Catholic Considering Islam

[sedonaman]

I’d also like to point out a basic logical flaw in Sedonaman’s argument.

1. Islam committed these sins.
2. Therefore, Islam is nothing but these sins.
   Which misses the point of what I was trying to say, which was that (even if we grant that everything you said about Islam is true - which, as a matter of historical fact, it isn’t) there is a beautiful, attractive side to Islam that you are ignoring.
   Pointing out the ugly side even stronger says absolutely nothing about the side of Islam that I am talking about.

So you must be talking about the Mecca Islam; I’m talking about the Medina Islam. Your claim is a non-sequitur that my argument is a logic flaw.

 

[sedonaman]

…
What Muslims imitate is *that *idealized Muhammad, not your picture of Muhammad (whether your picture is any less distorted historically is not the issue here).

And that idealized Mohammed is the conqueror. Just look at their god Allah. The God of the Bible is great because he is good. Allah is great because he is powerful.

 

[Contarini]

So you must be talking about the Mecca Islam

I presume you are talking about the traditional division of the Qur’an into surahs revealed at Mecca and surahs revealed at Medina. But obviously Islam is far more than the Qur’an, and the Islamic tradition as a whole looks to both Meccan and Medinan surahs alike, although I grant that there does seem to be a strong bias in much of the tradition toward the Medinan surahs on the basis of the doctrine of “abrogation.”

However, Cecilianus is not talking about some original, pristine “Meccan” Islam. He’s talking about Islam as we see it in history.

Edwin

 

[sedonaman]

…
However, Cecilianus is not talking about some original, pristine “Meccan” Islam. He’s talking about Islam as we see it in history.

Great!

Some Christians feel guilty about the Crusades because they don’t know their entire history. Muslims are only too willing to heap the blame on those Christians, but ask yourself how Muslims came to dominate the Holy Land in the first place. I assure you it was not by evangelizing in marketplaces.[1], [2] IOW, history did not begin with the calling of the first Crusade.

Before the Muslim conquerors arrived on the scene, the area of the Eastern Mediterranean and North Africa had been Christian. The Muslim invasion was not bloodless, either, and once they moved in, Christians were offered the “opportunity” to convert to Islam, become a dhimmi, or die. The life of blacks in America under Jim Crow Laws was a breeze compared to that of a dhimmi under Islamic rule. See Bostom.[3] In addition to the shutting off access to the Holy Land to Christian pilgrims, the general oppression of Christian dhimmis was the reason for the call for help to Christian Europe.

Stenhouse[1] lists only some of the events that took place in the 463 years between the death of Mohammed and the calling of the first Crusade, among them,

632 – Mohammed dies
633 – Mesopotamia falls to Muslim invasion, followed by the entire Persian Empire
635 – Damascus falls
638 – Jerusalem capitulates
643 – Alexandria falls, ending 1,000 years of Hellenic civilization
648-49 – Cyprus falls
653 – Rhodes falls
673 – Constantinople attacked
698 – All of North Africa lost
711 – Spain invaded
717 – Muslims attack Constantinople again; repelled by Emperor Leo the Isaurian
721 – Saragossa falls, Muslims sights on southern France
720 – Narbonne falls.
732 – Bordeaux was stormed and its churches burnt down
732 – Charles Martel and his Frankish army defeat Muslims, turning back the Muslim tide
732 – Attacks on France continued
734 – Avignon captured by an Muslim force
743 – Lyons sacked
759 – Arabs driven out of Narbonne.
838 – Marseilles plundered
800 – Muslims incursions into Italy begin, Islands of Ponza and Ischia plundered
813 – Civitavecchia, the port of Rome sacked
826 – Crete falls to Muslim forces
827 – Muslim forces begin to attack Sicily.
837 – Naples repels a Muslim attack
838 – Marseilles taken
840 – Bari falls
842 – Messina captured and Strait of Messina controlled
846 – Muslims squadrons arrived at Ostia, at the Tiber’s mouth, sack Rome and St. Peter’s Basilica
846 – Taranto in Apulia conquered by Muslim forces
849 – Papal forces repel Muslim fleet at the mouth of the Tiber
853 – 871 – Italian coast from Bari down to Reggio Calabria controlled, Muslims terrorize Southern Italy.
859 – Muslims take control of all Messina
870 – Malta captured by the Muslims.
870 – Bari recaptured from the Muslims by Emperor Louis II
872 – Emperor Louis II defeats a Saracen fleet off Capua
872 – Muslim forces devastate Calabria
878 – Syracuse falls after a nine-month siege
879 – Pope John VIII forced to pay tribute of 25,000 mancuses (AUD$625,000) annually to the Muslims
880 – Byzantine Commanders gain victory over Saracen forces at Naples
881 – Muslims capture fortress near Anzio, plunder surrounding countryside with impunity for forty [40] years.
887 – Muslim armies take Hysela and Amasia, in Asia Minor.
889 – Toulon captured
902 – Muslim fleets sacked and destroyed Demetrias in Thessaly, Central Greece,
904 – Thessalonica falls to Muslim forces
915 – After three months of blockade, Christian forces victorious against Saracens holed-up in their fortresses north of Naples
921 – English pilgrims to Rome crushed to death under rocks rolled down on them by Saracens in the passes of the Alps
934 – Genoa attacked by Muslim forces
935 – Genoa taken
972 – Saracens finally driven from Faxineto
976 – Caliphs of Egypt send fresh Muslim expeditions into southern Italy. Initially the German Emperor Otho II , who had set up his headquarters in Rome, successfully defeated these Saracen forces
977 – Sergius, Archbishop of Damascus, expelled from his See by Muslims
982 – Emperor Otho’s forces ambushed and his army defeated
1003 – Muslims from Spain sack Antibes
1003-09 – Marauding bands of Saracens plunder Italian coast from Pisa to Rome from bases on Sardinia
1005 – Muslims from Spain sack Pisa
1009 – Caliph of Egypt orders destruction of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, the Tomb of Jesus
1010 – Saracens seize Cosenza in southern Italy.
1015 – All Sardinia falls
1016 – Muslims from Spain again sack Pisa
1017 – Fleets of Pisa and Genoa sail for Sardinia, find Saracens crucifying Christians, drive Saracen leader out. Saracens try to re-take Sardinia until 1050
1020 – Muslims from Spain sack Narbonne
1095 – The First Crusade.

There were 463 years between Mohammed’s death in 632 and the calling of a Crusade to free lands that had been Christian for a thousand years before the Muslim invaders arrived. Any characterization of the Crusades that doesn’t include this perspective is absurd on its face.

[1]“The Crusades In Context” by Dr Paul Stenhouse answering-islam.org.uk/Green/crusades-stenhouse.htm

Also see “The Real History of the Crusades” by Medieval historian Thomas F. Madden catholiceducation.org/articles/history/world/wh0055.html

 

[sedonaman]

…He’s talking about Islam as we see it in history.

Furthermore, “It was written in the Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their [Muslims’] authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon whoever they could find and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman [as Muslims were called then] who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.” – Tripoli’s ambassador to London in response to Thomas Jefferson John Adams’ inquiry into by what right did the Barbary states prey on American ships, March 1785. [It is worth noting that the United States played no part in the Crusades, nor in the Catholic reconquista of Andalusia; nor did the state of Israel exist at the time. The US was merely minding its own business.]

During the 494 years between the end of last Crusade in 1291 and Jefferson’s experience, Islam had not changed. Even A Common Word Between You and Us is a carefully crafted document that follows Mohammed’s 1,400 year-old example. “It is nothing more than a 21st Century version of the call to unity and peace which Muhammad issued to Byzantium before his death in the 7th Century – a call which has resounded again and again since that time throughout history, just before the Islamic forces moved in to make good militarily their claims to the right to rule politically by divine decree.”

But now we are to believe that because you and Cecilianus know some good Muslims and some peaceful verses that Islam is nice. Gimme a break.

 

[Contarini]

Actually, property could be seized from Christians if their children converted, and also I believe for other reasons as well. Dhimmitude is an incredibly dim and humiliating way of life. The state of Jews and Muslims in Christian Spain before 1492 - when they were expelled in order to safeguard Spain’s new unity - was considerably better.

I’d like to see some basis for that claim. Here’s one horrific vignette that points in a different direction. According to Richard Fletcher (The Cross and the Crescent: Christianity and Islam from Muhammad to the Reformation, Viking, 2003, p. 115), the law in late medieval Spain decreed the death penalty for both parties in cases of a sexual relationship between a Muslim man and a Christian woman, but only for the woman if the religions of the two parties were reversed. In the latter case, says Fletcher, the woman was usually enslaved rather than being executed (if she converted to Christianity then she wouldn’t be punished at all). The Crown and the woman’s accusers shared the price of her sale–and furthermore sex with slaves was totally legal. Here’s now the monks of the town of Roda exploited this legal situation around 1356. They would sleep with Muslim women, then accuse them to the authorities. Then they would persuade the Crown to let them keep the women as slaves, which meant that they could either go on having sex with them or sell them.

Now if that isn’t a “dim and humiliating” way to live, I don’t know what is. Fletcher gives a number of other examples, and concludes that the conditions under which the Muslim “mudejars” lived were comparable to the practice of “dhimmitude.” Not worse, mind you, as some have claimed–just comparable. Given what I know about the way Jews were treated in Europe in general in the later Middle Ages, I’d tend to evaluate their condition as *worse *than that of dhimmis. But I will not insist on that point, since it may be an error in perspective (I know more about the oppression of Jews by Christians than about the oppression of Jews and Christians by Muslims, and that combined with my guilt as a Christian may make it seem worse).

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Furthermore, “It was written in the Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their [Muslims’] authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon whoever they could find and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman [as Muslims were called then] who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.” – Tripoli’s ambassador to London in response to Thomas Jefferson John Adams’ inquiry into by what right did the Barbary states prey on American ships, March 1785.

I’m not sure how you think this contradicts anything I have said. I have never denied that Muslims have often justified aggressive and violent behavior by recourse to aspects of their tradition.

During the 494 years between the end of last Crusade in 1291 and Jefferson’s experience, Islam had not changed. Even A Common Word Between You and Us is a carefully crafted document that follows Mohammed’s 1,400 year-old example. “It is nothing more than a 21st Century version of the call to unity and peace which Muhammad issued to Byzantium before his death in the 7th Century – a call which has resounded again and again since that time throughout history, just before the Islamic forces moved in to make good militarily their claims to the right to rule politically by divine decree.”

That’s a load of the usual nonsense from “Answering Islam.” I can’t see that it’s warranted by the text of the “Common Word” itself. And you don’t have to read far in Answering Islam’s analysis before you come across the word “taqiyyah.” That’s usually a sure sign that the Christian who uses it can’t be bothered actually trying to understand what the Muslims are saying. The historic meaning of “taqiyyah” is totally distorted to allow Christians to ignore or twist whatever Muslims say to fit their own bigoted agenda.

Can’t you do better than that?

But now we are to believe that because you and Cecilianus know some good Muslims and some peaceful verses that Islam is nice. Gimme a break.

I never said that Islam is nice. No wonder you distort and misinterpret the words of non-Christians, when you can’t even describe the opinions of your fellow-Christians correctly.

I don’t find Islam a very “nice” religion for the most part. But I don’t think “niceness” is the all-important issue here, and I also don’t think that any religion can be characterized as a whole with such a broad brush. Any major religion, including Christianity, is going to have some admirable elements and some very disturbing ones.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Great!

Some Christians feel guilty about the Crusades because they don’t know their entire history.

I’m not sure why you jump to the Crusades. Your exposition was unnecessary in my case. I agree that a military response to Seljuk aggression in aid of the Byzantine Empire was justified. Insofar as Christians should feel guilt about the Crusades, it is not because they were in principle unjustified, but rather for the following reasons:

1. Many atrocities were committed in the course of these wars, and such actions are never justified no matter how righteous the cause.
2. The Crusades led to a shift in Christian thinking about warfare and the creation of a category of “holy war” which had not as far as I can see been there before. I think that this was a very bad thing for Christianity. (Note: scholars of Islam claim that similarly the Crusades led to a much harsher and more militant doctrine of “jihad” within Islam. These things go in spirals, although I totally agree with you that Islamic aggression came first.)
3. The Crusades very quickly ceased to be in any sense an operation designed to help the Christians of the Byzantine Empire. Indeed, the Crusades ultimately weakened the Byzantine Empire, particularly of course the Fourth Crusade which temporarily captured Constantinople. While these events no doubt could not have been foreseen by Pope Urban or the original Crusaders, they are nonetheless a legitimate reason for Western Christians to feel guilt.
4. One could perhaps argue that even after relations between the Crusaders and the Byzantines soured, the Crusades remained an operation in aid of Eastern Christians–the many Middle Eastern Christians living under Muslim rule. In that case, they were an abject failure, since in the end the result of the Crusades seems to have been the worsening of conditions for Middle Eastern Christians.

All in all, I think that the Crusades (the aggressive ones–later Crusades designed to roll back Muslim aggression against Christian Europe are a different story) are a good example of why “holy war” is the wrong path for Christians. That does not mean that they were wholly unjustified or that we should condemn them without qualification.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

And that idealized Mohammed is the conqueror.

That depends on which Muslims you are talking about. Reza Aslan’s idealized Muhammad is not the conqueror.

Just look at their god Allah. The God of the Bible is great because he is good. Allah is great because he is powerful.

Can you support this claim?

Edwin

 

[bpbasilphx]

God is not leading you to follow in the footsteps of a pedophile who was deceived by an inferior demon masquerading as Gabriel.

 

[sedonaman]

…
That’s a load of the usual nonsense from “Answering Islam.”

A “load” that doesn’t fit the liberal “in” narrative usually is “nonsense” … especially if you disagree with it.

…
The historic meaning of “taqiyyah” is totally distorted to allow Christians to ignore or twist whatever Muslims say to fit their own bigoted agenda.

"When I use a word, it means precisely what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.”

I don’t find Islam a very “nice” religion for the most part. But I don’t think “niceness” is the all-important issue here, and I also don’t think that any religion can be characterized as a whole with such a broad brush. Any major religion, including Christianity, is going to have some admirable elements and some very disturbing ones.

You characterized “Answering Islam” with a broad brush. At least “Answering Islam” doesn’t have a history of waging aggressive war. Besides, I don’t consider Islam a religion.

 

[sedonaman]

I’m not sure why you jump to the Crusades.

Either you or Cecilianus brought it up initially.

… Insofar as Christians should feel guilt about the Crusades, it is not because they were in principle unjustified, but rather for the following reasons:

1. Many atrocities were committed in the course of these wars, and such actions are never justified no matter how righteous the cause.
2. The Crusades led to a shift in Christian thinking about warfare and the creation of a category of “holy war” which had not as far as I can see been there before. I think that this was a very bad thing for Christianity. (Note: scholars of Islam claim that similarly the Crusades led to a much harsher and more militant doctrine of “jihad” within Islam. These things go in spirals, although I totally agree with you that Islamic aggression came first.)
3. The Crusades very quickly ceased to be in any sense an operation designed to help the Christians of the Byzantine Empire. Indeed, the Crusades ultimately weakened the Byzantine Empire, particularly of course the Fourth Crusade which temporarily captured Constantinople. While these events no doubt could not have been foreseen by Pope Urban or the original Crusaders, they are nonetheless a legitimate reason for Western Christians to feel guilt.
4. One could perhaps argue that even after relations between the Crusaders and the Byzantines soured, the Crusades remained an operation in aid of Eastern Christians–the many Middle Eastern Christians living under Muslim rule. In that case, they were an abject failure, since in the end the result of the Crusades seems to have been the worsening of conditions for Middle Eastern Christians.

All in all, I think that the Crusades (the aggressive ones–later Crusades designed to roll back Muslim aggression against Christian Europe are a different story) are a good example of why “holy war” is the wrong path for Christians. That does not mean that they were wholly unjustified or that we should condemn them without qualification.

Edwin

Which all could have been avoided if Mohammed had stayed in Medina, the only place he was invited to.

 

[sedonaman]

…
Now if that isn’t a “dim and humiliating” way to live, I don’t know what is.

Muslims who impose dhimmitude are simply following their founder, and Islam is to be embraced out of some sense of duty to “inclusion”, but Christianity is to be condemned because some of its leaders went against the teachings of Jesus. Makes perfect sense to me.

 

[Cecilianus]

Try it all!

Experiment and experience everything and do it when and how you feel fit too.

Life is too short to think hmm, if only and when it comes to faith there’s a world out there waiting to be tasted.

Try it, if you don’t like it then leave it but you will come away with plenty of experience, you’ll know far more than others around you because you’ve not been afraid to venture.

Faith is so important because it’s individual and unique to each person and no other person can tell you what the right or wrong thing is for you to feel or have faith in because they don’t know what’s in your heart, they don’t know what’s truly important to you.

As long as you don’t do it to put down someone else then you are hurting no one.

Give it a go and have fun doing it! Remember, Catholicism isn’t going anywhere so it’ll be right where you left it. Good luck!

No. We cannot play with fire; our consciences demand that we submit to the truth. Truth and religion are important, serious matters, not games to play. What you are suggesting is a mortal sin, plain and simple.

 

[Cecilianus]

I am not sure why people like you write so many words without saying a single thing coherently. Are you trying to obfuscate the discussion just to protect Islam or the sensitivities of Muslims?

Below is what I think was the main point of your post (if there was any):

Let us suppose for a moment that (as many people who have studied in detail the Koran, Hadiths and the Sunna have concluded) Islam does teach that is a mandate for Muslims to (when conditions permit it) wage war against unbelievers until we submit to Muslim rule.

If that were the case, how would you propose to contend with such a situation “honestly and accurately” and without “regurgitating caricatures in hateful spirit”?

I’m trying to protect Christian charity and intellectual honesty. I’m also trying to make the point that there isn’t any necessarily coherent “single” version of Islam; it’s not a revealed religion, and therefore there isn’t any “true” or “false” Islam (despite your repeated attempts to make fundamentalist Islam the “true” Islam and more moderate versions the “false” Islam). The Muslims who are reading this will disagree with me; that’s unavoidable since I don’t happen to be a Muslim and therefore don’t think it to be a revealed religion. There are many aspects of Islam which are beautiful. That was the point I tried to make in the beginning.

 

[Cecilianus]

I presume you are talking about the traditional division of the Qur’an into surahs revealed at Mecca and surahs revealed at Medina. But obviously Islam is far more than the Qur’an, and the Islamic tradition as a whole looks to both Meccan and Medinan surahs alike, although I grant that there does seem to be a strong bias in much of the tradition toward the Medinan surahs on the basis of the doctrine of “abrogation.”

However, Cecilianus is not talking about some original, pristine “Meccan” Islam. He’s talking about Islam as we see it in history.

Edwin

Thank you, Edwin. I’m also including the ahadith when I refer to Islam - some of which are divided between the Sunni and Shiite confessions, and which don’t necessarily originate in Mohammed’s lifetime.

 

[Cecilianus]

And that idealized Mohammed is the conqueror. Just look at their god Allah. The God of the Bible is great because he is good. Allah is great because he is powerful.

In the Name of God, the Benevolent, the Merciful!

Seriously, Sedonaman, do you actually believe the things you are saying? God’s goodness is fundamental to Islam. If you want to consider yourself an expert in Islam, try reading the Qur’an before pontificating.

By the way, the term “Allah” refers to the Christian God as well (it simply means “The-God”). It was used by the Maronite and Melkite Catholics centuries before Islam came into existence, as it still is today. Muslim do worship our God, according to Nostra Aetate - which as Catholics we must accept, since it was promulgated by an Ecumenical Council.

 

[Cecilianus]

God is not leading you to follow in the footsteps of a pedophile who was deceived by an inferior demon masquerading as Gabriel.

For the record, I agree here completely. I’m not arguing for pluralism or universalism or any of that ****. But the probably demonic origin of Islam (I don’t have a better explanation) don’t undo the good that has been mixed up with evil in the past. Also keep in mind that Mohammed, for all his later sins, at one point (while still in Medina, I believe) came very close to having his followers embrace Christianity, and also that his followers were given refuge as being fellow Christians in Ethiopia during their exodus there. It began with Mohammed’s search for God, and many Muslims through the centuries have tried to serve Him piously.

 

[birdsong]

Trying to go off tangent to muddle the discussion and protect Islam, eh Cecilanus?

Even if there’s not a single coherent version of Islam (BTW, I NEVER claimed such a thing!), what do you propose to do with regards to those teachings/people that do validate their terrorists claims by pointing out to the Koran/Sunnah/Hadiths?

For example, ALL schools of Sunni jurisprudence plus renowned exegetes and scholars do teach ( based on the Koran/Sunnah/Hadiths) that all people who leave Islam MUST be put to death. So, in your opinion, what should one do about those teachings/people?

And before you bring up again useless sentimentalist stuff such as “islam has aspects that are beautiful”, let me remind you that the issue is not whether islam has “beautiful aspects”. The issue at hand is that islamofasicsts point out to the Koran/Hadits/Sunna to claim legitimacy and back up their terrorist agenda. So spare me the crocodile tears, please?

PS: I’d appreciate if you could give a very concise answer to the very concise question I am posing to you.

I’m trying to protect Christian charity and intellectual honesty. I’m also trying to make the point that there isn’t any necessarily coherent “single” version of Islam; it’s not a revealed religion, and therefore there isn’t any “true” or “false” Islam (despite your repeated attempts to make fundamentalist Islam the “true” Islam and more moderate versions the “false” Islam). The Muslims who are reading this will disagree with me; that’s unavoidable since I don’t happen to be a Muslim and therefore don’t think it to be a revealed religion. There are many aspects of Islam which are beautiful. That was the point I tried to make in the beginning.

 

[Steven_John]

Just look at their god Allah.

Yes Allah is the God of the Catholic Church, best you see Him as your God while not denying He is theirs also.

The way you phrased, to me would imply you thought you did not worship their God.

Obviously this would not be the case for you.