What Was Mohammed?

[Zemah]

I think he was inspired but I think his night dream or vision taking him to Jeruselem was just a dream and not a Heavenly vision.

The significance of the Jerusalem vision, a journey starting from Mecca, passing through Jerusalem, and then continuing to heaven, is that Mecca is not the departure point of exaltation. Muslims must consider this as a sign that their exaltation is linked to an entrance into a peaceful Jerusalem.

Since they believe in the Bible and that Jesus was a messenger from God, they are required to consider what the message was. In regards to Jerusalem it was revealed in Revelation that the (12) points of entry are the twelve tribes of Israel and not just the tribes alone but each gate rests on a foundation stone of one of the twelve Apostles of Christ.

To diminish the Qurâ??an as not being the word of God is to relieve Muslims of their obligation to find out the truth about Christ. The Qurâ??an is a great testimony of the apostasy that existed in both the Jewish and Christian communities at the time Mohammed was given the word of Islam. The Qurâ??an is a warning to apostate people that if you only â??believeâ? you are only Muslim, which means â??believerâ?. Muslims believe but they fail to investigate, Christians believe but their faith is flat, and Jews continue to live in disbelief. [Excuse me for the universal generalities.]

Islam is the fall back position for people to still be considered a descendant of Abraham (genetically) or a descendant of monotheism (spiritually).

The Israel in Christ (the LDS Church) is the departure point for exaltation into the Family of God that continues in the Fatherhood of the Priesthood of Christ. The promise that came from God through Joseph Smith was eternal increaseâ?¦families forever.

[Bee Eff]

Nothing new here.

I am not arguing the fact. You seem antagonistic, and appear to desire a confrontation. I will refrain from being drawn into a quarrel. I have stated my beliefs concerning Muhammad. Everything is always up to interpretation, we are mortals and flawed, we do not have a perfect knowledge. If you disagree with my stance that is fine, I do not begrudge your disagreement.

Have a good day

[X1X]

No no, not antagonism, I just wanted to understand why some people hold the views that they do. And I was responding to the author of that article more than I was responding to you. I am content to agree to disagree as well.

It is also interesting that according to a report by Dr. Tom W. Smith from the University of Chicago, Muslims in the United States are far fewer than the figures (7 million) often tossed about in the media. He concluded,

"...it is hard to accept estimates that Muslims are greater than 1 percent of the population (2,090,000 adults or 2,814,000 total). Thus, the average number being cited by the media at present (6.7 million) is 2.4 to 3.6 times greater than the best available estimates (1.9-2.8 million)."

So if, after two centuries, there are only around 2 million Muslims in the US and 64% of them are from abroad, then that doesn't leave much to make a religion proud of its missionary efforts. I never understood Islam as a missionary-based religion, and I think the facts and figures support that contention.

[koakaipo]

The professor I mentioned earlier from church college saw him as a link in the chain to events that would move along the restoration-he saw Mohammad as such a link. He called him a prophet of sorts. I don't feel very passionately about it one way or the other personally. I see him as a man who might have been visionary or inspired or neither. Who knows?

I just personally don't have a real passionate take on Islam as being false or even from a bad place. I have several Muslim families for friends who seem to have more in common with Mormons and vice versa than other religious groups at times. I find that interesting. They tend to live meticulously in terms of standards and have been great friends and neighbors.

So, in that sense, I don't see them being deceived or being false. I see them expressing what Islam can look like under conditions like theirs.

I've read the Koran too before for a couple religious studies classes, and it's easy to sum up the book in some short sentences. But the reality is that like the Bible, you can find passages that are alarming, and other passages that could possibly counter the alarming messages. It's all about how the book is used and interpreted and processed under various circumstances to me. I know people who can argue you a very harsh in terpretation of the Koran to justify more extreme actions; and I know people who can counter those arguments using the very same book and different passages.

[simply_disappear]

I don't think there is a distinction between being inspired to teach a nation and being a prophet.

So, you don't think anyone who teaches a type of gospel or the gospel is ever inspired by God? That's strange because it's obvious to me that many are led to higher knowledge and Light by the Holy Ghost and they get there by learning something that is spiritually uplifting to them although at some point it m ay leave them wanting due to a lack of completeness.

ETA: what i mean by being inspired is that they can understand something and take it one step further....I'm not talking about being called. I mean, the Pope.....I truly think certain of them were inspired but not called. Esp. JPII. jmo

[PreviousLDS]

I have several Muslim families for friends who seem to have more in common with Mormons and vice versa than other religious groups at times.

This is what I have found as well. In fact it seems to me that Mormonism is more like Islam than it is like non-LDS Christianity, beginning with the obvious visions from "God" claimed by both false prophets who began these world views. Within both religions, Jesus is reverenced and highly honored, but is also demoted. That's just one example.

[koakaipo]

Hi previous-I was speaking more to lifestyles than anything. Our Muslim friends are very strait laced, and it reminds me of Mormons in that sense.

I've seen some of the comparisons made in terms of Mormons and Muslims, and I could see some of those comparisons from say a Protestant standpoint. I think alot of them come from their relative age in some ways.

But I think there are alot of nonsimilarities as well. For instance, Muslims are considered the "mostest" monotheistic religion around, so Mormons and non-Mormon Christians for that matter would deviate from that model.

[X1X]

I know people who can argue you a very harsh in terpretation of the Koran to justify more extreme actions; and I know people who can counter those arguments using the very same book and different passages.

The problem here is that the latter are very few and are often rejected by Muslim communities as flukes. Like the Muslim in Tulsa who wrote an article criticizing certain terrorists like Osama bin ladin. He was excommunicated from his mosque and found not a single sympathizer from his Muslim community. Winning an argument is something entirely different from creating one. Ayaan Hirsi Ali explains why moderate Muslims have little or no traction in the Islamic world:

Q. Have you seen any ideology coming from within Islam that gives young Muslims a sense of purpose without the overlay of militancy?

A. They have no alternative message. There is no active missionary work among the youth telling them, do not become jihadis. They do not use media means as much as the jihadis. They simply â?? theyâ??re reactive and they donâ??t seem to be able to compete with the jihadis. And every time there is a debate between a real jihadi and, say, what we have decided to call moderate Muslims, the jihadis win. Because they come with the Koran and quotes from the Koran. They come with quotes from the Hadith and the Sunnah, and the traditions of the prophet. And every assertion they make, whether it is that women should be veiled, or Jews should be killed, or Americans are our enemies, or any of that, they win. Because what they have to say is so consistent with what is written in the Koran and the Hadith. And what the moderates fail to do is to say, listen, thatâ??s all in there, but that wasnâ??t meant for this context. And we have moved on. We can change the Koran, we can change the Hadith. Thatâ??s whatâ??s missing.

(This appeared in the NY Times)

The reason they keep winning is because Islam allows no room for the Quran to be changed, and the hadith is the official interpreter of the Quran. To change all of that would be to turn traditional Islam on its head and take away its greatest strength: its claim to be a perfect system from start to finish. What makes it special is that it doesn't change like other religions. The Quran is often understood by Muslims as uncreated. It cannot be changed because it is God's word and applies to all peoples, cultures and is relevant throughout all periods of time.

[Bee Eff]

The problem here is that the latter are very few and are often rejected by Muslim communities as flukes. Like the Muslim in Tulsa who wrote an article criticizing certain terrorists like Osama bin ladin. He was excommunicated from his mosque and found not a single sympathizer from his Muslim community. Winning an argument is something entirely different from creating one. Ayaan Hirsi Ali explains why moderate Muslims have little or no traction in the Islamic world:

Q. Have you seen any ideology coming from within Islam that gives young Muslims a sense of purpose without the overlay of militancy?

A. They have no alternative message. There is no active missionary work among the youth telling them, do not become jihadis. They do not use media means as much as the jihadis. They simply â?? theyâ??re reactive and they donâ??t seem to be able to compete with the jihadis. And every time there is a debate between a real jihadi and, say, what we have decided to call moderate Muslims, the jihadis win. Because they come with the Koran and quotes from the Koran. They come with quotes from the Hadith and the Sunnah, and the traditions of the prophet. And every assertion they make, whether it is that women should be veiled, or Jews should be killed, or Americans are our enemies, or any of that, they win. Because what they have to say is so consistent with what is written in the Koran and the Hadith. And what the moderates fail to do is to say, listen, thatâ??s all in there, but that wasnâ??t meant for this context. And we have moved on. We can change the Koran, we can change the Hadith. Thatâ??s whatâ??s missing.

(This appeared in the NY Times)

The reason they keep winning is because Islam allows no room for the Quran to be changed, and the hadith is the official interpreter of the Quran. To change all of that would be to turn traditional Islam on its head and take away its greatest strength: its claim to be a perfect system from start to finish. What makes it special is that it doesn't change like other religions. The Quran is often understood by Muslims as uncreated. It cannot be changed because it is God's word and applies to all peoples, cultures and is relevant throughout all periods of time.

They added to the Quran with the Hadith. They ignore their hypocrisy by believing the stories told by various others concerning Muhammad. The Haddith are third person accounts of Muhammad, his life and teachings, used to guide interpretation of the Quran rather than relying on the Quran. They abandoned the Quran almost immediately after Muhammad's death and began relying on other sources to maintain the teachings of the Quran.

[koakaipo]

The problem here is that the latter are very few and are often rejected by Muslim communities as flukes. Like the Muslim in Tulsa who wrote an article criticizing certain terrorists like Osama bin ladin. He was excommunicated from his mosque and found not a single sympathizer from his Muslim community. Winning an argument is something entirely different from creating one. Ayaan Hirsi Ali explains why moderate Muslims have little or no traction in the Islamic world:

Q. Have you seen any ideology coming from within Islam that gives young Muslims a sense of purpose without the overlay of militancy?

A. They have no alternative message. There is no active missionary work among the youth telling them, do not become jihadis. They do not use media means as much as the jihadis. They simply â?? theyâ??re reactive and they donâ??t seem to be able to compete with the jihadis. And every time there is a debate between a real jihadi and, say, what we have decided to call moderate Muslims, the jihadis win. Because they come with the Koran and quotes from the Koran. They come with quotes from the Hadith and the Sunnah, and the traditions of the prophet. And every assertion they make, whether it is that women should be veiled, or Jews should be killed, or Americans are our enemies, or any of that, they win. Because what they have to say is so consistent with what is written in the Koran and the Hadith. And what the moderates fail to do is to say, listen, thatâ??s all in there, but that wasnâ??t meant for this context. And we have moved on. We can change the Koran, we can change the Hadith. Thatâ??s whatâ??s missing.

(This appeared in the NY Times)

The reason they keep winning is because Islam allows no room for the Quran to be changed, and the hadith is the official interpreter of the Quran. To change all of that would be to turn traditional Islam on its head and take away its greatest strength: its claim to be a perfect system from start to finish. What makes it special is that it doesn't change like other religions. The Quran is often understood by Muslims as uncreated. It cannot be changed because it is God's word and applies to all peoples, cultures and is relevant throughout all periods of time.

Well, I think there are several subjects being touched upon here, so I'll just mention a couple thoughts.

Religion is a living tradition. Islam is no different from any other religious tradition in terms of being influenced by it's environment, and we do need to look at the environment that is influencing what we see today. I don't have the book on me or even the title in my head right now and I'm just summarizing rather

crudely, but Islam has had more leeway in terms of interpretation and dissension in earlier times than we presently do now. And it is important to see what that is in terms of what's going on in Muslim strongholds politically and socially and economically. Christendm wiill be asking similar questions as the West becomes post-Christian and we see Christendom change addresses from the WEst to S. America and parts of Africa and S. Asia where a more fundamentalist face for Christianity will come through.

As for Muslims in America, there are several things to look at

EDITED TO ADD(somehow it didn't submit):

Muslims moving from other places to America are going to deal with assimilation challenges like other religious groups before them. There are trials for them to deal with, one of the biggest ones being for immigrants, living in a non-Islamic goverened state where Islamic law does, from what I understand, blend politics and religion. And of course in the WEst we attempt to keep them seperate. There's other challenges of course, but I'd actually have to get off my duff to itemize anything else.

My point though is Muslims in America is a new thing. It's going to take a couple or more generations to iron out alot of the kinks. But we can look at ethnic and religious groups frankly who came before who were met with similar challenges. We can look at the Catholics who made their way over here from Europe, were not easy fits right away, and even help bring rise to more fundamentalist responses in Protestantism over here. But time and generations change the makeup. And there will be change, because the conditions here will cause for different manifestations I believe.

[X1X]

They added to the Quran with the Hadith.

The ahadith serve as the official interpreter for the Quran because the Quran by itself is virtually impossible to understand. It is not in chronological order. It is ordered from shortest verse to longest verse with no historical commentary explaining the context from which these verses were dictated. The early Muslims knew this would cause tremendous obstacles for people trying to interpret the Quran on their own so they provided a means to interpret it in its historical context. Enter the ahadith (plural for hadith). Muslims who use ahadith to interpret the Quran use the only means available to them. They are not hypocrites. They are being consistent with a millennia of Islamic tradition.

They ignore their hypocrisy by believing the stories told by various others concerning Muhammad.

You have to keep in mind that virtually all we know about Muhammad is enshrined in the hadith. The Quran provides very little information since it is understood to be Godâ??s words, not Muhammeds. So for people to profess any kind of opinion or belief in Muhammad, whether negative or positive, they must rely on â??storiesâ? provided in Islamic tradition. The radicals seem to be more consistent than the â??moderates.â? They take the ahadith as a whole whereas those wishing to make Muhammad some kind of 7th century Ghandi, have to throw out the majority of the same â??stories.â? That is why I also ask people where they base this information.

They abandoned the Quran almost immediately after Muhammad's death and began relying on other sources to maintain the teachings of the Quran.

No, that is absurd. There is no truth to it whatsoever. Muslims never abandoned the Quran. The ahadith is a source of authority for Muslims, second only to the Quran. It isnâ??t a matter of taking one or the other. The ahadith compliment and explain the Quran. Also, one of the five pillars of Islam, which is to pray five times a day, is delineated not in the Quran but rather the hadith. So it would do no good to try mitigating the significance the ahadith holds in Islam.

If you really believe the ahadith contradicts the Quran so much, then perhaps you can provide an example of a Quranic teaching they abandoned while preferring a hadith. The Muslim cited above outlines why the radicals are winning. Their interpretations win because they have the meansto explain them in accordance with the Sunnah. Muslims everywhere go to their local Imams for advice on matters spanning virtually every social and religious concern. Where the Quran is either ambiguous or silent, they rely on the ahadith. Some hadith are considered unreliable folklore (there are literally hundreds), but Muslim jurists over the centuries have developed a system to determine the reliable ones, and they are considered authoritative for more than a billion Muslims. Also, the biographies of Muhammad are considered to be more reliable than any hadith. The biography by Ibn Ishaq, considered the most reliable source on Muhammad's life, can be found in English by Oxford University.

[X1X]

Islam is no different from any other religious tradition in terms of being influenced by it's environment

There is a new movie called â??The Departed,â? and there is a scene where the mafia lord (played by Jack Nicholson) says in his opening monologue, â??Some people become products of their environment, but I expect my environment to become a product of me.â?

I think this applies to Islam. It has scarcely made any significant changes over the past 14 centuries, and fewer which could be considered doctrinal. The majority still seems to be grasping on to the seventh century and I think it has much to do with Muhammadâ??s life. He is understood to be the perfect example all Muslims should emulate. This goes for his mannerisms, his attitude, his actions etc. That is why so many Muslism wear beards. Muhammad did. Islam is hard to change because its source, the Quran, is not changeable. It is understood to apply in all places and all periods of time. So Muslims who wish to adapt Islam to modern societies are challenged by the nature of what Islam is. Automatically they are compelled to become reformers.

Islam has had more leeway in terms of interpretation and dissension in earlier times than we presently do now. And it is important to see what that is in terms of what's going on in Muslim strongholds politically and socially and economically. Christendm wiill be asking similar questions as the West becomes post-Christian and we see Christendom change addresses from the WEst to S. America and parts of Africa and S. Asia where a more fundamentalist face for Christianity will come through.

Christendom doesnâ??t exist. It died with the Roman Empire, which was the major turning point for Christianity. The enlightenment was the result. Taking the political element out of religion did wonders for Christianity. Unfortunately Islam is a conglomerate of both the religious and political. Muhammad welded these two aspects together from the beginning. By removing one from the other, the product is no longer Islam but rather another religion entirely. This is why so many Muslims in America are considered fringe by the billion+ Muslims abroad.

My point though is Muslims in America is a new thing.

How do you come to that when they have been here just as long as Mormons? If anything is â??newâ? about American Islam, it is probably its concerted effort to push itself into the media spotlight dressing up political organizations as charities and civil rights groups.

It's going to take a couple or more generations to iron out alot of the kinks.

In theory, but that isnâ??t the trend we are seeing. Radicals are not only relying on first generation American Muslims to help them out. Second-third generation and even fresh converts are rushing to their aide.

But we can look at ethnic and religious groups frankly who came before who were met with similar challenges.

Cultural relativism disregards too much that is unique about Islam. There is a reason Muslims in Europe are having troubles assimilating. They donâ??t want to. Muslims everywhere are told by their peers that Islam is not in other countries to submit, but to take over. To mimic the infidel is a serious sin in Islam, and most people do not realize how serious a thing that is in Islamic law. When the Irish Catholics came over there was nothing in Catholicism that prevented them from assimilating. Same goes for Hindus and Buddhists.

[X1X]

Our Muslim friends are very strait laced, and it reminds me of Mormons in that sense.

This is very true. Muslims have a list of things they do routinely on a daily basis the same as Mormons. The challenge for a Mormon is to push oneself to doing it all the time without fail. When we don't we have to repent. Muslims pray systematically throughout the day like Mormons do, except they are supposed to do it more often. They also abide by a strict health code, same as Mormons.

I think Mormons have a tremendous amount of respect for Islam because of their dedication and commitment", and it provides some sense of brotherhood with them.

[USU78]

I'm curious how we'd go about establishing a pre-Islamic baseline for the ethics and morals of the peoples brought into the fold of Islam so that we could attempt a before-and-after comparison/contrast.

I've seen a lot of folks claim Mohammed's teachings raised these folks' ethical games.

What not-self-serving source do they claim for this? The Quran is biased on this issue, IMO.

[X1X]

I'm curious how we'd go about establishing a pre-Islamic baseline for the ethics and morals of the peoples brought into the fold of Islam so that we could attempt a before-and-after comparison/contrast.

This is an important point and I am glad you brought it up. When Muhammed made decisions that appear unethical or amoral by modern standards, we are told that his actions were enlightened and moral by 7th century standards. By this measuring stick we can call Mohammed ethical. This seems to be such a popular and commonly accepted assertion that nobody dares to question it.

I have a hard time adjusting to this kind of thinking because there is so little that we know of the time period, and what we do know from Islamic sources seems to suggest the opposite. Practically everything we have on 7th century Arabia, as far as history goes, comes from Islamic sources. Yet, Islamic sources do not bend over backwards to portray Muhammad as a 7th century Ghandi as modern non-Muslim academics have done. These sources acknowledge the atrocities he personally carried out, but they accept them as just because the infidels deserved it.

Was Arabia so bad â??ethicallyâ? that a renegade warrior prophet who was responsible for the expulsion or destruction of numerous Jewish tribes, could actually raise the bar? I see little evidence that Arabia was that bad to begin with. Aside from the infanticide and paganism, they appeared far more tolerant of Jews and other religions. Muhammad tolerated none of the Meccan religions.

We are told by the likes of Karen Armstrong that this was the norm in 7th century Arabia, so we are not allowed to judge his moral character based on these acts. If it were the norm for people to be killed because of their religion in 7th century Arabia, then why didnâ??t the Meccans kill Muhammed? Muhammed lived there for quite some time after he received his calling as a prophet, and it was he who was intolerant of the surrounding religions. The Meccans were just sick of him criticizing the established religions. But they didnâ??t kill him. They ran him off. Later Muhammed would return with retribution on his mind.

Dr. Heinz Klatt made these observations during a talk given by an Islamic scholar at his University.

During the question period I asked him how he reconciles the message that Islam represents peace and tolerance with some of the details of Mohammad's life. I told the audience that Christianity had to deal with the Inquisition and horrible religious wars which, however, were clear betrayals of the New Testament and the life of Christ. Nothing of the kind can be said about Islamâ?¦

What I did mention in the class was that as soon as Mohammed had the power to do so, i.e., when he had reconquered Mekka, his very first act was to destroy all the idols of the Kaaba that had annoyed him for so long. He did not tolerate any religious symbols of other belief systems where he had control.

Then he ordered the assassination of the poets who had satirized or ridiculed him and who were guilty merely of writing verses critical of him. The bothersome Jew Kab ibn Ashraf was deceived into trusting Mohammad's companions and assassinated on the Prophet's orders. The poet Abu Afak, more than 100 years old, was murdered while asleep. Similar fates befell Abu Uzza, Ocba, Uthman ibn Moghira, and al-Nader who reportedly told better stories than Mohammad himself. The poetess Asma bint Marwan was murdered while asleep with her baby at her breast, and the murderer was praised by Mohammad for his service to God and his Prophet.

The speaker, after having listened attentively, gave truly breathtaking answers to my question. He confirmed the veracity of my statements and added that all the above facts have been reported by Muslim historians and are "well known by all of us."

Even more astounding was his assertion that nothing of what "we all know" diminishes Mohammed since God chose an "imperfect vessel" for his message.

Read it all. http://communications.uwo.ca/western_news/...isting_id=20291

Islamic sources say it was Muhammed who initiated hostilities, not the Meccans. During these militant expeditions he was receiving revelations that would be enshrined in the Quran. Revelations that would sanctify the act of raping women captured in these raids. In one instance he took a woman as his own, whose husband was beheaded before her very eyes. Children were taken as slaves or ransomed back to their families. Islamic sources explain all of these things in excruciating detail. If this shows Muhammad to be a moral person â??by 7th century standards,â? then what could have possibly been the norm that was worse than this? To take the woman, torture her husband and then burn him alive, mutilate her children and then rape her? This was not the norm at all, so how can it be concluded he was a moral person? Simple. By ignoring his actions or dismissing them as folklore.

I've seen a lot of folks claim Mohammed's teachings raised these folks' ethical games. What not-self-serving source do they claim for this? The Quran is biased on this issue, IMO

Well they could go to the biographies of Muhammed, as well as the ahadith. As an aside, I would not consider Moses a paragon of moral and ethical behavior just the same. But I do not know of any Jewish tradition that insists he was of high moral character.

[Bee Eff]

If you really believe the ahadith contradicts the Quran so much, then perhaps you can provide an example of a Quranic teaching they abandoned while preferring a hadith.

The Hadith do not contradict the Quran, I never stated such. The Hadith are not the Quran, they are secondhand accounts outside of the Quran used to guide interpretation of the Quran. Use of the Hadith is in effect stating that the Quran was not written well enough to truly be a guide in itself for man. It is relying on the words of those who are not prophets to guide interpretation of what Muhammad had written. If a Hadith were truly necessary, and Muhammad was the last prophet (according to Muslims), why was such not commisioned by the prophet? The need for a Hadith is a concept added to the religion after the death of Muhammad. I believe it to be an erroneous concept. I believe, given the Biblical account and my belief in Mormon theology, that without the Hadith an interpretation of the Quran is available that would be more in line with the Gospel. The stricture of the Hadith was meant to limit lay individuals and to limit interpretation of scripture to the Imam and other leaders, not unlike the Catholic Church of history, imo.

In your post you state:

They are being consistent with a millennia of Islamic tradition.

Yes, they are following tradition, I do not deny this. They have been relying on secondhand accounts to interpret the Quran since sometime following Muhammad's death, around 1400 years. I am not stating what they believe, only my opinion of their belief based on their statements as to their religion.

[koakaipo]

1)There is a new movie called â??The Departed,â? and there is a scene where the mafia lord (played by Jack Nicholson) says in his opening monologue, â??Some people become products of their environment, but I expect my environment to become a product of me.â?

2)I think this applies to Islam. It has scarcely made any significant changes over the past 14 centuries, and fewer which could be considered doctrinal. The majority still seems to be grasping on to the seventh century and I think it has much to do with Muhammadâ??s life. He is understood to be the perfect example all Muslims should emulate. This goes for his mannerisms, his attitude, his actions etc. That is why so many Muslism wear beards. Muhammad did. Islam is hard to change because its source, the Quran, is not changeable. It is understood to apply in all places and all periods of time. So Muslims who wish to adapt Islam to modern societies are challenged by the nature of what Islam is. Automatically they are compelled to become reformers.

3)Christendom doesnâ??t exist. It died with the Roman Empire, which was the major turning point for Christianity. The enlightenment was the result. Taking the political element out of religion did wonders for Christianity. Unfortunately Islam is a conglomerate of both the religious and political. Muhammad welded these two aspects together from the beginning. By removing one from the other, the product is no longer Islam but rather another religion entirely. This is why so many Muslims in America are considered fringe by the billion+ Muslims abroad.

4)How do you come to that when they have been here just as long as Mormons? If anything is â??newâ? about American Islam, it is probably its concerted effort to push itself into the media spotlight dressing up political organizations as charities and civil rights groups.

5)In theory, but that isnâ??t the trend we are seeing. Radicals are not only relying on first generation American Muslims to help them out. Second-third generation and even fresh converts are rushing to their aide.

Cultural relativism disregards too much that is unique about Islam. There is a reason Muslims in Europe are having troubles assimilating. They donâ??t want to. Muslims everywhere are told by their peers that Islam is not in other countries to submit, but to take over. To mimic the infidel is a serious sin in Islam, and most people do not realize how serious a thing that is in Islamic law. When the Irish Catholics came over there was nothing in Catholicism that prevented them from assimilating. Same goes for Hindus and Buddhists.

2) All three religions have their own problems with adapting to the modern world, but I think more than anything Islam and adapting it within a Western context is where the challenge is more than anything. There are some very different sensibilities with the two sides. There will be challenges that are hard to reconcile too, but it can happen and I think it will happen. I see it every day with the folks who live by me. We've got a n almost all Jewish neighborhood with a significant minority of both Muslims and Christians. And it's relatively smooth sailing. They are just trying to put food on the table and pay the mortgage like the rest of us. And seeing them makes me realize that their background matters in terms of how well they feel they can assimilate and negotiate a path that includes being a Muslim in a WEstern society.

3) Christendom as I am using does exist, and it's home has been in the West. With the West becoming increasingly post-Christian, Christianity's new homes in other parts of the world will make for a shift in how the religion is manifested. And the manifestations will have alot of the issues that Islam is looking at today, because religion and politics will once again meld. Thats the very point. Christian theocracies are what people are anticipating in certain parts of the world. And what's more, the hot spots for future Christian strongholds are also projected hotspots for future Islamic strongholds as well. What fun. Just because the West has "done" Christianity a certain way, certainly doesn't mean it will remain static.

4) You think Mormons and Muslims are a fair game for comparisons? I don't think so. Apples and oranges completely. And from the estimates I've seen an influx of Muslim immigrants from such places as India, Sri Lanka, and other parts of Asia is making for a new wave of religious immigrants. So, yes, we are dealing with new Muslim immigrants from different places.

5) But this doesn't sound much different to me just coming from an ethnic studies angle and as an ethnic minority. You see this with first, second, and even third generationers too with ethnic groups, when there is the belief that you must "choose." First generationers will always have an outsider status to an extent, second generationers usually attempt to assimilate, but often feel at some point that assimilation is an illusion and will lean back on the old world. Third generationers sometimes feel not enough connection with their roots, and are the most brazen in an attempt to identify with those roots. Fresh converts joined up for a reason and gravitated for a reason.

Now, at the same time, though, I already mentioned that Muslims do face unique challenges in terms of assimilating into Western culture. I'm not making this irrelevant. I think one of the biggest challenges for Muslim immigrants is to acknowledge the success of the secular WEst. But what I'm saying is it can happen, and I think it's happening everyday by folks like my friends and neighbors who want a good life for them and their children in America, while still identifying with the Muslim roots. Most of these friends are immigrants who wanted better for their kids, and are focusing on them getting good educations while they bust their behinds to make that reality. And it doesn't seem like some struggle for them to do so and still have the religious beliefs they do. They have that classic first generation immigrant can do attitude that is very Americana in that sense.

[X1X]

There will be challenges that are hard to reconcile too, but it can happen and I think it will happen.

I also want to be optimistic and say that it will as well, but this is mainly because I cannot imagine the misery the alternative would hold for us. The evidence is not reassuring.

I see it every day with the folks who live by me. We've got a n almost all Jewish neighborhood with a significant minority of both Muslims and Christians. And it's relatively smooth sailing. They are just trying to put food on the table and pay the mortgage like the rest of us. And seeing them makes me realize that their background matters in terms of how well they feel they can assimilate and negotiate a path that includes being a Muslim in a WEstern society.

It is good that some Muslims appear to be assimilating and it is true that American Muslims tend to assimilate (or at least appear to) better than those living in Europe.

But there are very few Muslims in the US (1-3 million) and they still have a tendency to create enclaves to push for sharia based principles in the political arena. This is not reassuring either. I also believe that anecdotal evidence is not a reliable tool to go about determining these things. There is only is much you can know about your neighbors (and letâ??s face it, virtually every convicted Muslim terrorist or terror supporter in the US has brought forth character witnesses, usually next-door neighbors) and knowledge about them paying off their mortgage doesnâ??t really tell us anything about their socio-political views towards America.

How are Muslim organizations in America responding? They represent larger communities and give us a better idea on the overall Muslim pulse. Why is it that no Muslim organization will stand up and condemn Muslim terrorists by name? They condemn terrorism on camera, but when pushed for specifics, they are more likely to call America a terrorist state than Hamas. Why is it that the few Muslims who speak out are immediately marginalized by the larger Islamic community? A week ago on Hannity and Colmes a Muslim Imam who gave a prayer at the DNC meeting, was asked if he condemned Hizbollah. He danced around the question every time he was asked, one time saying â??Noâ?and another time saying the question was irrelevant because he had â??nothing to do with Hizbollahâ?). Yet, in his prayer he asked God to put all Americans on the righteous path (which is Islam, though nobody listening realized what he meant) and he ended the prayer by asking God to condemn â??oppression and occupationâ? (clearly referring to Iraq and the Palestinians, though on the show he refused to admit it and instead said, â??I am speaking of occupation everywhereâ?).

Here is the video of the interview, try not to laugh: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lhHyz3h-dk

Christendom as I am using does exist, and it's home has been in the West.

It doesnâ??t exist in any sense unless you want to refer to England where the Church has a place in politics. America is in no sense Christendom.

With the West becoming increasingly post-Christian, Christianity's new homes in other parts of the world will make for a shift in how the religion is manifested. And the manifestations will have alot of the issues that Islam is looking at today, because religion and politics will once again meld. Thats the very point. Christian theocracies are what people are anticipating in certain parts of the world.

There are no Christian theocracies. Christianity was never a theocracy actually. It is against the basic principle of Christianity: religion and politics are separate. Islam is the opposite.

And what's more, the hot spots for future Christian strongholds are also projected hotspots for future Islamic strongholds as well. What fun. Just because the West has "done" Christianity a certain way, certainly doesn't mean it will remain static.

I can only assume you are referring to the Asian continent, but your comparisons are problematic mainly because future Christian areas become Christian through proselytizing. Muslim strongholds generally become Muslim through immigration. Thus, there is really no need for Christians to assimilate in areas where they are already living.

You think Mormons and Muslims are a fair game for comparisons? I don't think so.

When the claim is made that Islam is a â??proselytizingâ? religion, I think the comparison is valid.

And from the estimates I've seen an influx of Muslim immigrants from such places as India, Sri Lanka, and other parts of Asia is making for a new wave of religious immigrants. So, yes, we are dealing with new Muslim immigrants from different places.

Their nationalities seem to be of little importance. In Islam a Muslimâ??s identity is not nationality but instead religious. Muslim enclaves in Dearborn Michigan, for example, involve Muslim emigrants from all over. Their religion is what they have in common, and it is the religion that causes them to stumble in their assimilation process. Islam does not condone Muslims mimicking infidels, so when they go to other countries, legally described in Islamic law as the â??House of War,â? they do so usually fully aware of the Islamic teaching on this matter. Islam is to dominate the world however it can. It does not assimilate and mimic the infidel in walk, talk or religious practice. To do so is a grave sin in Islam, and this is why assimilation is either difficult or non-existent in places like Denmark, France, Sweden, and elsewhere.

First generationers will always have an outsider status to an extent, second generationers usually attempt to assimilate, but often feel at some point that assimilation is an illusion and will lean back on the old world.

In theory this should be the norm in all cultures, but what we are seeing is something entirely different in Mulism immigration and I think it has much to do with the religious discipline that is exhibited among Muslims. Muslim children are not set free in America to be indoctrinated by the infidels. Well, some may be, but Muslims want to educate their children in Islamic principles the same as Mormons try to do for their own children. The problem is the teachings. Too much Saudi funding is going on in America. Saudi funding publishes books for school children teaching them that Jews are offspring of apes and pigs, that Osama bin Ladin was an innocent, and on and on. This is a matter of fact in the largest Muslim school located in Virginia. Also, around 80% of all Muslim mosques are Saudi funded, which is a bad thing. Saudis represent one of the strictest and radical forms of Islam available to Muslims.

I think one of the biggest challenges for Muslim immigrants is to acknowledge the success of the secular WEst.

I agree. The total moral and ethical depravation of the West is a common theme in Muslim countries. So much so that it should make you wonder why they would dare choose to move here.

But what I'm saying is it can happen

Anything is possible, but what we are seeing in this timeline of Islam is not reassuring.

I think it's happening everyday by folks like my friends and neighbors who want a good life for them and their children in America

Yes, Muslim Americans are the most privileged Muslims in the world. I love it when Muslims speak up against the radical forces that be, and I am not saying it never happens. What I am saying is that it is not happening nearly enough. Again, when a Muslim is excommunicated by his entire Muslim community for condemning terrorism, this alone is an unsettling fact that should give one pause for thought. This event flies in the face of what we have been told; that the radicals have sympathizers only by a tiny minority.

Most of these friends are immigrants who wanted better for their kids, and are focusing on them getting good educations while they bust their behinds to make that reality. And it doesn't seem like some struggle for them to do so and still have the religious beliefs they do. They have that classic first generation immigrant can do attitude that is very Americana in that sense.

For me it isnâ??t enough to see Muslims enjoying the American dream and all the privileges it offers them. I need to see them make a stand and speak out one way or another on the issues. We need their help desperately. If Islam is truly being bastardized and hijacked by some extremists, then they need to stand up and make their voices heard. Their deafening silences and refusals to condemn Muslim terrorists by name are worrisome.

[X1X]

The Hadith do not contradict the Quran, I never stated such.

I misunderstood then. When you said they abandoned the Quran and instead took up the ahadith, this was without meaning unless you thought the ahadith differed from the Quran in teachings.

The Hadith are not the Quran, they are secondhand accounts outside of the Quran used to guide interpretation of the Quran.

Correct. But they have a special place for Muslims. They are not taken myth or folklore or fairy tales. We can choose to do that if we want, but that is really irrelevant since it is they who matter.

Use of the Hadith is in effect stating that the Quran was not written well enough to truly be a guide in itself for man.

I do not think you understand the nature of the Quran. The Quran was not written by anyone. It was a dictation of the surahs received by Muhammad, and they occurred off and on for years. They were collected and then organized from shortest to longest verse. Imagine someone taking your journal after you had passed away, and organizing everything from the shortest sentence to the longest sentence, without any consideration of historical context. It would be an absolute mess, and that is essentially what weâ??re dealing with in the Quran. The ahadith serve to put the book in context. So to take the Quran alone is to literally prefer a decontextualized understanding of what happened, when it happened, and under what circumstances.

It is relying on the words of those who are not prophets to guide interpretation of what Muhammad had written.

Again, Muhammad wrote nothing. He couldnâ??t write. He was illiterate. People wrote down what he dictated. He couldnâ??t even read the product that would become the Quran after his death. So to discredit the ahadith because it was not written by a prophet is to discredit the Quran just the same.

If a Hadith were truly necessary, and Muhammad was the last prophet (according to Muslims), why was such not commisioned by the prophet?

Your misunderstanding of the Quran and the ahadith explains why you have adopted the views expressed in your final statements, but I recommend you read some of the hadith as well as a good book describing its origin and purpose. Here is a good start- http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Hadith/Ulum/

Yes, they are following tradition, I do not deny this. They have been relying on secondhand accounts to interpret the Quran since sometime following Muhammad's death, around 1400 years. I am not stating what they believe, only my opinion of their belief based on their statements as to their religion.

I respect your opinion, but do you have some idea of how offensive your views would be to practicing Muslims? Youâ??re essentially saying that Islam has been in a state of quasi-apostasy ever since Muhammad died. And what is it exactly that you are willing to take as a reliable source for information on Muhammad? What do you think the biographies and the historians have been using to characterize Muhammad as a just and merciful individual? They are the same â??second-handâ? accounts that you dismiss as â??unnecessary.â? Whatever negative view you have of the hadith, nothing changes the fact that Muslims love it, and to expunge the ahadith from Islam is to create another religion entirely. Imagine Islam without the Sunnah! This would be Islam in the same sense the polygamous community in Colorado City is Mormonism.

[koakaipo]

1)But there are very few Muslims in the US (1-3 million) and they still have a tendency to create enclaves to push for sharia based principles in the political arena. This is not reassuring either. I also believe that anecdotal evidence is not a reliable tool to go about determining these things. There is only is much you can know about your neighbors (and letâ??s face it, virtually every convicted Muslim terrorist or terror supporter in the US has brought forth character witnesses, usually next-door neighbors) and knowledge about them paying off their mortgage doesnâ??t really tell us anything about their socio-political views towards America.

2)How are Muslim organizations in America responding? They represent larger communities and give us a better idea on the overall Muslim pulse. Why is it that no Muslim organization will stand up and condemn Muslim terrorists by name? They condemn terrorism on camera, but when pushed for specifics, they are more likely to call America a terrorist state than Hamas. Why is it that the few Muslims who speak out are immediately marginalized by the larger Islamic community? A week ago on Hannity and Colmes a Muslim Imam who gave a prayer at the DNC meeting, was asked if he condemned Hizbollah. He danced around the question every time he was asked, one time saying â??Noâ?and another time saying the question was irrelevant because he had â??nothing to do with Hizbollahâ?). Yet, in his prayer he asked God to put all Americans on the righteous path (which is Islam, though nobody listening realized what he meant) and he ended the prayer by asking God to condemn â??oppression and occupationâ? (clearly referring to Iraq and the Palestinians, though on the show he refused to admit it and instead said, â??I am speaking of occupation everywhereâ?).

Here is the video of the interview, try not to laugh: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lhHyz3h-dk

It doesnâ??t exist in any sense unless you want to refer to England where the Church has a place in politics. America is in no sense Christendom.

There are no Christian theocracies. Christianity was never a theocracy actually. It is against the basic principle of Christianity: religion and politics are separate. Islam is the opposite.

I can only assume you are referring to the Asian continent, but your comparisons are problematic mainly because future Christian areas become Christian through proselytizing. Muslim strongholds generally become Muslim through immigration. Thus, there is really no need for Christians to assimilate in areas where they are already living.

When the claim is made that Islam is a â??proselytizingâ? religion, I think the comparison is valid.

Their nationalities seem to be of little importance. In Islam a Muslimâ??s identity is not nationality but instead religious. Muslim enclaves in Dearborn Michigan, for example, involve Muslim emigrants from all over. Their religion is what they have in common, and it is the religion that causes them to stumble in their assimilation process. Islam does not condone Muslims mimicking infidels, so when they go to other countries, legally described in Islamic law as the â??House of War,â? they do so usually fully aware of the Islamic teaching on this matter. Islam is to dominate the world however it can. It does not assimilate and mimic the infidel in walk, talk or religious practice. To do so is a grave sin in Islam, and this is why assimilation is either difficult or non-existent in places like Denmark, France, Sweden, and elsewhere.

In theory this should be the norm in all cultures, but what we are seeing is something entirely different in Mulism immigration and I think it has much to do with the religious discipline that is exhibited among Muslims. Muslim children are not set free in America to be indoctrinated by the infidels. Well, some may be, but Muslims want to educate their children in Islamic principles the same as Mormons try to do for their own children. The problem is the teachings. Too much Saudi funding is going on in America. Saudi funding publishes books for school children teaching them that Jews are offspring of apes and pigs, that Osama bin Ladin was an innocent, and on and on. This is a matter of fact in the largest Muslim school located in Virginia. Also, around 80% of all Muslim mosques are Saudi funded, which is a bad thing. Saudis represent one of the strictest and radical forms of Islam available to Muslims.

I agree. The total moral and ethical depravation of the West is a common theme in Muslim countries. So much so that it should make you wonder why they would dare choose to move here.

Anything is possible, but what we are seeing in this timeline of Islam is not reassuring.

Yes, Muslim Americans are the most privileged Muslims in the world. I love it when Muslims speak up against the radical forces that be, and I am not saying it never happens. What I am saying is that it is not happening nearly enough. Again, when a Muslim is excommunicated by his entire Muslim community for condemning terrorism, this alone is an unsettling fact that should give one pause for thought. This event flies in the face of what we have been told; that the radicals have sympathizers only by a tiny minority.

For me it isnâ??t enough to see Muslims enjoying the American dream and all the privileges it offers them. I need to see them make a stand and speak out one way or another on the issues. We need their help desperately. If Islam is truly being bastardized and hijacked by some extremists, then they need to stand up and make their voices heard. Their deafening silences and refusals to condemn Muslim terrorists by name are worrisome.

I'll come back and comment more thoroughly later, but I"m on the run. So let me just mention a couple of things:

I'm using the word Christendom in it's most basic form. You are using a more historical definition. We are using it differently, and yet I can use it the way I am and still be right and vice versa.

As for Christian theocracies-it will happen. Most folks agree on this. The coming century is going to bring about various shifts in the religious landscape for both Islam and Christianity, and the majority of the moving and shaking will be happening south of the equator. That will bring on a new face of Christianity that looks different from our Western face.

I think you and I just have different takes on some of this "stuff"--like I think alot of what you espouse to Christianity in terms of it's very nature seems to come from a decidedly Western approach. And I don't personally think that approach will translate in other places. But we can agree to disagree.

As for it's not enough for muslims to enjoy the American dream. I think organized responses yes. But individually? No. My friends living their lives like good citizens is the best way to express their stands. I think reaching out more from their side and vice versa is the best way too. Our ward has done interfaith charity projects with Jewish and Muslim and Catholic groups before. To me, on the local level, reaching out is the best way for us to have a win win situation. It is at the grass roots level here that we make a difference. I think Muslim groups need to reach out more, as do we.

[X1X]

I'm using the word Christendom in it's most basic form.

Basic? I think superficial is the word. I have never heard anyone use the term to refer to modern western nations. It seems your argument hinges on the idea that the West currently has some kind of Christian government or ruling body, so I am merely pointing out that this (Christendom) no longer exists. Since there is no Christian equivalent of say, Muslim Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan, attempts to create comparisons are ineffective.

As for Christian theocracies-it will happen. Most folks agree on this.

Who does? I donâ??t, and I see no evidence that it could happen. Western civilization has decidedly taken a path towards secularism. Being a Christian worked in your favor as an aspiring politician two hundred years ago, but today it can actually work against you. Did you know that Evangelicals are viewed more negatively than Muslims in America? The poll I remember showed a margin only by 1% but it still speaks volumes. The Catholic Church has had a stronghold on Italy and Spain that if it chose to do so, would try to implement a theocratic system. But it doesnâ??t want to. Catholicism wasnâ??t responsible for the first theocracy, Constantine was. He named Christianity the state religion, not because the Pope asked him to, but because he saw it as a nifty political maneuver. And theologically speaking, Christian doctrine holds that nothing is going to happen with respect to Christian government, until Jesus Christ returns. Until then there is no theological mandate or exhortation for Christians to implement a theocratic system. This holds true for most, perhaps all forms of Christianity.

The coming century is going to bring about various shifts in the religious landscape for both Islam and Christianity, and the majority of the moving and shaking will be happening south of the equator. That will bring on a new face of Christianity that looks different from our Western face.

This is kind of vague. Could you be clearer in what you predict will happen?

I think you and I just have different takes on some of this "stuff"--like I think alot of what you espouse to Christianity in terms of it's very nature seems to come from a decidedly Western approach.

It is not a western approach at all. Can you name any Christian denominations that are trying to implement a theocracy, that have tried in the past but failed, that have even given a single sermon on it? Christians are waiting around for Jesus. I simply acknowledge what the Bible says and doesnâ??t say. The Bible does not tell Christians to implement a Christian government. Christ didnâ??t do it and he told his followers to render unto Caesar what was his and render to God what was Godâ??s. The separation between Church and State was thus settled in holy writ. Muhammed took the opposite approach. In Islam, everything belongs to God, and the State must be run by the dictates of his word: the Quran. This is how it has been since Islamâ??s inception.

As for it's not enough for muslims to enjoy the American dream. I think organized responses yes. But individually? No.

Yes, I agree. But the problem is with the organizations. Why is it that the largest Muslim organizations in America have made troubling comments that question their agenda? Why do they refuse to condemn terrorist organizations by name? Could it be because a Muslim terrorist is still a Muslim, and Muslims should not criticize their own brothers or take sides with the infidel?

My friends living their lives like good citizens is the best way to express their stands. I think reaching out more from their side and vice versa is the best way too.

Yes, absolutely. But the problem I have with relying on observations about â??Muslims in the neighborhood,â? is that it is a proven fallacy. Again, too many Muslim Americans who have been convicted were supported by neighbors and family who swore up and down that these people could not have possibly held radical views. For example when Sami al-Arian, a professor from South Florida, was arrested for raising money for Hamas, his students, friends, neighbors, and even academics (including John Esposito) who never even met him, were automatically rushing to his side while condemning the justice system for exhibiting paranoia. In the end it was the justice system that had the last laugh. In court he admitted lying about his ties to the Palestinian Jihad. He is set for deportation I believe.

Our ward has done interfaith charity projects with Jewish and Muslim and Catholic groups before.

What state do you live in, if you donâ??t mind me asking?

To me, on the local level, reaching out is the best way for us to have a win win situation. It is at the grass roots level here that we make a difference. I think Muslim groups need to reach out more, as do we.

I do not think they need us at all. Our involvement only makes their credibility drop among the radicals. It is the radicals who need convincing and it is only the moderate Muslim who stands a chance of convincing them. So far they have been losing this battle. We only get in the way. I mean what do we hope to accomplish anyway, to motivate them in this endeavor? It seems to me that if someone is witnessing their faith being truly bastardized, then this would fuel all the motivation necessary. This is why I have a tendency to be skeptical in situations like these.

I am skeptical especially, when Muslims in America claim to care so much about intolerance and pluralism yet say nothing whatsoever critical about the dozen or so Muslim countries that boast a 98%+ representation of Muslims. In Saudia Arabia, as well as other Muslim countries, it is illegal to preach or convert to Christianity. The only Muslims on the planet, who have the freedom of speech to protest this intolerance, are those in America. Yet, the irony is that the evidence suggests they are more interested in criticizing their host country; the country that gave them the rights they would not have elsewhere.

The recent incident with the six Imams is very troubling. Six Imams recently staged a â??bigotry eventâ? on a jet way for political purposes only. As a result Democratic politicians like Nancy Pelosi plan to outlaw profiling. This means security guards will not search suspected terrorists because they risk facing federal charges for daring to profile: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadA...le.asp?ID=25628

[Rincewind]

Can't vote.

You left off the option "Don't know/Undecided".

[Irondukesteve]

I would like it if there was an option between 1 and 2. I class prophets as people that lead others to live higher standards and thus becoming closer to God. Yes Mohammad did not teach about Christ which to me is essential but there is no real documented evidence that Abraham or Moses did either (without taking the PGP) into account.

Therefore I stick to 1.5

[koakaipo]

1)Basic? I think superficial is the word. I have never heard anyone use the term to refer to modern western nations. It seems your argument hinges on the idea that the West currently has some kind of Christian government or ruling body, so I am merely pointing out that this (Christendom) no longer exists. Since there is no Christian equivalent of say, Muslim Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan, attempts to create comparisons are ineffective.

2)Who does? I donâ??t, and I see no evidence that it could happen. Western civilization has decidedly taken a path towards secularism. Being a Christian worked in your favor as an aspiring politician two hundred years ago, but today it can actually work against you. Did you know that Evangelicals are viewed more negatively than Muslims in America? The poll I remember showed a margin only by 1% but it still speaks volumes. The Catholic Church has had a stronghold on Italy and Spain that if it chose to do so, would try to implement a theocratic system. But it doesnâ??t want to. Catholicism wasnâ??t responsible for the first theocracy, Constantine was. He named Christianity the state religion, not because the Pope asked him to, but because he saw it as a nifty political maneuver. And theologically speaking, Christian doctrine holds that nothing is going to happen with respect to Christian government, until Jesus Christ returns. Until then there is no theological mandate or exhortation for Christians to implement a theocratic system. This holds true for most, perhaps all forms of Christianity.

3)This is kind of vague. Could you be clearer in what you predict will happen?

4)It is not a western approach at all. Can you name any Christian denominations that are trying to implement a theocracy, that have tried in the past but failed, that have even given a single sermon on it? Christians are waiting around for Jesus. I simply acknowledge what the Bible says and doesnâ??t say. The Bible does not tell Christians to implement a Christian government. Christ didnâ??t do it and he told his followers to render unto Caesar what was his and render to God what was Godâ??s. The separation between Church and State was thus settled in holy writ. Muhammed took the opposite approach. In Islam, everything belongs to God, and the State must be run by the dictates of his word: the Quran. This is how it has been since Islamâ??s inception.

5)Yes, I agree. But the problem is with the organizations. Why is it that the largest Muslim organizations in America have made troubling comments that question their agenda? Why do they refuse to condemn terrorist organizations by name? Could it be because a Muslim terrorist is still a Muslim, and Muslims should not criticize their own brothers or take sides with the infidel?

6)Yes, absolutely. But the problem I have with relying on observations about â??Muslims in the neighborhood,â? is that it is a proven fallacy. Again, too many Muslim Americans who have been convicted were supported by neighbors and family who swore up and down that these people could not have possibly held radical views. For example when Sami al-Arian, a professor from South Florida, was arrested for raising money for Hamas, his students, friends, neighbors, and even academics (including John Esposito) who never even met him, were automatically rushing to his side while condemning the justice system for exhibiting paranoia. In the end it was the justice system that had the last laugh. In court he admitted lying about his ties to the Palestinian Jihad. He is set for deportation I believe.

7)What state do you live in, if you donâ??t mind me asking?

8)I do not think they need us at all. Our involvement only makes their credibility drop among the radicals. It is the radicals who need convincing and it is only the moderate Muslim who stands a chance of convincing them. So far they have been losing this battle. We only get in the way. I mean what do we hope to accomplish anyway, to motivate them in this endeavor? It seems to me that if someone is witnessing their faith being truly bastardized, then this would fuel all the motivation necessary. This is why I have a tendency to be skeptical in situations like these.

9)I am skeptical especially, when Muslims in America claim to care so much about intolerance and pluralism yet say nothing whatsoever critical about the dozen or so Muslim countries that boast a 98%+ representation of Muslims. In Saudia Arabia, as well as other Muslim countries, it is illegal to preach or convert to Christianity. The only Muslims on the planet, who have the freedom of speech to protest this intolerance, are those in America. Yet, the irony is that the evidence suggests they are more interested in criticizing their host country; the country that gave them the rights they would not have elsewhere.

10)The recent incident with the six Imams is very troubling. Six Imams recently staged a â??bigotry eventâ? on a jet way for political purposes only. As a result Democratic politicians like Nancy Pelosi plan to outlaw profiling. This means security guards will not search suspected terrorists because they risk facing federal charges for daring to profile: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadA...le.asp?ID=25628

1) Using the word "Christendom" to casually refer to the religion's heartland or center of influence or homebase isn't something I made up, nor is it something that is inappropriate. The West indeed is seen at present as the centerbase of influence. I call Utah Mormondom half the time. I'm on a religious online board on top of it, where people divide their time between here and online chess. This is less about you or me being right or wrong, and more about how we express ourselves probably.

2)Your touching on alot of things here, so I'll just speak to a couple. Yes, many folks who crunch the numbers in a social scientific context like sociologists and folks who are historians do project this to happen at some point. And you are mentioning the West-I'm not referring to the West, or more appropriately North of the equator for my point. I agree that the "North" is on the secularist path. I"m talking about areas South of the equator where Christianity will not have secularist leanings, and the overwhelming majority of Christians will have the ability to overwhelm political secular nations and replace them with theocracies. I"m not a paranoid person, or one who's big on conspiracy theories, so this projection only holds water with me because it's less about wild flights of fancy and more about numbers crunching and understanding the new manifestations that Christianity can and is already taking in different parts of the world.

As for Evangelicals getting a worse rap-who knows with polls. But I wouldn't be surprised due to the fact we tend to be more hard on people we feel more familiar with, one of those social distance things. The perceptions of Evangelicals are more on our radar because of popular culture, so they tend to become an easy mark.

And no, I don't think being Christian hurts you at all in elections.You just have to be the "right" kind of Christian-Protestant, not too churchy, but just churchy enough.

3)Sure. In the next 50 to 100 years, it's projected that 4/5 to 5/6 of Christians will come from Africa, Asia, Latin America, or from migrant communities in the West. This shift matters because how folks from the "South" process Christianity is very different from the "North." The lack of secular and Western influences on that approach will be key. What's more, some of the projected new hotspots for Christianity in the coming years are in the same spots that we find projected Muslim hotspots as well. Another projected consequence is that as the "South's" influence on the face of Christianity becomes stronger, there will be a reflexive push towards secularism more than ever in the North, because Northern sensibilites will have a hard time with the South's supernatural and literal approach.

4)Your take is Western though. Mine is too. Both of us read the Bible and process it in a way that is very different. That's just the reality. I don't think I"m saying anything too provocative by saying that Christianity will be filtered in a way that is foreign to our sensibilities on various fronts, and that includes how we justify or not justify the melding of church or state.

5) You know honestly, I would have to look more into American Muslim organizations and their statements.

6) Hmmm, I wouldn't say it's a proven fallacy personally.

7) I"m in S. California. Some of the combined interfaith projects have made the church news online.

8)I think they do. And I don't think many act in a way in terms of how they will be perceived by radicals. Their priorities are more immediate, just like mine are. That's the thing about living in America-honestly, we have it good enough to where politics can take a backseat and you can worry more about day to day things. It's a luxury in that sense. That's why I think on the local level we can make a difference. I think alienation breeds a desire to belong, and radical options become a very safehaven in that sense.

9) Again, I don't see it personally as homogenous or united in responses. I do think my friends are an example of people of a certain faith who came to America for their children's benefits, and work hard to put food on the table and save for college. The priorities are much less political and more closer to home.

10) I'd have to look in to that more. We have some air marshalls as friends, maybe they can help me understand better.

[Bee Eff]

I misunderstood then. When you said they abandoned the Quran and instead took up the ahadith, this was without meaning unless you thought the ahadith differed from the Quran in teachings.

Correct. But they have a special place for Muslims. They are not taken myth or folklore or fairy tales. We can choose to do that if we want, but that is really irrelevant since it is they who matter.

I do not think you understand the nature of the Quran. The Quran was not written by anyone. It was a dictation of the surahs received by Muhammad, and they occurred off and on for years. They were collected and then organized from shortest to longest verse. Imagine someone taking your journal after you had passed away, and organizing everything from the shortest sentence to the longest sentence, without any consideration of historical context. It would be an absolute mess, and that is essentially what weâ??re dealing with in the Quran. The ahadith serve to put the book in context. So to take the Quran alone is to literally prefer a decontextualized understanding of what happened, when it happened, and under what circumstances.

Again, Muhammad wrote nothing. He couldnâ??t write. He was illiterate. People wrote down what he dictated. He couldnâ??t even read the product that would become the Quran after his death. So to discredit the ahadith because it was not written by a prophet is to discredit the Quran just the same.

Your misunderstanding of the Quran and the ahadith explains why you have adopted the views expressed in your final statements, but I recommend you read some of the hadith as well as a good book describing its origin and purpose. Here is a good start- http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Hadith/Ulum/

I respect your opinion, but do you have some idea of how offensive your views would be to practicing Muslims? Youâ??re essentially saying that Islam has been in a state of quasi-apostasy ever since Muhammad died. And what is it exactly that you are willing to take as a reliable source for information on Muhammad? What do you think the biographies and the historians have been using to characterize Muhammad as a just and merciful individual? They are the same â??second-handâ? accounts that you dismiss as â??unnecessary.â? Whatever negative view you have of the hadith, nothing changes the fact that Muslims love it, and to expunge the ahadith from Islam is to create another religion entirely. Imagine Islam without the Sunnah! This would be Islam in the same sense the polygamous community in Colorado City is Mormonism.

I understand all this, and yes my stance is offensive to Muslim people. I understand the value they hold with the Hadith. I understand the purpose of the Hadith. My stance does not change though, Muhammad did not authorize the use of Hadith, there is no reason to believe that they are necessary given the Quran. The Quran is believed by Muslims to be the Word of God spoken through Muhammad. The Hadith are man's attempt at ordering and understanding the Quran through investigation of Muhammad's behavior verbally and otherwise. I understand that without the Hadith Islam would be a different religion, if it were entirely correct as it is, I would probably consider becoming a Muslim. I do not believe that Islam is correct though, and I believe the Hadith is a part of the reason for this. We don't need to argue about this, I disagree with the Muslims on this issue, it may offend them, but I do. I believe much truth can be learned by studying the Quran, but to find that truth one cannot rely on the Hadith to aid in understanding without considering alternative meanings that the Hadith may or may not deny.

The Quran was not written by anyone. It was a dictation of the surahs received by Muhammad, and they occurred off and on for years.

...

Again, Muhammad wrote nothing. He couldnâ??t write. He was illiterate. People wrote down what he dictated. He couldnâ??t even read the product that would become the Quran after his death. So to discredit the ahadith because it was not written by a prophet is to discredit the Quran just the same.

I know he did not write the Quran. Hence "had written" (meaning Muhammad had someone write) and not "wrote" (meaning Muhammad wrote.)