In certain instances, Mandeville portrays the Islamic religion as an obstacle which Christendom is not only able to defeat, but that they are destined to do so. The first evidence occurs when the author describes the town of Surry, the port of entry to Syria. Mandeville claims they guard the harbor closely, “because of the fear they have of Christian men. ” This translates to a European audience that Muslims are afraid that a European invasion could realistically threaten their control of the East. In other words, the Islamic armies know that eventually, according to Europeans, the Christians will attempt to take back what’s “rightfully theirs.” Mandeville reflects this aspect of the European psyche later in the book, as when he discusses how the Turks currently hold Jerusalem, “but by
This might sound like a good thing until people start to chose who needs more, and this decision is made depending on racist or where someone is from. As stated John Winthrop “First, this love among Christians is a real thing, not imaginary”, meaning that love between Christians should be absolute. This isn’t always the case for example stated by Blum "Certainly thou must understand that as black people, it would be impossible for us to kneel before thee, believing thee to be a white God” meaning that the only certain can be Christians (3). The meaning of being christian or any part of any religion for a matter of fact is to follow the ideals and the rules of that religion. Charity in America can’t be the what it can be because of the hypocrisy, corruption ,and ideas that contradicts the very thing it's trying help.
He said “ The moment you limit free speech, its not free speech”. Rushdie believes that religion should be a choice and not forced upon people, personally he is an atheist and disagrees with the existence of god. At an interview where his growing up a Muslim was being discussed, He said, “For me to go to boarding school in England and eat a ham sandwich was a revolutionary act, and full disproved the existence of God, because I was not struck down by a thunder bolt as I consumed the ham sandwich.” Salman believes that religious education, if it is not interpreted and understood correctly is useless and has no positive impact, for example, Eid prayers in India are in Arabic even though very few Indian Muslims know it, and he feels it is pointless. Children, according to him, are the vessels into which adults pour their poison. In the same speech he addresses his experience combatting a bill to the British constitution that made it illegal to criticize religion.
On a personal level, this Okoye’s claim appears unfair. Using the word “religions” it refers to a certain set of principles and beliefs that have their own say and foundation. As far as I can engage my personal knowledge, the difference between Christianity and any other faith, other than the Abrahamic religions, is the significance of the Trinity and the birth, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ as the Son of God. I am curious to know in what respect, the author claims that idolatry in the African cultural context does not exist and that there is no paganism of any sort. Evidently, such rituals do not resonate with Christian values or tradition.
Light is considered to be Islam itself: “They [the disbelievers] want to extinguish God’s light with their mouths, but God refuses but to perfect His Light, though the disbelievers be averse”( Quran 9:32). Light is also considered to be the Laws established in the Gospels and Torah: “Verily We did send down the Torah, therein was guidance and light (nurun) by which the Prophets judged” (Quran 5:44) and “And in their footsteps, We sent Jesus, the son of Mary, confirming the Torah that had come before him, and We gave them the Gospels in which was guidance and light (nurun)” (Quran
However, his political instincts guided him not to press overly hard for a separate state where the majority happened to be Muslims, but others such as Hindus, Christians, Buddhists and people with no faith at all, were to be equal citizens according to a secular constitution. This unambiguous demand would have been much more difficult to sell to Indians resisting the division of the country and those Indian Muslims vehemently opposed to the idea of a secular state. As we know, Jinnah’s tactic of keeping his idea of Pakistan vague coupled with his early passing had far-reaching negative consequences for the new
Religious symbols being displayed in schools has caused a significant amount of controversy and debate, particularly in what could be considered a more liberal and free thinking global society. The state of societies and nations today seem to follow a secular position of government with there being no influence of religion on the operations of government. However, a more common scenario is that of a clear distinction between religion and state. Whilst the question posited asks us to determine whether or not school should display religious symbols in the classroom, the more significant question should be to what extent is there a separation of state and religion, and can it be justifiable in a supposed secular state for religious symbols to
Roderick Matthews in his book Jinnah vs. Gandhi writes, “The whole incident was not a clash of titans, but a commonplace outing in polite society. Reading manipulative psychology, power politics and the destiny of nation into the affair is uncalled for (...) recognition that they were ‘natural enemies’ (...) How calling attention to Jinnah’s religion would have helped Gandhi is not clear, nor is it obvious why Gandhi would think it worth any effort to point out to an audience of Bombayites that a man names Mohammed Ali, who was a prominent member of the Muslim League, was a Muslim”. (Matthews,
With this in mind, it is possible to state that Islam at least does not contradict with the ideas of humanism as thinkers assume that some universal law could be created. Moreover, the author also suggests the idea that the human character of Islam and respect towards human rights could be proved by the fact that according to this religion all people are equal to God. (Sachedina 11). This point could also prove democratic and tolerant inclinations of Islam. With this in mind, the author concludes that the idea that the Islamic law has no right to exist in terms of humanistic approach towards a human being is completely wrong and full of prejudices.
Christianity, for example, is chosen among many because, according to Nietzsche, “the feeling of fulfillment and strength gives a sense of rest” (355), while Bhutto asserts that being a Muslim is to “live in peace, in justice, in equality, in a system that is answerable to the people on this earth that accepting that is is a God who will judge us on the Day of Judgement” (185). Even believing in atheism (which regardless can still be considered a religious belief), affects one's moral ideas. Morals such as “ One would require a position outside of life… in order to be permitted even to touch the problem of the value of life… when we speak of values, we speak with the inspiration, with the way of looking at things, which is a part of life: life itself forces us to posit values… morality, as it is so far understood… as negation of the will of life” (Nietzsche 350). Everyone’s religious belief, even choosing not to have one, sees in the way each of us should react to the world we live in. Christians let the followers have a sense of peace knowing that they are to spend an eternity in heaven if they live in God’s way, therefore affecting the moral principles of each follower.