“D.Castles” wrote: >

>an Orthodox friend wrote:

>

> > On 23 Oct 2001 16:47:15 +1000, (Andrew

> > Bromage) wrote:

> >

> > >I have to wonder if part of the difference between Christianity and

> > >Islam today is due to their difference in age. Christendom has been

> > >and gone. Shariya is still alive and well. If “Islamic states” ever

> > >go the way that Christendom has, we may have a better basis for

> > >comparing the two religions. Right now, it’s hard to say how much

> > >of the ill-treatment of non-Muslims is due to religion and how much

> > >is due to politics, because there is no clear separation of church

> > >and state.

I think the problem facing Islam at this point of its history is different to that which Christendom faced at the reformation. At that point an increase in Christian ferver lead to the abandonment of the abused power structures of the Church. Islam does not have the same centralised power structures, it does not face the same problems, time has swept them away, and it does not have the same history (as I argue below) so the solution will have to be different.

> > >

> > Islam is unable to ever go the way of Christianity has in the west.

> >

> > Remembering that all lands that Islam own she took by force or the

> > sword, either from Christians or others faiths. There has been -no-

> > missionary movement by Islamic people. War, terrorism, intimidation

> > (as what happened in East Timor) is -the- way Islam spreads. Subjugate

> > or kill dissenters, the general mass of non caring society will join.

> > I have absolutely no doubt that the majority of Australians would

> > become Islamic (in name anyway) if what happened in East Timor and

> > Sudan/Nigeria happened here. No doubt at all in my mind.

> >

> > Its all in God’s hands.

> >

> > Peace and grace.

>

> an Orthodox friend.

> I believe your knowledge of Islamic history is about as fundamental as

> your understanding of Christian history.

Well… I think his interpretation of Islamic History is a little strident (to say the least) but it’s not entirely wrong.

Muhammad was not only a prophet, he was also a military commander. He started his career as a gentle persuader in Mecca, but when he and the rest of the Umma (the body of muslims) were forced out to Medina he started a series of military campaigns, ranging from raids on trading caravans to blockade Mecca, through the genocide of a Jewish tribe in Medina to the systematic military conquest of the Arab peninsular, allowing, at various times, his troops to raze entire cities.

At the time of his death he was menacing cities in southern Europe. Under his rule followers of other religions were variously encouraged to convert, forced to convert, killed, or taxed heavily. It is disingenuous to suggest that after the military occupation of the Arab peninsular the virtually complete conversion of the population happened entirely without any pressure from the Umma, and the histories that were written close to that time are quite clear that pressure was applied.

Now this _does_not_mean_ that all Muslims would behave this way if given the chance, I’m sure they wouldn’t, but it does mean that militant muslims can cite a tradition of the use of military methods to achieve their aims that extends all the way back to the founder of their religion.

What worries me about this whole thing is that with the increasing fundamentalism of all faiths caused by the change in the world economy we can be sure that more and more people of all persuasions, including greens, Christians, republicans and Muslims, will be driven to direct action. The only question they will have to answer, is “what kind of action?”.

The West simply cannot deal with this phenomenon militarily, no matter how many planes we have, how well trained our young men are, or how big our bombs are. Force is not the solution, because the problem is in our hearts and minds and we are never convinced by miltary campaigns. As long as people conceive of violence as an option there will be people who resort to it.

That means that the House of Islam (and not the House of War – a deeply ironic name in this context) has some work to do. At some point they will have to rule a line under this part of their history and declare that it can be pursued no further.

I don’t see this happening now and I don’t see how it can happen. It’s not just Anthony Mundine who has an ambivalent attitude to the WTC attack. I have seen many Muslims (on aus.religion.islam) say that they “admire the purity of his [bin Laden’s] faith”, or similar expressions. As long as this sort of thought is widely expressed in Mulsim circles the general unease people feel about the world, not to mention the legitimate charges of injustice they bring, will lead to violence in a certain proportion of belivers. It’s that simple. It’s also pretty worying.

— Regards,

Richard Kerr