Catholic-Muslim Relations

[paziego]

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.

Yes, but we are discussing what orthodox islam is and whether it is violent. I have to treat is as what it claims to be to explore that. Whether it is what it claims to be, or not, is a different discussion. I am convinced it is not. My personal belief is that Mohamed wanted to unite the Arab tribes with a reinvigorated version of the traditional religions, which is what he accomplished during his lifetime. After he died there were constant leadership struggles which - I believe - culminated in a campaign of expansion to distract from internal troubles of the nation he had built.

I certainly don’t want to excuse the muslims who are doing what they are doing in places like Iraq right now. But I have already said that I believe those people have ulterior motives for turning to violence and are only manipulating their religion to justify their actions.

I think that, with Islam, what is easy to grasp are the central concepts, such as monotheism, the pillars of faith, government by “god’s law”, and seeing evidence of god in nature. In that sense it does succeed in its mission to offer clear guidance. But on another level it is much more complicated, because at the end of the day it is still a 1400 year old book that is focused mainly on the events of the time. I would agree with you completely - the Koran fails to provide a real revelation. I just don’t think that what it does provide is a militant faith. But in this day and age, when economy and the media are considered “war by other means”, it does make terrorism more likely among communities who feel victimised or on the losing side of the world order.

 

[paziego]

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.

It is also used by the government. It isn’t fair to read it such a negative way. Are you allowed to refuse to pay tax to your government?

 

[dronald]

It is also used by the government. It isn’t fair to read it such a negative way. Are you allowed to refuse to pay tax to your government?

Based on Religious adherence?

And commanded in a book for all people for all time?

No. No such tax here in Canada. How about our American posters?

 

[paziego]

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.

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.

Jizya is only owed (in Islamic theology, that is) by non-muslims already living under muslim government - you can’t demand tax from people you don’t govern. The Christians and Jews in the recently conquered Mecca didn’t want to recognise the new government (understandably), so they refused to pay tax and accept the new system. That is the context of making them “give jizya willingly and feel humbled”; it follows on from the passages on dealings with polytheists and deals with putting down a specific rebellion. Compare Mohamed’s actions with what happened to the cathars.

 

[dronald]

Jizya is only owed (in Islamic theology, that is) by non-muslims already living under muslim government - you can’t demand tax from people you don’t govern. The Christians and Jews in the recently conquered Mecca didn’t want to recognise the new government (understandably), so they refused to pay tax and accept the new system. That is the context of making them “give jizya willingly and feel humbled”; it follows on from the passages on dealings with polytheists and deals with putting down a specific rebellion. Compare Mohamed’s actions with what happened to the cathars.

Then you’re reading Surah 9:29 incorrectly.

The correct reading is, “Fight them until they pay” and not “Ask them to pay and if not then fight them.” Fighting comes first so that they pay.

 

[paziego]

Based on Religious adherence?

And commanded in a book for all people for all time?

No. No such tax here in Canada. How about our American posters?

It isn’t that cut and dry and you know it. All nations of that period considered themselves to be divinely sanctioned, even Catholic Byzantium.

Don’t American dollars (I am not from there) say “in God we trust” on them? The link between religion and state has hardly been severed, and European monarchs always claimed divine right, and therefore divine right to tax. I don’t know what the status is between Canada and the British royal family, but I can guarantee that at least before independence your countrymen paid taxes ultimately justified by religion.

 

[paziego]

Then you’re reading Surah 9:29 incorrectly.

The correct reading is, “Fight them until they pay” and not “Ask them to pay and if not then fight them.” Fighting comes first so that they pay.

They were already fighting not to pay, it refers to a conflict which had already begun.

 

[otterman]

Yes, but we are discussing what orthodox islam is and whether it is violent. I have to treat is as what it claims to be to explore that. Whether it is what it claims to be, or not, is a different discussion. I am convinced it is not. My personal belief is that Mohamed wanted to unite the Arab tribes with a reinvigorated version of the traditional religions, which is what he accomplished during his lifetime. After he died there were constant leadership struggles which - I believe - culminated in a campaign of expansion to distract from internal troubles of the nation he had built.

I certainly don’t want to excuse the muslims who are doing what they are doing in places like Iraq right now. But I have already said that I believe those people have ulterior motives for turning to violence and are only manipulating their religion to justify their actions.

I think that, with Islam, what is easy to grasp are the central concepts, such as monotheism, the pillars of faith, government by “god’s law”, and seeing evidence of god in nature. In that sense it does succeed in its mission to offer clear guidance. But on another level it is much more complicated, because at the end of the day it is still a 1400 year old book that is focused mainly on the events of the time. I would agree with you completely - the Koran fails to provide a real revelation. I just don’t think that what it does provide is a militant faith. But in this day and age, when economy and the media are considered “war by other means”, it does make terrorism more likely among communities who feel victimised or on the losing side of the world order.

Is the Quran from the same God as the Bible, or not?

I think that, with Islam, what is easy to grasp are the central concepts, such as monotheism, the pillars of faith, government by “god’s law”, and seeing evidence of god in nature.

But Allahs laws do not conform with YHWH’S laws, which they should do if they come from the same source.

The Quran is said to come from the same god that gave us the Ten Commandments, which say, treat all, as you would be treated,(no discrimination)
The Jizya discriminates.

The Quran states it comes to continue the same message as all previous prophets, including Jesus a man of peace, who commands His followers to live in accordance with these Commands, as well as using His example to live in relationship with God.

The Quran as well as Mohammed’s example tells Muslims to “fight unbelievers”,until the religion of Islam is established, and all submit to Allahs laws, which justify murder, extortion,sexual captives, discrimination and inequality of women, forbids friendship of all “unbelievers” in Islam, the list goes on.

Do Allahs commands run in the same pattern as the Bible Gods commands.

The answer must be, no they don’t.

 

[otterman]

They were already fighting not to pay, it refers to a conflict which had already begun.

Where is the evidence to show this, using Islamic sources?

 

[paziego]

Actually, with things like “and eye for an eye”, dietary laws, obligatory circumcision, discriminatory laws against women, and other aspects of sharia law on marriage and property, Islamic law is as close to OT law as you can get.

But I don’t believe that the Koran is from god. That is not what I am setting out to prove though. I just wanted to make the case that what we now call fundamentalist islam, responsible for all the violence, is not what islam really teaches. I believe I have at least made a case for that view, primarily by placing the seemingly jihad justifying verses in context.

 

[otterman]

Jizya is only owed (in Islamic theology, that is) by non-muslims already living under muslim government - you can’t demand tax from people you don’t govern. The Christians and Jews in the recently conquered Mecca didn’t want to recognise the new government (understandably), so they refused to pay tax and accept the new system. That is the context of making them “give jizya willingly and feel humbled”; it follows on from the passages on dealings with polytheists and deals with putting down a specific rebellion. Compare Mohamed’s actions with what happened to the cathars.

The reason Muslims must fight “unbelievers” is given in verses 9.31-9.33
To be “true believers” they must accept Allah as god, and Mohammed as his messenger.
Non Muslims are not “true believers” therefore they must be fought against until they are.

9.31

They take their priests and their anchorites to be their lords in derogation of Allah, and (they take as their Lord) Christ the son of Mary; yet they were commanded to worship but One Allah: there is no god but He. Praise and glory to Him: (Far is He) from having the partners they associate (with Him).

9.32

Fain would they extinguish Allah’s light with their mouths, but Allah will not allow but that His light should be perfected, even though the Unbelievers may detest (it).

9.33
It is He Who hath sent His Messenger with guidance and the Religion of Truth, to proclaim it over all religion, even though the Pagans may detest (it).

 

[otterman]

Actually, with things like “and eye for an eye”, dietary laws, obligatory circumcision, discriminatory laws against women, and other aspects of sharia law on marriage and property, Islamic law is as close to OT law as you can get.

But I don’t believe that the Koran is from god. That is not what I am setting out to prove though. I just wanted to make the case that what we now call fundamentalist islam, responsible for all the violence, is not what islam really teaches. I believe I have at least made a case for that view, primarily by placing the seemingly jihad justifying verses in context.

I believe I have at least made a case for that view, primarily by placing the seemingly jihad justifying verses in context./

You may have done, unfortunately Muslims do not subscribe to your view, they subscribe to what their Islamic interpreters tell them.

 

[dronald]

It isn’t that cut and dry and you know it. All nations of that period considered themselves to be divinely sanctioned, even Catholic Byzantium.

Don’t American dollars (I am not from there) say “in God we trust” on them? The link between religion and state has hardly been severed, and European monarchs always claimed divine right, and therefore divine right to tax. I don’t know what the status is between Canada and the British royal family, but I can guarantee that at least before independence your countrymen paid taxes ultimately justified by religion.

The difference is that Islam is a Religion and the Qur’an is a book believed to be for all people, for all time. There is no moral relativism. The commands applied then, apply now and forever more.

So again; Islam calls for Religious discrimination even in this day. Therefore Islam is a Religion that promotes bigotry.

They were already fighting not to pay, it refers to a conflict which had already begun.

And they still are. Again, it’s a commandment for all people of all time; not just people during Muhammad’s time. Muslims must continue to fight and subdue people until they pay the Jizya. Although I’m glad not all do.

 

[paziego]

You may have done, unfortunately Muslims do not subscribe to your view, they subscribe to what their Islamic interpreters tell them.

It really is unfortunate. Radical islam is a real cancer, to the middle east and north Africa and to others who also suffer because of it. And it speaks to the most base parts of the human soul.

If the islam I am describing is a legitimate one - and I hope and believe it is - then it would be much better if young muslims would see it as a viable alternative to radicalisation. To be honest many do; moderate islam is by no means dead. I don’t want to see it die if it is only going to be replaced by radicalism.

 

[paziego]

The difference is that Islam is a Religion and the Qur’an is a book believed to be for all people, for all time. There is no moral relativism. The commands applied then, apply now and forever more.

So again; Islam calls for Religious discrimination even in this day. Therefore Islam is a Religion that promotes bigotry.

And they still are. Again, it’s a commandment for all people of all time; not just people during Muhammad’s time. Muslims must continue to fight and subdue people until they pay the Jizya. Although I’m glad not all do.

Some say nationalism is itself a religion. Certainly in revolutionary France, the Soviet Union, and according to some the USA, have all been described as states which are also religions. The UK may have abandoned much of the imagery now, but for a long time it considered itself “The New Israel”, populated by Englishmen who were the new chosen people. And every nationality has its own form of bigotry - France had the bourgeoisie, the USSR had the capitalists, England had the “Papist Aberration, the Whore of Babylon”; and America has Europe, the Egypt to their Israel. Muslims have “those who associate partners with Allah”. One would wonder how different all these ideologies really are from each other.

 

[otterman]

Based on Religious adherence?

And commanded in a book for all people for all time?

No. No such tax here in Canada. How about our American posters?

Greetings dronald,from the U.K.which do not religiously discriminate, either.

All taxes are used for the benefit of all people, who are viewed free and equal within the law.

Long may that continue.

 

[dronald]

Some say nationalism is itself a religion. Certainly in revolutionary France, the Soviet Union, and according to some the USA, have all been described as states which are also religions. The UK may have abandoned much of the imagery now, but for a long time it considered itself “The New Israel”, populated by Englishmen who were the new chosen people. And every nationality has its own form of bigotry - France had the bourgeoisie, the USSR had the capitalists, England had the “Papist Aberration, the Whore of Babylon”, and America has Europe, the Egypt to their Israel. Muslims have “those who associate partners with Allah”. One would wonder how different all these ideologies really are from each other.

Deflection is the most common tactic by Islamic apologists and it only reminds me of how worldly the Qur’an is.

Now instead of defending the Qur’an, you’re calling out others for what they have done. That’s fine. People are bad, Islam is equally bad.

One cannot justify what is believed to be the “one true Religion of God” by pointing out what others have done. People are corrupt, as is the Qur’an as you’ve proven just now. People have been bigoted as is the Qur’an.

 

[paziego]

The reason Muslims must fight “unbelievers” is given in verses 9.31-9.33
To be “true believers” they must accept Allah as god, and Mohammed as his messenger.
Non Muslims are not “true believers” therefore they must be fought against until they are.

9.31

They take their priests and their anchorites to be their lords in derogation of Allah, and (they take as their Lord) Christ the son of Mary; yet they were commanded to worship but One Allah: there is no god but He. Praise and glory to Him: (Far is He) from having the partners they associate (with Him).

9.32

Fain would they extinguish Allah’s light with their mouths, but Allah will not allow but that His light should be perfected, even though the Unbelievers may detest (it).

9.33
It is He Who hath sent His Messenger with guidance and the Religion of Truth, to proclaim it over all religion, even though the Pagans may detest (it).

To me, this doesn’t imply muslims have to fight and convert others. “not true believers” seems to mean something similar to what we mean when saying that protestants are in an imperfect union with the true church. And if muslims hve to force others to convert, why would they have laws for governing non-muslims?

 

[paziego]

Deflection is the most common tactic by Islamic apologists and it only reminds me of how worldly the Qur’an is.

Now instead of defending the Qur’an, you’re calling out others for what they have done. That’s fine. People are bad, Islam is equally bad.

One cannot justify what is believed to be the “one true Religion of God” by pointing out what others have done. People are corrupt, as is the Qur’an as you’ve proven just now. People have been bigoted as is the Qur’an.

Go easy on the accusations. If you see my posts throughout this thread you will see that I have bothered to construct a proper argument. The conversation went where it did out of its own volition You are free to disagree with me, and you won’t have me demanding tax from you if you do.

And I have never “defended to koran”. I am offering an non-militarist reading of it - it doesn’t mean I agree with it.

The point I was making is that religious or pseudo-religious justifications for obedience and tax exist in all forms of government. That does not necessarily have to be a bad thing. Queen Elisabeth II is the head of state in the UK, and a religious figurehead that justifies the collection of tax. That doesn’t mean I have a problem with it, or that as a non-anglican I feel horribly repressed; even though British coronation ceremonies include anti-Catholic imagery and themes. If I lived in the Tunisia, for example (even though they are quite liberal), and I paid tax under a different name I still wouldn’t have a problem with it.

 

[otterman]

To me, this doesn’t imply muslims have to fight and convert others. “not true believers” seems to mean something similar to what we mean when saying that protestants are in an imperfect union with the true church. And if muslims hve to force others to convert, why would they have laws for governing non-muslims?

As pointed out previously, Muslims have their own interpreters ,to help them understand their faith better.

This is what Ibn Kathir says of verse 9.31

“Fighting the Jews and Christians is legislated because They are Idolators and Disbelievers”

Allah the Exalted encourages the believers to fight the polytheists, disbelieving Jews and Christians, who uttered this terrible statement and utter lies against Allah, the Exalted. As for the Jews, they claimed that Uzayr was the son of God, Allah is free of what they attribute to Him. As for the misguidance of Christians over Isa, it is obvious. This is why Allah declared both groups to be liars,

qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2565&Itemid=64

All your arguments ultimately are against authentic Islamic sources,and not against those quoting from them.