M
manualman
Guest
oldcath and I have hashed it out before. Everything bad in the Islamic world is a result of western, imperialist, colonial boogeymen. Iran too, I suppose. In fairness, I should let him write his own argument…
- Status
O
oldcatholicguy
Guest
I have no interest in holding a discussion with someone who thinks Islam isn’t a religion, bases their argument that Islam isn’t a religion on criteria that would eliminate their own faith from being called a religion, and thinks psychology is such a well developed medical field that doctors can accurately determine the mental health status of someone based on an incomplete non-medical historical record.
Edit- Removed a portion that came across accusatory and mean.
O
oldcatholicguy
Guest
- Not my actual argument or position.
- Even if it was my position, how is the above anymore ridiculous, biased, etc than your claim that everything bad that involves or might involve Islam is of course the fault of Islam and/or Muhammad?
T
TEPO
Guest
For the record, I don’t disagree with the teachings of my catholic faith at all. 
O
oldcatholicguy
Guest
Thanks for not bothering to actually address any of the points in my prior post. I guess actually staying on topic when said topic invalidates your argument is one of those nuances you mentioned.
O
oldcatholicguy
Guest
I apologize for the accusation. I should have found a better way of making my statement. The Church teaches and treats Islam as a religion and you started a prior thread arguing that it is not. I don’t see how one can hold one view without disagreeing with the other.For the record, I don’t disagree with the teachings of my catholic faith at all.
T
TEPO
Guest
You shouldn’t hold on to my past ‘record’ so closely… Each thread is separate and the topic at hand is not what “TEPO” believes, but is about Christians and persecution.
You’ve been reported…
O
oldcatholicguy
Guest
- What you believe does actually play a role in my determination to hold a conversation with you.
- The topic at hand is about persecution of Christians in Egypt, not “Christians and persecution.” Not only did your prior response concerning Iran not have anything to do with the actual topic of this thread, it had nothing to do with anything in my post you responded to. My prior post concerned Iraq (a non-historical state thrown together after WW1, mixed Sunni-Shia populace, Arabs, sectarian conflict), not Iran (a historical state with a long history, Shia, non-Arabs, no sectarian conflict). I guess if I had written a comment about law enforcement in New Mexico you would have demanded that I explain crime in Mexico.
- Report me all you want.
M
manualman
Guest
The points you made simply weren’t pertinent to the subject. The fact that internecine violence occurs in Iraq based on tribal rather than religious bases does not remotely explain the drastically disproportionate violence perpetrated against Chaldeans in Iraq demonstrated by the precipitous drop in their population as a percentage of the whole.
In short, you changed the subject, not me. And now you’re complaining about it?
I’m not sure why you’re so obstinate about facing some simple facts:
- Muhammed was a warlord whoo used violence to conquer people who subscribed to other belief systems.
- Islam teaches that Muhammed is the ultimate example of a man perfectly submitted to the will of Allah.
- Therefore Islam is in a logical bind in that it’s teachings directly imply that violence is an acceptable means of spreading the faith. Yes, many decent and responsibles imams try to downplay that fact, but in the end Muhammed was who he was. There’s really no getting around it.
- As a result, those muslims for whatever reason inclined towards violence can find IN their religion a permission for it when they want to. Christians tragically attempt the same thing all too often in history, but it’s rather a lot harder to turn Jesus into a bloodthirsty warrior example than Muhammed, no?
O
oldcatholicguy
Guest
- Wait, me providing an alternative explanation to your claim as to what happened in Iraq (review the posts, you’re the one who expanded this discussion to include states outside of Egypt) is me changing the subject? Yeah, I think not. You made a generalized claim which included Iraq as an example, I countered your claim concerning Iraq, your counter that I’m changing the subject is invalid.
- And yes, the importance of tribal status and inter-tribal relations does actually explain a lot about why Christian Iraqis have been disproportionately attacked. Your tribe indicates your faith, your social/economic status, your special protections/persecution under the previous regime, and your ethnic group. Guess how many of those are different for Iraqi Christians than for the majority of the Iraqi population. The idea that Iraqi Christians were targeted just because they were Christian (and not because they were also of a different ethnic group/sub-group, received special protections from the previous regime, different economic/social status, etc) is also invalid.
- Merely restating why you think your argument that “it’s all Islam’s/Muhammed’s fault” really doesn’t do anything to answer my charge as to how your argument is any more valid than what you incorrectly listed as mine in your last post. Your claim is that Islam/Muhammad are the direct cause and that my claim that other factors are at play is invalid. How do you justify this?
M
manualman
Guest
This might be a good argument if you get around to supporting it. Are you asserting the Saddam had a special fondness for Chaldeans that both Sunnis and Shia resented? Evidence? Are you asserting that the Chaldeans sucked up to Saddam in ways that created resentment?
This is a dangerous argument in that it potentially proves too much. Perhaps you argue that the disproportionate victimization of Chaldeans in Iraq was because they tended to be richer, better educated, had better access to financial opportunity and tended to protect one another and further argue that this is NOT hatred of them for their Christianity. Sadly, that sounds too much like certain Holocaust deniers who argue that the Nazis cared less about killing Jews for ethnic/religious reasons and rather hated them for successfully maintaining a separate cultural identity, values and community from the larger world. I doubt many would buy such an argument that Nazis weren’t anti-Semitic. You know what they say about roses still being roses if you change the name…
I gave you the courtesy of explaining the religious motivations that I believe underlie much Islamic violence against Christians in the world. So far you’ve offered an interesting hypothesis that other explanations could exist, but haven’t backed them up with explanatory motivations other than supposition that such might exist. If it exists, tell me about it.
I’m open to hearing about what the Chaldeans may have done to provoke resentment, but be forewarned that it’s starting to sound like making excuses again.
A
Avila123
Guest
Back to the OP, if you are interested there is a link showing where Christians suffer persecution in the world: worldwatchlist.us/world-watch-list-countries/ .
If you can lay your hands on a copy of the Catholic magazine The Messenger of St Anthony there is an interesting article on Article 18, which apparently states that 75% of the world’s population live in countries where the government restrictions on freedom of religion or belief, or where believers face a high level of hostility. The article is based on what the UK parliament discussed but given our track record, the words “pot” and “black” spring to mind.
O
oldcatholicguy
Guest
- So I’m supposed to provide support while you still haven’t provided any? Yeah, your generic list really doesn’t work-
-Charles the Great was a warlord who forcibly converted people to Christianity
-Charles the Great was crowned Emperor by the Pope (a friend and ally of his)
-Charles the Great served as a model for a faithful Catholic king for European royalty
-Therefore Christianity encourages the use of violence and force to convert people
- Got it, I challenge your poorly thought out argument so I must be some sort of version of a Holocaust denier or “Islam is evil” denier.
- If you want proof of Saddam giving special protections to some groups and persecuting others, I suggest you read some actual history books written by actual experts. He was the master of playing groups off each other in order to maintain his power.
M
manualman
Guest
It’s called faulty logic and selective criteria. If you like I can make a similar list for kings that have been saints. Not very hard to do at all.
- So I’m supposed to provide support while you still haven’t provided any? Yeah, your generic list really doesn’t work-
-Charles the Great was a warlord who forcibly converted people to Christianity
-Charles the Great was crowned Emperor by the Pope (a friend and ally of his)
-Charles the Great served as a model for a faithful Catholic king for European royalty
-Therefore Christianity encourages the use of violence and force to convert people
2a. I love it when people try to argue or imply “Islam=Nazis.” Care to explain how fascism and Nazism developed in Christian societies and cultures while similar extreme forms of government and persecution didn’t develop in Islamic cultures? Or how anti-semitism has such a larger and longer history in Christian based societies and cultures? Let me guess, you’ll come back with some sort of argument that such behavior in Islamic societies/cultures is proof Islam is evil; while such behavior in Christian societies/cultures is proof people can be evil even when they are Christian. Double standards a great.
- Got it, I challenge your poorly thought out argument so I must be some sort of version of a Holocaust denier or “Islam is evil” denier.
- If you want proof of Saddam giving special protections to some groups and persecuting others, I suggest you read some actual history books written by actual experts. He was the master of playing groups off each other in order to maintain his power.
- I’ve freely acknowledged that Christian history is sadly replete with sin. If I’ve given you the impression that I believe Islam is the source of murder and oppression in history, my sincere apologies because that has never been my intent. I think it’s pretty clear that oppression is rooted in man’s fallenness and is thus found wherever man is. So good job refuting the point I never tried to make. The profound difference is that in Islam, Muhammed is the ultimate example of righteousness and submission to Allah. In Christianity, the ultimate example is NOT saints, kings or even apostles (all sinners), it is Christ. Muhammed was a warlord whose life dripped with blood. Jesus’ life on the contrary, only dripped with his own, freely given. That’s a huge difference in bedrock values, won’t you agree?
- Got it, your logic must not be questioned or compared to other logic widely agreed to be faulty. We must just obey and accede.
Reread what you wrote. You just asserted that extreme forms of oppressive government did NOT develop in Islamic societies. Seriously? You’ve been there and still say that? Go tell an Armenian that there have never been horrific, sweeping genocides in the Islamic world. Prepare to be punched in the nose.
Look up Haj Amin Al Husseini (Grand Mufti of Jerusalem) and his relationship with Hitler. They got along like peas in a pod because they both grew up in cultures that hated Jews. Husseini lost a lot of face when Israel survived the initial post-partition war, but he profoundly influenced his nephew, a fellow named Yassar Arafat. Both tried to cloak their hatred for Jews in respectable sounding reasons. Husseini was rather more successful at it than Hitler, probably because he wasn’t as successful at carrying them out.
That’s the trick of politics and history. Anybody can spot the despots and monsters in hindsight after the bloodbath is over. Seeing them via their principles in the present and preventing it is the hard job.
T
TEPO
Guest
Ridiculous.
To think that a Catholic who encouraged violence can be compared to Mohammed, the creator of Islam/ the author of the Hadith.
To spend so much energy delving into small irrelevant details only to ignore the obvious.
O
oldcatholicguy
Guest
I’m not the one who thinks we can create an accurate psychological profile of Muhammad based on the scant historical, let alone medically relevant, records of him. I guess you have far more energy to waste than I do.
O
oldcatholicguy
Guest
- The Quran, not Muhammad’s life is the basis for Islamic theology and teachings. If you bother to read authors other than a certain non-expert you’ll find that there are bodies of works by Islamic scholars and theologians that attempt to justify/excuse actions undertaken by Muhammad (and other “prophets” and actual prophets) that are contrary to the Quran.
- I’m not the one trying to force Nazis into the conversation or attempting to imply the other is somehow this topic’s version of a Holocaust denier.
2a. Yes, double standard. To start with, your argument is based on the true foundation for Christian teachings and a false foundation for Islamic teachings. Muhammad isn’t a cheap imitation of Christ in Islamic theology. For a very rough comparison you’d be better off comparing Muhammad to Martin Luther than to Christ.
-Look up Haj Amin Al Husseini (Grand Mufti of Jerusalem) and his relationship with Hitler. They got along like peas in a pod because they** both grew up in cultures that hated Jews.** Wait!?!? Culture, not religion is the key factor?!?! Wow, that sounds like something I would state (like what I stated in regards to Iraq and the importance of tribes).
-Go tell an Armenian that there have never been horrific, sweeping genocides in the Islamic world. Prepare to be punched in the nose. Sure, as soon as I remember where I made such a claim. Oh wait, I didn’t. So either I’m having “words thrown into my mouth;” or some sort of internet gremlin is inserting words into my comments that only you can read.
M
manualman
Guest
You can’t really be claiming that Muhammed is to Islam what Luther is to Christianity! Muhammed invented Islam. Sure, he claimed to be a prophet in the true line of Jesus, Moses and Abraham, but that’s as specious as Joseph Smith’s claims. He started the religion and wrote it’s holy books. Nothing like Luther.
And what gives you the idea that only one source claims Muhammed’s impeccability in Islamic teaching? (I have certain problems with Spencer myself) Granted it’s only been a small sample (including the rare poster here), but I’ve yet to meet a muslim who believes Muhammed ever committed a sin (or any of the real prophets, actually).
I’ll grant you that some of what Muhammed actually did in his life (as portrayed in the Koran) probably embarrasses and confuses the vast majority of muslims who would love to find a way to explain it away and try very hard to do so (because they are decent people). But you’re kidding yourself if you believe that Islamic teaching sees Muhammed the way Christians see Luther (or even the saints). I’m aware of no Lutheran in history ever to claim the sinlessness of Luther. The very idea is an oxymoron!
But once again, we’re just flailing at each other here. I’ll have to live with not changing your mind!
P.S. Islam is both a culture and a religion. There’s no “Aha!” involved in criticizing Islamic culture versus Islamic faith. It’s like the head and tail of a coin: can’t be separated.
And what gives you the idea that only one source claims Muhammed’s impeccability in Islamic teaching? (I have certain problems with Spencer myself) Granted it’s only been a small sample (including the rare poster here), but I’ve yet to meet a muslim who believes Muhammed ever committed a sin (or any of the real prophets, actually).
I’ll grant you that some of what Muhammed actually did in his life (as portrayed in the Koran) probably embarrasses and confuses the vast majority of muslims who would love to find a way to explain it away and try very hard to do so (because they are decent people). But you’re kidding yourself if you believe that Islamic teaching sees Muhammed the way Christians see Luther (or even the saints). I’m aware of no Lutheran in history ever to claim the sinlessness of Luther. The very idea is an oxymoron!
But once again, we’re just flailing at each other here. I’ll have to live with not changing your mind!
P.S. Islam is both a culture and a religion. There’s no “Aha!” involved in criticizing Islamic culture versus Islamic faith. It’s like the head and tail of a coin: can’t be separated.
M
manualman
Guest
You didn’t write these words? Oh you DID. Well, what does “similar extreme forms of government” mean to YOU? No funny mustache and armbands, so their genocides don’t count???
O
oldcatholicguy
Guest
I wrote those words, but I didn’t write anything about Armenians, the Armenian genocide not taking place, or anything about persecution of non-Muslims not taking place in an Islamic state currently or in the past. Those accusations would be your own personal invention.
As for similar extreme forms of government, it’s not that hard to figure out. Has Islam produced a form of government in which the state and the welfare of the state overrules all else? Has Islam produced a form of government in which all power and authority is vested in it’s leader or one party? Has Islam produced a form of government in which the extermination of a portion of its populace is an integral part of governmental policy and procedures? Nope, nope, and nope.
- Status