Islam Explained

[Smith]

That's the point. I wasn't trying to pigeon hole anyone as I felt some was starting to happen. Catholics in fact do consider themselves "Christians". The point was that lumping all "Christians" in the same boat is a little disingenuous. All those instances were committed by the Catholic church under the leadership of the Pope. There were many other "Chrisitan" groups that were persecuted by them. Who was the target of the Inquisition? Here are just a small sample of those who consider themselves "Christian"....Mormons, Baptist, Catholic, Methodist, Church of Christ, Orthodox, Anglican, African Baptist, ..............some are protestant, some are not. To say Christianity has committed atrocities is a little erroneous and a side affect of "anti"-propaganda that has infiltrated our culture. As a Jew you should understand that.

Also, I didn't say the Crusaders didn't terrorize the Jewish population, but in a historical perspective had it been only the Muslims, the Holy land would look a little different today. You are entirely correct in your historical analysis. Sorry if I angered you, just trying to lend historical objectiveness to the discussion.

[The Rabbi]

I think everybody gets the point that people of differing religions have been killing each other, more or less, for millenia...

I mean, Jews have killed their fair share of Christians too... including the first one...

I take exception to that. Please provide any, any, evidence of killings by Jews against Christians on anything like the same scale as Christians have against Jews. You wont.

As for the "first one" I believe Paul/Saul was killed by the Romans in Rome.

[The Rabbi]

That's the point. I wasn't trying to pigeon hole anyone as I felt some was starting to happen. Catholics in fact do consider themselves "Christians". The point was that lumping all "Christians" in the same boat is a little disingenuous. All those instances were committed by the Catholic church under the leadership of the Pope. There were many other "Chrisitan" groups that were persecuted by them. Who was the target of the Inquisition? Here are just a small sample of those who consider themselves "Christian"....Mormons, Baptist, Catholic, Methodist, Church of Christ, Orthodox, Anglican, African Baptist, ..............some are protestant, some are not. To say Christianity has committed atrocities is a little erroneous and a side affect of "anti"-propaganda that has infiltrated our culture. As a Jew you should understand that.

Also, I didn't say the Crusaders didn't terrorize the Jewish population, but in a historical perspective had it been only the Muslims, the Holy land would look a little different today. You are entirely correct in your historical analysis. Sorry if I angered you, just trying to lend historical objectiveness to the discussion.

The Inquisition was directed at Jews primarily and Muslims secondarily.

But if you think the Catholic Church has a lock on the anti-semitic market, may I direct your attention to the good Christian Martin Luther:

He advocated setting synagogues on fire, destroying Jewish prayerbooks, forbidding rabbis from preaching, seizing Jews' property and money, smashing up their homes, and ensuring that these "poisonous envenomed worms" be forced into labor or expelled "for all time."[61] He also seemed to sanction their murder,[62] writing "We are at fault in not slaying them."[63]

As for Jewish-Muslim relations, until the coming of the Zionists relations were excellent (where did the Jews expelled from Spain in 1492 go?). I have a book written by a Turkish rabbi in the 18th century where he mentions specifically how much better life is under the sons of Ishmael than under the sons of Esau. The proof is that you find much longer chains of continuous settlement of Jewish communities under Moslem countries than under Christian countries.

I am not Christian-bashing here. In our times things have changed and the conflict is between religious people and non-religious people (the Islamic terrorists are an aberration, both in Islam and historically). But pretending that the history of Christianity isnt filled with oppression and violence is simply pretending.

[molonlabetn]

I take exception to that. Please provide any, any, evidence of killings by Jews against Christians on anything like the same scale as Christians have against Jews. You wont.

As for the "first one" I believe Paul/Saul was killed by the Romans in Rome.

I was referring to Christ himself. Sentenced effectively by the Sanhedrin, the execution carried out by Romans.

The first 'martyr' Stephen, was also sentenced by the Sanhedrin and stoned.

I don't think anyone could come up with statistics to prove which race/sect/religion has been the 'most' persecuted or most oppressive, in history... I don't have the insolence or gall to make that accusation.

[The Rabbi]

It is arguable whether Jesus was a Christian in any sense that the word is understood.

It is undeniable that the account of the Sanhedrin presented in the Christian bible is entirely made up.

No one is arguing which group is most persecuted. That does mean one can blithely make equivalence between Christian persecution of Jews and Jewish persecution of Christians, as you did.

[Smith]

I take exception to that. Please provide any, any, evidence of killings by Jews against Christians on anything like the same scale as Christians have against Jews. You wont.

As for the "first one" I believe Paul/Saul was killed by the Romans in Rome.

This can go no where good, but I just can't resist. Paul in his own admission, had been and had set out to purge the "Christians". It was only after his conversion on the road to Emmaus (in which he had asked and gotten permission from the Sanhedrin to kill Christians), that things changed.

Anyway, this thread was about Islam. Not about who else has been or was persecuting someone else. It is interesting that you seem to see Christians as a greater problem than the Islamist who want to "drive the Jews into the Sea". Christians, especially in the US are the by far the greatest supporters of Israel. I am as well. I will support God's people and his promises to them.

[molonlabetn]

It is arguable whether Jesus was a Christian in any sense that the word is understood.

It is undeniable that the account of the Sanhedrin presented in the Christian bible is entirely made up.

No one is arguing which group is most persecuted. That does mean one can blithely make equivalence between Christian persecution of Jews and Jewish persecution of Christians, as you did.

I suppose it is arguable, but without getting into a theological debate, I would submit that the true 'calling' or purpose of a Christian is to be 'Christ-like'... So, that would make a true Christian a copy of whatever you choose to call Christ, minus the deity-factor. In all actuality, Christianity is an off-shoot of Judaism, modeled after the teachings of Christ, which is rejected by most Jews themselves.

If a group of people persecutes many of a different belief, or just a few, does that change the wrongness of it? Or just the scale?

[Smith]

It is undeniable that the account of the Sanhedrin presented in the Christian bible is entirely made up.

You might want to clarify. Are talking semantics or in a "no such thing existed". Undeniable by who....the Sanhedrin? Now why would they want to deny that?

[The Rabbi]

This can go no where good, but I just can't resist. Paul in his own admission, had been and had set out to purge the "Christians". It was only after his conversion on the road to Emmaus (in which he had asked and gotten permission from the Sanhedrin to kill Christians), that things changed.

Anyway, this thread was about Islam. Not about who else has been or was persecuting someone else. It is interesting that you seem to see Christians as a greater problem than the Islamist who want to "drive the Jews into the Sea". Christians, especially in the US are the by far the greatest supporters of Israel. I am as well. I will support God's people and his promises to them.

That is no proof whatsoever, not that there were any killings nor that they were on any scale remotely similar to what Christians did. "Purge" probably means to exclude them from Jewish communities, and this was a big issue in those days.

Historically Muslims and Jews generally had better relations, and generally tend to view religion in similar ways. The current situation has lots of causes but religion is not generally among them.

[The Rabbi]

I suppose it is arguable, but without getting into a theological debate, I would submit that the true 'calling' or purpose of a Christian is to be 'Christ-like'... So, that would make a true Christian a copy of whatever you choose to call Christ, minus the deity-factor. In all actuality, Christianity is an off-shoot of Judaism, modeled after the teachings of Christ, which is rejected by most Jews themselves.

If a group of people persecutes many of a different belief, or just a few, does that change the wrongness of it? Or just the scale?

I wasn't arguing the purpose or calling of a Christian, things I have little knowledge of. I was arguing the definition of a Christian, which to my knowledge is minimally one who accepts Jesus as his personal savior.

You are trying to weasle out of your statement:

I mean, Jews have killed their fair share of Christians too... including the first one...

I challenged you on this one and you have dithered and obfuscated.

And there is a fundamental difference between a Boruch Goldstein, murdering Muslims in their mosque, and an Inquisition or Crusade or 100 Years' War, or any of the other many systematic persecutions that have happened in the name of the Prince of Peace.

Similarly there is a fundamental difference between the 9/11 hijackers and the full corpus of Islamic belief and theology.

[The Rabbi]

You might want to clarify. Are talking semantics or in a "no such thing existed". Undeniable by who....the Sanhedrin? Now why would they want to deny that?

It is undeniable to someone familiar with the procedures of the Sanhedrin that the one presented in the Christian Bible is at all factual.

[molonlabetn]

You are trying to weasle out of your statement:

I mean, Jews have killed their fair share of Christians too... including the first one...

I challenged you on this one and you have dithered and obfuscated.

I have mentioned the first two Christians murdered by order of Jews, which were relevant to the point I made... and Nate followed up with the admission of Saul/Paul, which is accounted several times as one who put many Christians to death before his conversion. I'm not sure what more you want...?

A 'death-toll' contest is pretty morbid. That's not the direction I intend to take this.

[The Rabbi]

I have mentioned the first two Christians murdered by order of Jews, which were relevant to the point I made... and Nate followed up with the admission of Saul/Paul, which is accounted several times as one who put many Christians to death before his conversion. I'm not sure what more you want...?

A 'death-toll' contest is pretty morbid. That's not the direction I intend to take this.

Dither, obfuscate, dither, obfuscate.

It would be easier, and I would have lots more respect, if you just admitted mispeaking. Citing one ancient, unreliable source is not "Jews have killed their fair share of Christians." No one is making a "death toll contest." I am establishing that there is nothing remotely comparable.

[Smith]

It is undeniable to someone familiar with the procedures of the Sanhedrin that the one presented in the Christian Bible is at all factual.

1. The Sanhedrin, as you well know, is simply an "assembly" based on the elder council of Moses.

2. Although the New Testament's account of the Sanhedrin's involvement in Jesus' crucifixion is detailed, the factual accuracy is disputed. Some scholars believe that these passages present a caricature of the Pharisees and were not written during Jesus' lifetime but rather some time after the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE - a time when it had become clear that most Jews did not consider Jesus to be the Messiah. Also, this was a time Christians sought most new converts from among the Gentiles - thus adding to the likelihood that the New Testament's account would be more sympathetic to Romans than to the Jews. In addition, it was around this time that the Pharisaic sect had begun to grow into what is now known as Rabbinic Judaism, a growth that would have been seen by the early Christians direct challenge to the fledgling Church. Some claim that the New Testament portrays the Sanhedrin as a corrupt group of Pharisees, although it was predominantly made up of Sadducee's at the time. This does agree with the New Testament where the Sanhedrin's leadership - Annas and Caiaphas were Sadducee's. The Gospels also consistently make a distinction between the Pharisees and "the elders," "the teachers of the law," and "the rulers of the people".

The opposition continues by saying that in order for the Christian leaders of the time to present Christianity as the legitimate heir to the Hebrew Scriptures, they had to devalue Rabbinic Judaism. In addition to the New Testament, other Christian writings relate that the Apostles Peter, John, and Paul, as well as Stephen (one of the first deacons), were all brought before the Sanhedrin for the blasphemous crime--from the Jewish perspective--of spreading their Gospel. Others point out that this is speculative. However, the Gospels exist, and do give an account of events that happened well before the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE, although most scholars consider them to have been penned after the Temple was destroyed (however, see Gospel of Mark and Gospel of Matthew for views on earlier historical dating). Those scholars may believe them to have been based on earlier sources, rather than giving a first-person account; though the Gospels are not entirely dismissed, they are presumed to be biased rather than factual.

However, Streeter and others of the Tuebingen school hold that Christian New Testament writings which discuss the Sanhedrin actually may date much earlier than previously thought, so supporters claim that the NT accounts quite possibly are more accurate than thought heretofore.

According to Jewish law,[8] it is forbidden to convene a court of justice on a holy day, such as Pesach (Passover), making it highly unusual that religious Jews would have come together to hand down a death sentence.

Additionally, Josephus seems to imply[citation needed] that there was a 'political' sanhedrin of Sadducee collaborators with Roman rule. Since proclaiming oneself Moshiach is not forbidden under halakha (there were many springing up at the time), but was illegal under Roman law as a challenge to imperial authority, perhaps this may be a more likely alternative. It should be noted, however, that John 19:12 cites the religious Sanhedrin using this argument to sway Pilate.

Hyam Maccoby's book "The Mythmaker" presents an interesting account of a different historical interpretation.

All this to say it is hardly undeniable.

[molonlabetn]

Dither, obfuscate, dither, obfuscate.

It would be easier, and I would have lots more respect, if you just admitted mispeaking. Citing one ancient, unreliable source is not "Jews have killed their fair share of Christians." No one is making a "death toll contest." I am establishing that there is nothing remotely comparable.

So... you're expecting me to say that no Christians have been killed at the hands of Jews?

Come on man... Here I am trying to simply point out that no religion is free from evil and corruption or victimization and oppression, and you want me to turn it into a body-count? If I wanted to do that, I would be citing all of the other death-tolls which are aplenty in the old-testament... which would be very similar (if not exactly) the same as the Torah.

At least I am citing a source at all.

To say that there is nothing remotely comparable to the persecution of the Jews is un-founded, at best. Truly horrible, in its own right, yes... but not especially unique.

[bteague2]

this thread is now like the episode of Scrubs where a women and a black doctor argue about which is harder to be successful as. both sides will argue til blue in the face and will never agree, and at the end of the day nobody cares except for the two groups involved.

this thread is way past what it started as and should be continued in PMs or dropped completely.

[towerclimber37]

Rabbi,

Its not about body count, its about tolerance. Islam has no tolerance for any other religion.

when you said " Similarly there is a fundamental difference between the 9/11 hijackers and the full corpus of Islamic belief and theology." you are correct.

the problem with the Koran is that there is NO TOLERANCE FOR ANY OTHER RELIGION to be practiced.

even if the Koran says "tolerance" their present ideology doesn't allow for it. My particular problem is that aside from a very few forward thinking Muslims, most of them stand idle while their brethren kill in the name of their God. They don't even speak out against them.

I can only conclude that the Radical Islamists are being given at least tacit approval from moderate Muslims. Until these views change, there can be no peace.

Christians come in many different varieties...and yes, they did kill ALOT of Jews during the diaspora. Since the re-establishment of Israel, they have also provided somewhere between 1 and 4 BILLION dollars a year to maintain the Jewish state.

I view Israel as sort of a second USA, where those who have been persecuted can live with relative freedom. I Look upon Jews with pride and mostly I think but sometimes I say it...."I'm proud of these people, simply because they are some of the best of mankind."

Does that make me a "Jew lover"? no. Does that make me a bad Christian? No.

when it comes down to it, our religious beliefs are like a shirt...one size does NOT fill all, and ultimately, your beliefs are between you and your God, the same as is with me. What counts is what you do with those beliefs..will you do harm to your fellow man or will you do him good? will you love your God or just mouth the words.

those 2 things tell through what you say and more importantly, what you do.

Mark Twain said it best..."thunder is impressive but its Lightning that does the work".

I think we can see what the Muslims are about using this method...and so far it still looks like we have to kill em.

[The Rabbi]

It is about the systematic persecution and occasional massacres by one religious group (Christians) against another group (Jews) over 2,000 years, with no comparable actions the other direction.

The claim was made for equivalence. There is no equivalence, unless MolonLabeTN wants to count the Christian children killed so we can make matzos for Passover. And he can cite even more sources for that than he can for Jews killing Christians.

Islam is a very tolerant religion. Under the Ottomans there was a variety of religious groups (Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, etc) flourishing with something akin to rights. Ditto under the Moors in Spain. There was no such comparable thing in Christian Europe, and frequent witchhunts for Christian heretics of various stripes.

The situation today is atypical of Islam's history, exacerbated by Saudi oil wealth, the end of the Cold War, and a host of other factors. The rise of Wahhabi Islam and the unfortunate fact that it is the dominant strain among the rich Saudis makes for the current situation far more than anything inherent in the Koran. People may want to take a look this book for more info. athttp://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/ReligionTheology/Islam/~~/dmlldz11c2EmY2k9OTc4MDE5NTEzNTgwMA==

[Marswolf]

Russell also didn't believe that anything really exist and he was not the happiest of people either. He feared reality.

???

I know a lot about Russell. Even have some correspondence with the Bertrand Russell Peace Foundation dating back to 1968. Never heard any of this except as a mind exercise. He was willing to get into Descartes' concepts and as a mathematician he had a pretty good philosophical background to do so. Except for some early infatuation with Marxism, Socialism, and Soviet style Communism, he seemed to have a pretty good grasp on reality in my view, and he learned his lesson about Communism. Of course all the professors in the philosophy department hated him. Oh well.

But anyway this thread has moved on, or at least gotten more contentious. Reminds me of the discussions of a late acquaintance of mine who liked to remind everyone he was a member of Mensa. He thought he was very smart. Others may have had a different view.

[Smith]

???

I know a lot about Russell. Even have some correspondence with the Bertrand Russell Peace Foundation dating back to 1968. Never heard any of this except as a mind exercise. He was willing to get into Descartes' concepts and as a mathematician he had a pretty good philosophical background to do so. Except for some early infatuation with Marxism, Socialism, and Soviet style Communism, he seemed to have a pretty good grasp on reality in my view, and he learned his lesson about Communism. Of course all the professors in the philosophy department hated him. Oh well.

But anyway this thread has moved on, or at least gotten more contentious. Reminds me of the discussions of a late acquaintance of mine who liked to remind everyone he was a member of Mensa. He thought he was very smart. Others may have had a different view.

Took that from his "Appearance and Reality" writings from "Problems with Philosophy". Interesting your professors didn't like him. My Philosophy professors fawned over him!

[Guest DEIMOS]

I'm constantly amazed at the people who will defend Islam. Most of the time these same people are anti-America/guns/freedom. Even in the military there are people who will get livid if you say one thing against Islam.

Call me what you will, I really don't care, but Islam is NOT a religion of peace. It IS a religion of hatred, murder, savagery, slavery and fear. It is Satan's reverse version of christianity.

I really don't understand Jews defending Islam. I support Israel 100% and I would give my life killing the Islamic barbarians to keep America and Israel (Islam's sworn and most hated enemies.) safe.

The crusades were in response to hundreds of years of Islamic savagery. I am so sick of the PC bull s**t that has been rammed down this country's throat. Call a spade a spade, grab a can of man and do Gods work!

Rant off.

[dkd83]

For the most part I have to agree with Rabbi on this issue. There is an abundance of evidence that Jews have been and remain the most persecuted, hated, and despised people on planet Earth. In the Middle Ages, Catholic law forced Jews into usury, a practice forbidden to them by their religion. Was this a coincidence? Jews throughout Europe were forced into ghettos a la "The Merchant of Venice" and subjected to many pogroms, confiscations of property, and other denigrations.

Islamic states and Muslims in general treated Jews much more fairly and humanely than Christian Europe ever did, that is until the 20th century, and one can still dispute this (the Holocaust, continuing anti-Semitism, etc.).

It is has been estimated that approximately 50% of the Jews to ever live on Earth have suffered a violent end. I cannot attest to this or even cite a good source for it but I do know that Nazi Germany systematically murdered ~50% of the Jews alive in the 1930s-1940s.

Now, when we argue over the cannonical texts of any religion we run into difficulties. Personally, I find the text of the Bible as reliable as any of the other texts I deal with as a historian. No one questions the veracity of texts attributed to Herodotus, Plato, Aristotle, or any number of the ancient Greek philosophers. However, the earliest editions of these texts date from the 9th or 10th century AD and the Carolingian Renaissance, a good 1500 years after the lives of these men. No autograph copies exist.

To sum up: Jews most persecuted people ever, Islam traditionally more tolerant of Jews than European Christianity (not now), and slighting canonical texts = bad form.

[The Rabbi]

Thanks, DKD.

My point is not that Jews are persecuted. My point was in reaction to the claim that there is an equality to the relationship where "Jews killed their fair share of Christians." It simply isnt true. And the person posting it is lacking in honesty by not aknowledging this fact, preferring to obfuscate and dither.

As to texts: what do you mean by "reliable"? Do you mean the integrity of the texts themselves as accurate reflections of what their author originally wrote? Or do you mean the historical veracity of what the author actually wrote?

If the first, the texts we have largely are OK, although enough variants exist in the Christian Bible to make one wonder if there werent many different versions. Jews solved the problem earlier on by burning the variants, although there is still some evidence of variation.

If you mean the second, that the authors wrote historically accurate things, I would suggest you are joking. This is especially so in a polemical text like much of the Christian bible. It is no more accurate in that regard than Plutarch's Lives of the Philosophers is an accurate telling, or Cicero's characterization of his opponents.

[Marswolf]

Took that from his "Appearance and Reality" writings from "Problems with Philosophy". Interesting your professors didn't like him. My Philosophy professors fawned over him!

Philosophy people have a tendency to deal with the abstract early in life and reality later on. At one time I enjoyed debating such things as how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. These days that sort of mental exercise bores me. Real life and death somehow seem more important. Oh to be an airhead college student again....

Russell's Appearance and Reality was an early 20th century work. Socialism was still largely an abstract philosophy rather than the nasty reality of Soviet Communism. We'd have to get into a discussion of nominals and universals leading to Logical Atomism to really go into what Russell was saying, but he knew that reality was ...well... real.

Philosophy departments are unfortunately all too often chaired by religious zealots. That was true at one of the universities I attended. The Chaiman of the department had a second class mind and couldn't understand the concepts of anyone who was an agnostic, like Russell or an atheist, like Ayn Rand. So he ignored them and expected his underlings to do likewise.

On to other matters, America has a tradition of stated religious tolerance. The statement is seldom backed by practice. Most other nations are not tolerant of religious belief other than theirs. They just don't pretend they are. The Constitution was intended to prevent majority rule on some matters, like religion. Too bad the people don't accept that.

There is (was?) a series running on PBS called Secrets of the Dead. They ran a program called Battle for the Bible The web page doesn't do justice to the program. It was actually a pretty good look at how biblical interpretation and its related politics came about at the cost of lots of people being burned at the stake.

Which brings up a comment by Curley Howard. In one Three Stooges episode they were given an option of being executed by the guillotine or by being burned at the stake. As Curley said, a hot steak beats a cold chop anytime.

[saintsfanbrian]

That was WAY bad mars - or should I say Curley. Anyway. Religion is a topic that causes way too many friends to become enemies.

Suffice it to say, religion is like bung holes, everyone got one and most of them stink.

Too many subdivided denominations if you ask me. The big guy upstairs knows how I feel and what I think, and that is all that really matters.

Faith comes from within, I don't care what you wear to church on Sunday, just remember, when ever 2 or more are gathered together in my name I am there also.

And the only problem I have with ANY religious scripture, is that they are written by man, and I think we all can see what happens when man puts his "facts" down on paper. .57 caliber handgun anyone?