Evangelism to Muslims

[Shadowcry]

Good then, I disagree with you. People don’t need to be converted people will do whatever they want. Who says the world must be converted.

 

[LilyM]

Shadowcry:

Good then, I disagree with you. People don’t need to be converted people will do whatever they want. Who says the world must be converted.

Umm, that would be Jesus himself …

‘Go make disciples of all the nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you’ (Matthew 28:19-20)

Doesn’t get too much clearer than that.

 

[StMarkEofE]

murtad:

Hello!

As members of the Catholic Church, we should try to be more active in evangelism. The reason for this is because both the Bible and the Holy Tradition of the Church command Christians be active in evangelism.

Our Lord Jesus taught us how to conquer the Roman Empire via the spiritual sword in about 400 years and the early Christian missionaries actively seeked to convert non-Christians. Around the 4th century C.E., Emperor Constantine embraced the Christian faith as a result of successful evangelism of the grassroots in the Empire.

Sad to say, divisions within the Church led to conquest of the Roman Empire by Islamic armies and subsequent Arabisation of the entire Middle East.

I urge members of the Catholic Church to read this part of the Cathecism of the Catholic Church:

841 The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. "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."

We have many Eastern Rite Catholic Churches that complement the Roman Rite. They are Coptic Rite, Syriac Rite, Greek Rite, Russian Rite and Armenian Rite. We lack however Jewish Rite and Muslim Rite.

CCC teaches us that Christian God is Trinity. If so, CCC 841 statement that Christians and Muslims worship one, merciful God can only mean that a true Muslim is a person who believes in Trinity by confessing Nicene Creed.

Note that the Arabic word “Muslim” means submitter to God. What God is subjective and can even mean Trinity.

Please tell your local Bishops to organise an Eastern Rite Catholic Church specifically targetting Jews and Muslims. This could be a Jewish Rite or a Muslim Rite.

We must encourage Muslims to be good Muslims by rejecting Muhammad, a false prophet and accepting our Lord and God Jesus who is the Messiah, the seal of the prophets. The best way is to convince them to be Trinitarian Muslims, i.e. Muslims who confess Trinity, Nicene Creed, etc. They are Muslims ethnically, yet Christians religiously. This is not much different from Jewish Christians, who are Jewish ethnically yet Christians religiously. The Apostle Paul himself was proud to be Jewish and refered himself as Hebrew of the Hebrews.

What is your reaction to my idea? Do you agree with it?

Never heard of a Muslim ethnicity. There are Arabs, Lebonese, Syrians, Turkman etc. ethnicity but no Muslims.

 

[Athanasius18]

well, my comment was directed at all “Catholics” like Pro that ignore the commands of Jesus Christ. if one does not evangelize, one is not a Christian. “Woe to me if i do not preach the Gospel” says St. Paul

 

[brotherhrolf]

I am astounded by the lack of historic authenticity evidenced upon this thread! Either the history I have read is wrong or we are re-interpreting history as written by the conqueror. Divisions within the Church led to the conquests by the Arab hordes? In whose history book is this written? Islam swept out of Arabia not in peaceful evagelization but by the point and blade of a scimitar! I have posted over and over and over again on these threads about the total lack of historic authenticity on the part of the proponents of Islam. This is bordering on insanity! It is contrary to any rational study of these early medieval ages. The Roman Empire was split! Western Europe was reduced to local kingdoms each trying to take care of themselves! How could you possibly have divisions in the Church when western Europe was already divided into feudal kingdoms? There was no unity in the west. None. Nada. Zippo.

And at the time Islam poured out of Arabia, there was but ONE universal church! It is 300 years in the future before east splits from west. Let’s get our history in perspective before we start on the theology.

 

[pro_universal]

Divisions within the Church led to the conquests by the Arab hordes? In whose history book is this written?

This is in the history books written by the people who lived in those days. Here’s one example of Christians welcoming and being coopted by the Muslims because of brutal oppression by, in their words, “the unbelieving emperor [of constantinople]”:

fordham.edu/HALSALL/source/642Egypt-conq2.html

…But Sanutius, the believing dux, made known to Amr the circumstances of that militant father, the patriarch Benjamin, and how he was a fugitive from the Romans, through fear of them. Then Amr, son of Al-Asi, wrote to the provinces of Egypt a letter, in which he said: “There is protection and security for the place where Benjamin, the patriarch of the Coptic Christians is, and peace from God; therefore let him come forth secure and tranquil, and administer the affairs of his Church, and the government of his nation.” Therefore when the holy Benjamin heard this, he returned to Alexandria with great joy, clothed with the crown of patience and sore conflict which had befallen the orthodox people through their persecution by the heretics, after having been absent during thirteen years, ten of which were years of Heraclius, the misbelieving Roman, with the three years before the Muslims conquered Alexandria.

The Byzantine religious authorities were brutal and unrelenting in their persecutions of heretical christians and any “un-orthodox” religion. This is a large part of the reason why the Muslims conquered with such a small population.

And at the time Islam poured out of Arabia, there was but ONE universal church! It is 300 years in the future before east splits from west. Let’s get our history in perspective before we start on the theology.

Right, except that not all people in the Empire believed that was the Church. There were a large number of Christian heretics living in the east, they were ruthlessly suppressed by the Imperial authorities in the name of the Church, and they were quite happy (as you can see above) to have new rulers.

One Church, yes, but not everyone was a member, and those that weren’t members paid with their lives for it…whereas to the muslims, all they had to pay was a tax.

 

[Shadowcry]

brotherhrolf:

I am astounded by the lack of historic authenticity evidenced upon this thread! Either the history I have read is wrong or we are re-interpreting history as written by the conqueror. Divisions within the Church led to the conquests by the Arab hordes? In whose history book is this written? Islam swept out of Arabia not in peaceful evagelization but by the point and blade of a scimitar! I have posted over and over and over again on these threads about the total lack of historic authenticity on the part of the proponents of Islam. This is bordering on insanity! It is contrary to any rational study of these early medieval ages. The Roman Empire was split! Western Europe was reduced to local kingdoms each trying to take care of themselves! How could you possibly have divisions in the Church when western Europe was already divided into feudal kingdoms? There was no unity in the west. None. Nada. Zippo.

And at the time Islam poured out of Arabia, there was but ONE universal church! It is 300 years in the future before east splits from west. Let’s get our history in perspective before we start on the theology.

Well actually no there wasn’t a unified church. The Nestorian Chritians and the Coptic Christians come to mind.

 

[brotherhrolf]

Pardon me but the last time I checked the universal church was not split until 1054. The Nestorians were in the far extremes of Asia Minor and China. The Copts were in contact with the monasteries in Ireland as evidenced by manuscript illuminations.

Ah, yes, the Fordham site, as I have said before, is not the be all and end all of medieval history - not by a long shot. My point is that it is not divisions within the church which eased Islamic conquest but political divisions which were part of a developing feudalism. Islam did not conquer the eastern empire until the 1450s. The eastern empire was sufficiently strong to stop the Islamic armies long after the late 600s, early 700s.

The western empire was another story entirely. By the time Islam swept out of Arabia who was in charge of the old North African provinces of the western empire? Vandal chieftains. Excuse me but the Vandals were nominal Christians at best and their name resounds in history to this day - vandals/vandalism. Who was in charge in Spain? Visigothic chieftains. The simple fact is that the western empire was gone and replaced by the feudal kingdoms/chieftainships of Vandals, Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Saxons, Danes, Norsemen, Frisians, Huns ad infinitum - and more than a few of these had been bought off by the coffers of the eastern empire to keep them moving into the west. Fascinating study - the barbarian migrations which resulted from the Huns. None of which had anything to do with the universal church. Saying that the western empire was easy pickings because of divisions in the church ignores the fact that the Roman legions were long gone and were replaced by tribal cultures who had just spent the last two hundred years in migration over western Europe pushed from their homelands by the Huns. And who stopped the Huns at the gates of Rome?

Two, Byzantine religious authorities had no presence in western Europe at the time of the Islamic expansion. Western Europe was a patchwork of fortified monasteries.

Three, the only forces which were capable of stopping Islam were the Merovingian Franks. They laid the ground work for the Holy Roman Empire which starts with Charlemagne a hundred years after they defeat the Moors at Tours and Poitiers. But at that time even they were split between ripuarian Franks and salian Franks.

So let’s not say it was because of divisions in the church.

And, pro_universal, history is written by the victors. I would no more accept an Arabic version of the conquest of Alexandria at face value than I would a New York Times report of the Battle of Antietam.

 

[cestusdei]

There has never been a unified Islam. The Shiites and Sunni’s have no problem killing each other. All of them kill the Sufi’s.

 

[pro_universal]

The Nestorians were in the far extremes of Asia Minor and China. The Copts were in contact with the monasteries in Ireland as evidenced by manuscript illuminations.

See above. There were monophysites (actually the majority) in North Africa and parts of Syria. There were also Nestorians. I provided a primary source for you, so you can verify easily for yourself that this belief of yours is incorrect. Yes, there was only one East-West Catholic Church, but Catholics were not the only christians at that time.

My point is that it is not divisions within the church which eased Islamic conquest but political divisions which were part of a developing feudalism.

That’s not the case, as in the Feudal territories, the Muslims did not penetrate. The areas that they did conquer were not feudal. The eastern Empire was the largest it had ever been since Justinian when the muslims conquered it. Again, it was a true empire, not a feudal society in any way, shape, or form.

The problem isn’t division within the Church, it was the Church’s virulent persecution of the non-orthodox believers that were a large part of the Eastern population.

Vandal chieftains. Excuse me but the Vandals were nominal Christians at best and their name resounds in history to this day - vandals/vandalism. Who was in charge in Spain? Visigothic chieftains.

Right, and the Visigoths fell easily to the Muslims. The rest of the west did not fall, even though it was by no means an empire. Feudalism there just made life miserable for Europeans; it didn’t contribute to a “fall” because the muslims never took it.

Three, the only forces which were capable of stopping Islam were the Merovingian Franks. They laid the ground work for the Holy Roman Empire which starts with Charlemagne a hundred years after they defeat the Moors at Tours and Poitiers.

Charles Martel was the first Carolingian. They were literally a rag-tag of men on horses (as were all European armies at the time), and were able to stop the moors because the moors were a long way from their bastions of support in North Africa. They simply did not have the resources to reach any further (as happened with the Muslim extension towards China).

And, pro_universal, history is written by the victors. I would no more accept an Arabic version of the conquest of Alexandria at face value than I would a New York Times report of the Battle of Antietam.

I think perhaps you need to go back and read my source. It’s not Arabic. It’s a Coptic Christian source writing on the history of the Church in Egypt. There you have the history of the loser, ie, the people who were submitted to the now-infamous “jizya” that everyone thinks is the worst thing since slavery.

In sum, I think perhaps you just need to read more carefuly my first post. Imperial persecution of anyone who did not toe the orthodox line (the majority in most parts) made Muslim rule an attractive option to the people of North Africa and Syria…and muslim spain, interestingly, turned out to be the only safe place for Jews in Europe until 1492, when the new Spanish crown expelled every last one.

 

[brotherhrolf]

pro_universal:

See above. There were monophysites (actually the majority) in North Africa and parts of Syria. There were also Nestorians. I provided a primary source for you, so you can verify easily for yourself that this belief of yours is incorrect. Yes, there was only one East-West Catholic Church, but Catholics were not the only christians at that time.

You cite the Nestorians whom the universal (i.e. catholic) church has declared were heretics. A heretic by definintion cannot be a christian. Pelagianism was rampant in France just prior to this period. Let us not confuse heresies with christianity.

That’s not the case, as in the Feudal territories, the Muslims did not penetrate. The areas that they did conquer were not feudal. The eastern Empire was the largest it had ever been since Justinian when the muslims conquered it. Again, it was a true empire, not a feudal society in any way, shape, or form.

The Muslims did not penetrate? They did not conquer Spain? They did not push up into the mid section of France? They were not defeated in Tours and Poitiers, France in 711 AD? Justinian, sir, reunited a portion of the old Roman Empire in the mid 500s. My ancestors were sitting there in Britanny, England, Scotland and Ireland and I can assure you without a shadow of a doubt that they never once saw a Roman legionnaire. Nor did any of the Vandal kingoms in North Africa or the Visigothic kingdoms in Spain. ALL of the areas they conquered in western Europe were feudal societies.

The problem isn’t division within the Church, it was the Church’s virulent persecution of the non-orthodox believers that were a large part of the Eastern population.

Perhaps you should post this hypothesis on the Eastern Christianity thread and see just how far you would get.

Right, and the Visigoths fell easily to the Muslims. The rest of the west did not fall, even though it was by no means an empire. Feudalism there just made life miserable for Europeans; it didn’t contribute to a “fall” because the muslims never took it.

The Visgoths fell precisely because it wasn’t an empire. That is MY point. There WAS no western Roman empire! Feudalism SAVED European civilization. It provided bastions from which civilization could re-emerge.

Charles Martel was the first Carolingian. They were literally a rag-tag of men on horses (as were all European armies at the time), and were able to stop the moors because the moors were a long way from their bastions of support in North Africa. They simply did not have the resources to reach any further (as happened with the Muslim extension towards China).

Charles Martel was a Merovingian Frank. Charlemagne, Carolus Magnus, was the first Carolingian. They were not “rag-tag” but the very beginnings of western chivalry. It has perhaps escaped your education that they were the first cavalry to adopt the stirrup. And your Moorish emir burned his ships upon crossing to Gibraltar so that there would be no way home and, of course, no hope for resupply.

The Muslim extension towards China was stopped by Ghengis and Kublai Khan in the 13th century. They were Mongols not Christians. And, they came very close to taking over feudal western Europe as well.

pro_universal, I cannot for the life of me explain why someone who purports himself to be a Catholic in Pakistan is so overwhelmingly in support of Islam. All of us here are aware of the recent persecutions of Catholics and church burnings in Pakistan. In my country we have a saying, “If it waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck”. What you are doing, however disingenenous in your mind, rings very, very hollow in my ears. Come clean, sir, for decency’s sake!

 

[pro_universal]

You cite the Nestorians whom the universal (i.e. catholic) church has declared were heretics. A heretic by definintion cannot be a christian. Pelagianism was rampant in France just prior to this period. Let us not confuse heresies with christianity.

Semantics aside, they and the Copts were persecuted by the Orthodox officials in Constantinople. Whether or not you want to apply the label Christian is not really relevant. Luther was a heretic too, but we’ve come to accept his people as christians. They worshipped Jesus, that’s good enough for me.

Justinian, sir, reunited a portion of the old Roman Empire in the mid 500s. My ancestors were sitting there in Britanny, England, Scotland and Ireland and I can assure you without a shadow of a doubt that they never once saw a Roman legionnaire.

I think perhaps you are confused as to what I meant by “Eastern Empire”. I meant those areas under the rule of Constantinople, which included some small pieces of Italy, all of North Africa, and Syria into modern day Iran under the Romans at the time of the Islamic conquest. (I think you might be confusing “Byzantine” here; Byzantine is a word we use, but at the time, they who ruled Constantinople were called the Romans.)

Nor did any of the Vandal kingoms in North Africa or the Visigothic kingdoms in Spain. ALL of the areas they conquered in western Europe were feudal societies.

North Africa is not western Europe. It was part of the Roman empire, ie, the “Byzantine” empire. The Conquest of Spain was one of a feudal society, sure. But the rest of it was not feudal; it was part of the imperial theme system.

Perhaps you should post this hypothesis on the Eastern Christianity thread and see just how far you would get.

The historical fact that most of the people in the lands conquered in the first muslim conquests were monophysites will not be altered by the Eastern Christian thread’s reactions.

There WAS no western Roman empire! Feudalism SAVED European civilization. It provided bastions from which civilization could re-emerge.

The Eastern Roman empire fell mostly, the Feudal societies did not. But to say they provided “bastions of civilization” is simply wrong. Civilization reemerged when Europeans started re-learning the Greeks (via Muslim Spain) and when they figured out how to build a decent city after the crusades. The Feudal system destroyed latin and turned most of Europe into an impoverished horde. Thanks to God, the Europeans were able to draw on outside sources to rebuild what the invading barbarians nearly wiped out. (Gregory of Tours History of the Franks is good for learning about the early days of this process-the atrocious state of his latin is a good clue as to how well ‘civilization’ was doing under the germanic tribes.)

Charles Martel was a Merovingian Frank. Charlemagne, Carolus Magnus, was the first Carolingian.

That is definitely not the case. Martel is the grandfather of Charlemagne. The name “Carolingian” comes from “Carolus Martellus”, ie, Charles Martel. There is no “grey area” on this point. Martel was the first Carolingian.

They were not “rag-tag” but the very beginnings of western chivalry.

They were most definitely rag-tag. If it weren’t for the over-extension of the muslims, they would’ve been wiped out like the vastly superior Byzantine forces were. Stirrups on horses are fine, but having absolutely no discipline or drill is what made them rag-tag. Germanic tribes preferred individual combat, and thus their military capabilities were mostly pathetic until the time of the Crusades.

The Muslim extension towards China was stopped by Ghengis and Kublai Khan in the 13th century.

Totally different time period, different ruling group of muslims, and different incursion into China.

pro_universal, I cannot for the life of me explain why someone who purports himself to be a Catholic in Pakistan is so overwhelmingly in support of Islam. All of us here are aware of the recent persecutions of Catholics and church burnings in Pakistan. In my country we have a saying, “If it waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck”.

I am American. And posting uncontroversial historical facts is not “supporting Islam.” I’m stating something that no serious look at the historical records we have will fail to support. Being Christian does not require that we ignore, misinterpret, or reinvent history.

 

[brotherhrolf]

pro_universal:

I think perhaps you are confused as to what I meant by “Eastern Empire”. I meant those areas under the rule of Constantinople, which included some small pieces of Italy, all of North Africa, and Syria into modern day Iran under the Romans at the time of the Islamic conquest.

While it is true that Justinian briefly during the middle of the 6th century restored portions of the old Roman empire, the situation in the late 7th century when Islam began its conquests is fairly accurately reflected in the above. North Africa, what we would call Tunisia (including the cities of Carthage (rebuilt) and Tripoli were, as I said under the control of the Vandals not the Byzantines.

The Eastern Roman empire fell mostly, the Feudal societies did not. But to say they provided “bastions of civilization” is simply wrong. Civilization reemerged when Europeans started re-learning the Greeks (via Muslim Spain) and when they figured out how to build a decent city after the crusades.

They were “bastions of civilzation” in the sense that they provided at least a modicum of safety to the populace. Civilization began to reemerge when the Irish (who were never part of the Roman empire) began to send missionaries to Britain. It was they who taught the Anglo-Saxons the Latin classics and it was the Anglo-Saxons such as Alcuin of York who brought administrative reform and a new handwriting, carolingian miniscule, to Charlemagne which allowed him to form the beginnings of the Holy Roman Empire.

The Feudal system destroyed latin and turned most of Europe into an impoverished horde. Thanks to God, the Europeans were able to draw on outside sources to rebuild what the invading barbarians nearly wiped out. (Gregory of Tours History of the Franks is good for learning about the early days of this process-the atrocious state of his latin is a good clue as to how well ‘civilization’ was doing under the germanic tribes.)

I have read Gregory of Tours and I concur that imperial Latin is not the ecclesiastical Latin that eventually developed. But the Irish monasteries and their training of Anglo-Saxon monks like Alcuin started western Europe back on the road to civilization. The 12th century “renaissance” would never have developed without this.

That is definitely not the case. Martel is the grandfather of Charlemagne. The name “Carolingian” comes from “Carolus Martellus”, ie, Charles Martel. There is no “grey area” on this point. Martel was the first Carolingian.

Every source I consulted today lists Pepin II in 751 AD as the first Carolingian. Prior to that the mayor domos were Merovingian Franks not Carolingians.

They were most definitely rag-tag. If it weren’t for the over-extension of the muslims, they would’ve been wiped out like the vastly superior Byzantine forces were. Stirrups on horses are fine, but having absolutely no discipline or drill is what made them rag-tag.

I suggest you go back and take a look at a military history course. The invention of the stirrup revolutionized warfare. The Muslims were not overextended at Poitiers. They had already conquered Visigothic Spain. And I really don’t think that nomadic Berber horsemen had any more discipline or drill than the Merovingian Franks.

I apologize for confusing you with another poster. I do not want to hijack this thread. But let me point out that you are an American Christian apologizing for Islam. My original rant stands. We have yet to see an Islamic poster defend their historical actions.

 

[Shadowcry]

Why would it matter if a christian defended Islam from a historical perspective?

 

[brotherhrolf]

The complete lack of intellectual honesty on the part of Islamicists. Do your own apologetics.

 

[cestusdei]

The poor Copts have suffered so much under the lash of Islam. Persecution is rampant. Many Muslims believe that killing Christians is pleasing to God. That has got to change.

 

[pro_universal]

North Africa, what we would call Tunisia (including the cities of Carthage (rebuilt) and Tripoli were, as I said under the control of the Vandals not the Byzantines.

That is not true for the Muslim conquests. The Vandal Kingdom was destroyed by Justinian’s forces about 100 years before the coming of the muslim armies.

Civilization began to reemerge when the Irish (who were never part of the Roman empire) began to send missionaries to Britain. It was they who taught the Anglo-Saxons the Latin classics and it was the Anglo-Saxons such as Alcuin of York who brought administrative reform and a new handwriting, carolingian miniscule, to Charlemagne which allowed him to form the beginnings of the Holy Roman Empire.

This is Thomas Cahill’s theory in “How the Irish Saved Civilization.” It would make more sense if there weren’t 400 years of lag-time between Charlemagne and anything resembling a revival of classics in Europe.

Every source I consulted today lists Pepin II in 751 AD as the first Carolingian. Prior to that the mayor domos were Merovingian Franks not Carolingians.

Okay, maybe you can cite one of those sources and then we’ll see what the issue is. Pepin II was Carolus Martellus’s son, and he was the first Carolingian to rule all of France. The first Carolingian, however, was Carolus himself.

I suggest you go back and take a look at a military history course. The invention of the stirrup revolutionized warfare. The Muslims were not overextended at Poitiers. They had already conquered Visigothic Spain.

With a small number of people and no means of resupply. The war-making powers of the franks were indeed subpar for the time, which is why they lived in such anarchy (as did most of Europe in those days). They didn’t even have the power to establish control over their own territories.

But let me point out that you are an American Christian apologizing for Islam. My original rant stands. We have yet to see an Islamic poster defend their historical actions.

What difference does mine or someone else’s religion make in this discussion?

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

pro_universal:

That is why I understand that there’s more to Christianity than “Jesus good, muhammad bad.”

Sure, that is my understanding too. However, despite not being a Christian, I do understand the differences in the morality of one Jesus Christ and one Muhammad bin Abdallah.

I simply cannot understand how anyone would take their moral guidance from a clearly immoral person.

Next thing we’d here is that the Arab Muslim invasions were not bad at all, but were actually blessings.

What was undeniable, except to and by Muslims, is that the early Arab Muslim conquests were not examples of high morality. You don’t make war and kill people and force them to convert or else, and still credibly claim the moral high ground.

Chau,
Rodrigo

 

[pro_universal]

I simply cannot understand how anyone would take their moral guidance from a clearly immoral person.

Muhammad was not, according to any source available, a clearly immoral person. What I can’t understand is how people have managed to convince themselves that a person about whom only religious sources exist (all of which consider him a prophet) can somehow be cast in a bad light.

As is the case with Jesus, every author we have who actually came into contact with the man said good things about him. These new “let’s take some such thing from the 7th century and pretend it makes him evil” tracts are propaganda, not honest works of history.

Next thing we’d here is that the Arab Muslim invasions were not bad at all, but were actually blessings

For some, they were in fact blessings. See the writings of the Copts above, and look at the monophysites and Jews. They probably would have been exterminated eventually by the Byzantines. The only safe place in the world for heretical Christians and Jews at that time was in Muslim territory.

What was undeniable, except to and by Muslims, is that the early Arab Muslim conquests were not examples of high morality. You don’t make war and kill people and force them to convert or else, and still credibly claim the moral high ground.

The muslims did not forcibly convert, by and large. The Christians most certainly did, however, demand conversion without exception in lands that they occupied for any significant length of time.

Does the fact that Christianity has made war on people and forced them to convert mean that it can’t claim any moral high ground?

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

pro_universal:

Rodrigo:

I simply cannot understand how anyone would take their moral guidance from a clearly immoral person.

Muhammad was not, according to any source available, a clearly immoral person. What I can’t understand is how people have managed to convince themselves that a person about whom only religious sources exist (all of which consider him a prophet) can somehow be cast in a bad light.

You mean the ‘kill the pagans wherever you find them’ verse in the Quran makes Mo a moral man?

You mean the ‘you can divorce a female before she’s reached puberty’ verse in the Quran makes Mo a moral man?

You mean the ‘you can take 20% of the booty’ verse in the Quran makes Mo a moral man?

You mean all the Muslim historical sources from the hadiths and sira of Mo’s banditry, lechery, sex-slavery, trading slaves, making slaves, genocide, beheading, torture, rape, lying and pedophilia makes him a moral man?

Is there any reason why you think a prophet of Satan cannot be cast in a bad light?

pro_universal:

As is the case with Jesus, every author we have who actually came into contact with the man said good things about him. These new “let’s take some such thing from the 7th century and pretend it makes him evil” tracts are propaganda, not honest works of history.

Come on, bud. Jesus even in the light of today’s standards is still a moral man. We don’t have to make excuses for Jesus. The worst anyone can accuse him is losing his temper in the temple and kicking out the money lenders.

You are merely making excuses for Muhammad in the face of such immoral behavior. Even in the 7th century banditry was not considered moral behavior. The Quraysh frowned on banditry, and they sure lived in the 7th century Arabian desert. They also did not kill their prisoners while Muhammad did. They didn’t commit pedophilia which Muhammad did. They didn’t practice rape which Muhammad allowed his followers to do, as far as we know. The only evil behavior committed in the 7th century Arabian desert were by Muhammad and his band of bandits, I mean pious Muslims.

Oh… and they supposedly practiced female infanticide. Other than that – compare the Quraysh with Muhammad and you’ll see he comes off as an evil person.

pro_universal:

Rodrigo:

Next thing we’d here is that the Arab Muslim invasions were not bad at all, but were actually blessings

For some, they were in fact blessings. See the writings of the Copts above, and look at the monophysites and Jews. They probably would have been exterminated eventually by the Byzantines. The only safe place in the world for heretical Christians and Jews at that time was in Muslim territory.

Probably? I think not. The Copts and monophysites and Jews lived under the Byzantines for centuries.

You know, some people didn’t know what they were getting into. They thought the Muslims would be better masters and they were wrong. I favor historical evidence – not opinions. Look at the numbers – the Copts themselves claim they have been persecuted by the Arab Muslims.

The population of the Copts decreased from 9 million at the time of the Arabs conquest 641 A. D. approximately 700,000 at the early 1900’s.
copts.net/history.asp

I don’t think your apologetic works here, bud.

cont