Plight of a moderate Muslim

Post Reply New Topic

I was not specifically replying to you, but to Cat or whoever this person calls him/herself. Nevertheless your scintilating contribution is welcome as always. Yes fanaticism is a grave peril (I hope you did not mind my accusing you of it in an only half-joking -and therefore half in deadly earnest - kind of way, by the way: probably nearly the worst thing that I could say about you, next to accusing you of being politically correct). I never said you condoned extremism in one faith rather than another; I think that was more Cat's stance (probably an exaggeration; Cat was probably just irritated that people appeared to be evading the initial circumstance that he brought to our attention (the persecution of a moderate Muslim by members of his own congregation) by bringing Christian parallels into the mix. I merely objected to the Cat that condemning evil in a second instance did not amount to condoning it in another, and that attacking the character of specific Christians was not an attack on Christianity any more than criticism of specific Muslims is an attack on Islam. Of those of my fellow Christians and of Muslims I do not know that either were exactly extremists; if anything some of the fellow Christians might be described as "evangelical" or as "fundamentalist" (originally a self-descriptor of 19th century American evangelicals in a "Let's get back to the basics," or 'fundamentals' kind of way) but the Muslims I have known definitely known seemed to be moderate. Having said this, I feel owe it to some of the said Christians to point out that they were no more "fanatical" than snake321. Fervent, perhaps (would you prefer that description, snake321?)

Ah, well perhaps I misunderstood cat as well then. My apologies there.

You can call me Cat or Jeff or whatever you'd prefer. My real name is Jeff. I posted here as McJeff before Alex decided to ban me for some damned reason or other (he won't tell me why after repeated inquires).

My stance is that criticism of one thing (in this case, Christianity) should not be used to deflect criticism of a mostly-unrelated thing (in this case, Islam).

Nowhere would I make the argument that certain aspects of Christianity, or actions of particular Christians, should not be condemned. However, Christianity has absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand - that the so called moderate muslims don't speak out because their mosques cast them out and their fellow muslims threaten them with physical violence.

Athough you're right, that the two subjects as they pertain to this discussion, aren't connected, that's not to say that there's no connection between christianity and islam. There is and the two are both guilty of doing the same things.

Christianity, Islam, Judiasm, and generally almost any organized religion are the same in potential. Any organized religion with politically oriented leaders preaching to ignorant people can become a death cult. Any person with the urge to do evil can generally find an excuse to do so in one religion or another. Ambiguously worded phrases can be taken to mean many different things, including condoning the slaughter of people who are not of your religion.

However, Islam produces hundreds of thousands of terrorists, and the others don't come anywhere close to that. This is an indisputable fact.

A valid point. Diversion from the specific case at hand was poor argument.

However, Jeffrey, not all moderate Muslims worldwide are being expelled from their mosques by their fellow Muslims. Be precise. This is a serious issue however, and should be brought to the attention of all faiths and none that there may be an active protest against this injustice, particularly in the area concerned. And likewise on behalf the Christian who was expelled. This issue concerns us as human beings. On my own behalf (I do not have the authority to speak for others) apologies for fascile diversion techniques.

maybe the middle east,religious leaders,but not islam the system.
peace

Cat, watch "Jesus Camp" Chrisanthy is the same as Islam.

The difference is in Islam the deity is more of a fire-god similar to other primitive Arab gods and the Christian deity is more light-themed.

i've seen a preview for that movie.....it enraged me and scared me all at the same time.

"Jesus Camp" scared me so bad I pissed my pants.

Those camps are just like the terrorist training camps in the Middle East.

that's also a great way to view the religions....as fire god and light god...never really thought of it that way but it fits.

Comparative Theology, my friend

well i generally just review them as "wrong" and "sheep herding" and "a detriment to free thinking" so i don't go too far in the analysis with regards to the classifications.

but i guess it's like a math problem...you have to analyze your work to know what's wrong with it.

Every deity is based on an element of nature.

The Judaic god is moreso Stone like.

Christianity and Islam have many common beliefs. To state that they are identical, however, is an insult to both, a denial of diversity. If Flagg's point is one that proselytism/evangelism (the latter term certainly of Christian origin, from euangelion - good message or gospel, though eu is actually adverbial "well" which in English can also have an adjectival rather than adverbial force) or alternatively such nebulous concepts as "extremism" or "fundamentalism" (also latter of Christian origin as far as the word is concerned - ninteenth century American evangelicals wishing to get back to the basics or fundamentals) are not confined to one faith he certainly has a case, but he should be clear about what he is arguing. And a better analogy than "Jesus Camp" would be the "Lord's Resistance Army" in Uganda, but that is not exactly representative. The many atrocities in earlier and current history perpetrated by those at least nominally, and in some cases quite fervently, Christian, can no more be treated as a homogenous mass than the history of Islam or socialism. You need to bring many specific examples and well-thought out arguments to bear on the question.

Your argument with regard to the difference between Christianity and Islam is not persuasive; both light and fire are potent images used in both and indeed other faiths. Or did you mean that the Holy Trinity was "light-themed" in being less heavy going? I doubt this was your intention, but if it was it is not really convincing either.

The name Allah (cognate forms in many parts of the ancient Semitic world) was known prior to the time of Muhammad (pbuh) though other deities such as Ailat were certainly worshipped along side or rather subordinate to Him. There were however Hanifs or monotheists; there were also specifically Christian (paricularly Monophysite) and Jewish people in the Arabian peninsula (there was a substantial Jewish settlement in Yemen). I am not sure about what you mean about fire gods; flame is a recurring image in both Old and New Testament (if Hebrew Bible or Tanakh would be preferred to Old Testament by any one, please state so; I have used Tanakh quite a few times, but am uncertain if the ensuing explanation that I generally give is interesting to everyone, and Torah, while possibly more familiar, technically covers only the Pentateuch). Light is as well, but I do not think that it is exactly absent from the Qur'an. Perhaps you are thinking of Zoroastrianism, though both light and fire (which emits light anyway) are used there as well.

This could open an interesting discussion. I an personally a Christian, so do not wish the above scholarly remarks to be understood as an attempt to deconstruct God out of existence and sovereignty. Nor do I wish to offend those of other faiths; it should be possible to have extensive differences of opinion with out becoming too vitriolic; I just think it could open some interesting discussions, but it probably requires a new thread. This one should be focussing on the human rights issue of exclusion on the grounds of dissent.

Peace.

Last edited by AlexandertheSolitary on 25 Feb 2007, 6:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.