Tony Blair once again gives me cause to regard him as Bill Clinton with a bad accent:
The roots of the current wave of global terrorism and extremism are deep. They reach down through decades of alienation, victimhood, and political oppression in the Arab and Muslim world. Yet such terrorism is not and never has been inevitable.
To me, the most remarkable thing about the Koran is how progressive it is. I write with great humility as a member of another faith. As an outsider, the Koran strikes me as a reforming book, trying to return Judaism and Christianity to their origins, much as reformers attempted to do with the Christian church centuries later. The Koran is inclusive. It extols science and knowledge and abhors superstition. It is practical and far ahead of its time in attitudes toward marriage, women, and governance.
Under its guidance, the spread of Islam and its dominance over previously Christian or pagan lands were breathtaking. Over centuries, Islam founded an empire and led the world in discovery, art, and culture. The standard-bearers of tolerance in the early Middle Ages were far more likely to be found in Muslim lands than in Christian ones.
Much of this reveals a stunning lack of knowledge or a deceiptful heart toward history and religion. Islam is in many respects a pure bastardization of Judaism with an Arabic flavor, and it is most certainly not a "reforming work" when one actually juxtaposes the New Testament and the Koran. From nearly the beginning, Islam expanded by the sword and had a terribly violent relationship with those around it, one that cannot be attributed to human failings as can be attributed to other religions in the region such as Judaism, Christianity, Manicheanism and Zoroastrianism. Consider the fate of the Banu Quraiza tribe, a Jewish tribe that suffered (and I say this with no hyperbole) a fate that was literally as violently intolerant as anything a Jew would face in pre-Holocaust Nazi Germany--all ordered directly by Mohammed himself!
From the perspective of an outsider to all of the Abrahamic faiths, it is easy to see how Islam could provide a prima facie look of intellectualism, tolerance and reformation. However, to an "insider," this is not so. The largest failing that Judaism has always had, its tendency to be rigidly legalistic, was only amplified at least one order of magnitude by Islam. Christianity introduced the reforming concept of divine grace and mercy, which scripturally ended the arguments for legalism. The very language of the tolerance fantatics such as Tony Blair finds its origins not in the Old Testament/Tanach or the Koran, but rather in the Christian New Testament.
Here's a little experiment for those of you with a little bit of historical knowledge. The next time someone sheepishly repeats the propaganda about Islam maintaining all of the old knowledge while Europe rotted, ask them in a few sentences to tell you what they know about the Byzantine Empire. If they barely know the name or don't even know what you're talking about, politely inform them that the Roman Empire's eastern half didn't collapse until its capitol was conquered by the Muslims not long before the Renaissance. Ahh... and do be a good sport and remind them that by around the 11th-12th century, Baghdad, one of the great Islamic learning centers, had already been all but burned to the ground by the Mongols, a pretty clear sign that Islam's glory years were already spent well before the Renaissance.
Blair's an idiot. Even the members of his own party aren't very enthusiastic about him. I will give him this, though; he does what he thinks is right, regardless of popularity, unlike Bill Clinton who simply followed the political winds.
The largest failing that Judaism has always had, its tendency to be rigidly legalistic
I think the faults of the 1st century Jews were exactly the same as the faults in the American judicial system today. Their problem wasn't that they were following the Torah too rigidly, but that they were interpreting it to say something other than what it actually said. They also tended to rely on their own traditions in favour of Scripture.
Likewise, our problems in this country aren't that we follow the Constitution too rigidly, but that our judges interpret it to mean something other than what it says. They also tend to place a great deal of weight on legal precedent (their own traditions) even when it's contrary to the Constitution.
Jesus was often criticized for violating the law, but He actually followed it to the letter. The Jews of the time just failed to recognize it for what it was, because they were accustomed to the twisted and added-to version.
As for Islam, its history speaks for itself. We'll know them by their fruit, and Islam's fruit is pretty darn bad.
While there is that, I think it goes beyond that with the legalism issue. Back then the Jews, like a lot of Americans today, would go to their leaders for legal rulings on basically anything, and were incapable of really even seeing that there was a "spirit of the law." Most Americans today struggle with the idea that there is a higher calling to pursue justice that may call for radical reasoning and calculation on the part of police, prosecutors, judges and juries. They also have the same problem with the idea that some areas of life are simply unregulated, as the Jews often struggled with as well with the Mosaic Law.
the most remarkable thing about the Koran is how progressive it is.
I felt my supper backing up, w/ this one. It's pretty apparent that he's never read the Koran. If progressive is defined as murderous, intolerant (in its non-PC sense), & wanton in its deprivation of human dignity, he's correct.
It is practical and far ahead of its time in attitudes toward marriage, women,
he said, after striking the wife w/ his fist for showing a bit of ankle.