we don't focus on our individual differences. (They have never been discussed until the Mosque at Ground Zero subject) Instead we relate to each other on why we are friends and what we have in common. I don't think most people are capable of doing this for some odd reason. I think perhaps because most people are not comfortable operating or relating to anyone outside of the realm of everyone they know at "The Country Club." (or church... same thing in my mind)

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Well, that's a slippery slope. There are at least 10 mil Muslims who wish harm on all us non-Muslims. How's that for starters?

It's bullshit for starters without any proof.
However, once you find your distorted figures from questionable sources whose credibility are under scrutiny, try to figure out how many of those "wishers" are actual doers.

 

[D_Fiona_Farvel]

Most of us (Westerners) can distinguish between the actions etc of the former, but we don't seem to want to with the latter.

Why are we so willfully ignorant of Muhammad and Islam?

I think I have an idea, but please, what are your thoughts?

So many possible answers to this question, DW.
The Western narrative is concerned with itself and like things, or the creation of like entities. Islam, in terms of the people, is often presented as the opposite of Western ideals - ethnic (goes a bit deeper if racializing Muslims), poor, unconventional, lacking modernity, in need of "saving", which are all conditions that do not engender respect. I view lack of respect as the reason many are incurious, yet feel entitled to offer largely uninformed critiques of the religion and/or culture.

Christopher Hitchens is one of the most notable (of late) UK philosophers and he regards Islam as one of the most dangerous forces out there.

Of late? I've been reading Hitchens since I was in middle school, so definitely a long time fan of his work. However, you are correct, he is critical of Islam in general, and finds the religion as a lifeway, both ideological and cultural, a threat to the West.

I do disagree with Hitchens on this issue, however.

What other kind of Muslim is there?
Muslims must believe that the Qur'an is the revealed word of God.
Is that not a definition of a fundamentalist?
"Fundamentalist," as used among Christians, has virtually no counterpart among Muslims.
Many deeply reverent Christians believe that the Bible is largely myth.
But few Muslims would ever express a like sentiment about the Qur'an.
I suspect the distinction you're really after is that between extremist and moderate.

There are more shades to Islam and Muslims than extremist or moderate. As with many other religions, "cafeteria", agnostic, etc., Muslims exist.

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

There are more shades to Islam and Muslims than extremist or moderate. As with many other religions, "cafeteria", agnostic, etc., Muslims exist.

It's odd that people don't seem to realise this, I don't know why people always assume that there are either extremists or moderates, but that in general all Muslims are more devout than other religions or cultures or somehow less varied in their level of devotion or interest in their religion or culture.

 

[AquaEyes11010]

Islam is a bit younger than Christianity, so comparing how radical each is should be done with the Christianity of a few hundred years ago. When you do this, it's easy to come to the conclusion that they're both crazy, only that Christianity has mellowed a bit as its aged. Perhaps Islam will as well. Meanwhile, I hope that more people take off their blinders and see that it's all bunk anyway.
;-)

 

[GeorgeTSLC]

Now you know as well as I do that no RC theologian would totally negate any purpose in being a Roman Catholic by stating that all good roads lead to god and no one need be a Roman Catholic to be on that road.

Actually, as you state the proposition, they would do so or else be in heresy. (Except that most of them would favor capitalizing "God".)

You may know of the in-Church outrage over Father Charles Coughlin (tho I'm sure not everyone here does): He was prominent among a few in the 1930s who took an old formula, "Extra Ecclesia Nulla Salus", "Outside the Church there is no salvation", and misinterpreted it to mean "Non-Catholics are all going to Hell, especially Jews". He was as heretical then as he would be now, and should have known it. As should his foolish bishop, who resisted Rome's pressure to condemn his friend and get him off the radio.

The point of the theology you mention is that the RC church believes fundamentally that humanity is more likely to be living a life acceptable to god if it practices Roman Catholicism, it admits that it is possible to live in a manner which is acceptable to god without being a Roman Catholic but it stresses that the best and most efficacious, the most tried and true, the most direct route to salvation is by the practice of and participation in the sacraments and adherence to the dogmas of the Church of Rome. Otherwise what on earth would be the point in even being a Roman Catholic?

Correct in this paragraph, so far. But inadequate, and missing the point.

So even in an attempt to disguise its in-group-think core the RC church exalts the fact that to be a Roman Catholic is to be a member of a group more likely to be acceptable to god than any other.

Nonsense. The "group-think core", as you evaluate it, has never been disguised, from any motive or none. Where we also disagree is that I contend it's not group-think--it's fidelity to what we each believe (many of us from intellectually honest positions) is a divine mission. You will probably deny that.

But will you deny that when reaching out to others is the method, exclusion cannot be the core?

A perhaps illuminating consideration: Benedict XVI has been reported as quite peeved that the side-bar on condoms during his African trip overwhelmed the truth about the Catholic Church and HIV/AIDS: That we do an immense amount, probably more than than any other group, to help its victims.

Before attacking that statement, remember to include not only AIDS-specific facilities but also the immense number of our general-purpose charitable clinics and hospitals that don't turn you away because of what you're suffering from, let alone what your religion is, but simply want to help. And unlike, say, the Salvation Army, without requiring you to sit through a recruitment pitch. More like, say, some of the militant Islamic groups' charitable arms, that reportedly help w/o discrimination, but let you know who they are and count on the brilliance of their example to proselytize for them.

You have heard the story of the nursing sister who, told by an admiring but revolted businessman that he wouldn't do what she did for a million dollars, responded, "Neither would I!"? Yeah, tell me how in-group and out-group thinking is at the very heart of HER religion.

Which is the point I originally disagreed with, and that your response had obscured, M. Hilaire.

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

Actually, as you state the proposition, they would do so or else be in heresy. (Except that most of them would favor capitalizing "God".)

They might well do, being an atheist I have no need to bother, except for specific purposes.

You may know of the in-Church outrage over Father Charles Coughlin (tho I'm sure not everyone here does): He was prominent among a few in the 1930s who took an old formula, "Extra Ecclesia Nulla Salus", "Outside the Church there is no salvation", and misinterpreted it to mean "Non-Catholics are all going to Hell, especially Jews". He was as heretical then as he would be now, and should have known it. As should his foolish bishop, who resisted Rome's pressure to condemn his friend and get him off the radio.

He wouldn't have been heretical in the least for the vast and overwhelming proportion of the history of RC church though would he? Was the church itself in error for virtually the entirety of its history?

Nonsense. The "group-think core", as you evaluate it, has never been disguised, from any motive or none. Where we also disagree is that I contend it's not group-think--it's fidelity to what we each believe (many of us from intellectually honest positions) is a divine mission. You will probably deny that.

I make no particular comment on the reasons individual Roman Catholics choose to follow their faith, I merely point out that group-think is a powerful element in the philosophical underpinings of all religions. You seemed to claim that this was not the case in Roman Catholicism, you went on to outline the current, fairly poorly thought out, sophistry the RC church might use to counter a charge of being structured around group-think, I merely made it clear that all this sophistry does is prove the charge.

But will you deny that when reaching out to others is the method, exclusion cannot be the core?

Proselytism has as its basis the notion that to join a particular religious group is to become a part of a club whose membership benefits are superior to all others. "Become a Roman Catholic, we offer the most efficacious route to salvation" is the message, implying that any other choice makes one a member of an inferior group. The desire to be a member of a group with superior qualities is what makes group-think work. What would be the inducement to join this club otherwise?

A perhaps illuminating consideration: Benedict XVI has been reported as quite peeved that the side-bar on condoms during his African trip overwhelmed the truth about the Catholic Church and HIV/AIDS: That we do an immense amount, probably more than than any other group, to help its victims.

Before attacking that statement, remember to include not only AIDS-specific facilities but also the immense number of our general-purpose charitable clinics and hospitals that don't turn you away because of what you're suffering from, let alone what your religion is, but simply want to help. And unlike, say, the Salvation Army, without requiring you to sit through a recruitment pitch. More like, say, some of the militant Islamic groups' charitable arms, that reportedly help w/o discrimination, but let you know who they are and count on the brilliance of their example to proselytize for them.

You have heard the story of the nursing sister who, told by an admiring but revolted businessman that he wouldn't do what she did for a million dollars, responded, "Neither would I!"? Yeah, tell me how in-group and out-group thinking is at the very heart of HER religion.

Which is the point I originally disagreed with, and that your response had obscured, M. Hilaire.

Meh this is a straw man. Group-think does not exclude the possibility of altruism, even in-group altruim towards out-group individuals, and nor did I contend that it did, so if you refuted that assertion then you refuted nothing I said.

I wont share my views on religiously motivated altruism though, I'm sure they would only open a can of worms.

 

[GeorgeTSLC]

He wouldn't have been heretical in the least for the vast and overwhelming proportion of the history of RC church though would he? Was the church itself in error for virtually the entirety of its history?

Yes, and no, in that order. The Church has never taught officially that all others are damned, tho certainly many Christians have believed it. We insist that doctrine doesn't change, it develops. (Yes, you can take that position and still keep honest. Or you can use it as an excuse for massive dishonesty.)

As for the rest, we clearly disagree about what's at the core of altruism and religion, not so much as to how they manifest as their importance. You state your position well, sir.

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

You state your position well, sir.

Thank you. I'm sure we both do after our own fashion.

 

[Bbucko]

This thread's gone off in some fascinating directions, but I think that there's a whole lot of over-thinking going on here, mixed in with hefty amounts of presumption and generalizations, too.

At its core, I believe that distrust of another system of religious belief and practice is inherently human (though not especially cosmopolitan). We have a really basic tendency to observe and compare, and when we see something different and unfamiliar, we're very quick to label it "other". "Other" is never a positive attribute; at best it's value-neutral, though outside of a multiple-choice quiz it rarely is.

I don't think that one needs go back to the Moors or the fall of Byzantium to find a distrust of Islam in the US. In fact, I doubt more than 30% of Americans would even have listed Islam as a world religion prior to the aftermath of 9/11 (Europeans, due to their former imperial pretensions, would hardly have been quite so insular or provincial in their outlook). I cannot state with certainty that I'd even met a Muslim prior to having moved to Paris in 1990 at the age of 30!

It's also helpful to disconnect the concept of "Arab" from "evil Islam", which, from The Prophet on through the 20th century (at least until OPEC's embargo in the 1970s) was either mythologized (Ali Baba, Aladdin), spiritualized or condescended to (The Sheik springs to mind, or The Garden of Allah just to pick some simple Hollywood examples). Danny Thomas was an Arab, for gawd's sake. Again, OPEC gave us the cardboard cut-out of a nasty racist Arab stereotype that would be so inexcusable if applied to Jews, whether Israeli or from elsewhere, but it really wasn't until 9/11 that racial fear of "Arabs" was seared into our national psyche.

It's also worth noting the Iran is not an Arab country: they're Persian, and it's not the same thing. But even at the height of the Iranian crisis, I cannot recall the entirety of Islam being called to blame. It was a localized problem and recognized as a response (not an honorable one, but still a response) to our support of the Shah. Despite the religious nature of the revolution, I cannot recall religion being a dominant part of the official story.

Even the first (unsuccessful) attempt to damage the WTC, led by The Blind Cleric, was not worded as an "an assault by Islam on America". That may have been, however, the first time I saw the term "Islamic" bandied about. "Islamic" is not synonymous with "Muslim" or "Arab": it purposefully speaks of a perversion of Islam, turning a religion of subjugation into one of armed aggression.

This is not to discount the troubles and unease between Muslims and Christians in the UK (Palestinians, Pakistanis, etc), France (Algeria and Morocco, for starters) or Germany (Turkish immigrants after WW2 and continuing for decades): merely to say that "radical" or "fundamentalist" and "Muslim/Islam" did not go hand in glove in the US consciousness until the WTC came down.

And, despite the fact that the terrorists who perpetrated that heinous and barbaric act were all Saudis, we invaded Iraq (Afghanistan, giving refuge to ObL is/was somewhat more understandable). In fact, near as I can tell, the Saudis remain blameless, despite being at least as ruthless and oppressive as Iran is or Afghanistan was/may still be. Why is the bastion of liberty supporting one of the most egregiously despotic regimes in the world ?

One last thing: somewhere around 1992, when the Culture Wars first started heating up following the collapse of the USSR/Warsaw Pact, the expression "Judeo-Christian" entered into mainstream American vocabulary. It's an us/them expression par excellence, right up there with its contemporary "family values", as if LGBTs do not belong to a family

 

[PussyWellington]

Of late? I've been reading Hitchens since I was in middle school, so definitely a long time fan of his work. However, you are correct, he is critical of Islam in general, and finds the religion as a lifeway, both ideological and cultural, a threat to the West.

I do disagree with Hitchens on this issue, however.

There are more shades to Islam and Muslims than extremist or moderate. As with many other religions, "cafeteria", agnostic, etc., Muslims exist.

It would be helpful if you could expand as to why you disagree with Hitchens. Personally, I agree with him.

Western governments have been creating and funding various Islamist groups and movements for more than twenty years. Creeping sharia may sound dramatic but one only needs to consider the case of Turkey, the secular state is under threat from the Islamic AKP Party. Will we see Gulen return like the Ayatollah Khomeini and declare a new Islamic State? I hope not. This is a serious issue for the people of Turkey but is under-reported in western dominant mass media.

Central Asia is also being Islamified, and again Turkey is involved. The vacuum that was left by the fall of the Soviet Union is being exploited by Turkish "missionaries". Revival of the Ottoman Empire?

Islam is a threat to the modern secular state.