Catholic Considering Islam

[Contarini]

An obvious example would be the massacre of civilians, including women and children, in the taking of Jerusalem in 1099. I do not claim that the Church taught that this was OK. I do claim that the Church’s emerging (and new-fangled) teaching about holy war (probably influenced by the ideas of the very Muslims they were fighting, as the Crusades in turn appear to have made the doctrine of jihad harsher and more prominent among Muslims) helped make Christian warriors feel that such actions were OK when directed against infidels (never mind that many of the victims in the sack were Christians). I also am not aware of the Church’s representatives on that occasion condemning the massacre or even inflicting penance for it (though I am happy to be proven wrong). Therefore, you cannot let the Church off the hook by the technicality that it never said “it’s OK to kill the innocent in a holy war.”

they obviously went through a very profound transformation that resulted in reformed teachings and doctrines that repudiate violence against innocents.

Indeed. But there are three problems with the use you seem to be making of this transformation:

1. As I have said above, the transformation is still not complete. We still have work to do.
2. We do not believe that Christianity only began to be true when this transformation took place. We believe that Christianity has been true for 2000 years–that it was true when the Church was officially executing heretics and exiling “infidels,” and when Christian attitudes were less officially inspiring massacres and atrocities and oppressions of various sorts. That being so, we cannot logically use violent or intolerant behavior/teaching in Islam as a conclusive argument against the truth of Islam (it certainly has some weight, of course–it is one of the reasons I reject Islam but by no means the most important; if I thought the arguments for Islam were otherwise convincing I could probably deal with Islam’s tarnished record, as I in fact deal with that of Christianity). And far more significantly from my perspective, we cannot rule out the possibility that such a transformation may take place or is taking place in Islam. It’s only a possibility. It’s not inevitable, and indeed my hopes are not particularly strong that such a transformation will ever be the dominant reality in Islam as it currently is in Christianity. But arguing that such a transformation is *impossible *is neither just nor wise.

On the other hand, the criminal behaviour by Jihadists is still being encouraged by the canonised teachings of the mainstream muslim denominations.

That depends on which behavior you are talking about. For instance, do you deny that Islamic law forbids the killing of noncombatants, particularly women, children, and Christian clergy and religious? Do you deny that Osama bin Laden violated traditional Islamic law when he mastermined the 9/11 attacks? If you do deny this, how do you explain the fact that a chorus of Muslim scholars, including representatives of the very prestigious Al-Azhar mosque/university in Cairo, condemned the 9/11 attacks on precisely these grounds?

But let us be more specific: you probably ignore it, but ALL schools of sunni jurisprudence, to this date, still teach that apostates of Islam should be put to death.

Indeed. I am aware of that. It’s a serious problem. However, as I presume you know, some Muslims call for reopening of the “gates of ijtihad,” which would allow for this kind of teaching to be questioned. The problem of course is that this also allows folks like bin Laden to push their interpretations of the Qur’an and hadith as well even when *they *go against traditional Islamic law.

I challenge you to show me a similar teaching in the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

Now, even if in the past the Catholic Church taught that heretics should be put to death, it is evident that those doctrines were dropped a long time ago.

Your continued use of conditional language makes it hard to have an honest discussion with you. Are you actually denying that the Catholic Church taught this, or not? I will assume that you are not denying it. If you are, I can certainly present plenty of evidence proving you wrong. (Starting with IV Lateran and Exsurge Domine–Aquinas is also relevant though of course not official Church teaching in himself.) But proving what should be common knowledge is wearisome, and I’d be happy not to have to do it.

I’m not sure what counts as “a long time ago” with you. As far as I am aware, the last person executed for heresy by a Catholic government was Cayetano Ripoll in 1826. However, the Catholic Church continued to defend religious persecution on general principles (without as far as I know specifically defending the death penalty) until Vatican II.

And I’m not sure why, as a Catholic, you think that Church teachings or even just theological opinions of the past are irrelevant. (Actually I do have a guess as to why, but it is not my business to try to explain this attitude on your part. My explanation might be unfair and would certainly distract from the present conversation.)

Many Muslims who turn to Christianity are harassed and threatened daily by other Muslims who want to kill them. Are we supposed to say and do nothing just because (allegedly) the Catholic Church once encouraged similar behaviours?

Again, where did you learn that kind of asinine reasoning?

I didn’t learn it. I didn’t employ it. Never have I said or in any way implied that we should “do nothing” in the face of widespread Muslim violence and intolerance. We should do a lot of things. We should defend the innocent against those Muslims who persecute or attack them. We should argue vigorously for Christianity and against Islamic theological claims, and particularly against the common misrepresentations, distortions, and sheer triumphalistic nonsense put out by Muslim apologists. We should resist any temptation to whitewash the record of Islam in the name of political correctness. We should show Christian love to Muslims when we encounter them personally. And most of all we should be willing to die for Christ and for our neighbors if necessary.

But what we should clearly *not *do is speak unjustly and unwarrantably about Muslims, exaggerating their faults while whitewashing our own. Neither should we deny the possibility of change in Islam or belittle those working for change in the direction of greater truth and virtue. We should honor and acknowledge those aspects of Islam which are noble and true and good, and we should defend Muslims against those who misrepresent or persecute them.

Edwin

 

[planten]

**For Deus and sedonaman, I tell you again that the songs of King Soloman are in praise of Muhammad. In one of his songs, (chapter 5 verses 10 to 16), even the name of Muhammad is mentioned (Muhammadaim.)

Now about franki, I never said that Guru Nanak was born Muslim. I said that he was a Hindu. He became dissatisfied with the Hindu caste system and came close to Islam. He was a saint, real saint and a Unitarian (Mauhid). he may have been secular person as all prophets had been non-political. He used to pray to God

You are misguiding people by telling people wrong things about Guru sahib. The Sikhs are good people believing in One God and they follow their faith. Political matters may not be discussed here. A man of God is never political person.**

 

[jakasaki]

I tell you again that the songs of King Soloman are in praise of Muhammad. In one of his songs, (chapter 5 verses 10 to 16), even the name of Muhammad is mentioned (Muhammadaim.)

The above post regarding mohamad is laughable and I laugh everytime I see that

The Wisdom Books - The Song of Songs - Chapter 5

1 I have come to my garden, my sister, my bride;
I gather my myrrh and my spices,
I eat my honey and my sweetmeats,
I drink my wine and my milk.
D Eat, friends; drink! Drink freely of love!

2 I was sleeping, but my heart kept vigil;
I heard my lover knocking:
“Open to me, my sister, my beloved,
my dove, my perfect one!
For my head is wet with dew,
my locks with the moisture of the night.”

3 I have taken off my robe,
am I then to put it on?
I have bathed my feet,
am I then to soil them?

4 My lover put his hand through the opening;
my heart trembled within me,
and I grew faint when he spoke.

5 I rose to open to my lover,
with my hands dripping myrrh:
With my fingers dripping choice myrrh
upon the fittings of the lock.

6 4 I opened to my lover -
but my lover had departed, gone.
I sought him but I did not find him;
I called to him but he did not answer me.

7 The watchmen came upon me
as they made their rounds of the city;
They struck me, and wounded me,
and took my mantle from me,
the guardians of the walls.

8 I adjure you, daughters of Jerusalem,
if you find my lover -
What shall you tell him?-
that I am faint with love.

9 How does your lover differ from any other,
O most beautiful among women?
How does your lover differ from any other,
that you adjure us so?

10 My lover is radiant and ruddy;
he stands out among thousands.

11 His head is pure gold;
his locks are palm fronds,
black as the raven.

12 His eyes are like doves
beside running waters,
His teeth would seem bathed in milk,
and are set like jewels.

13 His cheeks are like beds of spice
with ripening aromatic herbs.
His lips are red blossoms;
they drip choice myrrh.

14 His arms are rods of gold
adorned with chrysolites.
His body is a work of ivory
covered with sapphires.

15 His legs are columns of marble
resting on golden bases.
His stature is like the trees on Lebanon,
imposing as the cedars.

16 His mouth is sweetness itself;
he is all delight.
Such is my lover, and such my friend,
O daughters of Jerusalem.

---

Eat, friends; drink!: the lovers are encouraged to enjoy the delights of their love, symbol of Christ’s union with the Church.

A trial similar to that in ⇒ Song 3:1-5.

The bride’s hesitation is due, not to levity, but to strong emotion.

The disappearance of the lover seems to be a deliberate trial and test inflicted on the girl.

The watchmen do not know the reason for the girl’s appearance in the city streets;
cf ⇒ Song 3:2-4.

In answer to the question of ⇒ Song 5:9 the girl sings her lover’s praises (⇒ Song 5:10-16). Gold: indicates how precious the lover is. Palm fronds: his thick, luxuriant growth of hair.

vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__PLD.HTM

 

[franki_rulz]

For muslims the inner cleanliness isnt important. If you look at the crime statistics in India, you’ll see the vast majority of pimps,drug dealers, murderers, TERRORISTS(all terrorists) are muslims.

On similarity about all of them is that, they pray 5 times a day, use the muslim skull caps, wear pathanis(a muslim dress) and keep the muslim beard…from the outside they try to be pious and religious but what about the inside?

 

[franki_rulz]

**For Deus and sedonaman, I tell you again that the songs of King Soloman are in praise of Muhammad. In one of his songs, (chapter 5 verses 10 to 16), even the name of Muhammad is mentioned (Muhammadaim.)

Now about franki, I never said that Guru Nanak was born Muslim. I said that he was a Hindu. He became dissatisfied with the Hindu caste system and came close to Islam. He was a saint, real saint and a Unitarian (Mauhid). he may have been secular person as all prophets had been non-political. He used to pray to God

You are misguiding people by telling people wrong things about Guru sahib. The Sikhs are good people believing in One God and they follow their faith. Political matters may not be discussed here. A man of God is never political person.**

Why can you take the pain of reading about Guru Nanak? He was never close to islam…

Please dont make a fool of urself by saying that Guru Nanak came close to Islam… .close my a@@… .the guru was far far away from islam

for the benifits of the others:

Sikh tradition states that around c. 1499, at the age of thirty, Guru Nanak went missing and was presumed to have drowned after going for one of his morning baths to a local stream called the Kali Bein. **One day, he declared: “There is no Hindu, there is no Muslim” (in Punjabi, “nā kōi hindū nā kōi musalmān”).**The true meaning of this declaration was that “human being can not be bound by his religion because the Almighty is everywhere. He is in the soul of everyone.”[10] The Universe is the Will of the Almighty. God is the absolute Truth, He can not be bound by a particular religion. If one looks in himself with deep insight and the condensed state of mind, this truth will be revealed itself.[11] It was from this moment that Guru Nanak would begin to spread the teachings of what was then the beginning of Sikhism.

!

You are misguiding people by telling people wrong things about Guru sahib.

Like what?

 

[franki_rulz]

The above post regarding mohamad is laughable and I laugh everytime I see that

dont laugh, one of his eminent maulvi teachers might have taught him that in his “islamic education” days. after all things learnt in childhood remains with one for a long long time

 

[franki_rulz]

**
Now about franki, I never said that Guru Nanak was born Muslim. I said that he was a Hindu. He became dissatisfied with the Hindu caste system and came close to Islam. He was a saint, real saint and a Unitarian (Mauhid). he may have been secular person as all prophets had been non-political. He used to pray to God

.**

Some food for thought:

**from the guru grant sahib(the sikh holy book)

SHALOK, FIRST MEHL:
The Muslim God Allah and the Hindu God Paarbrahm are one and the same.

…
…
I am not a Hindu, nor am I a Muslim. My body and breath of life belong to Allah — to Raam — the God of both.**

now how many people close to islam would make that comment?

 

[franki_rulz]

my statement refered to muslims in india only…Ive only mentioned what is going on in the second largest country for muslims. I do not wish to comment on the status of muslims elsewhere…

 

[planten]

Some food for thought:

**from the guru grant sahib(the sikh holy book)

SHALOK, FIRST MEHL:
The Muslim God Allah and the Hindu God Paarbrahm are one and the same.

…
…
I am not a Hindu, nor am I a Muslim. My body and breath of life belong to Allah — to Raam — the God of both.**

now how many people close to islam would make that comment?

If Guru had said that, and I believe he did, I am with him. He said the right thing.

 

[birdsong]

True to form, you attempt to obfuscate the discussion and debate by writing long “treatises” on irrelevancies and minor points.

You seem intent on inundating every post with garbage, whining and irrelevancies, but I am not going to fall on your trap. You have a PhD from Duke? Big deal. You may impress the feeble-minded, but you don’t impress me in the least.

I’ll do what true scholarship requires: I’ll concentrate on a key point in your argument to destroy the rest of your nonsense. You wrote the following:

Contarini wrote: Do you deny that Osama bin Laden violated traditional Islamic law when he mastermined the 9/11 attacks?

You have established the affirmative (i.e.; Bin Laden did break Islamic laws by attacking the USA). Thus, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that Bin Laden did break such laws. Based on my sources, I can say that **ALL Sunni schools of jurisprudence establish that it is a collective duty of Muslims to wage war on infidels until Sharia Law is imposed on earth. **

You didn’t see that one coming, right buster? Your attempts to apologise for Islam have now left you with the “enviable” task of proving how Bin Laden broke the laws of Sunni Jurisprudence.

Have fun with it my dear.

PS: does you school pay you more to post nonsense 24/7 on here? Do you count all the balderdash you write here as publications?

 

[planten]

From Birdsong:
**ALL Sunni schools of jurisprudence establish that it is a collective duty of Muslims to wage war on infidels until Sharia Law is imposed on earth. **

**Yes, they have been teaching like that for a very long time. But that was not true teaching. There is no order in the Quran and hadith to go on war path to spread religion. There is not be any killing in the name of God now.

The Muslim bigots will soon realise their mistakes. It was the Msulim Brotherhood in Egypt and a big political party in Pakistan who were propagating Jihad with weapons during the last 60 years.

That was foolishness. Ther eis no order to establish Shariyah by force. Every Muslim is to live very peacefully and thankfully in other western countries. There is no order for them to strive to establish any religious government of Islam.

Religion of Islam has nothing to do with politics. I may post more on this subject if required. So, Birdsong, please do not teach the bad lesson to the Muslim bigots again. They have already done enough damage to Islam. **

 

[planten]

J C, I hope not. Baba Guru nanak was never a Mushrik. I am with him all the time. He was a true man of God.

 

[sedonaman]

**
Yes, they have been teaching like that for a very long time. But that was not true teaching. There is no order in the Quran and hadith to go on war path to spread religion. There is not be any killing in the name of God now.

The Muslim bigots will soon realise their mistakes. It was the Msulim Brotherhood in Egypt and a big political party in Pakistan who were propagating Jihad with weapons during the last 60 years.

That was foolishness. Ther eis no order to establish Shariyah by force. Every Muslim is to live very peacefully and thankfully in other western countries. There is no order for them to strive to establish any religious government of Islam.

Religion of Islam has nothing to do with politics. I may post more on this subject if required. So, Birdsong, please do not teach the bad lesson to the Muslim bigots again. They have already done enough damage to Islam. **

I hope you are right, but I would like to read more of your ideas on how the religion of Islam has nothing to do with politics.

 

[dzheremi]

I wish it were true, but it doesn’t seem that way. Islam is the only religion that I know of that is so concerned with setting up a certain political system of government. That’s basically what the Caliphate was - the political organization and government of the lands under its control **according to a given interpretation of Islam. **

Planten is once again just trying to dupe everybody with his “wishful-thinking-as-fact” style of posting.

 

[planten]

I wish it were true, but it doesn’t seem that way. Islam is the only religion that I know of that is so concerned with setting up a certain political system of government. That’s basically what the Caliphate was - the political organization and government of the lands under its control **according to a given interpretation of Islam. **

Planten is once again just trying to dupe everybody with his “wishful-thinking-as-fact” style of posting.

**dzhereme, I am right. Were the Jews not yearning for freedom and a government of their own at the time of Jesus?. They were hoping that their promised Masiha would bring them back the throne of David?. But when Jesus came, he did not come as a fighter type. He came as a reformer to put the Jews on the right track to become close to God. He had no political ambitions.

Of course he would have got them the throne too if they had listened to him.

I only want to tell you that the present day Muslims are also yearning to get hold of piece of land where they could establish their own government, their own laws. Of course that would never be the government of God. But they are trying uselessly for a government where they could implement their religious laws. It is their inner desire.

The problem is that they lack basic education and spiritual knowledge as well as good morale. They are basically wrong at this time trying to do things by force. It is a sin now to fight for the religion unless some one fights them just for the religion. I see that the christians and western powers are not fighting the Msulims for their religion. So the Muslims also have no right to fight others for the sake of religion.

I do not think I have been able to explain properly. It will need more proof and explanation. **

 

[sedonaman]

**… the present day Muslims are also yearning to get hold of piece of land where they could establish their own government, their own laws. Of course that would never be the government of God. But they are trying uselessly for a government where they could implement their religious laws. It is their inner desire.
… **

What “yearning” are you talking about? There is a wide swath of land that extends from the Atlantic coast of N. Africa, across N. Africa, through the Middle-East, across South Asia, all the way to the South Pacific, and this swath is ruled by Islam. Saudi Arabia is smack in the middle and is 100% Muslim ruled by Islamic law. The only exceptions are a little sliver called Israel and parts of India. I might add that Israel is the only piece of land in the Middle East without any oil under it. What more do you want?

 

[dzheremi]

I do not think I have been able to explain properly. It will need more proof and explanation.

I’ll wait…

 

[planten]

**
Gentle, peaceful preaching with love without hatred is permissible to all. But the Jihad (holy war) is not allowed. Similarly any agitation or unrest in any foreign country is not permissible.

At present the Muslims are active, trying hard to establish a government of Shariyah in their own countries and they are not successful. That is because they are wrong, doing it the wrong way. They must be peaceful and gentle to all the world. Otherwise they cannot stand even for moment.

The Muslims had the government of religious people in Iran under Khomeini. Where is that now?? It is nowhere.

The Taliban had about 95% of the land of Afghanistan. But due to bad leadership they lost it all. So where are they now? If the Muslims cannot retain a government that they have,then it is clear that they need new lessons in spiritualism and good behaviour. they do not even have any proper democratic government in any of their countries. Whereas the good governments of people of Britian, USA, India, israel, South Afrika are all flourishing beautifully (And Germany, france, japan etc.)

I am a nonpolitical person. I do not mind who rules over me. I am sorry that I had to discuss the politics at all.

**

 

[sedonaman]

… You have a PhD from Duke?..

Another PhD’s perspective. A little long but worth the read.

…You have established the affirmative (i.e.; Bin Laden did break Islamic laws by attacking the USA). …

I might point out that he also broke international law by waging private warfare. Historically, treatment for those engaging in unlawful combat has been very severe: no quarter.

Obviously, bin Laden didn’t break any Islamic laws by attacking the US because if he had, the Islamic authorities would be seeking to bring him to justice, which should be fairly simple for those who control the people. So why is he still at large? Answer: he didn’t break any Islamic laws.

 

[seraphime2008]

**

At present the Muslims are active, trying hard to establish a government of Shariyah in their own countries and they are not successful. That is because they are wrong, doing it the wrong way. They must be peaceful and gentle to all the world. Otherwise they cannot stand even for moment.

The Muslims had the government of religious people in Iran under Khomeini. Where is that now?? It is nowhere.

The Taliban had about 95% of the land of Afghanistan. But due to bad leadership they lost it all. So where are they now? If the Muslims cannot retain a government that they have,then it is clear that they need new lessons in spiritualism and good behaviour. they do not even have any proper democratic government in any of their countries. Whereas the good governments of people of Britian, USA, India, israel, South Afrika are all flourishing beautifully (And Germany, france, japan etc.)

**

Then perhaps the most problem is Islam itself? can’t u see that?