Catholic-Muslim Relations

  • Thread starter Thread starter YoungTradCath
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
“The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day” (CCC 841).
 
paziego said:
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with a religion considering itself to be universal, and therefore intended to be proclaimed to everyone in the hope that one day we all share that faith. What is wrong is to begin a war in order to do that, and that is something Islam expressly forbids. They are not allowed to initiate a war, but they can rule over and tax other members of other religions if the outcome of a defensive war results in the annexation of foreign territories. They are also allowed to defend themselves if they are being forbidden to practice their faith while not causing disruption to others. Mohamed did not initiate conflicts, it was rival tribesmen who disagreed with his message and who sought to silence him which did so. That is the context of that verse; it doesn’t mean that muslims should wage wars of conversion. Persia and Rome were invaded, unjustifiably, but not by Mohamed.

As for the propagation of their faith after that, conversion was not obligatory, and although non-muslim tax was enforced all non-muslim subjects were exempt from other forms of tax and religious obligation, and military service. To be honest the early caliphate ran terrible protection racket too - it was no paradise - but those were the actions of corrupt leaders, and of tribesmen who had converted nominally only so they could benefit from the impetus of the expansion. Many Christians in north Africa and Spain followed rationalist schools of thought and rejected the divinity of Jesus. The early spread of Islam happened to coincide with this time of Christological controversy, which helped it to gain willing converts all across the region, hence the rapid spread of the religion.

One thing I am not going to argue for is that Islam is true, because I don’t believe that. But I don’t think that a variety of conflicting interpretations means the concept is inconsistent. It only means, as I said before, that Islam is not dogmatic or rigorous; and since boko haram, ISIS and co are dogmatic and rigorous they cannot represent the true face of Islam.

I have read the Koran and I don’t believe it is clear, doubt it is always literal (as many Islamic schools of thought do), or believe it should be eternally binding, in a very narrowly defined sense. There is such a thing as changing contexts, speculative philosophy and exceptions to the rule; all these are the hallmarks of non-dogmatic religions and of any good system of ethics, and is what characterised Islam civilisation during its golden age, when the holy roman empire had excellent relations with the caliphate and Christian pilgrims flocked to the holy lands by the thousands, completely unarmed, and returned home safe and sound (and still christian).

You are right in what you say about Christians not being able to find anything that will justify violence in their texts. However, people intent on doing evil need no justification, or will invent one all the same. Now we have a generation of muslims angry at the colonial past, the conflicts of the cold war and recent foreign intervention, so they find ways of justifying violence in their own religious traditions even if the reasons are not there. It was the same when the Spanish expelled the moors or forced them to convert, creating “ham police” to make sure the converts really meant it. It also happened with the Ustashi in Croatia.
Click to expand...
You are conveniently forgetting the actions of the Muslim role model for all time in all this, as well as all the other violent commands held within the Quran which tell Muslims to fight those who do not share their faith, until such time they do, which the Bukhari hadith given clearly illustrates.

All authentic ahadiths show clearly that Mohammed used violence to propagate his faith, which in turn legitimises violence in the name of his god Allah, until such time all submit to Sharia rule.

The violence in Muslim lands being perpetrated at the moment can be traced directly and validated within Islamic sources, which command global Islamic supremacism,or as it is known Islamically the Worldwide (Islamic) Caliphate.

All Muslims accept the Quran as the literal word of Allah, clearly given for mankind’s guidance and benefit. To say otherwise is not Islamic, deserving of death in this life, and the fires of Hell in the next.
 
paziego said:
“The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day” (CCC 841).
Click to expand...
Yes,I am familiar with this quote from the CC,which is addressed on the thread named:“How do other religions view Jesus?”

Perhaps you would like to add your comments there?
 
otterman said:
You are conveniently forgetting the actions of the Muslim role model for all time in all this, as well as all the other violent commands held within the Quran which tell Muslims to fight those who do not share their faith, until such time they do, which the Bukhari hadith given clearly illustrates.

All authentic ahadiths show clearly that Mohammed used violence to propagate his faith, which in turn legitimises violence in the name of his god Allah, until such time all submit to Sharia rule.

The violence in Muslim lands being perpetrated at the moment can be traced directly and validated within Islamic sources, which command global Islamic supremacism,or as it is known Islamically the Worldwide (Islamic) Caliphate.

All Muslims accept the Quran as the literal word of Allah, clearly given for mankind’s guidance and benefit. To say otherwise is not Islamic, deserving of death in this life, and the fires of Hell in the next.
Click to expand...
As I said above, the koranic texts and hadiths refer to particular circumstances, and are not an abrogation of the command to not initiate a war or accept peace offers. Of course the religion claims sole legitimacy, but that is not the same as worldly supremacy brought about through violence. Peaceful proselytizing is ok however, in the way Indonesia, the largest muslim nation, was converted. It is ridiculous to say that muslims have to imitate their prophet’s role model in everything, just as it would be for all Christians to be required to become carpenters. He is a role model in so far as he was faithful, in the same way Abraham was.

The CCC quote was just in reference to the Abrahamic link discussed in the video you posted. I don’t have any comment to add to it, the CCC is where “the buck stops”. If it says it is the God of Abraham, then I, or anyone else, am no one to contest that.

One thing is the Koran being the word of god verbatim, and another is the meaning being literal. You can quote me verbatim if I say “I am so hungry I could eat a horse”, but you can’t take it literally because it wasn’t the original sense. Muslims are only required to believe the Koran is the word of god verbatim.
 
paziego said:
As I said above, the koranic texts and hadiths refer to particular circumstances, and are not an abrogation of the command to not initiate a war or accept peace offers. Of course the religion claims sole legitimacy, but that is not the same as worldly supremacy brought about through violence. Peaceful proselytizing is ok however, in the way Indonesia, the largest muslim nation, was converted. It is ridiculous to say that muslims have to imitate their prophet’s role model in everything, just as it would be for all Christians to be required to become carpenters. He is a role model in so far as he was faithful, in the same way Abraham was.

The CCC quote was just in reference to the Abrahamic link discussed in the video you posted. I don’t have any comment to add to it, the CCC is where “the buck stops”. If it says it is the God of Abraham, then I, or anyone else, am no one to contest that.

One thing is the Koran being the word of god verbatim, and another is the meaning being literal. You can quote me verbatim if I say “I am so hungry I could eat a horse”, but you can’t take it literally because it wasn’t the original sense. Muslims are only required to believe the Koran is the word of god verbatim.
Click to expand...
As pointed out previously, the Quran is not given to be read as an historical book, it is said to be literal, meaning verbatim, words of Allah,for mankind’s guidance and benefit, with his prophet Mohammed as mankind’s role model for all time. It is not my interpretation, it is what Muslims claim themselves, as this one of many Islamic web sites clearly demonstrates:

whyislam.org/submission/the-holy-quran/the-origin-of-the-quran/

“The Quran is the last testament in a series of divine revelations from God (Allah in Arabic). It consists of the unaltered and direct words of God, which were revealed through the Angel Gabriel to Muhammad, the final prophet of Islam, more than 1400 years ago.

The Quran’s message is eternal and universal, transcending our differences in race, color, ethnicity and nationality. It provides guidance on every facet of human life – from economics and the ethics of trade to marriage, divorce, parenting, gender issues and inheritance.”

“May Allah make us true followers of Prophet Muhammad, and that we are always inspired in our actions and deeds by his true teachings and excellent manners, for a better world for all, Muslims and non-Muslims.”

Your arguments, I am afraid are not based on what Islam claims for itself.
 
paziego said:
I wouldn’t recommend using jewish sources as the one above to argue for the immorality or violence of islam. Firstly, because it contradicts the catechism. And secondly, because Israel and its propaganda machine is hardly an impartial source.

aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/08/outlaw-state-israel-part-i-2014819134157990462.html

youtube.com/watch?v=FjEd4hJNVCE
Click to expand...
The Islamic faith aligns itself with “Jewish sources “when it uses Abraham, as a reference point to validate itself, as well as claiming to continue in the same line as all Jewish Bible prophets including Jesus.

Although the you tube presentation held at the Luxe Sunset Boulevard Hotel in Los Angeles is before a mainly Jewish audience, its guest speaker the Reverend Dr Mark Durie an Australian scholar and vicar is not Jewish, he speaks only the truth about the Islamic faith, without using propaganda to strengthen his case, which becomes apparent from the beginning.
 
The Koran is to be read, as well as in other ways, as a book of history, because the claims it makes about itself are said to have occurred in history. It is also fundamental to Islam to believe that the Mohamed of faith is the same as the Mohamed of history. The book discusses actions and battles, and other historical situations. It is for that reason also that context is extremely important to interpreting it.

This is a Catholic apologetics website. How many times on these forums have we had to explain to members of other faiths that Jesus’ “brothers” doesn’t actually mean siblings? It is the same when reading the Koran, otherwise they wouldn’t have exegetes and schools of jurisprudence, or commentaries on the texts. There is a very important difference between literal and verbatim. Take my example of earlier, clearly people don’t actually contemplate literally eating an entire horse when they say they could do so, it is just an expression. But if I was to give an accurate and unaltered account of that conversation later on, I would reproduce the words “I could eat a horse” verbatim, but the original metaphorical meaning would still be the same. Similarly, if Mohamed or a commentator are speaking of converting or subjugating everybody in the context of a conflict with a particular tribe or city, it cannot be read centuries later to mean “conquer and subjugate everybody” across the globe. In one sense “everybody” could mean everybody in Mecca at that time, and in the other “everybody” would mean the entire human race. His actions relate to his particular circumstances as leader of the muslims in the context of 7th century Arabia. Eliminating the context is the most common error sola scriptura traditions commit, which is why the logic of Islamic fundamentalism often resembles Christian fundamentalism. During the reformation in Europe some communities reintroduced Old Testament punishments, such as stoning, and polygamy. The Wahhabi school of thought, which is behind these literalist and corrupted interpretations, is a relatively recent phenomenon. But much of the modern Jihadism is inspired by the 1950’s writings of Sayyid Qutb, who translate Leninist ideas of global terrorism and revolution into an Islamic framework.

The correct sense of the Koran, nested in the original context, is what serves as an infallible guide to muslims for all eternity. And I reiterate, this is why muslims have the religious traditions and scholarship they do - their mere existence proves that Islam is not sola scriptura, with all the flaws such a doctrine entails. And none of this compromises the Koran’s eternal and transcendent validity; what I am saying right now is in agreement with your quotes. As for Mohamed’s example, his example is that of a man who was granted a revelation and given a mission, accepted the responsibility out of obedience to god, and lived out that obedience - that is the way in which he provides a role model; in a way his role is similar to that of Mary for us. Obviously not every single individual muslim is meant to be the leader of a new religious community, or a military leader, so Mohamed’s example doesn’t extend to all aspects of a person life. This is all common sense.
 
The Koran is to be read, as well as in other ways, as a book of history,
Click to expand...
Where is the evidence to show this in Islamic sources?
It is also fundamental to Islam to believe that the Mohamed of faith is the same as the Mohamed of history.
Click to expand...
Exactly so, and because Mohammed’s example is seen as exemplary, Muslims throughout history have looked to his example to emulate, because they are confident by doing so they are living the way Allah requires.
His actions relate to his particular circumstances as leader of the muslims in the context of 7th century Arabia.
Click to expand...
The Quran and Ibn Kathir disagree:
Quran 33.21:

Indeed in the Messenger of Allah you have a good example to follow for him who hopes in Allah and the Last Day, and remembers Allah much.)

Tafsir Ibn Kathir
This Ayah is an important principle, to follow the Messenger of Allah in all his words, and deeds, etc. Hence Allah commanded the people to take the Prophet as an example on the day of Al-Ahzab, with regard to patience, guarding, striving and waiting for Allah to provide the way out; may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him
But much of the modern Jihadism is inspired by the 1950’s writings of Sayyid Qutb, who translate Leninist ideas of global terrorism and revolution into an Islamic framework.
Click to expand...
There is a full hadith named as “Fighting in the cause of Allah(jihad)in Sahih Al Bukhari

These two quotes from it in particular explain what jihad in Islam is all about.

Volumn 004, Book 052, Hadith Number 196.​

Narated By Abu Huraira : Allah 's Apostle said, " I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, ‘None has
the right to be worshipped but Allah,’ and whoever says, ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,’ his life and
property will be saved by me except for Islamic law, and his accounts will be with Allah, (either to punish him or to
forgive him.)

Volumn 004, Book 052, Hadith Number 065.​

Narated By Abu Musa : A man came to the Prophet and asked, “A man fights for war booty; another fights for fame and a third fights for showing off; which of them fights in Allah’s Cause?” The Prophet said, “He who fights that Allah’s Word (i.e. Islam) should be superior, fights in Allah’s Cause.”

This shows that Mohammed used physical combat to bring people into submission to Allahs rules and regulations, thereafter all Muslims true to their faith are obliged to do the same.

Islamic sources shows that Islam is a militant faith, whereas you have provided not one shred of evidence to prove otherwise.
 
Have you noticed that you keep quoting hadiths that relate to the content of the Koran, but that you are not explaining the passages or themes of the Koran they refer to? My evidence is the Koran itself, not hadiths divorced from their original meanings. If you are going to offer textual proofs you have to demonstrate that they actually support your argument. You have ignored the majority of my last post, where I explain that the commands to fight in the name of Allah refer to defensive struggles of the early community lead by Mohamed. These were circumstances in which the early Islamic community had their back against the ropes. When you read the Koran chronologically you will see that the format is one where Mohamed is given revelations piecemeal throughout the course of his “career”. The instructions he receives (or claims to receive) vary depending on circumstance, sometimes being very specific to the event. It is hard to extrapolate definite rules of conduct from these sources.

The requirement to follow Mohamed’s example is very vague in its detail. Wouldn’t that vagueness imply the need to study and contextualise his actions before trying to emulate them? And isn’t that what a lot of Islamic piety and Koran exegesis aims to do? This goes back to what I was saying; providing quotes is in itself futile, because it leads to verse slinging that can be used to prove anything, since there is a verse for everything.

As for proving from Islamic sources that the Koran claims to be a historical book … the fundamental claim it makes of itself is that god is its author; if it makes specific historical references then it stands to reason that muslims would be required to consider these accurate. And you seemed to agree with me in that islam requires one to believe that the Mohamed of faith is the same as the Mohamed of history - the Koran’s claim to its own historicity is self-evident.

I can understand what you are saying: Mohamed used violence at times to propagate his faith, and therefore any muslim who takes him as a role model - and they are all commanded to do so - will be able to at least justify the use of violence for the same ends. I am not contesting that because it is a historical reality that such things have occurred, and are occurring right now. But this takes us back to something I said earlier - if Mohamed both fought and refused to fight in different parts of the Koran, how was his example to be followed by future muslims?

The first thing to consider is that not all muslims are leaders in a position to declare war - Mohamed’s eternal example in piety and virtue is one thing, and his role as leader is another; and leadership is by nature a response to circumstance. Another thing is that the early muslim community was under a real threat of disappearing. This is no longer the case, so it would seem that Mohamed’s more peaceful episodes would be the ones providing relevant example. As long as muslims have the right to preach they have no permission to initiate a war.

I have a link here to something I found about the conditions under which Mohamed engaged in combat. I won’t say it is not rose tinted, but it makes a point about the context of those actions and the theology behind Jihad.

questionsonislam.com/article/what-are-purposes-wars-prophet-muhammad-pbuh-fought
 
I have responded to your request and dug out a few quotes to support my point.
From the Koran:

60:8-9 Allah does not forbid you from those who do not fight you because of religion and do not expel you from your homes - from being righteous toward them and acting justly toward them. Indeed, Allah loves those who act justly.
Allah only forbids you from those who fight you because of religion and expel you from your homes and aid in your expulsion - [forbids] that you make allies of them. And whoever makes allies of them, then it is those who are the wrongdoers.

----------------These quotes below are in reference to what I was saying about the circumstances of the early muslim community acting defensively. They also demonstrate how the Koran deals with the specific situation of 7th century Arabia and, at times, the particulars of Mohamed’s experience----------------------------------------------

8:26 And remember when you were few and oppressed in the land, fearing that people might abduct you, but He sheltered you, supported you with His victory, and provided you with good things - that you might be grateful.

8:30 And [remember, O Muhammad], when those who disbelieved plotted against you to restrain you or kill you or evict you [from Makkah]. But they plan, and Allah plans. And Allah is the best of planners.

8:55-62
Indeed, the worst of living creatures in the sight of Allah are those who have disbelieved, and they will not [ever] believe-

The ones with whom you made a treaty but then they break their pledge every time, and they do not fear Allah.

So if you, [O Muhammad], gain dominance over them in war, disperse by [means of] them those behind them that perhaps they will be reminded.

If you [have reason to] fear from a people betrayal, throw [their treaty] back to them, [putting you] on equal terms. Indeed, Allah does not like traitors.

And let not those who disbelieve think they will escape. Indeed, they will not cause failure [to Allah ].

And prepare against them whatever you are able of power and of steeds of war by which you may terrify the enemy of Allah and your enemy and others besides them whom you do not know [but] whom Allah knows. And whatever you spend in the cause of Allah will be fully repaid to you, and you will not be wronged.

**And if they incline to peace, then incline to it [also] and rely upon Allah **. Indeed, it is He who is the Hearing, the Knowing.

-------------------------------These verses below mention violence, but only in retribution and in proportional measure. The stress is on theological argumentation and debate to gain converts, not violence.The context, like in all of the quotes provided, is of a persecuted community-------------------------------

16:125-128
Invite to the way of your Lord with wisdom and good instruction, and argue with them in a way that is best. Indeed, your Lord is most knowing of who has strayed from His way, and He is most knowing of who is [rightly] guided.

And if you punish [an enemy, O believers], punish with an equivalent of that with which you were harmed. But if you are patient - it is better for those who are patient.

And be patient, [O Muhammad], and your patience is not but through Allah . And do not grieve over them and do not be in distress over what they conspire.

Indeed, Allah is with those who fear Him and those who are doers of good.
 
It is important to note that there is an orthodox science in interpreting the the Qur’an. It is not set in chronological order. This wouldn’t be a problem if not for the doctrine of abrogation. Abrogation means that when one set of verses contradicts the others, the latest ones abrogated or replaces the others. This means you have to look at what was revealed last and what is in the Hadiths in order to fully understand the Quran. You need to look at the Hadiths and the circumstances and explanations they reveal as well as that of the early Tafsirs.

Sura 9 is one of the last verses recited by Muhammad. The situation was that he had just conquered Mecca.
Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah. That is their saying with their mouths. They imitate the saying of those who disbelieved of old. Allah (Himself) fighteth against them. How perverse are they!
They have taken as lords beside Allah their rabbis and their monks and the Messiah son of Mary, when they were bidden to worship only One Allah. There is no Allah save Him. Be He Glorified from all that they ascribe as partner (unto Him)!
Fain would they put out the light of Allah with their mouths, but Allah disdaineth (aught) save that He shall perfect His light, however much the disbelievers are averse.
He it is Who hath sent His messenger with the guidance and the Religion of Truth, that He may cause it to prevail over all religion, however much the idolaters may be averse.
O ye who believe! Lo! many of the (Jewish) rabbis and the (Christian) monks devour the wealth of mankind wantonly and debar (men) from the way of Allah. They who hoard up gold and silver and spend it not in the way of Allah, unto them give tidings (O Muhammad) of a painful doom,
On the day when it will (all) be heated in the fire of hell, and their foreheads and their flanks and their backs will be branded therewith (and it will be said unto them): Here is that which ye hoarded for yourselves. Now taste of what ye used to hoard.
Qur’an 9:29-35
Click to expand...
Note the verse before states:
009.028
YUSUFALI: O ye who believe! Truly the Pagans are unclean; so let them not, after this year of theirs, approach the Sacred Mosque. And if ye fear poverty, soon will Allah enrich you, if He wills, out of His bounty, for Allah is All-knowing, All-wise.
PICKTHAL: O ye who believe! The idolaters only are unclean. So let them not come near the Inviolable Place of Worship after this their year. If ye fear poverty (from the loss of their merchandise) Allah shall preserve you of His bounty if He will. Lo! Allah is Knower, Wise.
SHAKIR: O you who believe! the idolaters are nothing but unclean, so they shall not approach the Sacred Mosque after this year; and if you fear poverty then Allah will enrich you out of His grace if He please; surely Allah is Knowing Wise.
Click to expand...
Jizya is a tax for conquered Jews and Christians to live and practice their religion. Note that jizya is mentioned in the context of the loss of revenue when the pagans were barred from making the pilgrimage to Mecca after it was conquered.

Subsequently, after Mohammad’s death, the Four Rightly Guided Caliphs would go on to subdue rebelling Arab tribes and conquer the Middle East from the Byzantines and Persia.
 
For someone who professes to be Catholic, is it interesting to find you vigorously defending a man who we as Catholics would view as a false prophet, and false prophets we have been told by Jesus deceive many.

However, the notion that Mohammed always fought defensive battles is not true, as history itself reveals, as well as the Quran works on the Doctrine of Abrogation, which Dan999 explains very clearly.

Since its inception Islam expanded by conquering armies, it spread as far as Spain, India and Persia. These people were not at war with Muslims, yet Muslims invaded these lands to violently subjugate the inhabitants, take their property, women and children as war booty, and bring them to the Islamic faith, this is the point of Islam, fighting non-Muslims and conquering the world in the name of Allah is always the goal.

fordham.edu/halsall/source/conqspain.asp

americanthinker.com/2014/02/the_muslim_conquest_of_india.html

historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?ParagraphID=ebe

Islamic sources provide more evidence.

Quran 9.29
Fight those who believe not in Allah or the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

Notice it says fight those who do not believe in Allah,it does not say fight those who fight you.

Tabari 9: 82
The Messenger sent Khalid with an army of 400 to Harith [a South Arabian tribe] and ordered him to invite them to Islam for three days before he fought them. If they were to respond and submit, he was to teach them the Book of Allah, the Sunnah of His Prophet, and the requirements of Islam. If they should decline, then he was to fight them.”

Sahih Muslim 33—The Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah, and they establish prayer, and pay Zakat and if they do it, their blood and property are guaranteed protection on my behalf except when justified by law, and their affairs rest with Allah.

Sahih Muslim: Book 019, Number 4294:
It has been reported from Sulaiman b. Buraid through his father that when the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) appointed anyone as leader of an army or detachment he would especially exhort him to fear Allah and to be good to the Muslims who were with him. He would say: Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war, do not embezzle the spoils; do not break your pledge; and do not mutilate (the dead) bodies; do not kill the children. 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 withold 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. Then invite them to migrate from their lands to the land of Muhairs and inform them that, if they do so, they shall have all the privileges and obligations of the Muhajirs. If they refuse to migrate, tell them that they will have the status of Bedouin Muslims and will be subjected to the Commands of Allah like other Muslims, but they will not get any share from the spoils of war or Fai’ except when they actually fight with the Muslims (against the disbelievers). If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them.

It appears that you have been led to believe the sanitised version of Islam, which unfortunately is prevalent amongst many Muslims, and not the true version which past and present history, as well as Islamic sources reveal.
 
There is also a theological dimension to the concept of jizya. Paying alms and tax is an obligation of faith for muslims. Since they cannot oblige non-muslims to participate in one of the pillars of their faith, they had to create a non-religious tax.

As Dan999 said, sura 9 was revealed after the taking of Mecca. From the beginning of the sura it makes it clear it is talking about polytheists and people of the book, not in general, but the vicinity the territories in question, specifically those with whom Mohamed had treaties with.

It begins,

9:1-7
This is a declaration of] disassociation, from Allah and His Messenger, to those with whom you had made a treaty among the polytheists.

So travel freely, [O disbelievers], throughout the land [during] four months but know that you cannot cause failure to Allah and that Allah will disgrace the disbelievers.

And [it is] an announcement from Allah and His Messenger to the people on the day of the greater pilgrimage that Allah is disassociated from the disbelievers, and [so is] His Messenger. So if you repent, that is best for you; but if you turn away - then know that you will not cause failure to Allah . And give tidings to those who disbelieve of a painful punishment.

Excepted are those with whom you made a treaty among the polytheists and then they have not been deficient toward you in anything or supported anyone against you; so complete for them their treaty until their term [has ended]. Indeed, Allah loves the righteous [who fear Him].

And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.

And if any one of the polytheists seeks your protection, then grant him protection so that he may hear the words of Allah . Then deliver him to his place of safety. That is because they are a people who do not know.

How can there be for the polytheists a treaty in the sight of Allah and with His Messenger, except for those with whom you made a treaty at al-Masjid al-Haram? So as long as they are upright toward you, be upright toward them. Indeed, Allah loves the righteous [who fear Him].

----------I am not going to quote the whole sura because it is unnecessary to do so. But it is sufficient to illustrate the point that, even with Mecca conquered, there was an insecure situation of antagonism and tenuously held treaties. This is the context of verses which talk about subduing people and making them pay tax - it refers to non-muslim Meccans already under muslim governance, but who are rejecting that governance and possibly conspiring. It is not a command to venture to other lands and subdue other peoples, and it is definitely not a prescription to rule people harshly. One only has to read the sura in its entirety, analytically, to see that it deals with specific events and people. That is not to say that it cannot serve as a guide for action for future muslims, but it does mean that a strictly militarist interpretation is a simplification and misreading of a complex text.

It should be noted that both Persia and the Byzantine empire employed entire Arab tribes as mercenaries, sometimes depending on them on them exclusively for their protection. These tribes simultaneously participated in the violent politics of the Arabian peninsula, so it is possible that the early expansion of the Caliphate was caused by fighting such as that described in the sura, but which extended the lands of these two empires. In which case it would be the Persian and Byzantine empires which were accidentally drawn into a regional conflict, rather than a war of expansion by the Arabs, that led to Caliphate we see in the map. This is my interpretation of history, and is open to question; but it is certainly the case that rivalries between Arabs in the peninsula were often exported to Perso-Byzantine border, where even during periods of peace between the empires the mercenaries continued to fight.
 
paziego said:
There is also a theological dimension to the concept of jizya. Paying alms and tax is an obligation of faith for muslims. Since they cannot oblige non-muslims to participate in one of the pillars of their faith, they had to create a non-religious tax.

As Dan999 said, sura 9 was revealed after the taking of Mecca. From the beginning of the sura it makes it clear it is talking about polytheists and people of the book, not in general, but the vicinity the territories in question, specifically those with whom Mohamed had treaties with.

It begins,

9:1-7
This is a declaration of] disassociation, from Allah and His Messenger, to those with whom you had made a treaty among the polytheists.

So travel freely, [O disbelievers], throughout the land [during] four months but know that you cannot cause failure to Allah and that Allah will disgrace the disbelievers.

And [it is] an announcement from Allah and His Messenger to the people on the day of the greater pilgrimage that Allah is disassociated from the disbelievers, and [so is] His Messenger. So if you repent, that is best for you; but if you turn away - then know that you will not cause failure to Allah . And give tidings to those who disbelieve of a painful punishment.

Excepted are those with whom you made a treaty among the polytheists and then they have not been deficient toward you in anything or supported anyone against you; so complete for them their treaty until their term [has ended]. Indeed, Allah loves the righteous [who fear Him].

And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.

And if any one of the polytheists seeks your protection, then grant him protection so that he may hear the words of Allah . Then deliver him to his place of safety. That is because they are a people who do not know.

How can there be for the polytheists a treaty in the sight of Allah and with His Messenger, except for those with whom you made a treaty at al-Masjid al-Haram? So as long as they are upright toward you, be upright toward them. Indeed, Allah loves the righteous [who fear Him].

----------I am not going to quote the whole sura because it is unnecessary to do so. But it is sufficient to illustrate the point that, even with Mecca conquered, there was an insecure situation of antagonism and tenuously held treaties. This is the context of verses which talk about subduing people and making them pay tax - it refers to non-muslim Meccans already under muslim governance, but who are rejecting that governance and possibly conspiring. It is not a command to venture to other lands and subdue other peoples, and it is definitely not a prescription to rule people harshly. One only has to read the sura in its entirety, analytically, to see that it deals with specific events and people. That is not to say that it cannot serve as a guide for action for future muslims, but it does mean that a strictly militarist interpretation is a simplification and misreading of a complex text.

It should be noted that both Persia and the Byzantine empire employed entire Arab tribes as mercenaries, sometimes depending on them on them exclusively for their protection. These tribes simultaneously participated in the violent politics of the Arabian peninsula, so it is possible that the early expansion of the Caliphate was caused by fighting such as that described in the sura, but which extended the lands of these two empires. In which case it would be the Persian and Byzantine empires which were accidentally drawn into a regional conflict, rather than a war of expansion by the Arabs, that led to Caliphate we see in the map. This is my interpretation of history, and is open to question; but it is certainly the case that rivalries between Arabs in the peninsula were often exported to Perso-Byzantine border, where even during periods of peace between the empires the mercenaries continued to fight.
Click to expand...
But you are reading the Quran as though it were truly from a divine source, the same divine source that gave us Jesus, who taught to "love everyone as I have loved you "and "those who live by the sword die by the sword.
Just two diametrically opposing commands to the ones that Allah commands.

It sounds as though you are excusing the actions of all Muslims who “fight in the cause of Allah” because they have mis understood their faith.

If that is the case, then Allah has failed in his mission to provide revelations through Mohammed to mankind, which should be clear, easy to understand and for his eternal benefit.
 
Why would the prevalence of sanitised version of islam be unfortunate? The unfortunate thing would be for the harsh version to be prevalent.

I have offered justifications for all my opinions and stated where I stand with islam - that I don’t believe it. I disagree with what is claimed about the precedence of Mohamed’s “revelations”, but at the same time I see nothing wrong with analysing the man’s words and actions impartially, if only because people say the most ridiculous things about Catholics sometimes (often in the media) and because I don’t want to be guilty of the same mistake.

You are mentioning examples of muslims initiating wars, in the post-Mohamedan period, which were not defensive. That is very true. But is just as true about them as it is for us. Christians have also fought unjust wars, among themselves and aginst others. It wouldn’t be fair to hold muslims to standards we ourselves have not always met. As for the period of Islamic conquests, they have dark chapters - especially with the exploitation of women - and better ones.
 
There is also a theological dimension to the concept of jizya. Paying alms and tax is an obligation of faith for muslims.
Click to expand...
There is nothing "theological"about paying extortion money, which is what the Jizya is in reality.
"You pay us money, and we will protect you "well rehearsed words which are used everyday by the Mafia.
 
paziego said:
Why would the prevalence of sanitised version of islam be unfortunate? The unfortunate thing would be for the harsh version to be prevalent.

I have offered justifications for all my opinions and stated where I stand with islam - that I don’t believe it. I disagree with what is claimed about the precedence of Mohamed’s “revelations”, but at the same time I see nothing wrong with analysing the man’s words and actions impartially, if only because people say the most ridiculous things about Catholics sometimes (often in the media) and because I don’t want to be guilty of the same mistake.

You are mentioning examples of muslims initiating wars, in the post-Mohamedan period, which were not defensive. That is very true. But is just as true about them as it is for us. Christians have also fought unjust wars, among themselves and aginst others. It wouldn’t be fair to hold muslims to standards we ourselves have not always met. As for the period of Islamic conquests, they have dark chapters - especially with the exploitation of women - and better ones.
Click to expand...
Why would the prevalence of sanitised version of islam be unfortunate? The unfortunate thing would be for the harsh version to be prevalent.
Click to expand...
Because it does not work from a foundation of truth.
Christians have also fought unjust wars, among themselves and aginst others
Click to expand...
True, but Christians can find no authority from their teachings to use violence to propagate their faith, unlike Muslims who can.
As for the period of Islamic conquests, they have dark chapters - especially with the exploitation of women - and better ones./
Click to expand...
Does the Gospel have “dark chapters”?
 
paziego said:
There is also a theological dimension to the concept of jizya. Paying alms and tax is an obligation of faith for muslims. Since they cannot oblige non-muslims to participate in one of the pillars of their faith, they had to create a non-religious tax.
Click to expand...
No Muslim or Muslim apologist will ever convince me that Religious discrimination is okay. If anyone says I should be treated differently because I’m a Christian they are immediately in the wrong.
paziego said:
As Dan999 said, sura 9 was revealed after the taking of Mecca. From the beginning of the sura it makes it clear it is talking about polytheists and people of the book, not in general, but the vicinity the territories in question, specifically those with whom Mohamed had treaties with.

It begins,

9:1-7
This is a declaration of] disassociation, from Allah and His Messenger, to those with whom you had made a treaty among the polytheists.

So travel freely, [O disbelievers], throughout the land [during] four months but know that you cannot cause failure to Allah and that Allah will disgrace the disbelievers.

And [it is] an announcement from Allah and His Messenger to the people on the day of the greater pilgrimage that Allah is disassociated from the disbelievers, and [so is] His Messenger. So if you repent, that is best for you; but if you turn away - then know that you will not cause failure to Allah . And give tidings to those who disbelieve of a painful punishment.

Excepted are those with whom you made a treaty among the polytheists and then they have not been deficient toward you in anything or supported anyone against you; so complete for them their treaty until their term [has ended]. Indeed, Allah loves the righteous [who fear Him].

And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.

And if any one of the polytheists seeks your protection, then grant him protection so that he may hear the words of Allah . Then deliver him to his place of safety. That is because they are a people who do not know.

How can there be for the polytheists a treaty in the sight of Allah and with His Messenger, except for those with whom you made a treaty at al-Masjid al-Haram? So as long as they are upright toward you, be upright toward them. Indeed, Allah loves the righteous [who fear Him].

----------I am not going to quote the whole sura because it is unnecessary to do so. But it is sufficient to illustrate the point that, even with Mecca conquered, there was an insecure situation of antagonism and tenuously held treaties. This is the context of verses which talk about subduing people and making them pay tax - it refers to non-muslim Meccans already under muslim governance, but who are rejecting that governance and possibly conspiring. It is not a command to venture to other lands and subdue other peoples, and it is definitely not a prescription to rule people harshly. One only has to read the sura in its entirety, analytically, to see that it deals with specific events and people. That is not to say that it cannot serve as a guide for action for future muslims, but it does mean that a strictly militarist interpretation is a simplification and misreading of a complex text.

It should be noted that both Persia and the Byzantine empire employed entire Arab tribes as mercenaries, sometimes depending on them on them exclusively for their protection. These tribes simultaneously participated in the violent politics of the Arabian peninsula, so it is possible that the early expansion of the Caliphate was caused by fighting such as that described in the sura, but which extended the lands of these two empires. In which case it would be the Persian and Byzantine empires which were accidentally drawn into a regional conflict, rather than a war of expansion by the Arabs, that led to Caliphate we see in the map. This is my interpretation of history, and is open to question; but it is certainly the case that rivalries between Arabs in the peninsula were often exported to Perso-Byzantine border, where even during periods of peace between the empires the mercenaries continued to fight.
Click to expand...
You quoted the context of a treaty ended with Polytheists. However, Surah 9:29 should be read in light of the context of not paying the Jizya or falling into willing submission and “feel ones self subdued.” Apparently it is a divine command from Allah that when a treaty ends, it results in being slain wherever one is found. Likewise the Qur’an gives no context for why Christians and Jews ought to be fought, other than Religious discrimination.

9:28O you who have believed, indeed the polytheists are unclean, so let them not approach al-Masjid al-Haram after this, their [final] year. And if you fear privation, Allah will enrich you from His bounty if He wills. Indeed, Allah is Knowing and Wise.

29Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.

30The Jews say, "Ezra is the son of Allah "; and the Christians say, “The Messiah is the son of Allah .” That is their statement from their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved [before them]. May Allah destroy them; how are they deluded?

That is our context. That is the command for Christians and Jews.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top