Anyone notice how the press is lifting up Islam while smearing Christianity?

[anvi]

I think the media reports both very positive and very negative stories about Muslims everywhere.  Just today, in Japan's Asahi news, there is a report about Muslims in Japan volunteering to help homeless earthquake and tsunami victims by cooking meals for all those in shelters every day.  There are also stores about bombings instigated by Muslim terror groups, harsh treatment and sentences handed down against women in Muslim countries, and plans by Iran to further develop their nuclear arsenal and casting aspersions and threats at Israel.  It's all real, so it should all get reported, and we have to sort it out.

By the way, the verses from the Qur'an like the ones you quoted, jmf, were ones Muslim scriptural commentators would argue are about specific historical conflicts between early Muslims and Qurash, the battle of Badr and so forth.  Understanding those passages from the Qur'an as general directives for how Muslims should treat Jews and Christians would be like taking God's specific instructions to the ancient Israelites to conquer cities in Canaan in the Hebrew Bible like general directives for how modern Israelites should treat Palestinians.  Taking isolated verses out of context often does poor justice to the meanings of scriptures.  If that's true of the Bible, it will also be true of the Qur'an.  What sort of impression would, say, non-Christians who knew very little about the religion have about it if the only things they ever heard about the Christian Bible were verses like these, apart from their context?

(Moses commanded:) "Kill all the male children.  Kill also all the women who have slept with a man.  Spare the lives only of the young girls who have not slept with a man, and take them for yourselves."  Numbers 31:17-18.

(God said:)  "You for your part must make no covenant with the inhabitants of this country; you must destroy their alters.  But you have not obeyed my orders.  What is it that you have done.  Very well, I now say this.  I am going to drive out these nations before you."  Judges 2:2-3.

(Jesus speaking to "the Jews"):  "The devil is your father, and you prefer to do what your father wants.  He was a murderer from the start; he was never grounded in the truth;...he is a liar and the father of lies." John 8:44.

But, having said all that, there are lots of examples from Islamic history, and from today, of Muslims using Qur'anic verses to justify violence in the name of their political causes; just as there are some examples of such behavior from Christian history.  There are certainly plenty of examples of Muslim societies in the past that expanded through violence, war and conquest, and there are Muslims in the modern world who do indeed believe that all human societies should live under Sharia.  I have no problem calling out Muslims who believe and do these things, I think everyone should, including other Muslims. 

But, back to the "it's all true" theme, there are also lots of examples of religious toleration and openness in Islamic history (Spain for a number centuries under Muslim rule, India under Mughal rule, ect), just as there are examples of the same in Christian history.  One of the profs I had in graduate school was a Muslim guy from Lebanon, an expert in the history of Qur'an and Hadith interpretation, who believes that Sharia and all traditional schools of Islamic jurisprudence should be abolished everywhere, even in Muslim countries.  He said that everywhere he went, no matter how much criticism he came under by other Muslims when he did so. 

Neither the Bible nor the Qur'an, neither followers of Christianity nor Islam, can be reduced to one set of beliefs, interpretations and political aims.  We should, in my view, openly deal with it all, criticize what's nefarious and praise what's good.  If there is a God, he might be simple truth, justice and wisdom--but for our part, we human beings are just a complicated and contradictory mess.

[anvi]

These are the Qur'an verses you quoted, jmf, putting the two from Sura 9 together.

“Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home: an evil fate.” Sura 9:73

“Fight against such of those to whom the Scriptures were given as believe neither in Allah nor the Last Day, who do not forbid what Allah and His apostle have forbidden and do not embrace the true faith until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued.” Sura 9:29

“Mohammed is Allah’s apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another.” Sura 48:29

Regarding the first two quotes, it's quite clear that the entirety of Sura 9 is about people who have been "idol worshippers" (9:1) who "entered into a peace treaty with you (Muslims) at the great masjid" (9:7).  If these "idol worshipers" abide by the terms of the treaty (9:7), recognize the salat prayers and pay the zakat charity tax (9:5) and do not "confess their disbelief inside of mosques," (9:17), then Muslims are enjoined to treat them well.  If however they abandon the terms of the treaty and "attack" Muslims, then Muslims are enjoined to fight them (9:11-15).  The "idol worshippers" ("unbelievers") that are the subject of in this sura are the residents of Mecca who had formerly fought wars against Muslims in Medina and who, after being defeated in the battle of Badr, surrendered and entered into the treaty being spoken about.  The instructions about fighting unbelievers in the sura are therefore historically specific, and even whether Muslims are supposed to fight against them is contingent on several factors.

The verses in sura 48 are also about specific sets of people, namely "the Arabs who are sedentary" and "stay behind" (48:11, 15-16) and "those who would fight against you" (48:22) and "those who barred you from the sacred masjid (in Mecca)" (48:25).  The whole of verse 29, which you didn't quote, makes reference to, in contrast to the first two groups, "believers" who "prostrate," examples of whom are not only Muslims, but people spoken about "in the Torah" and "in the Gospel."  The passage once again is taking aim at dissident Arabs in the time after the Muslim takeover of Medina, and specifically distinguishes Jews and Christians as being believers and not unbelievers.    

I think all these verses are addressed quite directly to people in a specific historical context.  Now it's certainly true that there have been and continue to be Muslims who believe they are general directives, and who use these verses for all kinds of terrible purposes.

As far as I'm personally concerned, jmf, the historical Muhammad was an Arab trader who entertained political ambitions of uniting the Arabian peninsula and himself. of his own invention, propagated a generic form of monotheism to unite a society both politically and militarily around his causes.  I don't have any dog in the fight of defending Islam as a religion (I don't have a dog in the fight of defending any religion).  But I do think their religious literature should be read, like everyone else's, with respect to its many contexts.  And I know that there are billions of Muslims around the world, and only a considerable minority among them believe that the whole world should be converted to Islam and forced to obey sharia everywhere.  The ones who claim that it should, and take up arms to try to achieve that goal, are going to be a problem for us and everyone else who isn't Muslim.  Those who don't believe such a thing shouldn't be treated like they do.  That's all I'm saying.

[anvi]

Well, with regard to the first poll, my original claim was that a considerable minority of Muslims want sharia law to be adopted the world over.  The fact that majorities of Muslims may want religion influencing politics and determining some law in their own countries is not surprising.  

There are some important qualifications in the second poll you posted too.  

It's 40% of British Muslims who want sharia introduced "into parts of the country," not the whole of it.  It's also worth noting that, when the British colonized India, they allowed Muslims and members of other religions to set up "personal law courts," where Muslims could have civil matters like marriage, divorce, inheritance and so on decided according to their own customs and laws, while everyone was subject to the same criminal law.  I don't know for sure, but because there is precedent for this kind of thing in British jurisprudence, maybe British Muslims want something like that.  Now, I'll admit that it's true that British Muslims are as a group more radicalized than American Muslims.  But British Muslims make up about 3% of the entire British population, and it's less than half that group that wants sharia "in some parts" of the country, which all means that "British sharia" isn't very likely to ever be a reality.

But, I understand that the criticism that you're raising in this thread is against media portrayals.  If the complaint is that Muslims are treated favorably by some in the media who at the same time are hostile to Christian beliefs, I'm sure that's true.

[anvi]

Well, according to Wikipedia, Muslims have the following population percentages in European countries:  Austria 4%, Belgium 3%, Czech Republic .1%, Denmark 2%, Finland .2%, France 6%, Germany 4%, Greece 3%, Ireland .5%, Italy .1%, Netherlands 6%, Norway 1%, Sweden 2%, Switzerland 4%, U.K 3%.  In Canada, Muslims make up 2% of the population, and in the U.S., less than 1%.  

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

Do you really think that their population growth in the next few generations, relative to the population growth of people of other religious or secular persuasions, will increase their numbers sufficiently to impose sharia on any of these countries?  Even when only percentages of these groups believe such a thing should be done?  Won't happen.

I had thought that the thread topic was portrayals of Muslims vs. Christians in the media.  But, now that the topic has turned to U.S. domestic and foreign policy, what you are saying is that we should tell Muslims around the world, whether they are in power or revolutionaries, that, if they incorporate any portion of sharia into their legal and political institutions, we will...do what exactly, not enter into diplomatic relations with them, cut off trade with them, go to war with them?  And domestically, we should tell Muslims here that they should...not express their views, especially when their views are horribly wrong, as in the case of holocaust denial?  What was that again about freedom of speech?  And no school board in the U.S. is going to succumb to pressure from anyone who wants their curriculum not to include teaching about the holocaust. Free speech for everyone means that such views will be roundly and loudly refuted and denounced.

I don't know, jmf.  I wouldn't want to live in a Muslim country that represses individual freedoms, and I agree that, where such policies exist, we should express our firm opposition to them, whether it's Iran or China or anywhere.  I also would oppose anyone calling for the curtailing of the basic human liberties that I too believe in here.  But, on the international stage, we are not masters of the universe and we can't control everything; if we tried to, we would sink ourselves.  And, on the domestic front, I don't feel like my freedoms are being threatened by this particular cross-section of less than 1% of the populous, so I guess I'm just not as worried about it as you. 

[anvi]

It also didn't really seem to me that the either the Gilgoff piece on CNN's website or the O'Brien program "smeared" Christianity at all.  They chronicled things like the threats against the Islamic center in Dearborn and both the vandalism and court cases that were brought against the Islamic center in Murfeesboro.  But neither journalist, it seemed to me, leveled blame at Christianity, Christian beliefs or anything like that.  The question seems in both stories to be, in these cases, whether Muslims have a right to purchase property and use it to build places of worship in this country.  I think they do.