Arabs are not the enemy, Islam is the enemy

[Mediocrates]

That's only vaguely true for things we've internalized into our own laws. We don't beat slaves because we don't own any. We don't favor the first wife because we have only one wife. The Western ethic or the Judeo Christian ethic if you will has pretty much always said the same things, in context for almost 4000 years. True the mechanics of it have changed but not the intent. For example in the Torah we read in excruciating detail the construction of the temple and the process for ritual sacrifice none of which exists today. But that's not the point, the point is obligation to God and to justice and to ethical principals.

All of those other societies that had temple whores and child killing, mutiliation, humans as gods as humans, degraded family relationships and what we in west would generally consider perverted values are gone, because they were perverted or extreme or whatever you want to call them. So that which is not moral now was in fact not moral then either and it simply took time, warfare and assimilation, depravity and weakness to prove that out. Whereas we Jews are still around. Telling the same ethic.

[christian]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mediocrates
[B]That's only vaguely true for things we've internalized into our own laws. We don't beat slaves because we don't own any. We don't favor the first wife because we have only one wife. The

This is not true. King solomon has 1000 wives to sleep with.
King david has ten. Israel(jacob) has two wives. It is christian value changes the behavior of "one wife" policy. Which derives from the old testament.

Western ethic or the Judeo Christian ethic if you will has pretty much always said the same things, in context for almost 4000 years. True the mechanics of it have changed but not the intent. For example in the Torah we read in excruciating detail the construction of the temple and the process for ritual sacrifice none of which exists today. But that's not the point, the point is obligation to God and to justice and to ethical principals.


All of those other societies that had temple whores and child killing, mutiliation, humans as gods as humans, degraded family relationships and what we in west would generally consider perverted values are gone, because they were perverted or extreme or whatever you want to call them. So that which is not moral now was in fact not moral then either and it simply took time, warfare and assimilation, depravity and weakness to prove that out. Whereas we Jews are still around. Telling the same ethic.

In the west, they were practicing these perverted values for centuries. The Greek socrates practices homosexuality. The Roman has god's banquet and sexual orgies. It is the christianty, changing these perspective of social orders. Which today we distinguish morality and imoraltity.

It is incorrect to make a judgement on ancient times, based upon our moral rules.

What is moral before. It is not moral now.

[Micah]

As I understand it, the Cannanites must have done something more then just being "adulterous." Not saying they weren't, but something there is more to this. I don't fully understand it, but I know that the Cannanites could NOT have been killed by the Jews with just being Idol worshippers because as I understand it, if you aren't Jewish you're not obliged to keep the 613 laws. That said, there has to be a deeper, more "legal" (according to Jewish law) why the Jews killed the Cannanites.

And something that many people forget to point out, just so people don't think the Jews went in and "slaughtered" all of the people, the Jews gave fair warning that if they (people living in the land given to the Jewish people) left, they would be spared, which many did. And then another thing people forget is that the Cannanoites weren't your average-sized human being. They were by no means push-overs.

[Mediocrates]

In the west, they were practicing these perverted values for centuries. The Greek socrates practices homosexuality. The Roman has god's banquet and sexual orgies. It is the christianty, changing these perspective of social orders. Which today we distinguish morality and imoraltity.

It is incorrect to make a judgement on ancient times, based upon our moral rules.

What is moral before. It is not moral now


You were talking about laws not practices - these are practices. All of these things go on today but they are not codified into law.

[SteveMetch]

Human cultural evolution is significantly faster than genetic evolution. Throughout human history various cultures have experimented with various organizational systems. While all systems will have advantages and disadvantages cultures that ultimately dominate posses to two important characteristics. The first is that they incorporate good principles from other cultures into their own efficiently. The second characteristic is that they can kill efficiently. Islam is a fundamental barrier to the first characteristic. Because of this they have fallen behind in the second characteristic

[Adversary2Arabs]

Originally posted by christian
You are missing my point. What was morally right 2000 years ago, it is unapplicable in todays world.

You say that times are different, so todays morals are different. Christianity was based on Judaism. They adopted our morals because at first, they considered themselves to BE Jewish. Then as Christianity spread like wildfire through Europe(the west), the Jewish Morals went with it. All of the European nations as well as every other country effected by Christianity in the way that there were Chrsitians ruling the area, adopted the originally(and still to this day, obviously) morals and ethics. Thou shall not Steal (stealing is illegal). Thou Shall not kill[(murder is illegal)(unless you're an Arab killing a Jew in a Arab country or France.)] Yes, there are some like 'thou shall not committ adultery' which are not illegal, but it is still looked down upon in MOST places(not all, thats for sure). But in general, most of the Jewish morals and ethics that were in use (and were odd to other countries since they were savages) thousands of years ago, still are in use today in first world countries - like Israel and the US.

[elke]

Christian, you are confusing "morals" and "mores". Some of the Ten Commandments, such as murder and theft, were originally codified in the Code of Hammurabi, which was an earlier event. Polygamy, idol worship, and many other more "benign" cultural differences simply proved to be inefficient as time progressed.

These practices may have been VERY efficient in the ancient times: for example, if there was a shortage of male population due to wars, disease, and other reasons, polygamy would have been a good way to combat such shortage and thus assure survival of the group. Similarly, it was also a good way to assure a place to live and food for more women, when it was impossible for a woman to survive on her own.

We can bicker that these practices WERE the matter of morals at the time, because they were useful for survival. But because this is no longer true, polygamy is no longer the matter of morals, IMO. Judging Islam on such basis is not productive.

Murder and theft, however, still are the matter of morals. These concepts are extremely dangerous to society. It is difficult to imagine a time when they wouldn't be, and even more difficult to imagine a society that would permit such things and survive as a society.

What's wrong with the fundamentalist Islamic societies today is that they are unleashing this thirst for blood, thinking that they can control it. What they don't understand is that controlling such things is well-nigh impossible. The rest of the world learned this lesson in times when the weapons of mass destruction were not available, so the damage from these "experiments" (e.g. Crusades) was limited in scope. Today, however, we as a species are capable of destroying the whole Planet Earth. This is no time to run experiments of this sort.

[Micah]

Originally posted by elke
It is difficult to imagine a time when they wouldn't be, and even more difficult to imagine a society that would permit such things and survive as a society.

For a while it did, but did you ever hear of Sadam and Gamora?

[elke]

My point exactly: did they survive? And it wouldn't have even taken an Act of G-d to destroy them: they would have perished by their own hand!

[signupforpeace]

if you are willing to call any member of the global collectivew an enemy your willingness to find a pacific solution can be said to questionable at best !

[Intellectualme]

Originally posted by ibrodsky
There is a difference between Islam and Islamism.
Islam is a religion subject to interpretation. It provides guidance to individuals on how to live, and how to cope with life's problems.
Islamism is a political ideology based on a literal interpretation of a religion conceived in the 7th century. Its goal is conquest and world domination.
If Muslims were to modernize Islam as Christianity and Judaism have been modernized, then there would not be a conflict between Western civilization and Islam. Thus, Islam is potentially a religion of peace.
Though I would agree that since Islam as understod by the vast majority of Muslims has not been modernized that the problem rests, in part, with Islam itself. But this is a solvable problem. Unfortunately, most of the Muslim world is backwards; Turkey is an example of what Islam could be if brought into the 21st century.

The difference is between Islam, and how people follow it. Islam is not just a spiritual religion, it encompasses every aspect of life, whether it be political, economic, etc. It provides the outline and allows followers to build in that framework according to their time and situation. Contrary to what you said, it is not Islamism that is the problem, simply that the leaders of those countries have not learned to take the balanced course when shaping national policy and laws.

Judaism and Christianity do not wholey cover extensively past the spiritual aspect, however Islam does because one of the ultimate duties of a Muslim is to help ensure social justice, whether they are a minority or a majority. Islam is pretty flexible when it comes to making laws, etc. only thing that needs to be followed are the basic rules like no interest, etc.

Turkey is now one of the failed examples of what a country does wheen it denies the identity of 99% of the population. People there are not allowed to work in government buildings with a head scarf, or beard. Nor do they allow many districts in the country to go to prayer. Now they have a crisis. If Muslim countries.. whether it be Turkey or SA... take the balanced approach and not embezzle money into their pockets. Islamism is not the problem, rather it is the injustice of the leaders.

Modernization comes in all forms, and Muslim countries should be allowed to make their own distinctive contribution to it.

[Intellectualme]

Originally posted by ibrodsky

This is the problem with Islam. It has not had a Maimonides or Aquinas to persuade followers that religion must serve facts and reason. Because when facts and reason are made to serve religion, then any arbitrary belief -- or prejudice -- can be justified.

Western civilization is not merely different. It is based on truth, justice, tolerance, and liberty. These are universal human values. Good Muslims must embrace these values or they will ultimately find themselves on a collision course with the rest of civilization.

Ibrodsky, you say that Islam has never had a Maimonides and Thomas Aquinas. Islamic philosopher were actually the second after the Greeks that make HUGE advancements into Philosophy.

Do you know who Ibn Rushd is? All the western philosophers came after the Islamic ones, and it was only during the 13th century that Europeans actually began to take an interest in Intellectual pursuits when they gained a foot hold in Spain and say the libraries of the Muslims. It was in the 13th century that Jewish, and Muslim, and Christians living in the Islamics Empire translated Greek Philosophy, thousands of books by Muslim philosophers in to Hebrew and Latin. You've got it all wrong.

Accroding to Islam, it is also based on tolerance and truth and universal human values.. the problem is that they just dont practice them anymore and WE NOW do. We didnt before you know. It was only after the first crusade that the Franks learned to take regular baths.

[Intellectualme]

Originally posted by cerulean


That was the Hindus who invented zero. Also, what we call Arabic numerals are actually Hindu numerals, but brought to our attention by Arab scholars.

Actually modern scholars agree that the numerals are actually Hindu. Arabs used a dot to represent "empty" space. ex. 1*1= one hundred and one. The word empty in Arabic was translated as Zero first in Italian and then in English.

[Intellectualme]

Originally posted by SteveMetch
The president said Islam is Peace. If Islam is so peaceful why can’t Christian missionaries preach in the Saudi Arabia? We aren’t there as many churches in the Middle East as there are mosques in the United States? Why is having a bible in Saudi Arabia punishable by a life time in prison? Why did the president during the Gulf War have to celebrate thanksgiving on ships in the Persian Gulf rather than on Saudi soil at United States bases full of soldiers defending Saudi Arabia?

SA even with its oil and Business is kinda like the Vatican. Could anyone preach other religions there?

[danholo]

"Judaism and Christianity do not wholey cover extensively past the spiritual aspect, however Islam does because one of the ultimate duties of a Muslim is to help ensure social justice, whether they are a minority or a majority. Islam is pretty flexible when it comes to making laws, etc. only thing that needs to be followed are the basic rules like no interest, etc."

Don't you be bulls'itting me. Judaism is a way of life.
The Torah has laws for everything. Ever heard of the Talmud or ancient Israel?
Well Talmud is a recollection, explanation and debate of Jewish law.
Jewish law was in force in the old kingdom of Israel and anyway Judaism was the way of life and it was a guide and rule to every aspect of it. "Social justice" and treating your neighbor as you would yourself IS Judaism and Torah.
Jewish law is adaptable to any cultural age were it past or present.
There is nothing new in Islam that Judaism does not have, except gruesome methods of punishment like crucifiction, amputation of limbs and whipping.


I don't want a religious debate to start but the Sanhedrin is a much better system of judgement than a Sharia law court with it's inhumane methods of punishment.
For example a Sanhedrin that sentenced a man to death was called "a bloody Sanhedrin". Even though the Torah orders death sentences to crimes. It was carried out very seldom because of the method of the Sanhedrin was fair for the defendant and the plaintiff.

A perfect example for this in this week's parshah (weekly Torah portion):

Chabad.org Rashi commentary section

"18. You shall set up judges and law enforcement officials for yourself in all your cities that the Lord, your God, is giving you, for your tribes, and they shall judge the people [with] righteous judgment. 19. You shall not pervert justice; you shall not show favoritism, and you shall not take a bribe, for bribery blinds the eyes of the wise and perverts just words. 20. Justice, justice shall you pursue, that you may live and possess the land the Lord, your God, is giving you. 21. You shall not plant for yourself an asherah, [or] any tree, near the altar of the Lord, your God, which you shall make for yourself. 22. And you shall not set up for yourself a monument, which the Lord, your God hates."

Check the page out for the Rashi commentary, he gives an easy explanation to the portion.

This site will is from Chabad.org also but it's more "in-depth".




I don't know much about Islam though and my claims might be harsh and ignorant but what you said isn't true about Judaism.
You clearly don't know what Judaism is if you go and say something like that.

BTW, I was watching a documentary on Afghanistan and arts.
There were Muslim scholars that claimed dancing and music is immoral and forbidden in Islam and others that said otherwise, like some factions that used music to pray to God.
Why do these scholars have these interpretations? Where does the Quran state that music and dancing is forbidden? Or why do these scholars get these ideas?