I was reading about this in the Weekly Standard, actually, which Card mentioned in his mid-December column. It was a point being made in an essay about Romney's speech and the religious test.
I believe what this writer, Kenneth Anderson, was saying was that Islam is more like a race than a religion since people can't really leave it. Or at least, that is how it is perceived in America. For his point of view (and I wasn't really sure what his point of view was, except that he didn't like Romney or Huckabee) he thought Muslims are more acceptable than Mormons because Muslims don't have a choice about being Muslim.
Well, some might argue that a lot of Mormons don't seem to have a choice about being Mormon. The author of the article actually used to be Mormon but got tripped up on the historicity of the Book of Mormon thing.
But what do you think of this idea, that by American standards, Islam has more of a protected status than other religions, because one can't help being Muslim?
(And before someone brings it up, the phrase "There is no compulsion in Religion" refers to donations and not to whether one must be Muslim. I don't know everything about Islam but I do know that, and this is about the perception of Islam.)
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
If you agree with that, then Judaism has at least as much a claim to the concept as Islam.
-Bok
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:But what do you think of this idea, that by American standards, Islam has more of a protected status than other religions, because one can't help being Muslim?
Well I know a number of people who were born as Muslims, immigrated to the US and have become fully secular. So I'd say that the whole idea is fundamentally flawed.
The overwhelming majority of people in this world adhere to the religion in which they were born. While there are exceptions, they are just that "exceptions". And if you look at the exceptions most of them are conversions between similar religions (converting from one sect of Christianity to another for example). If nearly all the members of every religion "inherited" their religion from their parents, then any claims that the adherents to one religion are fundamentally worse than the adherents to other religions is at its roots racist.
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
Except that in the Muslim faith, the Ku'ran states that people who leave the faith (Apostates) are to be killed.
quote:All five major schools of Islamic jurisprudence agree that a sane male apostate must be executed.
Punishment for apostasy--Execution:
Legal opinion on apostasy by a Fatwa committee concerning the case of a man who converted to Christianity: "Since he left the Islam, he will be invited to express his regret. If he does not regret, he will be killed pertaining to rights and obligations of the Islamic law."In Islamic law (sharia), the consensus view is that a male apostate must be put to death unless he suffers from a mental disorder or converted under duress, for example, due to an imminent danger of being killed. A female apostate must be either executed, according to Shafi'i, Maliki, and Hanbali schools of Sunni Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh), or imprisoned until she reverts to Islam as advocated by the Sunni Hanafi school and by Shi'a scholars.
Most Islamic scholars agree that the appropriate punishment for apostasy is beheading. However, according to hadith, apostates sometimes were tortured to death. The caliph Umar II had apostates tied to a post and a lance thrust into their hearts. Mamluk Sultan Baybars II also practiced torture of apostates. A case is recorded when a woman who had apostatised was led through the streets of Cairo on an ass, then strangled in a boat in the middle of the Nile and thrown into the river. In modern times, followers of the Ahmadiyya sect in Afghanistan were stoned to death. The execution for apostasy was abolished in most Muslim lands in the 19th century either through European pressure or through the direct European rule; however, cases of imprisonment and deportation of apostates still occurred. Nevertheless, even nowadays renegades are not sure of their lives, as their Muslim relatives frequently try to kill them.
Perhaps that's why you "can't really leave it"??
--Steve
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Agree with Rabbit.
In addition, Boothby, is that really different from what the Bible advocates for heretics and such? And if not, then wow do Christians still have a lot to answer for from the last couple thousand years of murderous legacy they have.
I don't get what the premise is about not being able to leave the faith. They can leave if they want. They might be killed for doing so, but Islam is still a religion, not a race. And they still have the option, no matter the consequences. When they come to America, or Europe, or basically a non Islamic traditionalist nation, they have that option without the consequences, and I'm betting there are many who've dialed it down once they've gotten here.
I also have not heard that this is a common perception in America.
Posted by dab (Member # 7847) on :
wow, I am SOOOOO glad that I'm not religious!
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
Where is it written in the Old or New Testament that the penalty for leaving the faith is DEATH?
I know in Judaism that the penalty for leaving the faith is that your mother says to you, "So? Is this how we raised you?!? Your father and I should get hit by a bus."
Quite different than what it says in the Ku'ran.
[ December 18, 2007, 02:10 PM: Message edited by: Boothby171 ]
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:then any claims that the adherents to one religion are fundamentally worse than the adherents to other religions is at its roots racist.
Who said anything like this?
The idea was more that people on the left tend to sympathize with Muslims as a persecuted minority rather than as adherents to a fairly conservative religion.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boothby171: Where is it written in the Old or New Testament that the penalty for leaving the faith is DEATH?
I know in Judaism that the penalty for leaving the faith is that your mother says to you, "So? Is this how we raised you?!? Your father and I should get hit by a bus."
Quite different than what it says in the Ku'ran.
I think that's less of a rule for Judaism and more of a tradition.
And I don't know where it specifically says that in the Bible this or that should be done, but the Bible offers death and other cruelties as a punishment for a lot of things, from touching the skin of a pig to putting crops in the wrong ordering, or working on the sabbath. I think we should look less at what the original religious text says and more at what is actually practiced, and what has been practiced. And if you look at that, Christians have a brutally bloody history behind them of death and destruction for unbelievers and even for Christians, but ones who have left the fold and decided to believe a different version of Christianity. Heretics were burned and crucified, or just slaughtered if there wasn't time for something more elaborate.
Do you deny that?
I'm not attacking Christianity, it's a statement of facts. I'm saying both Christians and Muslims have this history, so singling out Muslims seems pretty ridiculous.
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
Those are a few of the many things Jesus points out as so terribly wrong in the practices of his contemporary Jewish Pharisees.
Posted by lynn johnson (Member # 9620) on :
Lyr, I have read the Koran and the Old Testament. There is a world of difference. Booth is right and you are not.
If you study the O.T. you find it is a huge improvement over contemporary rules in that neighborhood. Take a full year, study it carefully, read the commentary. Then let's talk.
What is your take on Jeremiah? Isaiah? What do you make of the emphasis on treatment of the poor? The widows? Land developers? What do we learn from Jonah? Do you know why he ran?
As the anonymous author of Job says, "Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?"
Same with your interpretation of history. I don't have time to parse the rest of your reply. Are you reading primary sources or are you reading dawkins and hitchens?
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
I don't feel that I really have a choice in my agnostic beliefs. I really do wish I could believe in God. It seems to give peace to a lot of my friends. I've never been able to accept the idea of God on faith.
Though I'm definitely glad that I won't be persecuted by other Agnostics if I do find a God to believe in.
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
Launchywiggin,
I'm afraid that if you find God, all your old agnostic and atheist friends will sneak in to your laundry and fill all your socks with shaving cream. Plus, you won't be allowed to come to the yearly barbecue.
Lyrhawn,
There's lots of nastiness in the Old Testament. That's why, in part, I'm an atheist.
Lynn,
I don't think I'm <i>that</i> right...
And it's wonderful that the OT is "so much better" than all the other religious texts of the time. Problem is, is that it's <i>supposed</i> to be the inerrant word of God. "So much better than" hardly seems sufficient, don't it?
Posted by lynn johnson (Member # 9620) on :
Booth, some are inerrantists, I am more a naturalist. The bible is what is says it is: a collection of books about God, none of them being _by_ God. In every case, it is a man talking about what he _thought_ God said to him.
The experience of the numinous is ubiquitous. Every society has its encounters with God, witches, ghosts, prophets and prophecy, possession and so on. Religion is an attempt to explain that encounter. My experience is that God says no more than we are able to hear at the time, leading us gently forward. Each society has religious leaders who help the people reach higher. But they are all inadequate explanations. You know, the blind men and the elephant.
So "much better" is sufficient for me. Perfectionism is a flaw in character.
But you are quite right about there being a hierarchy of good or evil in religions, with Islam being an example of a more primitive and dangerous one. The concept of killing apostates is quite evil. Perhaps it was a step up in 600 AD, but not much of one, IMHO. I love Rumi and the Nasrudin stories, fascinated by Sufis, yet I find modern Islam a very difficult religion to appreciate. I am sure it is my own blindness.
Posted by String (Member # 6435) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by Boothby171: Where is it written in the Old or New Testament that the penalty for leaving the faith is DEATH?
I know in Judaism that the penalty for leaving the faith is that your mother says to you, "So? Is this how we raised you?!? Your father and I should get hit by a bus."
Quite different than what it says in the Ku'ran.
I think that's less of a rule for Judaism and more of a tradition.
And I don't know where it specifically says that in the Bible this or that should be done, but the Bible offers death and other cruelties as a punishment for a lot of things, from touching the skin of a pig to putting crops in the wrong ordering, or working on the sabbath. I think we should look less at what the original religious text says and more at what is actually practiced, and what has been practiced. And if you look at that, Christians have a brutally bloody history behind them of death and destruction for unbelievers and even for Christians, but ones who have left the fold and decided to believe a different version of Christianity. Heretics were burned and crucified, or just slaughtered if there wasn't time for something more elaborate.
Do you deny that?
I'm not attacking Christianity, it's a statement of facts. I'm saying both Christians and Muslims have this history, so singling out Muslims seems pretty ridiculous.
The problem with your logic is that Christians and Jews have not practiced those cruelties for hundreds of years (at least not in the mainstream), while in Islam it is in the mainstream to be extreme. Just referring to the texts, The new testament pretty much does away with all those old capitol punishment methods in exchange for a more enlightened and non-violent way. To actually compare the too religions as they are practiced today, and reach a conclusion that they are similarly brutal is willful ignorance. Forgive me for not barring holds here, but I find your way of thinking on this matter putrid. There is plenty of evidence all around you that should show you that saying a thousand hail Mary's and getting your faced chopped off still attached to the back of your head are completely different punishments.
That both religions were filled with their fare share of brutality 500 years ago is completely irrelevant. One faith has largely progressed the other has largely not. This is not my opinion, This is a statement of fact. I really doubt that I'm going to make you open your eyes though, when it is much more fashionable these days to sew them shut.
Posted by bedir than average (Member # 10715) on :
while in Islam it is in the mainstream to be extreme.
Ummm, do you use a different definition of mainstream than the rest of the world? Or do you just spout off what ever you feel like?
Mainstream would mean that the majority of Muslims are in favor of killing apostates, considering there are only a handful of cases a year of this occurring, either no one converts (false) or it is not the mainstream.
And lynn, why is it that you rate the Old Testament compared to its contemparies, but the Qu'ran is compared to the modern day and not its contemporaries?
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
One small point, I do agree that a majority of members of Islam are just ordinary normal people going about their everyday lives just like the rest of us; they don't want to kill anyone and they don't want to rule the world.
However, I do not hear them speaking out against the atrocities and radicalism of the extremists. If you ask them they will tell you they do (speak out that is), but I never actually hear them do it.
Martyrdom seems to be big in the Muslim culture, to die defending the name of and their belief in God. That's actually prevelent in Christianity too. Yet, where are the martyrs who are willing to risk it all to speak out against the extremist and radicals. Where are those willing to defend the name of God against those who would pervert it to their own greedy ends?
I guess it is fair to ask the same of Christians, where are the average Joes who are willing to speak out against those who would seek personal wealth and power using a twisted version of God's name to achieve their ends?
On the issue of converting away from Islam, I think the radical 'our way or the highway' approach only shows how little faith they have in Islam. If they truly believed it was the one true religion, they wouldn't have to enforce it at the barrel of a gun. They would trust that, as the Koran says, Allah will show the way, that Allah will guide whom he will.
Meaning that we are all on a spiritual journey, sometimes we must stray from the path to truly find the path. If Muslims really had any faith in Islam, when someone left the faith, they would trust that they were simply on their own private spiritual journey and that Allah in his wisdom would guide them to where they needed to be.
Christians learned long ago, that you can't truly enforce a religious belief by the edge of a sword or the barrel of a gun. That is compliance, not belief. Islam needs to learn this same lesson, though you would think in 1500 years they would have started to figure it out.
Another aspect is that I think the various 'Arabic' languages are very passionate languages. Simple statements made in 'Arabic' can invoke great passion in people, passion that is completely lost when the same statement is fairly translated into other languages.
I think this passion creates an element of chaos in their world, but they need to learn that chaos bring misery and stability brings prosperity. If they want a safe comfortable prosperous world then their primary objective needs to be a fair and stable government. Barring their ability to do that, then they need to accept the death and misery that they themselves have created.
Take Iraq for example, if they played their cards wisely, they would have their country back and under their own control. Instead of pouring billions of dollars into death and misery, the USA would be pouring those same billions into rebuilding their country.
Once they have a controlled and stable government, they can mold it to suit their needs and their culture. They don't necessarily have to be a mirror of the USA. But, a fair and stable government is essential. When they stray from that foundation, they have to accept death, misery, and chaos as a result. Oddly, the people of Iraq and the various external governments could all have exactly what they want, if only the people (especially the extremists) would quit acting like spoiled little brats.
Of course, the extremist really don't want stability, they want power and control and the wealth that comes with it. This has nothing to do with religion or the alleged crimes of the USA. This is about greedy people who want power and control, and are willing to do anything to get it. If anything, the greatest and most horrendous INFIDELS are the Islamic extremists themselves. But they won't be stopped until Islam worldwide realizes, accept and acknowledges this, and acts accordingly.
Just a few random thoughts.
Steve/BlueWizard
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm not going to go in depth, just cover some basics since I didn't realize there were so many responses to what I'd said.
lynn -
I didn't say the Bible and the Koran lined up lock step on advocated punishments. In fact I specifically asked earlier if what Christians used to do was advocated in the Bible or if they just came up with it all by themselves.
And as a matter of fact, in addition to some noted historians, I HAVE read several primary sources that deal with what I'm talking about. Have you? And I've never read a word of Hitchens or Dawkins. I know their names, and that they have something to do with atheism, but other than that I haven't the slightest clue as to what their agenda is. If you think Christians have a rosy history, you're either demented, ignorant, or lying. Take your pick. Oh, and I'm not wrong about the OT, not about what I specifically stated, read Leviticus again. And I'm not wrong about the history, you are.
The comparison is valid between our history and their present. The complaints I see in this very thread are along the lines of "No, the Bible does NOT say that!" and yet, Christians did horrible, HORRIBLE things in the name of God. And they did horrible, horrible things DESPITE their beliefs in a Christian god and what the Bible espouses. But what, they get a pass, whereas Muslims are magically linked to EVERY rule and paragraph in the Koran? They aren't allowed to break out of that book? It's a stupidly unfair double standard.
String -
I'll refer you to much of what I just said to lynn. But I think there's a huge disconnect in this discussion, and it falls somewhere where in we define the difference between secular and religious progress. What progress do you see the Christian faith as having made that got them to stop doing all the things they used to do when they were more brutal? Or were those secular, philosophical changes that were made that brought Christians along KICKING AND SCREAMING the whole way? (Here's a hint, it's the second one). Muslim nations aren't the way they are because their FAITH is inherently more brutal than Christianity. The Middle East never went through the Enlightenment, and a dozen other major upheavals that Europe did that made the Western world the way it is, and I think a lot of that was helped by Christianity (in the same way Islam could probably help) and I think a lot of it was in SPITE of Christians holding onto the past.
To sum up - I see what you two are saying, but you both TOTALLY missed what I was saying.
Posted by Nikisknight (Member # 8918) on :
Here is one American Muslim who agrees that there is no leaving Islam: http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=21403&only Remember the outcry in the muslim world regarding Abdul Rahman's threatened execution? No? Then this is a silly statement:
"Mainstream would mean that the majority of Muslims are in favor of killing apostates, considering there are only a handful of cases a year of this occurring, either no one converts (false) or it is not the mainstream." Here is the key: Where Islamic law is enforced, there are no official conversions. Where muslims must, for now, abide under western law, the threat of death or life in prison keeps them from full-filling their religious command to kill apostates. It is not that it is not mainstream Islam, but Western laws and pressure that keeps apostates alive--barely, in some cases.
"Muslim nations aren't the way they are because their FAITH is inherently more brutal than Christianity." Ah, wishful thinking. How sweet were it true. Sorry, welcome to the real world.
When a Christian kills someone for being an apostate or heretic--really, killed, for I doubt you could give an example from yours, or your grandfathers, lifetime--they are doing so against every teaching of their faith.
When a Muslim kills an apostate, they are doing so with the full support of mainstream Islamic Koranic scholarship from the days of Mohammed until yesterday.
"What progress do you see the Christian faith as having made that got them to stop doing all the things they used to do when they were more brutal?" The progress was returning to the words of it's founder. "The sum of the law is to love God and love your neighbor as yourself." No secular philosophic change is needed to bring a Christian back to that point. Merely the cessation of lip service belief, and a taking the words to practice. The violence of Islam comes from the words of it's founder.
(Please be aware that if any response about the Koran does not contain the word "abrogation", you show ignorance, or taqiyya,)
"And they did horrible, horrible things DESPITE their beliefs in a Christian god and what the Bible espouses. But what, they get a pass, whereas Muslims are magically linked to EVERY rule and paragraph in the Koran? " Yes. In the case of Christians doing horrible things, again, it is contra to the teachings of their faith. In the case of Muslims, it is with the full backing of the latest (and thus most authoritative in Islamic law) words of their final and "perfect" prophet.
"If anything, the greatest and most horrendous INFIDELS are the Islamic extremists themselves. But they won't be stopped until Islam worldwide realizes, accept and acknowledges this, and acts accordingly." Ah, that'd be nice, really. But how does following in Mohammed's footsteps, and the words of most Koranic scholars, make them INFIDELS?
"Christians learned long ago, that you can't truly enforce a religious belief by the edge of a sword or the barrel of a gun. That is compliance, not belief. Islam needs to learn this same lesson, though you would think in 1500 years they would have started to figure it out. " Islam does not mean proper beliefs. Islam means submission, submission to the will of God. Muslims are less concerned with what people believe than what they do--follow Sharia.
"And lynn, why is it that you rate the Old Testament compared to its contemparies, but the Qu'ran is compared to the modern day and not its contemporaries? " Muslims to this day believe Mohammed was their perfect example, and the Koran the single authoritative, immutable word of "God". So the Koran must be looked at to see what it teaches Muslims to do. (hint-it involves Submission) Jews and Christians believe that the Bible represents moral teachings straight from God, but also was specific teachings to a particular time and place. So the context must be looked at carefully with wisdom to discern God's intent.
In other words, the Koran and the Bible must be viewed differently, because Muslims and Christians approach them differently. Christians see the old and new testaments as a whole. Muslism see only the latest sections of the Koran as binding, should there be contradiction. And the latest sections are a manual for religious war.
"In addition, Boothby, is that really different from what the Bible advocates for heretics and such? And if not, then wow do Christians still have a lot to answer for from the last couple thousand years of murderous legacy they have." Yes, it is really differnt. And yes, some Christians have much to answer for. The Spanish Inquisition (though pitance compared to the secualr holocaust, Gulag, etc.), the thirty years war, pogroms. Some Christians have brought great shame on Christ, themselves, and christianity by acting contrary to the commands of the Bible. But Christianity as a whole gave the west the grestest value system ever, a worldview upon which the enlightenment and scientific revolutions were built, abolition of slavery, and the very idea of secular government.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:"Muslim nations aren't the way they are because their FAITH is inherently more brutal than Christianity." Ah, wishful thinking. How sweet were it true. Sorry, welcome to the real world.
Heh, so I guess what you're saying is that Europeans are inherently more brutal then, regardless of religion?
Ya'll had some pretty crappy Popes for a thousands years then didn't you? (take the "you" as an assumption that you are Christian, if not then I apologize)
I think you're wrong, and you're ignoring a LOT of Western European history. The Koran espouses peace and love just like the Bible does, and it also touts death, as does the Bible. Saying the New Testament erases the Old is cheating. And again you are using a double standard. A lot of Muslims will tell you that the exremists who use the more violent portions of the Koran are the ones breaking the laws of their religion, in the same way I think you would if I killed a homosexual and used the Bible as my justification. You're using a double standard to make Christians look like angels and Muslims look like barbarians, but given your snippy responses, I don't think you'll see my point on this.
I do NOT think what Christians did was contrary to their faith at the time. At the time EVERYONE believed that that was exactly what they were supposed to do. In the 21st Century, not so much. I don't think either of them are following the Bible word for word, so you could say that our present day civility is because secular changes forced Christians to change from a strict viewing of the Bible. That and a revision of the text.
You're cherry picking, religiously.
Posted by Nikisknight (Member # 8918) on :
"The Koran espouses peace and love just like the Bible does, and it also touts death, as does the Bible. Saying the New Testament erases the Old is cheating. "That's the opposite of what I said. I said Christians understand the OT in context, and it is Muslims who erase the older parts of their scriptures--that is the doctrine of abrogation--and the newer parts are the violent, conquer the world parts.
Posted by Nikisknight (Member # 8918) on :
"A lot of Muslims will tell you that the exremists who use the more violent portions of the Koran are the ones breaking the laws of their religion" Two explanations for this: 1) they are trying to change their religion. More power to them!!! 2)Taqiyya 3)They don't actually know the Koran, and are simply Muslim culturally, like a lot of Christians.
"The Koran espouses peace and love just like the Bible does, and it also touts death, as does the Bible. " Wrong, wrong. The Koran espouses peace and love in different ways, and touts death in different ways. (I gotta go, though, I can exlain later)
Posted by Shawshank (Member # 8453) on :
quote:Saying the New Testament erases the Old is cheating.
But under Christian doctrine normally the OT isn't viewed as being as applicable to the Christian life as the New Testament. Some people like to study from just the NT and in doing so neglect the Old Testament.
This is because Christ came to fulfill the law that was given in the Old Testament and therefore our faith isn't nearly as legalistic as Jewish tradition was. The first book of the NT- Matthew spends a lot of time talking about those who uphold the law specifically but fail to live up to the spirit of the law.
And generally commandments given in the Old Testament that aren't back up implicitly or explicitly in the New Testament are not considered to be binding on Christian orthopraxy.
So while the OT is not erased, it is foundational towards understanding God and humanity's relationship to Him, whereas the New Testament gives the more specific areas of belief (divinity of Christ, justification, sanctification and the like) and specific guidelines of Christian ethics (Religion that can be considered faultless is this: that you look after the widows and orphans).
EDITED to change wording.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nikisknight: "The Koran espouses peace and love just like the Bible does, and it also touts death, as does the Bible. Saying the New Testament erases the Old is cheating. "That's the opposite of what I said. I said Christians understand the OT in context, and it is Muslims who erase the older parts of their scriptures--that is the doctrine of abrogation--and the newer parts are the violent, conquer the world parts.
Good, you prove my point for me.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
My question is "If people can't convert away from Islam..." It's not "do I have a right as a Christian to look down on Muslims?" which is the question you (Lyr) keep trying to advance.
My point is that Islam should be considered as a religion and not as a state of feebleness whose idiosyncracies have to be ignored in order to incorporate their worldview into democracy.
P.S. Any language can lose its teeth in translation, this is nothing special to Arabic. I took 3 years of Arabic in college and majored in linguistics, and the idea that Arabic is somehow more emotional than other languages is like saying French somehow makes people adulterous and English makes your taste buds stop working.
[ January 04, 2008, 11:52 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I thought we'd already answered that question more or less and then gone onto to something else. Or at least, I gave an answer to that general question and then was assailed from multiple sides on what I said, so I responded, and kept responding. I'm not pushing anything, I'm responding to comments that are directed towards me.
Sorry for the thread drift, but I don't think the discussion was without value. Especially given some of the answers to your second created question there. I'm disturbed by some of what I've heard in this thread, deeply disturbed.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:My point is that Islam should be considered as a religion and not as a state of feebleness whose idiosyncracies have to be ignored in order to incorporate their worldview into democracy.
But...but...that's pretty much my definition of religion! Posted by Dark as night (Member # 9577) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: My question is "If people can't convert away from Islam..."
Pooka, I think we've seen a multitude of opinions regarding your original question of Islam as a religion vs. race just in this thread alone. I can only offer you my story. I was born a Muslim (in Russia) to parents who were "cultural" rather than truly devoted Muslims themselves. We lived quite far away from the rest of my extended family, all of whom were and still are deeply rooted in Islam. My parents didn't oppose my curiosity about other religions and when I decided to become Christian (LDS) they supported me and eventually also converted. So, my family went from Muslim to Mormon. And we're all still alive.
That said, the situation may have been different had we lived in a predominantly Islamic community or lived closer to our extended family. However, I don't think it would have changed the fact that we would still have a choice about leaving the religion.
Have you read a book called "Infidel" by Ayaan Hirsi Ali? I would highly recommend it if you are interested in a story of one woman who dared to change her world.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I haven't read it, but I'm familiar with it. I've seen a few interviews that she has done and it looks like an amazing tale.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)