Are Muslims better Christians than Christians themselves?

[Debater Slayer]

I fully agree but the point is that they themselves label as a moderate or a conservative just to hide themselves for the Western Audience. So when a person labels him or herself as a moderate then surely i can address her or him as a moderate wouldn't you agree?

In my opinion and i will give a little example: some moderate Muslims who don't allow Sharia to take place or is firmly against it then that person is not a Muslim (In my eyes). since its a obligation and a creed in Islam to belief in god's law and carrying it out, this doesn't mean who ever disobeys a Sharia-Law therefore is not a Muslim off-course, but who ever is against it.

So while agreeing with you, don't you think that these people who label themselves are the ones who make themselves victims. I think the term Moderate is never used by other Muslims to insult others but to clarify what the difference is since the moderate themselves use the term to label there different ideas and customs.

People labeling themselves 'X' is one thing; other people using labels such as 'X' and throwing them around as means of stigmatization is quite another.

I personally think that it's way above my paygrade to judge who is a Muslim and who isn't, particularly because different people have different views when it comes to what falls under the umbrella of Sharia. Looking at many countries' laws that supposedly follow "God's law" (such as Morocco, where a girl was forced to marry her rapist and consequently committed suicide earlier this year), I think there are very good reasons as to why many people would be opposed to the idea of someone carrying the ball of implementing religious laws into constitution.

That's not to say that I'm against Islamic laws; I'm not against them at all, but I understand why some people would be concerned with how religion can be used quite manipulatively to justify abuse -- like how the case was with Amina Filali and others.

If a word is used differently by different people, it doesn't mean it is meaningless, it just means there is a disagreement on the term. The idea isn't to label or judge, but to understand whether there is anything in Islam that is conclusive and authoritative. If most of the scholastics/Imams interpret the Quran in such a way that does not describe most Muslims in America, then it's normal to ask why that is.

Authoritative sources go beyond culture.

Asking "Why?" is completely different than judging people of the same religion according to their stances on certain issues, or declaring them outright disbelievers.

 

[F0uad]

People labeling themselves 'X' is one thing; other people using labels such as 'X' and throwing them around as means of stigmatization is quite another.

I personally think that it's way above my paygrade to judge who is a Muslim and who isn't, particularly because different people have different views when it comes to what falls under the umbrella of Sharia. Looking at many countries' laws that supposedly follow "God's law" (such as Morocco, where a girl was forced to marry her rapist and consequently committed suicide earlier this year), I think there are very good reasons as to why many people would be opposed to the idea of someone carrying the ball of implementing religious laws into constitution.

That's not to say that I'm against Islamic laws; I'm not against them at all, but I understand why some people would be concerned with how religion can be used quite manipulatively to justify abuse -- like how the case was with Amina Filali and others.

I never judged her nor did i label her, i was saying that the idea was mostly uphold by Muslims who call themselves moderates so i used the term moderate myself because they themselves want to be labelled as one. As i clearly said before i will never judge someone nor will i judge someone's way of thinking or believing. I am original from Morocco and Morocco doesn't follow Sharia i wish it was true because according to Sharia any rapist should have been punished very hard the only so called Sharia following countries are Pakistan, Iran and Saudi Arabia in my knowledge. Muslims in general do not belief that these countries uphold the Right Sharia what was followed by the early Muslims. There is no religious law that allowed anything of that crime it is a biblical law if it was a law i personal think it was just corruption.

I think secularism has been mis-used and being to justify much more things then religion, religious hatred is even justified since social pressure can lead to anywhere.
Also your using two things to argue Sharia while i see unjustice being done all the day in secular states and even outside there own borders.

Asking "Why?" is completely different than judging people of the same religion according to their stances on certain issues, or declaring them outright disbelievers.

I never judged or called her something.

Salaam.

 

[sojourner]

I didn't know you saw it this way

Well, there are certainly others who see it differently, and perhaps you'd have a more legitimate argument with them.

Ok i will give you this if you think that the scripture is only meant for that time who am i to argue?

I think that's how Paul meant it. Paul wasn't writing scripture -- he was writing letters. If he uses some reference as an example to illustrate a larger truth to a particular audience, that's his business. That doesn't mean that we can't take advantage of that larger truth, even though the particular example is not binding on us.

This sounds very wrong in many ways but if you think so..

In what way can religion stand apart from culture? It's one of the basic tenets of theology. See Niebuhr's "Christ Within Culture."

 

[F0uad]

Well, there are certainly others who see it differently, and perhaps you'd have a more legitimate argument with them.

I think that's how Paul meant it. Paul wasn't writing scripture -- he was writing letters. If he uses some reference as an example to illustrate a larger truth to a particular audience, that's his business. That doesn't mean that we can't take advantage of that larger truth, even though the particular example is not binding on us.

In what way can religion stand apart from culture? It's one of the basic tenets of theology. See Niebuhr's "Christ Within Culture."

Ok if that is the case then why even follow the Bible or anything since it is addressed either to Israel or those individuals who got the letters.. i hope you can clarfiy this because i don't fully understand you.

I think Religion is above culture, religion mostly in that time was defiantly above culture at-least in the Islamic history it was since it changed the culture.

 

[sojourner]

Ok if that is the case then why even follow the Bible or anything since it is addressed either to Israel or those individuals who got the letters.. i hope you can clarfiy this because i don't fully understand you.

I just did. When the writers reveal the larger truths, using examples that are relevant to their intended audiences, even subsequent audiences can take advantage of those truths, even though the particular examples are irrelevant to them.

In other words, in a culture in which cooking and preservation practices are "iffy," eating pork is a real bad idea. But in 21st century America??? Not such a bad idea.

 

[sojourner]

I think Religion is above culture, religion mostly in that time was defiantly above culture at-least in the Islamic history it was since it changed the culture.

Niebuhr also addressed that as "Christ Above Culture." Additionally, he posited "Christ Against Culture." All of them exemplify some facet of how Christ impacts and interacts with culture.

You really should read Niebuhr on the subject.

 

[Quiddity]

Asking "Why?" is completely different than judging people of the same religion according to their stances on certain issues, or declaring them outright disbelievers.

The disbelievers bit, I personally don't get. However, how you stand on issues directly reflects how you see the Quran and in turn God. If they see others not reflecting the teaching of the Quran, I think that is worthy of discussion and not to be silenced.

 

[beenie]

I never judged her nor did i label her, i was saying that the idea was mostly uphold by Muslims who call themselves moderates so i used the term moderate myself because they themselves want to be labelled as one. As i clearly said before i will never judge someone nor will i judge someone's way of thinking or believing. I am original from Morocco and Morocco doesn't follow Sharia i wish it was true because according to Sharia any rapist should have been punished very hard the only so called Sharia following countries are Pakistan, Iran and Saudi Arabia in my knowledge. Muslims in general do not belief that these countries uphold the Right Sharia what was followed by the early Muslims. There is no religious law that allowed anything of that crime it is a biblical law if it was a law i personal think it was just corruption.

I think secularism has been mis-used and being to justify much more things then religion, religious hatred is even justified since social pressure can lead to anywhere.
Also your using two things to argue Sharia while i see unjustice being done all the day in secular states and even outside there own borders.



I never judged or called her something.

Salaam.

You implied it more than once, and I can quote it for you if you'd like. Let's drop the subject and move on.

The disbelievers bit, I personally don't get. However, how you stand on issues directly reflects how you see the Quran and in turn God. If they see others not reflecting the teaching of the Quran, I think that is worthy of discussion and not to be silenced.

Victor, what DS and I are both saying is that many verses and rulings can be viewed differently. In this case, modesty can mean different things to different people/cultures. The hadith is not Qur'an, and the Qur'anic verse he is quoting was clarified after Hadith.

I'm more than willing to discuss it, but without judging and labeling.

 

[Shermana]

I just did. When the writers reveal the larger truths, using examples that are relevant to their intended audiences, even subsequent audiences can take advantage of those truths, even though the particular examples are irrelevant to them.

In other words, in a culture in which cooking and preservation practices are "iffy," eating pork is a real bad idea. But in 21st century America??? Not such a bad idea.

So if a culture doesn't have a problem with adulterous liasions, then you can scrap the no-adultery prohibition too?

And there may be more problems with Pork than just worms. Shellfish poisoning is still the #1 cause of foodborne paralysis and death worldwide. But can we scrap that one too just because people like shellfish? Also, something like 60% of Americans have Toxoplasmosis, the great majority of it coming from Pork. Harmless at first until you develop an illness, then it seriously impedes your recovery process. But hey, that's not as bad as those worms right, so we can ignore the prohibition, just hope the Toxoplasma doesn't hamper your recovery.

 

[sojourner]

So if a culture doesn't have a problem with adulterous liasions, then you can scrap the no-adultery prohibition too?

Well, the churches that haven't completely lost their minds and are advocating for homosexual marriage, as opposed to the systematic dehumanization of targeted groups, have certainly relaxed their sphincters on that point, because the alternative is morally unconscionable..

 

[Shermana]

Dodge and dive much?

Why do you shift to a completely different topic? I'm not talking about gay marriage, I'm talking about a culture that may have no problem with adulterous liasons. Heck, why even go with a whole culture? How about just a community? How about a community of swingers? There's lots of those subcultures you know.

I repeat the question: What about a culture that has no problem with Adulterous liasions, does that mean you can scrap the prohibition against it?

 

[sojourner]

Dodge and dive much?

Why do you shift to a completely different topic? I'm not talking about gay marriage, I'm talking about a culture that may have no problem with adulterous liasons. Heck, why even go with a whole culture? How about just a community? How about a community of swingers? There's lots of those subcultures you know.

I repeat the question: What about a culture that has no problem with Adulterous liasions, does that mean you can scrap the prohibition against it?

Did you read the post???
Since those who identify as homosexual cannot marry, their relationships are "adulterous." There are a few sane religious groups that advocate for those who identify as homosexual, preferring to excuse their "adulterous" relationships in lieu of complying with a completely immoral dehumanization of these people, by condemning their relationships.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I never judged her nor did i label her, i was saying that the idea was mostly uphold by Muslims who call themselves moderates so i used the term moderate myself because they themselves want to be labelled as one. As i clearly said before i will never judge someone nor will i judge someone's way of thinking or believing. I am original from Morocco and Morocco doesn't follow Sharia i wish it was true because according to Sharia any rapist should have been punished very hard

How does one make sure that religion doesn't get misused when it enters constitution? Distinguishment between what religion X really commands and what rules are implemented under the banner of X is what usually tends to cause problems, especially when the religious texts allow for lots of different interpretations.

I think secularism has been mis-used and being to justify much more things then religion, religious hatred is even justified since social pressure can lead to anywhere.
Also your using two things to argue Sharia while i see unjustice being done all the day in secular states and even outside there own borders.

"Secularism", at least in terms of being a political position, assumes no bias towards any specific religion or set of beliefs; in other words, secularism is not a predetermined set of political and/or religious beliefs that can be used or misused as means to any specific end. The only principle that all secularists agree on is the separation of religion and state -- the rest can and does differ depending on who you ask.

I never judged or called her something.

Salaam.

I wasn't specifically talking about anyone; my statements apply to some people, not necessarily you.

The disbelievers bit, I personally don't get. However, how you stand on issues directly reflects how you see the Quran and in turn God. If they see others not reflecting the teaching of the Quran, I think that is worthy of discussion and not to be silenced.

The keyword here is 'discussion'. People disagree and discuss their disagreements all the time. It only becomes an issue when disagreements are understood as rejection of the entire religion (and in turn, as you pointed out, God).

 

[Shermana]

Did you read the post???
Since those who identify as homosexual cannot marry, their relationships are "adulterous." There are a few sane religious groups that advocate for those who identify as homosexual, preferring to excuse their "adulterous" relationships in lieu of complying with a completely immoral dehumanization of these people, by condemning their relationships.

SERIOUSLY?? Wow, just wow. This has nothing to do with Gay marriage. I'm not talking about them. You brought them into the subject for some strange reason. Some very strange reason. I don't care if they are committing adultery one way or another, what they do is already banned not only by the OT but by Paul. Gay marriage is not at all the question here, you brought it in as a tangent for a specific group of people while ignoring the implications of the greater whole... I'm talking about traditionally married people, not people who are already violating the NT. And if you want to discuss whether Paul forbids male-Gay relations, that's another subject. And even then, I see no reason why a "Civil union" wouldn't count as being bound in marriage. And even then, the couples that are married such as in California have a notoriously higher extramarital affair rate and a higher divorce rate than other marriages.

If anything, you are proving that you don't even want to discuss the Biblical definition of adultery.

Now I can see that you really don't want to answer the question about adultery in the community of swingers. If that's how you want the reader to see your post, go for it.

I will ask a third time: Is a community of swingers able to scrap the prohibition on adultery or not? Please do NOT include gay marriage, which has NOTHING to do with the subject, into the equation, especially when the NT condemns the relations between two men along with the OT. If you insist on bringing in gay marriage into the equation, at least be somewhat honest and actually discuss the question about swingers in traditional marriages. When you consistently dodge the actual question by bringing in a total Straw man into the equation and a straw man based on your interpretation that Paul did not condemn such relationships, you are not helping your case. At all.

If you do not address the actual question about swingers then I have no choice but to assume you're trying to run away from the subject for what could be a variety of reasons that shall not be named.

And if you want to say that gay relations ARE allowed in "Christianity", then you have proven the OP a thousand fold.

 

[sojourner]

what they do is already banned not only by the OT but by Paul.

I dispute that.

Gay marriage is not at all the question here.

yes, it is. You brought up the subject of dismissing adultery by a culture in which adultery was a norm. In our (right thinking) culture, homosexuality is a norm. Therefore, those who engage in such relationships, even though the bible can be construed to label them as "adulterous," have been excused by the (right thinking) culture. You asked the question; I answered it with a pertinent example.

I don't care if they are committing adultery one way or another, what they do is already banned not only by the OT but by Paul.

I dispute that.

I'm talking about traditionally married people, not people who are already violating the NT.

You didn't specify that, now did you?!

I will ask a third time: Is a community of swingers able to scrap the prohibition on adultery or not?

Is that community within the norm of the culture? I'd have to say not. Marriage -- in some form -- has always been the norm. Your question is hyperbole and does not reflect the real world. In communities where swinging is practiced, I'm sure that the larger culture would prevail upon them to stop doing that.

And if you want to say that gay relations ARE allowed in "Christianity", then you have proven the OP a thousand fold.

Well, they are in sane Christianity. And that proves exactly the opposite of the OP.

 

[Shermana]

Adultery was and probably still is the norm in many cultures, like France.

Now what?

And I like the fact that you have the hubris to decide who is and isn't a "Sane" Christian, I can truly appreciate true Chutzpah like that.

So for the record, to anyone reading, you are not a "Sane" Christian if you don't support gay marriage, says Sojourner.

Now you say that Swingers are not the norm in this culture. So by your logic, gays would have to be the norm in the culture too, right? Oh wait you have a double standard there.

And actually, it can be argued that adultery is in fact the norm among married couples these days, the problem is that the statistics and studies on this issue are so wildly varying. Probably on the low end from people not being honest and bad sampling practices.

Now if you want to dispute what Paul said about male-gay-relations, feel free to explain why you dispute it. I dispute that he was referring to Lesbians such as when Christians use it to denounce Lesbianism, but not even Augustine agreed with that, he says Paul was referring to a practice that males can also do with each other that they were doing with women (i.e. A "Greek" practice that was called "unnatural").

 

[F0uad]

How does one make sure that religion doesn't get misused when it enters constitution? Distinguishment between what religion X really commands and what rules are implemented under the banner of X is what usually tends to cause problems, especially when the religious texts allow for lots of different interpretations.

I don't belief there are allot of interpretations, i think the one who will interpret a verse differently just does so to fulfil there goal, there are enough tasfirs and authentic hadiths explaining almost the whole Quran i think you would agree. A religion can always be mis-used as like any idea, belief, behaviour, nationality everything...

"Secularism", at least in terms of being a political position, assumes no bias towards any specific religion or set of beliefs; in other words, secularism is not a predetermined set of political and/or religious beliefs that can be used or misused as means to any specific end. The only principle that all secularists agree on is the separation of religion and state -- the rest can and does differ depending on who you ask.

Just a question do you support secularism? I am sorry to say but your argument doesn't work how about France/Belgium who have a Buraq ban what about in Switzerland where its now forbidden to make mosques, what about the Norway the list continues even in the country where i live (Netherlands) Muslims are not treated equally what about the 11 Mosques that were burned, What about the muslims who got murdered in America after 9/11, What about the pregnant muslim women who was stabbed by a German in her stomach till she died(because she was a muslima) and the list continues..

Secularism leads to Nationalism and when under social pressure to extremism hence WW2 since moral evolves in a Atheistic viewpoint then there is no condemning of the slaughter that happened in WW2 because of human-evolution.

I wasn't specifically talking about anyone; my statements apply to some people, not necessarily you.

Ok thanks.

The keyword here is 'discussion'. People disagree and discuss their disagreements all the time. It only becomes an issue when disagreements are understood as rejection of the entire religion (and in turn, as you pointed out, God).

I agree with you but since this is not the case we can drop this.

 

[Doulos]

How does this changes anything? Its means the same... i am sorry but can you clarify since Paul did say he is a father and that Christians are hes children..

As you are unable to understand the text, I'll walk you through it.

Paul does not say Christians are his children, but he does cite people who came to Christ through him. In this way, he can say to be the means of their birth to Christ. All things are done by God, but for these people Paul was the channel for it, just as a father can be said to give life to his son, even though God is the real agent.

But you know that Timothy has proved himself, because as a son with his father he has served with me in the work of the gospel.
(Philippians 2:22)
This actually does not say what you suggest. Paul is merely saying that Timothy is 'like' a child to him. As a child carries on the work of his father, Timothy has carried on Paul's work.

I am not writing this to shame you, but to warn you, as my dear children. Even though you have ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel.
(1 Corinthians 4:14-15)
Again, this letter is not addressed at all Christians, but at the church in Corinth. Paul brought them the message of Christ (1 Cor 2:1-3), so their faith created through him. Neither does Paul claim glory for the action, but says clearly that 'in Christ Jesus' this was done. The seed was the Word of Christ. Paul merely delivered the seed.

 

[sojourner]

Adultery was and probably still is the norm in many cultures, like France.

Now what?

One has to wonder how many of these adulterous French are churchgoers?

 

[Doulos]

I think that's how Paul meant it. Paul wasn't writing scripture -- he was writing letters. If he uses some reference as an example to illustrate a larger truth to a particular audience, that's his business. That doesn't mean that we can't take advantage of that larger truth, even though the particular example is not binding on us.

In what way can religion stand apart from culture? It's one of the basic tenets of theology. See Niebuhr's "Christ Within Culture."

I understand your distinction, but I think a further point needs to be made. Paul may not be writing 'scripture,' but he is writing God's word to him.

Note where Paul says:
"To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife..."
(1 Cor 7:12)

Implicit in this statement is that in other places he is speaking God's word. The Apostles of the New Testament are not merely witnesses of Christ's life, they are also empowered by the Holy Spirit in speaking forth the word of God.

In other words they are prophets.

---
What is more germaine I think, is that most of Paul's letters are not 'general' letters describing basic Christian belief, but rather answers to specific situations which arise within the early church.