Comments on: means

By: erisdiscordia

erisdiscordia — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 12:49:40 +0000

I’m a just a-floatin’ on de Nile of Christ…

By: nelson

nelson — Sat, 15 Aug 2009 19:27:30 +0000

i really wanted to tell the world the same thing after having read through the koran… it is really tooooo much of a repetition and denial of christ…

By: dave

dave — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 10:33:20 +0000

“As to the Jewish people not imposing their faith on others: the reason is that one has to be born into the faith by a Jewish mother, who must not be a convert herself, to be properly Jewish.”

Don’t confuse contemporary Judaism with what the religion was like in earlier historical periods. Jews only gave up proselytizing when it became physically dangerous (under Christianity and then Islam) for them to do so. Judaism used to be very active in seeking new converts – both willing and unwilling. There were forcible conversions of non-Jews by the Maccabees/Hasmoneans for instance, and by several other small Jewish kingdoms who resorted to forced conversions.

“Not imposing your faith on others” back then was a policy of the weaker party; it wasn’t a religious or philosophical ideal. If you were on top, you imposed your religion by various means. If you weren’t on top, you avoided seeking converts in order to avoid retaliation from the dominant religion.

By: Rosemarie

Rosemarie — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 09:20:23 +0000

A reply to Didac.
Until Islam had established itself really in the Middle East their societies were actually more advanced than ours. Just look at ancient Egypt. It is Islam that is holding them back now.

As to the Jewish people not imposing their faith on others: the reason is that one has to be born into the faith by a Jewish mother, who must not be a convert herself, to be properly Jewish.

By: Rosemarie

Rosemarie — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 09:10:26 +0000

I am sad to say that I know someone like Mo who talks just like him, but I am glad to say that she does not speak to me any more.

By: Tie

Tie — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 17:13:41 +0000

Dídac says: August 4, 2009 at 7:02 pm
Well, spong. In some forgotten place, Koran says “There is no compulsion in religion”. It also tells about respect for the other “Book religions”. However, a lot of Muslims prefer to take these few passages as an allegories that must be thoroughly interpreted instead of practice them literally.

Actually, the rule of abrogation, (meaning, the latest passages count more in case of contradiction) do away with that.

Mohammed wrote the first passages including the “no compulsion” when he was a small time charlatan, with not many followers. So he was all tolerant (he didn’t have a choice really)

because the Koran is edited in chronological order, the passages where it says, “if a man choose another religion it won’t be accepted and he will go to hell” are later in the book, and therefore count more, and replace the early ones.

Because at the end of his life Mohammed had more followers, he changed his attitude, and was ruthless with dissidents, by then he felt secure with an army of caravan riders, holding a city like medina,

“no compulsion in religion” is meaningless to the Muslims, and clinically used to convince “the west” with a smile that they are super tolerant…

In Islam, leaving the religion (apostasy) is penalised by death, and they say clearly that Islam is the only truth, and that jews and christians can be “tolerated” as long as they are subdued as dihmmis, and pay special protection taxes… Its a Mafia stile enterprise. You can’t leave the clan, and the competition, when can’t be destroyed outright, then it’s slowly drained until they are gone in a generation or two.

By: Didac

Didac — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 12:43:55 +0000

Spoing, that’s true. However you are comparing European Christians (European-American Christians included) with West-Asian Muslims. So, it is not only a question of religion but also of “race”. I know PC religion forbides the use of “race”, but I’m not a religious person. However, the main difference between European Christianity and West-Asian Islam is not religion nor race, but economy and social development. It is a fact of capitalist development that community sense is lost in favour of individuality. So, Christianity is mostly, thanks to capitalist development, an individual matter. People can go together to Church, surely, but they have a “personal” relationship with Jesus. On the contrarily, so-called Muslim countries are not fully developed in an economic sense. You have oil fields, some buiding industry, some little industry, and very few more. Most people in these countries have no personal life and relay completely in “group solidarity”. So, religion in these so-called Muslim countries is not an individual affair. So, when they perceive religion attacked (specially from outside), they perceive an attack against community. That, joined to the fact that Semitic peoples tend to have a developed sense of mysticalism is the key of the question. Of course, Hebrew people are also Semitic and they are far more tolerant about religions matters. But this is also explainable by the fact that as an historical minority in both Christian and Muslim countries, they were forced to keep a low profile. Jewish people abhor to impose their beliefs onto other people because they are understandably aware of the aggressiveness of majority religions. So, it is not only religion or the readings of Bible/Koran, here, but a complex question combining anthropology, history, economics, politics, social science, etc.

By: MyCatIsGod

MyCatIsGod — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 10:27:29 +0000

Mr Gronk is right. And the stats are skewed towards more women converting to Islam than men because, although Muslim men can marry Jewish or Christian women (as it is believed – often correctly, in fact – that they will be able to convert their partner to the one true faith of Islam), men who are Jewish or Christian can never marry a Muslim woman (as it is believed – incorrectly – that she will inevitably be led away from the one true faith…)

A sexist policy to be sure, but that’s religion for you.

By: Mr Gronk

Mr Gronk — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 02:04:21 +0000

@Daoloth – I suspect that a fair number of female western Muslims convert to please Muslim partners.

By: spoing

spoing — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 23:30:40 +0000

@Daoloth – indeed. I think that there is a fascination with the exotic differentness of Islam which has a certain allure for some Westerners; this perhaps in combination with a perception that Muslims are more genuinely devoted to their religion, as evidenced by Muslims’ general adherence to a strict regime of prayer, dietary restrictions, dress-code and so on.

This very tangible, clearly-defined code of conduct stands in stark contrast to the way of life of unbelievers and hence ‘seems’ more genuinely ‘godly’ to the new adherent than the ambiguous behaviour of contemporary Xtians, who in general (to varying extents depending on denomination etc) wear the same clothes, watch the same movies, drink the same demon liquor and get up to all the worldly mischief as the rest of pagan society – safe in the knowledge that their ticket to heaven is secure now that their sins (past/present and future) have been washed away by the blood of the lamb.

So in short, I would say that Islam appeals to some because it seems to be a more genuine faith, with a relatively simple theology and system of observance as compared with the trinitarian/vaguely polytheistic Xtianity.