What Attracts Westerners to Islam?

[Charles Martel]

Nothing like insulting a religion with over a billion adherents for the mere practice of a few of their women for actually engaging in a form of modesty that much of the Christian West has totally lost any concept of these days.

Except it's not just a matter of modesty...

That's what YOU say....

[Charles Martel]

At any rate I believe you, the West is so seeped in individual "rights", religious intolerance, and feminism that they can't comprehend that a woman or a culture might just actually believe in dressing in  some form of modesty and the way they present them selves in public as to avoid any real temptation or an accessory to another's sinful thoughts.

Except it's not just about modesty...

Again, that's your opinion and not an absolute statement.

What do you really know what's going on within Islamic culture and their women's value of their modesty in dress codes and norms?

Where do you come off as being some kind of authority as how these women within Islam actually "feel" about their culture and religion?

I don't think anyone here in this decadent, secular West where we just about indoctrinate young girls into becoming future whores are in any position to pass judgment or dictate anything about Islam and their "sexism" and treatment of women.

Have you looked around lately and noticed the divorce rates  or broken marriges or singles mothers or even same-sex "marriages "between women these days?

Yes, we've done such a good job taking care of our women here in the "christian" West as opposed to those devilish Moslems in the East. How dare they have modesty rules or demand any humility form their women being the oppressive, sexist, cavemen they are.

Can you tell me what methods you used, upon seeing this image, to satisfy your urges?

If you didn't have any, you've argued against yourself. 

Why must you psycho-analyze this poster about his "methods" in producing an image of a person that is worshipped and idolized by millions of young girls hoping to one day emulate her lewd appearence and suggestive singing and dance routines?

He's just making an obvious point.

[montalban]

Nothing like insulting a religion with over a billion adherents for the mere practice of a few of their women for actually engaging in a form of modesty that much of the Christian West has totally lost any concept of these days.

Except it's not just a matter of modesty...

That's what YOU say....

No, I produced two lengthy posts with evidence. However not only have you failed to address that you've repeated your 'just-so' statement about modesty several times.

And now a new 'just-so' statement.

(see post #122 and #179, and a re-post at #212)

[montalban]

At any rate I believe you, the West is so seeped in individual "rights", religious intolerance, and feminism that they can't comprehend that a woman or a culture might just actually believe in dressing in  some form of modesty and the way they present them selves in public as to avoid any real temptation or an accessory to another's sinful thoughts.

Except it's not just about modesty...

Again, that's your opinion and not an absolute statement.

Again, I presented evidence.

For arguments sake I could be wrong, but at least try and engage that evidence!

[montalban]

I don't see what the big problem is with Muslim women practicing a form of modesty by wearing hijab ( which is optional in most of Islam from what I've researched), I believe that more "christian" women could learn a thing or two from Moslems about modesty these days, but men in dressses, well that's so progressive and "chic" these days.

Excepting that it's not just a matter of modesty...

That's whay YOU say......

Three times a charm, hey?


Rather than repost my evidence (I've posted it once, then reposted it), I'd like to point out that I cited several Islamic clerics, including two in this wonderful modern western nation; Australia

[TheTrisagion]

So... In other news, its Holy Week! Pascha will be here soon! 

[Alpo]

Muslims attract me to Islam. Those that I've met seem genuinely friendly and deeply devout folks. Nice change for secularized Western country where everything seems to be deep-fried in nihilistic humour these days. Sometimes I miss naive ideals, taboos and hierarchies.

They are hospitable. But it's against Islam for them to have non-Moslems as close friends.

It probably depends on whose Islam we're talking about.

[essene19]

The main attraction to Islam for Westerners, I think, is disillusionment with Western Christianity and the spiritual void that now exists in the West.  Besides Islam's basic structure (the five daily prayers, Ramadan fasting, etc), Islam provides clear and cogent answers as to the purpose of life, and why man is here.  The constant emphasis on death and the Hereafter, the final Judgment, really hits the home the fact that life here on Earth is finite and transitory.  Life is a gift, and you should use it well, because what you do here will determine your Eternal Life.

One of the reasons why I was attracted to the Eastern Christian tradition is that it has that same emphasis on the Hereafter and the remembrance of death that Islam has, and many of the spiritual practices of the Eastern Christian tradition have the same intention to purify the heart of the believer.  This is something that I found to be very lacking in the Western tradition, which is too modernized and has bent over backwards to secular modes of thinking.

As for the simplicity of Islam's doctrine being an attractive option, I agree.  Even Christian theologians admit that the Trinity is not easy to understand - Islam just makes the theology all the more simpler.  A lot of former Christians who come to Islam like the idea that they can keep Jesus in a stable religious structure without all the Trinitarian ideas.

The reason why I think some Christians have problems with Muhammad is really for one reason only: a lot of his morality (from what we read in the biographical accounts, many of which were written 200 years after his death) seems outdated, especially after the coming of Christ.  Otherwise, I don't think there is much separating him from the Old Testament prophets.  It's because that he came after Jesus that his teachings seem a bit "off" to the outsider.  Shariah law is just a modified form of the Mosaic law - Islam tries to be the middle ground between the heart of Christianity and the law of Judaism.

As for the role of Jesus in Islam, I think this is something that Muslims have ignored to their own detriment.  There is a lot more to Jesus, at least according to the Quranic teaching, than meets the eye.  After all, Muslims believe that it is Jesus who will return at the End of Time to kill the Anti-Christ, not any other prophet.  Muslim scholars have tried to come up with all kinds of reasons as to why specifically Jesus would come back in order to satisfy certain theological dilemmas, but all of their expectations fall short.

The idea that someone else died on the cross and Jesus escaped the crucifixion is NOT a Quranic idea or an idea that you will find in an authentic, sound hadith.  It's a conjectural claim that commentators have grafted onto the verse for centuries and taken for granted.  I believe that the Quran's is purposefully ambiguous regarding the crucifixion and what really happened.

And montalban, your statement about Muslims not being able to have non-Muslims as close friends is 100% false.

[Alpo]

Islam provides clear and cogent answers as to the purpose of life, and why man is here.  The constant emphasis on death and the Hereafter, the final Judgment, really hits the home the fact that life here on Earth is finite and transitory.  Life is a gift, and you should use it well, because what you do here will determine your Eternal Life.

Traditional Western Christianity does have similar kind of emphasis.

The idea that someone else died on the cross and Jesus escaped the crucifixion is NOT a Quranic idea or an idea that you will find in an authentic, sound hadith.  It's a conjectural claim that commentators have grafted onto the verse for centuries and taken for granted.  I believe that the Quran's is purposefully ambiguous regarding the crucifixion and what really happened.

I hope you realize that by saying anything like this you disagree with majority of Muslims. I thought consensus of Umma is a source of doctrine for Muslims.

[essene19]

Traditional Western Christianity does have similar kind of emphasis.

I certainly recognize that, but you do not see it emphasized like it was in the past (especially amongst Protestant circles)

I hope you realize that by saying anything like this you disagree with majority of Muslims. I thought consensus of Umma is a source of doctrine for Muslims.

I realize that, and I do have unconventional views on this subject, but I am not alone.  Even if you look at the major scholars of Islam, you will find that they will always have views that go against the supposed "consensus" of the ummah.

And the consensus on the crucifixion of Jesus is nowhere near as widespread and solid as is consensus on other basic doctrinal issues.  The creed of Imam al-Tahawi, which is considered an important text in terms of Muslim creed, for example, affirms the second coming of Jesus but says nothing regarding other aspects of Jesus's life and the events of the crucifixion.

[Alpo]

I realize that, and I do have unconventional views on this subject, but I am not alone.  Even if you look at the major scholars of Islam, you will find that they will always have views that go against the supposed "consensus" of the ummah.

And the consensus on the crucifixion of Jesus is nowhere near as widespread and solid as is consensus on other basic doctrinal issues.  The creed of Imam al-Tahawi, which is considered an important text in terms of Muslim creed, for example, affirms the second coming of Jesus but says nothing regarding other aspects of Jesus's life and the events of the crucifixion.

Have you discussed with your imam and Muslim friends about this? Were they anyhow scandalized?

[orthonorm]

As for the simplicity of Islam's doctrine being an attractive option, I agree.  Even Christian theologians admit that the Trinity is not easy to understand - Islam just makes the theology all the more simpler.  A lot of former Christians who come to Islam like the idea that they can keep Jesus in a stable religious structure without all the Trinitarian ideas.

This is one thing I have to disagree with, with nearly everyone.

First, I don't think most people except privileged folks care or understand anything approaching the theological within Islam or EO or JW or whatever.

Second, I don't think Islamic theology is simpler, easier to understand etc. And I think it borders on heresy to suggest it does if you are a Christian. The trinity isn't a problem to be overcome in understanding God, the Trinity the only way God can make sense, at least that should be the Christian take on the matter.

Frankly, Islamic theology and philosophy I find to be terribly confused and overly sophisticated. No matter whether one agrees that God is the only cause in the created world or if one allows for secondary causes as well, once you have a monadic God, then it is extremely hard to understand or explain how multiplicity comes from perfect unity.

It makes no sense. It doesn't make sense when the RCs say it, it makes no sense when EOs flirt with their unknown monadic God of perfection, how one arrives at the many from the one is just long and complicated story of a gross metaphysical prejudice.

When you have the Christian statement that divinity is the result of particular relationships between particular persons, then you are on the way to making a bit of sense o relationship between the many and the one and how one can beget the other.

In any case, almost no one cares about any of this. Even people here, since the consensus is that something like Islamic theology is somehow simpler shows many here haven't begun to even consider the implication of that statement.

Really the OP is meaningless as almost no one converts in the US. And the group which does at a rate greater than other is black folks. And within that group, women.

The reasons are clear and touched on a little by Gebre and I think Stanley. But here are the real reasons, after living among black folks nearly all my life and around Black Muslims and Muslims who are black: dignity and masculinity (and thus femininity).  

It is a group where men have been stolen from their midst for nearly a half a millenium by now. A group whose brand of Christianity is dominated by women (look who the first women ministers were in this country en masse and remain such today) and is rather effeminate and delivers a message at odds with the world around them.

I know. Cause I felt the same way although I couldn't quite articulate that aspect clearly at age eight or ten.

To the effeminate nature of the black church, we are now beginning to see the role which gay men have played in leadership and most white people ain't aware of how close all the R&B garbage you hear on the radio goes right out of the Sunday service. Men with eye-liner. Men crooning about being in love with Jesus.

Then comes Islam, first of the Black variety, then gradually Sunni.

It give back to men (those who are still alive at least) a way to live as men. And it offers the women who bear such an incredible burden in the world a way to live as a woman.

I ain't into sexual coding too much, but you live in the broken black world as long as I have and I think we need some coding for a while before breaking it down a bit.

And IME, which I bet is more than anyone else on this board, of having watched how Islam, Black or otherwise, changes lives in ghetto, it is nearly always for the good. Always. Always.

And the reason why Blacks "reverts" remain committed to Islam longer than the other typical class of converts, white middle class angsty reactionary types, is that they have a strong sense of community. White people float in ethnic enclaves no EO convert could imagine.

Black folks? They have a built in community within every mosque in an urban center and that community stretches outside of the mosque. Whereas most white reverts in America probably spend time on something oc.net for their connections.

A rambling rant. Not much time.

[orthonorm]

And montalban, your statement about Muslims not being able to have non-Muslims as close friends is 100% false.

I didn't see that. Of course it is. I could probably guess the reasoning he used though. I think it is in a Jack Chick tract.

[orthonorm]

The idea that someone else died on the cross and Jesus escaped the crucifixion is NOT a Quranic idea or an idea that you will find in an authentic, sound hadith.  It's a conjectural claim that commentators have grafted onto the verse for centuries and taken for granted.  I believe that the Quran's is purposefully ambiguous regarding the crucifixion and what really happened.

I hope you realize that by saying anything like this you disagree with majority of Muslims. I thought consensus of Umma is a source of doctrine for Muslims.

The three Muslim scholars who I knew and would be considered "radical" I guess thought the idea that God switched bodies on the cross was ridiculous.

How do you find the consensus of the Ummah? Especially on something almost none have probably thought much about?

This is more difficult than presenting a Patristic consensus on much of anything that isn't clearly Scriptural.

[Theophilos78]

The main attraction to Islam for Westerners, I think, is disillusionment with Western Christianity and the spiritual void that now exists in the West.  Besides Islam's basic structure (the five daily prayers, Ramadan fasting, etc), Islam provides clear and cogent answers as to the purpose of life, and why man is here.  The constant emphasis on death and the Hereafter, the final Judgment, really hits the home the fact that life here on Earth is finite and transitory.  Life is a gift, and you should use it well, because what you do here will determine your Eternal Life.

Yet the Qur'an is silent on why the perfectly created man was later condemned to frailty and death.

The writer of the Qur'an copied the tenet of Final Judgment from Christianity and laid emphasis on this doctrine because this was one of the major tenets that Muhammad's polytheist tribe and Meccan paganism denied.

As for the simplicity of Islam's doctrine being an attractive option, I agree.  Even Christian theologians admit that the Trinity is not easy to understand - Islam just makes the theology all the more simpler.  A lot of former Christians who come to Islam like the idea that they can keep Jesus in a stable religious structure without all the Trinitarian ideas.

Yet Muslims cannot explain why in the Qur'an only Jesus, of all the prophets, was named the Messiah, born without a father, performed several miracles, imitated Elohim's act of creation, was called the Word of Elohim, was taken up to Elohim.

The reason why I think some Christians have problems with Muhammad is really for one reason only: a lot of his morality (from what we read in the biographical accounts, many of which were written 200 years after his death) seems outdated, especially after the coming of Christ.  Otherwise, I don't think there is much separating him from the Old Testament prophets. 

No Old Testament prophet had a child bride though and no Old Testament prophet considered himself sinless and perfect in morality. Actually, the Tanakh relates how David fell into sin and was punished by Elohim.

As for the role of Jesus in Islam, I think this is something that Muslims have ignored to their own detriment.  There is a lot more to Jesus, at least according to the Quranic teaching, than meets the eye.  After all, Muslims believe that it is Jesus who will return at the End of Time to kill the Anti-Christ, not any other prophet.

 

These traditional teachings were taken from Christianity. They cannot be found in the Qur'an, the main and primary authoritative text of Islam.

The idea that someone else died on the cross and Jesus escaped the crucifixion is NOT a Quranic idea or an idea that you will find in an authentic, sound hadith.  It's a conjectural claim that commentators have grafted onto the verse for centuries and taken for granted.  I believe that the Quran's is purposefully ambiguous regarding the crucifixion and what really happened.

The Quranic verse DOES talk of an apparition though (So it seemed to them). This is why the substitution theory is in line with the Qur'an verse overtly denying that Jesus died on the cross and claming that He was taken up to heaven.

And montalban, your statement about Muslims not being able to have non-Muslims as close friends is 100% false.

That means the Qur'an verse quoted by Montalban does not exist in your personal Qur'an.

[Jason.Wike]

Hmm, OrthodoxChristianity.net = talk about Islam is 100 times more popular. During holy week even... So, what attracts Orthodox Christians to talk about Islam?

[orthonorm]

That means the Qur'an verse quoted by Montalban does not exist in your personal Qur'an.

That interpretation of the verse is laughable. Again these arguments are used by the most uninformed and hateful proponents on either side of the debate.

I would suggest you read several translations of the Koran some commentary, then use a concordance.

Or just look at Muhammed Asad's translation and copious notes, which is not subsidized by Saudi money like many other translations of the Quran in English.

Or meet and live with Muslims. More than a few Muslims counted me as a dear friend and showed me nothing but generosity and care. Every Muslims I was around was quite courteous and friendly. I was openly areligious, drank like fish, etc.

[Theophilos78]

I would suggest you read several translations of the Koran some commentary, then use a concordance.

We can check the meaning of the verse from its Arabic original.

Or just look at Muhammed Asad's translation and copious notes, which is not subsidized by Saudi money like many other translations of the Quran in English.

Logical fallacy: the fact that it is not subsidized by Saudi money like many other translations of the Quran in English does not suffice to make Asad's translation accurate and reliable.

Or meet and live with Muslims. More than a few Muslims counted me as a dear friend and showed me nothing but generosity and care. Every Muslims I was around was quite courteous and friendly. I was openly areligious, drank like fish, etc.

Another logical fallacy: what some Muslims do does not change the interpretation or meaning of a Qur'an verse.

[orthonorm]

I would suggest you read several translations of the Koran some commentary, then use a concordance.

We can check the meaning of the verse from its Arabic original.

Or just look at Muhammed Asad's translation and copious notes, which is not subsidized by Saudi money like many other translations of the Quran in English.

Logical fallacy: the fact that it is not subsidized by Saudi money like many other translations of the Quran in English does not suffice to make Asad's translation accurate and reliable.

Or meet and live with Muslims. More than a few Muslims counted me as a dear friend and showed me nothing but generosity and care. Every Muslims I was around was quite courteous and friendly. I was openly areligious, drank like fish, etc.

Another logical fallacy: what some Muslims do does not change the interpretation or meaning of a Qur'an verse.

The above shows you understand neither logic nor discussion.

[orthonorm]

We can check the meaning of the verse from its Arabic original.

Are a Quranic scholar? I am not.

Jesus brings swords.

You have to hate your family to follow Jesus.

Nearly everyone will suffer eternal suffering.

Christians don't marry except for the ones who cannot control their sexual appetites.

Jesus is God

Jesus is not God.

Really, this whole silly attempt to recontextualize texts to mean what you hope works with nearly everything including the NT.

[orthonorm]

More importantly, did anyone have trouble opening page six of this thread? My browser keep hanging up. Different connections, different computers, different times.

Never loads that one page.

[JamesR]

The reason why I think some Christians have problems with Muhammad is really for one reason only: a lot of his morality (from what we read in the biographical accounts, many of which were written 200 years after his death) seems outdated, especially after the coming of Christ.  Otherwise, I don't think there is much separating him from the Old Testament prophets. 

But that's exactly the problem. If Muhammed was no different than the Old Testament prophets and preached nothing newer or advanced, then why follow him? What makes Islam unique and worth following? And since humans don't live in "Old Testament" times anymore, how is Islam prepared to guide them if all of its moral tenets and statutes were made to guide "Old Testament"-type people? I see this among Christianity as well in regards to sexual ethics and a couple of other things, but Islam, even more than Christianity, seems ill prepared and incapable of guiding modern man.

[Alpo]

Hmm, OrthodoxChristianity.net = talk about Islam is 100 times more popular. During holy week even... So, what attracts Orthodox Christians to talk about Islam?

Why not? People tend to be curious creatures. And it's not Holy Week in my church.

The three Muslim scholars who I knew and would be considered "radical" I guess thought the idea that God switched bodies on the cross was ridiculous.

What do you mean by radical?

How do you find the consensus of the Ummah? Especially on something almost none have probably thought much about?
This is more difficult than presenting a Patristic consensus on much of anything that isn't clearly Scriptural.

*shrugs* I agree but since every source that I've seen or heard has stated that consensus is hugely important in Islam it occurred to me to ask essene's perspective on that argument. Of course the idea of consensus could one of those fancy theories with zero practical value.

[orthonorm]

The reason why I think some Christians have problems with Muhammad is really for one reason only: a lot of his morality (from what we read in the biographical accounts, many of which were written 200 years after his death) seems outdated, especially after the coming of Christ.  Otherwise, I don't think there is much separating him from the Old Testament prophets.

But that's exactly the problem. If Muhammed was no different than the Old Testament prophets and preached nothing newer or advanced, then why follow him? What makes Islam unique and worth following? And since humans don't live in "Old Testament" times anymore, how is Islam prepared to guide them if all of its moral tenets and statutes were made to guide "Old Testament"-type people? I see this among Christianity as well in regards to sexual ethics and a couple of other things, but Islam, even more than Christianity, seems ill prepared and incapable of guiding modern man.

JamesR, have you ever read the Quran? Have you read the more reliable Hadith (within the larger historical consensus of Muslims)?

The trifling over rules seems to be one of the things Islam, Mohamed, the Koran, whatever, was in reaction to.

The proliferation of the Mosaic law and the seeming impossibility of Christian virtue.

This seem extremely clear.

How Islamic societies began to make a rule for everything? Welcome to every place on the earth.

Your constant complaint that society x is more permissive than society y is just simplistic and ignorant. You cannot possibly measure moral constraint on some scale. You can barely articulate the "rules" in even you own society about something as simple as eating, and you and others think they can compare the severity or legalism of one society to the next.

When you are capable of giving me a complete set of rules which govern eating in Cincinnati, OH, I might start to take such comparisons seriously, but even then don't hold your breath.

[JamesR]

Then here's a thought: why have religion at all? They each just impose a somewhat incomplete, impossible or outdated system of rules on everyone that the next generation then finds problems with until a new religion is created for them and so on. Maybe if humans just lived freely and did what they wanted, we wouldn't have all this confusion. Besides, there's no good reason to make one religion truer than the other; if any one religion really was true, then wouldn't it be blatantly obvious?

[Jason.Wike]

Then here's a thought: why have religion at all? They each just impose a somewhat incomplete, impossible or outdated system of rules on everyone that the next generation then finds problems with until a new religion is created for them and so on. Maybe if humans just lived freely and did what they wanted, we wouldn't have all this confusion. Besides, there's no good reason to make one religion truer than the other; if any one religion really was true, then wouldn't it be blatantly obvious?

You keep saying this but I don't know what you are talking about? What rules are outdated or impossible? Every 'rule' has a purpose and reason behind it, most dealing with their propensity of the sin they deal with to lead us away from God and into self centered darkness or evil. It looks like you are looking at them as pointless rules, but they are an applied science - they are based on how things actually work and have a goal/purpose. If you participate in one thing you will become habituated to it, it shapes your consciousness and future actions... which is why it is so important to have 'rules.' If you desire good you cannot simultaneously feed evil - its the same with any other thing, you cannot grow strawberries if you lavish cultivation on the weeds among them the same as you do the strawberries.

[orthonorm]

Then here's a thought: why have religion at all? They each just impose a somewhat incomplete, impossible or outdated system of rules on everyone that the next generation then finds problems with until a new religion is created for them and so on. Maybe if humans just lived freely and did what they wanted, we wouldn't have all this confusion. Besides, there's no good reason to make one religion truer than the other; if any one religion really was true, then wouldn't it be blatantly obvious?

Good grief. Are you fasting too strictly?

I could spend a few days listing what you beg here. You are getting off your game.

EDIT: Guess Jason.Wike proved me wrong, some will fall for this provocation I suppose.

[Charles Martel]

Nothing like insulting a religion with over a billion adherents for the mere practice of a few of their women for actually engaging in a form of modesty that much of the Christian West has totally lost any concept of these days.

Except it's not just a matter of modesty...

That's what YOU say....

No, I produced two lengthy posts with evidence. However not only have you failed to address that you've repeated your 'just-so' statement about modesty several times.

And now a new 'just-so' statement.

(see post #122 and #179, and a re-post at #212)

I went back and read through some of them posts but I don't have the time to possibly go through one of the numerous links in which you cited but I get the gist of what your saying. so, for the most part, I agree ( I know you're shocked) with the point you're trying to get across about Muslim women covering up for more reasons than modesty, like for "protection" as in a deterent against rape since some of these male animals in those cultures feel they have a right to take a female merely for the way she is "revealing" herself to them, as in she's wearing a sign just begging to be raped or something.

That in and of itself is despicable and would never be tolerated by any rational thinking civilization. But I got news for you, it goes on right here in the land of high society, freedom and progression. Moslems hardly hold a monoply on this kind of ape-menatality where women are being raped because she was "asking for it". Just go on a majority of your college campuses today and these kind of rapes are not isolated incidents, young girls are taken all the time against their will because they dressed a little too revealing and were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

As for those clerics commentary about moslem rape, well like I stated before as have a few Moslms posting on this thread, Islam is very divided on these and many issues and it matters not what one cleric says according to another, it's all their own interpretation of Hadith and the Koran. That to me is the scary part of Islam, it's like one big worldwide Sola Scriptura fest and every idiot out there with a Koran is some kind of an "authority" on it's interpretation to suit their own ends. Combine this and some really backwards cultures and you have a recipie for disaster, like women getting raped by cavemen and then chided on top of that because they didn't wear enough clothes. Talk about mental defectives.

But, I still believe the majority of women who wear hijab are doing it for spiritual, cultural and modesty reasons nto just because they don't want to be raped. Hell that can happen right here in America by non-Muslims. And most assuredly does.

[Charles Martel]

I don't see what the big problem is with Muslim women practicing a form of modesty by wearing hijab ( which is optional in most of Islam from what I've researched), I believe that more "christian" women could learn a thing or two from Moslems about modesty these days, but men in dressses, well that's so progressive and "chic" these days.

Excepting that it's not just a matter of modesty...

That's whay YOU say......

Three times a charm, hey?


Rather than repost my evidence (I've posted it once, then reposted it), I'd like to point out that I cited several Islamic clerics, including two in this wonderful modern western nation; Australia

Speaking of rape, wasn't your wonderful, modern nation founded as a penal colony for criminals within the Commonwealth?

Not that it's relevant to this discussion but I just thought I'd throw that out there.

[Charles Martel]

Going back to the OP I believe a lot of the younger people are converting because they percieve today's Christianity to be  weak, effiminate and ineffective. If I was a young guy today the "church" would be a hard sell and I'm not speaking randomly here, I see it all around me with my sons and their friends. What does "christianity" have to offer many of these young men today other than another extension of the Glee Club at school? My son tried to go to various Catholic churches where he was stationed but it was all about "tolerance", "diversity' and holding hands at every Mass, he couldn't stand it. Not too mention that they barley offer some Scaraments like Penance and the way they abuse Communion these days is an atrocity. Also the Church in many ways has lost all sense of reverence and tradition that it's hard to be taken seriously, especially for young single males looking for spiritual significance that they might find in a Mosque somewhere. I think if many of the younger people are leaving the Church and converting to Islam the Church needs to look within itself to find out the reason.

Another thing and this is kind of ironic, is that many Western men want to find a pure or traditionally minded woman that he would actually like to settle down and have a family with and those are some slim pickins these days with our secular minded, wild-eyed party girls here in the West these days. I'm sure some young girls would say the same about the irresponsible and reckless young men as well.

I think the main reason why Westerners are attracted to Islam is because much of the Church and Secularism has failed them.

And their hungry for something else.

[fibonacci]

Already noted the set-up nature of your question

However if you want to know about stoning in Shi'a places you should see the film
The Stoning of Soraya M.
(Persian: .سنگسار ثريا م‎)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoning_of_Soraya_M.

 

lol ... yes a hollywood propaganda film is defiantly a great source to use, when discussing islam 


grow up

[orthonorm]

Hmm, OrthodoxChristianity.net = talk about Islam is 100 times more popular. During holy week even... So, what attracts Orthodox Christians to talk about Islam?

This should be clear, identity.

[montalban]

Muslims attract me to Islam. Those that I've met seem genuinely friendly and deeply devout folks. Nice change for secularized Western country where everything seems to be deep-fried in nihilistic humour these days. Sometimes I miss naive ideals, taboos and hierarchies.

They are hospitable. But it's against Islam for them to have non-Moslems as close friends.

It probably depends on whose Islam we're talking about.

Well my theory is that many people don't know their faith all that well. Islam is extremely comprehensive; a ruling on every aspect of your life can be obtained.

For e.g.
  Is it haraam to urinate standing up? .
http://www.islamqa.com/en/ref/9790

(Haraam: Harmful)

However the rules regarding close friends are there. Whether people want to practice them, or know of it is another issue.

Therefore what I said is true; the rules are there. I evidenced this already

From the same web-site as above
Clarification of the important rule: it is haraam to take kaafirs as close friends and protectors
http://www.islamqa.com/en/ref/2179

[fibonacci]

But, I still believe the majority of women who wear hijab are doing it for spiritual, cultural and modesty reasons nto just because they don't want to be raped. Hell that can happen right here in America by non-Muslims. And most assuredly does.

yes this is definitely one of the main reasons for the hijab

protection from jinns, demons, ...etc.

[montalban]

The idea that someone else died on the cross and Jesus escaped the crucifixion is NOT a Quranic idea or an idea that you will find in an authentic, sound hadith.  It's a conjectural claim that commentators have grafted onto the verse for centuries and taken for granted.  I believe that the Quran's is purposefully ambiguous regarding the crucifixion and what really happened.

This is false.

This is what the Koran says on the matter
That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:-
Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise;-
—Qur'an, sura 4 (An-Nisa) ayat 157-158[1]

It was made to appear to them that is the Jews thought that they were crucifying Jesus, but it only appeared to be.

That’s the Koranic basis.

Other evidence:
Ibn Abbas said, "Just before Allah raised Jesus to the Heavens, Jesus went to his disciples, who were twelve inside the house. When he arrived, his hair was dripping with water (as if he had just had a bath) and he said, 'There are those among you who will disbelieve in me twelve times after you had believed in me.' He then asked, 'Who among you will volunteer for his appearance to be transformed into mine, and be killed in my place. Whoever volunteers for that, he will be with me (in Paradise).' One of the youngest ones among them volunteered, but Jesus asked him to sit down. Jesus asked again for a volunteer, and the same young man volunteered and Jesus asked him to sit down again. Then the young man volunteered a third time and Jesus said, 'You will be that man,' and the resemblance of Jesus was cast over that man while Jesus ascended to Heaven from a hole in the roof of the house. When the Jews came looking for Jesus, they found that young man and crucified him. Some of Jesus' followers disbelieved in him twelve times after they had believed in him. They then divided into three groups. One group, the Jacobites, said, 'Allah remained with us as long as He willed and then ascended to Heaven.' Another group, the Nestorians, said, 'The son of Allah was with us as long as he willed and Allah took him to Heaven.' Another group, the Muslims, said, 'The servant and Messenger of Allah remained with us as long as Allah willed, and Allah then took him to Him.' The two disbelieving groups cooperated against the Muslim group and they killed them. Ever since that happened, Islam was then veiled until Allah sent Muhammad."
—Al-Nasa'i, Al-Kubra, 6:489


Also that’s one of the reasons I rejected Islam; Islam’s ‘god’ deceives people.

And montalban, your statement about Muslims not being able to have non-Muslims as close friends is 100% false.

Another 'just-so' statement as rebuttal to the provision of facts. Note above that when I tell you you are wrong, I provide argument to show why. That’s what should happen on a discussion forum.

[orthonorm]

Muslims attract me to Islam. Those that I've met seem genuinely friendly and deeply devout folks. Nice change for secularized Western country where everything seems to be deep-fried in nihilistic humour these days. Sometimes I miss naive ideals, taboos and hierarchies.

They are hospitable. But it's against Islam for them to have non-Moslems as close friends.

It probably depends on whose Islam we're talking about.

Well my theory is that many people don't know their faith all that well. Islam is extremely comprehensive; a ruling on every aspect of your life can be obtained.

For e.g.
  Is it haraam to urinate standing up? .
http://www.islamqa.com/en/ref/9790

(Haraam: Harmful)

However the rules regarding close friends are there. Whether people want to practice them, or know of it is another issue.

Therefore what I said is true; the rules are there. I evidenced this already

From the same web-site as above
Clarification of the important rule: it is haraam to take kaafirs as close friends and protectors
http://www.islamqa.com/en/ref/2179

Here is what Christianity is about:

godhatesfags.com

And this hadith is the stuff I heard discussed by the guys I lived with. And nearly every Muslim I knew urinated standing up often at a bar after drinking alcohol. Crazy I know.

The guys I lived with sat down if that had to urinate before prayer (they didn't go to bars or drink). The other Muslims I knew, I don't think prayed twice a day much less five times.

And the interpretation of this hadith by the guys I lived with was sane, relatively speaking.

Again, we can all point to whatever we want to critique it. I don't see how that hadith or that website's interpretation has any bearing on the OP. As a guy who usually sits, it doesn't motivate me a bit to be a Muslim. I don't think it has reverted anyone else either.

[montalban]

And montalban, your statement about Muslims not being able to have non-Muslims as close friends is 100% false.

I didn't see that. Of course it is. I could probably guess the reasoning he used though. I think it is in a Jack Chick tract.

There's tremendous irony for some taking a moral high-ground about the topic being discussed at this particular time of the year. Then to further reduce a reasoned and evidenced discussion in such a flippant way - with musings on personal motivations as well (thrown in for no added value).

I have posted evidence on two posts, then re-posted one, then reminded another of which posts.

No one, including yourself has engaged in that evidence.

I evidenced Moslems talking about Islam.

For the sake of argument I could be wrong. I could be wrong in the application of the evidence I used. But I provided this. To not deal with it is at best lazy at worse to let those posts go by and then to falsely attribute them to another source (even if in backhand speculation) is exceptionally rude and dishonest.

[montalban]

Muslims attract me to Islam. Those that I've met seem genuinely friendly and deeply devout folks. Nice change for secularized Western country where everything seems to be deep-fried in nihilistic humour these days. Sometimes I miss naive ideals, taboos and hierarchies.

They are hospitable. But it's against Islam for them to have non-Moslems as close friends.

It probably depends on whose Islam we're talking about.

Well my theory is that many people don't know their faith all that well. Islam is extremely comprehensive; a ruling on every aspect of your life can be obtained.

For e.g.
  Is it haraam to urinate standing up? .
http://www.islamqa.com/en/ref/9790

(Haraam: Harmful)

However the rules regarding close friends are there. Whether people want to practice them, or know of it is another issue.

Therefore what I said is true; the rules are there. I evidenced this already

From the same web-site as above
Clarification of the important rule: it is haraam to take kaafirs as close friends and protectors
http://www.islamqa.com/en/ref/2179

Here is what Christianity is about:

godhatesfags.com

Thanks for the attempt at tu quoque

And this hadith is the stuff I heard discussed by the guys I lived with. And nearly every Muslim I knew urinated standing up often at a bar after drinking alcohol. Crazy I know.

The guys I lived with sat down if that had to urinate before prayer (they didn't go to bars or drink). The other Muslims I knew, I don't think prayed twice a day much less five times.

And the interpretation of this hadith by the guys I lived with was sane, relatively speaking.

Again, we can all point to whatever we want to critique it. I don't see how that hadith or that website's interpretation has any bearing on the OP. As a guy who usually sits, it doesn't motivate me a bit to be a Muslim. I don't think it has reverted anyone else either.

You should read the post you're replying to. I am not saying one HAS TO do this. I used this example to evidence how comprehensive Islam is in its rulings

And the site too doesn't say you have to do this. It's not HARAAM to do so.

[montalban]

I don't see what the big problem is with Muslim women practicing a form of modesty by wearing hijab ( which is optional in most of Islam from what I've researched), I believe that more "christian" women could learn a thing or two from Moslems about modesty these days, but men in dressses, well that's so progressive and "chic" these days.

Excepting that it's not just a matter of modesty...

That's whay YOU say......

Three times a charm, hey?


Rather than repost my evidence (I've posted it once, then reposted it), I'd like to point out that I cited several Islamic clerics, including two in this wonderful modern western nation; Australia

Speaking of rape, wasn't your wonderful, modern nation founded as a penal colony for criminals within the Commonwealth?

Not that it's relevant to this discussion but I just thought I'd throw that out there.

You're right, not relevent, and you still making 'just-so' statements and ignoring the evidence I presented several times.

[montalban]

Nothing like insulting a religion with over a billion adherents for the mere practice of a few of their women for actually engaging in a form of modesty that much of the Christian West has totally lost any concept of these days.

Except it's not just a matter of modesty...

That's what YOU say....

No, I produced two lengthy posts with evidence. However not only have you failed to address that you've repeated your 'just-so' statement about modesty several times.

And now a new 'just-so' statement.

(see post #122 and #179, and a re-post at #212)

I went back and read through some of them posts but I don't have the time to possibly go through one of the numerous links in which you cited but I get the gist of what your saying. so, for the most part, I agree ( I know you're shocked) with the point you're trying to get across about Muslim women covering up for more reasons than modesty, like for "protection" as in a deterent against rape since some of these male animals in those cultures feel they have a right to take a female merely for the way she is "revealing" herself to them, as in she's wearing a sign just begging to be raped or something.

That in and of itself is despicable and would never be tolerated by any rational thinking civilization. But I got news for you, it goes on right here in the land of high society, freedom and progression. Moslems hardly hold a monoply on this kind of ape-menatality where women are being raped because she was "asking for it". Just go on a majority of your college campuses today and these kind of rapes are not isolated incidents, young girls are taken all the time against their will because they dressed a little too revealing and were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

As for those clerics commentary about moslem rape, well like I stated before as have a few Moslms posting on this thread, Islam is very divided on these and many issues and it matters not what one cleric says according to another, it's all their own interpretation of Hadith and the Koran. That to me is the scary part of Islam, it's like one big worldwide Sola Scriptura fest and every idiot out there with a Koran is some kind of an "authority" on it's interpretation to suit their own ends. Combine this and some really backwards cultures and you have a recipie for disaster, like women getting raped by cavemen and then chided on top of that because they didn't wear enough clothes. Talk about mental defectives.

But, I still believe the majority of women who wear hijab are doing it for spiritual, cultural and modesty reasons nto just because they don't want to be raped. Hell that can happen right here in America by non-Muslims. And most assuredly does.

Okay, so you're not willing to check my evidence, but you're happy yet again repeating your 'just-so' statement. I've got that.

[stanley123]

Another thing and this is kind of ironic, is that many Western men want to find a pure or traditionally minded woman that he would actually like to settle down and have a family with and those are some slim pickins these days with our secular minded, wild-eyed party girls here in the West these days.

I don't think that this is true. There are a whole lot of wonderful, decent, beautiful, young ladies out there who would make fantastic wives for the right man. 

[Romaios]

Then here's a thought: why have religion at all? They each just impose a somewhat incomplete, impossible or outdated system of rules on everyone that the next generation then finds problems with until a new religion is created for them and so on. Maybe if humans just lived freely and did what they wanted, we wouldn't have all this confusion. Besides, there's no good reason to make one religion truer than the other; if any one religion really was true, then wouldn't it be blatantly obvious?

Good grief. Are you fasting too strictly?

Watching those irreligious frogs shamelessly mate in front of one can become frustrating!   

[fibonacci]

The reason why I think some Christians have problems with Muhammad is really for one reason only: a lot of his morality (from what we read in the biographical accounts, many of which were written 200 years after his death) seems outdated, especially after the coming of Christ.  Otherwise, I don't think there is much separating him from the Old Testament prophets.

But that's exactly the problem. If Muhammed was no different than the Old Testament prophets and preached nothing newer or advanced, then why follow him? What makes Islam unique and worth following? And since humans don't live in "Old Testament" times anymore, how is Islam prepared to guide them if all of its moral tenets and statutes were made to guide "Old Testament"-type people? I see this among Christianity as well in regards to sexual ethics and a couple of other things, but Islam, even more than Christianity, seems ill prepared and incapable of guiding modern man.

the torah talks about prophet Mohammed
unfortunately that majority of jewish rabbis try to keep this info on a low profile and wouldn't let others know about it

[montalban]

The reason why I think some Christians have problems with Muhammad is really for one reason only: a lot of his morality (from what we read in the biographical accounts, many of which were written 200 years after his death) seems outdated, especially after the coming of Christ.  Otherwise, I don't think there is much separating him from the Old Testament prophets.

But that's exactly the problem. If Muhammed was no different than the Old Testament prophets and preached nothing newer or advanced, then why follow him? What makes Islam unique and worth following? And since humans don't live in "Old Testament" times anymore, how is Islam prepared to guide them if all of its moral tenets and statutes were made to guide "Old Testament"-type people? I see this among Christianity as well in regards to sexual ethics and a couple of other things, but Islam, even more than Christianity, seems ill prepared and incapable of guiding modern man.

the torah talks about prophet Mohammed
unfortunately that majority of jewish rabbis try to keep this info on a low profile and wouldn't let others know about it

There's no evidence for this... which is why you've presented none

Anyway Moslems always whine that the Torah and Bible are corrupted yet they continually refer to these books in order to 'prove' Islam.

I've always challenged Moslems to present a version of the Bible that has all the uncorrupted bits highlighted. They can never do this.

[montalban]

Another thing and this is kind of ironic, is that many Western men want to find a pure or traditionally minded woman that he would actually like to settle down and have a family with and those are some slim pickins these days with our secular minded, wild-eyed party girls here in the West these days.

I don't think that this is true. There are a whole lot of wonderful, decent, beautiful, young ladies out there who would make fantastic wives for the right man. 

What I'm looking for in a lady is a poor sense of smell

 

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Free-For-All > Religious Topics (Moderator: minasoliman) > Topic: What Attracts Westerners to Islam?