Christianity has no physical constraints; nowhere you have to go, nothing you have to do (beyond the initial acceptance of salvation, which is spiritual), no particular foods to eat, no particular clothes to wear, no particular people to venerate.
Mohammed was a warlord who took up political power ferverently; Jesus only association with violence is in stopping it, and he never sought any political power.
Roman Catholicism and Papistry perhaps resembles Islam somewhat, but that's in contradiction to the New Testament.
Christianity prior to the 19th Century had quite a lot to do with politics, and some particularly large sects in the United States would still insist that their faith commands them to engage politically in ways you might consider "subjugation".
Half of all Christians are Roman Catholic. There are still a couple of Anglican, Lutheran and Eastern Orthodox state churches today. Dominion theology is well alive within evangelical circles.
Sure, it's possible to make a case for secularism within a Christian context (render unto Caesar, my kingdom is not of this world, ...), but that's not the only case you can make: The God of Christianity is also the God of the Old Testament, and that guy was not a fan of the separation of church and state...
Typical western misunderstanding of islam, treating all religions as equally stupid or equally good, islam, unlike christianity, is inherently immersed in politics since day one. Mohammed was a political figure and a "warrior" who subjugated the disbelievers to his will by all means, the "caliph" means in arabic, successor, the prophet's successor, it's his duty, according the quran to wage war on all the disbelievers until they submit to the true word of god.
Christianity itself, on the other hand, is almost has nothing to do with politics according to the new testament.
Christianity has everything to do with politics. A critical facet of Roman empire were various religious cults. These were effectively replaced by christian service.
Constantine's embrace of christianity can be considered as a similar event as Mohammed's ride to Mecca:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_the_Great_and_Chri...
Where Islam was crafted as a utility to govern Mecca, early Christianity after Constantine was basically crafted with the politics of governing Rome as one of the constraint. Regardless of the piety of early church fathers, their designs for the organization and creed were to govern the lives of people in a very concrete way. Hence - politics.
For a thousand year (or so) the Roman Catholic church was the kingmaker in Europe.
The rise of lutheranism was as much political movement as religious. While Luther's theology provided the philosophical context, the political driving force were german princes who were envious of the political power and wealth of the catholic church.
http://omaryoussefworldhistoryais.blogspot.fi/2011/10/why-di...
I would also like to point out that early Islam was far more tolerant of other creeds than early state christianity.
Jesus lead armies to murder those who wouldn't join his religion, then realised that he could keep some alive and tax them instead .. so the men then got a choice to convert or pay tax, women and children were still raped and taken as slaves however.
Oh wait, that was someone else as reported in other religious texts.
To quote from wikipedia, early muslim conquests did not mind other religions (they were not exactly equal citizens, though):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_other_religions#Earl...
Then compare this, for example, with Spain's expulsion of Jews:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_Jews_from_Spain
Jews were expelled from catholic spain, and the diaspora went to muslim countries, among other places.
Late christian sentiment is a bit different thing altogether, as affluent europeans finally started to actually think about the humanistic message in new testament in wider context, which led to termination of slavery and so on. Early christians were probably drawn to this powerful message. When christianity became a state tool, the effective practices diverged to acommodate the needs of the state and power.
I'm not raising these as examples to prove moral superiority either way. I'm raising these to point out that to claim one is bigoted in it's first principles while the other is not, or some such generalization, is empirically false.
Both muslim and christian civilizations have shown humanistic tendencies as xenophobic and brutal ones as well. Secular economics and politics have been the driving forces of historical development as much as the theological basis of the regionally dominants power theology, if not more so.
Organized religion foremost is a form of political control over people. It's complected with cultural identity in a deep, difficult way, but the identity of a people and the currently accepted dogma are not (necessarily) the same thing.
>islam, unlike christianity, is inherently immersed in politics
I wish you could time travel to medieval times. ;)
Islam, Christianity, juduism, etc all are same fundamentally. But the christianity has lost its power in recent centuries and become (a little) adaptated to the modern societies.
I didn't say the in medieval times, things weren't shit for Europe. But Christianity itself is not immersed in politics like Islam. This is a fact not an opinion.
I wish you could read the quran in arabic.
You can claim modern Christianity is not obsessed with power, but we know the old version was. Who knows about future version of Christianity!
The problem with Islam is it has not transformed to modern religion. But it will be! As Christianity did.
The punishment for apostasy are also quite different across abrahamic religions. You can't argue for abolishing death penalty for apostates and yet, be considered adhering to Islam's core tenets.
These two things, among others, pose unique challenges for reforms in Islam.
There is a verse in the Bible that tells you to kill your children if they are disrespectful ("For anyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death; he has cursed his father or his mother; his blood is upon him. "). Noone gives a damn any more. Perhaps it will be the same for the interpretation of Islam at some point in the future. Otherwise the culture clash will not disappear.
Of course, this didn't stop people from interpreting the texts differently. Surely this has always been controversial and caused major strifes and wars between different Christian fractions. Isn't that pretty similar to how Islam has hundreds of different interpretations? http://theconversation.com/why-is-islam-so-different-in-diff...
Some versions (ie translations) are presented with a political end, but they're relatively easily weeded out.
Translations tend to sit on a range from translating the idea to translating the specific words - that's why every Christian I know uses different versions, concordances, Bible dictionaries etc..
There are overarching themes that are not in dispute in these religious texts.
Don't the apocrypha make that a bit more complicated?
The core of the canon is still essentially the same as described by Athanasius[1]. He had the following to say about the apocryphal/deuterocanonical books:
there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness
Consensus changed, and the books were incorporated into the proper canon. Centuries later, Martin Luther thought the church to be corrupt and its traditions no longer trustworthy; he argued that doctrine should be re-derived from Scripture alone. Given that the canon was itself a product of said tradition, he re-examined it and came to the conclusion that the deuterocanonical books shouldn't be considered capital-S Scripture. Fewer people are aware that he had similar misgivings about parts of the New Testament as well (Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation).
To get a peacful Islam, all you need is a shift in pereception. Start seeing things allegorically and whatnot. Christianity could do it. Islam can do it. In fact it did. Check out Sufism.
I do consider the Sufis as part of the larger Umma. But not all islamic sects do. The differences often serve as an excuse for war.
Isn't that grounds for legitimate criticism, then? Un-modern religions have no place in a modern world.
In tech we're so quick to throw even 5-year old concepts out as obsolete, why must Islam be defended in its obsolescence?
I didn’t defend Islam! I attacked all religions. You can not say Islam is essentially bad while Christianity is not that bad. They are fundamentally same. In my opinion they all are bs. But Christianity is transformed under presure, that pressure was not there for Islam until last 20, 30 years. So islam hasn’t transformed yet.
That doesn’t make Christianity better or Islam worse.
>>As middle eastern who was 100% okay with what you said you totally lost me when you said : >islam, unlike christianity, is inherently immersed in politics
Islam can't be modernised and still be Islam because it dictates a political order and holds a pre-medieval warlord as the ideal person.
They're fundamentally different in this respect at least.
"Modern" is the keyword for degeneration, religion has to be definitive, not something you can toy around. You can simply do not believe and move on...
Wrong. Please search about relation between Christianity (or Judaisim for that matter) and power.
>I wish you could read the quran in arabic.
yeap, they did force us to read that stupid book for 12 year (elementary, middle, high school) in Iran. So I can say I am pretty familiar with it.
Perhaps it's true for some sects, it certainly was true of Christianity for over a millennia, but is it true of all?