F
fatma
Guest
:clapping: :clapping: :clapping: :clapping: :clapping:
ah someone that knows what they are talking about
ah someone that knows what they are talking about
- Status
C
Contarini
Guest
V
Verisimilitude
Guest
It is not something to make up, it is a reasonable conclusion to draw. Whether you say it or even feel it yourself, Islam is in a perpetual war with non-Muslims.
You falsely describe the rejection of Islam by most Meccans as a persecution of his few early converts where nobody died and the boycott lasted all of 3 of 13 years. Nero gives a better example of perseuction of a people. Mohamed deserves no such honor as that of a persecuted person.
The Meccans did not follow with any real force until Mohamed made the first attack on a caravan soon after he left Mecca.
The only justified self defense were those defending what Mohamed was stealing and how can you deny Mohamed was very soon the oppressor of Arabia?
I have read them and they give the typical justification for murder and largely dodge questions posed to you. The lectures are difficult to hear and the Arabic is distracting. Jihad is not the mystery you make it seem.
Please answer my two questions:
Do you think Mohamed exceeded or was equal to Jesus in personal character?
What is the Cause of allah? My guess:
Do you think Islam is being oppressed and persecuted now?
Is the war on or off between Islam and those who do not accept Moahmed and his messege of Islam and allah?
C
Contarini
Guest
Stop right there. Once you say “everlasting” you are not talking historically. Historically, Muhammad’s commands were not everlasting but were historically conditioned. Once you say that they are everlasting you make it impossible to interpret them in a purely historical manner. The Enlightenment project of trying to interpret the Bible this way (from within Christianity) has blown up in our faces–it’s one of the most disastrous mistakes in Christian history, although it has had lots of positive effects as well (the mistake comes in limiting ourselves to this approach, not in using it as one strand in a healthy exegetical method). Muslims have, by and large, not embraced Enlightenment methods for interpreting their sacred texts, and it would be hypocritical of me to try to persuade them to do so.
I’m not sure Muhammad would sanction suicide bombing. Like most polemicists, you create a false dichotomy. The historical Muhammad would in my opinion certainly approve of the general line of argument in bin Laden’s fatwa (i.e., he would think that it was right and good for Muslims to make war on the U.S., at lest given American support for Israel, etc.). I would hope that he would condemn 9/11, but I’m not sure. It certainly appears that 9/11 violated traditional Islamic laws of war in its deliberate and indiscriminate massacre of civilians. But I’m not sure that those laws go back to Muhammad himself.
However, Muslims are reading this through the eyes of faith. Believing Muhammad to be a prophet, they assume that he would do whatever is right.
Of course I deny that I have said such things, since I never have. What I have said is that this kind of historical analysis is irrelevant for a discussion of who is a “real Muslim” and who isn’t, since this is not the primary way in which adherents of any religion read their sacred texts. You cannot decide who is a “true Muslim” based on who has the more accurate historical understanding of Muhammad. For that matter, I’m sure the “radical” Muslims have all sorts of unhistorical ideas about Muhammad as well. That is the point I have been making consistently–it’s about how we classify Muslims, not primarily about how we try to evangelize them (though I’m generally not a big fan of historical debunking as a form of evangelization either).
I will defend anyone and anything that is being attacked unfairly. I have no particular interest in defending Islam, except that people on this board have a particular animus against Islam. What I am doing in this particular debate is defending moderate Muslims against the unfair assumption that they do not know their own tradition just because they interpret it in a way that many of us find unhistorical (as I said, it’s not as if the radicals rely on sound critical scholarship either). As an orthodox Christian, I believe certain things (the Virgin Birth, for instance) that practically every non-Christian historian (and many Christian scholars as well–at least, Christians by profession and heritage) would consider unhistorical. It is therefore hypocritical of me to demand that Muslims accept the consensus of non-Muslim historical scholarship as determinative of their faith, when I would not do the same thing with regard to my own faith. I believe that faith is a form of knowledge. I believe Muslim faith to be mistaken. But I believe this primarily on the basis of my own Christian faith and only secondarily on the basis of history and reason (obviously, if I didn’t think history and reason were compatible with Christianity, I wouldn’t be a Christian–and the fact that I find Islam unhistorical and irrational is one of the many reasons why I’m not a Muslim, but not the primary one).
I know. But I don’t think hypotheticals are useful in this discussion, because religions are about particular beliefs and practices. They are not abstract systems that can be generated from certain starting principles. That is one of the biggest mistakes in old-fashioned scholarship on religion.
I certainly agree that this can be contradicted historically. As Rodrigo pointed out, the example that originally set us off was that of Muslims who say that violent jihad is only legitimate when there is a caliphate to order it, which is (contrary to Rodrigo’s assertion) a theological claim about the nature of authority in Islam.
I suspect that the Muslims you have in mind would say that Muhammad’s aggressive wars were motivated by self-defense. If I were arguing with them, I would say that by this standard the invasion of Iraq was definitely motivated by self-defense–something they probably would not admit. (I think the invasion of Iraq was far more justified than some of Muhammad’s wars, by the way.) But I’m not arguing with them. I’m arguing with you about them. However mistaken their interpretation of history, they are Muslims.
I have no idea what you are saying here. What I have objected to from the beginning is the statement “so and so is not a real Muslim because he or she doesn’t believe what I have concluded Muhammad believed.” That is not sound, and it’s not consistent when used by Christians because I’m pretty confident that no Christian would allow the legitimacy of this method when used against us.
Are you suggesting that people never change their opinions? If Muslims believe that they must do whatever the Qur’an commands, and if you convince them that the literal sense of the Qur’an commands something they have thought was wrong, then they will do one of three things:
- Abandon Islam (the result you hope for)
- Argue for a non-literal interpretation of the Qur’an; or
- Decide that their previous opinions about morality were mistaken.
However, the point is that all of these (except of course no. 2 if they already held to a non-literal view, in which case your arguments will fall on deaf ears) are real changes of opinion. So your argument that they aren’t really moderate is a rather puzzling one. Moderates can change and become radicals, and (though apparently with more difficulty) vice versa.
I have not made any claim about zarqawi or anyone else in particular. The person I had primarily in mind was Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, the Jewish convert to Islam who briefly (and it appears never whole-heartedly) embraced radical Islam in the belief (which he seems to retain having abandoned Islam) that it was the most authentic version of Islam. It is reasonable to suppose that young Muslims whose commitment to Islam is far more deeply rooted than that of Gartenstein-Ross are less likely to end up as well as he has done when they travel down the same dark path.
However, you may be right that you can convert a lot of Muslims through this kind of argument. I don’t know many Muslims, and I’m really not trying to argue that particular point. I am interested in how we Christians talk about Muslims, and in the more general question of how we classify people in religious terms.
Then why have you attacked, ridiculed, and insulted me repeatedly? Why do we have any reason to disagree? It appears that you have completely misunderstood me, and given the ferocity of your attacks I am not inclined to let you off with the supposition that the fault is mine for not being clearer (since you haven’t exactly shown much disposition to understand what I am saying).
I repeat: my concern in this debate has been from the beginning to prevent my fellow Christians from deciding who is a “real Muslim” and who isn’t. If you are not trying to do that, I have no quarrel with you (well, I might disagree with some particular point, and I have no interest in taking your approach, but I don’t claim that historical arguments against Islam are illegitimate in principle).
In Christ,
Edwin
V
Verisimilitude
Guest
If Jesus did not die on the Cross before Passover and was not witnessed to be bodily resurrected on the 3rd day following His death, my faith would be false and you very well could be right.
The truth is Jesus Christ was killed in Jerusalem. Acts of the Apostles describes how that true knowledge of His resurrection has manifested itself into the Catholic Church with the only Authority to represent humanities understanding and responsibility to G-d.
From the very beginning, 600 years before Mohamed and 1800 years before your unique prophet are the steadfast witnesses known as the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; written to attest to the life of the Son of man, and when God walked among us.
Listen to His words as they were faithfully recorded. The Gospels can tell you why God did it better than I could tell you, and they have been known to be in existence within 70 years at most to 20 years at best from the Life of Jesus. The Catholic Church is reliable to that message from Peter himself who died in Rome around 64 AD. That is not fantasy or conjecture. It is both theological and historical fact.
Living our lives in the example of Jesus would please God because loving our neighbor would be as strong as our love for God. Christ’s selfless example is one of compassion, generosity, and love for His fellow man.
Jesus gave us rules for peace, and Mohamed gave rules of war. Jesus invites us to see God as loving Father, and Mohamed warns of fickle Master allah and his torment for his slaves…except those who die in the Cause of allah. Jesus inspires people like Mother Teresa, and Mohamed inspires people like Osama bin Laden. Jesus’ message never changed, and Mohamed’s changed constantly. Jesus and Mohamed are so far apart…there is no rational comparison.
Living our lives in the example of Mohamed I do not think pleases God because Mohamed fights his neighbors and makes people fear God as pagans used to fear their idol gods. Mohamed’s selfish example is one of justified theft, justified murder, and justified bigotry for his fellow man.
You must reject Mohamed and his message because it is clearly contrary to Jesus’ teachings which are valid. Your view of God is that of Mohamed’s and his is very wrong. I do not care of his first 53 years…his legacy is misery.
N
nonsumd
Guest
birdsong,
I am satisfied I have made my points. You have become more and more abusive and juvenile in your language which shows me it is you who have run out of rational arguments.
If any of you sincerely want to convert Muslims to Christianity instead of just rile them up for who knows what personal kick you get out doing that, I suggest following the advice of Saint Francis, himself an evangelist among Muslims for a time: Preach always… if necessary with words.
Show love, Christ’s love, to Muslims.
Neither gloss over our substantial theological differences like an indifferentist nor deny that their traditions, whatever else they may contain, share much good and truth with our Christian ones (and if we wish to be honest with ourselves about ourselves, much of the bad and false as well).
Follow our Holy Father Benedict XVI in reminding Muslims of the error, not confined to them by far, of separating faith from reason while never forgetting to affirm that our father in faith is their father in faith, Abraham whose God is the one God.
Christians will never come to agree with Muslims about who Muhammad was and what message His life is supposed to offer, but Muslims do not agree among themselves about these things. If we truly want peace, we must encourage those Muslims who do not take Muhammad’s taking up the sword in his time as justification to pursue ungodly wars in their own times.
We must encourage those Muslims who find in their own traditions the inspiration, indeed the obligation, to struggle for peace.
For our part, how can we teach Christian non-violence if we don’t abjure violence ourselves, if we are so ready to define these conflicts purely in terms of a “war of religions,” when the historical and contemporary reality is much more complex than such a scenario and one which gives a monopoly on victimhood to no side.
As for converting Muslims to Christianity, let us leave that up to God, who will work through our work of loving, rather than abusing, them.
Blah, blah, blah, I can already hear, but I will only let myself say: blagodaryu tebya, Gospodi! Gratias tibi, Domine!
I am satisfied I have made my points. You have become more and more abusive and juvenile in your language which shows me it is you who have run out of rational arguments.
If any of you sincerely want to convert Muslims to Christianity instead of just rile them up for who knows what personal kick you get out doing that, I suggest following the advice of Saint Francis, himself an evangelist among Muslims for a time: Preach always… if necessary with words.
Show love, Christ’s love, to Muslims.
Neither gloss over our substantial theological differences like an indifferentist nor deny that their traditions, whatever else they may contain, share much good and truth with our Christian ones (and if we wish to be honest with ourselves about ourselves, much of the bad and false as well).
Follow our Holy Father Benedict XVI in reminding Muslims of the error, not confined to them by far, of separating faith from reason while never forgetting to affirm that our father in faith is their father in faith, Abraham whose God is the one God.
Christians will never come to agree with Muslims about who Muhammad was and what message His life is supposed to offer, but Muslims do not agree among themselves about these things. If we truly want peace, we must encourage those Muslims who do not take Muhammad’s taking up the sword in his time as justification to pursue ungodly wars in their own times.
We must encourage those Muslims who find in their own traditions the inspiration, indeed the obligation, to struggle for peace.
For our part, how can we teach Christian non-violence if we don’t abjure violence ourselves, if we are so ready to define these conflicts purely in terms of a “war of religions,” when the historical and contemporary reality is much more complex than such a scenario and one which gives a monopoly on victimhood to no side.
As for converting Muslims to Christianity, let us leave that up to God, who will work through our work of loving, rather than abusing, them.
Blah, blah, blah, I can already hear, but I will only let myself say: blagodaryu tebya, Gospodi! Gratias tibi, Domine!
M
Montalban
Guest
You mean a Moslem. Only a Moslem knows!
R
Rodrigo_Bivar
Guest
Dear Edwin,
I will not address your other points as it will only raise your already sky-high blood pressure.
However, I will address this point:
I have also not been ferocious in my ‘attack’. You do not ‘let me off’ at all. You don’t need to. I think I have understood you perfectly well since it was you who quibbled about my statement that there is ‘no theological justification for a Muslim to argue that jihad is only for the time of the Caliphs.’
Everything is and should be open to question. Nobody should place limits on another person’s RIGHT to evaluate any theology.
I hope you can see this.
Chau,
Rodrigo
I will not address your other points as it will only raise your already sky-high blood pressure.
However, I will address this point:
I have not attacked, ridiculed or insulted you. I merely address your erroneous belief that only a Muslim can make theological evalution of Islam.
I have also not been ferocious in my ‘attack’. You do not ‘let me off’ at all. You don’t need to. I think I have understood you perfectly well since it was you who quibbled about my statement that there is ‘no theological justification for a Muslim to argue that jihad is only for the time of the Caliphs.’
Everything is and should be open to question. Nobody should place limits on another person’s RIGHT to evaluate any theology.
I hope you can see this.
Chau,
Rodrigo
C
Contarini
Guest
Don’t judge my blood pressure from my online rhetoric!
Anyway, I was responding to birdsong, not to you. This has created some confusion, since birdsong’s argument has been rather different. He is trying to use historical arguments to refute Islam, and I have been mistakenly arguing with him as if his position was the same as yours.
It is hard to keep track of different opponents in these debates. I think I have a more substantive disagreement with you than with birdsong, but birdsong has been ferocious in his rhetoric under the (mistaken) belief that I am some sort of apologist for Islam.
Edwin
M
Montalban
Guest
Isn’t this then an admission that mainstream Islam (which isn’t sufism) is attached to more violent means of promoting Islam?
C
Contarini
Guest
First of all, for about half of Islamic history Sufism was mainstream, and still is in some parts of the Islamic world.
However, you (I think it was you) claimed a while ago that Bostom has shown that Sufis historically were in agreement with the standard interpretation of jihad, and this fits what I have read (there were Sufi orders that furnished units of the Ottoman army, for instance–this is how “dervishes” were primarily known in the West until recently). The historic mainstream of Islam is pretty violent, sure, and when Sufism became mainstream (which I think was roughly about the time of the end of the Abbasid Caliphate) it took on many of those characteristics. Many Sufis spoke admiringly of other religions and promoted peace, but many others did not (and of course those two things don’t have to go together–either of them can exist without the other!), and those who did not were those who were less controversial in terms of the Sunni tradition as a whole (not that I’m claiming Shi’ism was less violent, but I’m talking about Sunni Islam here).
But mainstreams can and frequently do change. The people who are “mainstream” Catholics today (including the Pope) would have been wild liberals a hundred years ago. (I’m not claiming that there is some sort of necessary progress toward liberalism, by the way, or that liberalism is necessarily progress–indeed, one of my fears is that Islam is moving in a more violent direction, and insofar as I have a practical agenda in this thread it’s to try to get Christians to stop aiding and abetting this process.)
It is possible–though perhaps unlikely–that in a hundred years most Muslims will adhere to the very gentle version of Sufism professed by my cousins, to whom I have frequently referred. People have free will, and therefore traditions do as well, because they are made up of people. Changing a tradition is difficult but not impossible. Look at the way “extra ecclesiam nulla salus” has been redefined in Catholicism, or the way most Christians interpret the terrifying passages in the NT about unforgivable sin (this started pretty early, admittedly, so we now have a long tradition behind us supporting the gentler but less obvious interpretation of those passages) or (in the case of Catholics and mainline/moderate Protestants) the statement that the way to hell is broad and many people walk on it, or for that matter the language of eternal punishment by fire. (I’m avoiding examples from the OT because of course there are clearer theological resources for dealing with those.)
Edwin
M
Montalban
Guest
Although it’s said to have come from what’s now northern Iraq, and not Arabia?
That means in the very beginning of Islam, Sufism didn’t exist - until at least they spread out of Arabia.
That’s certainly not what I said. I said Bostom has evidenced Sufism having war-like interpretations of Jihad
So when Sufism changed to more war-like notions it wasn’t mainstream?
Ibn Taymiyyah was a major critic of Sufism who thought that they’d deviated from Islam
C
Contarini
Guest
That’s why I said “about half” of Islamic history–roughly from about 1000 to the 19th century and the rise of Wahhabism.
That is what I meant by “the standard interpretation.”
No–I said the reverse. Early on Sufism was highly controversial, and I don’t know what those early figures thought about warlike jihad. During the centuries in which Sufism was mainstream, I know that it was involved in “ghazi” warfare and other violent activities. Even the positive interactions between Sufis and Hindus in India could turn nasty–Hodgson tells the story of one Sufi who hounded a Hindu to death because the Hindu had written a panegyric on the Sufi which the Sufi interpreted as a statement of faith in Islam (which the Hindu then refused to confirm, making him an apostate). And I understand that this is still the case in some places–the original Chechen insurgency was linked to Sufism, I believe, though Wahhabis seem to have taken it over (if Gartenstein-Ross is to be believed). I’ve even heard claims that the Taliban had Sufi origins, though I’m not sure about that.
Certainly there were such people even during the centuries when Sufism dominated. There have been repeated “salafi” movements before the most recent wave (I note that Ibn Taymiyyah came from the Hanbali school, as I believe did Wahhab). The point I have been making throughout this debate is that this judgment is meaningless from a non-Muslim perspective. Sufism is no doubt different in many respects from what Muhammad believed (though he does seem to have had some kind of mystical experience), but why should you or I care?
Edwin
M
Montalban
Guest
It’s heyday was in the 1200s, but that doesn’t mean that it was central to Islam, even then (nor that most followed it) - and in fact show’s it’s not part of Islam as understood by Muhammed.
You’ll note I’m sure, that during those ‘softer’ years there was such a thing as an *Islamic *civilization
C
Contarini
Guest
How are you defining “central”? The impression I have received from Hodgson and other secondary sources is that while certainly most Muslims were not “dervishes” actively pursuing union with God according to Sufi teachings, most Muslims showed great respect for Sufi holy men and went to them for spiritual advice, miracles, etc. Note that Ibn Taymiyyah was frequently in trouble with Muslim authorities–he, and not his Sufi opponents, seems to have been the “outsider” in his own day. And as far as I know this continued to be the case at least until the rise of Wahhabism, and to some extent is still the case today, particularly in places like North Africa, Central Asia, Turkey, and India (less so in the central Islamic lands).
Why should I care about how Muhammad understood it (when talking about Islam as a whole)? This is the point I keep trying to make. If Islam develops away from Muhammad’s original understanding, then great! It’s certainly true that there are these repeated waves of “fundamentalism” going back to a literal reading of the earliest sources, and this is a bad thing. But Sufism is an important part of Islam as it has developed historically.
During the earlier part of the period–but there was also an Islamic civilization under the Abbasids, when I believe Sufism was rising in influence but still marginal compared to its standing later on. And I’d argue that there was also an Islamic civilization under the Umayyads.
Edwin
N
nonsumd
Guest
Sufis consider Muhammad to be their model for the mystic’s quest for union with God. They consider the Muhammad’s Night Journey to Heaven as an example of his mysticism. They point to the many Qur’anic verses that speak of God in mystical terms (such as the Sura of Light [24]).
In the context of any religion (Christianity as much as Islam) that insists on distinguishing Creator from creature, mysticism is vulnerable to accusations of blurring that distinction and in effect deifying man. This vulnerability has not stopped mystics from wielding great or even dominant influence over their religions in many eras.
Within Islam there is a tension between Sufism and “Shari’a-ism” (legalism), but in everyday reality many Muslims accepted that tension and refused to “resolve” it in one direction or the other. A mystic adept could be a jurist and vice versa. Sufi networks could be quite effective in mobilizing for a jihad (not just the Ottoman dervish corps but also more clearly defensive mujahidin as the Sufi rebels against Qing Chinese power).
In the past two centuries, Sufism has indeed been eclipsed by Wahhabist scripturalism (which I would not equate at all with the traditional legalism – Wahhabism/Salafism specifically rejects the madhdhab, legal schools, whose interpretations of Qur’an, Hadith, and Sunna have been followed by the mass of Muslims for most of Islamic history). However, Sufism’s authority and pervasiveness was perhaps even more undermined by the spread of modernism (rationalism, scientism), whether secular or Islamized, in the Islamic world.
M
Montalban
Guest
Same way you are.
They may not have been dervish soldiers, but being soliders for Islam isn’t exclusive to dervishism.
ROFL. Because Muhammed is their role model!
Indeed it would be great, but it’d have as much validity as Baha’i is to Islam.
Muhammed is their example - that’s why Sufism cound’t maintain itself against his example.
B
birdsong
Guest
I am sorry I have offended your poor little soul Contarini. I have attacked the poverty of your arguments and positions, and yeah, I am also guilty of ridiculing you. I guess my distaste for what I consider to be intellectual dishonesty makes me a bit uncharitable oftentimes.
Just a hint of your falacious ways:
And you are the guy who has the guts to demand others to be concise and clear when you have no idea about what a “moderate” muslim is?
What I find most hilarious about your attitude is that you come bragging on these boards about being a “scholar”, when you do not have the faintest idea about logical argumentation and consistency.
I am sorry your poor sensitive soul can not stand being challenged, you know, with rational questions, and yeah, a bit of ridicule.
I do not foresee any other exchange with you or your number one cheerleader Nonsumd. The few “intellectual gems”
I have seen from you and that other guy give me very little desire to waste my time with you again.
Just a hint of your falacious ways:
You demand others to be precise, when you’ve failed dismally to define core aspects of your flawed argument, you know, things like “moderate muslims”, “treat muslims with fairness”, etc, etc, etc.
And you are the guy who has the guts to demand others to be concise and clear when you have no idea about what a “moderate” muslim is?
What I find most hilarious about your attitude is that you come bragging on these boards about being a “scholar”, when you do not have the faintest idea about logical argumentation and consistency.
I am sorry your poor sensitive soul can not stand being challenged, you know, with rational questions, and yeah, a bit of ridicule.
I do not foresee any other exchange with you or your number one cheerleader Nonsumd. The few “intellectual gems”
I have seen from you and that other guy give me very little desire to waste my time with you again.
T
tomarin
Guest
this is ridiculously unfair – otherwise i wouldn’t bother to post in defense of another poster. you haven’t engaged him in a fair debate or raised any legitimate points; you haven’t even shown that you’ve grasped the point he’s made over and over again, showing great patience with your obstinance and uncalled-for name-calling. the sad part is, i’ve concluded your inability to understand plain english isn’t because you’re stubborn (although you no doubt are) but because you are incapable of simple reasoning.What I find most hilarious about your attitude is that you come bragging on these boards about being a “scholar”, when you do not have the faintest idea about logical argumentation and consistency.
when has contarini ever bragged about anything?
B
birdsong
Guest
Tell Contarini to clarify a few questions:
Who are the “moderate” muslims he’s talking about
What are their characteristics
Where can they be found
Why, given their “moderate” nature, are they so prone to take the extremists side
Etc, etc, etc
What would “treat” muslims with fairness" constitute, given the fact that muslims and non-muslims have very different standards of fairness.
Why should we include Constatine the emperor in the discussion of whether Christians/muhhamedans are following the teachings of Christ and muhhamad respectively.
Etc, etc, etc.
Your favourite scholar Contarini has left many questions unanswered, that’s why I am tired of his intellectual dishonesty.
Who are the “moderate” muslims he’s talking about
What are their characteristics
Where can they be found
Why, given their “moderate” nature, are they so prone to take the extremists side
Etc, etc, etc
What would “treat” muslims with fairness" constitute, given the fact that muslims and non-muslims have very different standards of fairness.
Why should we include Constatine the emperor in the discussion of whether Christians/muhhamedans are following the teachings of Christ and muhhamad respectively.
Etc, etc, etc.
Your favourite scholar Contarini has left many questions unanswered, that’s why I am tired of his intellectual dishonesty.
- Status