Smear Tactics

amhost http://amhost.net/ > amhost

mashalla

Great rivers flow with silent majesty;shallow brooks are noisy

thank you sanal- that is indeed a rarity here.

peace

SALAMU ALAIKUM is used by non muslims. Thanks sanal for indirectly hinting at it.

Peace victoria. I am impressed by your views

Peace victoria.I am impressed by your views.

wa alaikum a salaam sad- don't be sad- there's room in this world for all of us.
Were all working for a deeper understanding brother. (or sister)

lib, dont you know that old expression?

my grandmother used to say it- that and a quarter will get me a cup of coffee.

the meaning is, that information you gave me, plus a quarter-(or 3 bucks) will get me a cup of coffee (or capuccino).

which, with the same 3 bucks or quarter- i'd be able to get anyway.(making the information unecessary to my purchase.)

im not going to read bertrand russell- im not gong backwards- im going forwards.
im reading qu'ran in about 15 minutes insha'alla.

but a funny coincidence is that i actually have a 4 month old kitten named capuccino.

ok lib- as always, peace to you

a salaamu alaikum wa rahmatulahi wa barakatu sanal

Sad it is Assalamu alaikum not salam alaikum

salam alaikum dear sister.
I hope that Allah guides you in this holy month because there is much, much for you to learn about our beautiful religion of Islam. Unfortunately, your femenist views are a obfuscating your understanding of Islam.
May Allah guide us all.

Victoria, Victoria,

I trust your $3.00 cappucino will help you stay awake during the Ramadan parties.

Maybe you can read some more about Bertrand Russell's views of Islam during your caffeine fix.

And how go the flaws in Islam today? Any "pwtfft"s showing up during the day-time fasting? Or is Gabriel and his crew only Ramadan party types??

that and 3 dollars will get me a cup of capuccino

So Russell himself concluded:

"Mahommedanism and Bolshevism are practical, social, unspiritual, concerned to win the empire of this world ... What Mahommedanism did for the Arabs, Bolshevism may do for the Russians.(3) "

1. The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism, Allen and Unwin, London, Second Edition 1962, p. 7.
2. Ibid, p. 27
3. Ibid, p. 74. For a critique of this book compare my "Russell's Judgement on Bolshevism", in George W. Roberts (ed.), Bertrand Russell Memorial Volume, Allen and Unwin, London, 1979, pp. 428-454.

bertrand russel certainly makes good points, but he was so focused in general about christianity and it's dysfunctional relationship with science that he only saw a part of the picture, that which affected him personally.

maybe his experiences and upbringing made him believe that religion is based primarily on fear and terro, but his opinion in this matter is his own concepts for himself.

i liked bertrand russel a long time ago- and he makes some excellent observations on the christian religion, but as a scientifically inclined philosopher he must have had some awareness of the many and deep and lasting contributions to science by islam- and how there was an inherent harmony between the religion of islam ad the precepts of science (it was a muslim scientist who first proposed scentific method as we know it today)

from my personal perspective- my spiritual hungers and longings were not based on fear- as there was no one to instill that in me.
it was and is a longing for connection with the god-
and the god is more compassionate - kind and loving- and learning is a celebration- and my religion compels me to be a more effective human so that is certainly a valuable inspiration no matter how you look at it

im still trying to learn more- thats mostly why im here- to broaden my understanding of my fellow travelers in this world which includes the bertrand russells and the poets and everyone in between

peace

Bertrand Russell

Fear,the Foundation of Religion

Religion is based,I think,primarily and mainly upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown and partly the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes.
Fear is the basis of the whole thing-fear of the mysterious,fear of defeat,fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty,
and therefore it is no wonder if religion and cruelty have gone hand in hand.It is because fear is at the basis of those two things. In this world we can now begin a little to understand things,and a little to master them by help of science,
which has forced its way step by step against the Christian religion,against the churches,and against the opposition of all the old precepts. Science can help us to get over this craven fear in which mankind has lived for so many generations. Science can teach us,and I think our own hearts can teach us,no longer to look around for imaginary supports,no longer to invent allies in the sky,but rather to look to our own efforts here below to make this world a fit place to live in,instead of the sort of place that the churches in all these centuries have made it.
Why I Am Not A Christian.pp22

sanal- you made some good logical points.

dont mind concerned, if you said the sky was blue, and were a muslim, he'd argue about its green tones and then blame you for it.

Sanal,

You, like the rest of usm suffer from the three B's, i.e. we were Bred, Born and Brainwashed in some form of religion. In your case, it is Islam. It is time for the koran to be rewritten with the historic facts and reality in mind. Once you do that, the healing process will begin.

And a million deaths in Iraq? Hmmm, if so it is due to the Shiite-Sunni civil war and the butchery demonstrated 24/7 by each warring faction.

Africa? Hmmm, Somalia, pirates, the Kenya suicide bombings, tribal hatreds, jungles, deserts, radical Muslims? We will support the Ethiopians and let the UN and AU handle the rest of the problems. Hmmm, and who funds much of the UN??? And much of its relief efforts???

And Salan what Islamic sect do you belong to??

And whose oil wells are you tapping? Oil profits/blood/terror money, where are you sending it??

Viva La France!!!!!

Dear christian liberated,

Various options were available to outst
Saddam [political,moral and economic support for opposition for example]. Not by killing one million people.
There are several leaders like Saddam in Africa.Why US is not spending 400 billion dollars to invade Africa.
If a leader in the middle east is progressive,liberal and democratic and close the oil tap to america,do you honestly believe he will be respected?
I have great respect for American people. That doesnt stop me from calling spade a spade

Dear christian liberated,

Various options were available to outst
Saddam [political,moral and economic support for opposition for example]. Not by killing one million people.
There are several leaders like Saddam in Africa.Why US is not spending 400 billion dollars to invade Africa.
If a leader in the middle east is progressive,liberal and democratic and close the oil tap to america,do you honestly believe he will be respected?
I have great respect for American people. That doesnt stop me from calling spade a spade

Salan,

Because Saddaam was killing off and torturing the helpless Shiites and Kurds . And because Islam is composed of a number of sects, none of which can tolerate each other and all because of the significantly stupid disagreement as to who has the rightful "holey not holy hallucinator's" offspring.

And Salan what significantly stupid Islamic sect do you belong to??

Again the butchering in Iraq is due to the civil war between the Shiites and Sunnis. Nothing more, nothing less.

Viva La France!!!!!

that was me

heres a link to the lancet study

http://www.zmag.org/lancet.pdf

The Human Cost Of War In Iraq- A mortality study2002-2006

Bloomberg School Of Public Health
JOHN HOPKINS University,Maryland

Mustansiriya university,IRAQ

In cooperation with centre for international studies MASSACHUSSETS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,CAMBRIDGE,MASSACHUSSETS
web.mit.edu/CIS/pdf/Human_Cost_of_War.pdf

Dear christian liberated,why there was no sunni shia fight before invasion

Sanal,

What schools? References?? Website addresses? Dates of publication? Publisher??

So CNN, Time Magazine, Al Jazeera, the London Times et al have been publishing false stories about the Shiite-Sunni civil war in Iraq and the said butchery of said groups vs each other??

From CNN, "Al-Sistani was apparently referring to Abdullah bin Jabrain, a key member of Saudi Arabia's clerical establishment, who last month joined a chorus of other senior figures from the hardline Wahhabi school of Sunni Islam that regards Shiites as infidels.

Bin Jabrain described Shiites as "the most vicious enemy of Muslims."

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdullah_bin_Jabrain

"Abdullah bin Jabrain is a leading Sunni cleric in Saudi Arabia and a member of the Senior Clerics Association.[1]

"Commenting on Shiites, Jabrain said, "Some people say that the rejectionists are Muslims because they believe in God and his prophet, pray and fast. But I say they are heretics. They are the most vicious enemy of Muslims, who should be wary oft their plots. They should be boycotted and expelled so that Muslims spared their evil."[1]

Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim, the political leader of Iraqi Shiites, once referred to Jabrain as an "evil cleric."[

Such peaceful, coexisting groups/cults!!!!!!!!

concerned the christian now liberated,

Not only MIT, most of the leading universities have done research on number of deaths in Iraq. Please vsit their web site.If not for Iraq occupation for oil this wouldnt have happened. According to you American war planes dropping only democracy on their heads.
Sunni shia conflicts is in the best interest of US.old divide and rule policy.There are sunnis and shias all over the middle east coexisting peacefully. Take a break from CNN and BBC.

Sanal,

MIT study, when published, by whom??

Most of the deaths in Iraq are caused by Sunnis butchering Shiites and vice versa. And all over oil profits and who has the right ancestor to the "holey not holy hallucinator".

CONCERNED THE CHRISTIAN NOW LIBERATED,

Please read the study conducted MIT[one of the best universities in the world]about number of deaths in Iraq.

Sanal,

Because said Democracies are protecting the minority Muslims in the region e.g. Kuwait, Bosnia, and Kosovo. These same "bombs of democracy" are also used to defeat radical Islamics who threaten the peaceful Islamics in places like Somalia and Afghanistan.

And typically an Islamic "suicider" kills more than 10-20 civilians. Check the death toll from 9/11 and the train bombings in the UK and Spain.

TO JUHI

How is it that when a suicide bomber kill ten or twenty people its called terrorism and when thousands are killed with sophiticated war planes its Democracy?

Ms. Taylor,
How can a group of people who kill innocent civilians daily in the name of their "peaceful religion" not be called a cult?
Why have they made more than 50 countries exclusively Islamic?
You have a scarf on your head. What do you think of many of these Islamic nations where women are forced to cover up?

MODERATE- i assumed it was so obvious i was using your words that i forgot to credit you with them.

now i really like your explanation-
it seems obvious that one has to go the source- now my non-scientific nature always leads me to the source of intentions-
but science is much less subjective-

i try to always read the many links people post, out of respect for their views and giving them attention and effort to understand their points-

REDACTION-
The act or process of editing or revising a piece of writing; preparation for publication.
An edited work; a new edition or revision.

I didnt know what it means so i had to look it up

i have to agree form my limited knowledge that the scholarship seemed very subjective-

i agree- if you're studying the canon, of what use is it to base your subjective opinion on someone else's objective opinion?

maybe their opinion is flawed in soem way and it throws everything off-
and after all, just remains an opinion.

i couldn not have framed a critique without your edifiying analysis first-
you provided the words and ideas

truthseeker, i really liked your post- but it was awfully long, and even though i agree with it- i often skip those long posts.

but you actually wrote it yourself didnt you?

thats why i always say moderate-

let people define themselves- listen to a hindu if you want to understadn hinduism-

or a scientist if you want to understand science-which i have an inordinate amount of respect, but no talent or knowledge of to speak of.

peace

ill say one thing- science certainly removes the emotional illogical flames that burn through here and are so disheartening sometimes

Ah, The Moderate,

Somehow you know more than contemporary NT exegetes by reading one book. Add the bible to your library and you have two books. Such expertise is overwhelming!!!!

But then again you still believe in "pwtfft"s, tinker bells and demons of the demented. But then again maybe Gabriel visited you on some dark and starry night and revealed to you the real history of it all??

And I have not exerted all that much effort in studying the work of the professors of the Jesus Seminarians et al. I am simply reiterating their conclusions, conclusions based on exhaustive reviews of all the scriptural documents, not just four books that have substantial differences. Their conclusions in many cases also review the scripture archeology.

Professors Crossan and Reed's books, Excavating Jesus and In Search of Paul, Professor Chilton's Rabbi Jesus and Rabbi Paul, Luke Timothy Johnsons, The Real Jesus, Professor Raymond Brown's An Introduction to the New Testament, Josephus, the Jewish War, and Professor Borg's Meeting Jesus for the First Time, The God We Never Knew, and Jesus and Buddha (the Parallel Sayings) are good starting references for your library.

"how we can work towards a world that doesn't need pejorative labels for people who hold slightly different beliefs"

There is either a universal truth or there is not and The Bible is that truth. Stearing people elsewhere or toward a "tolerant" society is exactly what The Bible describes as a one world religion set up by Satan. This kind of talk is dangerous.

"how we can work towards a world that doesn't need pejorative labels for people who hold slightly different beliefs"

There is either a universal truth or there is not and The Bible is that truth. Stearing people elsewhere or toward a "tolerant" society is exactly what The Bible describes as a one world religion set up by Satan. This kind of talk is dangerous.

"how we can work towards a world that doesn't need pejorative labels for people who hold slightly different beliefs"

There is either a universal truth or there is not and The Bible is that truth. Stearing people elsewhere or toward a "tolerant" society is exactly what The Bible describes as a one world religion set up by Satan. This kind of talk is dangerous.

"how we can work towards a world that doesn't need pejorative labels for people who hold slightly different beliefs"

There is either a universal truth or there is not and The Bible is that truth. Stearing people elsewhere or toward a "tolerant" society is exactly what The Bible describes as a one world religion set up by Satan. This kind of talk is dangerous.

"how we can work towards a world that doesn't need pejorative labels for people who hold slightly different beliefs"

There is either a universal truth or there is not and The Bible is that truth. Stearing people elsewhere or toward a "tolerant" society is exactly what The Bible describes as a one world religion set up by Satan. This kind of talk is dangerous.

The modern definition of cult or religion seems completely self-referential. If you agree with a group, or do not feel threatened by it, or if you don't have some need to pity its members, then you rarely label it a cult. If the opposite applies, well then, cults be they all!

Cult has become almost exclusively a pejorative label, used to exclude from legitimacy those so labeled. Whether used by "people of faith" or by so-called "rational" people, it is the same.

Carrying on an intelligent conversation with those who like to attach the label to others is nearly impossible, as there is no acceptable definition outside, or even merely at odds with, their personal belief system.

Defining a group as a religion or a cult? It seems purely a matter of "faith."

Dear Victoria:

"LIB- just a comment- im no scientist, but i can make the distinction between hypothsizing, checking, and improving on said hypotheses as scientifically and genrally agreed upon tools of objective science."

I think that was my comment. It refers to research methodology in biblical exegesis. The people I like to read do things like go back to the earliest codex sources and count words, measure consistency of tables of contents, and redactional frame. They thereby identify codex sources that reflect the same original source documents.

In this way, Trobisch established that there was a consistent canon of the NT. It did not accumulate in layers over centuries.

Sloppy workers like the Jesus Seminar crowd, by contrast, usually go back to earlier commentaries, and each other's opinions. The seldom seem to go back to the oldest instances of the NT canon. They also assume that anything written by anyone in the first four centuries are equivalent to the canon. Then Funk, et al. reject almost all of the canonical text on purely subjective gut feel. After that, they can say what ever they want to and pretend that it is scholarly. "The canon is what I say it is." is the result.

Established that the canon was set down at one time, one place, and by one group of editors (which for historical reasons must include Luke, and Paul) completely undermines the Jesus Seminar's basic methodology.

The questions about whether the eye witness were liars, crazy, or touched by God remains for another day. I doubt that it is amenable to scientific solution, but the provenance of the original canon is. We are able to reject the twentieth century belief that the canon accumulated over centuries by scientific means, though.

Concerned Christian Now Liberated has a hard time with that because he has invested great time and emotional commitment to flawed methods of the Jesus Seminar.

Pamela K. Taylor, "slightly different beliefs?" Are you serious? If the Lord Jesus was genuine, proof being God raised Him from the dead. You can deny that and call God a liar. You take that up with Him. The Lord Jesus was either God in the flesh or a madman. You take that up with Him. But to obfuscate the truth and call it "slightly different beliefs" is PROVE you are a cult. The Lord Jesus said, "If the light IN you be darkness, HOW GREAT is THAT darkness!" Pamela K Taylor, do not study the imitation to learn the genuine, study the genuine and the phoney's are apparent. Study the Gospel of John and Romans asking God to reveal His truths to you.

Labeling Mormonism as a cult has nothing to do with Mormons holding "slightly different beliefs." It has everything to do with Mormons accepting a set of crazy propositions as received truths, against all relevant scientific probabilities.

On those grounds, all faith-based religions qualify as cults. In a few thousand years (unless we destroy ourselves), the religions of the 21st century will look as cultish as ancient religions now look to us, and for the same reason---we humans are smart enough to eventually identify and shed our most inane superstitions.

Pamela, there is a great book that I wish was still in print called "The Wrong Way Home: Uncovering the Patterns of Cult Behavior in American Society" by the psychiatrist Arthur Deikman. He says that we are all prone to cultic behavior - not just people in religions or 'cults'. He identifies four basic behaviors that people in groups are prone to, that cause us much trouble in thinking and living realistically. They are: compliance with the group, dependence on a leader, devaluing the outsider, and avoiding dissent. These behaviors are valuable for maintaining group coherence in a hostile world. For most of human existence in small tribal groups, they must have worked well. But they also lead to a great deal of self-righteousness, conflict between groups, and failure of people to think and act on their own inner consciences.

A great deal of religious teaching is designed to counteract these behaviors: teachings about loving the stranger, the outsider; or about recognizing goodness when it is encountered in someone with the 'wrong' beliefs (which is what I think the Good Samaritan parable of Jesus is about); or about listening to the voice of God or conscience in your own heart.

On the other hand, religions are very prone to falling into these tribal behaviors, partly because people invest so much of themselves in their religions, and it gets worst when people invest almost everything in their religion: so when your employment, friends, spouse, family, worship, ideas, money, and home are all contained within the religion then it becomes hardest to think for yourself, hear your own conscience, and avoid demonizing outsiders or allowing some leader to dominate. The same thing can happen in political cults.

I have read a lot about religious cults, having grown up in a movement many people thought was one, and then having acquired a doctorate in the sociology of religion, but nothing had it down better than Deikman's book, in my opinion. In 2003 I wrote a column, based on Deikman's ideas, about how the cultism inside Bush's cabinet was likely to lead them into unrealistic thinking about the Iraq War, and I think events and memoirs of participants have proven that thesis. See http://www.opendemocracy.net/faith-aboutfaith/article_1129.jsp

Truth Seeker

When you post comments of ridiculous length,
people don't read them.
When you post them many times,it just means we scroll right through them.I didn't read a word from your posts.They are just way toooo long.
Get real.

The question is often asked " what should non-Muslims do to win the hearts and minds of Muslims?" when the question that should really be asked is " what should Muslims do to win the hearts and minds of non-Muslims?".

Muslims are now universally despised for several reasons.

1) The repeated acts of terrorism against non-Muslims and the generally implicit approval by the general populace of non-Muslims for these acts and the readiness to blame the US and the Jews for the acts. To this day most Muslims believe that the Jews orchestrated 9/11.

2) Their refusal to integrate into the societies that have made life so good for them, especially the west, and that have allowed them escape the misery that their own Muslim societies with their allegiance to an outdated Islamic system have inflicted on them.

3) Most importantly the internet and recent publications has revealed the truth about Islam and its founder, Muhammad. It is now well known that Muhammad was a psychopath who indulged in sex with children in his fifties, was a slave owner, had fathered an illegitimate son with his slave girl, 15 year old Maria who was also a Christian, carried out ethnic cleansing of Jews in Arabia and stole half of Arabia from them, insulted God by inventing Allah and making this evil god the sole deity for Muslims.

4) Their refusal to condemn atrocities in Iraq, Muslims upon Muslims and also the shameful Islamic apartheid practiced in Saudi Arabia where non-Muslims may not enter Mecca and Medina, may not openly worship anywhere in the kingdom, may not build churches, synagogues and other places of worship in Saudi Arabia. Muslims give implicit approval for the Islamic apartheid by continuing to do the hajj to Mecca, thereby saying that " the apartheid is fine with us".

The Muslims can do the following and, although it will take time, eventually Muslims will have won some respect from non-Muslims.

1) Declare that Islam was not revealed by God and admit that Islam is a harmful faith. Muslims should condemn outright Muhammad and Islam. Muslims should stop insulting God by associating Muhammad and Allah with Him.

2) Stop doing the hajj. By doing so they will send a powerful message that they will not tolerate apartheid. If Saudi Arabia stops the apartheid and the first church is built in Mecca and in Medina, then the hajj may be resumed.

3) Return half of Saudi Arabia, the western half of Saudi Arabia, to its rightful owners, the Jews. Relocate all Muslims from Palestine and the West Bank to Muslim countries.

4) Agree that all Muslim immigration to non-Muslims countries be halted until secular democratic societies are built in all Muslim countries. This may take many years. Right now it is too easy for Muslims to escape the oppression in Muslim societies by escaping to non-Muslim countries, especially to the West. They have no incentive to fight oppression at home.

It will take time. But eventually Muslims may become an integral part of civilized human society.

Islam is being associated with violence and jihad in the minds of not only non-Muslims but also of many Muslims. The slogans of jihad are being raised by frustrated youth unable to find any other way and also by those who are fighting for national liberation and regional autonomy. Such slogans create strong images of holy war being ordained by Islam and Islam being religion of violence. And now what has happened in New York on 11th September 2001 and in Pentagon i.e. attacks on World Trade Centre with the help of hijacked planes will greatly strengthen this stereotype in the minds of people of the world in general and in the minds of Americans, in particular. The attack on WTC in New York and Pentagon in Washington is, to say the least, horrific and must be condemned in strongest possible and unambiguous terms.

It should be remembered that there is no relation between religion and violence, neither in Islam, nor in any religion for that matter. Violence is a social and political phenomenon. It is true that there is mention of war in scriptures like Ramayana, Mahabharata and the Qura’n. But this mention is not to establish any integral link between religion and violence but to portray certain social and political situation that prevailed at that time. It can be called integral only if these scriptures mandate violence as a desirable solution.

It is important to distinguish between what is empirical and ideological. The Twain do not always meet. While violence is empirical, peace is ideological. All scriptures, particularly the Qur’an while permitting violence in some inevitable situations, ordain peace as a norm. The great religions of the world came to establish justice and peace, not to perpetrate revenge and violence. Revenge and violence can never become part of any religion, much less that of Islam. Allah has created both in human beings – tendency for aggression and violence and exalted feeling for serenity of peace. Allah, according to the Qur’an, created human person in the best of mould (ahsan-i-taqwim) and then rendered him lowest of the low (95:4-5)

In fact it is this dynamics of human personality i.e. being created in the best of the mould and then being reduced to the lowest of the low that we have to understand the dynamics of peace and violence also. Allah desires peace and created us, for that purpose, in the best of the mould but our greed, greed for both wealth and power reduced us to an instrument of aggression and violence. For a human being there will always be an internal jihad, an internal struggle to rise to the level of ahsan-i-taqwim (best of the mould) and continuously resist the temptations of wealth and power.

The Qur’an strengthens the social roots of peace by emphasising the role of need based economy and resolutely opposing greed based one. The roots of violence, as pointed out above, lie in human greed. Thus we find in the Qur’an, “They ask thee what should we spend. Say what is surplus.” (2:219) It is obvious from this verse that you spend on yourself according to your personal needs and give away the surplus with you to other needy people. Similarly the Qur’an prescribes in yet another context that the wealth should not circulate among the rich only. (59:7). And it also exhorts Muslims that those who hoard gold and silver and do not give them away in the way of Allah announce to them the painful chastisement.(9:34)

Thus the Qur’an wants to establish peace not superficially by exhorting the believers to love peace but tries to tackle the very socio-economic roots of conflict. If few people or countries grab largest part of the resources of the world and live in all comfort and deny other people even their basic needs violence and conflict will result whatever the pleadings for peace. Or, if some people commit aggression unjustifiable against others to keep their own dominance and deny others their very basic rights, it will be impossible to maintain peace is such unjust political order.

The Qur’an draws our attention to such a situation also as the Prophet and his followers were persecuted by the powerful and the rich chiefs of Mecca to maintain their own hegemony and were forced to flee from that town which was rightfully theirs. It is such persecution by the powerful, in order to maintain their hegemony that violence results. The Qur'an is opposed to an unjust order and domination by few powerful whom it calls mustakbirun (i.e. arrogant and powerful). They persecute the weak (mustad`ifun). If such an unjust order persists violence will result, however undesirable it may be.

Allah thus says in the Qur’an, “And what reason have you not to fight in the way of Allah, and of the weak (mustad`ifin) among the men and the women and the children, who say: Our Lord, take us out of the town, whose people are oppressors, and grant us from Thee a friend and grant us from Thee a helper.” This verse in the Qur’an combines both what is empirical and what is ideological. The weak when oppressed are more likely to fight and resist an unjust order. This is empirical. But the above verse also makes an ideological statement when it says that the weak among men, women and children pray that our Lord take us out of this town (Mecca) whose people are oppressors and grant us from Thee a friend and a helper. Thus the Qur’an makes it clear that one must not live in an unjust order and seek helper from Allah to relive them of injustice.

It is also important that the Qur’an more then once focuses our attention on the on going conflict between mustakbirun and mustad`ifun i.e. between the arrogant and powerful and the weak and the oppressed. The arrogant and powerful is represented by Nimrod and Pharoa and the weak and oppressed by Abraham and Moses. Both Abraham and Moses were liberators. But they liberated their oppressed people not through violence but through struggle leading them out of the unjust order, unjust situation.

There will always be struggle between the oppressors and the oppressed, the powerful and the weak but this struggle need not be violent. It much depends on situation. The Prophet (PBUH) himself prefers peace at Hudaybia (sulh-i-Hudaybia) than war even at the cost of pride of Muslims. The peace conditions (I need not go into details of those conditions here, which are quite well known) were far from favourable to Muslims but the Prophet of Islam accepted those conditions in order to avoid bloodshed. However, the Prophet could do so as the other side also, due to certain constraints, accepted peace on their own terms.

If the other side was bent upon war there would have been no choice for the Prophet but to accept the situation and fight the war. It much depends what situation you are facing. One cannot talk of war and peace quite in an abstract manner. Thus socio-political and socio-economic context plays great role in deciding whether peace will prevail or not.

One thing is sure: Islam does not even indirectly hint at coercion, let alone violence, when it comes to any religious or spiritual question. Thus it becomes quite clear that Islam being religion does not approve of violence at all in any religious matter. However, if Muslims are put in a particular situation which is unjust (not only for them but for humanity as such) they may have to struggle peacefully (and if violence is thrust on them, reluctantly through violence) to remove the cause of injustice.

It is quite important to note that liberative struggle should never be confined to Muslims alone. It is quite significant for theology of peace in Islam that throughout the text of the Qur’an we find the words mustakbirun and mustad`ifun i.e. arrogant and the weak or oppressors and the oppressed without an qualification of being Muslim or not. Thus even if arrogant and oppressor is a Muslim, one will have to struggle against him and even if an oppressed and persecuted is non-Muslim Muslims will have to wage struggle against him.

Thus the struggle nowhere involves Islam as a religion but Muslims as upholders of peace and justice. Yes, it is true justice and peace (and for that matter compassion) are also Islamic values but they are also universal values applicable not only to Muslims but to all whether they be Muslims or not. Thus, as far as justice and peace is concerned the clash is not between Islam and any other religion but it is primarily between oppressors and the oppressed. It is wrong to implicate Islam if some Muslims choose to adopt violent means to achieve their goal. Islam does not automatically approve of violent means if any injustice or exploitation is to be fought.

The Qur’an does not permit use of violence as a norm at all. All the verses involving permission to use violence is preceded by the words “if they commit violence against you….”. Thus we find in verse 2:190 “And fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you but be not aggressive. Surely Allah does not love aggressors.” (emphasis added)

Thus it is very clear from this verse that Qur’an does not permit unconditional war and aggression and Allah does not love aggressors. But permits fighting in the way of Allah only if war is imposed by others. The words in the way of Allah are also very important here. Fighting in the way of Allah would restrain Muslims from committing aggression and excesses. Fighting in the way of Allah would mean fighting only for a just cause, not for power and wealth, fighting only if war is imposed on them and not involving personal or collective feeling of revenge. When Ali the son-in-law of the Prophet (PBUH) defeated a powerful foe in the battle and was about to kill him that he spat on his face. Ali immediately got off his chaste and let him go. The defeated foe was greatly surprised as he expected greater violence from Ali after he spat on him. Ali told hi if I had killed you after you spat on me it would have been an act of revenge. Thus Islam does not permit killing for revenge. Revenge killing is not a religious act; its main reason is human tendency to retaliate. Arabs used to call it qisas and Qur’an permits it in keeping with the prevailing tradition as it tolerated slavery as a concession to the prevailing system. But as it makes clear that human dignity and equality is the norm, not slavery. Similarly while it permits qisas it makes it clear that one should not be revengeful and should suppress anger. One who suppresses anger (kazim al-ghayz) is a person of great merit.

The Qur’an says, “Those who spend in ease as well as in adversity and those who restrain (their) anger and pardon men.” And Allah loves the doers of good (to others).” (3:133). Thus it becomes clear from above verse that to restrain ones anger and to pardon is an act of merit, a religious act. Thus one should not use violence even as an act of revenge. To restrain anger and to pardon are great acts of merit. Violence in any form, except in defence, is most deplorable. Humanity cannot flower in an atmosphere of violence.

The pre-Islamic Arab society was highly violent society. Various tribes fought against each other for decades on end. Thus before the Holy Prophet migrated to Medina the two principal pagan tribes of Medina Khazraj and Aus had been fighting against each other for more than four decades. The Prophet was invited there by the members of these two tribes as peace maker and the Prophet did bring peace between these two tribes and old enmity was happily resolved. But to stamp out violence from the Arab psychology and Arab society was not an easy project. Many Arab tribes had economically survived through raids on other tribes (it was called ghazw)

The pre-Islamic Arabs, as pointed out, not only indulged in qisas but were used to settle all questions through use of violence and thus violence continued in the society. There was no concept of spirituality and higher morality. It is Islam, which brought, for the first time, the concept of higher morality to the Arab society. Peace (salam) was part of this higher morality. It was in view of the violence in the Arab society that even greeting between two Muslims was made as Al-salam-u-‘alaykum (i.e. peace be upon you) and it is the principal form of greeting among the Muslims.

However, the post-Islamic Arab society did not easily imbibe the higher Islamic morality. It required inner struggle to control oneself and it was for this reason that many Muslim thinkers, particularly the Sufi thinkers called this inner struggle to control ones desires and raw passions as jihad-e-akbar (i.e. the great jihad and real jihad) and described war with sword as jihad-e-asghar (i.e. small jihad). The Sufis were the pacifists of Islam and those who kept themselves away from the violent struggle for power and also practised great restraint. They thus could imbibe the higher morality of Islam.

One can understand the nature of Arab society and the deep stamp of violence on it from the fact that after the depth of the Holy Prophet his successors – Caliphs hardly got time to promote higher Islamic morality akhlaq-i-karim. The holy Prophet himself was described as uswa-i-hasanah (best examplar) by the Qur’an. Thus Qur’an says, “Certainly you have in the Messenger of Allah an excellent examplar for him who hopes in Allah and the Latter day, and remembers Allah much.” (33:21)

But the Arabs with few honourable exceptions hardly followed this best examplar in the true spirit. Civil war broke out soon after his death (war of riddah) as many tribes wanted to return to their ancestral religion and refused to pay zakah the Islamic tax. Four of the three Khulufa-i-Rashidun (the rightly guided caliphs) were murdered. The third and fourth caliphs (Uthman and Ali) had to face tumultuous times and rebellions resulting in more than one hundred thousand deaths.

Thus one can understand the great gap between what was ideological – peace – and what was empirical – violence. The great tragedy of Karbala on 10th of Muharram when the grand son of the Prophet was martyred by the forces of evil as he tried to revive the higher Islamic morality. The Umayyads usurped power and indulged in violence and terror to retain it. Yusuf al-Hajjaj, governor of Iraq, during the Umayyad period, was a great terror and was quite ruthless in eliminating his enemies. The Umayyad and Abbasid caliphs with some exceptions had no compunctions in resorting to violence. The founder of the Abbasid dynasty was known as al-Saffah, which means one who sheds blood.

Before Islam there was inter-tribal violence. After Islam the social and political scenario changed. All tribes embraced Islam and the very nature of their economic sustenance through inter-tribal raids changed but inter-tribal rivalries persisted. One more factor was added to this. Now centralised state came into existence, which did not exist before Islam and inter-tribal struggle for power to capture the state began often resulting in great blood bath. Thus when the Abbasids captured power from Umayyads the Abbasids hunted down all Umayyads including their children and killed them. This violence was direct result of struggle for power.

All inter-tribal violence in the post-Islamic period was result of struggle for power and had nothing to do with Islam. In other words it was empirical rather than ideological. There is hardly any evidence in history of violence for spreading of Islam. As far as spreading of Islam was concerned the Qur’anic directive was very clear that “call people to the way of your Lord with wisdom and goodly exhortation and argue with them in the best manner.” (16:125) One can argue that this again is an ideological statement and that empirical reality was different in the sense that Islam spread through sword. This is simply not true. Firstly, no religion can spread through bloodshed and terror and secondly there is hardly any evidence of this in history.

Islam either spread through Sufi saints who were good examplars of Islamic morality rather than the rulers who were any way seen as tyrants. It was sufi saints who were carriers of real message of Islam and peace by keeping their distance from the power centres. Also, many people adopted Islam simply because it was religion of the rulers and had many advantages. Also, once a prominent member of the community or a tribal chef adopted Islam other members of the community or tribe followed. Thus it is not borne out even empirically that Islam spread through violence. There is even the instance of the Umayyad caliphs stopping conversion to Islam as their treasury was getting depleted as the converts stopped giving jizyah

ISLAM AND PEACE

The Qur’an, as pointed out above, tried to spread higher morality of which peace was the most important component. In fact the word Islam itself is derived from the root slm which is the root letters for peace. Islam means establishing peace as well as surrendering to the Will of Allah. One of the Allah’s name is Salam i.e. peace. Many Muslims are named as Abdus Salam i.e. servant of peace which also means servant of Allah as Allah is peace.

In Qur’an there are repeated references to the concept of peace. Significantly the Qur’an calls upon Muslims, “O you who believe, enter into complete peace and follow not the footsteps of the devil. Surely he is your open enemy.” (2:208) Entering into complete peace here means entering into peace whole-heartedly. It would also imply surrendering to Allah whole-heartedly. Acceptance of violence as the other part of the verse says is like following in the footsteps of devil. Violence is devil and devil is violence.

In the verse 2:131 Allah says submit and reply is given I submit myself to my Rabb of the worlds. Now rabb in Arabic means one who is sustainer or one who takes us step by step from one stage of perfection to another stage of perfection. Thus submitting to Allah, or accepting His authority means dedicating oneself to the cause of peace so that this universe reaches perfection. Perfection is possible only if there is peace, not otherwise. In fact violence destroys all the achievements of culture and civilisation. Since Allah is Rabb i.e. the Sustainer and Perfecter, he ordains peace and those who surrender to His Will have to work for peace so that perfection could be reached.

We find in the Qur’an (14:23) “And those who believe and do good are made to enter Gardens, wherein flow rivers, abiding by their Lord’s permission. Their greeting therein is Peace!”. Thus it will be observed that jannah (Garden) is so as there is peace therein. Thus the main quality of jannah for which all Muslims aspire is peace. This world can become like jannah only if there is peace in the world. For entering the jannah Allah says, “ Enter it (i.e. jannah) in peace and security.” (15:46) Thus peace and security are the main attributes of paradise.

Muslims invoke peace for all Allah’s messengers because they brought the message of peace for entire humanity. Thus Muslims always write peace be upon him after the name of the Prophet, in fact all prophets of Allah. All Messengers of Allah are messengers of peace as Allah Himself, as pointed out above, is Peace. Again in the verse 56:25-26 we read "They hear therein (i.e. Paradise) no vain or sinful talk but only the saying, Peace! Peace.”

Thus peace is so vital for converting this world into paradise. Its opposite i.e. violence is sin. Sin is nothing if not selfish behaviour. We have converted this earth into a violent place because of our interest-oriented behaviour. The harmony of interests is possible only in need based economy. Clash of interests result from greed-based economy. Our world today is full of violence as we clash with each other for our greed. Islam wanted to establish peace on this earth and hence it emphasised need-based economy and condemned accumulation of wealth, circulation of wealth among the rich. The chapter 104 clearly says that obsession with wealth results in fire kindled by Allah.

.

Same thing happens if we are obsessed with power. Thus this earth can enjoy peace only if some people are not obsessed with wealth and power. Islam laid equal emphasis on justice (Allah’s name is also Just ‘Adil along with Peace, Salam). Thus justice and peace go together. There cannot be peace without justice. Today there is no peace on earth as there is no justice. We are living in a violent world because we live in an unjust world. The Muslim world is also full of injustices and hence of violence. Islam did its best to emphasise justice and peace but a section of Muslims, particularly Muslim rulers remained obsessed with wealth and power and perpetrated injustices and violence. Thus the blame for violence lay on the doors of some Muslims not on Islam. As far as Islam is concerned justice and peace are integral parts of its teachings.

Moreover for millions of Muslims Islam is a deep spiritual experience. They pray, fast, perform Hajj and all other spiritual practices and feel deeply satisfied. They pray for peace. Such Muslims are in overwhelming majority. They have nothing to do with politics, violence or use of Islam for ones interests. It is these Muslims who seek deep spiritual fulfilment who matter and not the few who use or misuse it for political purposes. For millions of Muslims Islam, like any other religion, is a great source of inner peace.

Some countries like America bomb countries in the name of democracy and human rights some Muslims commit acts of violence and terror in the name of Islam. Is there any difference between the two? How does it matter if the people are killed in the name of democracy and freedom or in the name of Islam? We must try to learn between ideals and their misuse by some vested interests or frustrated people.

*******************************

Institute of Islamic Studies,

Islam is being associated with violence and jihad in the minds of not only non-Muslims but also of many Muslims. The slogans of jihad are being raised by frustrated youth unable to find any other way and also by those who are fighting for national liberation and regional autonomy. Such slogans create strong images of holy war being ordained by Islam and Islam being religion of violence. And now what has happened in New York on 11th September 2001 and in Pentagon i.e. attacks on World Trade Centre with the help of hijacked planes will greatly strengthen this stereotype in the minds of people of the world in general and in the minds of Americans, in particular. The attack on WTC in New York and Pentagon in Washington is, to say the least, horrific and must be condemned in strongest possible and unambiguous terms.

It should be remembered that there is no relation between religion and violence, neither in Islam, nor in any religion for that matter. Violence is a social and political phenomenon. It is true that there is mention of war in scriptures like Ramayana, Mahabharata and the Qura’n. But this mention is not to establish any integral link between religion and violence but to portray certain social and political situation that prevailed at that time. It can be called integral only if these scriptures mandate violence as a desirable solution.

It is important to distinguish between what is empirical and ideological. The Twain do not always meet. While violence is empirical, peace is ideological. All scriptures, particularly the Qur’an while permitting violence in some inevitable situations, ordain peace as a norm. The great religions of the world came to establish justice and peace, not to perpetrate revenge and violence. Revenge and violence can never become part of any religion, much less that of Islam. Allah has created both in human beings – tendency for aggression and violence and exalted feeling for serenity of peace. Allah, according to the Qur’an, created human person in the best of mould (ahsan-i-taqwim) and then rendered him lowest of the low (95:4-5)

In fact it is this dynamics of human personality i.e. being created in the best of the mould and then being reduced to the lowest of the low that we have to understand the dynamics of peace and violence also. Allah desires peace and created us, for that purpose, in the best of the mould but our greed, greed for both wealth and power reduced us to an instrument of aggression and violence. For a human being there will always be an internal jihad, an internal struggle to rise to the level of ahsan-i-taqwim (best of the mould) and continuously resist the temptations of wealth and power.

The Qur’an strengthens the social roots of peace by emphasising the role of need based economy and resolutely opposing greed based one. The roots of violence, as pointed out above, lie in human greed. Thus we find in the Qur’an, “They ask thee what should we spend. Say what is surplus.” (2:219) It is obvious from this verse that you spend on yourself according to your personal needs and give away the surplus with you to other needy people. Similarly the Qur’an prescribes in yet another context that the wealth should not circulate among the rich only. (59:7). And it also exhorts Muslims that those who hoard gold and silver and do not give them away in the way of Allah announce to them the painful chastisement.(9:34)

Thus the Qur’an wants to establish peace not superficially by exhorting the believers to love peace but tries to tackle the very socio-economic roots of conflict. If few people or countries grab largest part of the resources of the world and live in all comfort and deny other people even their basic needs violence and conflict will result whatever the pleadings for peace. Or, if some people commit aggression unjustifiable against others to keep their own dominance and deny others their very basic rights, it will be impossible to maintain peace is such unjust political order.

The Qur’an draws our attention to such a situation also as the Prophet and his followers were persecuted by the powerful and the rich chiefs of Mecca to maintain their own hegemony and were forced to flee from that town which was rightfully theirs. It is such persecution by the powerful, in order to maintain their hegemony that violence results. The Qur'an is opposed to an unjust order and domination by few powerful whom it calls mustakbirun (i.e. arrogant and powerful). They persecute the weak (mustad`ifun). If such an unjust order persists violence will result, however undesirable it may be.

Allah thus says in the Qur’an, “And what reason have you not to fight in the way of Allah, and of the weak (mustad`ifin) among the men and the women and the children, who say: Our Lord, take us out of the town, whose people are oppressors, and grant us from Thee a friend and grant us from Thee a helper.” This verse in the Qur’an combines both what is empirical and what is ideological. The weak when oppressed are more likely to fight and resist an unjust order. This is empirical. But the above verse also makes an ideological statement when it says that the weak among men, women and children pray that our Lord take us out of this town (Mecca) whose people are oppressors and grant us from Thee a friend and a helper. Thus the Qur’an makes it clear that one must not live in an unjust order and seek helper from Allah to relive them of injustice.

It is also important that the Qur’an more then once focuses our attention on the on going conflict between mustakbirun and mustad`ifun i.e. between the arrogant and powerful and the weak and the oppressed. The arrogant and powerful is represented by Nimrod and Pharoa and the weak and oppressed by Abraham and Moses. Both Abraham and Moses were liberators. But they liberated their oppressed people not through violence but through struggle leading them out of the unjust order, unjust situation.

There will always be struggle between the oppressors and the oppressed, the powerful and the weak but this struggle need not be violent. It much depends on situation. The Prophet (PBUH) himself prefers peace at Hudaybia (sulh-i-Hudaybia) than war even at the cost of pride of Muslims. The peace conditions (I need not go into details of those conditions here, which are quite well known) were far from favourable to Muslims but the Prophet of Islam accepted those conditions in order to avoid bloodshed. However, the Prophet could do so as the other side also, due to certain constraints, accepted peace on their own terms.

If the other side was bent upon war there would have been no choice for the Prophet but to accept the situation and fight the war. It much depends what situation you are facing. One cannot talk of war and peace quite in an abstract manner. Thus socio-political and socio-economic context plays great role in deciding whether peace will prevail or not.

One thing is sure: Islam does not even indirectly hint at coercion, let alone violence, when it comes to any religious or spiritual question. Thus it becomes quite clear that Islam being religion does not approve of violence at all in any religious matter. However, if Muslims are put in a particular situation which is unjust (not only for them but for humanity as such) they may have to struggle peacefully (and if violence is thrust on them, reluctantly through violence) to remove the cause of injustice.

It is quite important to note that liberative struggle should never be confined to Muslims alone. It is quite significant for theology of peace in Islam that throughout the text of the Qur’an we find the words mustakbirun and mustad`ifun i.e. arrogant and the weak or oppressors and the oppressed without an qualification of being Muslim or not. Thus even if arrogant and oppressor is a Muslim, one will have to struggle against him and even if an oppressed and persecuted is non-Muslim Muslims will have to wage struggle against him.

Thus the struggle nowhere involves Islam as a religion but Muslims as upholders of peace and justice. Yes, it is true justice and peace (and for that matter compassion) are also Islamic values but they are also universal values applicable not only to Muslims but to all whether they be Muslims or not. Thus, as far as justice and peace is concerned the clash is not between Islam and any other religion but it is primarily between oppressors and the oppressed. It is wrong to implicate Islam if some Muslims choose to adopt violent means to achieve their goal. Islam does not automatically approve of violent means if any injustice or exploitation is to be fought.

The Qur’an does not permit use of violence as a norm at all. All the verses involving permission to use violence is preceded by the words “if they commit violence against you….”. Thus we find in verse 2:190 “And fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you but be not aggressive. Surely Allah does not love aggressors.” (emphasis added)

Thus it is very clear from this verse that Qur’an does not permit unconditional war and aggression and Allah does not love aggressors. But permits fighting in the way of Allah only if war is imposed by others. The words in the way of Allah are also very important here. Fighting in the way of Allah would restrain Muslims from committing aggression and excesses. Fighting in the way of Allah would mean fighting only for a just cause, not for power and wealth, fighting only if war is imposed on them and not involving personal or collective feeling of revenge. When Ali the son-in-law of the Prophet (PBUH) defeated a powerful foe in the battle and was about to kill him that he spat on his face. Ali immediately got off his chaste and let him go. The defeated foe was greatly surprised as he expected greater violence from Ali after he spat on him. Ali told hi if I had killed you after you spat on me it would have been an act of revenge. Thus Islam does not permit killing for revenge. Revenge killing is not a religious act; its main reason is human tendency to retaliate. Arabs used to call it qisas and Qur’an permits it in keeping with the prevailing tradition as it tolerated slavery as a concession to the prevailing system. But as it makes clear that human dignity and equality is the norm, not slavery. Similarly while it permits qisas it makes it clear that one should not be revengeful and should suppress anger. One who suppresses anger (kazim al-ghayz) is a person of great merit.

The Qur’an says, “Those who spend in ease as well as in adversity and those who restrain (their) anger and pardon men.” And Allah loves the doers of good (to others).” (3:133). Thus it becomes clear from above verse that to restrain ones anger and to pardon is an act of merit, a religious act. Thus one should not use violence even as an act of revenge. To restrain anger and to pardon are great acts of merit. Violence in any form, except in defence, is most deplorable. Humanity cannot flower in an atmosphere of violence.

The pre-Islamic Arab society was highly violent society. Various tribes fought against each other for decades on end. Thus before the Holy Prophet migrated to Medina the two principal pagan tribes of Medina Khazraj and Aus had been fighting against each other for more than four decades. The Prophet was invited there by the members of these two tribes as peace maker and the Prophet did bring peace between these two tribes and old enmity was happily resolved. But to stamp out violence from the Arab psychology and Arab society was not an easy project. Many Arab tribes had economically survived through raids on other tribes (it was called ghazw)

The pre-Islamic Arabs, as pointed out, not only indulged in qisas but were used to settle all questions through use of violence and thus violence continued in the society. There was no concept of spirituality and higher morality. It is Islam, which brought, for the first time, the concept of higher morality to the Arab society. Peace (salam) was part of this higher morality. It was in view of the violence in the Arab society that even greeting between two Muslims was made as Al-salam-u-‘alaykum (i.e. peace be upon you) and it is the principal form of greeting among the Muslims.

However, the post-Islamic Arab society did not easily imbibe the higher Islamic morality. It required inner struggle to control oneself and it was for this reason that many Muslim thinkers, particularly the Sufi thinkers called this inner struggle to control ones desires and raw passions as jihad-e-akbar (i.e. the great jihad and real jihad) and described war with sword as jihad-e-asghar (i.e. small jihad). The Sufis were the pacifists of Islam and those who kept themselves away from the violent struggle for power and also practised great restraint. They thus could imbibe the higher morality of Islam.

One can understand the nature of Arab society and the deep stamp of violence on it from the fact that after the depth of the Holy Prophet his successors – Caliphs hardly got time to promote higher Islamic morality akhlaq-i-karim. The holy Prophet himself was described as uswa-i-hasanah (best examplar) by the Qur’an. Thus Qur’an says, “Certainly you have in the Messenger of Allah an excellent examplar for him who hopes in Allah and the Latter day, and remembers Allah much.” (33:21)

But the Arabs with few honourable exceptions hardly followed this best examplar in the true spirit. Civil war broke out soon after his death (war of riddah) as many tribes wanted to return to their ancestral religion and refused to pay zakah the Islamic tax. Four of the three Khulufa-i-Rashidun (the rightly guided caliphs) were murdered. The third and fourth caliphs (Uthman and Ali) had to face tumultuous times and rebellions resulting in more than one hundred thousand deaths.

Thus one can understand the great gap between what was ideological – peace – and what was empirical – violence. The great tragedy of Karbala on 10th of Muharram when the grand son of the Prophet was martyred by the forces of evil as he tried to revive the higher Islamic morality. The Umayyads usurped power and indulged in violence and terror to retain it. Yusuf al-Hajjaj, governor of Iraq, during the Umayyad period, was a great terror and was quite ruthless in eliminating his enemies. The Umayyad and Abbasid caliphs with some exceptions had no compunctions in resorting to violence. The founder of the Abbasid dynasty was known as al-Saffah, which means one who sheds blood.

Before Islam there was inter-tribal violence. After Islam the social and political scenario changed. All tribes embraced Islam and the very nature of their economic sustenance through inter-tribal raids changed but inter-tribal rivalries persisted. One more factor was added to this. Now centralised state came into existence, which did not exist before Islam and inter-tribal struggle for power to capture the state began often resulting in great blood bath. Thus when the Abbasids captured power from Umayyads the Abbasids hunted down all Umayyads including their children and killed them. This violence was direct result of struggle for power.

All inter-tribal violence in the post-Islamic period was result of struggle for power and had nothing to do with Islam. In other words it was empirical rather than ideological. There is hardly any evidence in history of violence for spreading of Islam. As far as spreading of Islam was concerned the Qur’anic directive was very clear that “call people to the way of your Lord with wisdom and goodly exhortation and argue with them in the best manner.” (16:125) One can argue that this again is an ideological statement and that empirical reality was different in the sense that Islam spread through sword. This is simply not true. Firstly, no religion can spread through bloodshed and terror and secondly there is hardly any evidence of this in history.

Islam either spread through Sufi saints who were good examplars of Islamic morality rather than the rulers who were any way seen as tyrants. It was sufi saints who were carriers of real message of Islam and peace by keeping their distance from the power centres. Also, many people adopted Islam simply because it was religion of the rulers and had many advantages. Also, once a prominent member of the community or a tribal chef adopted Islam other members of the community or tribe followed. Thus it is not borne out even empirically that Islam spread through violence. There is even the instance of the Umayyad caliphs stopping conversion to Islam as their treasury was getting depleted as the converts stopped giving jizyah

ISLAM AND PEACE

The Qur’an, as pointed out above, tried to spread higher morality of which peace was the most important component. In fact the word Islam itself is derived from the root slm which is the root letters for peace. Islam means establishing peace as well as surrendering to the Will of Allah. One of the Allah’s name is Salam i.e. peace. Many Muslims are named as Abdus Salam i.e. servant of peace which also means servant of Allah as Allah is peace.

In Qur’an there are repeated references to the concept of peace. Significantly the Qur’an calls upon Muslims, “O you who believe, enter into complete peace and follow not the footsteps of the devil. Surely he is your open enemy.” (2:208) Entering into complete peace here means entering into peace whole-heartedly. It would also imply surrendering to Allah whole-heartedly. Acceptance of violence as the other part of the verse says is like following in the footsteps of devil. Violence is devil and devil is violence.

In the verse 2:131 Allah says submit and reply is given I submit myself to my Rabb of the worlds. Now rabb in Arabic means one who is sustainer or one who takes us step by step from one stage of perfection to another stage of perfection. Thus submitting to Allah, or accepting His authority means dedicating oneself to the cause of peace so that this universe reaches perfection. Perfection is possible only if there is peace, not otherwise. In fact violence destroys all the achievements of culture and civilisation. Since Allah is Rabb i.e. the Sustainer and Perfecter, he ordains peace and those who surrender to His Will have to work for peace so that perfection could be reached.

We find in the Qur’an (14:23) “And those who believe and do good are made to enter Gardens, wherein flow rivers, abiding by their Lord’s permission. Their greeting therein is Peace!”. Thus it will be observed that jannah (Garden) is so as there is peace therein. Thus the main quality of jannah for which all Muslims aspire is peace. This world can become like jannah only if there is peace in the world. For entering the jannah Allah says, “ Enter it (i.e. jannah) in peace and security.” (15:46) Thus peace and security are the main attributes of paradise.

Muslims invoke peace for all Allah’s messengers because they brought the message of peace for entire humanity. Thus Muslims always write peace be upon him after the name of the Prophet, in fact all prophets of Allah. All Messengers of Allah are messengers of peace as Allah Himself, as pointed out above, is Peace. Again in the verse 56:25-26 we read "They hear therein (i.e. Paradise) no vain or sinful talk but only the saying, Peace! Peace.”

Thus peace is so vital for converting this world into paradise. Its opposite i.e. violence is sin. Sin is nothing if not selfish behaviour. We have converted this earth into a violent place because of our interest-oriented behaviour. The harmony of interests is possible only in need based economy. Clash of interests result from greed-based economy. Our world today is full of violence as we clash with each other for our greed. Islam wanted to establish peace on this earth and hence it emphasised need-based economy and condemned accumulation of wealth, circulation of wealth among the rich. The chapter 104 clearly says that obsession with wealth results in fire kindled by Allah.

.

Same thing happens if we are obsessed with power. Thus this earth can enjoy peace only if some people are not obsessed with wealth and power. Islam laid equal emphasis on justice (Allah’s name is also Just ‘Adil along with Peace, Salam). Thus justice and peace go together. There cannot be peace without justice. Today there is no peace on earth as there is no justice. We are living in a violent world because we live in an unjust world. The Muslim world is also full of injustices and hence of violence. Islam did its best to emphasise justice and peace but a section of Muslims, particularly Muslim rulers remained obsessed with wealth and power and perpetrated injustices and violence. Thus the blame for violence lay on the doors of some Muslims not on Islam. As far as Islam is concerned justice and peace are integral parts of its teachings.

Moreover for millions of Muslims Islam is a deep spiritual experience. They pray, fast, perform Hajj and all other spiritual practices and feel deeply satisfied. They pray for peace. Such Muslims are in overwhelming majority. They have nothing to do with politics, violence or use of Islam for ones interests. It is these Muslims who seek deep spiritual fulfilment who matter and not the few who use or misuse it for political purposes. For millions of Muslims Islam, like any other religion, is a great source of inner peace.

Some countries like America bomb countries in the name of democracy and human rights some Muslims commit acts of violence and terror in the name of Islam. Is there any difference between the two? How does it matter if the people are killed in the name of democracy and freedom or in the name of Islam? We must try to learn between ideals and their misuse by some vested interests or frustrated people.

*******************************

Institute of Islamic Studies,

Islam is being associated with violence and jihad in the minds of not only non-Muslims but also of many Muslims. The slogans of jihad are being raised by frustrated youth unable to find any other way and also by those who are fighting for national liberation and regional autonomy. Such slogans create strong images of holy war being ordained by Islam and Islam being religion of violence. And now what has happened in New York on 11th September 2001 and in Pentagon i.e. attacks on World Trade Centre with the help of hijacked planes will greatly strengthen this stereotype in the minds of people of the world in general and in the minds of Americans, in particular. The attack on WTC in New York and Pentagon in Washington is, to say the least, horrific and must be condemned in strongest possible and unambiguous terms.

It should be remembered that there is no relation between religion and violence, neither in Islam, nor in any religion for that matter. Violence is a social and political phenomenon. It is true that there is mention of war in scriptures like Ramayana, Mahabharata and the Qura’n. But this mention is not to establish any integral link between religion and violence but to portray certain social and political situation that prevailed at that time. It can be called integral only if these scriptures mandate violence as a desirable solution.

It is important to distinguish between what is empirical and ideological. The Twain do not always meet. While violence is empirical, peace is ideological. All scriptures, particularly the Qur’an while permitting violence in some inevitable situations, ordain peace as a norm. The great religions of the world came to establish justice and peace, not to perpetrate revenge and violence. Revenge and violence can never become part of any religion, much less that of Islam. Allah has created both in human beings – tendency for aggression and violence and exalted feeling for serenity of peace. Allah, according to the Qur’an, created human person in the best of mould (ahsan-i-taqwim) and then rendered him lowest of the low (95:4-5)

In fact it is this dynamics of human personality i.e. being created in the best of the mould and then being reduced to the lowest of the low that we have to understand the dynamics of peace and violence also. Allah desires peace and created us, for that purpose, in the best of the mould but our greed, greed for both wealth and power reduced us to an instrument of aggression and violence. For a human being there will always be an internal jihad, an internal struggle to rise to the level of ahsan-i-taqwim (best of the mould) and continuously resist the temptations of wealth and power.

The Qur’an strengthens the social roots of peace by emphasising the role of need based economy and resolutely opposing greed based one. The roots of violence, as pointed out above, lie in human greed. Thus we find in the Qur’an, “They ask thee what should we spend. Say what is surplus.” (2:219) It is obvious from this verse that you spend on yourself according to your personal needs and give away the surplus with you to other needy people. Similarly the Qur’an prescribes in yet another context that the wealth should not circulate among the rich only. (59:7). And it also exhorts Muslims that those who hoard gold and silver and do not give them away in the way of Allah announce to them the painful chastisement.(9:34)

Thus the Qur’an wants to establish peace not superficially by exhorting the believers to love peace but tries to tackle the very socio-economic roots of conflict. If few people or countries grab largest part of the resources of the world and live in all comfort and deny other people even their basic needs violence and conflict will result whatever the pleadings for peace. Or, if some people commit aggression unjustifiable against others to keep their own dominance and deny others their very basic rights, it will be impossible to maintain peace is such unjust political order.

The Qur’an draws our attention to such a situation also as the Prophet and his followers were persecuted by the powerful and the rich chiefs of Mecca to maintain their own hegemony and were forced to flee from that town which was rightfully theirs. It is such persecution by the powerful, in order to maintain their hegemony that violence results. The Qur'an is opposed to an unjust order and domination by few powerful whom it calls mustakbirun (i.e. arrogant and powerful). They persecute the weak (mustad`ifun). If such an unjust order persists violence will result, however undesirable it may be.

Allah thus says in the Qur’an, “And what reason have you not to fight in the way of Allah, and of the weak (mustad`ifin) among the men and the women and the children, who say: Our Lord, take us out of the town, whose people are oppressors, and grant us from Thee a friend and grant us from Thee a helper.” This verse in the Qur’an combines both what is empirical and what is ideological. The weak when oppressed are more likely to fight and resist an unjust order. This is empirical. But the above verse also makes an ideological statement when it says that the weak among men, women and children pray that our Lord take us out of this town (Mecca) whose people are oppressors and grant us from Thee a friend and a helper. Thus the Qur’an makes it clear that one must not live in an unjust order and seek helper from Allah to relive them of injustice.

It is also important that the Qur’an more then once focuses our attention on the on going conflict between mustakbirun and mustad`ifun i.e. between the arrogant and powerful and the weak and the oppressed. The arrogant and powerful is represented by Nimrod and Pharoa and the weak and oppressed by Abraham and Moses. Both Abraham and Moses were liberators. But they liberated their oppressed people not through violence but through struggle leading them out of the unjust order, unjust situation.

There will always be struggle between the oppressors and the oppressed, the powerful and the weak but this struggle need not be violent. It much depends on situation. The Prophet (PBUH) himself prefers peace at Hudaybia (sulh-i-Hudaybia) than war even at the cost of pride of Muslims. The peace conditions (I need not go into details of those conditions here, which are quite well known) were far from favourable to Muslims but the Prophet of Islam accepted those conditions in order to avoid bloodshed. However, the Prophet could do so as the other side also, due to certain constraints, accepted peace on their own terms.

If the other side was bent upon war there would have been no choice for the Prophet but to accept the situation and fight the war. It much depends what situation you are facing. One cannot talk of war and peace quite in an abstract manner. Thus socio-political and socio-economic context plays great role in deciding whether peace will prevail or not.

One thing is sure: Islam does not even indirectly hint at coercion, let alone violence, when it comes to any religious or spiritual question. Thus it becomes quite clear that Islam being religion does not approve of violence at all in any religious matter. However, if Muslims are put in a particular situation which is unjust (not only for them but for humanity as such) they may have to struggle peacefully (and if violence is thrust on them, reluctantly through violence) to remove the cause of injustice.

It is quite important to note that liberative struggle should never be confined to Muslims alone. It is quite significant for theology of peace in Islam that throughout the text of the Qur’an we find the words mustakbirun and mustad`ifun i.e. arrogant and the weak or oppressors and the oppressed without an qualification of being Muslim or not. Thus even if arrogant and oppressor is a Muslim, one will have to struggle against him and even if an oppressed and persecuted is non-Muslim Muslims will have to wage struggle against him.

Thus the struggle nowhere involves Islam as a religion but Muslims as upholders of peace and justice. Yes, it is true justice and peace (and for that matter compassion) are also Islamic values but they are also universal values applicable not only to Muslims but to all whether they be Muslims or not. Thus, as far as justice and peace is concerned the clash is not between Islam and any other religion but it is primarily between oppressors and the oppressed. It is wrong to implicate Islam if some Muslims choose to adopt violent means to achieve their goal. Islam does not automatically approve of violent means if any injustice or exploitation is to be fought.

The Qur’an does not permit use of violence as a norm at all. All the verses involving permission to use violence is preceded by the words “if they commit violence against you….”. Thus we find in verse 2:190 “And fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you but be not aggressive. Surely Allah does not love aggressors.” (emphasis added)

Thus it is very clear from this verse that Qur’an does not permit unconditional war and aggression and Allah does not love aggressors. But permits fighting in the way of Allah only if war is imposed by others. The words in the way of Allah are also very important here. Fighting in the way of Allah would restrain Muslims from committing aggression and excesses. Fighting in the way of Allah would mean fighting only for a just cause, not for power and wealth, fighting only if war is imposed on them and not involving personal or collective feeling of revenge. When Ali the son-in-law of the Prophet (PBUH) defeated a powerful foe in the battle and was about to kill him that he spat on his face. Ali immediately got off his chaste and let him go. The defeated foe was greatly surprised as he expected greater violence from Ali after he spat on him. Ali told hi if I had killed you after you spat on me it would have been an act of revenge. Thus Islam does not permit killing for revenge. Revenge killing is not a religious act; its main reason is human tendency to retaliate. Arabs used to call it qisas and Qur’an permits it in keeping with the prevailing tradition as it tolerated slavery as a concession to the prevailing system. But as it makes clear that human dignity and equality is the norm, not slavery. Similarly while it permits qisas it makes it clear that one should not be revengeful and should suppress anger. One who suppresses anger (kazim al-ghayz) is a person of great merit.

The Qur’an says, “Those who spend in ease as well as in adversity and those who restrain (their) anger and pardon men.” And Allah loves the doers of good (to others).” (3:133). Thus it becomes clear from above verse that to restrain ones anger and to pardon is an act of merit, a religious act. Thus one should not use violence even as an act of revenge. To restrain anger and to pardon are great acts of merit. Violence in any form, except in defence, is most deplorable. Humanity cannot flower in an atmosphere of violence.

The pre-Islamic Arab society was highly violent society. Various tribes fought against each other for decades on end. Thus before the Holy Prophet migrated to Medina the two principal pagan tribes of Medina Khazraj and Aus had been fighting against each other for more than four decades. The Prophet was invited there by the members of these two tribes as peace maker and the Prophet did bring peace between these two tribes and old enmity was happily resolved. But to stamp out violence from the Arab psychology and Arab society was not an easy project. Many Arab tribes had economically survived through raids on other tribes (it was called ghazw)

The pre-Islamic Arabs, as pointed out, not only indulged in qisas but were used to settle all questions through use of violence and thus violence continued in the society. There was no concept of spirituality and higher morality. It is Islam, which brought, for the first time, the concept of higher morality to the Arab society. Peace (salam) was part of this higher morality. It was in view of the violence in the Arab society that even greeting between two Muslims was made as Al-salam-u-‘alaykum (i.e. peace be upon you) and it is the principal form of greeting among the Muslims.

However, the post-Islamic Arab society did not easily imbibe the higher Islamic morality. It required inner struggle to control oneself and it was for this reason that many Muslim thinkers, particularly the Sufi thinkers called this inner struggle to control ones desires and raw passions as jihad-e-akbar (i.e. the great jihad and real jihad) and described war with sword as jihad-e-asghar (i.e. small jihad). The Sufis were the pacifists of Islam and those who kept themselves away from the violent struggle for power and also practised great restraint. They thus could imbibe the higher morality of Islam.

One can understand the nature of Arab society and the deep stamp of violence on it from the fact that after the depth of the Holy Prophet his successors – Caliphs hardly got time to promote higher Islamic morality akhlaq-i-karim. The holy Prophet himself was described as uswa-i-hasanah (best examplar) by the Qur’an. Thus Qur’an says, “Certainly you have in the Messenger of Allah an excellent examplar for him who hopes in Allah and the Latter day, and remembers Allah much.” (33:21)

But the Arabs with few honourable exceptions hardly followed this best examplar in the true spirit. Civil war broke out soon after his death (war of riddah) as many tribes wanted to return to their ancestral religion and refused to pay zakah the Islamic tax. Four of the three Khulufa-i-Rashidun (the rightly guided caliphs) were murdered. The third and fourth caliphs (Uthman and Ali) had to face tumultuous times and rebellions resulting in more than one hundred thousand deaths.

Thus one can understand the great gap between what was ideological – peace – and what was empirical – violence. The great tragedy of Karbala on 10th of Muharram when the grand son of the Prophet was martyred by the forces of evil as he tried to revive the higher Islamic morality. The Umayyads usurped power and indulged in violence and terror to retain it. Yusuf al-Hajjaj, governor of Iraq, during the Umayyad period, was a great terror and was quite ruthless in eliminating his enemies. The Umayyad and Abbasid caliphs with some exceptions had no compunctions in resorting to violence. The founder of the Abbasid dynasty was known as al-Saffah, which means one who sheds blood.

Before Islam there was inter-tribal violence. After Islam the social and political scenario changed. All tribes embraced Islam and the very nature of their economic sustenance through inter-tribal raids changed but inter-tribal rivalries persisted. One more factor was added to this. Now centralised state came into existence, which did not exist before Islam and inter-tribal struggle for power to capture the state began often resulting in great blood bath. Thus when the Abbasids captured power from Umayyads the Abbasids hunted down all Umayyads including their children and killed them. This violence was direct result of struggle for power.

All inter-tribal violence in the post-Islamic period was result of struggle for power and had nothing to do with Islam. In other words it was empirical rather than ideological. There is hardly any evidence in history of violence for spreading of Islam. As far as spreading of Islam was concerned the Qur’anic directive was very clear that “call people to the way of your Lord with wisdom and goodly exhortation and argue with them in the best manner.” (16:125) One can argue that this again is an ideological statement and that empirical reality was different in the sense that Islam spread through sword. This is simply not true. Firstly, no religion can spread through bloodshed and terror and secondly there is hardly any evidence of this in history.

Islam either spread through Sufi saints who were good examplars of Islamic morality rather than the rulers who were any way seen as tyrants. It was sufi saints who were carriers of real message of Islam and peace by keeping their distance from the power centres. Also, many people adopted Islam simply because it was religion of the rulers and had many advantages. Also, once a prominent member of the community or a tribal chef adopted Islam other members of the community or tribe followed. Thus it is not borne out even empirically that Islam spread through violence. There is even the instance of the Umayyad caliphs stopping conversion to Islam as their treasury was getting depleted as the converts stopped giving jizyah

ISLAM AND PEACE

The Qur’an, as pointed out above, tried to spread higher morality of which peace was the most important component. In fact the word Islam itself is derived from the root slm which is the root letters for peace. Islam means establishing peace as well as surrendering to the Will of Allah. One of the Allah’s name is Salam i.e. peace. Many Muslims are named as Abdus Salam i.e. servant of peace which also means servant of Allah as Allah is peace.

In Qur’an there are repeated references to the concept of peace. Significantly the Qur’an calls upon Muslims, “O you who believe, enter into complete peace and follow not the footsteps of the devil. Surely he is your open enemy.” (2:208) Entering into complete peace here means entering into peace whole-heartedly. It would also imply surrendering to Allah whole-heartedly. Acceptance of violence as the other part of the verse says is like following in the footsteps of devil. Violence is devil and devil is violence.

In the verse 2:131 Allah says submit and reply is given I submit myself to my Rabb of the worlds. Now rabb in Arabic means one who is sustainer or one who takes us step by step from one stage of perfection to another stage of perfection. Thus submitting to Allah, or accepting His authority means dedicating oneself to the cause of peace so that this universe reaches perfection. Perfection is possible only if there is peace, not otherwise. In fact violence destroys all the achievements of culture and civilisation. Since Allah is Rabb i.e. the Sustainer and Perfecter, he ordains peace and those who surrender to His Will have to work for peace so that perfection could be reached.

We find in the Qur’an (14:23) “And those who believe and do good are made to enter Gardens, wherein flow rivers, abiding by their Lord’s permission. Their greeting therein is Peace!”. Thus it will be observed that jannah (Garden) is so as there is peace therein. Thus the main quality of jannah for which all Muslims aspire is peace. This world can become like jannah only if there is peace in the world. For entering the jannah Allah says, “ Enter it (i.e. jannah) in peace and security.” (15:46) Thus peace and security are the main attributes of paradise.

Muslims invoke peace for all Allah’s messengers because they brought the message of peace for entire humanity. Thus Muslims always write peace be upon him after the name of the Prophet, in fact all prophets of Allah. All Messengers of Allah are messengers of peace as Allah Himself, as pointed out above, is Peace. Again in the verse 56:25-26 we read "They hear therein (i.e. Paradise) no vain or sinful talk but only the saying, Peace! Peace.”

Thus peace is so vital for converting this world into paradise. Its opposite i.e. violence is sin. Sin is nothing if not selfish behaviour. We have converted this earth into a violent place because of our interest-oriented behaviour. The harmony of interests is possible only in need based economy. Clash of interests result from greed-based economy. Our world today is full of violence as we clash with each other for our greed. Islam wanted to establish peace on this earth and hence it emphasised need-based economy and condemned accumulation of wealth, circulation of wealth among the rich. The chapter 104 clearly says that obsession with wealth results in fire kindled by Allah.

.

Same thing happens if we are obsessed with power. Thus this earth can enjoy peace only if some people are not obsessed with wealth and power. Islam laid equal emphasis on justice (Allah’s name is also Just ‘Adil along with Peace, Salam). Thus justice and peace go together. There cannot be peace without justice. Today there is no peace on earth as there is no justice. We are living in a violent world because we live in an unjust world. The Muslim world is also full of injustices and hence of violence. Islam did its best to emphasise justice and peace but a section of Muslims, particularly Muslim rulers remained obsessed with wealth and power and perpetrated injustices and violence. Thus the blame for violence lay on the doors of some Muslims not on Islam. As far as Islam is concerned justice and peace are integral parts of its teachings.

Moreover for millions of Muslims Islam is a deep spiritual experience. They pray, fast, perform Hajj and all other spiritual practices and feel deeply satisfied. They pray for peace. Such Muslims are in overwhelming majority. They have nothing to do with politics, violence or use of Islam for ones interests. It is these Muslims who seek deep spiritual fulfilment who matter and not the few who use or misuse it for political purposes. For millions of Muslims Islam, like any other religion, is a great source of inner peace.

Some countries like America bomb countries in the name of democracy and human rights some Muslims commit acts of violence and terror in the name of Islam. Is there any difference between the two? How does it matter if the people are killed in the name of democracy and freedom or in the name of Islam? We must try to learn between ideals and their misuse by some vested interests or frustrated people.

*******************************

Institute of Islamic Studies,

Mumbai.

E-mail: csss@vsnl.com

Victoria, Victoria,

All that fasting is going to your head!!!!

And are you saying you read all those Christian documents posted at http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/? Each referenced document name is active. Click on it. Reading all of them should take about a week. Count it as a Ramadan offering.

well, it still doesnt answer the comment lib-

i read the links, and the system used to decide what stayed and what went was pretty scientifically invalid.

at least thats wat the links said

so, no answer?
doesnt change anything- i guess of you had an answer you'd grace us with it

best defense is an offense, eh?

ps- ive just spent a very long time examining the qu'ran, its a part of ramadan.

if you have a point, make it.

Victoria, Victoria,

Again you fail to realize that Islam is just as flawed as Christianity. When you finally analyze the koran in the same manner that that the NT is being scrutinized, get back to us. The starting tools for this process have been transmitted many times.

Victoria, Victoria,

Again you fail to realize that Islam is just as flawed as Christianity. When you finally analyze the koran in the same manor that that the NT is being scrutinized, get back to us. The starting tools for this process has been transmitted many times.

LIB- just a comment- im no scientist, but i can make the distinction between hypothsizing, checking, and improving on said hypotheses as scientifically and genrally agreed upon tools of objective science.

to counter with an opinion-
'common sense and reality' are so highly subjective they have no base of agreement or consensus, and no scholarly value.

theres no merit to these arguments really-
they are using a metaphorical interpretation, and then switiching to a literal interpretation.

which is it?

shouldnt there be some base of consensus on the intepretation to begiin with?

either literal or metaphorical?

im just a neophyte but consistency seems to be key.

Moderate,

Time is not wasted reviewing historical documents. Unfortunately, reviews were not done 1700 years ago. NT scholarship since the 1800's is now rectifying the situation.

And you might want to compare the historical method results to those of common sense and reality.

For example, JPII and Aquinas with a minor input from Paul, concluded that Heaven is a spirit state i.e. no bodies allowed i.e. there has never been a physical resurrection of anyone agreeing the results of the thorough historical analyses of the Jesus resurrection accounts by the Jesus Seminarians et al. (and as noted before, said conclusion is now standard teaching in many Catholic school graduate theology courses e.g. Notre Dame and Catholic U.). Ditto for the assumption of Mary. http://eternal-word.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2HEAVN.HTM

Many of the historical scriptural documents from the first century to the third century CE have been translated. You might want to read them at
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

Then there are those "pwtfft"s and their ugly counterparts with their "divine" communications with the mythical "OTeers" and apparently the hallucinating NT scribes. But hey, there is, in general, no real danger to humanity if someone believes in tinker bells, tooth fairies, and the demons of the demented. Hollywood and Disney love them all!!!!

Dear Concerned Christian Now Liberated:

The Jesus project included every stray dog and cat from late antiquity as equivalent to the canon, and rejected almost the entire canon as a result. Simply put, because they rejected the text almost in its entirety they are talking to each other rather than to the text. Pretty neat. A closed system based upon circular citations implied to be “validations”.

I recommend two books by David Trobisch to you:

The First Edition of the New Testament

Paul’s Letter Collection – Tracing the Origin

Trobisch taught at University of Heidelberg, and Yale Divinity School. He is a serious scholar who went back to the earliest instances of the canonical manuscripts. He did a statistical analysis that shows these documents were edited at a specific place and time by one group of people. As he puts it:

“The thesis of this study is that the New Testament, in the form that achieved canonical status, is not the result of a lengthy and complicated collecting process that lasted several centuries. The history of the New Testament is the history of an edition, a book that has been published and edited by a specific group of editors, at a specific place, and at a specific time.”

His work is based upon quantitative analysis of the earliest existing texts. The Jesus Seminar, by contrast, is based upon mutual citation and subjective “gut feel”. Being a science guy, I am more comfortable with careful analysis of available data than I am with the post-modern hermeneutics of suspicion used by the Jesus Project.

I am sorry that you have wasted so much time on such sloppy intellectual work as the Jesus Project, but you should consider new data. That is the way of science and reason. Hypothesize, check, and improve. You should give it a try. Anything less is unreasonable.

For those who don't know about the Jesus Seminar and what Moderate and Concerned the Christian are talking about, you can read about the Jesus Seminar and criticisms of it at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Seminar

Moderate,

See The Jesus Seminar, http://www.mystae.com/restricted/reflections/messiah/seminar.html

Excerpts:

"The first step in the work of the Jesus Seminar was to inventory and classify all the words attributed to Jesus in the first three centuries of the common era. The edict of toleration issued by the emperor Constantine in 313 C.E. was chosen as the cutoff point. With the Council of Nicea in 325, the orthodox party solidified its hold on the Christian tradition and other wings of the Christian movement were choked off. The Seminar collected more than fifteen hundred versions of approximately five hundred items (it is often difficult to know how to count clusters of sayings and words embedded in longer narratives). The items were sorted into four categories: parables, aphorisms, dialogues, and stories containing words attributed to Jesus. The inventory covers all the surviving gospels and reports from the period, not just the canonical gospels."

"The following is a summary of "all the events or specific acts of Jesus that were designated red or pink, in whole or in part, by the Fellows of the Jesus Seminar."
- Robert W. Funk, Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, The Acts of Jesus, p 566
(Note: I have edited the list and reordered it chronologically. RNS)

* There was a Jesus from Galilee who was the son of Mary and Joseph.
* Mary conceived with the assistance of Joseph.
* Jesus had four brothers, James, Joses, Judas and Simon and at least two sisters (excised from GLuke and missing in GJohn).
* Jesus was baptized by John (a point of embarrassment obscured by the later gospels).
* Jesus was a disciple of John the Baptist
*Some of John the Baptist's disciples became followers of Jesus.
* Jesus "returned in the power of the spirit" (Luke 4:14 - spirit possession?) and became an itinerant teacher who proclaimed the kingdom of God.
* Jesus taught in a circuit to synagogues in Galilean villages using Capernaum as his hub.
* Jesus consorted with and shared an open table with social outcasts and enjoyed a certain amount of popularity in Galilee and surrounding regions.
* Jesus was known for curing some sick people and performing exorcisms.
*Jesus cured a lame man. (at Capernaum - Mk 2:1-12; Mt 9:1-8; Lk 5:17-26)
* Some accused Jesus being mad or possessed by Beelzebul.
* Jesus practiced prayer in seclusion.
*The Pharisees probably did expect heavenly signs related to the coming of God's kingdom.
*The crowds who came to hear Jesus also expected such a sign.
* The Pharisees asked Jesus for a sign.
*Jesus refused to provide heavenly signs.
* Jesus rode into Jerusalem on an ass as a symbolic act.
*The disciples fled when Jesus was arrested.
* Jesus' trial lacks historical foundation.
*The trial narrative was created on the basis of Psalm 2.
* Jesus was flogged and crucified by Roman soldiers during the prefecture of Pontius Pilate (26-36 C.E.)
* The assertion that the Jews and not the Romans were responsible for Jesus' death is Christian propaganda.
* The underlying structure of the Passion story was suggested by prophetic scriptures in the Septuagint.
* The body of Jesus decayed as do other corpses.
* The resurrections was not an event that happened on the first Easter Sunday.
* The appearance stories are not literally true.
* Mary Magdalene was among the early witnesses to the resurrection of Jesus (GMatthew and GJohn).
* Mary Magdalene was considered a leader in the early Jesus movement along with Peter and Paul. "

Halozcel has said:

"According to islam *Jews are children of Apes*.This is a *pejorative label*."

It has been bandied about in the media that Islamic fanatics shriek that Allah turned certain Jews into apes and pigs. Where does this harsh polemics come from? Do they get it from the hadith (Muhammad’s sayings and deeds outside of the Quran)? From later traditions? From thin air?

http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Arlandson/jew_apes.htm

Concerning all people who view religious people as 'terminally stupid'.

Why would you ever say that about another human being? I know that some of the most good and influential people in today's society are very religious, concerning whatever religion they may practice. You can defend your 'practice' all you want, but don't condemn a religion that you haven't had the time or inclination to learn about in it's context. Or better yet, judge the religion if you want, but definitly not the people in it. You don't know them and have no right to make such a narrow-minded and uneducated comment.

Thank you for proving yourself to be an unkind and self-absorbed person.

Concerning all people who view religious people as 'terminally stupid'.

Why would you ever say that about another human being? I know that some of the most good and influential people in today's society are very religious, concerning whatever religion they may practice. You can defend your 'practice' all you want, but don't condemn a religion that you haven't had the time or inclination to learn about in it's context. Or better yet, judge the religion if you want, but definitly not the people in it. You don't know them and have no right to make such a narrow-minded and uneducated comment.

Thank you for proving yourself to be an unkind and self-absorbed person.

from critique of hegels philosophy of right by marx

heres a quick statement better than mine

Secularism: The Opiate of the Oppressor
4/23/07

written by James Abernathy

Karl Marx believed religion was the “opiate of the masses.” He believed religion encouraged the oppressed proletariat to passively accept its fate, thus allowing the bourgeoisie (those who control the means of production, i.e. the “rich”) to continue its oppression of the proletariat. According to Marx (and many other secularists), belief in God and a final judgment dupes the oppressed (proletariat) because such beliefs convince them that those oppressing them will eventually “get what’s coming to them” in the next life. Therefore, the proletariat need not address this-worldly oppression because, in the end, God will judge the oppressors at the final judgment

haloz no it doesnt say jews are children of apes

that is nonsense quit making things up

Dear Concerned The Christian Now Liberated:

Did you read the books by Trobisch in which he demolished the "scholarship" of the Jesus Project? He went back to the earliest codices and examined the actual materials in their earliest form and conducted the first original exegesis research in the last century.

Any embellishment was done by the sixties and came from eye witnesses. They may have been either crazy, or liars, or touched by God. Take your pick.
But the synoptic Gospels were not modified except for minor copy errors thereafter.

The Jesus Project presumed a conclusion and threw out almost all of the text to avoid the things that conflict with it. As in "don't bother me with the facts." Defective work, pure and simple.

Dear Victoria:

Thanks for the insight. Do you remember the book or article name?

yes it was karl marx- and thes statement is one of the most misused and misunderstood on these boards.

(great example of taking something out of context)
it wasnt a quote, but a line in a paragraph which stated that the religion could be used as an opiate to control the masses to subordinate then t the states wishes.
it wasnt a condemnation of religion, but of the abuse of pwoer.

"Islamic dogma creates a cult of death, a cage for women, and a curse against knowledge."

Ayaan Hirsi Ali risks her life to tell the truth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVHEyTx7PkA

*Book of Nightmare* says for the Jewish people,*Be ye apes,despised and loathed* 2.65 and 7.166.
According to islam *Jews are children of Apes*.This is a *pejorative label*.

*Kafeer*(infidel/non-muslim) is a pejorative label as well.

Btw,Denmark,Holland,Sweden,the most civilized and prosperous countries,try to ban *Book of Nightmare*,saying *that book* exhorts and mandates *killing* and *violence*.

Read Ali Sina entire article here:

http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/sina60523.htm

More reasons why islam is an EVIL cult:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defeating Islam - By Ali Sina

I believe religions will stay for many more centuries or millennia. Perhaps they will undergo some change and adapt with time. But Islam is a different story. Islam is not a religion but a political movement in the guise of religion. Islam promises afterlife to rouse the foolhardy followers to wage war, kill and get killed cheerfully and advance the megalomaniac ambitions of grandeur of a psychopath. It is easy to defeat Islam. All we have to do is tell the truth. All we have to do is expose its foundation, remove those sands of lies from beneath it and it will fall on its own. Christianity and other religions are rooted in something good. The foundations of these religions are solid. But Islam does not have any foundation. It is based on sheer lies and unadulterated evil.

Muslims know that Islam will fall if exposed. On a subconscious level Muslims know that Islam is a lie and that it cannot be defended logically. That is why when you criticize Islam they panic. You can criticize all other religions, but all you can do is destroy their superstitions and fallacies. The foundation of these religions remains intact. As a matter of fact these religions have benefited immensely from criticism and thanks to that they were forced to give up most of their absurd tenets. They have adapted to the changing world. The evil practices of Sati in Hinduism, stoning in Judaism and inquisition in Christianity are things of the past.

But you can’t criticize Islam. If you tamper with the sands beneath it, the whole edifice will fall. Muslims know that. They know that Islam can’t take criticism and that it is very fragile. That is why they are so protective of it. That is why they become hysteric when a few cartoons are drawn depicting Muhammad. That is why they killed Theo Van Gogh and threaten to kill anyone who attempts to remove those sands of lies on which Islam stands.

Other religions are plastic. They are like living trees. You can prune them and shape them and they become better. Islam is dead. It is like a fossil. It can’t change. If you touch it, it breaks. You can't remove a single thing from Islam without destroying it completely. It's a house of cards. Remove one lie and the whole thing will come down.

You may ask: “if Muslims know that Islam is a lie why they defend it”? That is a fair question. The answer is that this lie is all they have. They have to cling to and believe in it even though it is clear to them that Muhammad was an evil man and whatever he said were lies. This lie is their only straw.

Muhammad was a psychopath. Psychopaths want to control others. The first thing they do is they destroy the selfhood of their victims. Thanks to Islam, Muslims have no pride, no self esteem, no dignity, no honor. Such a people are often very dangerous. Lack of self esteem is the cause of all evils.

People who respect themselves and know of their own worth and dignity, do not commit crime. They do not hurt others. You can measure goodness in people by their self esteem. The higher is their self-esteem the better human beings, the more caring, the more helpful and the more reliable they become. The lower is the self-esteem, the more cunning, the more callous and the more selfish they become.

This is what makes Muslims so evil. It’s their lack of self-esteem. They are ruthless and exploitative on the outside, but that is to cover their inner insecurity and fears. They are unhappy, fearful, walking scar tissues.

Muslims are bullies. Some researchers have erroneously concluded that bullies suffer from unearned high self-esteem. But there is no such thing as high self-esteem. We have pomposity, hauteur, pretentiousness and vain glory. These are the flipside of low self-esteem. People who lack self-esteem wear these masks to hide their belittled and humiliated selves.

Muhammad led his followers to deny their self worth. They are made to believe that without Islam they are nothing. They are even made to despise their own ancestral cultures and civilization. The narcissist has to destroy the selfhood of his victims in order to make them completely dependant.

Muslims are not fools. They just try to fool themselves. They can see Islam is false. They realize it is against human intelligence and that it makes no sense, but they are so much trapped in it that they can’t leave it. They force themselves to believe, because without it they are lost.

One Muslim wrote to me “Apparently some of the verses may seem or sound bad or barbaric. But it is Satan who is making us see them this way.” This explains the Islamic pathology. Muslims see that Islam is foolish, but they can’t let go. They can’t let go because they have nothing else to cling on. Muhammad has robbed their identity and has destroyed their selfhood. They must cling to Islam, even though they can clearly see that it is false because Islam is the only thing they have. It is the only straw in an ocean of uncertainties.

They need constant reassurance and repeat to themselves that "Islam is a beautiful religion" and that "Muhammad was the perfect human". They even seek these reassurances from others. They collect the the complimentary comments of non-Muslims (particularly Whites, because they think White people are superior) and even lobby politicians and political institutions to issue official statements recognizing Islam as a "great religion". Talk about insecurity.

And then there is the fear – the fear of Hell and the punishment in the grave that has been inculcated in their minds since childhood. This fear has paralyzed their thinking ability. They dismiss any doubt as soon as it comes to their minds.

Dear Ralph Sarkisi:

"How about Vladimir Lenin's definition of religion (and cult): "Religion is the opium of the people"?"

Wasn't the traditional translation "Religion is the opiate of the masses."? The intention was to present an aphorism, so the more ringing language seems truer to the spirit.

Also, wasn't it Karl Marx instead of Vladimir Lenin?

How about Vladimir Lenin's definition of religion (and cult): "Religion is the opium of the people"?

Sorry but anyone dumb enough to believe the fantasy world of religion deserves whatever dishonor they receive from others with a more sane and logical mind.I have no compassion for the terminally stupid.

It's basic human nature to seek, find and exarcerbate differences.
These can be based on looks, skin color, language, customs or religious denominations.
Smear tactics? People just like to smear. There is no PC way to live on this planet. The religious dimension? Stop doing religion and it will fade away all by itself. Just put more faith into human beings, less into fraudulent scriptures and none at all into priests, popes or mullahs. No more smears.

Victoria, Victoria,

You noted: "to every fortune teller and snake oil salesman inmaginable".

Hmmm, lets go back to 570 CE and we find the birth of one of the slickest fortune tellers and snake oil salesmen ever born!!!! e.g. talking to a "pwtfft" in some dark cave, riding to heaven on chariot of camels, stealing the good sayings of the ancients, and that he was a prophet and messenger of God, in the same vein as the mythical Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, and the highly embellished Jesus.

i lived in northern california for many years, and there were cults aplenty, just take your pick.

form shree bagwhan rajneesh caught in the north carolina airport absconding with a bucket of diamonds to j.z.knight channelling the 35,000 year old 'spirit' called ramtha- to that nitwit who actually channels dolphins!
dolphins! he'd actually sit and screech at people and then later 'interpret' for them-
to every fortune teller and snake oil salesman inmaginable-

they all had one thing in common-
weak-minded "seekers" who suspend their disbelief to be told what they want to hear (basically that they are special and superior to others in some way)

and for sme reason these spiritual prostitutes all had poor gods and had to accept money for their 'services'.

god is not poor, and doesnt need our money.
the first time you hear the words 'donation' run run-

contrary to mostly all religions which at least ptovide a framework of functioning in some moral way (we dont have to agree on what moral means)
that lasts in time after the deliverers have left-
cults seem to rely on a static and inflexible word of one charismatic person- and without that falls apart (unless they managed to make a big buck before shuffling off this mortal coil, then it can become self-perpetuating with a new hiearchy in place)

for that reason (im getting personal here) islam cant fall in that category because there is no hiearchal boss in place.

and of course, no one is asking for any money

i think imam taylors point was right on-

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Perhaps the discussion we should be having is not about what is or is not a legitimate religion, and what is or is not a cult, but why many people of faith have such issues with people who have different beliefs, and how we can work towards a world that doesn't need pejorative labels for people who hold slightly different beliefs."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

but i think its too constructive a question for meacham and quinn to consider

their questions always seem thrown together to jsut elicit a conflict-

confict doesnt always make for edifying and valuable dialogue

there are many similarities between the major religions and the less well populated ones too

im pretty sure theres no religion or (cult if you must) that exhorts killing

the limits we set for ourselves with in a spiritual discipline are specifically personal

i think dont judge others is a pretty universal idea
anyone have any other ideas?

Children raised without the love and discipline of their mothers grow up to rob you. The Apostle Paul was right on.

Dear Christians are a cult:

It is a self portrait of a clown that you point to.

Pretty funny. I think Jesus was actually seen at Area 51 in Roswell. Just as good Ammun Re. :-)))

for those who go on and on and copy and paste, do you believe we have to read all that non sense.
just comment dont write a Diary.

Defenestrator,

You quoted from 1 Timothy, Chapter 2:

Many NT exegetes, however, have concluded that all of 1 Timothy was written by some "psuedo-Paul".

See for example Professors Crossan and Reed's book "In Search of Paul, Professor Chilton's book "Rabbi Paul" and Father Raymond Brown's book "An Introduction to the New Testament".

An excerpt from Father Brown's book, p. 654 (approved by the Catholic Church authorities)

"Authenticity: Probably written by a disciple of Paul or a sympathetic commentator of the Pauline heritage several decades after the apostle's death."

And since Adam and Eve are myths, the entire quote from 1 Timothy, chapter 2 has no meaning to begin with.

Well, what I'm thinking about, KK, is how often people want to say, 'Someone can obfuscate this issue, let's throw up our hands and call each other names!'

And how exactly does this matter??

Cults become religion, if luck and geo-politics favors it - religion becomes cult if it does not. Human sociology 101.

How many religions/cults existed 1400, or 1600, or 2000 years ago? Which are now considered religion, which are now cults?

What is religion, and what is cult, cannot be told by some someone who has a doctorate, (or a loud opinionated mouth for that matter). Only time decides what is cult, and what is legit religion. It depends on who you ask, and more importantly, When you ask.

This article is total BS. A 10 year old could have done better. I'm sure many got their PhDs on this topic.. gets to show how devalued degrees really are in this age.. anyone think about that?

I think it's important to keep the terms defined, especially when we speak of as loaded a term as 'cult,' ...as a term of disparagement, it can be applied, essentially, to 'Any religion the speaker disapproves of.'

Certainly, Paganism, despite often being derided and disadvantaged for *not* having strong authorities and rigid dogmas, is just as often accused of being a 'cult' of some kind, despite lacking all the features of a modern one, ...in fact, a prominent modern Druid, Isaac Bonewits, happens to have made a very good analysis of what *does* constitute a cult, which includes the criteria Ms Taylor refers to here.

Particularly in the sense of controlling, isolating authorities.

'Cult' isn't simply a term to describe 'A religion we find odd,' ....it means very specific things. There are Christian cults, (in fact, most are: if you want to be a cult leader, it's much easier to appropriate people's prior conditioning, and bind *that* to the leader/group's authority and worldview,) than it is to suck them in than to try and get them to worship something they never heard of.)

Because of the loose accusations and well-constructed conspiracy fears of Pagans being part of some 'Satanic cult,' (especially during the last time that panic was in vogue) one would hear of Pagan youth ending up taken in for 'deprogramming,' sometimes with more 'cult-like' indoctrination than they were or could possibly have been involved in.

Most cults to watch out for start with the prevailing religion and spin it into their own organization: they'll go to college campuses and look for people made vulnerable for one reason or another, ...it usually starts with the usual proselytizing bag, and innocent-seeming things like 'Bible study classes' ...and incentives to identify with the group via a sense of alienation a lot of people in vulnerable situations don't want to feel again, then on comes the economic coercion and spiritual terrors...

If you couldn't guess, I've dealt with my share of these outfits, including a couple that made the news, and one, even, that was after a relative, who wised up early but still got pretty badly-leaned-on-and-harassed.

The cults that really get away with things seem to come off little different from any other Fundies. , at least till someone dies or someone rich presses charges.

If cults really concern you, as opposed to being a derogatory term that you like to apply to beliefs you don't like... learn the signs, ....don't play into the religious fear and paranoia that is *so easily* appropriated by certain types.

Where a lot of the rhetoric out there gets more *cult-like* than *cult-protecting* is where people start *redefining* words like 'freedom' and 'religion' to mean, 'free to obey me.'

Think like that, ...teach people to think like that, and all someone has to do is substitute their authority for what they were conditioned to obey. Whether it's a Jones, a Koresh, a Bin Laden, or the ones you don't hear about.

Cults, like so many other agendas and abuses, are about *control.* The people doing these things don't tell themselves that's really what it's about... it's displaced.

When you hurt people, when ou dispossess people, wen you get them convinced that spiritual agreement is essential to survival and love and all these other things, then you prime them to buy what cults and cultlike thought are selling.

So I'd be careful how you use that word.

Hey, your rescue squad might just be a buncha Pagans. :)

M/M Moderate: wrote:

The Gnostics of two thousand years ago who also tried to rewrite the Gospels to uncover "Historical Jesus." The Jesus Seminar was not even an original, but was rather took a well worn path to failure.
>>
Attempts to uncover "Historical Jesus" fail because they all look for a peasant that would be God. On another thread here I believe "Historical Jesus" has been found. If that is a self portrait of someone I'd like to know who.

Here's the Jesus revealing post:

BGone:

Aw shucks JD. I forgot to point out that the god Ammun Re, father of Pharaoh is a ball of fire. Must have a male being in it else how did the mother of Pharaoh get pregnant.

Tell me again. Jesus was fathered by the being in the ball of fire, the one Moses made a deal with to become the most important person that ever lived?

Well what do you know about that, Jesus and Pharaoh are at least half brothers, got the same father.

>>How I read that post:
The Gospels say Jesus is the son of God. Pharaoh was the son of god. The only difference between Pharaoh and Jesus is in the spelling of God/god, cap/no-cap G.

The sun is a ball of fire, presumed to be the god that fathered all Pharaohs. Moses had an encounter with a "ball of fire" that, according to the Gospels is the God that fathered Jesus. BEGONE is absolutely correct. Jesus and Pharaoh are at least half brothers. Both were fathered by a supernatural being that looks like or is a ball of fire.

I wonder who's self portrait that is?

You say:
Pope Benedict rightly points out that:

1. Those who rewrite the Gospels to expose the "Historical Jesus" invariably paints a self portrait, not a portrait of Jesus.

2. The Gospels are unintelligible if they are divorced from the divine.

>>
The "divine" is in the ball of fire or is there a shift form one God to another God between Exodus and the Gospels?

Hoax buster has scored a bullseye. Jesus was no doubt a Pharaoh, (Revelation's "the Amen" implying his name was Amenophis?). That's neither a rewrite or divorcing the Gospels from the divine is it?

I do believe a portrait of Jesus has been found in an Amarnan sun-god cult and done without a rewrite of any existing document.

Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law were told on

Wednesday to get out of Australia, as the government targeted radicals

in a bid to head off potential terror attacks.

A day after a group of mainstream Muslim leaders pledged loyalty to

Australia and her Queen at a special meeting with Prime Minister John

Howard, he and his Ministers made it clear that extremists would face

a crackdown. Treasurer Peter Costello, seen as heir apparent to

Howard, hinted that some radical clerics could be asked to leave the

country if they did not accept that Australia was a secular state, and

its laws were made by parliament. "If those are not your values, if

you want a country which has Sharia law or a theocratic state, then

Australia is not for you", he said on National Television. "I'd be

saying to clerics who are teaching that there are two laws governing

people in Australia: one the Australian law and another Islamic law

that is false. If you can't agree with parliamentary law, independent

courts, democracy, and would prefer Sharia law and have the

opportunity to go to another country, which practices it, perhaps,

then, that's a better option", Costello said.

Asked whether he meant radical clerics would be forced to leave, he

said those with dual citizenship could possibly be asked to move to

the other country. Education Minister Brendan Nelson later told

reporters that Muslims who did not want to accept local values should

"clear off". Basically people who don't want to be Australians, and

who don't want, to live by Australian values and understand them, well

then, they can basically clear off", he said.

Separately, Howard angered some Australian Muslims on Wednesday by

saying he supported spy agencies monitoring the nation's mosques.

Quote: "IMMIGRANTS, NOT AUSTRALIANS, MUST ADAPT. Take It Or Leave it.

I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some

individual or their culture. Since the terrorist attacks on Bali, we

have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of

Australians."

"However, the dust from the attacks had barely settled when the

'politically correct' crowd began complaining about the possibility

that our patriotism was offending others. I am not against

immigration, nor do I hold a grudge against anyone who is seeking a

better life by coming to Australia." "However, there are a few things

that those who have recently come to our country, and apparently some

born here, need to understand." "This idea of Australia being a

multi-cultural community has served only to dilute our sovereignty and

our national identity. And, as Australians, we have our own culture,

our own society, our own language and our own lifestyle." "This

culture has been developed over two centuries of struggles, trials

and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom"

"We speak mainly ENGLISH, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese,

Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to

become part of our society. Learn the language!" "Most Australians

believe in God. This is not some Christian, right wing, political

push, but a fact, because Christian men and women, on Christian

principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented. It is

certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If

God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world

as your new home, because God is part of our culture."

"We will accept your beliefs, and will not question why. All we ask is

that you accept ours, and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with

us."

"If the Southern Cross offends you, or you don't like "A Fair Go",

then you should seriously consider a move to another part of this

planet. We are happy with our culture and have no desire to change,

and we really don't care how you did things where you came from. By

all means, keep your culture, but do not force it on others. "This is

OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and we will

allow you every opportunity to enjoy all this. But once you are done

complaining, whining, and griping about Our Flag, Our Pledge, Our

Christian beliefs, or Our Way of Life, I highly encourage you take

advantage of one other great Australian freedom, 'THE RIGHT TO

LEAVE'." "If you aren't happy here then LEAVE. We didn't force you to

come here. You asked to be here. So accept the country YOU accepted."

Maybe if we circulate this amongst ourselves, Canadian and American

citizens will find the backbone to start speaking and voicing

the same truths !

Pamela said:
"Generally speaking, the characteristics of a cult include a strong, central, living religious authority whose word is absolute and unchallengeable. Members of the cult are usually cut off from their existing circle of family and friends or encouraged to isolate themselves from those contacts, often with warnings that outsiders cannot be trusted and with permission to be deceptive in dealing with former associates. They are often expected to subject themselves to intense control by the religious authority, with nearly every aspect of their lives regulated."

Isn't this a description of Muhammed and the early Muslims?

From 1 Timothy, Chapter 2:

" 11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15 But women will be saved through childbearing–if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety."

Is that not tellingly anti-woman? Is this not from the New Testament?

No matter how correct or incorrect the Gospels are, you can't rewrite them, as they are the basis of Christianity. You can prove them wrong, but you cannot rewrite them, just as you cannot rewrite the Iliad.

Dear Concerned The Christian Now Liberated:

Stand by it if you like. Just don't call it good scholarship. I was an Atheist for a couple of decades, and I respect your right to take that belief for any reason you please. But you do have the facts about the NT canon wrong, though.

Moderate,

I stand by my original premise.

Again as with a lot of us, we were brainwashed with mojo. Christianity along with Judaism are nothing more than the extension and embellishments of the good works, fortune telling and thinking of the ancients. Islam unfortunately added militaristic and anti-female chapters to their "good book".

Dear Concerned The Christian Now Liberated:

"Rewrite the OT, NT and Koran in historical terms leaving out the embellishments, myths and fortune telling and there would be no religious cults."

Pope Benedict rightly points out that:

1. Those who rewrite the Gospels to expose the "Historical Jesus" invariably paints a self portrait, not a portrait of Jesus.

2. The Gospels are unintelligible if they are divorced from the divine.

I think the same would apply to the OT, and the Koran.

The Gnostics of two thousand years ago who also tried to rewrite the Gospels to uncover "Historical Jesus." The Jesus Seminar was not even an original, but was rather took a well worn path to failure.

Dear Pamela,

Your definition of a cult:

"Generally speaking, the characteristics of a cult include a strong, central, living religious authority whose word is absolute and unchallengeable. Members of the cult are usually cut off from their existing circle of family and friends or encouraged to isolate themselves from those contacts, often with warnings that outsiders cannot be trusted and with permission to be deceptive in dealing with former associates. They are often expected to subject themselves to intense control by the religious authority, with nearly every aspect of their lives regulated."

Is very well formulated. I appreciate you cool and well reasoned understanding of a dangerous issue. Cults dominate, control, and kill. Religions nourish, nurture, and heal. We need to guide ourselves by that. Christianity never been perfect, and neither is Islam, but God calls us to keep trying anyway.

Peace be with you and yours, Sister.

IMAM TAYLOR- a salaamu alikum
well crafted suggestion-
all the energies expended in pointing out the differences hasn't helped humanity overmuch.

as always , peace and i look forward to reading your posts

Rewrite the OT, NT and Koran in historical terms leaving out the embellishments, myths and fortune telling and there would be no religious cults.

Is Islam a cult?
Yes, the fact that i'd be punished for calling it a cult in any sharia based islamic state vindicates my claim.

Pamela wrote:
The term cult has been used widely to discredit religions that are perceived as heretical, unorthodox, or, even, simply an appealing competitor for congregants. Thus we see it applied not only groups that could legitimately be described as cults, such as the Peoples Temple, the Branch Dividians, or Heaven's Gate, but also to significant religious groups such as the Mormons, the Seventh Day Adventists, or even Islam as a whole.

In fact some like the Mormons have reformed and seem less cultish, only islam has punishments like death for apostasy which the probably the main difference between a cult and a religion.

Pamela wrote:
The truth of the matter, however, is far more complex.

The truth is simple, it's just years of islamic brainwashing that makes it complicated for muslims.

Pamela wrote:
Generally speaking, the characteristics of a cult include a strong, central, living religious authority whose word is absolute and unchallengeable.

The religious authority need not be "living" for it to continue. Even after the death of its authority i.e Mohammed islam has continued to thrive using the same techniques of fear, violence and rewards for members. This makes islam a very successful cult.

Pamela wrote:
Members of the cult are usually cut off from their existing circle of family and friends or encouraged to isolate themselves from those contacts, often with warnings that outsiders cannot be trusted and with permission to be deceptive in dealing with former associates.

Now where did I hear the verse "Do not take christians and jews as your friends" ?

Pamela wrote:
They are often expected to subject themselves to intense control by the religious authority, with nearly every aspect of their lives regulated.

Like pray (SUBMIT) five times a day facing Mecca.

Pamela wrote:
Perhaps the discussion we should be having is not about what is or is not a legitimate religion, and what is or is not a cult, but why many people of faith have such issues with people who have different beliefs.

Guess which religion endorses Jihad against non believers ? In this day and age it is only islam that has issues with people of different faiths or no faith.

--------------------------------------------------
ISLAM means SUBMISSION and where there is submission due to fear there is no free will and that's why ISLAM is a CULT.