FD recently offered some interesting tips on what the muslim world must do before they can be accepted into the civilized world:

freediver wrote on Oct 4^th, 2014 at 5:01pm:


I found the highlighted part most interesting here. FD raises an interesting issue regarding how beholden contemporary followers of a particular religion are of the examples or practices of revered or holy figures of their religious doctrines.

Here we have the episode of the mass execution of the military aged men of the Banu Qurayza for conspiring with an enemy that, at the time, was attempting to overrun and destroy the fledgling islamic state. I won't go into the rights or wrongs of the event, instead I will take it from FD's perspective that it was a horrible and unjustified genocide.

So the question is, can the religion of islam "move forward" into the 21st century, with this genocide cloud hanging over them? Or should, as FD suggested, muslims stand up and condemn the act by their prophet as an act of pure evil?

As soon as I saw this 'suggestion', I was straight reminded of another religion with another similar sort of cloud hanging over them. Its the account of the Israelites conquest of Canaan, after the exodus. We know that there was great slaughter in the land, as illustrated by the account of the fall of Jericho for example. We know that women and children were put to the sword - in the name of God - as specifically commanded by God in the book of Genisis.

Now, in the language of 21st century sensibilities, such an account as described above would without question be described as a great atrocity, war crime and genocide. Unlike the incident with the Banu Qurayza, this slaughter of Canaanites is specifically framed as part of biblical doctrine: God commanded that these people be slaughtered, and indeed it was a test of the Israelites faith - the more willing they were to slaughter babies, the closer they were to God. But I hasten to add, this is not to judge, but just to put this into context.

So the question I ask is could the Christian religion "move forward" into 21st century civilization with this cloud hanging over them? The answer is they can and they have. Of course the inevitable counter will be that of course Christians don't, or didn't go round slaughtering children en-masse in emulation of their ancient prophets in the first place. I counter by saying, well actually, yes they did. Christians made mass slaughter of men women and children an art form during many periods including Charlemagne's conquest of Saxony, the crusader's conquest of Jerusalem and much of Palestine during the first crusade, and of course the conquistador conquest of Central and South America. And thats not even going into the many interfaith wars post-reformation.

So we can see that in the case of Christianity, we have 1. a religion that has mass slaughter of men women and children enshrined in its holy book 2. examples throughout history of its adherents "emulating" their prophet(s) (as much as muslim terrorists can be said to be "emulating" their prophet). By the standards being applied to islam, this fits the criteria for a religion that cannot "move forward" until its adherents stand up and reject their doctrine as evil.

And yet they have not.

And yet Christianity has managed to (mostly) stop being a violent religion, and has embraced 21st century values.

By this logic, there is no reason why islam cannot do the same without the need for its adherents to stand up and condemn their prophet.

brumbie wrote on Oct 5^th, 2014 at 1:37am:


You can’t possibly be serious.

freediver wrote on Oct 5^th, 2014 at 7:46am:


um no, thats what the whole point I was making. Listen to what I say this time:

slaughtering women and babies *IS* supported by christian doctrine - it is specifically ordained as an act that will bring followers closer to God. I'm not making this up, its all there in Genesis.

Islamic doctrine on the other hand doesn't even mention the Qurayza executions - and it is certainly not something that is in any way framed as an "islamic" thing to do. It is merely a historical event carried out by the historical Muhammad. Do you see the difference?

freediver wrote on Oct 5^th, 2014 at 7:46am:


Christians need to reject an act that is a specific part of their doctrine - an act that their God ordains as bringing them closer to God. This can't be easy, but they have done it. Muslims on the other hand are not even being asked to reject a part of doctrine - the actions of Muhammad as a political leader in a particular time and place is not islamic doctrine. He even said so himself - to follow him on religious guidance, but not on other matters.

freediver wrote on Oct 5^th, 2014 at 3:25pm:


I didn't ignore it, I didn't see this "explanation". After reading your post again I still haven't seen it. Would you mind pointing it out to me?

freediver wrote on Oct 5^th, 2014 at 3:25pm:


Just to be clear  - you can't understand the difference between a specific call by God himself to slaughter babies, and in doing so will bring you closer to God, written in the Holy Book - with a secular ruling carried out by a secular ruler, that is not justified in religious terms, and is not even mentioned in the religion's Holy Book?

Anway, I have no idea what you mean by "you expect us to judge Christianity by ignoring Jesus" - thats about the exact opposite of what I said - ie christianity succeeds because we *DON'T* ignore the positive things about Jesus. Even though we could turn it around and point out that Jesus told his followers to take up the sword in defense of the religion (for example). And similarly with Islam, we could also emphasise the fact that Muhammad said "Faith is a restraint against all violence, let no Mu’min (muslim) commit violence."

In short, I see no good reason why muslims need to condemn the actions of their prophet as a necessary prerequisite to embracing 21st century secular values.

And yet there is no "war doctrine" in Islam's holy book outside the permissibility to fight in self defense. The "kill all infidels" doctrine, if it ever existed in islamic law, only existed from ahadith that were revealed two hundred years after the death of the Prophet. The quran says the path to God is the path to peace (5:16). Why maintain the argument that this message can be ignored in favour of the 'kill all infidels" message, but not the other way around? Thats my point.

Also, the geopolitical context in which Islam arose was not the threat of a resurgent Byzantine Empire, but rather a power vacuum that emerged from the two powers in the region - the Byzantines and the Persians - exhausting each other through a devastating war.

Quote:


Jesus fundamentally changed the religion. You cannot reconcile your characterisation of Christianity by the old parts of the old testament with what Jesus taught.

Quote:


I cannot understand your description of Muhammed as a secular ruler. I asked you to back this claim up last post.

Quote:


Can you explain Jesus' involvement in the extract you used to characterise Christianity?

Quote:


Plenty of others have explained this here to my satisfaction. All you have to do is quote the whole verse. It is the only Jesus quote that sounds like a call to arms, and if you quote the whole thing it sounds like the opposite. In my opinion, this is simply Muslims trying to misrepresent Jesus as being similar to Muhammed, when in fact he is pretty much the opposite. I am sure you know this by now.

Quote:


Sure, if you want to define your religion by a person who says one thing and does the exact opposite.

Why does it not simply say let no Muslim commit violence?

freediver wrote on Oct 5^th, 2014 at 4:56pm:


Then why is the old testament still part of the bible? I've seen many discussions with christians, but this point has never been satisfactorily answered. They basically argue that christianity starts with the new testament - and yet the OT is still there, and the actions of the Prophets in the OT is definitely not rejected as not being ordained by God. The genocide of the Canaanites, while christians would prefer wasn't there, can never be dismissed as not something that was ordained by the same God they worship.

freediver wrote on Oct 5^th, 2014 at 4:56pm:


Now now FD, don't be telling fibs.That was the first time I used the term, and you asked no such thing.

Anyway... Muhammad was a secular ruler, thats a simple statement of fact. He ruled over a multi-faith city state, and clearly made worldly rulings and political decisions that really had nothing to do with what we now term islamic doctrine. Thats the context in which I see the sentence carried out on the Banu Qurayza. A regular secular ruler, ruling purely in the interests of his worldly secular state.

freediver wrote on Oct 5^th, 2014 at 4:56pm:


He wasn't - obviously. But that doesn't reconcile the conundrum I outlined above of christians not cutting loose the OT from their doctrine.

freediver wrote on Oct 5^th, 2014 at 4:56pm:


Thats your opinion FD, which I'm obviously not going to change. But you have done a sterling job at avoiding the core question of the thread - what good reason is there to conclude that muslims cannot move forward without condemning the actions of their Prophet?

Soren wrote on Oct 5^th, 2014 at 6:13pm:


Yet reformists like Gandalf would argue otherwise, Soren.  In fact, I suspect they would argue that Muhammad is the reason why Islam can be reformed - by, as Gandalf has eloquently IMHO argued that if Muslims returned to the core, central teachings of Muhammed, jettisoning all the baggage that has crept in, in the last 1400 years, Islam could be modernised.   The point is, most of what the Islamists claim is central to Islam isn't.  It is based on teachings, beliefs, decisions which are not in the Q'ran and which were not actually part of Muhammad's original message.

Remarkably, this is similar to what the Christian reformists wanted.  They wanted to get rid of the Church and it's teachings and corrupt practices, not what Christ said.   If it worked for them, why can't it work for Muslims, Soren?

Oh, that's right, they are exactly that, Muslims and in your mind that is their problem right away.  Perhaps they should all just convert to your version of Christianity?  Might save a lot of itme, right?