Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Eternal Wars Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: The Reqirement For Christian-Muslim Peace
David_Blue2002@yahoo.com.au    10/28/2001 5:47:57 AM
Sure this is a strategy website, but philosophically, the end of war is peace, so let's consider the requirement of peace in an "eternal conflict". One could not want a better expert than Professor Seyyed Hossein Nasr to explain the Muslim viewpoint fairly, and lay down the real requirement of Christian-Muslim peace. Now at time when frustration threatens to move the debate from strategic necessity to real religious hostility, it is right to consider this "eternal war" in the light of history, and the mutual hopes for all peoples for peace on the terms they desire. As witnessed by the Pope's Year 2000 apology for Christianity's dark past (which included harsh words and negative attitudes about Islam), non-Muslims have a lot to be sorry for in this conflict. Also, Muslims now face the threat or at least the thought of persecution in Western societies, so we should consider their viewpoint attentively. What does Professor Seyyed Hossein Nasr identify as the barrier to a fair and free dialogue between Christians and Muslims? What should we do to eradicate this barrier? I invite comments from all. link Seyyed Hossein Nasr is a professor of Islamic Studies at George Washington University in Washington, D.C. He has authored some 40-plus books and over 500 articles. E: And my last question to you: I have learned from you that in the realm of "atmosphere," there is conflict, but reconciliation is possible in the "Divine Stratosphere." If this is so, then only a properly trained scholar in both traditions can engage in any meaningful dialogue. What should the ordinary Muslims in the community do, who have to co-exist with their Christian neighbors? SHN: The Qur'an asserts that the Muslims must have respect for the followers of other religions. As long as Muslims believe in Tawheed (oneness of God) and their book they should not have any problem getting along with the Ahl al-Kitab (People of the Book). This term should be understood in a larger context. This, in my opinion, includes, besides Jews and Christians, all the primordial and orthodox religious traditions, such as Confucianism and Hinduism. However, it is very important to know that at the practical level, things are not that simple for Islam and Christianity. One of these religions, Western Christianity, and on a smaller scale Judaism in Israel, is wed to a tremendous economic and military power structure. This was not a question in the Middle Ages, when two traditional civilizations based on God fought against each other's conception of God. Their armies were fairly even, and they respected each other in the battlefield. It is not like this today. The disparity in power prevents Muslims and Christians sitting together for a fair and free dialogue. Just take [some recent] examples: East Timor and Chechnya both were colonies. East Timor was colonized by the Portuguese some 500 years ago, and Chechnya fairly recently, about 150 to 200 years ago. In the case of East Timor, whose population of about half a million is Catholic, a big international campaign took place, which led to its independence. In the case of Chechnya, on the other hand, where a massive slaughter of Muslims took place, the very Western countries that so often speak about human rights, self-determination, and democracy sit idly by and watch the massacre. There is a strong push into the Muslim world that is based on money and the power of missionaries. There is a significant amount of money being spent in Indonesia and Pakistan in trying to convert people to Christianity. Muslims have no choice but to be awaken and have a sense of vigilance. To be friends is good, but Muslims must not let their guard down as far as religion is concerned.
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7   NEXT
muslim    RE:Muslim Spain   8/21/2003 2:39:42 AM
"You are right. When Muslims attack, they attack to conquer. Such was Spain. It took the Spanish Resistance centuries to throw the invaders out." It took them centuries to throw the muslims out? so what you are saying is that during the entire period Muslims were in Spain, there were was one attempt at a rebellion after another? That the people of spain defied the Islamic leadership day in and day out? "Source: The writings of St. Eulogus." I'll look it up... "Of course not. Muslims do not speak of these things. It's embarrassing. It was destroyed in 1013 by Berbers- MUSLIMS- who were mad at the fact that they were being treated as second class by their fellow muslims, the Arabs. OF course, by this time, the "Utopia" was a mass of internal fighting." I don't consider the Ummayad period a perfect model of Islamic government, they in fact had many laws which some consider unislamic, some don't even consider their leaders caliph. No, I don't consider them a model for all muslims to follow, I merely brought their examples to demonstrate the peace they brought between the three religions regardless of whether or not there was some occasional conflicts. BTW, the destruction of the Library you mentioned was caused by some of the unislamic methods the ummayads followed and implemented, not the Islamic ones.
 
Quote    Reply

muslim    RE:Moe selective reasoning   8/21/2003 3:02:24 AM
"I am reminded of an earlier conversation where a muslim offered the fact that Christians were free to practice their religion in the privacy of their homes as proof of religious freedom in Saudi Arabia." You obviously haven't seen me around here very much, because if you have, you would've known about my critisisms of Saudi Arabia and how I have explained why it isn't an Islamic state by any standard. I don't believe there is religious freedom in Saudi Arabia, and even if there was, that wouldn't make that government any more great than it is horrible. The religious freedom I had refered to is included in Islam, it is not limited to the homes; Christians and jews are allowed to have private schools, they are allowed to have their religious ceremonies in their churches, synygoges, and private properties, both are allowed to sell to each other what is allowed to them (meaning a christian doesn't have to refrain from eating pork or drinking liquor just because they live in an Islamic state, it's just not allowed in public), they are allowed their own courts, and they are even exempt from military service. And there is still more... "Using the example of the British press examining whether their government ?sexed? up reports is self-accusatory. Could such a thing happen in any contemporary islamic country today?" Not only can such things happen, but as I have mentioned, they already do. Just like Americans and British governments twist facts to build public support for a war, arab leaders twist facts to build public support for themselves. Just like America and Britain twist the words of the Quran to either subjicate and weaken muslims, or to raise hatred towards them; Arab leaders twist the words of the Quran to grant themselves more power and accomplish their goals. "No civilization I know of has examined its roots and history as critically as Western Civilization has. Adaptation and freedom have been the result." Now here comes the bomb....Yes, Christians had to rethink and reform their doctrines and way of life to rise out from a slump and it worked for them... But that does not at all mean it will work for Musilms... you are now assuming that the muslims population of the world is following Islam correctly, and implementing it correctly, and therefore, they are in a slump... but the reality of the matter is that the Muslims don't follow Islam correctly, or more appropriately, completly. I don't want to go into the details of how we have ventured so far away from Islam, but I will say that is the idea of secularism that delivered the final blow to an already diseased nation. It was when we started thinking that Islam wasn't sufficient to rule in this modern age that we became colonialized by Britain and france. The fact is that if you look closely at our History, you will find a direct correlation between the quality of the people and the greatness of the state at that time. Today, our people are nationalists, secularists, and defensive; and so are our countrIES... funny huh? One nation, 40+ countries... this is as bad as it gets. My friend, Muslims don't need to rethink and re-evaluate Islam, we just need to go back to it, and then we will experience the same success that the christians have.
 
Quote    Reply

muslim    RE:Moe selective reasoning - but not Curly,Larry, or Shemp   8/21/2003 3:06:37 AM
To what year are you referring to? If you are referring to before 1949, then you would've seen jewish communities in not only palestine, but in Jordan, Iraq, syria, lebanon, EGYPT (there were many there) and so on... but since the creation of the Israeli states, those jews had no reason to stay in those countries when they were offered better living conditions under a government that shares their beliefs. Don't try to twist the numbers.... there are no jews in antarctica, does that mean the eskimos massacared them? Massive migrations happen all the time, and when Israel was created, migration was a state sponsored activity.
 
Quote    Reply

capitalist72    RE:Moe selective reasoning - but not Curly,Larry, or Shemp   8/21/2003 2:15:14 PM
Muslim - the reasonable acts conducted under Islamic rule (which seem to have all happened aeons ago, where specificity and due detail are unverifiable), but the bad ones committed by Muslims are all "un-Islamic?" That's very convenient. Instead of delving into subjective interpretations of history, it is more reasonable to view the greatness, evilness, good, or bad of a religion/culture by how its adherents act today. We have Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Kuwait, Iran, and in the recent past Afghanistan who are all avowed Islamic nations. In none of the countries do we see news articles coming out of Islamic clergy and madressahs agitating to let non-believers worship freely, or to repeal blasphemy laws. And pray tell me how Islam decrees its adherents to treat kaffirs like myself, who are neither Christian, Muslim, or Jewish? The Koran and Muslim historians have amply documented this.
 
Quote    Reply

appleciderus    More one sided reasoning   8/21/2003 2:36:53 PM
Being allowed to eat pork only in the privacy of your own home, and not in public, is NOT freedom! islamic governments using state controlled media to whip up hatred of the West, (or anything else) is hardly comparably to an independent British press accusing their government of wrongdoing. The Israeli State does encourage and aid immigration of Jews from throughout the world. Are Palestinians allowed to immigrate to Egypt? Jordan? Syria? Iraq? There are no Jews in the world that I know of who wish to live in Israel and cannot. (Since the fall of the Soviet Union) Do all Palestinians wish to live in Gaza or the West Bank? Or do Arab countries force them to? I know of no state sponsored Arab immigration program. muslims who were not practicing islam committed the barbarism in Spain? Muslims not practicing islam destroyed the Library? You claim that Saudi Arabia is not islamic? They need to go back to the way islam was practiced in Spain? Can you offer concrete indisputable examples of an islamic country, empire, culture practicing the sort of islam you claim is the true islam? Where are these true muslims? Why is their voice not heard? Why can I find nothing in print? Why can I not find Arab heads of state preaching the islam you refer to? Why? Because it doesn?t exist! Call it what you want, but when a muslim cleric in a mosque advocates his congregation commit atrocities in the name of allah in return for a reward in the afterlife, that?s islam!!!!! islam is a despicable religion that feeds on violence. It oppresses mankind because of religion, gender, age, education, profession and ethnicity. It promotes slavery. The only thing I see true believers rewarded for is murder. After much contemplation, I believe that islam must be destroyed in order for there to be peace in the world.
 
Quote    Reply

American Kafir    RE:Moe selective reasoning - but not Curly,Larry, or Shemp   8/21/2003 2:49:17 PM
Surprisingly enough, I as an atheist kafir agree with Capitalist72. (We don't agree on much else) Where I don't have enough gods to be a good Muslim, Capitalist72 (presuming he's Hindu) has too many. But I would point out to the Jews and Christians who believe they are safe from Islamic genocide fantasies that the Koran says that Jews believe Ezra was the literal son of Allah and that Christians are polytheists who worship Joseph, Mary, and Jesus, and that Jesus was never crucified nor resurrected. If you do not accept these definitions of Judaism and Christianity as provided by the Koran, you are denying the word of Allah and the authenticity of his prophet Muhammad, and are therefore "kufr" also.
 
Quote    Reply

SGTObvious    So much for Utopia   8/21/2003 3:00:41 PM
If the best they can do is Spain, and they call that Utopia... I submit to the Jury MODERN SPAIN, Circa 2003 AD, with a Secular, Democratic, Western Style Government. I submit that this government provides a more just, more free, and fairer society, with better education, better medical care, more economic equality, and better security than Spain ever had under the Muslim conquerors, to ALL its citizens, including Muslims and Athiests. I further submit that modern Spain, a finer society than Arab Occupied Spain, is merely typical for the modern western world, and is a less pleasant place to live than Denmark or the Netherlands, among others. If the BEST the muslims ever did is nothing near as good as a typical western nation today, than this contionued muslim effort to create an islamic superstate is a waste of human talent and energy. I rest my case.
 
Quote    Reply

capitalist72    RE:Moe selective reasoning - but not Curly,Larry, or Shemp   8/21/2003 4:25:59 PM
"Capitalist72 (presuming he's Hindu) has too many." I am supposedly a Islamist-sympathising (though at times Muslim), liberal, communist, upper-caste Hindu from India! Not one of which I would label myself with. By religion I am not a Hindu, rather I am an atheist. In thinking about economics and business I am a Capitalist, which doesn't sit well with the label "liberal." In any case Hinduism is a generic term for people borne of the spiritual wealth of India - not all are polygamists - there are Hindus who believe in one god, Hindus who believe in many, Hindus who believe in Buddha, or Christ, or no god, etc..The one thing that all Hindus believe is that their way is not the only way, and there are many paths leading to the highest power. "But I would point out to the Jews and Christians who believe they are safe from Islamic genocide fantasies" You don't even have to go as far as that - Islamic sects are busy pointing fingers at each other as being non-muslims and persecuting each other. So an Ahmediya Muslim in Pakistan can be put to death for blasphemy should he claim to be a muslim. Many are languishing in prison for lesser offenses than that, i.e. implicit claims that could be interpreted as claiming to be Muslim.
 
Quote    Reply

American Kafir    RE:Moe selective reasoning - but not Curly,Larry, or Shemp   8/21/2003 8:34:45 PM
Hey, I may have to lighten up on you Capitalist72. No use in being uncivil to my fellow godless heathens.
 
Quote    Reply

muslim    RE:Moe selective reasoning - but not Curly,Larry, or Shemp   8/30/2003 3:21:47 PM
Well, here it is, my final statement on the subject... I will try to make it brief, though it will be difficult. First point I would like to make, which is probably the most important, is the same as the one you all seem trying to make, and that is that people select what they wish and like to make their points. This doesn't only apply to the way many people, whether kaffir or muslim, view and understand the quran and hadith, but also to the way many people in different times view history. It seems to me that some of you say that I am choosing a certain period of time to generalize and apply to an entire religion, and some of you even say that that period isn't as great as I made it seem (which maybe true), but what you ALL forgot is that the sources many of you used does even worse than I did. For example, if take ISLAMIC history from the europeans, than, you must also understand that the europeans had an almost personal vendetta against the Muslims, whether it is because they ruled jerusalem, or just because they got too big. Regardless of the reason, no one can deny that Europe considered Muslims an enemy, therefore, it's view on Islam cannot really be considered "objective", because as it's enemy, europe would want Islam and muslims to look maybe barbaric, or maybe bloodthirsty animals, either way, europeans would've naturally explained Islam in it's history books from that prespective. I want to make sure you all understand this, you don't have to agree, but at least understand this... Taking history from the eyes of the enemies isn't the most objective way to do it, becuase after all, enemies tend to see the worst in each other. As for the Quran, the same thing applies... many here don't like Islam, and many more have bred hate it in thier blood, so these people, cannot possibly understand Islam the way it's meant to be understood, no way!! These people will see in Islam what their hate wants them to see, so even though it is true that some verses can be understood to mean all out violence towards every kaffir, it doesn't mean that that's the right way to look, and it certainly doesn't mean that even half 1.5 billion (or whatever estimate you wish to use) musims will agree with what you might see in Islam. I don't want to discuss every single detail of Islam, mainly because the people on this board mostly fall into the above, and it would simply be a waste of time to discuss with them. but I will make my point nonetheless, and let all who reads it understand what they wish: "the reasonable acts conducted under Islamic rule (which seem to have all happened aeons ago, where specificity and due detail are unverifiable), but the bad ones committed by Muslims are all "un-Islamic?" That's very convenient. Instead of delving into subjective interpretations of history, it is more reasonable to view the greatness, evilness, good, or bad of a religion/culture by how its adherents act today. We have Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Kuwait, Iran, and in the recent past Afghanistan who are all avowed Islamic nations" If any of you think that Saudi Arabia is an Islamic state, boy, you really need to learn a thing or two about Islam. On of the biggest no-no's in Islam is nationalism and tribalism (AKA loyal to the tribe or nation whether it is good or bad) Now let's simply analyze the name "Saudi Arabia" in arabic it is actually called "The Saudi Arabian Kingodom" All three words in it's name alone defy Islam, Islam doesn't allow kingdoms, Islam doesn't allow nationlaism (not even towrads the arab race or language) and it doesn't allow tribalism (Saudi). Saudi arabia is not an Islamic, it's a modern day example of the kingdoms of europe, where the nobles horde all the wealth and "common" people have to suffer under severe laws... The princes of Saudi Arabia Drink, gamble, and commit adultery Three big no-no's... These people are closer to being American than being muslims, you should all be proud. And the same goes to all the rest, Iran is far being Islamic, and so is Afghanistan, at least today it is... not mention pakistan, and egypt... All these countries are founded on Nationalism disguised under the cloak of Islam, they have simple rules here and there that makes the country look Islamic, yet their foriegn polocies and political structure is completely unislamic, Afghanistan used to be the closest in it's structure, but that's about it... it was nothing more than a frame, all the flesh and blood weren't Islamic at all... oh yeah, I hope nobody here thinks that Saddam's Iraq was Islamic, he was your buddy American Kaffir, a communist who doesn't believe in God, again islam was used as a cover. It is true that in order to find a the best examples of an Islamic state you would have to go back to first maybe 200 years of Islam, but that doesn't at all mean it is outdated. The same flexibility that allows people to misunderstand and twist Islam, allows modern day Muslims to apply Islam to their
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7   NEXT



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2012StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy