Islam Explained in Layman's Terms

[hafez]

That kind of pokes a hole in your argument that the Qu'ran has no room for interpretation and is always followed literally.

I don't see it that way, I think its an indication of the detriment caused on the young population by the Islamic society in general and is a testament to the strength of the human condition and evidence of the power of genetics and nature in general. I love muslims and believe as a culture if they can get their act together, have alot to offer the world but first they are going to have to take a long introspective look at themselves and indeed that may be happening now as evidenced by many muslims such as Ibrahim Al-Buleihi who is a former advisor to the Saudi Royal family.

Here is an interview on Al-Arabiya that you may find interesting at problems facing arabs today.

YouTube - Arabs Have Nothing to Offer Others

 

[DrunkenAsparagus]

megaprogman: ever watched women beg for their lives before they were shot POINT BLANK in the face with an AK-47?

The face disintegrates into arterial spray, bone and fragments.

Ever seen a stoning video? Takes a good 60 minutes to kill homosexuals, adulterers and others.

Oh ...... right you dont beleive this happens.

Your an Obamunista.

I see.

Go back to reading Huffington Post.

If you're ever trying to get an understanding of a religion, the absolute worst way to go about it is equating it with theocracies.

 

[other]

If you're ever trying to get an understanding of a religion, the absolute worst way to go about it is equating it with theocracies.

Why? It is a common theme throughout history that religious and governmental functions in societies overlap and/or are one and the same. The idea of a separation between religion and government is exceptional, not observed worldwide, and fairly recent.

At the time of the foundation of many religions, religious laws concerning governmental-style regulation of individuals was the norm. I see no reason to exclude the ultimate practical ends of such directives when considering the religion as a whole. Concerning Islam, specifically, Muhammad did take advantage of his position as a religious leader to maintain and wield worldly power over others, so this is pertinent to the subject of Islam.

This is not to say that modern Islamic theocracies are perfect practitioners of the religion. It is important to note however that they do, for all practical purposes, usually consider themselves to be such.

 

[DrunkenAsparagus]

Why? It is a common theme throughout history that religious and governmental functions in societies overlap and/or are one and the same. The idea of a separation between religion and government is exceptional, not observed worldwide, and fairly recent.

At the time of the foundation of many religions, religious laws concerning governmental-style regulation of individuals was the norm. I see no reason to exclude the ultimate practical ends of such directives when considering the religion as a whole. Concerning Islam, specifically, Muhammad did take advantage of his position as a religious leader to maintain and wield worldly power over others, so this is pertinent to the subject of Islam.

This is not to say that modern Islamic theocracies are perfect practitioners of the religion. It is important to note however that they do, for all practical purposes, usually consider themselves to be such.

Theocracy has little to do with contemporary religion. Even in the past, Islam, Christianity, Buddhism and most religions around today weren't formed with this creation. Even if we look just at the theocracies, they were terrible at following their supposed religion.

 

[other]

Theocracy has little to do with contemporary religion.

I disagree. There are many contemporary examples of religion being used to gain and maintain control over nations. Religion is essential to the definition of Theocracy, and theocratic governments are not unknown today.

Even in the past, Islam, Christianity, Buddhism and most religions around today weren't formed with this creation.

Some weren't, but many others were. I would say that Judaism and Islam certainly were, and that Christianity and Buddhism were not. (regardless of later theocracies, I am talking about the foundations here)

Even if we look just at the theocracies, they were terrible at following their supposed religion.

I addressed this in my last post. This may or may not be true on a case-by-case basis, so in certain circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to consider the theocratic manifestations created by specific religious justifications.

 

[DrunkenAsparagus]

I disagree. There are many contemporary examples of religion being used to gain and maintain control over nations. Religion is essential to the definition of Theocracy, and theocratic governments are not unknown today.

Yet the vast majority of believers are not theocrats. The religion espoused by these governments are typically different from their personel beliefs

Some weren't, but many others were. I would say that Judaism and Islam certainly were, and that Christianity and Buddhism were not. (regardless of later theocracies, I am talking about the foundations here)

The Jews and Muslims were formed in small tribes, often oppressed by their neighbors. They weren't in control at the time

I addressed this in my last post. This may or may not be true on a case-by-case basis, so in certain circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to consider the theocratic manifestations created by specific religious justifications.

Theocracies claim to follow a certain religion, but they almost always corrupt the religion greatly.

 

[other]

Yet the vast majority of believers are not theocrats. The religion espoused by these governments are typically different from their personel beliefs.

That is very true, but still, that doesn't mean that the theocracies that do rule on the basis of religious justifications should be ignored within the context of the religion.

The Jews and Muslims were formed in small tribes, often oppressed by their neighbors. They weren't in control at the time.

No.
When the Torah was written, the hebrews were free and in the process of ousting other tribes from Canaan (or at least they were headed that way); When Muhammad initiated Islam he was persecuted, yes, but by the end of his life he had defeated those persecutors (or converted them) using his religious followers, and many religious decrees were made after he'd established control over cities/regions/tribes.

Theocracies claim to follow a certain religion, but they almost always corrupt the religion greatly.

That's true as well, but this only means that these theocracies cannot be taken as perfect ideological examples of the religion. But the same can be said of any individual follower of a religion as well. For all practical purposes, I am saying that such factors be considered, not that they be taken as absolutely definitive of the religion as a whole.

 

[Bodi]

Islam is a Religion of Peace...

 

[DrunkenAsparagus]

That is very true, but still, that doesn't mean that the theocracies that do rule on the basis of religious justifications should be ignored within the context of the religion.

They present, only a perverted view of it.

No.
When the Torah was written, the hebrews were free and in the process of ousting other tribes from Canaan; When Muhammad initiated Islam he was persecuted, yes, but by the end of his life he had defeated those persecutors (or converted them) and many religious decrees were made after he's established control over cities/regions/tribes.

The Jewish faith in Yahweh already existed at that time. Islam was already formed by the time the conquests started taking place.

That's true as well, but this only means that these theocracies cannot be taken as perfect ideological examples of the religion. But the same can be said of any individual follower of a religion as well. For all practical purposes, I am saying that such factors be considered, not that they be taken as absolutely definitive of the religion as a whole.

Yet these theocracies preach the opposite of what their faith calls for. Corrupt clergy, violent jihad, inquisitions, the Crusades, ect. Nobody's close to perfect, but this is a bit of a stretch.

See yah tomorrow, hopefully.

 

[other]

They present, only a perverted view of it.

And who presents a perfectly pure and unabridged view?

The Jewish faith in Yahweh already existed at that time.

Prior to the Torah there was no Judaism. The religion practiced by Abram/Abraham, for instance, may be viewed as "correct" in the sense that he followed God's (or Yahweh's) commands (most of the time), but he did not practice Judaism--his descendents did later.

Islam was already formed by the time the conquests started taking place.

Not entirely, no. As I mentioned before, the conquests started under Muhammad himself, and some religious decrees came after they were initiated. The Qu'ran was not even entirely compiled until after Muhammad's death.

Yet these theocracies preach the opposite of what their faith calls for. Corrupt clergy, violent jihad, inquisitions, the Crusades, ect. Nobody's close to perfect, but this is a bit of a stretch.

Sometimes but not always, and not across the entire spectrum. It all boils down to different degrees of interpretation, but some interpretations can be seen as more valid than others. I won't deny that it is usually a safe bet that you can look to theocratic states to point out blatant examples of a religion being perverted, but to say that this is true in all cases also seems a bit of a stretch to me as well.

See yah tomorrow, hopefully.

G'night.

 

[DrunkenAsparagus]

And who presents a perfectly pure and unabridged view?

I'll be honest; no person does, but it's almost always taken to another by the state.

Prior to the Torah there was no Judaism. The religion practiced by Abram/Abraham, for instance, may be viewed as "correct" in the sense that he followed God's (or Yahweh's) commands (most of the time), but he did not practice Judaism--his descendents did later.



Not entirely, no. As I mentioned before, the conquests started under Muhammad himself, and some religious decrees came after they were initiated. The Qu'ran was not even entirely compiled until after Muhammad's death.

Yes, but the main gestalt of the religions came about before the establishment of these governments

Sometimes but not always, and not across the entire spectrum. It all boils down to different degrees of interpretation, but some interpretations can be seen as more valid than others. I won't deny that it is usually a safe bet that you can look to theocratic states to point out blatant examples of a religion being perverted, but to say that this is true in all cases also seems a bit of a stretch to me as well.

Most of these governments used religious justification for their rule, but discarded faith whenever it became inconvenient. Yes separation between church and state is an anomoly in history, but so are governments acting remotely within their religion's teachings