<p>
Can we get him to teach at the new Islamic university?</p>
<p>It’s amazing the turns these threads take.</p>
<p>Islam has two significant issues and these tend to be conflated. First is cultural, meaning much of the Islamic world is rooted in traditional - I would say backwards - cultures. Some people argue that Islam has helped keep them backwards, but that’s debatable. </p>
<p>Let’s assume cultures can change. The second problem is peculiar to Islam and most definitely separates it from all other religions. That is the sacred text is not merely believed to be infallible by traditionalists - as in, I believe this is the word of God - but it says it is infallible and that belief requires accepting the infallibility and lack of doubt of the Qur’an. That is the Qur’an says many times that is without doubt and that has been interpreted through almost all Islamic history in the literal sense. </p>
<p>As Taner Edis, a Turkish-American physicist notes, the “without doubt” conception of the sacred text has shaped Islamic beliefs in a fundamental way, one which is completely different from the Jewish or Christian tradition. The Islamic method has been to conform the facts to the belief and to believe that facts must change, that circumstances must change to fit God’s plan as laid out unambiguously in the Qur’an. (This is a simplification, I know.)</p>
<p>The Jewish method is wholly different. Jewish belief is that God handed down a Written Law - the Torah - and an Oral Law at the same time and that humans have the job of figuring out the Oral Law. This has led to thousands of years of creative interpretation, even amongst the most Orthodox. The way you “made your bones” as a scholar was to figure out a new way of saying something, a new pattern, a different way of looking at things, even a new story that might be enlightening. It is not uncommon for these ideas to challenge basic ideas about the role of God in the universe. That is unthinkable in the Islamic tradition, which is based on acceptance of the sacred word as it was interpreted hundreds of years ago. As a contrast, recitation of Qur’anic verses is major art in the Islamic world and there is no Jewish equivalent; Jewish scholarship is rooted in creative interpretation. </p>
<p>Individual Muslims may hold a variety of beliefs but I’m speaking in general terms. In that sense, there are few progressive voices in Islam. One big reason is they risk their lives; the traditional views are so powerful in most Islamic countries that progressive meanings attributed to the Qur’an are considered heresy worthy of extreme punishment. Some scholars have been sentenced to prison and even had their wives forcibly divorced from them (because the man is no longer a Muslim). I’m not speaking of political moderates, who are numerous, but progressive thinkers. As an example, the Qur’an is of course extremely ambiguous and often contradictory so fundamental verses, if looked at in our sense, would not mean exactly what orthodoxy says. A simple example is the famous phrase about the man being the Lord over women; the word is ambiguous and seems related to the idea that the man supports the woman, which makes a heck of a lot more sense than domination.</p>
<p>I assume posters are familiar enough with the various Christian traditions.</p>
<p>
[quote=]
Christianity such as that taught at Liberty Univ., commands us to be just and compassionate in our treatment of the foreigners in our land, and also to love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us. That is the antithesis of the hatred which motivates terrorists. For you to equate the two is ridiculous.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>liberty university…just and compassionate? what?</p>
<p>dominionists are a much greater threat to our country than terrorists.</p>
<p>Another example of the religion of peace at work <a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/nyregion/21arrests.html?hp[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/nyregion/21arrests.html?hp</a></p>
<p>^^Excellent point. You just don’t find these kinds of items on such a frequent basis when you’re looking at the extremists in another religion. When was the last abortionist attacked in the US?</p>
<p>
Please, please, please let me in on the details. If this group is more of a danger than the Islamists I want to now about it so I can protect my children. What have they done, what are they plotting now?</p>
<p>^
if people want to practice intolerant, fundamentalist religion, i have no basis to protest bc it is protected by the constitution. there have been fundamentalist christians around for some time. however, as of late, they have made a much greater push to gain political power, which does pose a threat to society as a whole.</p>
<p>any kind of fundamentalism, be it xtian or islamic or libertarianism or liberalism, is a threat to society when applied politically because solutions to societal problems usually lie somewhere in between extreme positions. </p>
<p>xtian fundamentalism (the kind propoagated by falwell, dobson, etc) encourages divisiveness and fear. the world is drawn into two absolute categories: the believers and the non-believers. the leaders of the movement frame it as if they are being persecuted and silenced by liberalism, which further sets up the us versus them dichotomy. a “war” is being fought against their brand of christianity, and they do frame it in these terms. when they talk about converting people, it is often with war analogies.</p>
<p>the ultimate goal is for the movement to take its rightful “dominion” over america (as a christian nation) and probably also the world although i don’t remember at the moment. setting aside the disgusting assumed superiority in this statement, what would this mean for the people who are non-believers? what would this mean for homosexuals, a group that is especially targeted by this movement?</p>
<p>in the ideal xtian fundamentalist america, we could only get our news from media like the trinity broadcasting network. the only rightful teachers would be fundamentalist christians. judges would have to be bible literalists. pluralism would be banished.</p>
<p>ever been to a creationism museum? dinosaurs drinking out of a stream while children play nearby…scenes of adam and eve with stegosauruses in the background…T-rexes did not eat meat until after eve bit into the apple, and their 6-inch fangs were for piercing watermelons…</p>
<p>because we are a pluralist society, those museums are legit, no matter how far-fetched their ‘science’ is. we let xtian fundamentalists homeschool their kids with textbooks that say damage to the environment is a hoax invented by liberals who aren’t aware that God has put enough resources on the planet for everyone for all time…or define liberty as “fealty to the spirit of the lord.”</p>
<p>dominionists, with their influence over politics, threaten the pluralism that is integral to our country.</p>
<p>Wasn’t it Pat Robertson who said “when evangelization efforts meet with chronic resistance, extermination should follow”? This doesn’t suggest that his particular theology is about peace, love, forgivenes and coexistence.</p>
<p>I think when we look at the causes of violence and terrorism coming from the Islamic and Arab world right now, we need to look at more than just the Koran. I think it is unfortunate that many here have claimed that the violence is simply the result of a particular theology, when, in fact, there are many cultural, political, economic and historical forces at work. The theology of the extremists exploit these forces.</p>
<p>I don’t necessarily think there is something particular to Christian or Jewish theology that limits violence in the name of a particular religion. I think that right now, given the economic, political and military position of predominantly Christian countries–the US and Western Europe–there is less impetus for these forces of violence than in the Arab and Muslim world. </p>
<p>It is simply too simplistic to say that current terrorist acts are the fault of Islamic theology and what is written in the Koran. We have to ask ourselves why do statements such as Robertson’s above have less of an impact than similar statements from Islamic fundamentalists?</p>
<p>matazl, I completely agree with you that many types of religious “fundamentalism” and “extremism” can be dangerous. HOWEVER, as I noted in post 39 and as noted in post62, Muslims adopt the wording in the Koran very strictly. This is very dangerous because the Koran specifically notes that Infidels ( non-adherents to Islam) are to be killed! This goes way beyond the fundamentalists found in other religions because we have a major religious text advocating violance and persecution of other religions. In fact, these sections of the Koran are a bit out of place because much of the Koran is a very beautifully written work. </p>
<p>I remember our comparative religion teacher ( many years ago)noting this problem in the Koran. She felt, at the time, that this wouldn’t be as big of a problem since there was a lot of infighting among Muslims and Islaming countries and that most Muslims are fairly moderate regarding this. I wonder what she would say today.</p>
<p>Good post, mazatl. I am a conservative Christian, but do not feel much kinship with these groups. I have several comments.</p>
<p>First, analogies between spiritual struggle and warfare are Biblical, as is the concept of spiritual dominion; Dobson et al. didn’t come up with that symbolism themselves so I don’t think you should fault them for that. Second, I believe their ideological flaw lies not in this concept per se, but rather in the way they envision the battle being won and the “dominion” being achieved. They seem to think it will happen by overrunning secular organizations with people who think like they do. How do they propose to do this? Well, if they homeschool their children, the kids will be shielded from other viewpoints and religions and therefore will be more likely to become just like them. They can add new soldiers to the army, so to speak. Along that same line, some of these groups think they should have a dozen kids to further the expansion of Christian thought by biological means. They also think that by establishing religious organizations, or working to restore prayer to schools and the Ten Commandment plaques to courtrooms and other similar activities, they are staving off the encroachment of non-Christian thought and behavior. Also, they hope to change society by maneuvering Christians into positions of power and influence, including political power.</p>
<p>I see the process working differently. If Christians do the job God gave them to do, which is to tell everyone the good news of salvation through Jesus’s sacrifice, then God will work in people’s hearts to hear that gospel and believe it, and people’s lives will be changed as a result. When that happens to enough people, society will change too as a natural matter of course. Christians’ main job is not to fight secularism directly by picketing, petitioning, arguing or having lots of Christian babies, though those things can be fine. The battle is a spiritual one–it isn’t a fight against people, against unbelievers. The Bible says the war is not against flesh and blood, rather spiritual powers and dominions. So Christians don’t need to use earthly tools to force their viewpoints on anyone to carry out our mission. That’s not loving and it doesn’t even work.</p>
<p>
What influence? They couldn’t even prevent Iowa from legalizing same-sex marriage.</p>
<p>As to fundamentalism, it takes different forms depending on the religion and thus poses different threats to society. </p>
<p>Christian fundamentalism is mostly about denying science that conflicts with beliefs and imposing a moral agenda in a few key areas, notably abortion, homosexuality and punishment for certain criminal offenses. This threat is mostly political and is confined to elections and pressure groups.</p>
<p>Jewish fundamentalism, outside of issues relating to any peace deal in the Israel / Palestine area, is inward-directed and poses a threat almost exclusively to other Jews. As an example, in Israel the ultra-religious have taken control over conversion matters and recently over-turned, essentially de-converted Jews who had been converted by 2 well-known Orthodox rabbis. (That has tremendous consequences for their families because it turns their children into religious non-people who cannot marry a Jew under religious law.) As another example, even recently a top ultra-Orthodox rabbi said the Holocaust was brought about by non-religious Jews, meaning it was punishment for not following the Mitzvot (per the ultra-Orthodox interpretation). Never mind that almost all the Jews murdered were Orthodox. </p>
<p>In Islam, you have two different issues. First is that the numbers of extremely conservative, even fundamentalist Muslims is large, even very large, amounting to some hundreds of millions and that conservative, fundamentalist version is the state religion in important places like Saudi Arabia and Iran - though the latter is Shia, which is a very different kettle of fish. </p>
<p>Second is that Islam has a different call to universal religion than Christianity. Christianity speaks - see John - of being the exclusive path to salvation but Islam believes not so much in conversion as in world control. They accept the existence of different religions and the Qur’an states that a good Jew or Christian will be accepted in heaven, but they don’t accept that Christians (or Jews or Buddhists or Hindus) may have physical control of the physical world. In Islamic theology, often simplified to House of War versus House of God, Muslims must have temporal control and sharia law must be imposed. That is God’s will and the other religions must live under Muslim control, under sharia, and must accept their place. (This gets into dhimmi status and other complexities.) </p>
<p>These two pieces together make Islamic fundamentalism different. By contrast, there are Hindu fundamentalists - in the hundreds of millions - but their ambitions are confined not only to India but even within India to certain sites and areas which were Hindu and which became Muslim. </p>
<p>I have to note the Qur’an is contradictory and that invocations to kill are mostly in hadith, not in the sacred text. For example, the over-used imprecations about Jews are from these hadith - stories - about Muhammed, as are the entire true or not history of Muhammed’s dealings with the Jews of Arabia. </p>
<p>Another important point. I noted that Muslim progressives are few. One issue in Islam is that they are unable and generally unwilling to consider the Qur’an as a text, as a book that has a history. If you say it was not given directly by God to Muhammed and written down exactly then you risk prison, excommunication and even death in many countries - including in Malaysia. Christianity dealt with this issue over 150 years ago with the investigations into the sources of the New Testament. While fundamentalists have their often ridiculous and anti-intellectual say, Christian scholarship has dramatically advanced understanding of the actual material.</p>
<p>Jewish attitudes toward the sacred text are fundamentally different because, as I noted above, challenging the text to find meaning has been part of the religion for over 2000 years. </p>
<p>If you do research in the history of the Qur’an, you find very little by Muslim scholars. There is very little acknowledgement that the Qur’an wasn’t even written down during Muhammed’s life - and the general impression when the topic is discussed is that as Muhammed’s companions died (many in battle) and the number of memorizers shrank, it was then written down verbatim. Very few admit the Qur’an was a political project which was edited on purpose and that it appears versions were rejected - and if you read the Qur’an it certainly reflects the lack of organization, repetition and contradiction of a document which had to please a group with conflicting interests. When the sacred text says it is the word of God and is without doubt, it’s understandably difficult to argue otherwise. </p>
<p>I mentioned Shia Iran above. Westerners don’t understand the depth of difference between Shia and Sunni. It isn’t merely that you hold your hands differently when you pray or that you believe in a different line of Caliphs - look up Ali. One fundamental, unbridgeable difference is that Shia believe in the possibility of continuous revelation. The argument is made that Sunni admits interpretation through jurisprudence but that papers over the real gulf between a fixed revelation and a fluid one.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yeah, you can find the same crap in the religious texts of Judaism, and passages that are interpreted quite unfavorably to how Jews should engage with gentiles. Does that indeed mean that all of them “adopt the wording strictly”? Like all religions, you have fundamentalists who hew to the precise words and moderates who don’t. How is Islam any different?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Islamic extremists act on the words in such overwhelming numbers as to have created global conflict that consumes countless lives and threatens global war. Most of those lives are Muslim lives. The quest for moral equivalence is offensive on so many levels, not the least of which is making a mockery of the victims.</p>
<p>Pizzagirl notes,“Yeah, you can find the same crap in the religious texts of Judaism, and passages that are interpreted quite unfavorably to how Jews should engage with gentiles.”</p>
<p>Response: OH? Pizzagirl, I think you are relying on hearsay or rumors.
Where exactly in the Torah does it say kill anyone that isn’t Jewish today and kill anyone that doesn’t convert or kill anyone who stops being Jewish? In fact, the only related concept that occurs to me is that Jews make it hard to convert to Judism,which is rather idiotic in my opinion. </p>
<p>Lergnom, Thanks for your scholarly post. I didn’t understand much of the differerences that you notes especially among Shia and Sunni. That was very illuminating. I bet you would be a great lecturer on comparative religion.</p>
<p>It’s true that all religions have the potential for fanaticism, and that most of the major ones have had periods of extremism. However, the simple fact is that NOW Islam has by far the biggest problem in that regard among the major religions. It has large extremist groups supported by governments and by large elements of the population of multiple countries. The extremists and extremist violence have apologists among heads of state, major religious leaders, and leading academics. It’s sad for followers of Islam who aren’t extremists and who don’t support violence, but it’s a huge problem for them.</p>
<p>“Where exactly in the Torah does it say kill anyone that isn’t Jewish today…”</p>
<p>Not in the Torah. For what it’s worth, I believe you will find it in Joshua. Though only for the purpose of taking land.</p>
<p>Folks might find this of interest:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.cair.com/Portals/0/pdf/September_11_statements.pdf[/url]”>http://www.cair.com/Portals/0/pdf/September_11_statements.pdf</a></p>
<p>For what it’s worth, the first mass demonstration in support of the U.S. any where in the world after 9/11 was held in Tehran.</p>
<p>By the way, why are we comparing the holy writings of Judaism to Islam anyway? There are more than 100 times more followers of Islam than of Judaism in the world. When you go by the numbers, it’s hard to say that Judaism is a major world religion today. There a more Sikhs than Jews in the world, for example.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is what I took from the article as well. That’s why I previously posted that I hope they teach their staunch pro-life beliefs to the students. We’ll have to see, I wish them success.</p>
<p>did you know that Islam considers Christianity and Judaism to be its peers as “sacred peoples?”</p>
<p>that is why in order for meat to be hallal, it must be slaughtered while the butcher is speaking praise to Allah (or Mohammed Peace be Upon Him), and must be a Christian, Muslim, or Jew.</p>
<p>Islam has great respect for its sister faiths. The qualms of many muslims against Christians and Jews is rooted in the idea of Zionism (not making any claims about Zionism, here).</p>