A brief history of political islam

[sedonaman]

Remember the wars with Persia, in which you Catholics, were defeated initially by the pagan persians and you had to give one of Your princess (Shireen) as ransom to the king of Persia. Then due to the prayers of the prophet Muhammad, you people overcame the persians within few years. You should be thankful to our prophet Muhammad for his prayers (Al-Quran ch.30). Otherwise the Roman Catholic army was not competent to face the Persians.

The Roman Catholics had very big army with swords and spears. They considered themselves as super power because they had beaten the Persian power. The Roman Catholic killers were indeed super power of that time. So they thought they could take on the weakling Muslim state of Madinah. But that was a fatal mistake.

King Soloman in his song had advised the catholics “Not to disturb his love (Muhammad) and not to wake him up until he would like to wake up himself.” (Songs 2:7)

BUt the Roman Catholics did not act on the advice of the King Soloman. That is why they were defeated. That is a lesson of history.

Are you still smoking the same weed? We’ve been over this before, and you came out with egg on your face. So if you are a glutton for punishment, here goes again.

There were no battles involving Christians in or around the province of Madinah. The battles that were fought there were the Battle of Badr, 623 AD; the Battle of Uhud, 625 AD; and the Battle of the Trench, 627 AD. All these were fought between Mohammed’s armies and various other Arab tribes, including a Jewish one. These battles all occurred after the fall of the Roman Empire. Therefore, there couldn’t possibly have been any “Roman Catholics” involved at all. In fact, the term “Roman Catholic” didn’t come into existence until the split with the Eastern Rite in the 11th century.

As for Solomon advising the “Roman Catholics”, Solomon lived over 1,000 years before Christ, before there even was a Rome or a “Catholic”.

 

[sedonaman]

You should stick to the bible too. Jesus did not tell his followers to buy 2 swords. It just happened that they did not buy many swords. Otherwise the order was to buy swords even at the cost of selling clothes. That speaks much for the peaceful plan of Jesus.

How can you say such a thing about a great prophet of Islam? Islam is supposed to be “a religion of peace.” How can it be a religion of peace if one of its great prophets is violent?

 

[tomarin]

What is your concept of what the Vatican teaches about Islam?

I would say that since the Vatican II council the Catholic Church has sought to emphasize common ground with the other Abrahamic faiths in order to promote mutual understanding rather than enmity. I’ll see if I can dig up some doctrinal documents for you.

 

[sedonaman]

It’s not just planten; it’s true of Islam itself.

 

[R_not]

I would say that since the Vatican II council the Catholic Church has sought to emphasize common ground with the other Abrahamic faiths in order to promote mutual understanding rather than enmity. I’ll see if I can dig up some doctrinal documents for you.

islam isn’t an ‘Abrahamic faith’. I don’t know how much they looked into islam, but it doesn’t seem like they did any homework! They just took any muslim’s claim on islam being ‘Abrahamic’.

And it isn’t a sin to know that islam isn’t Abrahamic. Nor is it a sin to realize that mohammed is not a prophet, nor is allah the God of Israel. In fact, it is a sin against the 1st Commandment to know this and to accept allah as God. allah is a combination of (mostly) mohammed and his pagan moon god. What mohammed included from the Bible wasn’t even the same.

We have gone over this in many threads that the messages are totally different from the Bible to the koran.

Why is it you are so bothered by discussion anyway? If there are no common ground in the religion - that doesn’t mean anyone of us goes out and is mean or nasty to them.

 

[Badaliyyah]

What is your concept of what the Vatican teaches about Islam?

I think Nostra Aetate would be the relevant Vatican II document here. And what it teaches is hardly radical or new terribly new; it is pretty much the tradition: Muslims worship God.

salaam.

 

[R_not]

I think Nostra Aetate would be the relevant Vatican II document here. And what it teaches is hardly radical or new terribly new; it is pretty much the tradition: Muslims worship God.

salaam.

Just like Acknanton worshipped a monotheistic god - so do muslims. The difference being that the muslims worship mohammed/allah and Acknanton worshipped Ra. All you have to do is read the Bible - just like your koran tells you to and you will see the differences. IF you have read your koran. Since we have been experiencing the fact that many muslims do not read their own texts, that is why I included that you need to read the koran too and then you will clearly see the differences.

surah 10:94 Basically, it is telling the muslims to read the Bible - the ‘books before them’, it even says that it is ‘truth from our Lord’.

And if you don’t have a problem with all the contradicions in the koran then you will realize that you believe in a god that is fickle and changes its mind quite often. Or is that why mohammed said that allah is the greatest of deceivers? It kept deceiving you as to what the message was? It wasn’t violent enough in the Bible so it created the koran, and even then it wasn’t violent enough in the Meccan surahs so then it changed its mind again with many more commands to be violent.

It sounds like the ‘Prince of Lies’ to me - Satan, who created the koran. The ‘Prince of Chaos and Hatred’ - Satan, or what we call Lucifer.

 

[tomarin]

islam isn’t an ‘Abrahamic faith’. I don’t know how much they looked into islam, but it doesn’t seem like they did any homework! They just took any muslim’s claim on islam being ‘Abrahamic’.

Okay. I think the Pope considers it an Abrahamic faith, but you’re entitled to your own opinion about it.

And it isn’t a sin to know that islam isn’t Abrahamic. Nor is it a sin to realize that mohammed is not a prophet, nor is allah the God of Israel. In fact, it is a sin against the 1st Commandment to know this and to accept allah as God. allah is a combination of (mostly) mohammed and his pagan moon god. What mohammed included from the Bible wasn’t even the same.

I never said it was a sin to deny Islam (and in fact I said myself that Mohammad was a false prophet – I think that’s a pretty strong condemnation of Islam). I said it was logically inconsistent to make the statement “Islam is 100% false,” because to do so would be to deny the truth of monotheism, which is a prominent teaching of Islam.

We have gone over this in many threads that the messages are totally different from the Bible to the koran.

To assert something and to prove it are not the same thing. But nevertheless, I agree with you that the messages of the Bible and Koran are different.

Why is it you are so bothered by discussion anyway? If there are no common ground in the religion - that doesn’t mean anyone of us goes out and is mean or nasty to them.

That’s a bit out of left field, isn’t it? What have I done that’s made you think I don’t like discussion? Aren’t I discussing this with you right now?

You can hate Islam all you like, but you should do so for sound reasons.

 

[R_not]

Okay. I think the Pope considers it an Abrahamic faith, but you’re entitled to your own opinion about it.

I never said it was a sin to deny Islam (and in fact I said myself that Mohammad was a false prophet – I think that’s a pretty strong condemnation of Islam). I said it was logically inconsistent to make the statement “Islam is 100% false,” because to do so would be to deny the truth of monotheism, which is a prominent teaching of Islam.

To assert something and to prove it are not the same thing. But nevertheless, I agree with you that the messages of the Bible and Koran are different.

That’s a bit out of left field, isn’t it? What have I done that’s made you think I don’t like discussion? Aren’t I discussing this with you right now?

You can hate Islam all you like, but you should do so for sound reasons.

You’re right. I do hate islam for sound reasons though. I hate it for what it has done to mankind - on one hand so many have been killed, subjugated, enslaved, or forced to convert and on the other hand the mindless robots that it has created. We see the backwardness that it creates - even with planten. He has access to the internet but still doesn’t have a clue except for looking to what a cleric tells him to say and think and then parroting it back to us.

I get mixed messages from you in your posts, that is why it is confusing. That allah/mohammed thing that they worship isn’t even close to a god. Just because it is monotheistic we all shouldn’t just blindly accept that either or we are as bad as the muslims. And they also worship that black rock and the koran. They are told it has consciousness and will speak for them on Judgement day. And their behavior towards mohammed, the koran and the black rock all indicate worship while they will deny it to their graves.

They are not even consistent in their own teachings when condemning others for polytheism and killing, enslaving or persecuting them. And that starts with mohammed who committed shirk quite often. They, themselves, put themselves right up there with their idea of god and are judge, jury and executioners.

 

[tomarin]

You’re right. I do hate islam for sound reasons though. I hate it for what it has done to mankind - on one hand so many have been killed, subjugated, enslaved, or forced to convert and on the other hand the mindless robots that it has created. We see the backwardness that it creates - even with planten. He has access to the internet but still doesn’t have a clue except for looking to what a cleric tells him to say and think and then parroting it back to us.

That sounds very similar to why some people (for example Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens) hate all religion in general. But okay, I can see your point.

I get mixed messages from you in your posts, that is why it is confusing. That allah/mohammed thing that they worship isn’t even close to a god. Just because it is monotheistic we all shouldn’t just blindly accept that either or we are as bad as the muslims. And they also worship that black rock and the koran. They are told it has consciousness and will speak for them on Judgement day. And their behavior towards mohammed, the koran and the black rock all indicate worship while they will deny it to their graves.

I think their profession of faith goes: there is One God (Allah) and Mohammad is his prophet. I believe there is one God, but I do not believe that Mohammad was his prophet. I think he probably imagined it all; it is also possible, as Verisimilitude said, that he truly had a supernatural experience but it was of demonic origin although I think that’s less likely and of course virtually impossible to substantiate.

Anyway, I do like discussion. I’m always here at this discussion board! I probably like it too much for my own good.

 

[sedonaman]

To assert something and to prove it are not the same thing. But nevertheless, I agree with you that the messages of the Bible and Koran are different.

…As this analysis points out. It not only proves the messages are different, it also proves that Islam relies on the Bible’s Old Testament, Jesus, and the Apostles as prophets of Allah:

While a strong case will be made that Christianity and its sacred texts actually deny Islamic beliefs and Islamic sacred texts, this is not the case with Islam. Islam actually endorses and in fact relies upon the divine legitimacy of both Judaism and Christianity as religions established by God. We will demonstrate this point thoroughly by quotes from the Islamic sacred text, which is known as the Koran.

Islam’s reliance upon the divine legitimacy of Judaism and Christianity can be examined in terms of their practical necessity within Islam and in terms of the actual endorsement of those religions made within the Koran.

In the Koran, Islam’s dependence upon Judaism and Christianity comes primarily in two forms. First, the Koran constantly asserts that the apostles who founded Judaism and Christianity are God’s apostles and of the same merit as Mohammed himself. Second, the Koran actually specifically and unequivocally affirms the God-inspired nature of both Jewish and Christian scriptures. As we establish these two forms of endorsement, we will also discuss the practical necessity, which motivates Islam to make such affirmations of Judeo-Christian apostles and scriptures.

But, the fact that Islam itself affirms the divine origin of Judeo-Christian apostles and sacred texts dramatically alters the dynamic of our analysis of the two religions. Instead of having a scenario in which each religion denies the other’s claims and sacred texts, Islam actually endorses and relies upon the divine trueness of Judaism and Christianity.

So long as both religions declared each other to be false, we’d have to decide which of the two (if either) was true. But since Islam inherently and repeatedly relies on Judaism and Christianity being of divine origin, the claims and sacred texts of Judeo-Christianity would have to be compatible with Islam. If the sacred texts of Judeo-Christianity contradict Islam while Islam upholds their reliability and divine origin, then Islam is in contradiction of itself.

On the one hand, Islam claims Judeo-Christianity and its sacred texts originate from God and from other apostles like Mohammed. But on the other hand, what if these religions and their sacred texts deny or contradict Islam? This would mean either one of two things.

First, Mohammed and Islam are in contradiction of what the Koran itself repeatedly declares to be God’s apostles and God’s scriptures. Or second, Judeo-Christianity and its sacred texts are incorrect on all points and issues where they contradict Islam. But if the Judeo-Christian apostles and scriptures, which the Koran affirms as God’s work, are in error, then they cannot be God’s work as the Koran claims. And that would mean that the Koran is in error for affirming them as God-given predecessors, in which case Islam would also be nullified.

In either case, if the Judeo-Christian beliefs and sacred texts contradict Islam and the Koran, then Islam is in error through contradiction, not just contradiction with Judeo-Christianity, but contradiction with itself because of the endorsement claims made by the Koran.

… [Long analysis here]…

Conclusions about Islam

So, we conclude from this intensive study that we must reject Islam’s claims as well. There are two main reasons for this rejection. First, though Islam has historically identifiable origins, these origins do not provide any reason for concluding that Mohammed’s teachings are an accurate view of God, the universe, and mankind. Instead, the circumstances surrounding the origin and rise of Islam can clearly be understood simply as a product of normal human affairs and ambitions.

…the evidence that Islam does offer to substantiate the accuracy of its claims has shown to be invalid. Islam contends that it is the final successor to the Judeo-Christian tradition, which it claims expected Islam and which Islam also claims to fulfill and confirm. However, as we have shown above neither Judaism nor Christianity allows for the teachings of Mohammed. And additionally, Islam undermines the fundamental claims made by both of its supposed predecessors.

Islam is also invalidated by its claims to come from and uphold the Judeo-Christian tradition, which Islam claims is from God. Since the Judeo-Christian tradition in no way permits Islamic teaching, then Islam must be in error either in its own teaching, which deviates from that of Judaism and Christianity, or Islam must be in error in its assertion that the Judeo-Christian tradition is of God.

Despite the fact that Islam is an Evidentiary religion, an examination of that evidence has revealed that it does not substantiate the claims of Islam. But instead, the evidence offered actually contradicts Islam. So, for both of the reasons summarized in the preceding paragraphs, we reject the claims of Islam…

[Emphasis added]

 

[R_not]

That sounds very similar to why some people (for example Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens) hate all religion in general. But okay, I can see your point.

I think their profession of faith goes: there is One God (Allah) and Mohammad is his prophet. I believe there is one God, but I do not believe that Mohammad was his prophet. I think he probably imagined it all; it is also possible, as Verisimilitude said, that he truly had a supernatural experience but it was of demonic origin although I think that’s less likely and of course virtually impossible to substantiate.

Anyway, I do like discussion. I’m always here at this discussion board! I probably like it too much for my own good.

The discussion of religion is a bit different. I might lean towards the fact that religion does sometimes get in the way. So, what I have to do is ignore a lot of what the people do. Such as the clergy - I ignore some of what they do if it gets too political, and in the case of islam obviously not very well researched. I use the clergy to what I need them for - the Sacraments and anything what they say regarding Christianity. If they cross into politics or islam then they are on their own.

 

[tomarin]

on one hand so many have been killed, subjugated, enslaved, or forced to convert and on the other hand the mindless robots that it has created. We see the backwardness that it creates - even with planten.

I tend to agree with you about backwardness – as far as the past few centuries go. The problem with this sweeping generalization, however, is that it hasn’t always been true. If you want your analysis to have even the appearance of fairness you have to account for the positive things that came out of Islamic civilization following the Arabs’ conquest and absorption of the Persian empire: the achievements of philosophy, mathematics, science, navigation and literature; and the beautiful artwork and architecture. The Taj Mahal was a product of Islam. The love poetry of Rumi was too.

I think it’s possible to overstate the originality of some of these achievements, but they were real and they were a product of Islam.

 

[sedonaman]

I think it’s possible to overstate the originality of some of these achievements, but they were real and they were a product of Islam. In light of this your sweeping generalization seems a bit one-sided.

Are they a product of Islam if they were made by those who were force to convert by their Islamic conquerors?

 

[tomarin]

Are they a product of Islam if they were made by those who were force to convert by their Islamic conquerors?

The conquest of Persia elevated Arabic culture into Islamic civilization, but it didn’t happen in one generation. The people who made the achievements were themselves Persians, or were influenced by Persians, whose parents and grandparents were conquered by Arab armies and who converted to Islam at some point in the intervening period.

So yes, they’re a product of Islam encountering and assimilating a much older and more sophisticated culture.

 

[Hypatia]

Just like Acknanton worshipped a monotheistic god - so do muslims. The difference being that the muslims worship mohammed/allah and Acknanton worshipped Ra. All you have to do is read the Bible - just like your koran tells you to and you will see the differences. IF you have read your koran. Since we have been experiencing the fact that many muslims do not read their own texts, that is why I included that you need to read the koran too and then you will clearly see the differences.

To begin with, I don’t see anything in the Qur’an that God does or says that doesn’t have parallels in the Bible. Have you read your book? Very entertaining stuff.

As for the opening claim that Islamic monotheism can be compared to Egyptian paganism it is simply silly. For Islam, Allah (swt) is the Absolute, Infinite, One, beyond all plurality.

No one in their right mind would worship a man, including Mohammad (pbuh). Allah (swt) is not a finite being.

Finally the claim that Islam is not an Abrahamic faith seems, on the face it, absurd. In fact, if anything, Islam shares a broader agreement concerning the history of revelation with Christianity than Christianity does with Judaism. Sure…Christians share a piece of their Bible with Judaism, but that does not seem to result in much agreement on how the shared piece ought to be read or understood. Islam on the other hand sees God at work in the history that is narrated by the Christian Bible, including in John the Baptist (pbuh), Mary the Virgin (pbuh), Jesus (pbuh), even if, once again, there is disagreement about how that history should be understood.

Given your self-professed hatred for Islam, I don’t suppose any of that matters to you, but it still needs to be said, for those who have an ear to hear.

 

[R_not]

I tend to agree with you about backwardness – as far as the past few centuries go. The problem with this sweeping generalization, however, is that it hasn’t always been true. If you want your analysis to have even the appearance of fairness you have to account for the positive things that came out of Islamic civilization following the Arabs’ conquest and absorption of the Persian empire: the achievements of philosophy, mathematics, science, navigation and literature; and the beautiful artwork and architecture. The Taj Mahal was a product of Islam. The love poetry of Rumi was too.

I think it’s possible to overstate the originality of some of these achievements, but they were real and they were a product of Islam.

And most of those accomplishments were before islam, or by dhimmi. The so very few that did give us anything were from centuries ago. As time passes less is produced by muslim nations because the dhimmi become more subjugated, less free which causes less human accomplishments.

Out of the billions that are muslim - we might get one or two accomplished muslims and they are probably ones not living in muslim nations. I don’t count giving the nobel peace prize to Arafat an accomplishment either. That was an accomplishment of pure stupidity on the part of the ones who think a terrorist is peaceful. Otherwise, we get more out of the tiny country of Israel as far as accomplishments.

I posted a series of articles on this sometime last year. There are articles by different authors. My overall view of their accomplishments in my lifetime have been taking our (Western) inventions and fashioning them into bombs, eg: cell phones, vehicles, air planes, etc.

 

[R_not]

To begin with, I don’t see anything in the Qur’an that God does or says that doesn’t have parallels in the Bible. Have you read your book? Very entertaining stuff.

As for the opening claim that Islamic monotheism can be compared to Egyptian paganism it is simply silly. For Islam, Allah is the Absolute, Infinite, One, beyond all plurality.

No one in their right mind would worship a man, including Mohammad . Allah is not a finite being.

Finally the claim that Islam is not an Abrahamic faith seems, on the face it, absurd. In fact, if anything, Islam shares a broader agreement concerning the history of revelation with Christianity than Christianity does with Judaism. Sure…Christians share a piece of their Bible with Judaism, but that does not seem to result in much agreement on how the shared piece ought to be read or understood. Islam on the other hand sees God at work in the history that is narrated by the Christian Bible, including in John the Baptist , Mary the Virgin , Jesus , even if, once again, there is disagreement about how that history should be understood.

Given your self-professed hatred for Islam, I don’t suppose any of that matters to you, but it still needs to be said, for those who have an ear to hear.

Show me some examples of what in the koran parallels the Bible. If you bring up the stories of Creation, Adam/Eve, Abraham, Moses, Mary, Jesus - those are all different in the koran. Some are so totally different they are fictional characters in the koran, such as Isa.

muslims worship mohammed all the time. allah is your god, not the God of Israel. You can call it all you want and give it all the adjectives that you want - it is still mohammed combined with his pagan moon god. Why do you think that allah changed its mind about the Bible, or that it even changed its mind about the koran’s message? It is because mohammed changed his mind - the koran is nothing but mohammed. Ironic that allah was overly concerned with mohammed’s sex life too! Or that allah needs help in judging others, or doing its other godly things that it needs to do. And that is also where muslims get their rituals from - his pagan religion. No one else worships a black rock - yeah, you guys worship it because you think it is conscious and will speak for you at Judgement Day.

There is a thread called ‘Muhammad committed shirk many times’ - go check that out for how mohammed committed shirk.

I have read the koran and Bible. And it is why I know that allah is on the same level as Ra, with the one glaring difference being that allah was much more deceptive and willing to throw half of its creation (women) into hell, and many others. And none of you even can tell yourselves, or anyone else, whether or not all those PBUHs, good deeds, martyrdom, etc will bypass predestination. Are you really sure that even martyrdom will bypass predestination - you know, that allah is known as the ‘best of deceivers’. It might have lied to you about that!

 

[tomarin]

And most of those accomplishments were before islam, or by dhimmi.

That’s simply not true, R_not. If you look at wikipedia’s article on science in medieval islam, you will see that the vast majority of those scientists were muslims.

You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.

 

[sedonaman]

…If you look at wikipedia’s article on science in medieval islam, you will see that the vast majority of those scientists were muslims.

Ha! Anyone can post anything in wikipedia. I did it once myself. I’m sure some Islam apologists wouldn’t pass up that golden opportunity. Besides, if what Islam did was so great, why aren’t Islamic sciences, etc., 500 years ahead of the West?