The Grandeur of Islam

[domer]

What is the grandeur, in all its aspects, of Islam? I ask this not to imply that there is little but to affirm that there is much. Comparing this present state of Islam with its runaway radicals to a time in Christianity when the mantle of Godliness had fallen from our shoulders, such as during the Inquisition, I ask whether the core of Islam can actually be traced to the halcyon period in Spain, for example, when Muslims, Christians and Jews lived in relative harmony, under Muslim rule, and enjoyed a renascence of the mind and spirit, until events destroyed the "idyll." What I am abjuring is to connect to the true strength of Islam, as we should in all our social and political dealings with anyone.

[Universe Prince]

As I understand the history of the time, the society you spoke of that had Christians and Jews and Muslims living together in relative peace and learning was also a time when Islam itself was open to varying ideas and theological debates. What changed was a rise of ideological rigidity that did not allow for theological differences. For Islam to return to that greatness it had before will require Muslims to tear down that rigidity, to entertain the sort of wide theological debates and variety that exist now in Christianity and Judaism. But there is no quick, short-term solution that will bring this about. That sort of fundamental change takes time, and one hopes is in its beginning stages even now. I think a desire for that sort of change can be seen in Muslims here in the U.S. How that will affect the world-wide Muslim community remains to be seen.

[_JS]

I tend to think the five pillars have their own unique strength. The first is simply a testimonial of the faith itself. The second is purely religious devotion. The third is a required attention to society. The fourth is a further devotion to God. The final pillar is a demonstration of the worldwide society of Islam.

It is interesting to listen to others discuss Islam, or any major religion. Take for example Prince's statement:

For Islam to return to that greatness it had before will require Muslims to tear down that rigidity, to entertain the sort of wide theological debates and variety that exist now in Christianity and Judaism.

The reality is that Islam is not one community and more than Christianity is one community. I realize the next statement gives some credence to that, but think of the many and varied traditions of Christianity. Are Catholics and Baptists really so similar in thought and scholarship? Are Quakers and Seventh Day Adventists close? Islam is not so fractured, but there are numerous traditions and varied cultures within it. It is rather peculiar to assume that Christianity is more open or less rigid than Islam. I've certainly had more open discussions of religion with a Muslim than with a Primitive Baptist. Looking at the faiths with such large characterizations is probably not very profitable.

[domer]

It makes as much sense and is equally heuristic and efficacious, to speak of the ethos of a religion as it is to speak of the ethos of a country.

[Universe Prince]

The reality is that Islam is not one community and more than Christianity is one community.

Perhaps not any more than but also certainly not any less than.

I realize the next statement gives some credence to that, but think of the many and varied traditions of Christianity. Are Catholics and Baptists really so similar in thought and scholarship? Are Quakers and Seventh Day Adventists close?

I cannot help but feel you are illustrating my point. Within Christianity we have these various groups, and yet, they are not enemies. Frequently you can find some of the differing denominations working together. Recently local youth groups of Baptist churches, Methodist churches, Presbyterian churches and I think even a Catholic church were involved in a large, multi-week youth ministry event here in my city.

Islam is not so fractured, but there are numerous traditions and varied cultures within it. It is rather peculiar to assume that Christianity is more open or less rigid than Islam. I've certainly had more open discussions of religion with a Muslim than with a Primitive Baptist. Looking at the faiths with such large characterizations is probably not very profitable.

I have no idea what sort of Baptist is a "Primitive Baptist". And I didn't say there were not various traditions and cultures within Islam as a whole. But it seems to me to be a much more rigid religion in practice than is Christianity. Christianity used to be much more rigid, certainly, but that has passed, regardless of whatever vestiges of that rigidity may remain. But if you think my view is skewed because I am not a Muslim, I recommend you look at the opinion of Irshad Manji, an outspoken woman who grew up in a Muslim family. You can find an interview with her at the other end of this link. It was listening to her talk on an NPR program that made me rethink some of my opinions about Islam and the possibility of reform within Islam.

[kimba1]

http://www.bethel.edu/~letnie/EthiopiaHomepage.html

these guys think all other christians are inferior

[Universe Prince]

these guys think all other christians are inferior

Okay. So?

[Xavier_Onassis]

SOmeone posted this:
I have no idea what sort of Baptist is a "Primitive Baptist". And I didn't say there were not various traditions and cultures within Islam as a whole. But it seems to me to be a much more rigid religion in practice than is Christianity. Christianity used to be much more rigid, certainly, but that has passed, regardless of whatever vestiges of that rigidity may remain.

So I googled "Primitive Baptists" and found this, and a lot more:


Question: Why the name Primitive Baptist?

Primitive Baptist ancestors have been called by various names over the ages. The name Primitive Baptist became popular in the early 1800s when the term primitive conveyed the idea of originality rather than backwardness. Accordingly, Primitive Baptists claim to maintain the doctrines and practices of the original Baptists, who are claimed to be the New Testament church.

Primitive also conveys the idea of simplicity. This well describes the Primitive Baptists, whose church services consist of nothing more than preaching, praying, and singing.

Even though this name can convey a misimpression under modern connotation, it also has some benefits; one being that it provokes interest and questions, which is of course the reason that you are reading this FAQ.

Question: What is the difference between Primitive Baptists and other Baptists?

We include this question because it is likely the one question which is asked most frequently of Primitive Baptists. Unfortunately, the extreme diversity of modern Baptists makes the question almost impossible to answer without inaccurately representing at least some Baptists. Consequently, we assume that the reader has his or her own concept of what a Baptist is, and we leave it to the reader to make their own judgment as to how this question should be answered. The reader should examine the remainder of this FAQ to become acquainted with Primitive Baptist practices. The Articles of Faith and the Abstract to the Doctrine of Salvation will introduce the reader to Primitive Baptist views on doctrine. The Black Rock Address of 1832 will acquaint the reader with the circumstances which lead to the division between Primitive and other Baptists.

Question: What is the Primitive Baptist view of the scriptures?

Primitive Baptists view scriptures as the divinely inspired word of God and as the sole rule of faith and practice for the church. It is also believed that the scriptures have been divinely preserved over the ages, and that the 1611 King James version is the superior English translation of the scriptures.

Paul claimed that all scripture is given by inspiration of God (II Tim 3:16). Accordingly, Jesus said that scripture cannot be broken (Jn 10:35). Such infallibility could only occur in writings under the power of plenary (full) inspiration.

The apostle Peter said, ...no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophesy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost (II Pet 1:20-21). Hence, scriptural prophecy is void of any private opinions of the writers. They were actually moved by the Spirit of God when writing.

[Universe Prince]

Thanks for the info, Xavier. I had never heard of Primitive Baptists before. And however rigid their beliefs might be, Christianity as a whole is not. I never said there were no Christians with rigid beliefs. And even with this example, there still exists with Christianity freedom of theological debate and difference that seems severely lacking with Islam. And to be fair, just as we can find rigid sects within Christianity, we can also find liberal sects within Islam. But at the same time, the most rigid sects in Christianity are really at the fringe, while the liberal sects are the ones at the fringe within Islam. At least, that is my understanding of the situation, and the information about Primitive Baptists does not give me sufficient reason to believe I'm wrong.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Here in the US we have adopted the idea that (a) no one really knows FOR SURE what the One True Religion is, if indeed there is one, and (b) all religions are therefore to be accepted as equal. The first premise is true, the second is logically anything but true, (being as many religions are in direct conflict with regard to beliefs: the Sabbath is either Saturday or Sunday, not both, there is one God or three,  etc.) but it does serve to prevent religious wars and conflicts, which many Americans came here to avoid.

Nothing like this has occurred with Islam,and therein lies the big difference.

The eastern religions are primarily based on logic: it is logical to honor your ancestors. It is logical to treat people well, It is logical to be modest and not show off. The T'ao and the Buddha are really not in conflict ideologically, as Christianity and Islam and Judaism are.

[Plane]

What is the conflict between Islam and Christianity?


Is it a great diffrence that can not be ignored or overcome in the American tradition ?


When I hired an exterminator recently I remember asking him some questions relateing to his poisons not questions about his soul.


I do care about everyones soul and everyone ought to have a chance to know Christ , but I think it wrong to twist a persons arm first even so little as for the sake of an extermination contract.