Evangelism to Muslims

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

pro_universal:

Rodrigo:

There really is no moral equivalence between the Muslims and the Jews, is there? Or do you think debt refining is morally equivalent to the burning churches and killing 50+ Christians?

You keep missing the point. What I’m showing is that the equivalence is between you and the Nazi propaganda machines. There was no secret Jewish conspiracy; there is no conspiracy is Islam to kill all christians and Jews. Yet that didn’t stop the nazis from claiming that about jews, and the truth certainly does not stop you from slandering muslims.

You sure, bud? Have you read these hadiths?

Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24:
Narrated Ibn 'Umar:
Allah’s Apostle said: “I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah’s Apostle, and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they perform a that, then they save their lives an property from me except for Islamic laws and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allah.”

Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 196:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah 's Apostle said, " I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,’ and whoever says, ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,’ his life and property will be saved by me except for Islamic law, and his accounts will be with Allah, (either to punish him or to forgive him.)"

Sahih Muslim, Book 001, Number 0033:
“It has been narrated on the authority of Abdullah b. 'Umar that the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah, and they establish prayer, and pay Zakat and if they do it, their blood and property are guaranteed protection on my behalf except when justified by law, and their affairs rest with Allah.”

Sahih Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 80:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
“The Verse:–“You (true Muslims) are the best of peoples ever raised up for mankind.” means, the best of peoples for the people, as you bring them with chains on their necks till they embrace Islam.” {The verse it is referring to is Sura 3:110 in the Quran}

Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews. (Sahih Muslim, 41:6985; see also 41:6981-84 and Sahih Bukhari, 4:52:176,177 and 4:56:791)

pro_universal:

There’s the comparison, for the fourth or fifth time.

???

pro_universal:

Rodrigo:

So you think Christians should lie and say Muhammad was the best of human beings like Muslims claim? How many Muslims would be swayed by white-washing Muhammad’s ‘sublime morality’?

You missed the point again. Arguing that because Islam spread by the sword, it is evil, defeats our own church, since the Christian religion spread almost entirely by the sword. I don’t support making arguments that make us out to be hypocritical revisionists who think that the conquest of the New World was a “peaceful mission” that simply offered new choices to the Native Americans.

Tu quoque.

pro_universal:

I would prefer Christians be honest about their own history and recognize the good in muslims, so that we can achieve more peace and understanding…instead of wasting our time recreating nazi propaganda with “Muslim” in place of “jew”.

It is you, bud who are recreating Nazi propaganda by equating honest truth with Nazi propaganda.

I’d prefer Christians to be honest both about their history AND the history and philosophy of Islam. Telling lies isn’t going to win you friends, bud.

I find it strange that you should say that the Christian religion is spread almost entirely by the sword. I thought that was Islam. Hmmm… the first couple of hundred years of Christianity was also spread by the sword huh? Right.

Hasta luego,
Rodrigo

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

pro_universal:

Rodrigo:

Wow, see the difference? No? I think not.

Grossly out of context? I think not.

You just reposted the same text I did over and over but failed to see the point.

It’s a specific command to fight a specific tribe in Arabia in the 7th century. It has zero to do with today. Read 9:28 and the whole book to see that.

Stop whining. I did so because you cast insinuation my quoting from al-Qaeda.

This is what you wrote:
You are claiming it does based on quotes from Al Qaeda and grossly out of context, twisted pieces of Islamic religious text.

I showed everyone that it was not a quote from al-Qaeda but a translation from an al-Qaeda chide, that this translation is no different from other non-al-Qaeda translations and it is not out of context or twisted piece of Islamic religious text.

I have debated Muslims on surah 9 many times and have looked over it many times. It never says this verse is specifically for a specific tribe in Arabia in the 7th century. If you knew anything you’d see it is backed by the hadiths where Muhammad told his supporters to fight every non-Muslims until they believed in Allah or pay the Jizyah. How’s that specific to this particular tribe?

Read this hadith about how Umar justified attacking Persia based on ayat 9:29:

Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 53, Number 386:

Narrated Jubair bin Haiya: 'Umar sent the Muslims to the great countries to fight the pagans. … Al-Mughira replied, … Our Prophet, the Messenger of our Lord, has ordered us to fight you till you worship Allah Alone or give Jizya (i.e. tribute); and our Prophet has informed us that our Lord says:-- “Whoever amongst us is killed (i.e. martyred), shall go to Paradise to lead such a luxurious life as he has never seen, and whoever amongst us remain alive, shall become your master.”

Now tell us again how 9:29 is specific for the Quraysh in the 7th century?

pro_universal:

Rodrigo:

Willfully blind? I’m the one who’s obviously read the Quran.

No my friend, you haven’t. You didn’t even bother to look up the verse one line before the one you’re citing for context.

Huh? I even quoted it. Now tell us how it says what you claim it says.

pro_universal:

Rodrigo:

The strife isn’t caused by me nor spread by me, but by those followers of the prophet of the sublime morality whom you so love.

That’s what the Nazis said about the jews. “It’s not us, it’s them…they’re forcing us to expose them by being so evil.”

Except the Jews weren’t evil. I’m not so sure about Muhammad and many of his followers.

pro_universal:

It’s an excuse, and one that’s made war so much more easy to pull off. Take some responsibility for yourself.

I do take responsibility for myself. That’s why I’m here, sunshine. To spread goodness and light.

War has already been declared in 632AD. Read surah 9 and the hadith above.

Adios,
Cid

 

[pro_universal]

Rodrigo,

If you read 9:28, you will see that 9:29 is aimed at a specific group of people. Hadiths are not authoritative to muslims, and even the ones you cite are again, for specific circumstances.

Here’s what the muslim teaching from an orthodox (Shafi’i) Imam is: livingislam.org/pb_e.html on Jews and Christians. You can see it for yourself.

Again, just to make my point doubly clear since this keeps becoming an issue: You are not reading 9:29 correctly. You must be able to grasp the concept that text requires interpretation, and that you could possibly interpret it wrongly in order to proceed. This is the main failing of the protestant faiths, and it’s something that has plagued our religion for centuries. I will repeat: You do not read 9:29 correctly. Looking at the context of 9:28 will show you that.

Reading one line out of a book without assuming that the rest of the book has any impact on what that line means is folly. This point is so uncontroversial that there’s simply no room for debate. So I will ask you again: reread the source, read what actual Muslim commentators say on the material, and then show me one authoritative muslim source that says it’s okay to attack all Christians and Jews.

If you can’t provide one, I will take that as an admission that no muslims actually believe this, but it’s instead what you personally want the Koran to mean.

Also, I request that for once when you accuse me of “tu quoque”, you try to explain how exactly it is so. I ask this becasue in your attempt to elaborate the fallacy, you’ll be able to see how it doesn’t apply, and then we’ll be done with that issue.

Except the Jews weren’t evil. I’m not so sure about Muhammad and many of his followers.

That’s because you’re reading what anti-islamic sources say about them, not what Muslims have to say for themselves. Just like the Nazis who only read Nazi papers, and didn’t bother to see what Jews were up to for themselves.

 

[Athanasius18]

pro, since you love toughting how christians have converted through violence (which they sometimes have, and Pope John Paul apologized for that, something im waiting to ever seem muslims do about anything), explain something. exactly how did the early Church spread in africa, asia, and the rest of the roman empire? through violent means, absolutely not, in fact they were persectued. did they have this novel idea of “playing nice” that you describe? no, read the early Church Fathers and you will see apologetics against jews, pagans and other non-believers. yet the Christian faith spread throughout the Empire through peace, yet peace spoken with force and convicted in the knowledge that Jesus is Lord.

 

[pro_universal]

exactly how did the early Church spread in africa, asia, and the rest of the roman empire? through violent means, absolutely not, in fact they were persectued. did they have this novel idea of “playing nice” that you describe? no, read the early Church Fathers and you will see apologetics against jews, pagans and other non-believers. yet the Christian faith spread throughout the Empire through peace, yet peace spoken with force and convicted in the knowledge that Jesus is Lord.

It was a small movement, and many similar movements spread the same way today that will never be major world religions. It did not by any stretch of the imagination spread throughout the empire before Constantine converted, and it didn’t become exclusive until Theodosius.

I would like a direct answer to the question: What result do you expect from insulting muslims by telling them that Muhammad followed satan, or some other similar line?

We’re not the early Church anymore, this isn’t 100 A.D. So I’m asking you today, what do those tactics produce?

What’s the fruit of insulting other people’s religions?

 

[Cyber_Knight]

Athanasius18:

pro, since you love toughting how christians have converted through violence (which they sometimes have, and Pope John Paul apologized for that, something im waiting to ever seem muslims do about anything), explain something. exactly how did the early Church spread in africa, asia, and the rest of the roman empire? through violent means, absolutely not, in fact they were persectued. did they have this novel idea of “playing nice” that you describe? no, read the early Church Fathers and you will see apologetics against jews, pagans and other non-believers. yet the Christian faith spread throughout the Empire through peace, yet peace spoken with force and convicted in the knowledge that Jesus is Lord.

well athanasius, he is a muslim. so do not believe for what he says. he was trying to be neutral but well… never seen him defend christianity here (or try to explain- as catholic -for what justice2006 refute about catholicism)

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

pro_universal:

Rodrigo,

If you read 9:28, you will see that 9:29 is aimed at a specific group of people.

Yes, 9:28 is specific to a group of people – idolaters.

Arberry O believers, the idolaters are indeed unclean; so let them not come near the Holy Mosque after this year of theirs. If you fear poverty, God shall surely enrich you of His bounty, if He will; God is All-knowing; All-wise.

pro_universal:

Hadiths are not authoritative to muslims, and even the ones you cite are again, for specific circumstances.

Only for the 90% of Muslims called the Sunnis. Look at my hadith of Umar conquering Persia based on 9:29.Please tell us again how 9:29 is specific for a specific group of people.

pro_universal:

Here’s what the muslim teaching from an orthodox (Shafi’i) Imam is: livingislam.org/pb_e.html on Jews and Christians. You can see it for yourself.

I suppose this apologetic site means anything?

pro_universal:

Again, just to make my point doubly clear since this keeps becoming an issue: You are not reading 9:29 correctly. You must be able to grasp the concept that text requires interpretation, and that you could possibly interpret it wrongly in order to proceed. This is the main failing of the protestant faiths, and it’s something that has plagued our religion for centuries. I will repeat: You do not read 9:29 correctly. Looking at the context of 9:28 will show you that.

Oh… the context of 9:28 again.

Shakir O you who believe! the idolaters are nothing but unclean, so they shall not approach the Sacred Mosque after this year; and if you fear poverty then Allah will enrich you out of His grace if He please; surely Allah is Knowing Wise.

I don’t think so, bud.

pro_universal:

Reading one line out of a book without assuming that the rest of the book has any impact on what that line means is folly. This point is so uncontroversial that there’s simply no room for debate. So I will ask you again: reread the source, read what actual Muslim commentators say on the material, and then show me one authoritative muslim source that says it’s okay to attack all Christians and Jews.

Keep saying that if it makes you feel better, bud. You asked me to look at 9:28 and I’ve looked. I’ve even quoted it twice and it doesn’t say what you claim it says. But I’m sure you’ll keep on asking me to read it again. It’s your favorite tactic when you’re stump: re-read and re-read. Please progress this discussion if you can. I have read and answered. Let’s move on. Your turn: please tell how the verse says what you claim it says.

I’ve shown you the sahih hadiths from Bukhari and Muslim. I’m afraid those imams outrank any you’ll care to provide.

pro_universal:

If you can’t provide one, I will take that as an admission that no muslims actually believe this, but it’s instead what you personally want the Koran to mean.

Not so according to Imams Bukhari and Muslim. Take a look at the hadiths again. And find out what ‘sahih’ means.

pro_universal:

Also, I request that for once when you accuse me of “tu quoque”, you try to explain how exactly it is so. I ask this becasue in your attempt to elaborate the fallacy, you’ll be able to see how it doesn’t apply, and then we’ll be done with that issue.

Okay, let’s look at the previous example:

Arguing that because Islam spread by the sword, it is evil, defeats our own church, since the Christian religion spread almost entirely by the sword. I don’t support making arguments that make us out to be hypocritical revisionists who think that the conquest of the New World was a “peaceful mission” that simply offered new choices to the Native Americans.

Let me spell it out for you. You’re saying that we should not argue that Islam was spread by the sword because Christianity was also spread by the sword. Isn’t that saying Islam being spread by the sword is excused because Christianity was also spread by the sword? Isn’t that tu quoque?

pro_universal:

Rodrigo:

Except the Jews weren’t evil. I’m not so sure about Muhammad and many of his followers.

That’s because you’re reading what anti-islamic sources say about them, not what Muslims have to say for themselves. Just like the Nazis who only read Nazi papers, and didn’t bother to see what Jews were up to for themselves.

Is the Quran an anti-Islamic source? Are the hadiths and sira anti-islamic sources?

So give me an example of the evil of the Jews in the 1930s. Go on. To make it easy for you I give an example of the behavior of Muslims today and you will give a counter example of the behavior of Jews in the 1930s.

I’ll start:
Muslims burned churches and killed Christians in the name of their prophet and God.

Your turn.

Hasta luego,
Cid

 

[murtad]

Cyber Knight:

well athanasius, he is a muslim. so do not believe for what he says. he was trying to be neutral but well… never seen him defend christianity here (or try to explain- as catholic -for what justice2006 refute about catholicism)

I too believe that the person behind the handle “pro-universal” is a follower of Islam, but methinks he is a Quran-only Muslim who rejects Hadith, ie. a Protestant Muslim.

Is there a way to add such people to my killfile just as I do on Usenet?

 

[pro_universal]

Rodrigo Bivar:

I suppose this apologetic site means anything?

It’s not an apologetics site. It is a site for muslims to go to and learn about their own religion. So read it. All of that typing you did was a waste, because that’s your personal read of the Koran and Hadiths. That is not how muslims interpret the text. You can repeat your own idea until you’re blue in the face, but it will give you absolutely no information about what muslims believe. To know that, you have to read what they have to say.
Rodrigo Bivar:

Let me spell it out for you. You’re saying that we should not argue that Islam was spread by the sword because Christianity was also spread by the sword. Isn’t that saying Islam being spread by the sword is excused because Christianity was also spread by the sword? Isn’t that tu quoque?

That’s not tu quoque, no, and you got my argument wrong. Since you didn’t elaborate how that would be tu quoque, you still failed to see that. If you try to explain what is a tu quoque and then fit that into your explanation, you’ll see how this is so.

The argument on spreading by the sword is one of self-defeating claims: If the fact that a religion has spread by the sword makes it evil, then we will have proved to outside observers that Christianity is a bad thing also, since it too was spread by the sword. Hence, the theologically smart position is to (surprise, this one is a Christian teaching!) let he who has no sin cast the first stone.

As for incidents, there are modern ones in our camp too.

You said:

I’ll start:
Muslims burned churches and killed Christians in the name of their prophet and God

How’s this: Christians killed 200,000 muslims and built camps to rape and torture women and children…in the last decade of the 20th century.

 

[inJESUS]

yes using the sword is wrong according to Jesus…if some “Christians” at some time did it, it doesnt mean it was correct…is using the sword wrong in islam? no…so why should you compare muslim violence with Christian one if the teachings are different? yes mohammad’ religion started with the sword…Christianity, on the other hand, started by the killing of all the apostles…compare THESE to mohammad…compare the ones WHO TAUGHT …

 

[pro_universal]

is using the sword wrong in islam? no…so why should you compare muslim violence with Christian one if the teachings are different?

This is simply wrong. If you would read muslims sources on their own religion, you would see that. Killing innocent people is forbidden by muslims, and people of different religions who do not attack muslims are indeed considered innocents.

Again, read this article: livingislam.org/maa/dcmm_e.html

Question II

If it is said: “What about the verse of the Qur’an which says {kill the unbelievers wherever you find them} and the Sahih Hadith which says ‘I have been ordered to fight against the people until they testify’?”

We say: It is well known among scholars that the following verse,

{fa-qtulU l-mushrikIna Haythu wajad-tumUhum}
{kill the idolaters wherever you find them}(al-Tawba, 9:5)
is in reference to a historical episode: those among the Meccan Confederates who breached the Treaty of Hudaybiyya [Sulh al-Hudaybiyya] which led to the Victory of Mecca [Fath Makka], and that therefore, no legal rulings, or in other words, no practical or particular implications, can be derived from this Verse on its own. The Divine Irony and indeed Providence from the last part of the Verse, {wherever you find them} - which many of our mufassirs understood in reference to place (i.e., attack them whether inside the Sacred Precinct or not) - is that the victory against the Meccans happened without a single battle taking place, whether inside the Sacred Precinct or otherwise, rather, there was a general amnesty [wa-mannun 'alayhi bi-takhliyati sabîlihi or naha ‘an safki d-dima’] for the Jâhilî Arabs there. Had the Verse not been subject to a historical context, then you should know that it is of the general type 'amm] and that it will therefore be subject to specification [takhsîs] by some other indication [dalîl]. Its effect in lay terms, were it not related to the Jahilî Arabs, is that it can only refer to a case during a valid war when there is no ceasefire.
Among the well known exegeses of “al-mushrikîn” from this Verse are: “al-nâkithîna khâssatan” [specifically, those who have breached (the Treaty)] [al-Nawawi al-Jawi, Tafsîr, 1:331]; “al-ladhîna yuharibunakum” [those who have declared war against you] [Qâdi Ibn 'Arabi, Ahkâm al-Qur’ân, 2:889]; and “khâssan fî mushkrikî l-'arabi dûna ghayrihim” [specifically, the Jâhilî Arabs and not anyone else] [al-Jassâs, Ahkâm al-Qur’ân, 3:81].

As for the meaning of “people” [al-nâs] in the above well-related Hadith, it is confirmed by Ijmâ’ that it refers to the same “mushrikîn” as in the Verse of Sura al-Tawba above, and therefore what is meant there is only the Jâhilî Arabs [muskhrikû l-'arab] during the closing days of the Final Messenger and the early years of the Righteous Caliphs and not even to any other non-Muslims.

In sum, we are not in a perpetual state of war with non-Muslims. On the contrary, the original legal status [al-asl] is a state of peace, and making a decision to change this status belongs only to a Muslim authority who will in the Next World answer for their ijtihâd and decision; and this decision is not divinely charged to any individuals - not even soldiers or scholars - and to believe otherwise would go against the well-known rule in our Law that a Muslim authority could seek help from a non-Muslim with certain conditions, including, for example, that the non-Muslim allies are of goodwill towards the Muslims

 

[Booklover]

Pro-Universal, I think you should read the following article called “Infidel” and tell us what you make of it.

faithfreedom.org/oped/TomGlennon60302.htm

Vickie

 

[inJESUS]

Is the idea of sword/killing forbidden in islam? in Christianity yes.

 

[pro_universal]

Vickie,

I have read that article and most of the ones posted on “faithfreedom.org”. It’s virtually all garbage, which is why you see no footnotes, no reliance on actual muslim authorities, and suspiciously edited debates with muslims.

Some of my favorites from this article are:

The use of the term “Infidel”, once rarely heard or understood by most Westerners, is now commonly understood as a point of reference to identify those of us who are now considered the enemies of Islam.

Infidel is a latin root word. Muslims do not use it, and especially not Wahhabist terrorist muslims, since they mostly speak in Arabic. The fact that the word infidel exists in our language is a good clue to our own history regarding non-believers.

Then there’s this accusation:

How many remember during the early stages of the Palestinian Intafada, when a large number of terrorist Palestinian gunmen invaded the sanctuary of the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem? These thugs took over one of the holiest shrines in all of Christendom. They even shot at Israeli soldiers from within the Church, since they had taken their weapons with them. While inside, they abused and intimidated the clerics trapped within, and deliberately despoiled and debased the religious symbols revered at this site. Defecating and urinating on relics; defacing icons, statues and other religious artifacts brought only laughter from these men.

I heard this one back when the standoff had just ended, and I looked for verification. I cannot to this day find a single witness who corroborates these stories, but there are several who say the stories are false (palestinian, of course.) It’s an internet rumor, as far as I can see.

And that’s pretty much what this whole article relies on. The internet anti-muslim machine, not actual muslim sources or research. That’s why you see no citations, no source material, and that’s also why muslims don’t find any of this criticism convincing or engaging in anyway. It’s just like when Jack Chick attacks our church with entirely falsified information about our teaching.

One last quote from the article:

I have not read the Koran, and have no intention of doing so.

There you have it.

 

[pro_universal]

inJESUS:

Is the idea of sword/killing forbidden in islam? in Christianity yes.

Muslims permit self defense and legitimate warfare, under rules roughly similar to the Catholic doctrine of the just war.

 

[BryPGuy89]

LatinCat:

If you do not believe that we should evangelize the muslims, then you are outside of the Church concerning your beliefs because Christ himself commanded us “go, make disciple of ALL nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” Do you disagree with Christ’s command? Would you go against Christ?

Forcing your faith on another in not sharing the truth and making deciples it is asking for confrontation and misunderstanding. Jesus never went up to someone and said your faith is false follow me or go to hell. He used his words and shared the truth through dialogue and showed people the light.

 

[Booklover]

pro_universal:

Vickie,

I have read that article and most of the ones posted on “faithfreedom.org”. It’s virtually all garbage, which is why you see no footnotes, no reliance on actual muslim authorities, and suspiciously edited debates with muslims.

Some of my favorites from this article are:

Infidel is a latin root word. Muslims do not use it, and especially not Wahhabist terrorist muslims, since they mostly speak in Arabic. The fact that the word infidel exists in our language is a good clue to our own history regarding non-believers.

Then there’s this accusation:

I heard this one back when the standoff had just ended, and I looked for verification. I cannot to this day find a single witness who corroborates these stories, but there are several who say the stories are false (palestinian, of course.) It’s an internet rumor, as far as I can see.

And that’s pretty much what this whole article relies on. The internet anti-muslim machine, not actual muslim sources or research. That’s why you see no citations, no source material, and that’s also why muslims don’t find any of this criticism convincing or engaging in anyway. It’s just like when Jack Chick attacks our church with entirely falsified information about our teaching.

One last quote from the article:

There you have it.

Oh well, I tried! I should have known better than to waste my time!

Vickie

 

[pro_universal]

Oh well, I tried! I should have known better than to waste my time!

I’m perfectly willing to engage in discussion. If your problem is that I disagree, then I’ll be happy to read your responses to my disagreement.

I do think it’s quite unreasonable to think that a resource like faithfreedom.org would end all debate. It’s tantamount to citing one of the “the Pope is the anti-christ” sites as the be-all and end-all of Catholic teaching.

 

[inJESUS]

pro_universal:

Muslims permit self defense and legitimate warfare, under rules roughly similar to the Catholic doctrine of the just war.

the just war doctrine teaches that war is caused by sin…this is not the view of islam…muslims get heavenly bonus for it…to us killing is forbidden, clear and simple, whether to God or not…if we kill in self-defence, its because war is caused by sin…but if muslims kill in self-defence, they get heavenly rewards from allah …this is a slight but very important difference…when nothing triggers a Christian to kill, muslims are triggered by anything they believe is for allah…

 

[pro_universal]

this is a slight but very important difference…when nothing triggers a Christian to kill, muslims are triggered by anything they believe is for allah

True, but this has costs and benefits. This would explain why when Muslims are attacked in Afghanistan, Bosnia, or Central Asia, other muslims at their personal expense rush to aid in the struggle.

At the same time, some Christians do clearly believe that Christianity sanctions killing. They are heretical and violent, just like the terror-gangs in the muslim world.