Are there any peaceful muslim nations?

In my opinion, it is convenient to dismiss the past and focus on the present when it suits us. And it is convenient to look to the past to condemn the present when it suits us. In either case, the correlation can be specious.

Christianity has evolved over 2000 years and, except for a tiny handful of radical extremists, bears no resemblance to the Christianity of the Crusades or the Inquisition or even Puritan America. It is specious to say that here and now is the same as then. There are no organized groups of Christians out looking for heretics to burn at the stake anymore.

Islam has changed little since its exception except that, like Christianity, it has divided into various factions. Most are peace loving and peaceful. Some others, a sizable number, are not and use the teachings of their founder as justification to commit murder, torture, and mayhem.

It is to the latter group that I believe Sofia and others speak. To accuse those who recognize their existance as being somehow racist flies in the face of reason.

This is only true to the extent that the Serbs and the Irish religious bigots have shown a preference for assault rifles (AK-47 and Armalites, respectively) over burning people at the stake. People like Eric Rudolph, of course, prefer improvised explosive devices above anything else. Do you buy your blinders at the same place Moishe3rd patronizes?

The propensity, and excuse, for religious violence and coersian lies in the fundamental beliefs of the Abrahamic faiths. There is only one God, He is jealous, exacting, and vindictive; He favors a chosen few, condemns the rest, and will put a "Butcher's thumb" on the scale to insure the outcome he wishes, but humans have "free-will". The "Children of Abraham" are generally arrogant, intolerant, and prone to forcing their religious beliefs on everyone else. Not content to force other religious systems into extinction, they have a long history of killing off one anothers. Christians kill christians, Jews, and Muslims. Muslims kill Muslims, Jews and Christians. The Jews historically have been the scapegoats and were powerless to kill off the Christians and Muslims, and their own survival kept them from killing one another off. Prior to the diaspora, in Old testament times the Jews made as much a virtue of killing for religious purposes as her two children. A pox on the lot.

Amen, Asherman

You are mistaking nationalistic, ethnic conflicts which have underpinnings in religion with religious ideology.
Orthodox Serbs are not Killing for Christ.
Irish Catholics and Protestants are not Killing for Christ.
Yes, there are a few nutcases, as I said, but there is no organized religious body in Christianity that Kills for Christ.
There are many in Islam

What percentage of Christians comprise the Serbs, at least those who condoned action against the Muslims, and also Ireland, at least those who didn't reject the Protestant/Catholic war, Setanta? More than the handful I suggested you think? What percentage of Christians do you think might reject activities such as those?

And et tu Asherman? You also relate modern Judaism and Christianity to its entire history? Has Buddhism not evolved at all from its roots in the sixth century? Did not Siddhartha himself devote his life to telling others of the enlightenment he had discovered?

I don't know what attributes of God you're talking about. My religion says God is just and merciful, with emphasis on the mercy. Also no condemnation. That's what happened when other religions took a tribal religion and stretched it onto an improper format. Judaism just doesn't address much what happens to non-Jews, not unless they're Noahides. Favor? Sure. But here's a quote for you because it's relevant:

Talmud Semachot 1:8

Rabbi Yehudah said: [The euology of a gentile is] Alas! The good, alas! The faithful who eats the fruit of his own labor. [The sages] said to him: What then did you leave for the worthy? He replied: If he [the gentile] was worthy why should he not be lamented in this manner.


Professor Saul Lieberman, Greek in Jewish Palestine, p. 77


The virtues enumerated in this eulogy are purely secular; there is no trace of religion in them. The man was good, faithful and enjoyed the fruits of his labor. The Gentiles spoken of is a heathen; he is neither a semi-proselyte nor a Christian; no mention is made of his fear of G-d... The Rabbis understood the heathen society and credited it with the virtues it was not devoid of.

Also...


Talmud Avot 3:10

[Rabbi Chaninah ben Dosa] would say: Whoever is pleasing to his fellow creatures is pleasing to G-d; but whoever is not pleasing to his fellow creatures, G-d is not pleased with him.



So I can't say there's any great condemnation of any decent individuals in Judaism. Avot it must be said is a tractate full of different moral and ideas from different sages. I can't see why you lump the three religions together so often.

Dauer

Uganda?

I would say those percentages, at a guess, are identical, or nearly identical, to the percentage of Muslims who behave in such a manner--which has been my point all along. But you keep retrenching, Fox, far be it from me to discourage that.

"And et tu Asherman? You also relate modern Judaism and Christianity to its entire history? Has Buddhism not evolved at all from its roots in the sixth century? Did not Siddhartha himself devote his life to telling others of the enlightenment he had discovered? "

This moment is the culmination of all previous moments. The dead hand of the past is on the rudder no matter how much we try to deny it. The Abrahamic faiths posit a God and Truth that is unchanging and eternal. Though their doctrines have evolved, they tend to deny it. It is the fundamentals on which these rest that are so apt to result in religious violence. Those fundamentals haven't changed much, any more than the fundamentals of Buddhism have changed since its inception. In short, not much.

We can not deny that Buddhist missionaries, beginning with Siddartha and continuing right up to the present, are interested in increasing the number of Buddhists in the world. There are, however, a very large differences between Buddhist missionary efforts and the efforts of the Abrahamic faiths. First and perhaps most importantly, Buddhism is not a religion of exclusion, but one of tolerance to other religious systems. A person can be a Buddhist and a Taoist at the same time. The result is that Buddhism has NEVER been spread by force or coercion. Buddhist sects can hold different doctrines, but they don't kill one another over those differences. Buddhists, and a host of other religions, have been systematically victimized by the Abrahamic faiths who enforce their dominance with the sword. No American Indian ever forced a Christian orphan into a Kachina society.

Daur's defense of Judaism is not entirely without merit. Judaism tends not to seek converts from outside itself, and so has never been the threat to other religions that Christians and Muslims have. However, their typical notion that they alone hold the Truth and are the Chosen tends to make them arrogant and dismissive of other religions. Judaism gave birth to the two scourges of religion, and they have inherited from her many of their most objectionable characteristics. On the other hand, and in fairness, it isn't just to blame the parent for a sociopathic and homicidal child.

What is your opinion concerning Zoroastrianism Asherman?

Well Setanta, I will invite you to re-read my posts and find anywhere that I do not put Islamic terrorists in the distinct minority within Islam. And Asherman, I am disappointed that you use the perversion of the teachings of Judaism and Christianity to be instructive as to what those teachings actually are.

Inasmuch as my response is predicated upon the question of the thread, "Are there any peaceful muslim nations," what you have posted is not germaine to my insistence on pointing out that both historically and currently, christians are just as blood-stained as muslims.

Asherman,

can you make the arguement that Judaism's claim to truth is greater than Hinduism's?

It's worth noting that I've never met a Jew who was intolerant of other religions and the feeling I've always got is that we should respect people's beliefs and allow them to practice as they choose. I know it's anecdotal, but I am Jewish. And I've never seen intolerance. After 9/11 my greatest feeling was simpathy for the Muslims who would now become a target of ridicule.

It doesn't matter that other people believe different things or practice different things as long as we are allowed to practice as we will. And at least outside of orthodox Judaism there's plenty of interfaith stuff going on too.

Edit: That's not true. At my transdenominational HS people traveled down South to rebuild burnt down churches. Some of them were orthodox.

The histories of the Abrahamic religions is rife with violence"justified" on religious grounds. There are small sects that are essentially peaceful, but the overwhelming majority of followers of Abrahamic faiths believe themselves to be the sole possessors of TRUTH about a jealous God, and who believe that they alone are the Chosen. That's both heady and dangerous to anyone who holds different beliefs.

Today there is less overt violence in the Christian West, but that is largely because Europeans became sick to death of the religious warfare during the Reformation/Counter-Reformation. The reaction to those terrible religious wars where one Christian killed others over minor points of theology, was that Western nations legislated absolute separation of Church and State. Loosen those bounds and we would have Baptists killing Catholics, and vice-versa, all over again. BTW, I'm not picking on Baptists and Catholics alone, but virtually every sect thinks it should have the upper hand over all others.

Asherman,

I'd relate early wars in Israel back to the tribal factor. It wasn't just a religion acting in the name of its God. It was a nation acting in the name of its God. And my feeling is that the same approach needs to be taken to this behavior as to the crusades.

When Judaism was no longer linked so strongly to a nation, there was no such issue. There were no wars to be fought at the borders. It's important to note that Israel was on a trade route and at times a good choice for a place to attack.

The rest of what you have said has nothing to do with Judaism as you continue to clump the three together.

There is no violence among Jews except amont the smallest minorities of radical extremists. If we look at the formation of Hasidism in Poland, the attacks on them by the Mitnaggedim were not violent ever, despite the fact that Jews were self-governing then.

Can you make the arguement that Judaism's claim to truth is greater than Hinduism's?

edit: I want to clarify that what I am interested in is not who's right but how strong the claim is being made and if Judaism's claim is truly more harmful.

Dauer,

Again, your remarks have merit. No, I would not argue that Hindus are any less convinced of the Truth of their religion than are Jews. Neither goes out looking for converts, and both have very ancient roots. The difference is that the fundamental belief system in Hinduism is not monothesitic. Judaism looks at the universe as the finite creation of a jealous God paramount over all creation and other gods (whether real, or merely the beliefs of non-Abrahamic religions). Hinduism, on the other hand, sees the universe as infinite cycles with no begining or creation by an outside (god) force. Hinduism deals with universal forces by giving them god personifications, and the Abrahamic god is only another in an almost infinite number of underlying forces. Judaism gave birth to Christianity and Islam. Hinduism gave birth to Jainism and Buddhism. Those are big differences.

Jews have been the target of persecution and intolerance since the diaspora. Their survival has often been precarious and difficult surrounded by those who blamed them for the death of Christ. Survival often depended upon self-discipline and the ability to "harmonize" with those holding different ideas, but who are in power. Those are both characteristics that make it easier to be tolerant. Being a minority, often a hated minority that is exploited, is a hard thing to endure. It teaches us though to empathize with others who must also fight for their very survival.

Those lessons learned over the centuries have indeed made most Jews in the modern world more liberal and tolerant of others than either Christians or Muslims. Jews were in the forefront of the battle for Civil Rights, and their contribution was both in gold and blood. As a Buddhist I've never been insulted or been discriminated against by a Jew. I can not say the same for Christians. I've known so few Muslims that no personal generalization can be made, but I don't think I would want to be a Buddhist living in Afghanistan, or Iran, or Pakistan, or any of the other predominantly Islamic countries.

All that being said, there are Jews whose views are antithetical to tolerance and co-existence with others. The ultra orthodox are just as radical in their own way as the extreme Muslims and Christians. There are some who still believe that to be Jewish is to be one of The Chosen by God for special attention, while all others are outside the Pale.

dauer,

I haven't experienced any Jewish friends who were intolerant.

But I most certainly have met Jewish folks who appeared to be elitist, and who appeared to believe that Jewish people were somehow "special" or "more deserving" than other folks.

This behavior is off-putting to other people, sometimes. I had other friends who didn't even really know what a Jewish person was, but they would note the arrogance and elitism in the Jewish friend I would introduce them to.

I believe this arrogance and superiority complex is an area some Jewish folks could work on. This superiority complex, this sense of "I'm more special than you," is off-putting, sometimes to the degree of creating enemies.

To be sure, all groups have members like this. From your perspective, have you noticed that many Jewish folks feel they are somehow superior or more special than non-Jewish?

In fact, i once got into a slanging match with some people at AFUZZ over just that topic. One of the members posted a comment about Jews being obliged to "do all the spiritual heavy lifting" for the rest of mankind. I would also point out that my experience of Jewish communities in Chicago and New York is that there is a great deal of racial intolerance. Kind of nullifies any putative virtue arising from an alleged religious tolerance.

Extra, I've never seen any of that. Maybe it's just where I live, around Boston, but I've met Jews of all denominations and never seen that. There are a couple of things that can happen though.

It is built into Judaism that Jews were chosen, but the fact remains that Judaism says and has said for ages that our purpose is to follow the commandments and be, basically, model citizens. We're not better because we're Jews. We just have the responsibility to follow the commandments. We were "chosen" to recieve these mitzvot and follow them. There's a midrash showing that Jews shouldn't get high and mighty because God could have chosen someone else.

I've never heard of racial intolerance from Jews. As Asherman said there were Jews influential in the civil rights movement. Also, it seems most every synagogue I go to has a few black Jews and possibly some Sephardic Jews.

So I can't speak for Jews as individuals but I find tolerance everywhere I go.