Christianity was much like Islam in the early days, cruel, sadistic (the inquisition, stoning women to death).
Islam had a few extras, women with bags over their head, all body coverings, not the men of course.
Christianity at least jettisoned the bloodthirstier aspects, except for child abuse. So why can't Islamists? If they don't want to why not?

bludger wrote on May 8^th, 2012 at 12:40pm:

Christianity was much like Islam in the early days, cruel, sadistic (the inquisition, stoning women to death). Islam had a few extras, women with bags over their head, all body coverings, not the men of course. Christianity at least jettisoned the bloodthirstier aspects, except for child abuse. So why can't Islamists? If they don't want to why not?

You see how hard the xtians fight against giving up that stuff. They like it so dont wanna give it up. all religion should be done away with.

SOB

bludger wrote on May 8^th, 2012 at 12:40pm:

Christianity was much like Islam in the early days, cruel, sadistic (the inquisition, stoning women to death). Islam had a few extras, women with bags over their head, all body coverings, not the men of course. Christianity at least jettisoned the bloodthirstier aspects, except for child abuse. So why can't Islamists? If they don't want to why not?

I am surprised falah has not pointed out the jews might have invented stoning to death.

Allah claims Islam has been perfected in sura 5;3 so why would they want to reform something they think is perfect?
Would it be considered blasphemy to even suggest Islam needs reforming considering Allah said it has been perfected,they have the death penalty for blasphemy could this be an impediment to any reforms?
http://quran.com/5/3

Muslims cannot pick and choose which parts to follow, this is where Islam differs from christianity.
The Quran is very clear that you will be off to the hellfire for disbelieving in part of the scripture with sura 2;85 it is a package deal you have to believe in the whole package if you want those virgins and the everlasting erection in paradise.
http://quran.com/2/85

The death for blasphemy protects the Islamic meme from corruption.

The Ahmadi muslims did a few reforms and they are persecuted everywhere by mainstream Islam, In Pakistan where they originated they cannot call themselves muslims and can be jailed for outraging the religious beliefs of muslims  the first muslim to win a nobel prize in science was Abdus Salam who worked on Pakistan's nuclear program, Abdus was an Ahmadi muslim so they have removed the word "muslim" from his grave.
There were a few Ahmadi muslims killed by muslims last year in Indonesia.
The Ahmadi are considered as deviant heretics for the reforms they have done.

The persecution of Ahmadi muslims by mainstream Islam proves there is no desire for mainstream Islam to reform,I reckon porcine animals could become aerodynamic before Islam reforms.

The Christian church gave up control over the state relatively easily. They gave up authority over knowledge to science and institutions like universities relatively easily. Their long authority in these areas is more reflective of a vaccuum than an ideological mandate.

Despite claims that Islam and Judaism have a similar focus on religious law, Judaism has often been more progressive than Christianity and Jews have often lead political reform. They have female and gay clerics (forget the right term).

Islam won't give up control as easily, as Islam is a religion of control and power. Take that away, and you destroy the religion. In Islam, the punishment for proposing what you suggest is death by stoning. Sunni's and Shites bomb each other's mosques over this. Australian Sunnis like Abu and Falah will tell you that Shites are apostates. They will also tell you that the punishment for apostasy is death by stoning. They won't tell you these two things in the same thread of course. They have even outlined on this forum their plans for killing all the religious leaders in Iran for apostasy (the common people would apparently be given a chance to repent first).

Saddam Hussein's Ba'ath party was dominated by the Sunni minority. Inevitable tensions between Sunni's and Shites are splitting Baghdad into Sunni and Shite militia controlled zones and contributing to a lot of the violence.

The Sunni/Shite conflict also contribted to the Iran Iraq war. Iran is still eyeing off a takeover of Iraq once the Yanks pull out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War

The war began when Iraq invaded Iran, launching a simultaneous invasion by air and land into Iranian territory on 22 September 1980 following a long history of border disputes, and fears of Shia Islam insurgency among Iraq's long-suppressed Shia majority influenced by the Iranian Revolution.

About half a million people died.

Anyway, nice idea, and good luck with it.

Hmmm my post looks kinda like im talking about xtanity but im actually referring to muslims that dont want to give it up. Just clarifying.

However. Look how ppl like galileo were treated. Not such easy acceptance. Thats all i meant.

SOB

Being able to 'name' the individual 'martyrs' for the cause of science kind of puts it into perspective. That was a major shift in intellectual authority that would have earlier been inconcievable. It would have to be one of the most peaceful shifts in power in history.

Islam appears to have made some contribrutions to applied science, particularly agriculture and warfar, but to basic research has contributed very little. Abu and Falah were recently boasting about Saudi research into the medicinal value of camel urine - because Muhammed apparently recommended that people drink it. I am not sure why, but Islam seems to stifle science.

freediver wrote on May 8^th, 2012 at 6:35pm:

The Christian church gave up control over the state relatively easily. They gave up authority over knowledge to science and institutions like universities relatively easily.

Martin Luther, Henry VIII, Elizabeth I (to name three) would disagree.

If only three people in the history of the world disagree with me then I am off to a good start.

freediver wrote on May 8^th, 2012 at 7:57pm:

If only three people in the history of the world disagree with me then I am off to a good start.

If only it was three people... Europe was plunged into religious wars for hundreds of years as the church attempted to maintain control over political and cultural life in Europe. The Catholic Church was finally beaten into submission as late as the mid 19th century with the loss of the papal states, the last vestige of the church's temporal power in Europe.

NorthOfNorth wrote on May 8^th, 2012 at 8:25pm:

Europe was plunged into religious wars for hundreds of years as the church attempted to maintain control over political and cultural life in Europe.

Who were these wars between? Were the attempts by the church to maintain power a sideshow to these wars, or is that what the wars were about?

freediver wrote on May 8^th, 2012 at 8:30pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on May 8th, 2012 at 8:25pm: Europe was plunged into religious wars for hundreds of years as the church attempted to maintain control over political and cultural life in Europe. Who were these wars between? Were the attempts by the church to maintain power a sideshow to these wars, or is that what the wars were about?

The wars against the German princes and the Vatican were about crushing Protestantism. The Holy wars against Islam were about Christian hegemony in Europe. The Pope sanctioned armies against the English and Dutch protestant kings and queens for 200 years. The Anglican and Presbyterian churches shared power with the monarch to unite against a common enemy - the pope. The Great Schism between eastern and western Christianity caused brutal wars for 200 years... And on we go.

Baronvonrort wrote on May 8^th, 2012 at 6:22pm:

Allah claims Islam has been perfected in sura 5;3 so why would they want to reform something they think is perfect? Would it be considered blasphemy to even suggest Islam needs reforming considering Allah said it has been perfected,they have the death penalty for blasphemy could this be an impediment to any reforms? http://quran.com/5/3 Muslims cannot pick and choose which parts to follow, this is where Islam differs from christianity. The Quran is very clear that you will be off to the hellfire for disbelieving in part of the scripture with sura 2;85 it is a package deal you have to believe in the whole package if you want those virgins and the everlasting erection in paradise. http://quran.com/2/85

Just so.
Mohamed painted them into an eternal, 7th century corner from which the only way out is to abandon Islam. There is neither inward nor outward room to maneuver for Mohammedans: it can't be limited to being a matter of private conscience nor can it be publicly decoupled from politics and law (state/mosque) and still be regarded as submission to the perfect, unalterable and final word of Allah.
The encounter with Islam from the Crusades onward has been a long and completely unsuccessful attempt to reform Islam which, like a monomaniac, is locked into reproducing everywhere and at all times the same unquestionable 7th century Arabian example set by Mohamed.

NorthOfNorth wrote on May 8^th, 2012 at 8:39pm:

freediver wrote on May 8th, 2012 at 8:30pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on May 8th, 2012 at 8:25pm: Europe was plunged into religious wars for hundreds of years as the church attempted to maintain control over political and cultural life in Europe. Who were these wars between? Were the attempts by the church to maintain power a sideshow to these wars, or is that what the wars were about? The wars against the German princes and the Vatican were about crushing Protestantism. The Holy wars against Islam were about Christian hegemony in Europe. The Pope sanctioned armies against the English and Dutch protestant kings and queens for 200 years. The Anglican and Presbyterian churches shared power with the monarch to unite against a common enemy - the pope. The Great Schism between eastern and western Christianity caused brutal wars for 200 years... And on we go.

OK. Now imagine that the church leaders and the monarchs are the same people, that Christian doctrine forbade the catholic church from ever getting over it, demanded the pope be the unquestionable ruler of all of Christendom for eternity, spelled out a path of military conquest until this happened, and demanded that all the Anglicans and Presbyterians be stoned to death. That is the dilemma facing those who wish to reform Islam.

freediver wrote on May 8^th, 2012 at 10:46pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on May 8th, 2012 at 8:39pm: freediver wrote on May 8th, 2012 at 8:30pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on May 8th, 2012 at 8:25pm: Europe was plunged into religious wars for hundreds of years as the church attempted to maintain control over political and cultural life in Europe. Who were these wars between? Were the attempts by the church to maintain power a sideshow to these wars, or is that what the wars were about? The wars against the German princes and the Vatican were about crushing Protestantism. The Holy wars against Islam were about Christian hegemony in Europe. The Pope sanctioned armies against the English and Dutch protestant kings and queens for 200 years. The Anglican and Presbyterian churches shared power with the monarch to unite against a common enemy - the pope. The Great Schism between eastern and western Christianity caused brutal wars for 200 years... And on we go. OK. Now imagine that the church leaders and the monarchs are the same people, that Christian doctrine forbade the catholic church from ever getting over it, demanded the pope be the unquestionable ruler of all of Christendom for eternity, spelled out a path of military conquest until this happened, and demanded that all the Anglicans and Presbyterians be stoned to death. That is the dilemma facing those who wish to reform Islam.

As it was for all the popes from the Dark Ages until the 19th century while Catholic dogma condemned all who defied the pope - the vicar of Christ and god's representative on earth, with the power to bind and loose on earth and in heaven

But they didn't actually have all that power did they? They shared it with the various monarchs. Filling a mandate vacuum is not the same thing as being unable to give it up.

I challenge you to find a non-Muslim equivalent of Abu and Falah who thinks the pope or any other religious leader should rule the world in a political sense.

freediver wrote on May 9^th, 2012 at 8:09am:

But they didn't actually have all that power did they? They shared it with the various monarchs. Filling a mandate vacuum is not the same thing as being unable to give it up. I challenge you to find a non-Muslim equivalent of Abu and Falah who thinks the pope or any other religious leader should rule the world in a political sense.

They fought over power (sometimes to the death) with popes and monarchs in their turn deposing (or attempting to depose) each other. Although popes usually had more luck deposing monarchs than the reverse.

Protestantism represented a greater threat to Rome than to European monarchs, yet it was European monarchs who did the popes' bidding. In that sense, the pope exercised the power of a king of kings and in every sense the popes (from the Dark Ages until the Protestant reformation) exercised true (and mostly unquestioned) political power usually trumping that of individual European monarchs.

Should Islam have a reformation?


That is an unthinkable concept for any devout moslem [i.e. for any moslem].

Why so ?

Because moslems consider ISLAM to be Allah's already perfect religion.

Why should moslems allow anyone to criticise, or reform their religion, ISLAM ?

Why, when ISLAM is already perfect ?

i.e.
The moslem response would be, that everyone else MUST embrace ISLAM,  .....or else!!!





Quote:

Only if people are prepared [...will allow themselves,] to think critically, will they solve problems, or avoid problems in the first instance. But ISLAM precludes moslems [or anyone else!!], from scrutinising ISLAM's systems and doctrines or indeed from scrutinising ISLAM's very worldview, or its 'virtue'. Why so?.....

Why the West is best
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1325139832/3#3





And remember, a moslem, is a person who has chosen to embrace ISLAM, its tenets and laws.

And that includes the ISLAMIC law which makes it lawful for moslems to kill those 'others' who would 'insult' ISLAM, by critically scrutinising and questioning ISLAM's laws and life philosophy.

Moslems insist, that ISLAM is perfect, and that no-one must be allowed to examine or scrutinise ISLAM in any critical way.

Because to ISLAM, to question ISLAM's perfection, is a capital crime.

NorthOfNorth wrote on May 9^th, 2012 at 10:38am:

freediver wrote on May 9th, 2012 at 8:09am: But they didn't actually have all that power did they? They shared it with the various monarchs. Filling a mandate vacuum is not the same thing as being unable to give it up. I challenge you to find a non-Muslim equivalent of Abu and Falah who thinks the pope or any other religious leader should rule the world in a political sense. They fought over power (sometimes to the death) with popes and monarchs in their turn deposing (or attempting to depose) each other. Although popes usually had more luck deposing monarchs than the reverse. Protestantism represented a greater threat to Rome than to European monarchs, yet it was European monarchs who did the popes' bidding. In that sense, the pope exercised the power of a king of kings and in every sense the popes (from the Dark Ages until the Protestant reformation) exercised true (and mostly unquestioned) political power usually trumping that of individual European monarchs.

Filling a mandate vacuum is not the same thing as being unable to give it up.

freediver wrote on May 9^th, 2012 at 12:17pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on May 9th, 2012 at 10:38am: freediver wrote on May 9th, 2012 at 8:09am: But they didn't actually have all that power did they? They shared it with the various monarchs. Filling a mandate vacuum is not the same thing as being unable to give it up. I challenge you to find a non-Muslim equivalent of Abu and Falah who thinks the pope or any other religious leader should rule the world in a political sense. They fought over power (sometimes to the death) with popes and monarchs in their turn deposing (or attempting to depose) each other. Although popes usually had more luck deposing monarchs than the reverse. Protestantism represented a greater threat to Rome than to European monarchs, yet it was European monarchs who did the popes' bidding. In that sense, the pope exercised the power of a king of kings and in every sense the popes (from the Dark Ages until the Protestant reformation) exercised true (and mostly unquestioned) political power usually trumping that of individual European monarchs. Filling a mandate vacuum is not the same thing as being unable to give it up.

Gregory VII in 1075 decreed that that it may be permitted to the pope to depose emperors.

That is : The pope claims temporal authority over all other rulers. There is no vacuum nor (papal) doubt.

You still seem to be missing the point. Allowing the pope to interfere in politics is not the same thing as forbidding the pope from stepping back from politics. This is not an argument about the good or bad things that different religious leaders have done in the past. It is about doctrine and barriers to reform. You could go back and forth forever bringing up examples of when the church interfered in the state and when it did not. This would get you nowhere, because it misses the point. Christianity gives clear doctrinal endorsement of the separation of church and state.

Under Islam, any legislation or politics not derived from Islam is forbidden. Democracy is forbidden. Relaxing any of the strict Islamic laws is forbidden. Promoting such a reform gets you stoned to death. This is not optional. I do not say this because some Muslim reformer got stoned to death 800 years ago. I say it because that is Islamic doctrine.

Islam spells out a warfare as a means to achieve these goals. This does not mean religious leaders giving approval or disapproval for state decisions. It means Muhammed himself picked up the sword and killed people, took the women as booty, and rode of on the horses.

freediver wrote on May 9^th, 2012 at 5:53pm:

You still seem to be missing the point. Allowing the pope to interfere in politics is not the same thing as forbidding the pope from stepping back from politics. This is not an argument about the good or bad things that different religious leaders have done in the past. It is about doctrine and barriers to reform. You could go back and forth forever bringing up examples of when the church interfered in the state and when it did not. This would get you nowhere, because it misses the point. Christianity gives clear doctrinal endorsement of the separation of church and state. Under Islam, any legislation or politics not derived from Islam is forbidden. Democracy is forbidden. Relaxing any of the strict Islamic laws is forbidden. Promoting such a reform gets you stoned to death. This is not optional. I do not say this because some Muslim reformer got stoned to death 800 years ago. I say it because that is Islamic doctrine. Islam spells out a warfare as a means to achieve these goals. This does not mean religious leaders giving approval or disapproval for state decisions. It means Muhammed himself picked up the sword and killed people, took the women as booty, and rode of on the horses.

Firstly no ruler allowed the pope to interfere or assume primacy, the popes arrogated that power to themselves as the Vicar of Christ. To defy an edict from Rome was to be excommunicated (a political death sentence for a temporal ruler until the reformation). The popes considered themselves duty-bound to god to assume primacy in Christendom.

Under Catholic dogma, which was the sole voice of Christianity until the Schism and the Reformation, the pope determined the enforceability of all laws in Christendom - that which was bound and that which was loosed. No temporal ruler could enact laws that were not in accordance with Papal will. In Protestant and Orthodox lands, most temporal rulers could not enact laws which defied the church authorities.

The pope had the right to raise an army against 'godless' monarchs and had the authority to strike down the political decrees of temporal rulers in Europe.

Quote:

the popes arrogated that power to themselves as the Vicar of Christ

And later gave it up. Do you see the difference?


Quote:

To defy an edict from Rome was to be excommunicated (a political death sentence for a temporal ruler until the reformation).

Tell me north, what is the difference between excommunication and execution?

freediver wrote on May 9^th, 2012 at 7:29pm:

Quote: the popes arrogated that power to themselves as the Vicar of Christ And later gave it up. Do you see the difference?

They gave it up at gunpoint. If you think the Vatican is enlightened today, think again.


freediver wrote on May 9^th, 2012 at 7:29pm:

Quote: To defy an edict from Rome was to be excommunicated (a political death sentence for a temporal ruler until the reformation). Tell me north, what is the difference between excommunication and execution?

Excommunication was a precursor to being tried by the Holy Office which, if your grave sins were proved, could lead to execution.

Quote:

They gave it up at gunpoint. If you think the Vatican is enlightened today, think again.

This is not about whether the vatican is enlightened. This is about whether Christian doctrine is a barrier to reform. Obviously it isn't. This does not mean you simply ask the powers that be for a major political upheaval and they say sure thing, there is nothing in the bible that says you can't.


Quote:

Excommunication was a precursor to being tried by the Holy Office which, if your grave sins were proved, could lead to execution.

Like what happened to henry VIII or Elizabeth I?

Can you see the difference between the human tendency to grip tightly to power already acquired, and a doctrine of power? One is human in origin, the other stems from the religion. I'll give you a hint - one is a far more significant barrier to reform. The other can be painted in the same way, but only if you reject perspective.

freediver wrote on May 9^th, 2012 at 7:55pm:

Quote: They gave it up at gunpoint. If you think the Vatican is enlightened today, think again. This is not about whether the vatican is enlightened. This is about whether Christian doctrine is a barrier to reform. Obviously it isn't. This does not mean you simply ask the powers that be for a major political upheaval and they say sure thing, there is nothing in the bible that says you can't.

You're ignoring the force of Catholic doctrine.


freediver wrote on May 9^th, 2012 at 7:55pm:

Quote: Excommunication was a precursor to being tried by the Holy Office which, if your grave sins were proved, could lead to execution. Like what happened to henry VIII or Elizabeth I?

The Vatican was unable to dislodge Henry or Elizabeth despite their excommunication and despite sanctioning hundreds of years of war between the Spanish and French against the English.

Quote:

You're ignoring the force of Catholic doctrine.

I am putting it into perspective.


Quote:

The Vatican was unable to dislodge Henry or Elizabeth despite their excommunication and despite sanctioning hundreds of years of war between the Spanish and French against the English.

Can you explain why the Catholic church didn't just invade England and chop their heads off? Surely if they had genuine power over all of Europe this would have been easy?

If I sanction the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan does that make me the Caliph?

freediver wrote on May 9^th, 2012 at 9:17pm:

Quote: You're ignoring the force of Catholic doctrine. I am putting it into perspective.

You're ignoring that Catholic dogma had the authority of law - the law that Christ ordained through his vicar.


freediver wrote on May 9^th, 2012 at 9:17pm:

Can you explain why the Catholic church didn't just invade England and chop their heads off? Surely if they had genuine power over all of Europe this would have been easy?

Even in Muslim lands the will of a Sunni leader over that of a Shi'te leader is contingent on temporal power.

I am not ignoring it. Nor am I denying that it had authority. Like I said, I am attempting to put it into perspective for you. The difference is the mandate to rule. The pope has a strong religious mandate over the catholic church. But as a political leader he has a very week religious mandate - to the point that at the height of the pope's historical power he never actually ruled himself, but attempted to control things by controlling the monarchs. And when the monarchs defied him the pope still had to do his bidding by 'sanctioning' the actions of other monarchs. By your own words, he did not order these monarchs to do anything. If anything, Catholic doctrine prevented the pope from seizing genuine political power. Catholic doctrine limited the pope's political mandate to the point where if the pope ordered the people of Europe to rise up and invade England, they would have ignored him. The Catholic people themselves saw the pope as a religious leader, not the ruler of Europe. Despite your claims that the pope ruled over Europe for nearly 2 millenia, Europe was never politically unified in that time.

This is in stark contrast with Islam, where religious authority means judicial authority, and military authority, and political authority.

Can you now see the difference between the influence of the doctrine and the influence of the people themselves? The individual people will always seek to hold onto or increase their power. In the case of the pope, the man was willing, but the doctrine prevented him from ever seizing genuine power over 2 millenia.

In the case of Islam, Muhammed seized power with the sword and gave a religious mandate over everything to himself and the Caliphs that followed.

Hence, Christianity enabled the separation of church and state, despite the best efforts of every pope that has ever lived. Islam did the exact opposite, to the point that Muslims now do not know who to slaughter and when to do it without a Caliph leading the charge.

NorthOfNorth wrote on May 9^th, 2012 at 10:38am:

freediver wrote on May 9th, 2012 at 8:09am: But they didn't actually have all that power did they? They shared it with the various monarchs. Filling a mandate vacuum is not the same thing as being unable to give it up. I challenge you to find a non-Muslim equivalent of Abu and Falah who thinks the pope or any other religious leader should rule the world in a political sense. They fought over power (sometimes to the death) with popes and monarchs in their turn deposing (or attempting to depose) each other. Although popes usually had more luck deposing monarchs than the reverse. Protestantism represented a greater threat to Rome than to European monarchs, yet it was European monarchs who did the popes' bidding. In that sense, the pope exercised the power of a king of kings and in every sense the popes (from the Dark Ages until the Protestant reformation) exercised true (and mostly unquestioned) political power usually trumping that of individual European monarchs.

NoN,

None of these Protestants or Catholics had any scriptural authority to seize political power.

In fact in doing so [in seizing political, secular power], 'Protestant' or 'Catholic' regimes were proving that they were in fact making themselves into Gentiles [or, by another name, infidels] !

That determination is scriptural.




Jesus declared that his church should not follow the Gentile model of human governance, e.g. like Rome....

Matthew 20:25
But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them.
26 But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister;
27 And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant:


Papists, and Protestants, who set themselves over the people are disregarding Jesus, and God's wishes, concerning his [God's] people.

Popes???

'Papa'?

"....And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven."
"...But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in."
Matthew 23:1-13

freediver wrote on May 9^th, 2012 at 10:09pm:

I am not ignoring it. Nor am I denying that it had authority. Like I said, I am attempting to put it into perspective for you. The difference is the mandate to rule. This is in stark contrast with Islam, where religious authority means judicial authority, and military authority, and political authority. Can you now see the difference between the influence of the doctrine and the influence of the people themselves? The individual people will always seek to hold onto or increase their power. In the case of the pope, the man was willing, but the doctrine prevented him from ever seizing genuine power over 2 millenia. In the case of Islam, Muhammed seized power with the sword and gave a religious mandate over everything to himself and the Caliphs that followed. Hence, Christianity enabled the separation of church and state, despite the best efforts of every pope that has ever lived. Islam did the exact opposite, to the point that Muslims now do not know who to slaughter and when to do it without a Caliph leading the charge.

I'm not arguing that the Koran makes more explicit claims of its leaders' right to rule, I dispute that the Popes did not also claim the same from a scriptural basis and through subsequent church doctrine. Nor did they give up power easily and were ultimately forced to do so at gunpoint.

In the case of Christianity, as interpreted by the Church of Rome, Christ gave Peter and his successors the keys to heaven and granted him authority to bind and loose on earth and in heaven. It's no coincidence that St Peters Square is shaped like a key.

In the case of the Caliphs - "Although theocratic and absolute in theory and in principle, the sultan's powers were limited in practice. Political decisions had to take into account the opinions and attitudes of important members of the dynasty, the bureaucratic and military establishments, as well as religious leaders.". Many Caliphs were also deposed.

In the cases of the Caliphs and the popes, their power was constrained by the interests of other same-faith rulers competing for temporal power.

How would Shi'ites and Sunnis agree on who should be Caliph today, I wonder.

A favourite quote of Pope Innocent III from Jeremiah reinforcing Papal authority over monarchs - "See, today I appoint you over nations and kingdoms to uproot and tear down, to destroy and overthrow, to build and to plant.”

freediver wrote on May 9^th, 2012 at 10:09pm:

In the case of Islam, Muhammed seized power with the sword and gave a religious mandate over everything to himself and the Caliphs that followed.

This is false. He attained power through an arrangement. The people of Yathrib (later Madinah) established an agreement with him, that he would arbitrate over their disputes, and bring peace to their town and tribes, and that they would make him their leader and adopt Islam.

Quote:

I'm not arguing that the Koran makes more explicit claims of its leaders' right to rule, I dispute that the Popes did not also claim the same from a scriptural basis and through subsequent church doctrine.

There is a big difference between saying you have power and actually having that power. Your own examples demonstrate that despite granting themselves the right, they never actually took power. Throughout the entire history of Christianity, the church always left open a political power vacuum. This vacuum was always filled by some kind of state authority that was always distinguishable from the church. As Sprint pointed out, this had it's origins in Christianity's roots. It is not an accident of history.


Quote:

Nor did they give up power easily and were ultimately forced to do so at gunpoint.

Were the guns actually fired, or are you telling me the church gave up two millenia of 'authority' without a fight?


Quote:

In the cases of the Caliphs and the popes, their power was constrained by the interests of other same-faith rulers competing for temporal power.

Under Islamic doctrine, there is only one Caliph. This is how it was for the early history of Islam. It was not until Islam itself was conquered in the political sense that the more complicated situations arose. The Caliphs were nothing like the pope. They were political leaders in every way, as well as spiritual ones. Obviously political leaders, even dictators, have to appease powerful people internally. This is not a separation of church and state or a pathway to reform. This is the nature of politics.

By the way, if appeasing those people involves any kind of deviation from Islam's 'complete and uchangeable' set of statutes, then Islam forbids it. Likewise, the Caliph himself only has a mandate to implement Islamic law. If he deviates, Muslims are to kill him. The modern 'non-Islamic' states in the middle east came about through military destruction of Islam, not by reform. And to this day Muslims are called to slaughter anyone in their way and re-establish a 1400 year old lawbook. It is their military impotence, not some kind of permissibility in Islam, that prevents this.


Quote:

How would Shi'ites and Sunnis agree on who should be Caliph today, I wonder.

No need to wonder. I have asked Abu this. He would slaughter all the Iranian and other Shite leaders.They ought to be stoned to death for apostasy. This is not theoretical. This is what they would actually do if given the means and opportunity. And means and opportunity is what Islam is all about. It is a religion of power. It is not some natural internal process to Islam that lead to the current situation in the middle east. It is because of external influence. The Shites themselves would come under Sunni rule and would apparently be given a chance to repent.

I'm sure the Shites have their own version of this story. Neither would accomodate power sharing within Islam.


Quote:

This is false. He attained power through an arrangement. The people of Yathrib (later Madinah) established an agreement with him, that he would arbitrate over their disputes, and bring peace to their town and tribes, and that they would make him their leader and adopt Islam.

I think you left out a small section of Muhammed's story Abu. I will give you the opportunity to fill in the gaps, lest people think you were being sneaky.

freediver wrote on May 10^th, 2012 at 8:41am:

Quote: I'm not arguing that the Koran makes more explicit claims of its leaders' right to rule, I dispute that the Popes did not also claim the same from a scriptural basis and through subsequent church doctrine. There is a big difference between saying you have power and actually having that power. Your own examples demonstrate that despite granting themselves the right, they never actually took power. Throughout the entire history of Christianity, the church always left open a political power vacuum. This vacuum was always filled by some kind of state authority that was always distinguishable from the church. As Sprint pointed out, this had it's origins in Christianity's roots. It is not an accident of history.

The difference between arrogating power and proving it is yours is in the wielding. True for Popes and Caliphs alike and never mind the texts.

Papal power has always been relative to the degree of European peoples' religiosity. The greater their religiosity, the greater they are willing to submit to religious authority over secular/temporal rule - God, King, Country respectively. The Schism, Protestantism and the rise of faith in reason over god has permanently eroded religious authority.

I'd imagine, in Muslim countries, the power of a Caliph would be (like the Popes) commensurate with religiosity that reflects a willingness to submit transcending sectarianism and secularism.

Quote:

The difference between arrogating power and proving it is yours is in the wielding. True for Popes and Caliphs alike and never mind the texts

The Caliphs wielded power and ran the state directly. The monarchs ran the state directly in Europe. The pope could approve or disapprove, but even when the monarchs completely rejected his authority he was in practice powerless to prevent it. In Islam, the Caliph would have simply lopped off their heads (and did so many times) as soon as he found out and it would have been all over.


Quote:

I'd imagine, in Muslim countries, the power of a Caliph would be (like the Popes) commensurate with religiosity that reflects a willingness to submit transcending sectarianism and secularism.

No entirely true. The Caliph wields genuine power in a political sense like a dictator. A dictator does not even need to be of the same religion. Saddam for example was a Sunni, who are a minority in Iraq. The Caliph has absolute authority up until you depose him, because he is obligued to kill you if you attempt to undermine Islamic law.

Christianity and Islam are at opposite ends of the spectrum on this. Christianity gives direct biblical support for the separation of church and state. It also gives very little specific guidance for the 'affairs of state'.

Obviously both religions oppose internal reform. It's just that for Christianity the 'internal stuff' boils down to religious affairs, whereas for Islam it covers absolutely every aspect of your life and the affairs of state, including religion, politics, law, warfare, taxation, right down to drinking camel urine and wiping your arse with your left hand.

So if you ask a 'Christian' leader what is the correct Christian level of taxation, you would get laughed at. On the other hand if you asked a Muslim he would go to the Koran or Hadith and find the answer for you (unless of course he thought it would be better if you didn't know, in which case he would tell you about a 13th century non-Muslim king who over taxed his subjects).

freediver wrote on May 10^th, 2012 at 8:41am:

No need to wonder. I have asked Abu this. He would slaughter all the Iranian and other Shite leaders.They ought to be stoned to death for apostasy. This is not theoretical. This is what they would actually do if given the means and opportunity.

Quote please.

Or concede the fact that you're nothing but a repeatedly discredited liar.


freediver wrote on May 10^th, 2012 at 8:41am:

Quote: This is false. He attained power through an arrangement. The people of Yathrib (later Madinah) established an agreement with him, that he would arbitrate over their disputes, and bring peace to their town and tribes, and that they would make him their leader and adopt Islam. I think you left out a small section of Muhammed's story Abu. I will give you the opportunity to fill in the gaps, lest people think you were being sneaky.

That is how he attained power, and I challenge you to produce any credible narrative that differs on this.

Quote:

That is how he attained power, and I challenge you to produce any credible narrative that differs on this.

Sorry Abu I don't have a Koran on me at the moment. But I'm sure you do.

So then if muslims denounce democracy who the hell let them in here? This is insane.

The sustainability party has a policy against immigration of people who reject democracy, personal freedom etc.

freediver wrote on May 11^th, 2012 at 8:27am:

Christianity and Islam are at opposite ends of the spectrum on this. Christianity gives direct biblical support for the separation of church and state.

Only if you ignore what the Bible quotes Jesus as saying:


Quote:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the rabbis and the Pharisees, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven. [Matthew 5:17-20]

freediver wrote on May 10^th, 2012 at 7:43pm:

The Caliphs wielded power and ran the state directly. The monarchs ran the state directly in Europe. The pope could approve or disapprove, but even when the monarchs completely rejected his authority he was in practice powerless to prevent it. In Islam, the Caliph would have simply lopped off their heads (and did so many times) as soon as he found out and it would have been all over...No entirely true. The Caliph wields genuine power in a political sense like a dictator.

Not so with the early 'Rightly-guided' caliphs. The first caliph AbuBakr stated that this was not allowed:


Quote:

AbuBarzah said: I was with AbuBakr. He became angry at a man and uttered hot words. I said: "Do you permit me, Caliph (Successor) of the Messenger of God (peace & blessings of God upon him), that I cut off his neck?" These words of mine removed his anger; he stood and went in. He then sent for me and said: "What did you say just now?" I said: (I had said:) "Permit me that I cut off his neck." He said: "Would you do it if I ordered you?" I said: "Yes." He said: "No, I swear by God, this is not allowed..." [Sunan Abu Dawood]

The 2nd Caliph, Umar Ibn al-Khattab, was known for the separating the powers of the judiciary and executive.


Quote:

Caliph Umar is particularly known for his administration of impartial justice. Justice during his reignwas supervised by Qazis (Civil Judges) who were appointed by the Caliph and were free from thecontrol of the Governors. He was the first man who separated judiciary from the executive, thusensuring free and even-handed justice. “The judge was named and is still named, “says VonHammer, “the Hakim-ush-sharaa, i.e., ruler through the law, for law rules through the declaration of  justice and the power of Governor carries out the declaration of it. Thus the Islamic administrationeven in its infancy proclaims in word and in deed the necessary separation between judicial andexecutive power.” Such separation of executive from judiciary has not been attained by some of themost civilized states in the modern times. The administration of justice during his time was perfectlyimpartial and he himself set an example by thoroughly carrying out the orders of the Qazi (Judge)... ...The success and efficiency of his administration mainly depended on his strict compliance over thestaff. When a governor was appointed, his letter of appointment which detailed his duties andprivileges was publicly read, so that people could know the terms of appointment and could holdhim responsible for abusing his power. Addressing a group of governors once he said,“Remember, Ihave not appointed you to rule over your people, but to serve them. You should set an example withyour good conduct, so that people may follow you.”... .... The author of the Kitab al Khiraj writes that the lastwill of Hazrat Umar enjoined upon the Muslims to respect the assurances given to non-Muslims, andprotect their lives and properties even at the risk of their own. The Caliph had been too indulgent to non-Muslims and even pardoned their treasons (violations) which no present-day civilized government could tolerate. The non-Muslims were so much moved by these unusual sympathies of the Muslim conquerors that they sided with them in preference to their co-religionists. The Christians and Jews of Hems prayed for the return of Muslims. The Caliph, no doubt, imposed Jizia, a protection tax on the non-Muslims, but such tax was not realized from those non-Muslims who joined the Muslim army. Hazrat Abu Ubaidah, the Commander-in-chief of Muslim forces in Syria, returned the Jizia realized from the inhabitants of Hems when, due to emergency...he could  not undertake the responsibility of their protection. [AN EXTRACT FROM THE BOOK OF KHWAJA JAMIL AHMAD, HAZRAT UMAR THE GREAT]

Umar Ibn al-Khattab speech upon election as caliph:


Quote:

"...O people, you have some rights on me which you can always claim. One of your rights is that if anyone of you comes to me with a claim, he should leave satisfied. Another of your rights is that you can demand that I take nothing unjustly from the revenues of the State. You can also demand that... I fortify your frontiers and do not put you into danger. It is also your right that if you go to battle I should look after your families as a father would while you are away. "O people, remain conscious of God, forgive me my faults and help me in my task. Assist me in enforcing what is good and forbidding what is evil. Advise me regarding the obligations that have been imposed upon me by God..."

Upon being assassinated whilst praying in the mosque by a Persian disbeliever, the mortally wounded Umar gave the following advise to the people as he lay dying from his wounds:


Quote:

I recommend my successor to be good to the early emigrants and realize their rights and to protect their honor and sacred things. And I also recommend him to be good to the Ansar (natives of the Islamic capital Madina) who before them, had homes (in Medina) and had adopted the Faith. He should accept the good of the righteous among them and should excuse their wrongdoers. I recommend him to abide by the rules and regulations concerning the Dhimmis (protected people from the Christians and the Jews) of God and His Messenger, to fulfill their contracts completely and fight for them and not to tax (overburden) them beyond their capabilities." [Bukhari]

Islam established many fundamentals of the modern democratic state, eg.

*election of caliphs
*separation of powers of executive and judiciary
*worker's rights
*social security
*family law
*criminal law

However, Islam does not permit the legislation that contradicts God's laws. God is the supreme ruler of the Universe, and none has the right to supersede His legislation.

God is very merciful that He allows the Disobedient Ones to breathe the air that He created. Soon though, they will only breathe the flames of Hell if they do not desist in their disobedience.

Quote:

Not so with the early 'Rightly-guided' caliphs. The first caliph AbuBakr stated that this was not allowed

Falah, your example does not appear relevant. Are you suggesting the Caliph pardoned a regional leader who attempted to split his state from the Caliphate?

Or are you merely suggesting they would have stoned him to death instead of lopping off his hed?


Quote:

election of caliphs

Is it true that Islam forbids non-Muslims from voting? What about women? Are all Muslim men allowed to vote?

freediver wrote on May 18^th, 2012 at 8:35am:

Is it true that Islam forbids non-Muslims from voting? What about women? Are all Muslim men allowed to vote?

I do not find that Islam forbids anyone from voting.

Is there any particular reason why you qualified your response with "I do not find"?

freediver wrote on May 18^th, 2012 at 11:33am:

Is there any particular reason why you qualified your response with "I do not find"?

Yes. Because I do not consider myself to be an authority on Islam.

In other words, "as far as I know".

If you sincerely want to know the answer to this question Freeliar, why don't you go and ask a scholar of Islam? The truth is that your mission is to try and confuse people about Islam isn't it?

I do not have the time to research every obscure red herring that you pull out.

Quote:

The truth is that your mission is to try and confuse people about Islam isn't it?

No Falah. If anyone is confusing people about Islam, it is you and Abu with your constant self contradictions and refusal to answer simple questions.

falah wrote on May 18^th, 2012 at 10:41am:

freediver wrote on May 18th, 2012 at 8:35am: Is it true that Islam forbids non-Muslims from voting? What about women? Are all Muslim men allowed to vote? I do not find that Islam forbids anyone from voting.

As long as they vote for Mohammed and Allah.