Historical and theological Islam

[paarsurrey]

Originally Posted by paarsurrey
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.

we are talking about persecution - not killing.

Hi

I don’t think there was any Catholic in Mecca who was killed/persecuted by Muhammad. I also think there were not catholics in Medina who might have been killed/persecuted by Muhammad. Please quote from Quran, the foremost source of Muslims/Muhammad/Quran/Islam.

There was none, these are all your misconceptions, you should agree now.

Thanks

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

9;29 fight those who do not believe in Allah or the last day, unless they are People of the Book who pay the Jizyah with humiliation.

This verse applies to Christians everywhere - including in Mecca until Muhammad kicked them all out of Arabia.

 

[tomarin]

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.

i’m under no illusion that religious freedom as we understand it exists in the muslim world. it never existed in the christian world, either, until the enlightenment or thereabouts, yet i’m not about to claim christianity is inherently intolerant. (actually, if you compare the treatment of jews in classical islam versus medieval europe, islam comes out ahead on the tolerant scale.)

i have a colleague who’s a copt and he is on the same page as you – islam is essentially devil worship to him and he won’t speak to muslim egyptians here in new york. i’m aware of how poorly they are treated and am sympathetic to their plight; yet i don’t see what purpose it serves to demonize islam and thereby dehumanize muslims, making it easier to see them as legitimate targets of violence (yes, i know you personally have never advocated violence but at the moment we are occupying two muslim countries in the middle east and may be on the verge of attacking another one, so right now is a good time to take a stand against islamophobia, not fan the flames.)

 

[Contarini]

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

Of course you can discuss it. But evaluate it on what basis? You’ve never been able to answer this. Instead, you and your allies repeatedly misrepresent my position, because you can’t respond to what I am actually saying.

I have never said that we can’t observe what Muslims believe and do, and talk about it. But the only theological basis on which we can evaluate an idea is that of Christian theology (for those of us who are Christians).

If you say that a Muslim concept is not true to what, historically, you think Muhammad actually taught, a Muslim can legitimately say, “So what?” You haven’t said anything meaningful, because Muslims do not base their interpretation of Muhammad solely on neutral historical methodology (no adherent of any religion does this). They base it on their faith that Muhammad was a prophet bringing them God’s Word. They will see your outsider’s perspective as intrinsically flawed. It’s still worthwhile pressing them on this so that they don’t use an appeal to history as an apologetic technique (i.e., if they say, “You should be a Muslim because Muhammad was such a holy person and never used force except where absolutely necessary and justified” we can legitimately say, “Sorry, but it doesn’t seem that way to us”).

Edwin

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Contarini - are you also tomarin?

You evaluate any ‘logy’ using logic and facts. That’s the only yardsticks you need. What else do you need? What’s so special about theology that you need to be an adherent to evalutate it?

Does an apostate suddenly lose his/her ability to evaluate a certain religion? Your argument is spurious because of this.

There you go again using a rather narrow definition of theology. Anyone can evaluate a theology (by the way, it applies to all religions, not just Christianity).

I can evaluate Islam just as well as any Muslim. There is nothing about Islam is hidden from my understanding and evaluation compared to any number of non-Arabic speaking Muslim. I read the same literature, I listen to the same imams, I make up my mind just the same.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

tomarin:

yet i’m not about to claim christianity is inherently intolerant.

Sure - because you cannot find the NT equivalent of this verse:

Kill all those who do not believe in Allah or the last day, or if they are Christians or Jews who pay the Jizyah in humiliation.

That is why you cannot say Christianity is inherently intolerant, unlike Islam.

 

[tomarin]

Contarini - are you also tomarin?

nope, contarini is taller, but i’ll accept the compliment.

There is nothing about Islam is hidden from my understanding and evaluation compared to any number of non-Arabic speaking Muslim.

but without faith there is an essential element missing, one that makes all the difference.

case in point: the Bible. i read it not too long ago as a secular person before re-embracing the catholic faith i grew up with. i had all sorts of reactions that now seem utterly insane. now when i read it with the understanding of a religious person it is as if i’m reading another book altogether. there’s no comparison.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

nope, contarini is taller, but i’ll accept the compliment.

I’ll let that pass, being the charitable guy that I am.

but without faith there is an essential element missing, one that makes all the difference.

Nope. You can evaluate faith even if you don’t have it.

case in point: the Bible. i read it not too long ago as a secular person before re-embracing the catholic faith i grew up with. i had all sorts of reactions that now seem utterly insane. now when i read it with the understanding of a religious person it is as if i’m reading another book altogether. there’s no comparison.

I don’t think you realize what you’re saying. In effect you’re saying that the study of theology is SUBJECTIVE, not objective, and merely blind faith. I would expect theologians, although arguing from a standpoint of faith, can argue with reason instead of merely blind faith.

But suit yourself. You and contarini are merely setting up a special ‘club’ by which only you can ‘understand’ a particular religion. Only you and nobody else.

 

[tomarin]

Sure - because you cannot find the NT equivalent of this verse:

Kill all those who do not believe in Allah or the last day, or if they are Christians or Jews who pay the Jizyah in humiliation.

That is why you cannot say Christianity is inherently intolerant, unlike Islam.

no, but i can find new testament passages that have been used to sanction violence. are you aware of the militant atheist writers like christopher hitchens who portray christianity as an intolerant, hidebound, violence-prone monstrosity much as you portray islam?

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

no, but i can find new testament passages that have been used to sanction violence. are you aware of the militant atheist writers like christopher hitchens who portray christianity as an intolerant, hidebound, violence-prone monstrosity much as you portray islam?

Violence in the NT? Is that violence directed at non-Christians specifically as a prescriptive and not descriptive verse?

Oh… I don’t place any store on people’s interpretations, contrary to the facts. I deal only in the facts, not someone’s interpretation.

That’s the problem with your stance - you mistake what the scriptures says - with what some looney interprets it. Let’s cut out the looneys and concentrate on the scriptures, shall we?

 

[Contarini]

Contarini - are you also tomarin?

You evaluate any ‘logy’ using logic and facts. That’s the only yardsticks you need. What else do you need? What’s so special about theology that you need to be an adherent to evalutate it?

Does an apostate suddenly lose his/her ability to evaluate a certain religion? Your argument is spurious because of this.

There you go again using a rather narrow definition of theology. Anyone can evaluate a theology (by the way, it applies to all religions, not just Christianity).

I can evaluate Islam just as well as any Muslim. There is nothing about Islam is hidden from my understanding and evaluation compared to any number of non-Arabic speaking Muslim. I read the same literature, I listen to the same imams, I make up my mind just the same.

But as what do you evaluate it? Islam claims to be the true religion revealed by God. We both reject this claim. When you say that one Islamic position is theologically superior to another, you are not saying that it is truer in an absolute sense, or that it is in accordance with divine revelation. You are saying that it is in agreement with your interpretation of what Muhammad meant when he wrote the Qur’an (since we both think that Muhammad did in fact write it, in contrast to Muslims who think God directly revealed it). Why does that matter? Who cares about your interpretation of what Muhammad meant? That is not relevant for Muslim theology.

Edwin

 

[tomarin]

In effect you’re saying that the study of theology is SUBJECTIVE, not objective, and merely blind faith. I would expect theologians, although arguing from a standpoint of faith, can argue with reason instead of merely blind faith.

there’s definitely something subjective about it because there’s a huge gap in the way a christian and a secular atheist reads and understands the Bible, for one thing. that doesn’t mean that there’s no objective reality, period. as a christian i believe the Bible is the truth, as it is interpreted by the Church.

i’m aware though that other christians, non-catholic ones, read the same Bible essentially and come up with interpretations that are light-years away from the Catholic Church’s. that doesn’t mean the Bible is wrong, it means their religious groups’ interpretation is wrong. Jehovah’s witnesses read the same Bible and somehow come up with the idea that Jesus is not the son of God, even though in my understanding he says he is quite clearly and the whole religion makes no sense without the notion of jesus’s divinity. i used to spend hours trying to wrap my head around that one.

similarly, because of my religious convictions i can’t see the Qu’ran as the truth. there’s no way that as a christian i can ever read the Qu’ran the same way a devout muslim would.

You and contarini are merely setting up a special ‘club’ by which only you can ‘understand’ a particular religion. Only you and nobody else.

it’s really more about distinguishing between a historical argument and a theological one. theology involves truth statements, so theologians (of which i am not one, but contarini is) tend to stick to the meaning of their own faith traditions. so you can debate what a religion means but you can’t expect to be the ultimate arbiter of meaning in a religion that is not your own, as i understand it.

 

[Contarini]

I don’t think you realize what you’re saying. In effect you’re saying that the study of theology is SUBJECTIVE, not objective, and merely blind faith. I would expect theologians, although arguing from a standpoint of faith, can argue with reason instead of merely blind faith.

The study of everything is subjective, because it’s carried out by people. God is not subjective. God’s revelation is not subjective. Theology is subjective because it is human reflection on divine revelation. By “subjective” I don’t mean that we can simply define it however we want to, but that our particular perspective is going to influence the conclusions we come to. If we approach the Qur’an as God’s Word, we will very likely be led to different conclusions than if we approach it simply as a historical document from the seventh century. The same is true of the Bible or any other sacred text.

But suit yourself. You and contarini are merely setting up a special ‘club’ by which only you can ‘understand’ a particular religion. Only you and nobody else.

This is why these discussions get nowhere. You engage in the most blatant falsehoods about what I am saying. I can’t make decisions about what is theologically valid for Muslims either. I can, however, observe what self-professed Muslims believe and do both today and throughout history. (Hence, in contrast to the OP’s construction of some imagined argument by “Muslim apologists,” I do think that we can talk about something being “traditional,” although this is not necessarily the same thing as what Muhammad originally taught.) So, of course, can you.

Edwin

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

there’s definitely something subjective about it because there’s a huge gap in the way a christian and a secular atheist reads and understands the Bible, for one thing. that doesn’t mean that there’s no objective reality, period. as a christian i believe the Bible is the truth, as it is interpreted by the Church.

And a secularist can suspend his/her disbelief and argue the ‘for argument sake’ position.

This happens all the time with every other field of inquest. If you have to believe before you step onto the field you will never get anyone to argue objectively. Because it takes at least 2 sides to have a meaningful discussion.

i’m aware though that other christians, non-catholic ones, read the same Bible essentially and come up with interpretations that are light-years away from the Catholic Church’s. that doesn’t mean the Bible is wrong, it means their religious groups’ interpretation is wrong. Jehovah’s witnesses read the same Bible and somehow come up with the idea that Jesus is not the son of God, even though in my understanding he says he is quite clearly and the whole religion makes no sense without the notion of jesus’s divinity. i used to spend hours trying to wrap my head around that one.

Please read what you wrote in relation to your point about Christopher Hitchens.

Just because someone misinterprets Christianity as violent and oppressive, CONTRARY TO THE FACT, does not mean I have to waste a nanosecond on his/her misinterpretation.

similarly, because of my religious convictions i can’t see the Qu’ran as the truth. there’s no way that as a christian i can ever read the Qu’ran the same way a devout muslim would.

That’s because you are unbiased when it comes to the Quran and the Muslim is already brain-washed.

So you’re ahead. Don’t give credence to brainwashing, buddy. It’s not good.

It’s really more about distinguishing between a historical argument and a theological one. theology involves truth statements, so theologians (of which i am not one, but contarini is) tend to stick to the meaning of their own faith traditions. so you can debate what a religion means but you can’t expect to be the ultimate arbiter of meaning in a religion that is not your own, as i understand it.

That’s the narrow definition that Contarini uses - theology involves truth statements.

every argument involves truth statements. Otherwise, it’s just fantasy.

You may think God is the truth, Christianity is the truth - but that doesn’t make it the truth. What makes truth is objective analysis - backed by facts and reasoning, not merely faith.

Hence, you and Contarini will never convince me of your stance - of your special club. Your position just does not make sense.

Let’s do a thought experiment.

What happens when a theologian apostatize? What happens to his brain and his powers of theological evaluation?

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

The study of everything is subjective, because it’s carried out by people. God is not subjective. God’s revelation is not subjective. Theology is subjective because it is human reflection on divine revelation. By “subjective” I don’t mean that we can simply define it however we want to, but that our particular perspective is going to influence the conclusions we come to. If we approach the Qur’an as God’s Word, we will very likely be led to different conclusions than if we approach it simply as a historical document from the seventh century. The same is true of the Bible or any other sacred text.

You’re making it up as you go along, aren’t you?

This is why these discussions get nowhere. You engage in the most blatant falsehoods about what I am saying. I can’t make decisions about what is theologically valid for Muslims either. I can, however, observe what self-professed Muslims believe and do both today and throughout history. (Hence, in contrast to the OP’s construction of some imagined argument by “Muslim apologists,” I do think that we can talk about something being “traditional,” although this is not necessarily the same thing as what Muhammad originally taught.) So, of course, can you.

Edwin

We’ve been through this already and I have shown your stance to be nonsense.

What is theologically valid for Muslims? There are so many different Muslims. Each imam has his own interpretation. But there is only one Muhammad and one Quran. Let’s stick to those.

How do you know I’m not an ex-Muslim? Remember that argument?

I know what is Islamically valid because I have read the Quran and the hadiths and sira. There is nothing there that requires ‘special powers’ to be able to understand.

It is a nonsense stance you have made.

Remember what we argued about initially? I said that there was no theological justification for some Muslims to argue that jihad is only valid under a caliphate.

So have you or anyone proven that my statement was false - by showing the facts? No. All you have done is deny my right to make that statement.

You don’t even know why I made that statement and the evidence behind it.

Let’s deal with evidence, shall we, and leave out the subjective proscription on my right to evaluate any piece of human understanding.

Thank you.

 

[paarsurrey]

9;29 fight those who do not believe in Allah or the last day, unless they are People of the Book who pay the Jizyah with humiliation.
This verse applies to Christians everywhere - including in Mecca until Muhammad kicked them all out of Arabia.

Hi

So, I think, you agree that there were no Catholics in Mecca or Medina whom Muhammad killed/persecuted/ or made to pay Jazya with humiliation as you have translated. If you don’t agree then mention their names. There won’t be any.

Thanks

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Hi

So, I think, you agree that there were no Catholics in Mecca or Medina whom Muhammad killed/persecuted/ or made to pay Jazya with humiliation as you have translated. If you don’t agree then mention their names. There won’t be any.

Thanks

You think wrong.

9:29 proves you wrong.

Your request for names is silly. I’m ashamed for you.

Thanks.

 

[tomarin]

Violence in the NT? Is that violence directed at non-Christians specifically as a prescriptive and not descriptive verse?

no there’s no correlation to dhimmitude in christianity. but nevertheless christians throughout history have not always treated each other, well, in a way consistent with christianity. that’s no reflection on christ or his message, in my opinion. jesus’s followers may have done bad things in his name, but he never did anything violent or bad (with the possible exception of turning over the money changers’ tables in the temple, but that was justified violence). obviously god is the source of everything good so he can’t also be bad.

That’s the problem with your stance - you mistake what the scriptures says - with what some looney interprets it. Let’s cut out the looneys and concentrate on the scriptures, shall we?

huh? i interpret the scriptures the way the Catholic Church instructs us to interpret them.

there was a post on another thread “the more i read …” which i read the other day in which the poster said “the more i read the bible the less Catholic I became”. this assumes there is some “objective, neutral” reading of the bible which is easily accessible to anyone who opens it and can read (oh, and also that it is contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church). i totally reject this simplistic notion. if this person read something in the bible which conflicted with catholicism, it’s because she was somehow influenced in her reading by protestant ideas.

 

[paarsurrey]

Your request for names is silly. I’m ashamed for you.
Thanks.

Hi

You are wise enough not to mention the names, as there were none.

There were no Catholics in Mecca or Medina who would have fought with Muhammad or sided with the infidels of Mecca, so there is no question of their being killed/persecuted/ or made to pay Jizya. I think now you understand.

May GodAllahYHWH bless you with more wisdom.

Thanks

 

[AgnosTheist]

if this person read something in the bible which conflicted with catholicism, it’s because she was somehow influenced in her reading by protestant ideas.

or maybe:

if this person read something in the bible which conflicted with catholicism, it’s because she wasnt brainwashed enough.