Did Muhammed and the Koran teach violence against infidels, or didn't he.

[Rolltide]

Either you have not read it or you are blatantly lying about it. You have been made, here. You’re either a muslim apologist or a liar or both.

LOL! Your claim lies flat after the attacks you have leveled against the Catholic Church to make your prayer rug more comfortable and weaken us infidels.

Yeah, ok, sinkspur. At least you have been demoted from cyberdeacon to cybercatholiccollegeprofessor.

I am a Catholic apologist who believes in ecuminism, I am not a liar. I could not remain in good standing at my college if I was. I treat everyone fairly as dictated by my Catholic faith. Catholicism teaches kindness, something which you are not practicing toward me, I’m afraid. Did you ever look at the Vatican website on Mary in the Qu’ran, by the way?

And I’m afriad you totally lost me on your last insult there. If you wanna call me cybercatholiccollegeprofessor, I think that’s a very accurate title.

Feel free to criticize what I say on here factually, but I’m fed up with the personal attacks.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

That simply makes them guilty of heresy. By the way, there is an EXCELLENT article on the EWTN website penned by the Vatican about Islam and Mary, and how it differs from Catholicism. I’ll see if I can find the link again.

Thanks. I knew Islam was heretical already having written an article on Mary in the Quran.

Now, since Islam is heretical it cannot be true then, can it?

Now, since Islam is false, what respect should we accord it and its followers?

 

[pro_universal]

I am a Catholic apologist who believes in ecuminism, I am not a liar. I could not remain in good standing at my college if I was. I treat everyone fairly as dictated by my Catholic faith. Catholicism teaches kindness, something which you are not practicing toward me, I’m afraid. Did you ever look at the Vatican website on Mary in the Qu’ran, by the way?

And I’m afriad you totally lost me on your last insult there. If you wanna call me cybercatholiccollegeprofessor, I think that’s a very accurate title.

Feel free to criticize what I say on here factually, but I’m fed up with the personal attacks.

Amen to that.

Of course, your plea to end personal attacks will probably be seen as “AL TAKKAYA!” and written off as a “clever Muslim trick!” to get everyone to “ignore the threat to western civilization that your internet postings pose!”

 

[tequilamac]

I recently read “The Muslim Jesus”, a collection of sayings in the Islamic tradition attributed to Jesus. It is an excellent piece.

You have also a collection of excellent sayings here on the forum. What pray tell, does that do for anyone? Many people have collections of excellent sayings- Mark Twain, pro universal, even Adolph Hitler has a compilation. What does that have to do with the Son of God when he’s at home, please? Let’s see- who wrote early to bed and early to rise- Ben Franklin. Yet he was in need of a Savior. He was not dumb enough to put himself on a par with Christ nor was he dumb enough to drag Christ down to his level. He had a sense of eternal self preservation, you see. Now ben despised Catholics but he was a healthy protestant. Most people who reject Catholicism and/or Christianity have no concept of the meaning of the word “eternal”. Which is too bad. All this arguing is present and passing. Yet eternal remains for all eternity. But pro universal, as you have done on this and other threads, you remain firmly rooted in the immediate transient objects.

 

[sadie2723]

Well, I think I can help out with this one…

Read it for yourself people. The Religion of Violence gets its fuel from the Koran which tells the followers of this so called religion to kill. Want proof? Here are a few examples from the Koran in which it tells people to perform acts of violence. Enjoy the read.

A fire has been prepared for the disbelievers, whose fuel is men and stones. 2:24

“Fight in the way of Allah.” 2:190, 2:244

Kill disbelievers wherever you find them. If they attack you, then kill them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. (But if they desist in their unbelief, then don’t kill them.) 2:191-2

War is ordained by Allah, and all Muslims must be willing to fight, whether they like it or not. 2:216

Believers fight for Allah; disbelievers fight for the devil. So fight the minions of the devil. 4:76

Gosh…I could go on, but I think you get the point.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

This is somewhat true of the Abbasid Dynasty, but not really true for the Umayyad Dynasty up through 750 AD. Jews were allowed to undertake the construction of new temples during this period, and many groups allowed Muslims in, as they treated the local populations better than the administrations they were currently under. By the Abbasid Dynasty, many people were converting so they could avoid paying taxes and advance within the administration.

Did you know the history of the Umayyads, in particular their geneology, and why they were replaced by the Abbasids?

Well, fyi, the Umayyads were the descendants of Muhammad’s greatest enemy, Abu Sufyan. This Abu Sufyan ‘converted’ to Islam on the day Muhammad conquered Mecca. He was also strangely enough Muhammad’s father in law since his daughter Umm Habibah married Muhammad.

Now, it may seem strange that Abu Sufyan’s son, Muawiyya, became the first Umayyad Caliph, replacing the last of the four Righteous Caliphs who were Muhammad’s Companions. Yazid, Muawiyya’s son defeated and killed Ali’s son Hussein at Karbalah, thus causing the schism between the Sunnis and the Shias.

Thus, the Umayyads were by far the least ‘Islamic’ of all the Caliphates and were considered heretics by the hardliners, particularly the Abbasids who claimed descent from Muhammad through his uncle Abbas.

It is said the Umayyads were quite tolerant by comparison to other Caliphates, and were actually keen not to convert conquered subjects to Islam so they could exact the Jizyah tax on them.

Since the Abbasids considered the Umayyads as traitors to Islam, they were persecuted and all killed except for one prince, Abd al-Rahman who fled to Spain. They even went to the extreme of digging up the corpses of the Umayyad caliphs and publicly flogging them.

 

[Rolltide]

Did you know the history of the Umayyads, in particular their geneology, and why they were replaced by the Abbasids?

Well, fyi, the Umayyads were the descendants of Muhammad’s greatest enemy, Abu Sufyan. This Abu Sufyan ‘converted’ to Islam on the day Muhammad conquered Mecca. He was also strangely enough Muhammad’s father in law since his daughter Umm Habibah married Muhammad.

Now, it may seem strange that Abu Sufyan’s son, Muawiyya, became the first Umayyad Caliph, replacing the last of the four Righteous Caliphs who were Muhammad’s Companions. Yazid, Muawiyya’s son defeated and killed Ali’s son Hussein at Karbalah, thus causing the schism between the Sunnis and the Shias.

Thus, the Umayyads were by far the least ‘Islamic’ of all the Caliphates and were considered heretics by the hardliners, particularly the Abbasids who claimed descent from Muhammad through his uncle Abbas.

It is said the Umayyads were quite tolerant by comparison to other Caliphates, and were actually keen not to convert conquered subjects to Islam so they could exact the Jizyah tax on them.

Since the Abbasids considered the Umayyads as traitors to Islam, they were persecuted and all killed except for one prince, Abd al-Rahman who fled to Spain. They even went to the extreme of digging up the corpses of the Umayyad caliphs and publicly flogging them.

Actually, I did know that. This is an excellent post and very historically accurate. Teriffic summary!

 

[I_Leatherman]

You are correct that the Northern Ireland situation is a political problem, but you’d be blind not to point out that it has a major religious component, just as many of the political conflicts in the Middle East. How many Protestant members of the IRA can you name, by the way? (And yes, I’m perfectly aware of their Protestant counterparts.) We can all thank God that that conflict has improved so drastically recently.

Wolfe Tone

“Not the least of his achievements, is that, for later generations of Irishmen [the old IRA], he helped transform what would otherwise be remembered as a national catastrophe into a heroic struggle of a people against their oppressors, of Irish liberty against English tyranny.” - Thomas Pakenham

“That the influence of England was the radical vice of our Government, and that Ireland would never be either free, prosperous, or happy, until she was independent, and that independence was unattainable whilst the connection with England existed.” - Theobald Wolfe Tone.

“Theobald Wolfe Tone was a teacher and a lawyer and, although he was a member of the Protestant Ascendency, he was also one of Ireland’s greatest patriots.
He helped to create the organization known as the United Irishmen while he put aside the matter of religion entirely and fought for a free Ireland where members of all classes and religions could live together in harmony. A revolutionary to the end, Theobald remained true to this dream even after he was captured, as he took his own life to avoid giving the British the satisfaction of executing him.” - Wolfe Tone

 

[Eden]

IYou are correct in that fanatic Muslims want to kill all westerners.

Thanks for the confirmation. You can see from my post #39 that I wasnt’ sure.

 

[Eden]

Did you ever look at the Vatican website on Mary in the Qu’ran, by the way?

How about looking in the Quran about Mary? Muhammed makes the claim that Christians worship three “gods”: The Father, The Son (Issa) and… Mary! (Surah 5:116)

 

[sadie2723]

How about looking in the Quran about Mary? Muhammed makes the claim that Christians worship three “gods”: The Father, The Son (Issa) and… Mary! (Surah 5:116)

Which lets you know what a scholar he was!

 

[Eden]

Which lets you know what a scholar he was!

Yes, but it’s bad if you say you know these things as a scholar and end up so off the mark, even worse when you say the Angel Gabriel told you!

 

[meedo]

I am a Catholic apologist who believes in ecuminism, I am not a liar. I could not remain in good standing at my college if I was. I treat everyone fairly as dictated by my Catholic faith. Catholicism teaches kindness, something which you are not practicing toward me, I’m afraid. Did you ever look at the Vatican website on Mary in the Qu’ran, by the way?

And I’m afriad you totally lost me on your last insult there. If you wanna call me cybercatholiccollegeprofessor, I think that’s a very accurate title.

Feel free to criticize what I say on here factually, but I’m fed up with the personal attacks.

Roll Tide

May God bless you . I am a muslim and i am happy you are here.

All the best .

Meedo

 

[meedo]

Did you know the history of the Umayyads, in particular their geneology, and why they were replaced by the Abbasids?

Well, fyi, the Umayyads were the descendants of Muhammad’s greatest enemy, Abu Sufyan. This Abu Sufyan ‘converted’ to Islam on the day Muhammad conquered Mecca. He was also strangely enough Muhammad’s father in law since his daughter Umm Habibah married Muhammad.

Now, it may seem strange that Abu Sufyan’s son, Muawiyya, became the first Umayyad Caliph, replacing the last of the four Righteous Caliphs who were Muhammad’s Companions. Yazid, Muawiyya’s son defeated and killed Ali’s son Hussein at Karbalah, thus causing the schism between the Sunnis and the Shias.

Thus, the Umayyads were by far the least ‘Islamic’ of all the Caliphates and were considered heretics by the hardliners, particularly the Abbasids who claimed descent from Muhammad through his uncle Abbas.

It is said the Umayyads were quite tolerant by comparison to other Caliphates, and were actually keen not to convert conquered subjects to Islam so they could exact the Jizyah tax on them.

Since the Abbasids considered the Umayyads as traitors to Islam, they were persecuted and all killed except for one prince, Abd al-Rahman who fled to Spain. They even went to the extreme of digging up the corpses of the Umayyad caliphs and publicly flogging them.

The Hoistory part is true. But the interpretations isnt true. Islam isnt categorized by ancestry and Ummayads are regarded by Muslims to be as normal muslims as the Abbasids are .

The prophet himself described in his prophecy about the conflict to come between Ali and Mu3aweya that its a fight between two believers. So NO they are not considered by muslims to be traitors to islam and to be very Frank , All muslims all muslims lovethe Greatest Ummayad Caliph . ‘‘Umar Ibn Abd El Aziz’’ We call him the 5th righeous caliph .

So trying to invent as if Ummayads were nice because they werent real muslims is a slick but false invention.

Just wanted to set the recordstraight

salam

 

[tequilamac]

Just a point- this question of violence against infidels in Islam is all over the internet in every catholic forum and in the papers as well. People everywhere are asking is Islam a peaceful religion? Does Muhammad advocate violence against non believers? Then people roll out the Koran and try to find passages that support or negate the violence angle. They talk about radical vs conservative interpretations of the Koran. It would seem that if Islam advocates peace with infidels or enemies, it is in a well hidden passage somewhere that no one is able to point to as an overriding condition of the religion. In Catholicism our peace is hanging on a cross for the whole world to see. We can see Him and clearly read his words on the subject with one check. We do not have to go making a case for peace or searching the Bible or endlessly reinterpreting the Catechism. I would say then that peace is not a priority principle in Islam especially since the Muslim clerics are the ones screaming off with his head toward the Pope. If you have to work as hard as we all do looking for the peace in Islam, maybe it just isn’t there. We can see and hear and read and watch the violence, but where is the peace?

 

[sadie2723]

Just a point- this question of violence against infidels in Islam is all over the internet in every catholic forum and in the papers as well. People everywhere are asking is Islam a peaceful religion? Does Muhammad advocate violence against non believers? Then people roll out the Koran and try to find passages that support or negate the violence angle. They talk about radical vs conservative interpretations of the Koran. It would seem that if Islam advocates peace with infidels or enemies, it is in a well hidden passage somewhere that no one is able to point to as an overriding condition of the religion. In Catholicism our peace is hanging on a cross for the whole world to see. We can see Him and clearly read his words on the subject with one check. We do not have to go making a case for peace or searching the Bible or endlessly reinterpreting the Catechism. I would say then that peace is not a priority principle in Islam especially since the Muslim clerics are the ones screaming off with his head toward the Pope. If you have to work as hard as we all do looking for the peace in Islam, maybe it just isn’t there. We can see and hear and read and watch the violence, but where is the peace?

There is no peace because the Koran does not teach peace. It does teach its followers to kill. Anybody that says otherwise is not reading it. The Koran makes countless references to killing non-believers here are just a few:

“Fight in the way of Allah.” 2:190, 2:244

Kill disbelievers wherever you find them. If they attack you, then kill them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. (But if they desist in their unbelief, then don’t kill them.) 2:191-2

**So as long as they convert, life is good, and you can leave them alone…how nice.
**

War is ordained by Allah, and all Muslims must be willing to fight, whether they like it or not. 2:216

The people cried out for mercy, but Allah killed them anyway. 20:15

Have no unbelieving friends. Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them. 4:89

If the unbelievers do not offer you peace, kill them wherever you find them. Against such you are given clear warrant. 4:91

Those who make war with Allah and his messenger will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. That is how they will be treated in this world, and in the next they will have an awful doom. 5:33

Those that the Muslims killed were not really killed by them. It was Allah who did the killing. 8:17

Believers must fight for Allah. They must kill and be killed , and are bound to do so by the Torah, Gospel, and Quran. But Allah will reward them for it. 9:111

 

[Eden]

Prepared by Abdullah Al Araby

In an attempt to polish Islam’s image, Muslim activists usually quote verses from the Quran that were written in the early days of the Islamic movement while Mohammed lived in Mecca. Those passages make Islam appear loving and harmless because they call for love, peace and patience. Such is a deception. The activists fail to tell gullible people that such verses, though still in the Quran, were nullified, abrogated, rendered void by later passages that incite killing, decapitations, maiming, terrorism and religious intolerance. The latter verses were penned while Mohammed’s headquarters was based in Medina.

Full article here:

islamreview.com/articles/quransdoctrine.shtml

 

[inJESUS]

Do you find anyone asking if Jesus’ teachings are peaceful? NO.
Why? cuz it is OBVIOUS they are.
Do you find anyone asking if Muhammad’s teachings are peaceful? BILLIONS. Why? cuz it’s NOT obvious they are.
Truth is not equivocal.
Our Catholic historian made a gross mistake by equalling Christians with the people of the book…because the people of the book Muhammad was talking about were the NASARA not the Christians. These Nasara ( mistakingly taken for Christians) will go to Janna…orthodox Christians however are disbelievers who will rot in hell and Allah’s curse is upon them.

So the goody-goody verses regarding Christians ( going to heaven, good people ecc) are for Nasara whereas harsh words ( rot in hell, disbelievers ecc) are orthodox Christians.

Waraqa Ben Nawfal, dear Catholic historian, who taught Muhammad his Injeel, was the head-priest of Nasara in Hijaz and Mecca. These Nasara were a bunch of heretics who believed for example, that Jesus put his resemblance on someone else and was not crucified hence you find Basilidis’ interpretation in Quran.

So those who believe in Jesus’ crucifixion, that Jesus is God, that God is trinity, hence orthodox Christians are disbelievers with Allah’s curse on them and they’ll rot in hell whereas the nasara who believed that Jesus was not crucified, and that he was not divine , and who held the Gospel of Nasara are the ones Muhammad came to “confirm” and who will go to paradise.

So anyone who says Quran speaks good of “Christians” is mistaken, especially Muslims who know Arabic but who do not know the difference between Nasara and Christians when the Quran NEVER uses the word “Christians” though it’s known since the first century. Muhammad confused both when Nasara to Christians is what Druze are for Muslims.

 

[sadie2723]

Do you find anyone asking if Jesus’ teachings are peaceful? NO.
Why? cuz it is OBVIOUS they are.
Do you find anyone asking if Muhammad’s teachings are peaceful? BILLIONS. Why? cuz it’s NOT obvious they are.
Truth is not equivocal.
Our Catholic historian made a gross mistake by equalling Christians with the people of the book…because the people of the book Muhammad was talking about were the NASARA not the Christians. These Nasara ( mistakingly taken for Christians) will go to Janna…orthodox Christians however are disbelievers who will rot in hell and Allah’s curse is upon them.

So the goody-goody verses regarding Christians ( going to heaven, good people ecc) are for Nasara whereas harsh words ( rot in hell, disbelievers ecc) are orthodox Christians.

Waraqa Ben Nawfal, dear Catholic historian, who taught Muhammad his Injeel, was the head-priest of Nasara in Hijaz and Mecca. These Nasara were a bunch of heretics who believed for example, that Jesus put his resemblance on someone else and was not crucified hence you find Basilidis’ interpretation in Quran.

So those who believe in Jesus’ crucifixion, that Jesus is God, that God is trinity, hence orthodox Christians are disbelievers with Allah’s curse on them and they’ll rot in hell whereas the nasara who believed that Jesus was not crucified, and that he was not divine , and who held the Gospel of Nasara are the ones Muhammad came to “confirm” and who will go to paradise.

So anyone who says Quran speaks good of “Christians” is mistaken, especially Muslims who know Arabic but who do not know the difference between Nasara and Christians when the Quran NEVER uses the word “Christians” though it’s known since the first century. Muhammad confused both when Nasara to Christians is what Druze are for Muslims.

Well researched and VERY well said!

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Our priest stood up there today and stated he did not. He stated that the Koran has been misinterpreted. I had to bite my tongue to keep myself from remarking to my son that he doesn’t know what he is talking about. Does he?
…

Sounds like you have a priest that needs to be fired and sent back to school to study history.

You should tell your son that that priest does not know what he is talking about. It is better to tell your children the truth than allow them to leave the faith when they figure out in college that your priest is not a truth teller when it comes to history. In fact, you should raise holy heck in your congregation and uphold the truth of history concerning this because every teen who goes to college later becomes easy pickings for unbelieving professors.

If you allow this false view of history to go unchallenged, teens in college who learn the truth in this matter will wonder what other things in history and in faith is the priest lying about?

If your authority figures can not be honest in something like this, then there is no reason to believe that they are telling the truth about God.

Be a man, follow Matt 18, go to the priest and confront his lies, with the facts of history. Start with Islams’ violent invasion of Eastern Christian nations and the churches’ crusades to defend the church aganist the swords of islam.