Berkely students petition to stop Bill Maher from delivering commencement addres

[The Minsky Moment]

But around the edges I continue to think the point still stands.  There is a difference between the teachings of the Bible, and of the Koran, and the teachings of the Koran have a noticeable more sympathy and endorsement or war and struggle.

This is making the same mistake the fundamentalists do - historical de-contextualization.

Jihad is used in a variety of contexts in the Qu'ran and the Islamic tradition generally, of which the military aspect is only one.  But focusing solely on the military implications, the relevant historical context is the pre-industrial tribal societies of pre-Islamic Arabia, in which warfare was endemic.   Early Islam sought to transcend tribal boundaries and put an end to incessant tribal warfare.  "Jihad" in that context is actually a concept design to restrain war by creating rules or law of war and channeling conflict away from internal and civil wars (ultimately unsuccessfully of course).  Jihad permits conflict against "Others" but of course in most pre-WW1 societies (and many since) such conflict has always been justifiable.  Jihad does not permit forced conversion as Islam requires toleration of people of the Book, which was then defined to include just about every major religion Muslims came into contact with.

[The Minsky Moment]

That's not what that phrase means.  It's part of a call to the disciples to go out and preach his teachings.  He warns that it will not be easy, that families will be turned against each other, but that their ultimate reward will be with God.

That's a possible interpretation, just as a possible and common interpretation of jihad is to emphasize the spiritual access of its literal meaning, "striving" or "struggle".

But there is a clear literal reading here - Jesus speaks directly of the very real destruction of entire cities that is to come, and many scholars believe (with lots of textual support) that Jesus and his disciples understood that the day of judgment was coming very soon.   Literally, Jesus is saying he is the emissary of God, and that he will report to God as to who fails to acknowledge him, so they will be marked for destruction.

[CountDeMoney]

Jihad does not permit forced conversion as Islam requires toleration of people of the Book, which was then defined to include just about every major religion Muslims came into contact with.

Ghimmi somma dat Dhimmi!

[Barrister]

But around the edges I continue to think the point still stands.  There is a difference between the teachings of the Bible, and of the Koran, and the teachings of the Koran have a noticeable more sympathy and endorsement or war and struggle.

This is making the same mistake the fundamentalists do - historical de-contextualization.

Jihad is used in a variety of contexts in the Qu'ran and the Islamic tradition generally, of which the military aspect is only one.  But focusing solely on the military implications, the relevant historical context is the pre-industrial tribal societies of pre-Islamic Arabia, in which warfare was endemic.   Early Islam sought to transcend tribal boundaries and put an end to incessant tribal warfare.  "Jihad" in that context is actually a concept design to restrain war by creating rules or law of war and channeling conflict away from internal and civil wars (ultimately unsuccessfully of course).  Jihad permits conflict against "Others" but of course in most pre-WW1 societies (and many since) such conflict has always been justifiable.  Jihad does not permit forced conversion as Islam requires toleration of people of the Book, which was then defined to include just about every major religion Muslims came into contact with.

6th century Arabia was not all that different from 1st century Judea.  In both warfare and violence was endemic.

Yet one gave birth to a religion that, in your own words, attempted to "restrain war", while the other gave birth to a religion that decried war.

Look, I'm not in the Grallonesque "Islam is a religion of war and death".  I recognize there are many positive aspects of the faith, that most muslims are quite peaceable and peaceful, even devout adherents of the faith.

But "words have consequences".  Islam and Christianity are noticeably different religions, and those differences mean something.

[crazy canuck]

But around the edges I continue to think the point still stands.  There is a difference between the teachings of the Bible, and of the Koran, and the teachings of the Koran have a noticeable more sympathy and endorsement or war and struggle.

This is making the same mistake the fundamentalists do - historical de-contextualization.

Jihad is used in a variety of contexts in the Qu'ran and the Islamic tradition generally, of which the military aspect is only one.  But focusing solely on the military implications, the relevant historical context is the pre-industrial tribal societies of pre-Islamic Arabia, in which warfare was endemic.   Early Islam sought to transcend tribal boundaries and put an end to incessant tribal warfare.  "Jihad" in that context is actually a concept design to restrain war by creating rules or law of war and channeling conflict away from internal and civil wars (ultimately unsuccessfully of course).  Jihad permits conflict against "Others" but of course in most pre-WW1 societies (and many since) such conflict has always been justifiable.  Jihad does not permit forced conversion as Islam requires toleration of people of the Book, which was then defined to include just about every major religion Muslims came into contact with.

6th century Arabia was not all that different from 1st century Judea.  In both warfare and violence was endemic.

Yet one gave birth to a religion that, in your own words, attempted to "restrain war", while the other gave birth to a religion that decried war.

Have you read the old testament lately?

[The Minsky Moment]

Ghimmi somma dat Dhimmi!

Either that or the ghetto, Judenhut and badge.  Pick your poison.

[Admiral Yi]

My error about jihad and seven pillars.  However, it does appear jihad is one of the pillars of 12ver Shi'ism, and a minority of Sunnis accept it as a sixth pillar.

[Barrister]

That's not what that phrase means.  It's part of a call to the disciples to go out and preach his teachings.  He warns that it will not be easy, that families will be turned against each other, but that their ultimate reward will be with God.

That's a possible interpretation, just as a possible and common interpretation of jihad is to emphasize the spiritual access of its literal meaning, "striving" or "struggle".

But there is a clear literal reading here - Jesus speaks directly of the very real destruction of entire cities that is to come, and many scholars believe (with lots of textual support) that Jesus and his disciples understood that the day of judgment was coming very soon.   Literally, Jesus is saying he is the emissary of God, and that he will report to God as to who fails to acknowledge him, so they will be marked for destruction.

No, it's not a "possible interpretation", it's the only interpretation when you look at the wider text.

10 Jesus called for his 12 disciples to come to him. He gave them authority to drive out evil spirits and to heal every illness and sickness.

2 Here are the names of the 12 apostles. First are Simon Peter and his brother Andrew. Then come James, son of Zebedee, and his brother John. 3 Next are Philip and Bartholomew, and also Thomas and Matthew the tax collector. Two more are James, son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus. 4 The last are Simon the Zealot and Judas Iscariot. Judas is the one who was later going to hand Jesus over to his enemies.

5 Jesus sent these 12 out with the following orders. "Do not go among those who aren't Jews," he said. "Do not enter any town of the Samaritans. 6 Instead, go to the people of Israel. They are like sheep that have become lost. 7 As you go, preach this message, 'The kingdom of heaven is near.' 8 Heal those who are sick. Bring those who are dead back to life. Make those who have skin diseases 'clean' again. Drive out demons. You have received freely, so give freely.

9 "Do not take along any gold, silver or copper in your belts. 10 Do not take a bag for the journey. Do not take extra clothes or sandals or walking sticks. A worker should be given what he needs.

11 "When you enter a town or village, look for someone who is willing to welcome you. Stay at that person's house until you leave. 12 As you enter the home, greet those who live there. 13 If that home welcomes you, give it your blessing of peace. If it does not, don't bless it.

14 "Some people may not welcome you or listen to your words. If they don't, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town. 15 What I'm about to tell you is true. On judgment day it will be easier for Sodom and Gomorrah than for that town.

16 "I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. So be as wise as snakes and as harmless as doves.

17 "Watch out! Men will hand you over to the local courts. They will whip you in their synagogues. 18 You will be brought to governors and kings because of me. You will be witnesses to them and to those who aren't Jews.

19 "But when they arrest you, don't worry about what you will say or how you will say it. At that time you will be given the right words to say. 20 It will not be you speaking. The Spirit of your Father will be speaking through you.

21 "Brothers will hand over brothers to be killed. Fathers will hand over their children. Children will rise up against their parents and have them put to death. 22 Everyone will hate you because of me. But anyone who stands firm to the end will be saved.

23 "When people attack you in one place, escape to another. What I'm about to tell you is true. You will not finish going through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes.

24 "A student is not better than his teacher. A servant is not better than his master. 25 It is enough for the student to be like his teacher. And it is enough for the servant to be like his master. If the head of the house has been called Beelzebub, what can the others who live there expect?

26 "So don't be afraid of your enemies. Everything that is secret will be brought out into the open. Everything that is hidden will be uncovered. 27 What I tell you in the dark, speak in the daylight. What is whispered in your ear, shout from the rooftops. 28 Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but can't kill the soul. Instead, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

29 "Aren't two sparrows sold for only a penny? But not one of them falls to the ground without your Father knowing it. 30 He even counts every hair on your head! 31 So don't be afraid. You are worth more than many sparrows.

32 "What about someone who says in front of others that he knows me? I will also say in front of my Father who is in heaven that I know him. 33 But what about someone who says in front of others that he doesn't know me? I will say in front of my Father who is in heaven that I don't know him.

34 "Do not think that I came to bring peace to the earth. I didn't come to bring peace. I came to bring a sword. 35 I have come to turn

"'sons against their fathers.
    Daughters will refuse to obey their mothers.
Daughters-in-law will be against their mothers-in-law.
36     A man's enemies will be the members of his own family.' (Micah 7:6)
37 "Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me. Anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 And anyone who does not pick up his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 If anyone finds his life, he will lose it. If anyone loses his life because of me, he will find it.

40 "Anyone who welcomes you welcomes me. And anyone who welcomes me welcomes the One who sent me. 41 Suppose someone welcomes a prophet as a prophet. That one will receive a prophet's reward. And suppose someone welcomes a godly person as a godly person. That one will receive a godly person's reward. 42 Suppose someone gives even a cup of cold water to a little one who follows me. What I'm about to tell you is true. That one will certainly be rewarded."

There's also the fact that Matthew is of course one of the synoptic gospels.  So this same story is also covered in Luke

49 I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! 50 But I have a baptism to undergo [my death], and how distressed I am until it is completed! 51 Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. 52 From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. 53 They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.

Absolutely - Jesus taught that judgment would be coming, and those that did not believe in him would suffer.  But he was clear that judgment came from God, not from man.

[Razgovory]

The other question is which pillar of Islam Admiral Yi finds so offensive.

   
• Faith or belief in the Oneness of God and the finality of the prophethood of Muhammad;
• Establishment of the daily prayers;
• Concern for and almsgiving to the needy;
• Self-purification through fasting; and
• The pilgrimage to Makkah for those who are able.

http://www.islam101.com/dawah/pillars.html

Well I think it's pretty obvious.  Concern for and Almsgiving to the needy.

[The Minsky Moment]

Yet one gave birth to a religion that, in your own words, attempted to "restrain war", while the other gave birth to a religion that decried war.

The early Christians were a small sect, a tiny minority within a powerless and (in imperial context) small minority - and they believed the end of the world was nigh.  They neither needed or had a theory of warfare.  With respect to secular matters, the teaching was simple - submit to and accept the legitimacy of the governing authority:

But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God's servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.

The moment Christianity became an official faith of an organized polity - i.e. a position equivalent to Islam during the conquest era - there was no question about the legitimacy of warfare carried out by the legitimate authorities.  If Constantine wanted to slaughter his enemies, that was not only OK, but the fact that he marched under Christian banners would be celebrated.

[Barrister]

Yet one gave birth to a religion that, in your own words, attempted to "restrain war", while the other gave birth to a religion that decried war.

The early Christians were a small sect, a tiny minority within a powerless and (in imperial context) small minority - and they believed the end of the world was nigh.  They neither needed or had a theory of warfare.  With respect to secular matters, the teaching was simple - submit to and accept the legitimacy of the governing authority:

But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God's servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.

The moment Christianity became an official faith of an organized polity - i.e. a position equivalent to Islam during the conquest era - there was no question about the legitimacy of warfare carried out by the legitimate authorities.  If Constantine wanted to slaughter his enemies, that was not only OK, but the fact that he marched under Christian banners would be celebrated.

Two thoughts:

1. Amongst the Jews they did not think themselves quite so powerless, as they rose in revolt a few decades after Jesus.  Of course that led to their defeat and the destruction of the Temple, but they didn't know that at the time.  And you can see that impulse reflected in the Bible - people asking Jesus to help establish the Kingdom and free the Jews from Roman rule, but he refused.

2. But even so, your interpretation is one that you come to if you view the Bible as a purely historical document.  But if someone does accept the Bible as the Word of God, well then you kind of have to take Jesus at His word.

[The Minsky Moment]

My error about jihad and seven pillars.  However, it does appear jihad is one of the pillars of 12ver Shi'ism, and a minority of Sunnis accept it as a sixth pillar.

No on both counts.
Only the Ismailis accept it as a pillar, but not in the strictly military sense in the present day.

[garbon]

Christianity, which has a long history of conquest and forced conversion.

To be fair, by now it has a long history of basically every single conceivable thing possible.

I can think of several things that it doesn't have a long history of.

Typically a statement like this includes an example.

Sure. How supportive has Christianity been of homosexual relations/unions?

Very.  Many churches have been completely behind these things.  Many decades before this became mainstream.  Like...you know...mine.

I don't think an appeal to some tepid acceptance by Episcopalian church would compare to say the Crusades/Reconquista as example of militant Christianity.

I guess I do not understand what this means.  I said everything has happened in the name of Christianity or has been done by Christians.  I did not say that they all are equally sexy in the historical sense.  Obviously the Reconquista is more interesting than being gay friendly or helping Lepers or whatever.

What it means is that I think it is rather disingenuous to try to distance Christianity from rather large events-broad reaching attitudes by calling out that there were small communities doing other things. The point of the discussion wasn't to suggest that Christianity was evil but that what was being called out as uniquely part of Islam wasn't unique at all.

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

6th century Arabia was not all that different from 1st century Judea.  In both warfare and violence was endemic.

While they were both violent, tribalist shitholes, the latter one was also under the sandal of an occupying imperial power.  One that actively persecuted non-state religions except for the one that agreed to play ball.

[crazy canuck]

What it means is that I think it is rather disingenuous to try to distance Christianity from rather large events-broad reaching attitudes by calling out that there were small communities doing other things. The point of the discussion wasn't to suggest that Christianity was evil but that what was being called out as uniquely part of Islam wasn't unique at all.