Historical and theological Islam

[birdsong]

The tactics and arguments of some of the apologists of islam on this board have caught my attention. These people basically put up the straw-man argument that theological and historical islam are the same topic. And since they allege that a non-mislim can not engage in a theological argument about islam to conclude what groups and/or individuals can be classified as “traditional” muslims (i.e.; those who follow the ultimate mandates and wishes of muhhamad), they emphatically conclude that non-muslims have no business saying analysing who is closer to muhamad’s original message and mandates and who is not.

The fallacy of such an argument is easily refutable. Let us use an example with Christianity:

Ancient documents and traditions assert that 2000 years ago there was a man called Jesus Christ, who is reported to have been crucified and buried in a tomb. It is also reported that the tomb was empty 3 days after the body of Jesus was buried there.

Now, from a theological perspective, a Christian theologian will argue that the empty tomb is indicative of a supernatural act (i.e.; resurrection). On the other hand, a historian in Christianity, while acknowledging that there are reports of the empty tomb, will find many explications for it without believing in the supernatural act of resurrection.

The preceding example illustrates the difference between a historian in Christianity and Christian theologian. Both acknowledge a fact (empty tomb), while one explicates it with a theological argument (i.e.; resurrection), the other one can use a number of arguments to explain the empty tomb (e.g; Jesus’ body taken away by his followers). Moreover, a person interested in the history of Christianity can perfectly become a scholar and historian in Christianity without becoming a believer in the theological aspects of Christianity.

Now, let us use an example with islam. It is a historical fact that the quoran was recited by muhhama. The quoarn is believed by muhhamedans to be a message from god to muhhamad delivered via an angel. The mandate to kill unbelievers is clear in the quoran. Obviously, a muhhaedan theologian will explain that the mandate to kill unbelievers comes from god, so it has to be fulfilled! A historian in muhhamedism, on the other hand, just can only be concerned with the fact that muhhamed ordered the killings of unbelievers because muhhamad said he had received the order from god. A historian does not have to believe if muhhamad did receive such a message from god (theological argument and perspective), but can perfectly assert the fact that muhhamad said he had received his message from god, and that he wanted his contemporary and future followers to kill unbelievers and establish muhhamedism as the only religion on earth.

As in the case of Christianity, a person can be interested in historical facts in islam, even to the point of becoming a scholar and historian in islam without becoming a believer in the theological aspects and implications of muhhamedism (e.g.; a Shiite or sunny muslim). Big and important difference.

With the preceding discussion taken into consideration, do apologists for muhamadism wish to continue with their fallacious line of argument?

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Very true. It’s just the Muslim apologists’ way of shutting out criticism of their religion and so-called prophet. This happens when they have run out of arguments.

They keep saying, ‘you cannot judge Islam unless you are a Muslim.’ That is like saying you cannot judge a murderer unless you are one yourself.

Totally spurious.

 

[OneAugustKnight]

Even if history or science radically conflicts with Islam, they will believe the Qur’an instead of overwhelming physical evidence opposed to Islam.

They would just think that history was a lie, the physical evidence was fabricated, and the whole situation is a trick from Satan to test their faith. Amazing, isn’t it? They would make such good Christians if they only straightened out their theology.

Islam is irrational, and the “reasoning” behind it is flawed, but you aren’t going to get Muslims to convert by proving them wrong! It takes lots of love and time, and very little apologetics. Debating usually just works up all those anti-Christian sentiments.

 

[paarsurrey]

The mandate to kill unbelievers is clear in the quoran.

Hi

This is totally incorrect and taking such verses without its context in Quran. For providing the correct context I would mention some verses from the Holy Quran : Chapter 22: Al-Hajj:

[22:40] Permission to take up arms is given to those against whom war is made, because they have been wronged and Allah, indeed, has power to help them.
[22:41] Those who have been **driven out from their homes **unjustly, only because they said, ‘Our Lord is Allah.’ And if Allah had not repelled some people by means of others, cloisters and churches and synagogues and mosques, wherein the name of Allah is oft remembered, would surely have been destroyed. And Allah will, surely, help him who helps Him. Allah is, indeed, Powerful, Mighty -
[22:42] Those who, if We establish them in the earth, will observe Prayer and pay the Zakat and enjoin good and forbid evil. And with Allah rests the final issue of all affairs.

I think our Catholics friend here mention of history very incorrectly when they ignore what happened to Muslims in 10 years in Mecca by the hands of unbelievers of Mecca, which sets the context of what happened in 13 years in Medina.

This is a very cruel omission both historically and theologically, my Catholics friends should admit it, though no compulsion.

Thanks

GodAllahYHWH appointed Muhammad SAW KhatamunNabiyyeen, his ProphetMessenger. Muhammad lived up to the age of 53 years in Mecca.
I would request my friends here:

1. Please mention name of just one person whom Muhammad converted to the fold of Islam by sword up to the age of 53 years. Please present evidence from Quran.
2. Please mention name of one person whom Muhammad killed up to the age of 53 years for not accepting Islam. Please present evidence from Quran.
3. Please mention name of one person who wanted to go back from Islam to his previous faith or another faith and Muhammad denied him his right and whom Muhammad killed for apostasy up to the age of 53 years. Please present evidence from Quran
   There is not a single case in all these categories.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

What has the supposed ‘persecution’ of the Muslims by pagans have to do with Muhammad’s later oppression of the Jews and Christians?

Did the Jews and Christians oppress the Muslims? No.

So - if someone is mean to you, does it give you the right to be horrible to someone totally different and innocent?

If the Mecca pagans ‘persecuted’ the Muslims does it give the right to Muslims to kill all disbelievers?

Besides, the Muslims were apostates from paganism and deserved to be killed according to Muhammad’s own rules. You can dish it out but you can’t take it, right?

 

[nonsumd]

What has the supposed ‘persecution’ of the Muslims by pagans have to do with Muhammad’s later oppression of the Jews and Christians?

Did the Jews and Christians oppress the Muslims? No.

So - if someone is mean to you, does it give you the right to be horrible to someone totally different and innocent?

If the Mecca pagans ‘persecuted’ the Muslims does it give the right to Muslims to kill all disbelievers?

Rodrigo, my brother,

I think that paarsurrey, in informing/reminding us of the historical context of the Qur’anic verses in question, is arguing that ***it is not right ***to interpret those verses as God commanding Muslims to kill non-Muslims in all contexts, that it is not right for Muslims to kill non-Muslims who have not attacked the Islamic community first.

 

[paarsurrey]

Hi

Then at least you should admit, if you are impartial, that the real context of the verses of giving permission to go to war was against the infidels of Mecca who had attacked the Muslims at Medina. It is specific for them and not general. There were no Catholics in Mecca or Medina so nothing has been mentioned here about them, which must be clear theologically as well as historically.
The subject becomes very clear when the real context is provided to verses as mentioned in the Holy Quran : Chapter 22: Al-Hajj:

[22:40] Permission to take up arms is given to those against whom war is made, because they have been wronged and Allah, indeed, has power to help them.
[22:41] Those who have been driven out from their homes unjustly, only because they said, ‘Our Lord is Allah.’ And if Allah had not repelled some people by means of others, cloisters and churches and synagogues and mosques, wherein the name of Allah is oft remembered, would surely have been destroyed. And Allah will, surely, help him who helps Him. Allah is, indeed, Powerful, Mighty -
[22:42] Those who, if We establish them in the earth, will observe Prayer and pay the Zak›t and enjoin good and forbid evil. And with Allah rests the final issue of all affairs.

This is a very cruel omission both historically and theologically, my Catholics friends should admit it, though no compulsion.
You are welcome to differ with me but with reasons.

Thanks

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

And my points are that:

1. The context is important - do not befuddle the well-meaning Christians that the Quran advocates war only upon attack. Those verses were revealed in the early Medinan period when Muhammad was relatively weak. In the later period, Muhammad did not make such conditions. He unleashed war and oppression without being attacked.
2. Muhammad’s and Muslim idea of being under attack is not the same as ours. Muhammad considered himself attacked when the Meccan pagans ‘retaliated’ against his caravan raids where he stole their goods and killed their people. He thought he had the god-given right to attack and kill people. When they react against his naked aggression - he and the Muslims consider that they were being attacked.

In other words, Muslims ignore the fact that they were the ones who committed aggression first.

It is clear that Muhammad and the Muslims were in the wrong by attacking the Meccan caravans and killing the caravan drivers.

1. It is not right to collectively punish anyone. If we did that to Muslims they would howl and whine. But they have no problems collectively punishing others.

The Christians never persecuted the Muslims. Ever. Not in Mecca. Not in Medinah. Yet the Christians were oppressed under dhimmitude - and even expelled from Arabia on Muhammad’s orders.

How can that be right?

So don’t bring me these verses of ‘self-defense’. Your definition of self-defense is not the same as ours.

Besides, the Muslims were apostates from paganism and deserved to be killed by Muhammad’s own rules.

 

[birdsong]

That is exactly the point that Rodrigo is emphasising: if muhhamada did not make a universal mandate to be aggressive to non-muslims just because they did not/do not accept muhhamad and the quoarn as the truth revealed from god, why did muhhamad and his followers engage in many aggressive wars, particularly when his opponents had not done any harm to him?

By the way Nonsumd, I have read a number of your posts, and if my memory serves me well, you, like Contarini and others, very often employ the fallacious argument that I criticise and refute in the OP of this thread. Care to comment about it?

Rodrigo, my brother,

I think that paarsurrey, in informing/reminding us of the historical context of the Qur’anic verses in question, is arguing that ***it is not right ***to interpret those verses as God commanding Muslims to kill non-Muslims in all contexts, that it is not right for Muslims to kill non-Muslims who have not attacked the Islamic community first.

 

[Montalban]

Rodrigo, my brother,

I think that paarsurrey, in informing/reminding us of the historical context of the Qur’anic verses in question, is arguing that ***it is not right ***to interpret those verses as God commanding Muslims to kill non-Muslims in all contexts, that it is not right for Muslims to kill non-Muslims who have not attacked the Islamic community first.

We’ve seen you own revision of history where you believe Spain ( as you label them - part of Latin Europe) being attacked by Islam - which at best you’ve supposed may have been reacting to eastern Europe.

To the Koran…
Where are the pagan Arabs? They’ve been wiped out.

 

[pro_universal]

We’ve seen you own revision of history where you believe Spain ( as you label them - part of Latin Europe) being attacked by Islam - which at best you’ve supposed may have been reacting to eastern Europe.

To the Koran…
Where are the pagan Arabs? They’ve been wiped out.

The premise of this thread is faulty, period.

If 100 percent of Muslims say “Islam does not condone attacking non-violent people”, whether or not Montalban or Rodrigo Bivar on the internet believe that the Quran says differently is totally irrelevant. If you can’t find any significant number of Muslims who say that something is so, then for all practical purposes, it must be said that Islam does not teach that particular thing.

What I see on this board from Montalban and Rodrigo is the equivalent of Christopher Hitchens arguing that “real Christians” would kill infants, because Hitchens’ reading of the bible construes the text to mandate killing infants. Regardless of what some guy on the internet says about the bible, the fact is, Christians do not actually believe in this practice, so his interpretation of Christian scriptures is moot.

Just like Rodrigo and Montalban’s delusions about Muslim scriptures-moot.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

That’s why I cite the Quran and hadiths to prove his point. There is no need to believe Islamo-apologetics and denials. The Quran is in black and white.

 

[Montalban]

That’s why I cite the Quran and hadiths to prove his point. There is no need to believe Islamo-apologetics and denials. The Quran is in black and white.

Indeed. I do the same. pro_universal missed this.

 

[jedi]

That’s why I cite the Quran and hadiths to prove his point. There is no need to believe Islamo-apologetics and denials. The Quran is in black and white.

Rodrigo Bivar you are my big fans.i love the truth, you’re the man.

god bless you and your family…

 

[paarsurrey]

Rodrigo, my brother,

I think that paarsurrey, in informing/reminding us of the historical context of the Qur’anic verses in question, is arguing that ***it is not right ***to interpret those verses as God commanding Muslims to kill non-Muslims in all contexts, that it is not right for Muslims to kill non-Muslims who have not attacked the Islamic community first.

Hi

I agree with you.

Thanks

 

[paarsurrey]

That’s why I cite the Quran and hadiths to prove his point. There is no need to believe Islamo-apologetics and denials. The Quran is in black and white.

Hi

Then quote from Quran , as to how many Catholics were there in Mecca who were killed by Muhammad and how many of them were in Medina who were killed by Muhammad.

There was none, you would agree.

Thanks

 

[nonsumd]

The tactics and arguments of some of the apologists of islam on this board have caught my attention. These people basically put up the straw-man argument that theological and historical islam are the same topic. And since they allege that a non-mislim can not engage in a theological argument about islam to conclude what groups and/or individuals can be classified as “traditional” muslims (i.e.; those who follow the ultimate mandates and wishes of muhhamad), they emphatically conclude that non-muslims have no business saying analysing who is closer to muhamad’s original message and mandates and who is not.

To be honest, birdsong, I did not challenge your argument because I couldn’t make head or tail of it.

I don’t think I have ever made any statement that could be construed as saying “theological and historical Islam are the same thing.” How could a system of beliefs (“theological Islam”?) ever be “the same thing” as the actual, historical way in which people have lived out those beliefs or the actual, historical way people have lived, identifying with those beliefs but not necessarily following them (“historical Islam”)?

If there are Muslims who say that their religion teaches them* x*, who are you to say that their religion teaches them y and not x? The most you would be entitled to say to such a Muslim is, “OK, your religion may teach you x, but does it not also teach you y?” Then, you and the Muslim could enter into a dialogue, and you could find out why and how the Muslim considers x to be part of his religion’s message but not y – and the Muslim could learn why you think his religion only teaches him y and only y.

A Muslim who takes his religion seriously, I think, would never abjure the principle of taking up arms in defence of the Islamic community when it is being attacked. He would no more do this than all but a few Christians would categorically deny the possibility that a war could be fought that was a “just war.”

People fool themselves all the time as to what is “war in self-defence” or a “just war,” but that does not mean that other people who recognize such defective or self-serving rationalization will necessarily abandon the concept of “war in self-defence” or a “just war.”

One Muslim scholar, who publicly criticizes fellow Muslims who give a free pass to Muslim terrorists, has written:

I have also been informed that I am now portrayed as a Jihadist by some since I refuse to apologise for Jihad in the Qur’an. I certainly refuse to apologise for Jihad–which is a defensive war fought against those who declare war on Islam. That many Muslim regimes have confused Jihad and War is something that I admit to–but their crime is their own, and I do not have to apologize for that–no more than I expect every Christian to apologize to every Muslim and every Jew for the crimes committed in the name of Jesus during the crusades.

BTW, Wahhabist extremist are no more “traditionalist” than Sola Scriptura Protestants. Though both groups see themselves as going back to the foundations of their religion (hence, the term “fundamentalist”) in fact they are both modernists. The majority of Muslims see Wahhabists as distorting Islam just as the majority of Christians consider Christian fundamentalists as distorting Christianity.

Why are all the apologists for Western colonialism and neo-colonialism taking the extremists’ word for what Islam is rather than the non-extremists’?

That is as silly an approach as that of those anti-Christian ex-Christians in the West who prefer to think of Islam as only a “religion of peace” and nothing more complicated than that. Both Islamophobes and Islamophiles prefer caricatures of Islam because it suits their purposes.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Hi

Then quote from Quran , as to how many Catholics were there in Mecca who were killed by Muhammad and how many of them were in Medina who were killed by Muhammad.

There was none, you would agree.

Thanks

The Quran is not a historical source. We have to go to the hadiths and sira for this. I have said that the Christians were OPPRESSED by Muhammad. He oppressed them into dhimmitude and exiled them from arabia. I never said he killed them.

Just because the Meccan pagans supposedly ‘persecuted’ Muhammad does not give him the right to ‘persecute’ the Christians.

we are talking about persecution - not killing.

I have also been informed that I am now portrayed as a Jihadist by some since I refuse to apologise for Jihad in the Qur’an. I certainly refuse to apologise for Jihad–which is a defensive war fought against those who declare war on Islam. That many Muslim regimes have confused Jihad and War is something that I admit to–but their crime is their own, and I do not have to apologize for that–no more than I expect every Christian to apologize to every Muslim and every Jew for the crimes committed in the name of Jesus during the crusades.

The problem with this apologetic is that it is factually wrong. Jihad is NOT a defensive war fought only against those who declare war on Islam.

This is a lie.

 

[tomarin]

The tactics and arguments of some of the apologists of islam on this board have caught my attention. These people basically put up the straw-man argument that theological and historical islam are the same topic. And since they allege that a non-mislim can not engage in a theological argument about islam to conclude what groups and/or individuals can be classified as “traditional” muslims (i.e.; those who follow the ultimate mandates and wishes of muhhamad), they emphatically conclude that non-muslims have no business saying analysing who is closer to muhamad’s original message and mandates and who is not.

first of all, you’re incorrect in assuming anyone who makes the argument that to do theology one must be an adherent of the religion in question is also necessarily an apologist for islam. to be an apologist for islam, you must believe islam is true, which the posters you are alluding to obviously do not since one cannot be a christian and a muslim at the same time.

secondly, you’ve mucked up the whole argument which is a legitimate and sound one because theology involves making truth statements. you cannot evaluate a truth statement about a religion that you do not believe is true. it’s logically impossible. so it’s paradoxical for christians or other non-muslims to get into arguments about what “true” islam is and whether the “real” islam is violent. there is no real islam if islam isn’t a true religion. you can make a historical argument that the spread of islam has resulted in a lot of violence. but that’s very different from saying that islam in its essential form promotes violence.

thirdly, i’ve travelled a lot and i’ve met many muslims and none of them seemed as consumed by hatred for christians and jews as the usual suspects on this thread seem consumed by hatred for muslims.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

tomarin
I have a serious problem with your narrow definition of theology. Any can discuss and evaluate theology - without being an adherent.

Secondly, being a tourist doesn’t get you deep into the local practises. People are nice to tourists, by and large. You have to live with Muslims to find out the truth about their beliefs and hatred.

have you considered asking a Copt whether the Muslims who oppress him and his family, including his innocent little children, shares your view?

I suggest you listen to people who have actually lived their lives in persecution instead of basing your judgements on a few Muslims who met on holidays.