Indigo Jo Blogs

He warns of a multi-faith mish mash then starts talking about "Judeo-Christian" ethics.

Does that make any sense?

Also I love the way these people blame low church attendance on the government and muslims.

He's got a point. The King/Queen is head of the Church of England, so to talk in this woolly way about defending faith makes no sense.

Also the bit about the law and the monarch being Judeo-Christian is correct. Christianity separates secular and sacred authority in a way that is alien to Islam, and the law, though influenced by Christianity is unashamedly man-made; again not permitted under Islam.

Blimey, if Muslims think this is intolerant, how do you think non-Muslims re-act to some of the stuff Amadinnerjacket and Qaradawi come out with?

It becomes obvious then, that - if you take these so-called neo-"judeo-christian" religions to their neurological conclusions, they are nothing but fascism or you could even say racism (since "Judaism" is a now a tribal thing) - all dressed in the garb of liberal spirituality, fluffy fluffy love and tolerance.

As for the what is concrete, only Islam and its followers can be the defender of faiths. Allah, Most Glorious, mentions in the Holy Koran

The Messenger believeth in what hath been revealed to him from his Lord, as do the men of faith. Each one (of them) believeth in Allah, His angels, His books, and His messengers. And they say "We make no distinction between one and another of His messengers." And they say: "We hear, and we obey: (We seek) Thy forgiveness, our Lord, and to Thee is the end of all journeys."

Aren't these sublime words and its path ways incomparable to the monolithic cultural articulations from these so called enlighthened Christian fanatics (or liberals as they call them)?

"Judeo-Christian" as a term only seriously appeared in the last 50-60 years (although the use of the term can be found as early as the late 19th-century).

The monarchy and legal systems of Britain are much older.

I am unaware of its use in in defence of a distinct 'British identity'. It has a specific use on the American political scene.

Also the bit about the law and the monarch being Judeo-Christian is correct. Christianity separates secular and sacred authority in a way that is alien to Islam, and the law, though influenced by Christianity is unashamedly man-made; again not permitted under Islam.

I think you'd find that Roman tradition plays a pretty significant role.

Any how I'm still confused about where the "Judeo" part comes from. It seems strange that he complains about religious mish mash while then doing it himself.

Shamil, he is confused, as you would expect.

I think the implication is that mainstream Christians feel they can only stand up for their faith if they somehow include the jews in it. That's just political correctness or more specifically selective political correctness.

In America it's slightly different because the Evangelicals have a religious interest in supporting the jews and helping them return to Israel.

No, the point is that Christianity is a lot closer to Judaism than either religions are to Islam.

Christianity is a development from Judaism - a fulfilment of it. Islam is a heresy of both of them.

This does not mean that the religions can't co-exist. Christianity advocates separation of religious and secular authority. Judaism has long ago had to accept this. If Islam could do likewise, maybe there would be hope.

No, the point is that Christianity is a lot closer to Judaism than either religions are to Islam.

I don't know what you mean by closer. There's no way you can mean in terms of similarity. Islam is closer to Judaism in terms of practice but Judaism see's Jesus as a heretic whereas islam see's him as a prophet. Neither is the Christian position but I'd say Islam's position is closer to Christianity than Judaism's.

Christianity is a development from Judaism - a fulfilment of it.

In the Bible Jesus never says he has come to fulfill Judaism. He said that he has come to fulfill the law. This is understood traditionally by Christians to mean the Ten commandments hence Christians have never followed all the Deuteronomic laws.

The trouble is you're thinking that Judaism=the Old Testament.

That isn't true. It's called Judaism because it came from Judah when Palestine was divided between Israel and Judah;http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/images/kingdoms.gif

There were other religions in the rest of Palestine who followed a different reading of Moses's teachings like the Samaritans.

Judaism was created by a priesthood called the Levites in Judah and further developed during the Babylonian exile.

"Christianity is a development from Judaism - a fulfilment of it."

That's an incredible statement. Ask any Jew what he thinks of it.

My main point is that Judaism and Christianity accept secular states, whereas Islam, in theory at least does not.

Of course, in practice, secular states are good for Muslims living in the West. Christianity is not privileged above other religions, including Islam.

Ignorance alert.

I thought I'd already posted this but apparently not.

My main point is that Judaism and Christianity accept secular states, whereas Islam, in theory at least does not.

That clearly wasn't your main point. You were trying to suggest that Christianity and Judaism have some sort of symbiotic relationship.

Historically Judaism didn't accept local laws in Diaspora lands.Even today in New York there are some virtually self governing Hassidic communities. In France before the revolution jews lived as a nation within a nation. What brought this to an end was the rise of the modern state which imposed standard laws on all the populace. It had nothing to do with Judaism accepting secularism. Infact the Rabbis were very much against Jews being forced to follow state law even though it gave them equality.

Israel is also not a good example.Most of the populace aren't jews in a religious sense. Although that raises the question of in what sense are they jews?

Old Pickler: My main point is that Judaism and Christianity accept secular states, whereas Islam, in theory at least does not.

With respect sir, this retrospective or ex post facto elaboration merely obfuscates the issue. Your initial assertion was that "Christianity is a lot closer to Judaism than either religions are to Islam". I am afraid theologically, that is simply not the case, though it may be true in the one aspect of public policy that you singled out.

On the theological front, the central figure in the Christian religion is Jesus Christ; in Islam, Jesus is venerated as one of the greatest men who ever lived and a Prophet of God. In Judaism, he is reviled as a 'shameless heretic' who usurped the Jewish religion. And there are numerous other examples - Islam is theologically much closer to Christianity than Judaism is or has ever been.

The main theological tenents of Judaism involve belief in what they believe is a strict monotheism; the Christian trinity is an obvious and complete refutation of that Jewish monotheism. The Islamic religion, on the other hand, claims to award monotheism even greater significance than Judaism, and in fact claims to further develop Jewish monotheism. There are other more practical examples too, dozens of them - theologically, Islam is closer to Judaism than Christianity is.

In any case, returning to your specific example, do Judaism and Christianity really accept secular states? Or are there individuals within Jewish and Christian countries who yearn to blur the lines between Church and State? The FMA in the US, though it will probably never be passed, is the most recent but by no means the only manifestation of fundamentalist Christians believing that the tenets of their faith should be reflected in the legal and constitutional framework of the state.

Similarly, many of the actions and statements of Orthodox Jewish parties and sects, perhaps including key elements within Shas (the third largest party) could fall into the same category.

So maybe many Christians and Jews also in theory do not accept secular states, but in practice, are forced to.

Old Pickler: Of course, in practice, secular states are good for Muslims living in the West. Christianity is not privileged above other religions, including Islam.

I would disagree; I am a committed Anglophile and an admirer of many things about Great Britain; however, even I must admit that the freedom of religion afforded to a Muslim in any modern secular polity is far from ideal. In an ideal Islamic state, a non-Muslim dhimmi has complete freedom of belief; he is proud to identify himself as a non-Muslim and in return for the jizyah, not only does he receive full state protection and legal rights, but also freedom to believe in, and practice, whatever he wants.

On the other hand, Muslims living in secular societies are told to assimilate; they can be coerced to abandom key tenets of Islam (relating to its political and legal systems) and forced to acknowledge "democracy" as the only viable and proper system of governance.

Of course, democracy in its strictest sense, meaning government by the people as the sovereign, is profoundly unIslamic. Is it acceptable for a Muslim in a secular society to believe fervently that the Islamic system of government represents a better solution to mankind's problems? No, if the bellicose statements by recent British Home secretaries are any guide. Does this mean that the secular society does not allow a Muslim to freely practice his religion, and forces him to believe in 'democracy', and 'capitalism', concepts which are unIslamic?

I am not really arguing that one system is necessarily better than the other; merely that there are other models that can be considered, and some broader questions that need to be considered. In any case, the ideal Islamic state does not exist so any discussion of that is purely theoretical and thus somewhat academic.

In an ideal Islamic state, a non-Muslim dhimmi has complete freedom of belief; he is proud to identify himself as a non-Muslim and in return for the jizyah, not only does he receive full state protection and legal rights, but also freedom to believe in, and practice, whatever he wants.

Jizyah is basically protection money. Muslim conquerors demanded conversion, jizyah, or death.

You know full well that this is the case. Hardly tolerance, now is it?

So Muslims complain that they cannot practise all aspects of their religion in the West? Well of course, primitive, barbaric aspects like polygamy, stoning and the like are unacceptable here. And if Muslims here don't like it, well, there are plenty of Muslim countries they could go to. But somehow the flow of the traffic is always one way. Why would that be?

Jizyah is basically protection money.

No it is a tax, which throughout history has been a lot lower than the 40%p.a. I used to pay when I lived in the UK. Non-Muslims pay Jizyah, Muslims pay Zakah - end result is the same.

Muslim conquerors demanded conversion, jizyah, or death.

So do non-Muslim states. I was not given a choice by the Inland Revenue - if I did not pay up, I would go to jail or be deported. How is that different, or more tolerant than a Muslim state, where those not paying the jizyah are not allowed to remain in the state as non-Muslims, though are permitted to leave with their wealth and possessions (and unlike the UK, that wealth would not suffer punitive taxes a la the CGT or the IHT on the person's exit from the state).

So Muslims complain that they cannot practise all aspects of their religion in the West? Well of course, primitive, barbaric aspects like polygamy, stoning and the like are unacceptable here. And if Muslims here don't like it, well, there are plenty of Muslim countries they could go to.

And that is exactly what I have done. However, your last senterence comes across as exceedingly arrogant; if your response to every genuine grievance is "send the bastards back", then there is not much difference between your policies and those of the BNP, or the Spanish Inquisition, or the Apartheid Zionist State.

But somehow the flow of the traffic is always one way. Why would that be?

Always? Really? Another gross exagerration. I live in a Muslim country where the majority of the population comprises non-Muslim foreigners! How many Western countries does that apply to? Answer: nil.

In any case, you don't seem to be interested in reasoned debate - I gave a point by point rebuttal to your earlier posts, and instead of acknowledging the logical inconsistency in your argument, or at least debating it, you merely responded to one tangential sentence and resorted to petty name calling and spouting standard BNP rhetoric and 'solutions'.

We will have to agree to profoundly and completely disagree.

Why Murtadd Nazir-Ali? Is he really an ex-Muslim?

Old Pickler: "And if Muslims here don't like it, well, there are plenty of Muslim countries they could go to. But somehow the flow of the traffic is always one way. Why would that be?"

Abu Abdur Rahman already commented on this, but actually, there are many Muslims who leave the West and go to live in Muslim countries... and more who would like to.

Also many non-Muslims who live in Muslim countries and find them good places to raise their children.

Why Murtadd Nazir-Ali? Is he really an ex-Muslim?

Actually, that's something I wanted to ask too - Could you please clarify, Yusuf?

I always thought Nazir-Ali was a Pakistani Christian, who plays the race card with some dexterity and so managed to moan his way into the higher echelons of the Anglican Church. Do you know any different?

Thanks

As-Salaamu 'alaikum,

AAR: Well, I thought he'd have been a Pakistani Christian, but the BBC report I linked stated that he converted from Islam. That's all I was going on.

Really, you should pray two rakahs of shukr whenever you think of Old Pickler. It is only of Allah's mercy that we are not like her.

The central point is that neither Islam nor Judaism have experienced the cultural and scientific Enlightenment that challenged, and over turned, the hegemony and arrogance of Christianity in western Europe in the C18. Enlightenment scepticism and empiricism, and the accompanying material and scientific advances (eg immunisation against the smallpox), forced the Christian churches to amend their ways and, eventually, to tolerate non-believers. Both Judaism and Islam continue to allow superstition, and the dominant influence of religious affiliation and sectarian 'solidarity', to fester within individual affiliates and so disfigure (for instance through the religious apartheid enforced in Israel, Saudi Arabia, Iran et al) the culture of our age.