Views about Chris Hitchens, please!

[Errata]

Some did, some didn't.
Anyway, that is off-topic.
We're talking about the core of religions.
Islam says that infidels have to be killed, or humiliated as dhimmis.
Christianism doesn't say so.

Well, this is where things get complicated. Does the New Testament say that people should be killed? Not last I checked. Does the Koran? Yes. Does the Old Testament? Yes.

The Jewish religion has been pretty anti war and anti death unless under threat since the Diaspora. Yeah, there have been a couple of failures in that philosophy. But mostly we've been peaceful. But our religion hasn't changed a whole lot since the destruction of the second Temple.

The Christian religion has waxed and waned on the issue of violence. It began as non violent, but quickly shifted into violent. Then out, then in, the out, then in, and splits and new churches and genuine threats have a lot to do with that. But the religion as practiced by it's followers changes and that issue.

Islam has actually been pretty consistent. It's a warrior culture, and there's no getting around that. But for the most of it's existence it's been under the rule of the Ottoman Empire, and they got along great with their neighbors then. The last hundred years, things have absolutely blown up, and I don't deny it at all. Muslims are more violent. More prone to zealotry, more angry. And we are just going to have to agree to disagree on why, but it's gotten worse. The Koran hasn't changed. The religion has in certain parts of the world. The way it is practiced has changed.

And it does remind me of the Crusades. The old Testament has plenty of violence in it. But Christians did not enshrine that violence into their practice of their religion. And the Crusades, and warrior monks of all things, and the practice changed. And changed again. Islam seems the same to me. I don't think anyone would argue that during the American Revolution the Muslims of the Ottoman Empire were foaming at the mouth for our deaths. They didn't care. They care now. They are enshrining the violence in the Koran in a way they didn't 200 years ago. I frankly suspect that the practice of Islam that once gave us the most civilized culture in the world no longer satisfies a group so angry. And so it changed. Is it now reflecting the Koran better, or worse? The violence is in the Koran, but so were unprecedented rights for women. So was the pursuit of knowledge. And those have fallen by the wayside. But they used to be practiced. Still is practiced in a lot of places.

[Errata]

I am talking about mass condemnation from the millions of good moderate Muslims we are always being told about. If Muslims are incensed enough to demonstrate around the world about a silly badly produced movie which they see as insulting their prophet then I find it amazing that there was hardly a peep from the moderate Muslims in the wake of over 2000 innocent people being killed in the name of their religion on 9/11. I would have thought that hideous act and its like in the UK, Spain, Yemen, Bali etc. did far more to harm their faith than a puerile and amateurish film - but obviously their priorities are different.

So, this is an issue for a lot of people. So I asked an Imam friend. And he asked me why Christians didn't rise up as a whole and condemn the actions of the Branch Davidians. He, and a lot of other Muslims in this country, see Al Qaeda and the Taliban etc. as fringe cults that have as much to do with Islam as David Koresh did to Christianity. I guess they assumed we would be able to see that.

[The Good Michael]

So, this is an issue for a lot of people. So I asked an Imam friend. And he asked me why Christians didn't rise up as a whole and condemn the actions of the Branch Davidians. He, and a lot of other Muslims in this country, see Al Qaeda and the Taliban etc. as fringe cults that have as much to do with Islam as David Koresh did to Christianity. I guess they assumed we would be able to see that.

Uh, Koresh was a different story, as was Jim Jones. These were not terrorists who tried to kill and forcibly convert people outside their cults. America was most definitely against these nuts and did condemn them, with police actions taken. Muslims call each other brother no matter the extreme position of a group, while in the west we call them nuts but allow them to speak so long as they aren't venturing outside of their little shells to harm others. Really you mustn't play devil's advocate here. I know you can see the differences, and there are many reasons for them, and a large part of it is concerned with tribal patriarchal beliefs exacerbated by Islam which absolutely widens the gender gap.
Mike

[DVV]

So, this is an issue for a lot of people. So I asked an Imam friend. And he asked me why Christians didn't rise up as a whole and condemn the actions of the Branch Davidians. He, and a lot of other Muslims in this country, see Al Qaeda and the Taliban etc. as fringe cults that have as much to do with Islam as David Koresh did to Christianity. I guess they assumed we would be able to see that.

The Davidians ?
They're nothing, and do not count.
What a pitiful comparison.

So what did your imam friend tell you ?
That the infidels must not be dhimmis in muslim countries ?
That jihad is no more a prescription ?
That the prophet was a mass murderer whose example is not to be imitated ?
That Salman Rushdie had the right to publish his novel ?
That a muslim who wants to become a Christian has the right to do so and should not be killed ?
As for Bin Laden, he has been very popular throughout the world.

North Mali....Yemen....Pakistan....Sudan....Muslim brothers in Egypt....Hamas....Iran....Hezbollah...Saudi....Ira k...
There are so many David Koreshs in Islam. What we call extremists are merely muslims obeying the sharia and following the example of their prophet.
Your friend can't re-write the Koran and the Sira.

Please, if you have balls, put your kippa on your head and go visit these parts of the world.

[Errata]

Your friend can't re-write the Koran and the Sira.

Please, if you have balls, put your kippa on your head and go visit these parts of the world.

Why not? You Christians ignore whatever you want out of your bible. We do the same with ours.

If I pick up a Gideon Bible, and read it cover to cover, do you think I'm going to get any sense whatsoever of modern Christianity? In the first half of the book god destroys the world, requests human sacrifice, wipes out entire cities, engages in genocide, kills children, saves his people only to punish them again, sets forth laws condoning slavery, the violent oppression of women, allows for the execution of children, and binds his people into perpetual service with no apparent reward.

In the second half, god rapes a virgin. The son of said union grows up to become a Roman collaborator, violent, temperamental, encouraging people to disobey the law, be disrespectful of their elders and their families, declares war on non believers, encourages his followers to be perpetual victims, and then god kills him, his own son. Painfully and horribly.

And of course you are going to say that it isn't like that at all, that I am misinterpreting it, and that certain things are parables, and you have to know the context, and that there are certain parts of it that you don't believe in, or feel you don't have to obey anymore. You will say that I am deliberately reading it in the worst light possible, picking and choosing parts of the Bible that support the idea that Christians are violent. Essentially, you will tell me that I can't just read it without any context or external information, because I'm going to get it wrong. I will make false assumptions about the religion if I only rely on the Gideon bible.

So why exactly do the same problems not apply to the Koran? Why is it that I need someone to guide me through the Bible so I understand how it relates to modern Christianity, but you can flip through the Koran and declare complete understanding of Islam? You can't. You also can't see how appalling every religion is without someone of that faith explaining how it is interpreted. You say the Jesus quote is a parable. An illustrative phrase. But that's not what it says. It doesn't say that Jesus said this thing as a way to illustrate how his followers would been seen in the world. Doesn't say anything remotely like it. Just goes on to talk about breaking up families. So if the bible doesn't say that it is a parable, and it doesn't, why should I think it is? Because you say so. The book doesn't say so, and it was written back then. I am supposed to believe that Jesus actually said the words "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth." And I'm supposed to believe that he meant exactly what he said. Why wouldn't he mean what he said about being a sword? He doesn't say it's a metaphor, no one around him says it's a metaphor. How could I possibly know that it was if I didn't ask somebody to explain it to me?

What Muslims have you asked to explain the Koran to you?

[Roy Corduroy]

Did I hear the term modern Christianity. That's my experience with religion. I worship with my family, friends and neighbors. I even played drums in a Praise band for awhile. Our church does good works. We help poor people with food and clothing. During Katrina, we, and all faiths around here helped out, sending aid or going there, and we welcomed the refugees who came here.

I am employed in a large organization and there are many religions among my coworkers. Protestant, Catholic, African Methodist, Mormon, Jewish, Muslim. One coworker is a black man who lost his son to gun violence. He is quite a guy, working with troubled youths now in his spare time. Its part of his church work. The head man of our whole entity is Jewish and he's tops in his field.

There are many new hispanics in our area, and the pews in the local Catholic churches are overflowing. Also, the very troubling problems that have occured in the Catholic church seem to be not in this part of the country.

Every now and then a pastor messes up. Nobody's perfect.

But yes, in my world, in my everyday reality now, religion is one of the positive aspects of life here in America. And no, I 've never tried to convert anybody. Now that I think about it, that's probably because they already belong to their own church.

Roy

[Steven Russell]

Hello, all.
I'm finding some of this very interesting stuff but allow me to pose a simple, but serious question: does Hell exist and if so, who's going?
Best wishes,
Steve.

[Limehouse]

Hello, all.
I'm finding some of this very interesting stuff but allow me to pose a simple, but serious question: does Hell exist and if so, who's going?
Best wishes,
Steve.

Hi Steve,

A very good question.

I do not believe in hell. At least, not as some fire-ridden pit. A lot has been said about hell by Christians on earth in the past because it kept people in line but 'modern Christians' (I liked Roy's excellent post) mainly focus on their Christian work on earth.

I grew up in the British Baptist faith and never heard hell being offered as the price paid by the wicked or unbelievers.

regards

Julie

[DVV]

In the second half, god rapes a virgin.

Typical (extremist) Jewish christianophoby.
What's next ?
You'll call Mary a whore, perhaps ?

I wouldn't be surprised, having already read that the Copts deserved to "know how it feels like" as if they were CIA agents.

If you want to talk about rapes, let me tell you that Muhammad HAS allowed rape. Once again, read the Sira, read Tabari or other MUSLIM historians.

I therefore certainly don't need your imam friend to explain islam to me.
I know their corpus. My knowledge doesn't come from Bat Yeor or other nuts.

If you can't understand that the specific violence of Islam is rooted in the Koran and in the supposed "examplary" life of prophet Muhammad, there is little I can do for you.

It is precisely the challenge that is in front of peace-loving and well-educated muslims now : a huge aggiornamento, absolutely needed.

But the first step, as to make this aggiornamento possible, is to understand the reason of that specific violence in islam. A lot of muslims know that. You don't.

But muslims who insist that there is no problem with islam, no specific violence, that Bin Laden hasn't read the Koran, etc etc, are just trying to fool us and their own people.

[brummie]

The bible is ambiguous enough that any action can be justified by finding a quote somewhere in it.I don't doubt that there are many good people of all faiths, but equally they attract their fair share of nutcases. Witness the objectionable picketing of soldiers funerals while relatives attempt to grieve,the attacks both verbal and physical on workers at perfectly legal abortion clinics, gays etc..How many deaths in Africa particularly,thgrough aids have been directly attributable to the views of successive popes on contraception.
I also take exception to the implication in Roys post that charitable work and religion are somehow interlinked, I can assure you that belief in some mythical being is not a requirement of giving help to people who need it and that many atheists and agnostics provide every bit as much charitable work as any believer.

[brummie]

Just to muddy the waters a little, I wouldn't claim to be an expert on Islam but I believe I'm right in saying that the Quaran recognises Jesus as an important prophet, complete with virgin birth.



On another note my hopes were briefly raised when I read that a vigil for the girl shot by the Taliban was to be held in Birmingham city centre.Then I saw a photo of the event and counted 10 women out numbered by photograhpers and not a local religious leader in sight.

[Errata]

Typical (extremist) Jewish christianophoby.
What's next ?
You'll call Mary a whore, perhaps ?

I wouldn't be surprised, having already read that the Copts deserved to "know how it feels like" as if they were CIA agents.

If you want to talk about rapes, let me tell you that Muhammad HAS allowed rape. Once again, read the Sira, read Tabari or other MUSLIM historians.

I therefore certainly don't need your imam friend to explain islam to me.
I know their corpus. My knowledge doesn't come from Bat Yeor or other nuts.

If you can't understand that the specific violence of Islam is rooted in the Koran and in the supposed "examplary" life of prophet Muhammad, there is little I can do for you.

It is precisely the challenge that is in front of peace-loving and well-educated muslims now : a huge aggiornamento, absolutely needed.

But the first step, as to make this aggiornamento possible, is to understand the reason of that specific violence in islam. A lot of muslims know that. You don't.

But muslims who insist that there is no problem with islam, no specific violence, that Bin Laden hasn't read the Koran, etc etc, are just trying to fool us and their own people.

Typical Jewish Christianophoby? You think all Jews are phobic of Christians? Do we all hoard money as well? Control Hollywood? Drink the blood of Christian babies at Passover? Be very careful with your broad generalizations. They tend to look like prejudice.

There was no part of that post in which I stated what I believed to be true. You need to stop reacting and start thinking. That entire post, and I even said it, was to illustrate how the Bible could be read by someone not familiar with your stories. And centuries of missionaries bear that out, since there are any number of stories of small native cultures having some spectacular misunderstandings over the Text. The John Frum cult being a favorite of mine.

But since you seem to not be able to take your own faith as a example, I will use mine. Obviously, the Torah is our holy book. And a good deal of it deals with exactly how we are supposed to worship god. If say, some guy in rural China reads the Torah, he thinks he is going to have a good grasp of Judaism. Until he meets a Jew that is. We are supposed to make sacrifices. We are supposed to have bejeweled priests. We are supposed to an entire legal system made up of elders and scholars. And we have none of that. Now, this rural Chinese man can make one of two assumptions. That for some reason everything changed, but we didn't bother to make a note of it in our sacred text, or we aren't Jews. He is going to think we aren't Jews, because why wouldn't we include something that important in out sacred text?

Well, we didn't. It's in other books, but the Torah as a text was locked before the destruction of he second Temple, which changed everything. But how is he supposed to know that? It's not his history, it's not his people, he's not psychic. How could he possible know what relationship Judaism has with the people described in out holy text? If a Jew doesn't tell him, he will never know. Just as if no one tells him that Jesus' statement about a sword is a parable, he will assume it to be statement of fact.

You don't need someone to explain the Koran to you because you don't want to hear it. You hate them. You think they are violent barbarians. And that's perfectly fine. But don't pretend you gave them a chance by reading the Koran, because you didn't. There is not a religious text on the planet that standing alone can describe the complexity of the religion of it's worshipers.

I have never said the violence isn't enshrined in the Koran. Of course it is. What I have said is that it is enshrined in our texts as well. And of course we can explain it away, talk about how we read those passages, how we see them, how we reconcile them. If you were honest with yourself, you would be able to see how the bare text of your Bible and your history paints a picture of a violent religion. And you want the chance to explain that. Certainly you don't want me to explain it on your behalf. But you won't give Muslims the same chance. So be honest. Say "I don't understand them, and I am afraid of them. I don't want to give them a chance to explain anything to me, because I don't want to lose my fear and hate."

The sad thing is, you don't even know how many Muslims would agree with you if you took the time to learn about them from them.

[Chris Scott]

"You don't need someone to explain the Koran to you because you don't want to hear it."
I know this comment was levelled at someone else but I have had very similar said to myself. The use of logic and reason can go a long way to assessing the respect with which a "holy" book should be treated and how firm a basis it forms for the truth of the claims made in it and on its behalf.
As an example I find the story of the background of the Book of Mormon to be at the best impossible to believe and at the worst simply fraudulent. We are asked to believe that a man was guided by divine inspiration to a hill in which he found the golden plates on which the text of the book were written in angelic language. The finder was guided in their translation by an angel - the golden plates themselves, the only tangible proof of the story disappeared and, despite a dubious witness statement stating they had been seen by others, the whole story is riddled with improbabilities and absurd claims. Yet this frankly daft story forms the basis of a faith that today has over 12 million followers.
In the case of the Koran, this was allegedly dictated to a man over a period of 23 years by the angel Gabriel - need I say more?

[Errata]

"You don't need someone to explain the Koran to you because you don't want to hear it."
I know this comment was levelled at someone else but I have had very similar said to myself. The use of logic and reason can go a long way to assessing the respect with which a "holy" book should be treated and how firm a basis it forms for the truth of the claims made in it and on its behalf.

I would never say this to an atheist, unless they were making some argument that "all" Muslims read the Koran the same way.

To you, The Bible, The Koran, it's X-men vs Superfriends. Growing up in a Christian culture probably gives you a better understanding of Christianity than Islam, but you don't believe. So you argue from a "none of the above" standpoint. I argue as a Jew with a lot of Muslim friends. DVV argues as a Christian, a Catholic I think. We believe in something outlandish. Personally, I think it's hypocritical to argue that one mythos is outlandish while a very similar one makes perfect sense to all and sundry. Fundamental attribution error.

So, I don't think other faiths are wrong. I think I don't believe in them. I'm aware that my belief in the god of the old Testament is illogical. I'm also aware of how awful the book reads to someone who doesn't believe it, and doesn't have the benefit of all the back stories that go along with it. I know what people would think of us if they just read the Torah. So because I belong to a religion that requires a lot of explanation because the book is... barbaric, I assumed that Muslims have the same issues that we do. And throughout my life, I have found that to be the case.

As a non Christian, I have been made very aware that the New Testament requires just as much explanation as the old. I have made any number of assumptions based on the New Testament that aren't true. I think it is incredibly hypocritical not give Islam the same chance you want for yourself. If someone doesn't want people to make assumptions about Christians because they don't understand the minutia of the text, then they should give other faiths the same chance to explain that they themselves wish for.

But as an atheist, you aren't attached to one text over another. They are equally fiction. So you don't have horse in the race when it comes to religious conflict. You aren't insisting that your magic book is better than someone else's magic book. You aren't insisting that a misinterpretation of your bible is offensive, and outlandish, while simultaneously very likely misinterpreting someone else's religious text. There is a difference between a critic and a hypocrite. You are a critic. And while I could wish you heard about the differences in Muslims from Muslims, not doing so doesn't make you a fraud. But someone who demands an opportunity to explain their book, while refusing to extend to someone else the same courtesy is making the choice to be a hypocrite. And the only time someone chooses that is if they are operating out of fear or hate.

[Chris Scott]

This case reported today on the BBC website typifies my deep concerns about Islam. Concerns because this happened in "moderate" and secular Turkey, member of Nato and prospective member of the European Union.

"World-famous Turkish pianist Fazil Say has appeared in court in Istanbul charged with inciting hatred and insulting the values of Muslims.

He is being prosecuted over tweets he wrote mocking radical Muslims, in a case which has rekindled concern about religious influence in the country.

Mr Say, who denies the charges, said recently he was "amazed" at having to appear before judges.

Rejecting an acquittal call, the court adjourned the case until 18 February."

The full story is at

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19990943