129 réponses à ce sujet

[Vergil_dgk]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Vergil_dgk wrote...
Ancient Athens was not what we today would refer to as democratic (only 10-20% of citizens could vote, for one thing) and the meaning of the word "democracy" is not covered in the direct translation. Since the time of Aristotle it has been clear that there is a distinction between "mob rule" (where the majority decides everything) and Democracy (with rights and checks of balances on power) it's in Aristotles' wheel of governments in his "Politics" -if I recall correct. So the way I understand democracy has been the basic understanding for some 2500 years I fear. Plato was dead against democracy by the way, he meant something completely different by the word "republic".

Ok, we are  arguing semantics here and it's a waste of time. Depends on how you define democracy. I define the democracy the same way Aristotle and the classical liberals define it, as in mob rule.

But Aristotle does NOT define it as mob rule, he has a clear distinction between mob rule and democracy. Just like he has a distinction between monarchy (positive) and tyrrany (negative). For Aristotle, democracy is a positive, mob rule a negative - it ain't just semantics.

[Tirigon]

Vergil_dgk wrote...

No, no, no, there is little or no similarity between rep. democracy and oligarchy. The differences are glaring: in an oligarchy, the elites repress the voice of the poeple and do what they want, in a democracy the people take active part in the discourse of society through the media and are protected by their rights and the division of power into three institutions. And that's just the beginning... but this is getting to be a stupid and slightly paranoid debate - back to philosophy class ladies and gents!

In a representative democracy, people DO NOT take part in the discourse of society. They are allowed to vote - in germany it´s once every 4 years - thats all. Ok, there are a few (but very few) situations where they are allowed to vote directly for or against something - but this is already a little bit of direct democracy adopted into the representative democracy.

KnightOfPhoenix wrote:

Democracy = Demos (People) + Cratos (power). Power to the people, aka power of the majority of people.

Your
interpretation of democracy is a  modern liberal one not shared by the
Athenians for instance, or by the communist revolutionaries who claimed
that they were democratic (and in many ways, they were).
If you
read Isaiah Berlin, he distinguishes negative liberty and positive
liberty. Negative liberty as in individual rights and freedoms.
Positive liberty as in the choice of who rules.
He goes on to say
that a perfect democracy is one where positive liberty is more
important than negative liberty, where the rule of the majority
(democracy) is above individual rights. That, historically, is true. In
Berlin's thought, a democracy doesn't have to respect individual rights
for it to be democratic. Same with Tocqueville and Mill. NOth saw
democracy as potentially despotic.

This interpretation might be the literal meaning of democracy, but it is, in fact, dictatorship, not what we are used to call democracy (= a way of ruling in which people are free). I do also disagree that "positive freedom is the choice who rules". Freedom is the non-existence of a ruler, not to choose who rules. (Sorry for referring to this assclown again, but Hitler had a great majority who voted for him, was his dictatorship a true democracy? I strongly disagree.)
We need to remember that "the people" is not a homogenous thing but simply a group of individuals. So "rule of the people" means "rule of every person in the country". This is only possible if noone rules over anyone except himself. Personal freedom is only limited by the personal freedom of others. And a democracy must never ignore individual rights. In a true democracy (or anarchy, that is just the same) even the lowest of personal rights ranks higher than the law.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Vergil_dgk wrote...
"the West" and the "islamic world" have been rivals for many hundreds of years, it's not just a case of the "west" being unjust and aggressive towards muslims (though that has happened), the reverese has also been there case (where IS the east Roman empire these days?). That ought to be clear to anyone with more than a smattering of "historical knowledge".

Sure, but historically, I would argue that the West has been far more agrresive and oppresive (or has been more succesful, depends on perspective). The East Roman Empire was a stagnating power, one that was weakened by the fourth crusade BTW, when the crusaders sacked Constantinople.
And as a Jew, I would argue that the Islamic world has been more tolerating and more diverse. Less bigoted.  

[Tirigon]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
Sure, but historically, I would argue that the West has been far more agrresive and oppresive (or has been more succesful, depends on perspective). The East Roman Empire was a stagnating power, one that was weakened by the fourth crusade BTW, when the crusaders sacked Constantinople.
And as a Jew, I would argue that the Islamic world has been more tolerating and more diverse. Less bigoted.  

As a German, I would agree to this. However, past crimes dont justify today´s terrorism. What the West has done to the muslims for centuries was terrible, but it does not justify to kill innocent people today. After all, the victims of islamistic terrorists were not even born when cruelties like the crusades were committed.

[Dark83]

Jeez, I was only tracing back the fear of Islam (which again, really only started in 2001), but if you really go that far back into it, I'll blame your tribe of proto-humans for raiding my tribe of proto-humans for food and women.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Vergil_dgk wrote...
But Aristotle does NOT define it as mob rule, he has a clear distinction between mob rule and democracy. Just like he has a distinction between monarchy (positive) and tyrrany (negative). For Aristotle, democracy is a positive, mob rule a negative - it ain't just semantics.

All the version / translations I read state that Aristotle viewed democracy as negative.
The positive regimes were: Monarchy, Aristocracy and the Politi / The regime (some call it Republic)
The negative regimes are: Tyranny, Oligarchy and democracy / mob rule.

That's the versions / translations I have read.

"Aristotle defines three chief regimes: Kingship, Aristocracy and Polity. These regimes all have a degenerate regime corresponding with it: Tyranny, Oligarchy and Democracy."
http://federalistpub...c-and-politics/
http://www.humanitie...kham/y6704.html

Aristotle used the word demcoracy for mob rule. Whether you choose to define that as democracy or not is semantics. But it's clear how Aristotle defined democracy.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Tirigon wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
Sure, but historically, I would argue that the West has been far more agrresive and oppresive (or has been more succesful, depends on perspective). The East Roman Empire was a stagnating power, one that was weakened by the fourth crusade BTW, when the crusaders sacked Constantinople.
And as a Jew, I would argue that the Islamic world has been more tolerating and more diverse. Less bigoted.  

As a German, I would agree to this. However, past crimes dont justify today´s terrorism. What the West has done to the muslims for centuries was terrible, but it does not justify to kill innocent people today. After all, the victims of islamistic terrorists were not even born when cruelties like the crusades were committed.

I definately agree with you. I am just saying why some are so hateful. And that banning minarets is not helping to try and solve this problem, but on the contrary, is making it worse.
I understand why some people fear Islam. But those same people should understand why some Muslims fear them. Only then, can a peaceful solution be found.

[Tirigon]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
All the version / translations I read state that Aristotle viewed democracy as negative.
The positive regimes were: Monarchy, Aristocracy and the Politi / The regime (some call it Republic)
The negative regimes are: Tyranny, Oligarchy and democracy / mob rule.

That's the versions / translations I have read.

"Aristotle defines three chief regimes: Kingship, Aristocracy and Polity. These regimes all have a degenerate regime corresponding with it: Tyranny, Oligarchy and Democracy."
http://federalistpub...c-and-politics/
http://www.humanitie...kham/y6704.html

Aristotle used the word demcoracy for mob rule. Whether you choose to define that as democracy or not is semantics. But it's clear how Aristotle defined democracy.

In the German translations I know Aristoteles uses democracy as the word for the good thing, mob rule for the bad thing. Damn, we need to find someone who has the original greek texts to solve this:(

However, I dont think it matters that much what a guy who is dead since 2400 years has said.

I definately agree with you. I am just saying why some are so hateful.
And that banning minarets is not helping to try and solve this problem,
but on the contrary, is making it worse.
I understand why
some people fear Islam. But those same people should understand why
some Muslims fear them. Only then, can a peaceful solution be found.

True. Though - as Atheist - I wonder how one can argue about religion so long, even more as Allah and God are exactly the same gods. The muslims even hold Jesus in high regard, and Maria etc... I dont see why they disagree so hardly. And I dont see why the right to have minarets in the Suisse - or churches in muslim countries - is so important. Not only that I would have liked if we had no church in my village, but if you really believe in a god, why do you think he needs a certain kind of building to accept your prayers?

Modifié par Tirigon, 29 décembre 2009 - 06:38 .

[Vergil_dgk]

Tirigon:



In my country the politicians are constantly monitoring public debate - commenting on everything that happens and ready to take action if they feel a case resonates with the people. My country is a rep. democracy, but the public debate is a way that the people can influence the politicians outside election time and they very obviously do. I've lived in your country and in my estimation it is the same there, think of the recent debate about Thilo Sarrazin (not sure how to spell his name), that's public discourse for you, not controlled by the politicians though they parttake.



Phoenix:



Well you can always aruge who have been the worse aggressors. Definitely the west in the colonial times, but probably just as definitely the islamic world back in the middle ages. I would say that the muslim empires where stagnating powers just as the east roman empire before them. And while the Osmans had a degree of tolerance in their way of governing, it certainly wasn't always the case. After all, where ARE all those christians who lived in it these days? I agree with Tirigon that past crimes are no measuring stick for who should be on the current high-horse.

[Dark83]

Tirigon wrote...
However, I dont think it matters that much what a guy who is dead since 2400 years has said.

The majority of America follows what a guy who was born 2000 years ago says.

[Tirigon]

Vergil_dgk wrote...

Tirigon:

In my country the politicians are constantly monitoring public debate - commenting on everything that happens and ready to take action if they feel a case resonates with the people. My country is a rep. democracy, but the public debate is a way that the people can influence the politicians outside election time and they very obviously do. I've lived in your country and in my estimation it is the same there, think of the recent debate about Thilo Sarrazin (not sure how to spell his name), that's public discourse for you, not controlled by the politicians though they parttake.

Well, yes, there was this debate about him (afaik you spelled him right, btw) and debates like that happen all the time. But this does not really mean that the people can decide. For one thing, only writers, celebrities or people of public interest, not everyone, can take part in a way that might influence something. And then, it´s only such unimportant things. A politician is blamed for what he says and might have to retreat therefore, but we dont have a right to decide over major things. Taking part in the Afghanistan war, staying out of the Iraq war, introducing the Euro, the Lissabon treaty.... all such things should have been decided by public elections, but they weren´t.

[Tirigon]

Dark83 wrote...

Tirigon wrote...
However, I dont think it matters that much what a guy who is dead since 2400 years has said.

The majority of America follows what a guy who was born 2000 years ago says.

I´ve read somewhere (quite recently, not 2000 years old) that the majority of Americans is quite stupid.:P:P

[KnightofPhoenix]

Vergil_dgk wrote...
Well you can always aruge who have been the worse aggressors. Definitely the west in the colonial times, but probably just as definitely the islamic world back in the middle ages. I would say that the muslim empires where stagnating powers just as the east roman empire before them. And while the Osmans had a degree of tolerance in their way of governing, it certainly wasn't always the case. After all, where ARE all those christians who lived in it these days? I agree with Tirigon that past crimes are no measuring stick for who should be on the current high-horse.

The Christians are still there. I went to Syria last year and I was surprised at the amount of Christians there. And there was ALOT of Churches, some even had the original Umar Treaty that was signed in the 7th century, that formally protected Christians.
It was Christmas, and Muslims and Christians alike celebrate together, just like Chrisians celebrate Muslim holdays. In fact, they had the biggest Christmas tree in the Mideast in some square. The Arab world has millions of Christians that lived there for centuries.  

The Islamic world, in its thousand + year old history, has clearly known more toleration and diversity then the Western world. It was only 60 years ago that the holocaust happened afterall. And even during their heigh and golden age, they weren't as violent and oppresive as europeans. They didn't create an inquisition. They didn't expell Christians and Jews from their lands. They didn't slaughter thousands of people on holy ground...etc etc. 

But I don't want to villify Europeans of course. Perhaps I am biased and I identify with my Semitic cousins more.
 And this is very very off-topic, so lets not do this any further.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 29 décembre 2009 - 06:51 .

[Vergil_dgk]

My English translation of Aristotle has the greek on the opposite page and as far as I recall he makes that distinction there. I'm not at liberty to get it as I'm not at home atm. However coming to think of it, I think Aristotle didn't come up with the wheel of governments himself but adopted it from someone else and commented on it. Each form of government had a positive and a negative "form", the positive being moderate (remember Aristotle was the guy with the golden meridian aka middle road is best -thing) and the negative excessive. So far that to make sense there must logically be a negative and positive "mass rule" (democracy" vs. mob rule), "single rule" (monarchy vs. tyrrany) and "few rule" (aristocracy vs. oligarchy). That's how it works and also why I'm pretty sure there democracy is positive and mob rule negative. Remember also that Aristotle was more of a scientist than many philosophers often observing more than judging.

[Vergil_dgk]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Vergil_dgk wrote...
Well you can always aruge who have been the worse aggressors. Definitely the west in the colonial times, but probably just as definitely the islamic world back in the middle ages. I would say that the muslim empires where stagnating powers just as the east roman empire before them. And while the Osmans had a degree of tolerance in their way of governing, it certainly wasn't always the case. After all, where ARE all those christians who lived in it these days? I agree with Tirigon that past crimes are no measuring stick for who should be on the current high-horse.

The Christians are still there. I went to Syria last year and I was surprised at the amount of Christians there. And there was ALOT of Churches, some even had the original Umar Treaty that was signed in the 7th century, that formally protected Christians.
It was Christmas, and Muslims and Christians alike celebrate together, just like Chrisians celebrate Muslim holdays. In fact, they had the biggest Christmas tree in the Mideast in some square. The Arab world has millions of Christians that lived there for centuries.  

The Islamic world, in its thousand + year old history, has clearly known more toleration and diversity then the Western world. It was only 60 years ago that the holocaust happened afterall. And even during their heigh and golden age, they weren't as violent and oppresive as europeans. They didn't create an inquisition. They didn't expell Christians and Jews from their lands. They didn't slaughter thousands of people on holy ground...etc etc. 

But I don't want to villify Europeans of course. Perhaps I am biased and I identify with my Semitic cousins more.
 And this is very very off-topic, so lets not do this any further.

well the islamic world has had its own holocausts - against the christian Armenians in turkey and against millions of hindus in india - but I'll agree that it has had bright spots as well. I work for the Red Cross and in my country we have received thousands of christian refugees from Iraq and syria in recent years - they are NOT happy with the way they were treated back in their homes. Remember also that in many muslim countries it's illegal to build new churches or to convert from islam on pain of death. But you are right that this is off topic, so I'll leave it too, because I sure realize that western treatment of the islamic world hasn't been glorious either...

[KnightofPhoenix]

Tirigon wrote...

I definately agree with you. I am just saying why some are so hateful.
And that banning minarets is not helping to try and solve this problem,
but on the contrary, is making it worse.
I understand why
some people fear Islam. But those same people should understand why
some Muslims fear them. Only then, can a peaceful solution be found.

True. Though - as Atheist - I wonder how one can argue about religion so long, even more as Allah and God are exactly the same gods. The muslims even hold Jesus in high regard, and Maria etc... I dont see why they disagree so hardly. And I dont see why the right to have minarets in the Suisse - or churches in muslim countries - is so important. Not only that I would have liked if we had no church in my village, but if you really believe in a god, why do you think he needs a certain kind of building to accept your prayers?

Muslims view Jesus as the Messiah and there is a verse especially dedicated to Mary in the Qu'ran.
There are Churches in the Muslim world, lots of them. As far as I know, only Saudi Arabia forbids them (depends on the city, Jedah has Churches for instance), but all others do not.

Temples are a tradition. Of course we can argue whether they are really important or not. but that's another issue. Even if they are not important, when you are refused the right to build one for your faith, it will offend you.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Vergil_dgk wrote...
well the islamic world has had its own holocausts - against the christian Armenians in turkey and against millions of hindus in india - but I'll agree that it has had bright spots as well. I work for the Red Cross and in my country we have received thousands of christian refugees from Iraq and syria in recent years - they are NOT happy with the way they were treated back in their homes. Remember also that in many muslim countries it's illegal to build new churches or to convert from islam on pain of death. But you are right that this is off topic, so I'll leave it too, because I sure realize that western treatment of the islamic world hasn't been glorious either...

The Armenian genocide was perpatrated by the Young Turks who were very westernised and anti-Islamic.
Even Muslims refugees are not happy with the way they are treated. The Mid east is a disaster now, no one is happy. But I doubt that Syrian christians are unhappy, as in persecuted,, as I met many of them.

I am not saying that the Islamic world is perfect, especially not now. But if I was given the choice to live in the Islamic world at the apex of its glory, I certainly would.

But enough, I don't know why and how this degenerated this far.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 29 décembre 2009 - 07:03 .

[Vergil_dgk]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Tirigon wrote...

I definately agree with you. I am just saying why some are so hateful.
And that banning minarets is not helping to try and solve this problem,
but on the contrary, is making it worse.
I understand why
some people fear Islam. But those same people should understand why
some Muslims fear them. Only then, can a peaceful solution be found.

True. Though - as Atheist - I wonder how one can argue about religion so long, even more as Allah and God are exactly the same gods. The muslims even hold Jesus in high regard, and Maria etc... I dont see why they disagree so hardly. And I dont see why the right to have minarets in the Suisse - or churches in muslim countries - is so important. Not only that I would have liked if we had no church in my village, but if you really believe in a god, why do you think he needs a certain kind of building to accept your prayers?

Muslims view Jesus as the Messiah and there is a verse especially dedicated to Mary in the Qu'ran.
There are Churches in the Muslim world, lots of them. As far as I know, only Saudi Arabia forbids them (depends on the city, Jedah has Churches for instance), but all others do not.

Temples are a tradition. Of course we can argue whether they are really important or not. but that's another issue. Even if they are not important, when you are refused the right to build one for your faith, it will offend you.

I've read the Quran, actually. They don't view Jesus as the messiah but as a prophet in a long line of prophets speaking the word of God. Muhammad is the final messenger delivering the "complete" message as the rest of them were distorted somewhat (-this point of view can be really infuriating to my christian students). There certainly ARE churches in the islamic world, the point is that it is forbidden to build NEW ones - and conversion incurs the death penalty. It is also illegal for a christian man to marry a muslim woman while the reverse is ok. Talk about discrimination.<_< Jewish temples re also ok since Moses is also recognized as one of the prophets (same status as Jesus). However, Buddhists and Hindus are "Khuffar" which basically means "no, no"  (literally something like: "ignorant")

[KnightofPhoenix]

Vergil_dgk wrote...

I've read the Quran, actually. They don't view Jesus as the messiah but as a prophet in a long line of prophets speaking the word of God. Muhammad is the final messenger delivering the "complete" message as the rest of them were distorted somewhat (-this point of view can be really infuriating to my christian students). There certainly ARE churches in the islamic world, the point is that it is forbidden to build NEW ones - and conversion incurs the death penalty. It is also illegal for a christian man to marry a muslim woman while the reverse is ok. Talk about discrimination.<_< Jewish temples re also ok since Moses is also recognized as one of the prophets (same status as Jesus). However, Buddhists and Hindus are "Khuffar" which basically means "no, no"  (literally something like: "ignorant")

You clearly haven't. Jesus is viewed as the Messiah by Muslims. And they say he will return during the Second coming. All in the Qu'ran. While Muhammad is the last messenger, Jesus will be the one to return and fight the dajjal / Anti-christ, fullfilling the prophecy of the Messiah. It's all in the Qu'ran and the hadiths.
There are newly built Churches in Syria for instance, I have seen them. It's only officially forbidden in Medina and Mecca back in the old days.

Literraly kaffir means "one who hides the truth" or fights against it . It has the same word root in Hebrew. Doesn't necessarily mean ignorant.
And Hindus and Buddhist recieved the status of dhimmis (protect peoples) during the Caliphates and the Mughals. Infact, it was the Buddhists who assisted the Muslim conquest, because they were mistreated by the Brahmins.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 29 décembre 2009 - 07:12 .

[Vergil_dgk]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Vergil_dgk wrote...

I've read the Quran, actually. They don't view Jesus as the messiah but as a prophet in a long line of prophets speaking the word of God. Muhammad is the final messenger delivering the "complete" message as the rest of them were distorted somewhat (-this point of view can be really infuriating to my christian students). There certainly ARE churches in the islamic world, the point is that it is forbidden to build NEW ones - and conversion incurs the death penalty. It is also illegal for a christian man to marry a muslim woman while the reverse is ok. Talk about discrimination.<_< Jewish temples re also ok since Moses is also recognized as one of the prophets (same status as Jesus). However, Buddhists and Hindus are "Khuffar" which basically means "no, no"  (literally something like: "ignorant")

You clearly haven't. Jesus is viewed as the Messiah by Muslims. And they say he will return during the Second coming. All in the Qu'ran. While Muhammad is the last messenger, Jesus will be the one to return and fight the dajjal / Anti-christ, fullfilling the prophecy of the Messiah. It's all in the Qu'ran and the hadiths.
There are newly built Churches in Syria for instance, I have seen them. It's only officially forbidden in Medina and Mecca back in the old days.

No, literraly kaffir means "one who hides the truth". It has the same word root in Hebrew.
And Hindus and Buddhist recieved the status of dhimmis (protect peoples) during the Caliphates and the Mughals. I nfact, it was the Buddhists who assisted the Muslim conquest, because they were mistreated by the Brahmins.

Oh no, I have, from page 1 till the bitter end (though not in arabic): Jesus is not the messiah, though it is true that he will return on the day of judgment (because he never died - prophets in islam are by definition victorious and succesful). He is a messenger just like Mohammad, and not even a "law" prophet. Go to wikipedia and write "jesus in islam" or something and you'll see. Maybe Syria allows churches to be built (remember that Syria is ruled by a small sect called alawi, not sunni or shia muslims), but that isn't the case in Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Iran and all that other stuff about conversion and marriage that I wrote is certainly true as well (and perhaps more significant).

[Vergil_dgk]

Huh, just checked wiki myself and can see that they do use the term "messiah" about Jesus - but in a different way from how jews and christians use the word - here it just means the "anointed one" - meaning he isn't divine. I guess we are both right there.

[Vergil_dgk]

I should also say that the Quran I read was translated by a so called Ahmadiyya muslim (it was the only translation available in my language at the time), and I recall that they have some differing views of Jesus from the mainstream muslim tradition. I have since aquired a "secular" translation, but have only reread it in patches.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Vergil_dgk wrote...
Oh no, I have, from page 1 till the bitter end (though not in arabic): Jesus is not the messiah, though it is true that he will return on the day of judgment (because he never died - prophets in islam are by definition victorious and succesful). He is a messenger just like Mohammad, and not even a "law" prophet. Go to wikipedia and write "jesus in islam" or something and you'll see. Maybe Syria allows churches to be built (remember that Syria is ruled by a small sect called alawi, not sunni or shia muslims), but that isn't the case in Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Iran and all that other stuff about conversion and marriage that I wrote is certainly true as well (and perhaps more significant).

Jesus is called Al Masih by Muslims and in the Qu'ran. Al Masih means the Messiah. Jesus will return and kill the anti-christ / dajjal. that makes him the messiah (Jews would disagree). The Islamic conception of the Messiah, might be different from the Christian and Jewish one (especially the Christian one). But in the eyes of Muslims, it is Jesus who will return in the end of days and lead the believers to victory agai nst al dajjal. That's makes him a messianic figure.

Newly built Churches as in during the Islamic caliphate, not under this regime only.

EDIT: OF course, messiah doesn't mean you are divine. Both the Jews and Muslims reject the idea of the Messiah being anything other than human.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 29 décembre 2009 - 07:33 .

[Vergil_dgk]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Vergil_dgk wrote...
Oh no, I have, from page 1 till the bitter end (though not in arabic): Jesus is not the messiah, though it is true that he will return on the day of judgment (because he never died - prophets in islam are by definition victorious and succesful). He is a messenger just like Mohammad, and not even a "law" prophet. Go to wikipedia and write "jesus in islam" or something and you'll see. Maybe Syria allows churches to be built (remember that Syria is ruled by a small sect called alawi, not sunni or shia muslims), but that isn't the case in Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Iran and all that other stuff about conversion and marriage that I wrote is certainly true as well (and perhaps more significant).

Jesus is called Al Masih by Muslims and in the Qu'ran. Al Masih means the Messiah. Jesus will return and kill the anti-christ / dajjal. that makes him the messiah (We Jews would disagree). The Islamic conception of the Messiah, might be different from the Christian and Jewish one. But in the eyes of Muslims, it is Jesus who will return in the end of days and lead the believers to victory against al dajjal. That's makes him a messianic figure.

Newly built Churches as in during the Islamic caliphate, not under this regime only.

EDIT: OF course, messiah doesn't mean you are divine. Both the Jews and Muslims reject the idea of the Messiah being anything other than human.

As I undestand it, Jesus will return alongside the Madhi - whom I see more as an equivalent to the messiah in islam (that's certainly the guy they talk about all the time). It's been a big debate between christian and muslim scholars whether Jesus has a "special"  status in islam compared to other prophets and I understand that most muslim scholars reject this because they want to make clear that Mohammad is the "seal" of the prophets - not that I've been a close observer of that debate. But if Jesus is "messiah" in islam, it's certainly got very little to do with the christian view of him as messiah.

[Vergil_dgk]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Vergil_dgk wrote...
Oh no, I have, from page 1 till the bitter end (though not in arabic): Jesus is not the messiah, though it is true that he will return on the day of judgment (because he never died - prophets in islam are by definition victorious and succesful). He is a messenger just like Mohammad, and not even a "law" prophet. Go to wikipedia and write "jesus in islam" or something and you'll see. Maybe Syria allows churches to be built (remember that Syria is ruled by a small sect called alawi, not sunni or shia muslims), but that isn't the case in Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Iran and all that other stuff about conversion and marriage that I wrote is certainly true as well (and perhaps more significant).

Jesus is called Al Masih by Muslims and in the Qu'ran. Al Masih means the Messiah. Jesus will return and kill the anti-christ / dajjal. that makes him the messiah (We Jews would disagree). The Islamic conception of the Messiah, might be different from the Christian and Jewish one. But in the eyes of Muslims, it is Jesus who will return in the end of days and lead the believers to victory against al dajjal. That's makes him a messianic figure.

Newly built Churches as in during the Islamic caliphate, not under this regime only.

EDIT: OF course, messiah doesn't mean you are divine. Both the Jews and Muslims reject the idea of the Messiah being anything other than human.

As I undestand it, Jesus will return alongside the Madhi - whom I see more as an equivalent to the messiah in islam (that's certainly the guy they talk about all the time). It's been a big debate between christian and muslim scholars whether Jesus has a "special"  status in islam compared to other prophets and I understand that most muslim scholars reject this because they want to make clear that Mohammad is the "seal" of the prophets - not that I've been a close observer of that debate. But if Jesus is "messiah" in islam, it's certainly got very little to do with the christian view of him as messiah.