A brief history of political islam

[R_not]

Your speculation, R_not. You are speculating about things you cannot possibly know about (what was going on in the heads of the 9/11 hijackers) and then presenting it as fact.

I know but with all due respect your sources are usually anti-islamic websites so they are not necessarily credible sources. I could post links to anti-catholic websites (not that I would do such a thing), it wouldn’t make them true.

Your ‘logic’ is not logical. And yes, they are credible sources. Faithfreedom.org is by an ex-muslim and has numerous ex-muslims posting in it. jihadwatch.org posts the sources of the news in all their articles. Most of the time the biases against these sites makes me go to the original articles and get the links. And as for the other items - I get those straight from their own texts/muslims.

You can post from anti-Catholic websites all you want. If they have a point then they should be discussed.

Here is the problem with your dismissal of what being a martyr in islam is about - you don’t have a clue as to what it is all about. It is basically a ‘you get to pass GO and not pay $200’ (monopoly game)

Basically, if a muslim dies while trying to, or succeeding in, killing unbelievers - they will go straight to their orgy in heaven. They get to name 70 people as saved to their allah and they will also be saved. This is why the family celebrates and even the whole community.

Oh oh - here is a link to one of those prejudiced ones - an Palestinian ex-muslim who wanted to be a martyr. (also Nonie Darwish’s father was a martyr/shahid - only he actually succeeded in killing himself and others. She has since left islam and tells of her story in her books)

Walid Shoebat Shoebat’s experiences with what he was taught in islam..
Select the program that says, Talking It Over, PART 1 December 13, 2008.

What I think is the problem is that you have a set idea of what it is and that is that. end of story. I was there at one time too - except I kept reading further to find out why muslims would celebrate the day of 9/11, tell us to our faces the next day that ‘they don’t believe in the killing of innocents or suicide bombers’ which didn’t ring true - there was something robotic about their responses, and then not a peep out of them when others were blown up by their ‘suicide’ bombers. or why are they continually breaking the cease fires, agreements, etc they make with the Israelis. Or why were they having no problem even killing their own. Or why were over 30 battles/wars/slaughters being fought by them on others around this globe, and the ‘peaceful’ ones didn’t do a thing about it all. Or why didn’t the muslims here become outraged when muslim women were beaten, raped, stoned, hanged, banned from schools and then told they couldn’t go to male doctors, etc? The questions go on.

I found out the answer - and you just dismiss it all. ‘speculation’ of what was in these muslim’s minds before their slaughter.

And then we hear from the left in our country, the apologists - they are poooor, uneducated, blah blah blah… it is all excuses that the left uses. They use names - islamofascist, islamophobe, radical, moderate, etc - and there is none of that in islam. A muslim is a muslim and islam is islam. And the other names are just an extension of the ‘fascist’, or ‘nazi’, or hitler, kkk, names they call others who disagree with them. Just more junk from them which means they don’t have a clue and don’t like it when others might have a clue.

 

[Verisimilitude]

Er, I’m not sure about that. I presented the 5 pillars of islam as proof.

A Catholic that presents the 5 pillars of Islam as a proof of a truth is an oxymoron.

Re the rest of your post: it just sounds like you’re saying monotheism is good in christianity, but bad in islam; prayer is good in christianity but bad in islam, pilgrimage is good in christianity, but bad in islam; etc. That’s a double standard, and it’s a fallacy.

Its only a double standard if you give validity to Islam which means you give Mohammed creedence. So far you are the only one doing that so the double standard is yours alone. Islam=Moahmmed.

 

[R_not]

Verisimilitude, I agree with your posts. What too many people sort of overlook is the fact that there have been others who were monotheistic also. I usually like to give Ra and Acknanton as an example. In this case these two were unlike islam though - one was violent (islam/mohammed) while the other was not. but, that monotheistic god was not God. It was the sun.

And in the case of islam, it is the moon combined with mohammed, well, mostly mohammed. And the claim that islam is Abrahamic is from mohammed. If anyone dares to explore into islam a bit they will find it is the furthest thing from being ‘Abrahamic’!

And quite often God warned us NOT to worship the sun, moon and other things in/from the heavens (such as a black rock!).

I recently posted these passages in the Bible so I will not quote them outright, but just repost the passage Chapters/verse.

Deut.4:19, Deut 17:3, II Kngs. 21:3,5; II Kngs. 23:5; Jer. 8:2; 19:13; Zeph. 1:5

And mohammed/allah never even brings up the 10 Commandments which was not only given by God, but Jesus restated them clearly in even simpler terms - Love God, love our neighbors as we love ourselves. And what did allah allow mohammed to do? Break the 10 commandments - even in allowing mohammed to do shirk and set himself up right up there next to allah. allah allowed (according to mohammed) mohammed to take other’s wives, kill, lie, steal,… well, you know his history.

And according to mohammed allah has already predestined muslims to heaven or hell. So, basically mohammed, the koran, the black rock, all the killing for allah, all the PBUH after mohammed’s name and whoever else they think should get it, etc - isn’t even necessary because they are already going to go to heaven or hell no matter what they do.

allah is not the God of Israel.

 

[tomarin]

A Catholic that presents the 5 pillars of Islam as a proof of a truth is an oxymoron.

“God is one” – is that not true, Verisimilitude? Or do you believe in more than one god?

Its only a double standard if you give validity to Islam which means you give Mohammed creedence. So far you are the only one doing that so the double standard is yours alone. Islam=Moahmmed.

You seem to be saying that if you follow a double standard, I must be following a double standard. Actually, I’m not. I’m being consistent by saying that Christianity deserves credit for its good teachings, and Islam deserves credit for whatever it teaches that is good and true (which by now you have plenty of examples of). I would also say the converse is true: if Christianity teaches something that is not good (say, the guilt of the Jews for Jesus’ death) then it deserves criticism, and the same is true for Islam. So there’s no double standard on my side.

 

[tomarin]

A Catholic that presents the 5 pillars of Islam as a proof of a truth is an oxymoron.

Then I must not be a true Catholic. Neither is Pope Benedict.

 

[tomarin]

Your ‘logic’ is not logical.

How so, R_not? Can you be specific?

And yes, they are credible sources. Faithfreedom.org is by an ex-muslim and has numerous ex-muslims posting in it. jihadwatch.org posts the sources of the news in all their articles.

I would think ex-muslims would have an especially enormous ax to grind. That’s usually the case when someone leaves a religion (and as you know leaving Islam is not easy).

Most of the time the biases against these sites makes me go to the original articles and get the links. And as for the other items - I get those straight from their own texts/muslims.

which you then usually present out of context, from what I’ve seen.

You can post from anti-Catholic websites all you want. If they have a point then they should be discussed.

Well they rarely have a point because they are primarily interested in erecting a straw man version of catholicism so that they can tear it down for their own purposes.

What I think is the problem is that you have a set idea of what it is and that is that. end of story. I was there at one time too - except I kept reading further to find out why muslims would celebrate the day of 9/11, tell us to our faces the next day that ‘they don’t believe in the killing of innocents or suicide bombers’ which didn’t ring true - there was something robotic about their responses, and then not a peep out of them when others were blown up by their ‘suicide’ bombers.

Everyone has to rationalize to some degree to make their belief system fit with reality. But I agree that muslims have to really tie themselves into pretzels to rationalize what some do in the name of Islam: as for example those conspiracy theories about Israel being behind the 9/11 attacks.

I found out the answer - and you just dismiss it all.

I didn’t dismiss “it all” – I dismissed specifically your claim about what was inside the 9/11 hijackers’ heads as speculation, because that’s what it is. There’s no way you can know such a thing.

 

[R_not]

It has nothing to do with what is going through their minds. Their sins are wiped clean if they become martyrs. It is what they believe. If you heard the usual junk from muslims that ‘what they did was a sin’ - yes, it is a sin. But when they became a shahid - it didn’t matter anymore.

Now, if there was a muslim who did the things (sins) and didn’t follow through and become a shahid - well, that person was in my mind normal! But, according to islam he sinned.

They planned those hijackings for a very, long time. They trained and they planned. It just didn’t happen by a whim.

It is that same junk we got about ‘we don’t believe in suicide nor do we believe in the killing of innocents’. This is more junk from muslims because they never fill in the fact that they don’t look at unbelievers as innocent, nor do they consider dying while killing unbelievers an act of suicide. Only if a person kills him/herself without taking down an unbeliever with them is that a suicide. It is the same with the things these 17 hijackers - if they hadn’t killed some unbelievers they would have been sinners.

So little was known about islam at that time. And now that people have become aware of it - we get posts from you trying to bash the messenger. Go do some of your own research. I would post some links but they are ‘irrelevant’ for you.

 

[Verisimilitude]

“God is one” – is that not true, Verisimilitude? Or do you believe in more than one god?

Do you worship allah of the Quran? Is allah of the Quran Christ? Is allah of the Quran the Holy Spirit? Is allah of the Quran Our Father?

Do you believe God is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit? Allah of the Quran says no; what do you say?

You seem to be saying that if you follow a double standard, I must be following a double standard. Actually, I’m not.

I have been very clear in what I have been saying. My standard is my faith. Islam does not justify Catholicism/Christianity; in fact it qualifies it as condemned for ascribing partners to allah despite being ‘People of the Book’. Your continued defense of Islam and Mohammed as a justified faith while claiming Catholicism as the true faith is a double standard.

I’m being consistent by saying that Christianity deserves credit for its good teachings, and Islam deserves credit for whatever it teaches that is good and true (which by now you have plenty of examples of).

You have not provided one sura or hadith to support your claims. Not a single one. Instead you list the 5 pillars of Islam- calling that plenty- and claim it as a undisputed proof. It was reasonably and logically disputed on every point: 0 for 5. Everything in Islam is qualified unlike in Christianity. I would like to believe it isn’t and have spent years looking for such unqualified proof and am unable to find it. You seem convinced of it but haven’t supported it. Why is that?

I would also say the converse is true: if Christianity teaches something that is not good (say, the guilt of the Jews for Jesus’ death) then it deserves criticism, and the same is true for Islam. So there’s no double standard on my side.

Does the Church teach things not good? Since you don’t seem willing to provide Islamic scripture or hadith to support their unqualified ‘good’, maybe you will provide Biblical Scripture or other Doctrine that teaches a qualified good such as Jewish guilt for killing Christ.

 

[Verisimilitude]

Verisimilitude, I agree with your posts.

Thank you, R_not. I think the dhimmi ideology has taken deep root in the west and that is a major problem.

 

[planten]

Again I am not hostile to muslims. I am married to a muslim woman.
I just dont agree with political islam. If islam was to give up on its political aspirations, I would have no problem with it, whatsoever.

Let me state this clearly

I have no problem with muslims, or even religious islam

I have a huge problem with political islam.

** This thread has progressed a long way now. I am back to page one. algebra, please note that there is zero politics in Islam. islam may have its own politics but it is not a political religion. It is all spiritual. Zero politics.

There is good beliefs, effort to do good deeds, help the poor, befriend the neighbor, every wordly good things are in it without any politics. There is much rememberance of Allah and pure worship (prayers) to the One God. That is all the same from day one.
But it has to look after the infidels too because they cause mischief in the land and disturb the peace. Only in that case there are laws to regulate the society.

The reliion Islam is full of respect for all prophets of Allah. The trouble Muhammad had at the hands of the pagans was the same any other man of God had at the hands of his enemies.

Muhammad suffered very much at the hands of the enemies for 13 years in Makkah, such as no one may have suffered before. His followers were highly persecuted, made to flee the country. Every type of hardship was inflicted upon Muhammad and his friends. He did not retaliate. Until, one day the enemies planned to kill him.

Tell me, it was only a difference of belief. Muhammad had said, “There is no God except One, Allah…” Was that any crime, or dacoity or rape of theft? That was no crime. he was peaceful. Yet he was made to run for his life. Just let me know what is politics, under such circumstances? Please do not be a non-practical simplistic puritan. See all things.

I am sure Muhammad had no political ambitions. The Pagans had offered Muhammad the kingship of Arabia. He siad that he did not want to be any king. That was in Makkah during persecution. Muhamamd was a pure peaceful person all his life, while in Makkah and in Madinah and the rest of his life too. Had the Pagans of Makkah not attacked Madinah every year, he would not have picked the sword. That sword was for defence only.

Later also Muhammad had no harsh designs against any one of the other faiths. If he was not pressed and oppressed from the nearby states, he would not have responded in same kind. I cannot see why you do not give the right to Muhammad to defend himself. If he did not defend himself or his followers, it would be foolishness and cruelty. What do you say please? (More later, but a reminder again that there is Zero politics in Islam even now. Nobody need to pick up a sword or gun to establish Islamic system anywhere in the world. It would be sin to do any such thing.)

I agree with your views about politicising Islam or political Islam. But you have to give me the right to practice and preach my faith peacefully. Then you can have all the politics. I will not need anything else. You can then rule the world and your children may rule for ever. I will not even look to the chair. I will be content with my prayer mat. Would you be satisfied with that? Please tell me. How is that? It is a proposition, a hypothetical case.

If there is any question, I can explain it further to make it more clear.
**

 

[neploho]

Let us forgive; but never forget (no matter what muslims may claim) the history of political islam.

I fear that it will attempt to raise it’s poisonous head again in our life times; this can never be allowed.

The history of political Islam starts with Mohammed’s immigration to Medina. From that point on, Islam’s appeal to the world has always had the dualistic option of joining a glorious religion or being the subject of political pressure and violence. After the immigration to Medina, Islam became violent when persuasion failed. Jihad entered the world.

Jihad is present in the Qur’an before Muhammad’s migration to Medina. The whole concept is irredeemably flawed as your narrative only flows when central points and concepts used in your naration are so hopelessly vague as to be almost devoid of any meaning. What is “political Islam”. You demarcate it from non political Islam without any clear criteria of what you mean of how you come about assigning it such universality of motive, method, and moral merit.

“Let us never forget political Judaism” Well what in the world does that mean? That could cover anything from the God/prophet sanctioned genocide and savagery in the Old Testament and the draconian penal code by which the society was maintained to AIPAC’s lobying or Joe Liberman. You use of the term is likewise so comprehensive that it is almost meaningless. Recently a Muslim politician in the Sudan was released from prison after being locked up for speaking out against the atrocities in Darfur. He is a Muslim and is using his faith justify his opposition to the genocide. Is that political Islam

After Mohammed’s death, Abu Bakr, the second caliph, settled the theological arguments of those who wished to leave Islam with the political action of death by the sword.

Would you describe the American Civil War in analogous language?

The jihad of Umar (the second caliph, a pope-king) exploded into the world of the unbelievers. Jihad destroyed a Christian Middle East and a Christian North Africa. Soon it was the fate of the Persian Zoroastrian and the Hindu to be the victims of jihad. The history of political Islam is the destruction of Christianity in the Middle East, Egypt, Turkey and North Africa. Half of Christianity was lost. Before Islam, North Africa was the southern part of Europe (part of the Roman Empire). Around 60 million Christians were slaughtered during the jihadic conquest.

Sure, Islam must renegotiate the expansionist ideology in the religion and early juristic rulings.

Half of the glorious Hindu civilization was annihilated and 80 million Hindus killed.

You are in RCIA correct? Perhaps you should not be venturing down this road considering the Church’s les than admirable history in the Americas and other “uncivilized” regions of the world.

Zoarasterianism was eliminated from Persia.

It was not eliminated

The Jews became permanent dhimmis throughout Islam.

Yes, but they received better treatment than under Christianity. I would not defend Islam’s attitude towards religious minorities. I would consider it archaic. Yet until the advent of secularism it was superior to Christendom’s treatment of Jews and religious minorities in general. Yet you do not seem to have the same attitude towards Christianity, the dangers of “political Christianity”. I don’t have a problem subjecting the morality of Islamic practice to strict evaluation, but it seems like there is quite a double standard in how Islam is evaluated as opposed to other more “western” religions.

.

Approximately 270 million nonbelievers died over the last 1400 years for the glory of political Islam. These are the Tears of Jihad which are not taught in any school.

You’ve just gone into a generic excursion which cannot hope to be scientifically meaningful.

 

[tomarin]

Do you worship allah of the Quran? Is allah of the Quran Christ? Is allah of the Quran the Holy Spirit? Is allah of the Quran Our Father?

Look, you’re either a monotheist or you’re not. If you are (and I assume you are) and you accept that muslims are monotheists, then you have to agree that there is some truth in Islam. (I’m using truth and goodness interchangably here, because truth is good, by definition). So the inescapable conclusion is that there is something true, i.e. something good in Islam. Can you tell me where I’m going wrong with my logic here?

Do you believe God is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit? Allah of the Quran says no; what do you say?

I say that Mohammad is a false prophet. But that doesn’t mean the concept of Allah is completely untrue (see above). If you look at their objective qualities Allah (which is only the Arabic word for God) and God are more similar than different, especially if you compare them to the pantheistic gods of the ancient world. The Allah of the Quran has an imperfect spokesperson.

I have been very clear in what I have been saying. My standard is my faith. Islam does not justify Catholicism/Christianity; in fact it qualifies it as condemned for ascribing partners to allah despite being ‘People of the Book’. Your continued defense of Islam and Mohammed as a justified faith while claiming Catholicism as the true faith is a double standard.

As I see it, I’m not defending Islam, I’m defending clear thinking. I’m perfectly willing to believe that Islam is false, even malicious, but there are sound and unsound reasons for believing that statement. If the reasons you cite violate logic, then it’s fair to point that out and look for other, better ones.

As for your faith, you and I share the same faith. Nothing I have said goes against our faith. If anything your pronouncements about Islam seem out of step with what the Vatican teaches.

You have not provided one sura or hadith to support your claims. Not a single one. Instead you list the 5 pillars of Islam- calling that plenty- and claim it as a undisputed proof. It was reasonably and logically disputed on every point: 0 for 5.

Well I don’t have a Quran handy (I do own one, but it’s in my parents’ house, several states away). I disagree that you “reasonably and logically” disputed the objective goodness of the 5 pillars of Islam. All you did was arbitrarily denigrate them in the context of Islam. Which is why I accused you of using a double standard: pilgrimage is good in Christianity, bad in Islam, etc. If Islam had a celibate priesthood you would find a way to denigrate that too, I’m pretty sure.

Everything in Islam is qualified unlike in Christianity. I would like to believe it isn’t and have spent years looking for such unqualified proof and am unable to find it. You seem convinced of it but haven’t supported it. Why is that?

I don’t see any evidence of that, but you’re welcome to try to prove it if you wish. Is monotheism qualified in Islam? What about daily prayer? How about almsgiving to the poor? Have a go at it.

Does the Church teach things not good? Since you don’t seem willing to provide Islamic scripture or hadith to support their unqualified ‘good’, maybe you will provide Biblical Scripture or other Doctrine that teaches a qualified good such as Jewish guilt for killing Christ.

I don’t think it teaches things that are not good now, but arguably in the past it did. How about the strong statements of “outside the Church there is no salvation” issued by Popes in the past? We still believe that is true but not in exactly the same way. There are loopholes now, so that one cannot say without hesitation today that say, Anne Frank woke up in Hell after she was executed. God’s mercy is seen as too great to be bound by human intellect.

Please keep in mind I love and admire Christianity; I do not love or admire Islam. I am arguing specifically against your assertion that “there are no good teachings in Islam”; I believe there are some good teachings and some bad teachings in Islam (denial of the trinity for example).

 

[planten]

** J C, I edited my post. Please read again the last part. That was only in case there was true Islamic state. If there is no state and I am living in any western country, of course, i will have every right that the othe rcountrymen will have and I will live peacefully never to revolt against the state and will not demand anything at all except freedom to worship My God. I may not try to mak eany political move. I hope it is understood. So, you can now forget about " it has to look after the infidels too " i won’t disturb the infidels too. Thanks for reminding me.

(What I had meant by "it has to look after the infidels too " was the criminals. It was not about any difference of belief. )**

 

[neploho]

It has nothing to do with what is going through their minds. Their sins are wiped clean if they become martyrs. It is what they believe. If you heard the usual junk from muslims that ‘what they did was a sin’ - yes, it is a sin. But when they became a shahid - it didn’t matter anymore.

Now, if there was a muslim who did the things (sins) and didn’t follow through and become a shahid - well, that person was in my mind normal! But, according to islam he sinned.

They planned those hijackings for a very, long time. They trained and they planned. It just didn’t happen by a whim.

It is that same junk we got about ‘we don’t believe in suicide nor do we believe in the killing of innocents’. This is more junk from muslims because they never fill in the fact that they don’t look at unbelievers as innocent, nor do they consider dying while killing unbelievers an act of suicide. Only if a person kills him/herself without taking down an unbeliever with them is that a suicide. It is the same with the things these 17 hijackers - if they hadn’t killed some unbelievers they would have been sinners.

So little was known about islam at that time. And now that people have become aware of it - we get posts from you trying to bash the messenger. Go do some of your own research. I would post some links but they are ‘irrelevant’ for you.

It is truly an honor to meet a scholar of your knowledge and competency in Islamic fiqh. Unfortunately there are quite a few Muslim scholars; many very respected and influential scholars are not as enlightened as you in these matters. From Sayyed Qutb to the traditional schools of jurisprudence they all seem to be duped to some degree.

 

[neploho]

As I see it, I’m not defending Islam, I’m defending clear thinking. I’m perfectly willing to believe that Islam is false, even malicious, but there are sound and unsound reasons for believing that statement. If the reasons you cite violate logic, then it’s fair to point that out and look for other, better ones.

Sadly clear thinking is often the first death in any discussion about Islam.

 

[neploho]

You must live in a very interesting world.

 

[algebra]

Jihad is present in the Qur’an before Muhammad’s migration to Medina.

Maybe so, would you be kind enough to show me the verses.

You demarcate it from non political Islam without any clear criteria of what you mean of how you come about assigning it such universality of motive, method, and moral merit.

Political islam are those portions of the quran and sunnah that concern themselves more with state and empire than spirituality.

Let us take the civil code of sharia as an example.

There are elements of natural law within sharia, but there are elements that are present only because natural law evolved a certain way in the hejaz.

Muslims seek to impose their version of civil code on everyone in territories where they are a majority.

Example - I cannot slaughter and consume a pig in an islamic country, much less in front of a masjid.

This is “political islam”

“Let us never forget political Judaism” Well what in the world does that mean? That could cover anything from the God/prophet sanctioned genocide and savagery in the Old Testament and the draconian penal code by which the society was maintained to AIPAC’s lobying or Joe Liberman. You use of the term is likewise so comprehensive that it is almost meaningless. Recently a Muslim politician in the Sudan was released from prison after being locked up for speaking out against the atrocities in Darfur. He is a Muslim and is using his faith justify his opposition to the genocide. Is that political Islam

He is free to use his faith to oppose genocide, and that would be political islam too.

Would you describe the American Civil War in analogous language?

So you concede that the action to kill apostates was political, rather than religious?

You are in RCIA correct? Perhaps you should not be venturing down this road considering the Church’s les than admirable history in the Americas and other “uncivilized” regions of the world.

Absolutely not, I was not involved, nor do I support the misguided actions of the Church, including its persecution of jews.
So I will continue charging down this path; thank you.

 

[tomarin]

Agreed. I would add that it’s important to make valid criticisms and not rely on strawmen versions of Islam (which is how I would describe a lot of what I see going on in these fora).

 

[algebra]

LOL.
Mischief can be anything from brewing beer and making spicy pork sausages to prosyletising a “false” religion and abusing the prophet of islam.

 

[tomarin]

LOL.
Mischief can be anything from brewing beer and making spicy pork sausages to prosyletising a “false” religion and abusing the prophet of islam.

Or naming a teddy bear Mohammad. Remember that one?