AI-Jane Political, And Economic Forums

Full Version: 2 Blind Faiths - Hirsi Ali Book Review
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Well and good, but Harris' speculation on Islam and Reason is flawed. He says Islam is permanent. So was Zorastroism before Islam. The successor of Islam may well be Reason.

The Reason that he talks about, using Chomski and Wolfowitz as illustration, ia actually anti-Reason. Truth and facts misapplied are never successful. Truth and facts misunderstood are also never successful. True Reason is successful by definition - and surprisingly enough - has a place within it for religion.

As I've often presented, religious conversion is an innate pyschological mechanism, hard-wired into our mammalian brains. Because of this Man will always be susceptible to charlatans and charismatic leaders. Without a current Mohammad, or Joseph Smith, the churches they built are eternally changing and evolving. Islam will also transmogriphy into something different. Perhaps it is Israel's and other infidel successes that contrast with Islamic cultural failures that will change it.

When is anyone's guess. I would have thought that Mormonism would have fallen when the prophesies of the end of the world - specifically said to PROVE the faith - did not come as predicted, Same with Seventh Day Adventists. Thousands of believers put their affairs in order ready for the prophesied end of the world, but when it did not come, a few hard-core believers just changed Church doctrine a little and continued on as if nothing of any importance had happened. Same will happen with Islam. As the real world contrasts with Muslim teaching, change will come.
WmLambert Wrote:Well and good, but Harris' speculation on Islam and Reason is flawed. He says Islam is permanent. So was Zorastroism before Islam. The successor of Islam may well be Reason.
I share this anticipation, atheism will prevail over Islam. You were mistaken to name Zorastroism as predecessor of Islam, which actually were Judaism and Christianity. The theological change was small, but banishing hypocrisy from the religion has been an important step in morale.
Actually to pick nits, I was not in error citing Zoroastrianism as a changed entity because of Mohammad. Yes, Mohammad did come from Christianity and Judaism, but the change to Zoroastrianism was the greatest end of a religion I know of.
William,

I think a rough comparison of Islam to Pharasaical Judaism(to wit no spiritual understanding for their rituals) minus the reality of The Christ is accurate. Of course the Arabic version of Pharasaical Judaism(and that's really what Islam is) uses it's own terminology based on Arabic and it exchanges the meeting place from Jerusalem,Israel to Mecca,but largely it's the same religion.

They sacrifice their goats still,they meet annually as the Jews did in Jerusalem,they are ostentatious with their 5X a day prayers as Pharisees/Zealots were legalistic in this manner,too. Both believe in monotheism,etc. Both have a Messiah figure(mahdi for the Muslims) and each expects the Messiah to become their political deliverer from oppression.

The only comparison I have found with New Testament doctrine is for whatever reason,Islam teaches Jesus was born of a virgin,but it denies He is The Son of God. Other that that,I can't find any relationships.

More I study Scripture,the more I see the al qaeda mentality among the Pharisees and Zealots. More things change,more they remain the same.

To the article,what strikes me is how we seem paralyzed to do anything about this Islamic invasion in the west.
True enough, Palladin, but don't mistake the difference in how the various religions germinated. The Judaic and Christian faiths spread by personal testament and proselytizing - Islam spread by coercion and threat of fire and sword. At the time of Mohammad, the main culturally advanced and successful cities were all Christian. The technological advancement and economic prosperity of these cities were taken over by militant Muslim soldiers, and Islam was forced upon the Christians and Jews.

All the technological underpinnings of Islam came from the places they took over. Many advancements were purposefully lost because Infidels were not supposed to be better intellectually and superior to their new masters. One of the first changes in Islam came when the mullahs came to understand that their personal comfort and prosperity required accepting some of the Christian and Jewish successes. They allowed some semblance of infidel religions to remain, but as slaves who had to pay their own ransom and hide any non-Muslim observance behind closed doors.

The mere similarity of rituals and shared history are not enough to call these religions the same.
William,

Good point about how they advanced,but Islam sure does look like Pharasaical/Zealot( I mean this specifically as disrespect to proper Judaism) Judaism to me more and more minus the Jews and plus some other nonsense,such as jihad/ummah.

I guess the jihad concept explains why they didn't simply send out missionaries like Jonah or my buddy from Nashville.
WmLambert Wrote:True enough, Palladin, but don't mistake the difference in how the various religions germinated. The Judaic and Christian faiths spread by personal testament and proselytizing - Islam spread by coercion and threat of fire and sword. At the time of Mohammad, the main culturally advanced and successful cities were all Christian. The technological advancement and economic prosperity of these cities were taken over by militant Muslim soldiers, and Islam was forced upon the Christians and Jews.

All the technological underpinnings of Islam came from the places they took over. Many advancements were purposefully lost because Infidels were not supposed to be better intellectually and superior to their new masters. One of the first changes in Islam came when the mullahs came to understand that their personal comfort and prosperity required accepting some of the Christian and Jewish successes. They allowed some semblance of infidel religions to remain, but as slaves who had to pay their own ransom and hide any non-Muslim observance behind closed doors.

The mere similarity of rituals and shared history are not enough to call these religions the same.
The Christian faith spread by coercion and not only threat, but appliance of fire and sword, and more often than not, genocides such as in the Americas and Afrika. Muslim conquerers never descended to such methods. While Europe for centuries drowned in poverty and constant wars in the dark ages, Muslims enjoyed culture, arts, and science, and social advances.
At the time of Mohammed, Christianity had succeded to destroy the great cultures of old and to sink Europe in misery which would last 1,000 years and end only by atheism, while Islam in it's sphere of influence, after Mohammed, created a great civilization.
Quad,

If I murder say all the Africans,how is it I could spread Christianity to Africans?

I never took a course in annihilation/conversion physics like you did!
quadrat Wrote:The Christian faith spread by coercion and not only threat, but appliance of fire and sword, and more often than not, genocides such as in the Americas and Afrika. Muslim conquerers never descended to such methods. While Europe for centuries drowned in poverty and constant wars in the dark ages, Muslims enjoyed culture, arts, and science, and social advances.
At the time of Mohammed, Christianity had succeded to destroy the great cultures of old and to sink Europe in misery which would last 1,000 years and end only by atheism, while Islam in it's sphere of influence, after Mohammed, created a great civilization.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Palladin Wrote:Quad,

If I murder say all the Africans,how is it I could spread Christianity to Africans?

I never took a course in annihilation/conversion physics like you did!

They taught different history in DDR than you or I received Patrick. :lol:
quadrat Wrote:The Christian faith spread by coercion and not only threat, but appliance of fire and sword, and more often than not, genocides such as in the Americas and Afrika. Muslim conquerers never descended to such methods.
Sorry, quadrat, but you know you are wrong and are either being sardonic or just foolish. It was the Christians who were eaten by the Lions, not the other way around. You know that the only reason the Muslim hordes raped and pillaged the great Middle Eastern Christian cities from which they stole all their wealth and pretended the stolen cultura was their own, was because the Christians believed in turning the other cheek and to love their enemies.

The Jihadist proved their depravity as Allah looked down at them. Do you think the centuries of stagnation as the Islamic world lived off the spoils of its conquest by fire and sword were a coincidence? No art, no science, no technological advancement that did not come from their slaves. The only reason Martel drove the Muslim invaders out of Spain was by his superior technology that was continually growing during the centuries that you mistakenly called "the Dark Ages."

Lets do a test and list all the great inventions of mankind through the centuries. If you do so honestly, you will admit that all of the Muslim world was bereft of any creative spark whatsoever. The embarrassment and difference is confirmed by the few thousand soldiers at Tours that drove back the hundreds of thousands of invaders. If it wasn't the technological edge, then it had to be the hand of God.