Cartoons are bad but bombs are Ok?

[mjdonnelly]

Semper Fi:

Keyword there being “innocent”. Because Islam has no Magisterium, defining the term “innocent” is up to the individual Muslim.

Concur.

Some of us, being tax paying citizens, support the military because of our taxes, therefore it can be connected to us as not being “innocent”. Or since the US voted GW Bush into office, we are all now “guilty” of any misconcieved, preposterous offense that some muslims may have imagined up.

 

[shockerfan]

pro_universal:

There is not a single verse in the entire Muslim holy book that calls for forcible conversion. Not one.

The teaching of forcible conversion comes from a hadith (which is a source of Islamic teaching)

“…When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to accept Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them…if they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hand. If they refuse to pay that tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them.” * Muslim*, book 19, no. 4294

 

[Reuben_J]

selvaraj:

Mother Mary with naked breasts.
In Brussels a young Muslim immigrant published a poster depicting the Virgin Mary with naked breasts. Though the picture has drawn some protest from Catholics (though not from Western embassies, nor from the bishops), this artist need not fear being murdered in the street. On the contrary, he is being subsidised by the Ministry for Culture.

brusselsjournal.com/node/287

In Christ,
selvaraj

It would be helpful for this thread if some Muslims comment on this.

 

[pro_universal]

Mjdonnelly and Semper Fi,

I agree, and those arguments are the ones that the Islamist radicals use to weasel out of their religious obligations. “All Israelis are reserve troops, therefore they’re all targets”, etc.

Here’s an article I found by a Sheikh that explains the Islamic law on the point: livingislam.org/maa/dcmm_e.html

Shockerfan,

That hadith says they can pay a tax to retain religious freedom. For its time, that was a pretty darn good deal…it’s an option you you wouldn’t have had in Europe at the time, for sure. And for the most part, those Islamic taxes were lower than what the Byzantines charged even their own.

 

[shockerfan]

pro_universal:

Shockerfan,

That hadith says they can pay a tax to retain religious freedom. For its time, that was a pretty darn good deal…it’s an option you you wouldn’t have had in Europe at the time, for sure. And for the most part, those Islamic taxes were lower than what the Byzantines charged even their own.

But you do realize that a tax on someone just due to their religious affiliation is religious bigotry. Also, history tells us that the application and collection of this tax goes far beyond the payment of the tax to include humiliation and subserviance. This is done so that dhimmis (those who pay the tax) “feel themselves subdued” in accordance with Qur’an 9:29. There are several examples I have read about where the collection of the tax was done in such a way as to humiliate the payer (like holding him by the beard and striking both cheeks). But hey, they don’t do that anymore do they? Perhaps not, but the Jizya (tax) is still part of the Sharia. Obviously there are Muslims who don’t support the Jizya, and the forced coversions, but unfortunately, there are Muslims who do:
Sheikh Omar Bakri Muhammad (pro Osama Muslim leader in Great Britain), Sheikh Yussef Salameh (Palastinian Authority undersecretary for religious endowment - 1999), and Sheikh Marzouq Salem Al-Ghamdi at a Friday sermon at a mosque in Mecca. (If you want the quotes I have them). Its people like these that worry me.

 

[SAINThoodSEEKER]

pro_universal:

That is as false as claiming that the Holocaust was the product of “a long tradition of Christian teachings.” Osama and his sect have as little to do with traditional Islam as Jim Jones had to do with Christianity.

Who said anything about symbolism? The Koran as interpreted literally by the vast majority of Muslims forbids killing innocent people. If you read it, it’s actually pretty plain in this regard…only people who make violence and break treaties may be attacked, and then, only until they lay down their arms. Their book is quite explicit, which makes me almost a hundred percent certain that people who say otherwise haven’t actually read it.

That’s quite compatible with Christian religious ideology up until the past century. I see no grounds for condemnation there that would not make us hypocrites.

There is not a single verse in the entire Muslim holy book that calls for forcible conversion. Not one.

As long as our claims about their religion are so totally inaccurate as to be laughable, they will believe nothing we say. Think about it: would you take seriously someone who attacked the bible by claiming that Jesus commanded that Christians kill all non Christians? I sure wouldn’t…because that person obviously wouldn’t have read the book. The same goes for Islam.

Amen

The analogy that you made using the Holocaust holds no water. The Nazis (the power running their party) were accultists: Hitler, Himler, etc. They were not Christian, nor did they claim to be. It is just weird to even try to make this comparison. Secondly, how can you say that Bin Laden (or any other violent Muslim) have little to do with *traditional *Islam. What does history teach about Muhammed and the religious expansion that he and his followers embarked on? Here you have also fallen into the trap of comparing the past (and present) wrong doings of Muslims (at least the ones you admit to) to that of The Church. The first problem with that analogy is that The Church strictly forbids and has forbidden violence. We all know how Christ gave St. Peter stern warning about using violence (using “the sword”) the night before the Cruxifiction. There are also numerous Scripture teachings that do the same. If you look at the early Church Fathers (Apostles included), they used no violence and they preached what they practiced. Any and all “Christians”, whether priest, bishop, or pope, who ever murdered, raped, stole, etc. or who enabled or ordered these attrocities, is in direct violation with the Church and her teachings. I mean, 150 - 200 years ago the Bishop of Baltimore owned slaves, but is that analogous to Islamic “episodes” of violence or other wrong doings…no, for our faith does not TEACH nor does it ALLUDE to the idea that violent acts are acceptible (much less, that it’s necessary for salvation). The second problem with your rebutle is the fact that you can’t point to something bad to defend or even soften the accusation toward something else that is bad. It defies logic to sugarcoat Islamic wrongdoing by pointing to that of Christians. If Islamic teaching was actually innocent, there would be no tempation toward doing this.

Ask these questions:
Why has Islam been so successful? You will see that state religions (born by violence and force) have been the backbone of Islamic expansion.
**Why is it unsafe to visit the Holy Land (as it has been for centuries)? Is it because of Christians? Jews? **
Why don’t you see fires, riots, ect. done in the streets of Rome, Dublin, or “Bergen” N.J. in the name of Christ or in protest to any infidel?

You see, one can get very technical when trying to convey a point, but if that idea is true, then one can ask very basic, simple questions that will show proof as well. (Remember the original topic of this thread?)

 

[SAINThoodSEEKER]

catholic.com/library/endless_jihad.asp

Visit…then tell Mr. Akin, Mr. D’ Ambrosio, Mr. Keating, etc. that they are misguided as well.

**St. Jerome

“Heretics bring sentence upon themselves since they by their own choice withdraw from the Church, a withdrawal which, since they are aware of it, constitutes damnation. Between heresy and schism there is this difference: that heresy involves perverse doctrine, while schism separates one from the Church on account of disagreement with the bishop. Nevertheless, there is no schism which does not trump up a heresy to justify its departure from the Church” (Commentary on Titus 3:10–11 [A.D. 386]). **

 

[SAINThoodSEEKER]

Semper Fi:

Keyword there being “innocent”. Because Islam has no Magisterium, defining the term “innocent” is up to the individual Muslim.

And Bingo was his name-oh!
Also, if you read the teachings dealing with the use of violence when being “attacked” you see that this involves the belief that the definition of an attack includes the denial of their truth by an unbeliever or infidel. This is true! People, including Muslims will claim that the Qu’ran must be read in proper context…here is a perfect example of that when examining the meaning of an “attack” in this particular circumstance.

**“For everything there is a season; a time to kill, and a time to heal; a time for war, and a time for peace” -Solomon (Eccles. 3:1, 3, 8). **

 

[mikew262]

**Depicting a likeness of the Prophet Mohammed is considered an unspeakable crime. Personally, I found it grossly distasteful. It made me wonder at the intelligence of the author and the publisher.

in Islam. However, driving a bomb laden automobile into a group of school children, to get at one American soldier, will get you a ticket to heaven with 70 virgins.

And we are the decadent infidels bereft of morality and common decency.

I truly don’t understand the Muslim Religion.
**

Its a whole different mindset my friend. However, keep in kind, the real bad guys are extremists, probably not mainstream Muslims.

 

[pro_universal]

The Nazis (the power running their party) were accultists: Hitler, Himler, etc. They were not Christian, nor did they claim to be. It is just weird to even try to make this comparison.

They most definitely compared themselves to the Holy Roman Empire, and most Germans, being Christian, accepted them as part of their society. The holocaust was itself the industrialization of exactly the same practice sanctioned or ignored by “christian” political authorities for most of Europe’s christian history. Just as the Church has always condemend violence and often times protected Jews, so orthodox muslims follow their traditional laws of war in the face of islamist extremism. The phenomenon is one of human evil, not one of a particular religion.

It defies logic to sugarcoat Islamic wrongdoing by pointing to that of Christians. If Islamic teaching was actually innocent, there would be no tempation toward doing this.

Do you see the problem with that logic? Christian teaching is peaceful, yet clearly this has not stopped people from committing acts of violence in the name of Christianity. It is the same with muslims.

Sheikh Omar Bakri Muhammad…Its people like these that worry me.

You just listed three extremists. I can do the same with Christianity, and that’s a moot point. What do the authorities on the Islamic tradition say? That’s what you should ask.

As for our faith not alluding to violence, I’d like to post a quote from the original Summons to Crusade of 1095:

Let those who have been accustomed unjustly to wage private warfare against the faithful now go against the infidels and end with victory this war which should have been begun long ago. Let those who for a long time, have been robbers, now become knights. Let those who have been fighting against their brothers and relatives now fight in a proper way against the barbarians. Let those who have been serving as mercenaries for small pay now obtain the eternal reward.

We are all capable of distorting religious teachings, and there is no reason to believe that radical islamism is any less a distortion of the muslim faith than to believe that the call to kill all the “pagans” was not true to the Christian faith.

 

[pro_universal]

Visit…then tell Mr. Akin, Mr. D’ Ambrosio, Mr. Keating, etc. that they are misguided as well.

It is indeed misguided. For a fully cited article on the history of modern extremism in Islam, you should read this: meforum.org/article/14

It actually documents with footnotes and references what the Muslim authorities said about the roots of extremism, and in my mind pretty convincingly smashes the notion that the current crop of terrorists follow anything like “traditional islam.”

 

[pro_universal]

Why has Islam been so successful? You will see that state religions (born by violence and force) have been the backbone of Islamic expansion.
Why is it unsafe to visit the Holy Land (as it has been for centuries)? Is it because of Christians? Jews?
Why don’t you see fires, riots, ect. done in the streets of Rome, Dublin, or “Bergen” N.J. in the name of Christ or in protest to any infidel?

1. The most heavily populated Muslim part of the world is Southeast Asia. What Arab army went there? What Islamic army went there? I think it’s quite odd to attribute a religion’s success to warfare when the most substantial subset of its population lives in a region untouched by the middle eastern armies.
2. It has not been unsafe for centuries to visit the holy lands. Persecution of Jews and Christians is a recent phenomenon, due in my opinion to the financial backing of extremists in Saudi Arabia and to the creation of Israel in 1948. Before that, the middle east was one of the only places in the world where Jews were shielded, even when Nazi german troops were present (as they were in North Africa.)
3. You don’t see riots in Rome and in the Western Countries over religious offense because we like to spend our energy rioting over other things, like soccer games, increases/decreases in French wages, race (in America, this one is common), and sometimes the “evil” WTO meetings.

 

[SAINThoodSEEKER]

Once again,
your analogy is wrong. You gave a quote from the 11th century! Hardly is that of one of our Church Fathers…much less Christ Himself! I am comparing the ROOTS (teachings) of the two faiths, not what one person says or even does in 1145, then another in 1874…etc. You might as well quote Martin Luther or John Calvin, as your presented quote obviously does not originate from a follower of our faith. I am comparing the teachings of Muhammed to our Fathers/Christ Himself. As I have tried to communicate…the actions of anyone (Christian or Muslim) does not count in this discussion. I’m not worried so much about “extremists” or nutbags. I’m worried about THE TEACHINGS of the said faiths. You can’t blame Christianity, much less Christ, for a bomb that goes off in an abortion clinic, but you can but blame on Muhammed and the Islamic faith for the the various historic attrocities that have unfolded in the name of Allah precisely because these have been prescribed as a prerequisite to Heaven. (See the link I included in a very recent post).

Also, you need to ditch the secular history. Don’t even attempt to bring any of that “Pope Pius XXII…“Silent Pope” mumbojumbo!” He, without the glory of the press and the kindness of secular history, saved hundreds of thousands of Jews by storage, counterfitting Christian “tags” to be worn, and most importantly BY BEING SILENT…a tactic that allowed the Holy Father’s good deeds to go unnoticed (to everyone except the aided Jews and God).

 

[SAINThoodSEEKER]

pro_universal:

It is indeed misguided. For a fully cited article on the history of modern extremism in Islam, you should read this: meforum.org/article/14

It actually documents with footnotes and references what the Muslim authorities said about the roots of extremism, and in my mind pretty convincingly smashes the notion that the current crop of terrorists follow anything like “traditional islam.”

You say “in my mind…” in the second paragraph. That choice of vocab. seems appropriate as it appears that you *wish not * to agree with me or most of the others on this thread. If you look at the topic at hand with rose-colored glasses, then there is no more to say.
I guess you know more than these apologists. Well then I apologize!

**Augustine

“[The Quintillians are heretics who] give women predominance so that these, too, can be honored with the priesthood among them. They say, namely, that Christ revealed himself . . . to Quintilla and Priscilla [two Montanist prophetesses] in the form of a woman” (Heresies 1:17 [A.D. 428]). **

 

[pro_universal]

I am comparing the teachings of Muhammed to our Fathers/Christ Himself. As I have tried to communicate…the actions of anyone (Christian or Muslim) does not count in this discussion.

No, you are not. Citing the claims of groups like the “Salafists” and other Osama-bin-Laden sympathizers is like citing Jim Jones to explain Catholic teaching. If you want to compare only the early teachings of the muslims, then you have to rely on the Koran and Hadiths…which were thoroughly worked into a theological system by Islam’s own “church fathers”, ie, the founders of the four madhabs. If you won’t accept a Pope from the 11th century as an exemplar of Catholic teaching, why would you accept a gang from the 20th century as representative of Islam?

I think you are on the right track, though…look at what the traditional muslim schools teach. I posted one link, and more are cited in the meforum.org link.

but you can but blame on Muhammed and the Islamic faith for the the various historic attrocities that have unfolded in the name of Allah precisely because these have been prescribed as a prerequisite to Heaven.

This is simply not correct. The article, like jihadwatch.org, lists a couple of totally out of context pieces of text from the Koran. Each one of those “surahs” is specifically addressed in the fatwa from the Shafi’i Imama that I posted. I will repost the link once more: livingislam.org/maa/dcmm_e.html

The article is difficult to read because it’s written for a muslim audience, but there is a glossary there and it explains exactly the traditional muslim view of those verses, and more importantly provides textual context.

I’ll give an example for you. 9:5 about “slaying pagans” is given in the article and commonly to prove “muslim violence.” Nevermind that muslims do not regard Christians and Jews to be pagans; for now, let’s just look at the verse directly before and directly after 9:5.

9:4 of the Koran states, for example:

1. (But the treaties are) not dissolved with those Pagans with whom ye have entered into alliance and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor aided any one against you. So fulfil your engagements with them to the end of their term: for Allah loveth the righteous.

9:6, right after the “slay the pagans” verse, says:

1. If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah. and then escort him to where he can be secure. That is because they are men without knowledge.

That is a pretty explicit rejection of unwarranted violence, if you ask me. And using 9:5 to prove “Islam means everyone nonmuslim has to be killed” seems ridiculous if you have read the verses immediately surrounding it. Hence, I do not extend credibility to an article using these citations to prove its point…either it is deliberately missing the context, or it is not actually based on reading the book.

Understanding and reconcilitaion folks…here’s an illuminating piece, if you ask me:

Luke 6:37: Judge not: and you shall not be judged. Condemn not: and you shall not be condemned. Forgive: and you shall be forgiven.

 

[inJESUS]

That’s quite compatible with Christian religious ideology up until the past century. I see no grounds for condemnation there that would not make us hypocrites.

SHOW ME THIS IN THE BIBLE.

 

[inJESUS]

Do you see the problem with that logic? Christian teaching is peaceful, yet clearly this has not stopped people from committing acts of violence in the name of Christianity. It is the same with muslims.

Teachings have nothing to do with sinful people…the Bible is CLEARLY PEACEFUL…those you call Christians whose fruit is not Christians are in CLEAR contradiction with the Bible,…on the other hand, in Islam , the peace message is not clear, you have to dig , thats why millions of muslims are terrorists if not literally then in heart.

You just listed three extremists. I can do the same with Christianity, and that’s a moot point. What do the authorities on the Islamic tradition say? That’s what you should ask.

yes name Christians terrorists who based their violence on the bible…just name them…

As for **our faith **

not alluding to violence, I’d like to post a quote from the original Summons to Crusade of 1095: no one is fooled by your “protestant” camouflage am afraid.

We are all capable of distorting religious teachings, and there is no reason to believe that radical islamism is any less a distortion of the muslim faith than to believe that the call to kill all the “pagans” was not true to the Christian faith.

show me this in the Bible…“give me your proof if you are truthful”.

 

[inJESUS]

1. The most heavily populated Muslim part of the world is Southeast Asia. What Arab army went there? What Islamic army went there? I think it’s quite odd to attribute a religion’s success to warfare when the most substantial subset of its population lives in a region untouched by the middle eastern armies.

sorry but how does this prove that islam was not initially spread by the sword?

1. You don’t see riots in Rome and in the Western Countries over religious offense because we like to spend our energy rioting over other things, like soccer games, increases/decreases in French wages, race (in America, this one is common), and sometimes the “evil” WTO meetings.

you beat round the bush in all threads…he was asking about religious riotting…Christians and muslims are human beings…why is it that the 2 have different reactions? what makes Christians non -violent and muslims violent?

 

[pro_universal]

inJesus, some people took the following statements to mean that slavery and other such crimes were permissible:

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as you obey Christ; not only while being watched, and in order to please them, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart. (Eph. 6:5-6)

Here’s a whole collection of homilies against the Jews:

fordham.edu/halsall/source/chrysostom-jews6.html

 

[inJESUS]

pro_universal:

inJesus, some people took the following statements to mean that slavery and other such crimes were permissible:

Here’s a whole collection of homilies against the Jews:

fordham.edu/halsall/source/chrysostom-jews6.html

so you are calling slavery a “crime” yet defending mohammad who owned slaved and used them as sexual toys?

Does this passage really trigger crimes? what crimes?

and about the other link , are you refering to the crusades’ treatment of Jews?