About the question asked by Michael Paleologus....

[EthnAlln]

I hope I'm not duplicating a thread that already exists. I've been gone for about 10 days and am just catching up.

Anyway, the Emperor supposedly asked rhetorically, what new thing Muhammed brought to the world, and answered his own question: The only innovations in Islam were bad things.

That of course, got an innocent nun, who was serving Muslims, murdered by Muslims determined to avenge this slur on their religion. (How do people get to be this demented? I really wonder.)

But the question is a good one. What good things are in Islam that are not in either Judaism or Christianity, or both? I can't think of a single thing. There is no new moral teaching; what there is of morality is a distinct step backwards from Christianity. The only real innovations are rituals, which can be meaningful only if one believes without any evidence whatsoever, as a matter of faith, that Muhammed was a real prophet.

But I don't know everything about Islam, by any means. Perhaps someone can enlighten my ignorance if I'm missing something. So I pose a question. Can anyone think of a positive innovation in Islam?

[Toto]

I have read that Islam was very appealing to Europeans at various times, especially in the 15th century to modern times, during the period of the Ottoman Empire. It was simpler, and more rational. One was not required to believe in the divinity of Jesus or in the trinity, and there was no corrupt church hierarchy to support. This was of course, before the rise of modern Islamic fundamentalism.

Michael Paleologus was presumably arguing against people who did find something better in Islam.

[Huon]

It was Manuel II Paleologos, emperor 1391-1425. His enemy was the ottoman Sultan Bayezid I (1389-1402). This Bayazid began his reign by having his brother Yakoub strangled. This good muslim was vainquished by another good muslim, Timur Leng (aka Tamerlane), battle of Tchiboukabad (french writing), north-east of Ankara, on 20th July 1402. Bayezid died a prisoner, at Aq Chehir, on 3rd of March 1403.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kosovo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayezid_I

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timur

[EthnAlln]

Thanks for the correction, Huon.

[EthnAlln]

I have read that Islam was very appealing to Europeans at various times, especially in the 15th century to modern times, during the period of the Ottoman Empire. It was simpler, and more rational. One was not required to believe in the divinity of Jesus or in the trinity, and there was no corrupt church hierarchy to support. This was of course, before the rise of modern Islamic fundamentalism.

Michael Paleologus was presumably arguing against people who did find something better in Islam.

And it continues to make more converts than Christianity. Its growth among African-Americans is perhaps a special case, but nevertheless notable.

Let me chalk up one advance then: Islam removes the belief in the divinity of Jesus and the Trinity. On the other hand, that was already present in Judaism. I don't agree that belief in the authenticity of Muhammed's visions was more rational than belief in the Resurrection.

[Huon]

I don't think that the intrinsic beliefs of Islam are more appealing than those of the other religions, Christianity or Judaism.

Conversion to Judaism seems difficult.
Conversion to Christianity seems much easier, with less controls.
Conversion to Islam is extremely simple. And Islam is seen as a religion of protest (I don't speak of Protestantism) against almost everything. Many young people, especially boys, argue that they are jobless, mistreated or run down "because" they are Muslims. There is indeed (in France, and probably in W. Europe) racism against immigrants. But these youngsters did not learn anything at school, speak a curious french, with a peculiar accent, which does not help them. Many of them find a job of security agent in supermarkets. Usually, the girls are more successful, more serious.

However, the imams have never encouraged the burning of cars in the neighbourhood, nor the commerce of coke or shit ! (prohibited in the Qur'an, coke unknown of course).

[bookworm14]

....or in book form anywhere?
bookworm14

[Huon]

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensburg_en.html

speech of Benedict XVI at Regensburg, translated in English, origin Vatican.

Third paragraph.

[Huon]

....or in book form anywhere?
bookworm14

In french ?
Entretiens avec un musulman, 7e Controverse
Par Manuel II Paléologue
Introduction, texte critique, traduction et notes par Théodore Khoury
Index des versets de l'Écriture sainte, des versets du Coran et des noms propres d'auteurs
Paru en : 1966
25,00 € - Disponible - 248 pages
Collection « Sources chrétiennes » N° 115
http://www.editionsducerf.fr/html/fiche/fichelivre.asp?n_liv_cerf=663#

[bookworm14]

Now we're getting somewhere. My French is only fair. Is the dialogue in English anywhere?
bookworm14

[EthnAlln]

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensburg_en.html

speech of Benedict XVI at Regensburg, translated in English, origin Vatican.

Third paragraph.

What got the Muslims all riled up seems to be the following:


In the seventh conversation (διάλεξις - controversy) edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion". According to the experts, this is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur'an, concerning holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels", he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness, a brusqueness which leaves us astounded, on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached". The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "God", he says, "is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably (σὺν λόγω) is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death...".



Did they even bother to read the whole paragraph? I can't believe it. They must have gone ballistic after the third sentence.

How do we coexist with these people? Some way must be found.