Catholic Considering Islam

[franki_rulz]

I am not being ultra nationalist.Whatever I mentioned is from statistic with the different police departments across India.

Btw, I live in a democratic secular country and am quite proud of being an Indian.To be honest the kind of religious freedom we’ve enjoyed for centuries would put any country to shame.While the wests introduction to secularism is pretty new, secularism runs in our blood(whether we like it or not that stems from our hindu roots of respecting all gods, whatever religion it might be from). Its only in India that you find a devot hindu offering prayers at a mosque, a church or gurudwara.

My ancestors were hindus(as were most of the other muslims, sikhs and buddhists in India).We come from the southern part of India,a lot of people from the south of India converted to christianty during the 14th century portuguese rule.

Tolerance of other religions is something that the world can learn from hindus(I am a very proud catholic, however I do respect hindus for this trait of theirs)

 

[franki_rulz]

**
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.

**

That means there is a problem with Islaml itself and your laws.Lets be honest you guys should realise that the shariah was written 700 yrs ago,it cant work in todays context.

For example, in most muslim countries where sharia applies, a women is whipped if she is found wearing jeans and a t-top.Jesus Christ! what world are you guys living in"?

 

[katy_kt]

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…

Even in India, you can not place all Muslims under one umbrella. Yes, some have caused problems, but there are many who are good.

 

[franki_rulz]

**

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

**

Now that uve mentioned Iran, you must read how islam spread to Iran.Zoorastrian were massacared in hugh numbers and forced to accept islam since the time the arabs invaded Iran.Their culture and language was systematically destroyed, their holy books were burnt.

Most Iranians today are aware of it.do you know that although the country is an islamic republic, a considerable percentage of their people are atheist and hate islam?

I did my masters at the Pune university.The university of Pune has the largest percentage of foreign students in India. My course had about 30 Iranian students and that how I got to know about Iran. Upon researching further I realised that islam spread to Iran the same way as it did in India… a sad story of brutual massacre of innocents…

 

[franki_rulz]

Even in India, you can not place all Muslims under one umbrella. Yes, some have caused problems, but there are many who are good.

Yes I agree. The bohri muslims(dawoodi bohras) for example are very educated and peace loving muslims, you will never find them in any controversy. The shias and sunnis btw, consder bohris as muslims who have wandered from the true path of islam. You need to read my statement again.I made my statement based on the statistics available with the police departments and I stand by what I said.

 

[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.**

You keep changing your sentence every now and them, refer to your post #564 heres what you mentioned: …He converted to islam and performed Hajj (twice?).

So whats with you? a case of amnesia?

 

[TLM08]

I have a feeling that this thread is going disintegrate into a fury of arguments and harsh words but I pray not…

I became Catholic in 2007 after a year of RCIA. I have struggled to be the best Catholic I could be, I studied theology like crazy, I went to Mass, and I followed God.

I have to say that I am impressed with Islam, very very impressed. The Qur’an is like a beautiful ray of light. Muhammad (pbuh) is a wonderful example. The Muslims I know follow Christ’s example better than most Catholics, they are more peaceful and loving than I thought possible. Their devotion to God is absolute. And the evidence for Islam is piling up for me. I know many here have negative opinions about Islam, Muslims, and the Prophet Muhammad and I did too once but now that I have put a lot of time into studying the religion and talking to many people, I have discovered the true Islam. True Islam is not the fanatical religion of the media nor is it a woman-hating, gun-toting, violent mockery of religion as I had been taught. It very well might be the most peaceful faith on earth. God is in Islam, I can’t deny it any longer. Believe me I’ve tried!
I love the Church, but God has led me to Her and God may be leading me to Islam. I am willing to put everything else aside to follow God where He wills, even if I must put aside my beloved Mother Church. I will submit to God in all things, He will lead me where He wills.

I hesitate to ask…thoughts?

please keep it civil

pax vobiscum
Irish

Read your New Testament. There is will you will find peace through the once for all sacrificial death of Jesus Christ. He died to pay for all of our sins past present and future. There is NOTHING we can do to earn Heaven. He offers it as a free gift to all who accept Him as Lord and Savior. The evidence is overwhelming.

 

[DeusVult09]

**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.**

Planteen I have already refuted this lies about Mohammad being in the song of Solomon but I will examine them again for you as you have a selective memory (and eye sight by the looks of it ).

In the song of Solomon 5:10-16 the Hebrew word mahamaddim, “delights,” “delightfulness,” occurs but this is not a prophecy of Mohammad as nowhere is Mohammad named as a prophet but this Hebrew word shares the same Semitic root as Mohammad in Arabic (which some of your scholars have even admitted wasn’t even Mohammad’s real name but his title, his real name being qythem).

Furthermore machmaddim or mahamaddim is in the plural form meaning delights so it is not referring to a single person but delights in the plural form. It is not referring to a name. If this verse is about Mohammad its talking about more than one, some Mohammad’s? Ha-ha how can this be a prophecy?

Never once are these Mohammad’s even called prophets. What you are doing is taking a word out of its context and misinterpreting it. What you are doing is twisting a word which has a similar root and making it into a prophecy which is something it is not and any biblical scholar would laugh in your face if you said this so them its such a weak and moronic argument

Furthermore the word machmad (makh-mawd’) which is used is just a common noun meaning something delightful, a treasure and something precious

It is even used in Ezekiel 26:16-18 to describe Ezekiel’s wife

“Son of man, behold, I am about to take from you the** desire (machmad) of your eyes **with a blow; but you shall not mourn and you shall not weep, and your tears shall not come.”

“Groan silently; make no mourning for the dead. Bind on your turban and put your shoes on your feet, and do not cover your mustache and do not eat the bread of men.”

“So I spoke to the people in the morning, and in the evening my wife died. And in the morning I did as I was commanded.”

Hosea 9:6

For, lo, they are gone away from destruction; yet Egypt shall gather them up, Memphis shall bury them; their **pleasant (machmad) things **of silver, nettles shall possess them; thorns shall be in their tents.

Hosea 9:16

Ephraim is smitten, their root is dried up, they shall bear no fruit: yea, though they bring forth, yet will I slay the **beloved (machmad) fruit **of their womb.

Lamentations 1:10

The enemy laid hands on all her treasures (machmad); she saw pagan nations enter her sanctuary–those you had forbidden to enter your assembly

Lamentations 2:4

Like an enemy he has strung his bow; his right hand is ready. Like a foe he has slain all who were pleasing (machmad) to the eye; he has poured out his wrath like fire on the tent of the Daughter of Zion.

2nd Chronicles 36:19

They set fire to God’s temple and broke down the wall of Jerusalem; they burned all the palaces and destroyed **everything of value (machmad) **there.

Are all these prophecies of Mohammad too? The y must be according to your logic. Go here biblos.com/ and examine the Hebrew lexicon for each verse and you will find the word machmad or mahamad in each of these verses and they are not talking about any person what so ever because Mohammad is not a name in Hebrew instead they a re talking about delights, treasures and pleasures but everyone of them must be a prophecy of Mohammad according to you. Please do not confuse this hebrew word that just has the same Semetic root with Mohammad’s name in arabic. it never used in reference to the name of a person in the entire tanak.

Consider your lies refuted (again) :yup:

 

[jakasaki]

4261 machmad

strongsnumbers.com/hebrew/4261.htm

desire, desirable thing

Original Word: מַחְמַד

Transliteration: machmad

Phonetic Spelling: (makh-mawd’)

Short Definition: beloved

Word Origin - from chamad

Definition - desire, desirable thing

NASB Word Usage:
desirable (2), desire (3), pleasant (1), precious ones (1), precious things (2), precious treasures (1), treasures (1), valuable (1).

beloved, desire, goodly, lovely, pleasant thing

From chamad; delightful; hence, a delight, i.e. Object of affection or desire – beloved, desire, goodly, lovely, pleasant (thing).

see HEBREW chamad

We’ve said it and posted it a hundred times, NOPE, NO mohamad here.

 

[sedonaman]

Planteen I have already refuted this lies about Mohammad being in the song of Solomon …

And then there was the “periklutos” argument. It’s interesting that for all their claims that early Christians had corrupted the Bible for their own purpose, Muslims have no trouble going to desperate ends to corrupt it themselves for their own purpose, and that purpose is to validate Mohammed, for without Judeo-Christian scripture, Mohammed’s claim to prophethood collapses … and all of Islam with it.

 

[Contarini]

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?

Some Sufis said pretty similar things. And that’s the context for Guru Nanak–the intersection between Sufi mysticism on the Islamic side and bhakti devotion to nirguna Brahman on the Hindu side.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

You have a PhD from Duke? Big deal. You may impress the feeble-minded, but you don’t impress me in the least.

I wasn’t trying to impress you. I was trying to clarify my claims to scholarship, since apparently someone must have praised me in an overly inflated manner by calling me a “world-class scholar” (unless you made that up out of malice). I am a scholar, but not primarily a scholar of Islam, and not exactly a “world-class” one (in part because I waste way too much time on this discussion board instead of publishing stuff!).

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?

Sure I did. I am quite aware that you are right. But your claim does not contradict mine, so there is nothing to explain or reconcile. Traditional Islamic law teaches that Muslims have the duty of waging jihad on infidels (though there are lots of qualifications allowing for periods of peace, and there are differences among the schools regarding how the obligation is to be carried out and what is the responsibility of individuals versus governments in doing so). But it also teaches that certain rules must be observed–not killing of women and children or Christian clergy, for instance. Do you deny this?

So far, you have not said anything about traditional Islamic jurisprudence with which I disagree (although you continue to disregard the plain fact that many modern Muslims question the authority of this jurisprudence, in *both *liberal and fundamentalist directions). So all your bluster about my “not seeing things coming” is empty. We don’t seem to disagree on the questions of fact. But you are using sleight of hand to ignore those facts which contradict your agenda, such as the existence of rules of warfare in the Islamic tradition. You have also ignored the link I posted showing that a host of Muslim scholars condemned the 9/11 attacks precisely because they contradicted traditional Islamic law.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

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.

You are claiming that there is some unified set of “Islamic authorities” which control people throughout the majority Muslim lands? What planet do you live on? Islamic countries have various kinds of governments with varying relationships to various kinds of Islam. Which “Islamic authorities” would you expect to bring him to justice, and how?

So why is he still at large? Answer: he didn’t break any Islamic laws.

Then why did so many Muslims say otherwise?

If he is still alive, he is hiding out in the mountains in a remote part of the world. What exactly are the Islamic scholars of the Al-Azhar mosque, to name one leading center of Islamic jurisprudence, going to do to a man hiding in a cave hundreds of miles away? This is a silly argument.

Edwin

 

[planten]

**Contranini is right in most arguments. Now to topic, A Catholic is considering Islam. There is no harm. Some Muslims are considering Judaism and Bahaism and chistianity. No harm as long as it is all fair and peaceful, no Fraud.

May be that Catholic will not approve of Islam as a good religon. Again no harm. He/she can happily come back home. But if that Catholic has seen some daylight or truth of Islam has entered the heart then the Die is cast. There is no one who can try to disrupt the spiritual progress of that person because the Sky is the limit.

There is no need to tarnish the good image of Islam here. Islam is not what the Muslims are doing today. They are far off the track. I won’t say a similar thing about the christians.**

 

[sedonaman]

You are claiming that there is some unified set of “Islamic authorities” which control people throughout the majority Muslim lands? What planet do you live on? Islamic countries have various kinds of governments with varying relationships to various kinds of Islam. Which “Islamic authorities” would you expect to bring him to justice, and how?

You arguing that all Islamic authorities must be in 100% jurisprudent/theological agreement before one can turn him over to another, or hold a trial itself? One would think that the various strains of Islam would be in agreement over some basic things besides “there is but one god, Allah” and “Mohammed is his prophet”, like the common decency to “do unto others as you would have done unto to you.” I suspect there is not a little bit of “no Muslim should take the side of a kafir against another Muslim” going on.

Western democracies don’t have the same kinds of government and certainly don’t always agree 100%, yet there have been cases like Nazi Klaus Barbie who was turned over to France by Bolivia. There was also a case in which the US turned over to German authorities a naturalized citizen, John Demjanjuk, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Demjanjuk , who was found to be a Nazi who possibly murdered 29,000 [estimates vary]. In fact, it is currently seeking to extradite another one, John Kalymon, aka Iwan Kalymon, who is alleged to have murdered only one Jew. msnbc.msn.com/id/32628483/ns/us_news-life . Since when has Germany and the US been in agreement 100%? And the hunt for Nazis goes on.

Then why did so many Muslims say otherwise?

“…Second, heaping an expectation on Muslims – to call out ‘their’ criminals – is absurd when no similar expectation is placed on any other religious, ethnic, or ideological group.”

Well, we can certainly say Ali Eteraz is living on another planet, or he is engaging in taqiyya [allegedly double q if his life is in danger]. Catholicism has taken big hits because Pope Pius XII didn’t speak out “enough” against the Nazi treatment of the Jews. [A sidebar here is that when the pope does speak out against a social injustice, it’s “no religion in politics!!!” So how much is “enough”?] Bill Clinton went on a globe-trotting apologizing tour; he even apologized for he Crusades, for crine out loud. Why? Because there is an “expectation for the U.S. to ‘call out its criminals’.” Interesting to note here is that the U.S. had nothing to do with the Crusades, plus, the more America does to correct its shortcomings, the more unbearable its remaining injustices become.

If he is still alive, he is hiding out in the mountains in a remote part of the world. What exactly are the Islamic scholars of the Al-Azhar mosque, to name one leading center of Islamic jurisprudence, going to do to a man hiding in a cave hundreds of miles away?

Pakistani intelligence captured 9/11 Mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in that same part of the world in possibly a joint action with U.S. agents. I’m not suggesting that one particular Mosque do anything; that is a red herring argument. But rather the various Islamic governments could certainly do something like put pressure on the respective governments to find him and hand him over, or try him themselves.

In my 36 years of dealing with the U.S. government, I can assure you that government can do whatever it wants; “wants” is the key word. There is a corollary: government can’t do what it doesn’t want. And if this is true of the U.S. government, it’s certainly true of oppressive ones.

However, I will concede that we might be better off with the status quo because if he is ever turned over to the U.S., the courts will have a field day wringing their hands for years in an effort to find an excuse to let him go, surely followed by speaking engagement offers from the various Ivy League universities [see Angela Davis; jab, jab].

This is a silly argument.

In view of government doing whatever it wants and the examples of the extradited Nazis, your argument is bogus. So, you must be on planet Eteraz.

 

[franki_rulz]

**Contranini is right in most arguments. Now to topic, A Catholic is considering Islam. There is no harm. Some Muslims are considering Judaism and Bahaism and chistianity. No harm as long as it is all fair and peaceful, no Fraud.

May be that Catholic will not approve of Islam as a good religon. Again no harm. He/she can happily come back home. But if that Catholic has seen some daylight or truth of Islam has entered the heart then the Die is cast. There is no one who can try to disrupt the spiritual progress of that person because the Sky is the limit.

There is no need to tarnish the good image of Islam here. Islam is not what the Muslims are doing today. They are far off the track. I won’t say a similar thing about the christians.**

A catholic can go on national television and claim that he is converting to islam. People wont battle an eyelid.HOWEVER it is not so with the muslim, muslims who convert to christianity are in constant fear of their lives. Who gave you the right to take somebody life
The muslims are only following what is written in the quran. If someone renounces Islam, he has no right to live.This is mentioned in the quran and you cant deny it,

Show me one ex-muslim in a muslim country who has publicly renounced islam?they all do it in fear…
All your claims about islam being peaceful is far from the truth

 

[Hadi]

The muslims are only following what is written in the quran. If someone renounces Islam, he has no right to live.This is mentioned in the quran and you cant deny it,

where in the Quran does it say that ?

 

[planten]

where in the Quran does it say that ?

**franki will have a hard time finding such thing in the Quran. franki is definitely uninformed.

But what other things franki has written are true. Muslims do not allow any one to leave Islam. They want people of other faiths to come to Islam. But they do not allow any one to leave Islam. If any Muslim denounced (left) Islam, he/she is liable to be killed in the Muslim country.

I do not know why is that. It is perhaps based on some doubtful Hadith. It is no where in the Quran. So franki has to take the words back very soon or would need to amend the accusative words.**

 

[sedonaman]

where in the Quran does it say that ?

We’ve been through this before, several times in fact, and when a verse is quoted to support an argument [no matter what], Muslim posters always pull “Mohammed’s Third Law” on us.

 

[Contarini]

You arguing that all Islamic authorities must be in 100% jurisprudent/theological agreement before one can turn him over to another, or hold a trial itself?

Not at all. But for a government to arrest bin Laden as a criminal against Islamic law it would need
a) to have bin Laden in its power–as far as we know, no Islamic government is currently in that position
b) to recognize Islamic law as the law of the land–most majority Muslim countries have a somewhat more nuanced relationship with Islamic law than that; and
c) agree with the traditional (or liberal) interpretations of Islamic law rather than the fundamentalist appeal to a hardline reading of the Qur’an and selected hadith.

There is clearly a pretty strong consensus among mainstream Sunni scholars that what bin Laden did was against Islamic law. However, these scholars are not the government. Egypt is not governed by the ulama of Al-Azhar, although the government supports them and presumably listens to them on occasion. The idea that Islamic countries should be ruled directly by the ulama (Islamic scholars) is a radical, recent view put forward by Ayatollah Khomeini and adopted by some fundamentalist Sunnis as well.

I suspect there is not a little bit of “no Muslim should take the side of a kafir against another Muslim” going on.

I entirely share your suspicion. The last time bin Laden (as far as we know) was in the power of an organized government of any kind was before the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. The Taliban did not claim that what bin Laden had done was justified–they claimed that the Islamic laws of hospitality required them not to turn him over. Obviously they could have put him on trial themselves–but they were fundamentalists with a radical, not necessarily traditional reading of Islamic law. And that’s the catch-22. Those members of the ulama who are most likely to have direct control over Islamic governments (and in whose countries bin Laden is most likely to seek refuge) are obviously those most inclined to share bin Laden’s radical interpretation of Islam.

Pakistani intelligence captured 9/11 Mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in that same part of the world in possibly a joint action with U.S. agents. I’m not suggesting that one particular Mosque do anything; that is a red herring argument.

Not at all. Because what I am talking about is what the ulama say, not what “Islamic” governments do (Islamic countries have, as I said, varying relationships to the ulama–the government of Turkey is one extreme; the government of Iran another).

You are the one making a red herring argument by drawing conclusions about the views of Islamic scholars from what governments do, rather from what the scholars themselves say.

But rather the various Islamic governments could certainly do something like put pressure on the respective governments to find him and hand him over, or try him themselves.

In the jurisdiction of what government do you suspect bin Laden to be at this moment?

In my 36 years of dealing with the U.S. government, I can assure you that government can do whatever it wants[/QUOE]

I’m not sure what these “dealings” may be. I hope and believe that you are wrong in your claim that the U.S. government is a totalitarian tyranny (I don’t know a better definition of “totalitarian tyranny” than “a government that can do whatever it wants”), and I am pretty sure that you exaggerate the powers of even the most tyrannical government.

However, I will concede that we might be better off with the status quo because if he is ever turned over to the U.S., the courts will have a field day wringing their hands for years in an effort to find an excuse to let him go, surely followed by speaking engagement offers from the various Ivy League universities

That completely contradicts what you just said, unless you seriously think that the U.S. government doesn’t want bin Laden punished. Your statement makes me feel better, that even by your account this country is still somewhat free.

Edwin