1 in 3 Brit Muslims students support killing for Islam, 40% want Sharia law.

[faust-yusov 103]

Islam is spread by knowledge at this time even if you hold the erroneous idea that it was spread by the sword.

I think what you're (quite admirably) trying to do is draw a distinction between particularly pervasive theological tenets, and the means by which Christianity and Islam proliferated in the Current Era.

We must admit to ourselves that both of these religions, comparatively embryonic as they were next to Judaism, were indeed spread by the sword. They had to be. Both sought to conquer Middle Eastern and European territories and to subjugate the Jewish populations already present. And to an end of establishing a precise creed that might differentiate their people from the rival monotheisms, it was necessary to class unorthodox interpretations as heresy, punishable by torture and death.

This cannot, in any reasonable sense, be considered the spreading of a religion by knowledge. In Islam especially theology was traditionally a secondary concern next to the power of ritual advocated by Muhammad.

What I think we would be remiss not to note, however (as I hope I'm not mistaken in assuming you are doing), is that there has been a latent tendency towards a much more fundamentally thoughtful interpretation of Islam. There is a feeling among many (quite liberally minded) people whom I've encountered that there has never been any sort of reformation in Islam. I think this needs to be corrected. While it is true that the European Enlightenment of the 18th century rather well catalyzed Western secularization in a way that a gradually shifting zeitgeist could not have, the persistence of Islamic theocratic states does not by contrast indicate that Islam remains rooted in Middle Age doctrine.

Modern Islam is probably the most philosophically robust of the three monotheisms. I hope that doesn't sound like a terribly vacuous statement. I do believe it to be true. The importance of poetry, of protest, of the unseen and undefined, have taken on as rudiments of its theology the sense of "dawah" that I think (and hope) you describe. For a religion signified as one of Sharia and burqas, by those who revile it and those who don't, I think this dimension is well worth pointing out.

Edited December 26, 2010 by faust-yusov

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Vacuous verbosity now passes for discourse?

[Myopia 93]

I think what you're (quite admirably) trying to do is draw a distinction between particularly pervasive theological tenets, and the means by which Christianity and Islam proliferated in the Current Era.

We must admit to ourselves that both of these religions, comparatively embryonic as they were next to Judaism, were indeed spread by the sword. They had to be. Both sought to conquer Middle Eastern and European territories and to subjugate the Jewish populations already present. And to an end of establishing a precise creed that might differentiate their people from the rival monotheisms, it was necessary to class unorthodox interpretations as heresy, punishable by torture and death.

This cannot, in any reasonable sense, be considered the spreading of a religion by knowledge. In Islam especially theology was traditionally a secondary concern next to the power of ritual advocated by Muhammad.

What I think we would be remiss not to note, however (as I hope I'm not mistaken in assuming you are doing), is that there has been a latent tendency towards a much more fundamentally thoughtful interpretation of Islam. There is a feeling among many (quite liberally minded) people whom I've encountered that there has never been any sort of reformation in Islam. I think this needs to be corrected. While it is true that the European Enlightenment of the 18th century rather well catalyzed Western secularization in a way that a gradually shifting zeitgeist could not have, the persistence of Islamic theocratic states does not by contrast indicate that Islam remains rooted in Middle Age doctrine.

Modern Islam is probably the most philosophically robust of the three monotheisms. I hope that doesn't sound like a terribly vacuous statement. I do believe it to be true. The importance of poetry, of protest, of the unseen and undefined, have taken on as rudiments of its theology the sense of "dawah" that I think (and hope) you describe. For a religion signified as one of Sharia and burqas, by those who revile it and those who don't, I think this dimension is well worth pointing out.

I believe you got what I was saying. Wonderful! In Islam, however, The narrations are paramount and were paramount which is why you do have to be careful with how it is interpreted. It is incorrect interpretations that have allowed those criminal Muslims to commit crimes that do not have any place is Islam even if the act of force seems similar to what is perceived as coming before.

Islam has always has reformers calling to the application of Islam as was revealed to the Prophet Muhammad Unfortunately the majority of Muslims dont find that palatable and would rather follow a warped version of Islam.

I didn't find your statement vacuous at all. I appreciated your words and your thoughts.

Thank you.

[Myopia 93]

Vacuous verbosity now passes for discourse?

Discourse takes many forms, thats the great thing about having the ability to partake in it. Succinct enough?

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Discourse takes many forms, thats the great thing about having the ability to partake in it. Succinct enough?

Better.

[Myopia 93]

Better.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

faust-yusov and Myopia are doing a very good job, so I can merely sit back and read, for a change. However, there are a couple of remarks that I do take exception with.

We must admit to ourselves that both of these religions, comparatively embryonic as they were next to Judaism, were indeed spread by the sword. They had to be. Both sought to conquer Middle Eastern and European territories and to subjugate the Jewish populations already present. And to an end of establishing a precise creed that might differentiate their people from the rival monotheisms, it was necessary to class unorthodox interpretations as heresy, punishable by torture and death.

This cannot, in any reasonable sense, be considered the spreading of a religion by knowledge. In Islam especially theology was traditionally a secondary concern next to the power of ritual advocated by Muhammad.

While it is true that the conquering of neighboring lands and religious competition with Catholic states helped spread Islam in its early stages, I differ with the notion that Islam was not also spread through knowledge. This is especially true when merchants, traveling along trade routes, shared the faith with those they encountered in the course of doing business.

As well, Muhammad (pbuh) sent specially educated advocates to do dawah and to administer the affairs of lands where Islam took hold prior to his death. Theology was very important, not just ritual. In fact, two centuries after the death of the Prophet, ritual was elevated over theology far more by the scholars who formed the foundations of Islamic jurisprudence (not to be confused with Sharia), were they allowed jahilyya tradition and social order to hold sway over strict adherence to the proper practice, as demonstrated by Muhammad during his lifetime.

Islam has always has reformers calling to the application of Islam as was revealed to the Prophet Muhammad Unfortunately the majority of Muslims dont find that palatable and would rather follow a warped version of Islam.

You are so right that reformers have always existed within Islam. Even the Prophet had to contend with Umer, one of his companions, who openly chaffed at the liberties allowed to wives, especially the Prophet's wives. When he became Caliph, he was able to make some changes that linger to this day.

However, I believe it is wrong to say that the majority of Muslims follow a warped version of Islam. I'm not sure if you are advocating for Salafism, or if this is commentary on unIslamic cultural practices being justified as Islamic. Perhaps a clarification would explain that more clearly for me.

Thank you both! Carry on.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

BTW, Gallup recently conducted a poll that explored the opinion of Muslims from around the globe. It has been condensed into a film, released as a book, and the principles have appeared on several talk shows. Here is a link to a site discussing the findings and offering more information for your perusal: Inside Islam: What a Billion Muslims Really Think

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

I think what you're (quite admirably) trying to do is draw a distinction between particularly pervasive theological tenets, and the means by which Christianity and Islam proliferated in the Current Era.

We must admit to ourselves that both of these religions, comparatively embryonic as they were next to Judaism, were indeed spread by the sword. They had to be. Both sought to conquer Middle Eastern and European territories and to subjugate the Jewish populations already present. And to an end of establishing a precise creed that might differentiate their people from the rival monotheisms, it was necessary to class unorthodox interpretations as heresy, punishable by torture and death.

This cannot, in any reasonable sense, be considered the spreading of a religion by knowledge. In Islam especially theology was traditionally a secondary concern next to the power of ritual advocated by Muhammad.

What I think we would be remiss not to note, however (as I hope I'm not mistaken in assuming you are doing), is that there has been a latent tendency towards a much more fundamentally thoughtful interpretation of Islam. There is a feeling among many (quite liberally minded) people whom I've encountered that there has never been any sort of reformation in Islam. I think this needs to be corrected. While it is true that the European Enlightenment of the 18th century rather well catalyzed Western secularization in a way that a gradually shifting zeitgeist could not have, the persistence of Islamic theocratic states does not by contrast indicate that Islam remains rooted in Middle Age doctrine.

Modern Islam is probably the most philosophically robust of the three monotheisms. I hope that doesn't sound like a terribly vacuous statement. I do believe it to be true. The importance of poetry, of protest, of the unseen and undefined, have taken on as rudiments of its theology the sense of "dawah" that I think (and hope) you describe. For a religion signified as one of Sharia and burqas, by those who revile it and those who don't, I think this dimension is well worth pointing out.

I'd have to disagree with the highlighted section of your post. In Christianity's "embryonic" state it was spread in secrecy away from the State government and it infiltrated the upper Roman society, not with the sword, but by the beliefs of woman married to men of power. There probably isn't an exact time when the religion "picked up the sword" but I'd probably point to the time it became the state religion of the Roman Empire. That is the key for almost any religion and violence. Once a government adopts it, it becomes a weapon.

[faust-yusov 103]

I'd have to disagree with the highlighted section of your post. In Christianity's "embryonic" state it was spread in secrecy away from the State government and it infiltrated the upper Roman society, not with the sword, but by the beliefs of woman married to men of power. There probably isn't an exact time when the religion "picked up the sword" but I'd probably point to the time it became the state religion of the Roman Empire. That is the key for almost any religion and violence. Once a government adopts it, it becomes a weapon.

No, a relevant point, and one on which I was unclear.

My misplaced adjective "embryonic" should have attested specifically to doctrine, and the need in early Christian and Islamic cultures for clear creedal distinction from their shared precursor, Judaism. Identity anxieties fuelled a dogmatic sectarianism whereby slightly differing theological interpretations were to be deemed heretical, and punished.

This was a "by-the-sword" practise abound most prominently within Christian and Islamic cultures. Just as schools of thought seemingly denuding the paradox of the trinity, or that of Jesus' simultaneous divinity and humanity, were especially lambasted by pre-Nicene Christian theologians, similarly vilified were those in Muslim populations appearing to reduce the unity and polysemy of Allah. Noticeably there seemed to be a sort of memetic artificial selection exacted by authorities for creedal fundaments most distinguished from rival monotheisms.

None of the three monotheisms were ever really shrinking violets in enforcing this. I suspect that if they were, they wouldn't exist.

Edited December 26, 2010 by faust-yusov

[faust-yusov 103]

BTW, Gallup recently conducted a poll that explored the opinion of Muslims from around the globe. It has been condensed into a film, released as a book, and the principles have appeared on several talk shows. Here is a link to a site discussing the findings and offering more information for your perusal: Inside Islam: What a Billion Muslims Really Think

Terrifically enlightening study. An absolutely essential film.

[mawilson 2,133]

What if they asked Americans whether they support killing....convicted serial murderers. And then left out the "convicted serial murderers" part in the results.

I doubt Americans would support killing convicted serial murderers in the name of Jesus.

[Myopia 93]

faust-yusov and Myopia are doing a very good job, so I can merely sit back and read, for a change. However, there are a couple of remarks that I do take exception with.

While it is true that the conquering of neighboring lands and religious competition with Catholic states helped spread Islam in its early stages, I differ with the notion that Islam was not also spread through knowledge. This is especially true when merchants, traveling along trade routes, shared the faith with those they encountered in the course of doing business.

As well, Muhammad (pbuh) sent specially educated advocates to do dawah and to administer the affairs of lands where Islam took hold prior to his death. Theology was very important, not just ritual. In fact, two centuries after the death of the Prophet, ritual was elevated over theology far more by the scholars who formed the foundations of Islamic jurisprudence (not to be confused with Sharia), were they allowed jahilyya tradition and social order to hold sway over strict adherence to the proper practice, as demonstrated by Muhammad during his lifetime.

You are so right that reformers have always existed within Islam. Even the Prophet had to contend with Umer, one of his companions, who openly chaffed at the liberties allowed to wives, especially the Prophet's wives. When he became Caliph, he was able to make some changes that linger to this day.

However, I believe it is wrong to say that the majority of Muslims follow a warped version of Islam. I'm not sure if you are advocating for Salafism, or if this is commentary on unIslamic cultural practices being justified as Islamic. Perhaps a clarification would explain that more clearly for me.

Thank you both! Carry on.

I guess you could say that I'm advocating for Salafism if there was such a thing. I place that kind of description with the other kinds of descriptions like wahabism.

I follow what I consider a pure aspect of Islam, looking back at the first three generations as a guide for me. However that, for me, is a means of empowerment rather than backwardness because I advocate for womens rights as described by those first early generations.

The majority of Muslims have mixed in some aspects of culture to their Islamic beliefs.

A warped Islam, in my opinion, would be what is practiced by those who believe that honor killings are something from Islam, or the type of punishments that are executed in a movie such as the Stoning of Soraya (just as a visual example) or suicide missions that I consider murder and suicide but others may call Jihad which in my mind comes from a warped understanding of Islam. As long as you consider the Quran and the Sunnah as followed by the Sahaba as being closest to what the Prophet advocated, I would measure you as mainstream Islam.

[Jenn! 918]

I doubt Americans would support killing convicted serial murderers in the name of Jesus.

I don't. The bible is one of the most common reasons for death penalty support.

[Danno 1,228]

I don't. The bible is one of the most common reasons for death penalty support.

Jesus neither taught on these type issues nor endorsed it....though a lot of his followers had direct experience with it.