Islam and Afterlife

[BryanM27]

As Ali said, it is unfair for ANYONE to call attention to another faith’s history of violence without considering their own.

Ali, I’m sure, knows more than I do about the violence carried out by some of the early leaders of Islam and others more recently who have turned to violent means to “protect” or “spread” the faith.

And the Crusades and Protestant reformation are well documented as well.

If we want to talk recent atrocities, yes there are Muslim terrorists that follow Osama bin Laden.

There are also Christians who are terrorists. The KKK believe themselves to be Christians and I think most of us would agree their actions and words do not seem to be in line with most of the Christian world. Does that make all Christians racists and cross burners? Certainly not.

Do not judge the majority of any group by the minority that speaks the loudest.

 

[scipio337]

As for the death penalty for apostasy, please keep in mind that the Old Testament also says that the penalty for apostasy is death. Thus painting Muslims as ‘barbaric’ or ‘repressive’ over this is like painting ancient Judaism (which both Muslims and Christians believe to have been a rightly guided true religion at the time of the prophets) also as ‘barbaric’ and ‘repressive’.

And what is the historical application of that penalty in Judaism, outside of the Old Testament?
Ali Khan:

The general consensus on the apostasy penalty today is that a person should only be put to death if they not only leave Islam for another religion but also start publicly denouncing Islam in favor of that religion.
Someone who quietly converts from Islam to, let’s say Sikhism, is not put to death.

So in other words, if you PUBLICLY convert, you think that person should be put to death?

Yes, that is barbaric.

 

[scipio337]

So as a Muslim, Ali, how should countries be run? Like Saudi Arabia, under Sha’ria, with expressed limitations on other faiths, deaths for public converts, etc,

or, like France, or “the secular west”, with absolute freedom of worship?

 

[aicirt]

As Ali said, it is unfair for ANYONE to call attention to another faith’s history of violence without considering their own.

Ali, I’m sure, knows more than I do about the violence carried out by some of the early leaders of Islam and others more recently who have turned to violent means to “protect” or “spread” the faith.

And the Crusades and Protestant reformation are well documented as well.

If we want to talk recent atrocities, yes there are Muslim terrorists that follow Osama bin Laden.

There are also Christians who are terrorists. The KKK believe themselves to be Christians and I think most of us would agree their actions and words do not seem to be in line with most of the Christian world. Does that make all Christians racists and cross burners? Certainly not.

Do not judge the majority of any group by the minority that speaks the loudest.

Being PC? Let’s think about this. When was the last time you heard of a cross burning by the KKK? Please list the modern Christian groups that have caused as much death as the Muslims say since after WWII?

The Muslims pushed their religion across north Africa into Spain and up into France only to be repelled by Charles Martel in about 732. They were pushed back into Spain which they had conquered hundreds of years before and were not pushed back into Africa until the 1400s.

Christian pilgrims in the eighth century were crucified. Monks and religious were killed along with Jews. It wasn’t until 1095, 350 years after Martel, that Pope Urban II called for the First Crusade.

Christianity had spread east as far as China. Muslims moved in to those areas too and forced the inhabitiants to convert. Nestorian Christans were found all across Central Asia. The first church in China was completed in 635. Who knew? Not I. Most were lost due to Muslims forcing these people to convert or function as second class citizens with little or no rights.

Let’s be honest. We Christians need to educate ourselves. Enough of this beating ourselves up over the Crusades. If we read the history, we would understand the reasons why the leaders of the world answered the call to push Muslims back.

 

[Ali_Khan]

And what is the historical application of that penalty in Judaism, outside of the Old Testament?

We don’t have comprehensive historical records for ancient Judaism and ancient Israel except for the OT itself.
Therefore, if the OT mentioned it, you can be sure that people were executed in ancient Israel for apostasy.
Just like if the OT says for people to worship Yahweh, or that King David reigned in Jerusalem, then we can surmise that these things ACTUALLY HAPPENED.

So in other words, if you PUBLICLY convert, you think that person should be put to death?

Yes, that is barbaric.

Then I guess the OT is also barbaric? And before Christ, the only true religion on Earth was also ‘barbaric’? Get real.

Being PC? Let’s think about this. When was the last time you heard of a cross burning by the KKK? Please list the modern Christian groups that have caused as much death as the Muslims say since after WWII?

So Christians (and not just extremists) can go on murderous rampages for hundreds of years throughout history, and Muslims are being criticized for the behavior of a few extremists in the past 50 YEARS???
It’s not called being PC. It’s called being mentally sound.

You can’t even compare the Crusades to modern terrorism.
The Crusade was expressly sanctioned by the Church, whereas modern terrorism is denounced by almost all the leading Ulema (Muslim clergy).
There was no such thing as a ‘moderate’ Christian during the day and age of the Crusades, Inquisition, Teutonic Knights, etc.

Christian pilgrims in the eighth century were crucified. Monks and religious were killed along with Jews.

Any proof? And I mean from an accepted history book, not some apologetic or religious website.

Let’s be honest. We Christians need to educate ourselves. Enough of this beating ourselves up over the Crusades. If we read the history, we would understand the reasons why the leaders of the world answered the call to push Muslims back.

Yes, if you read the history, you would. You would understand the political and economic reasons that led to the Pope calling for a massive genocidal army of Christians to march to the Middle East and kill anything in their way that wasn’t Catholic, only to return unsuccessful after being unable to hold out against the technologically advanced Muslims.

Push Muslims back? You call invading another’s land, laying siege to their cities, and massacring their inhabitants ‘pushing back’?
When the Christians captured Jerusalem, every man, woman, and child - Muslim, Jew, and Christian - was put to the sword or burned alive.
When the Muslims recaptured it, no civilians were hurt and everyone was allowed to leave peaceably.

 

[KathleenGee]

Note…Christianity did not spread through slaughter and political triumph.

Criticism of the advance of Christianity began with the New World in the 1400’s…over a thousand years of growth without initiating holy wars and crimes…the pathway to heaven and the 72 virgins.

It took the Church 400 years to respond to the cries for help by the Christians in the Holy Land before initiating the Crusades…no shot gun holy war here.

The deaths attributed to Islam are about 270,000 million, the greatest deaths in India and Pakistan…nothing to brag about. Anyone who leaves Islam is killed.

 

[scipio337]

We don’t have comprehensive historical records for ancient Judaism and ancient Israel except for the OT itself.
Therefore, if the OT mentioned it, you can be sure that people were executed in ancient Israel for apostasy.
Just like if the OT says for people to worship Yahweh, or that King David reigned in Jerusalem, then we can surmise that these things ACTUALLY HAPPENED.

Not so, we have the Mishnah and Midrash, and their application in the Halakha I’ve never read about the issue in any.

Then I guess the OT is also barbaric? And before Christ, the only true religion on Earth was also ‘barbaric’? Get real.

God made a new Covenant with man.

Sorry, I cannot call the practice of putting a person to death for their beliefs, change of, or lack thereof, anything but BARBARIC.

And I am real.
Ali Khan:

So Christians (and not just extremists) can go on murderous rampages for hundreds of years throughout history, and Muslims are being criticized for the behavior of a few extremists in the past 50 YEARS???
It’s not called being PC. It’s called being mentally sound.

You can’t even compare the Crusades to modern terrorism.
The Crusade was expressly sanctioned by the Church, whereas modern terrorism is denounced by almost all the leading Ulema (Muslim clergy).
There was no such thing as a ‘moderate’ Christian during the day and age of the Crusades, Inquisition, Teutonic Knights, etc.

Any proof? And I mean from an accepted history book, not some apologetic or religious website.

Yes, if you read the history, you would. You would understand the political and economic reasons that led to the Pope calling for a massive genocidal army of Christians to march to the Middle East and kill anything in their way that wasn’t Catholic, only to return unsuccessful after being unable to hold out against the technologically advanced Muslims.

Push Muslims back? You call invading another’s land, laying siege to their cities, and massacring their inhabitants ‘pushing back’?
When the Christians captured Jerusalem, every man, woman, and child - Muslim, Jew, and Christian - was put to the sword or burned alive.
When the Muslims recaptured it, no civilians were hurt and everyone was allowed to leave peaceably.

And how did Muslims come to take possession of Jerusalem? Damascus?

I can’t justify the actions of the past, but what came first, the chicken, or the egg?

 

[KathleenGee]

The conquest of Jerusalem – the center of Judaism and Christianity’s birthplace of the Savior of the world, and Constantinople as the center of Orthodoxy with its staking of St. Sophia is never justified. Muhammed didn’t have any interest in Jerusalem. It was staked by his followers with faulty history and falsehoods. Now look at the mess…the issue of the Holy Land could very well ignite the Third World War and its end as we know it…and the Christians have shown the value of faith by being the ones who provide peace.

Now after 2000 years, the Christians are being forced to leave…it is evil.

What is next is the third attempt on the Vatican…you call that a religion of peace???

Evil. And muslim men already have a piece of heaven with the multiple wives and sex on demand. So what kind of heaven and what is it for women??? Sad.

 

[Ali_Khan]

Note…Christianity did not spread through slaughter and political triumph.

Sigh.
I guess you never paid attention during history class either.
Let me guess, you actually believe that most of Europe and the Americas converted to Christianity by choice

Ever heard of the Teutonic Knights?

Unlike Christianity, Islam spread as people flocked to it by CHOICE.

Criticism of the advance of Christianity began with the New World in the 1400’s…over a thousand years of growth without initiating holy wars and crimes…the pathway to heaven and the 72 virgins.

Let’s take a look at the holy wars and crimes perpetrated by Christianity till the 1400s:

ELEVEN Crusades.

Jerusalem, a HOLY city, being brutally massacred by the Crusaders.

The destruction and massacre of Constantinople during the Crusades by the Crusaders

Hundreds of thousands of pagan Eastern Europeans and Baltic Europeans and Prussians being forced to convert to Christianity under pain of death.

‘Baptism or bloodshed!’ Ring a bell?

t took the Church 400 years to respond to the cries for help by the Christians in the Holy Land before initiating the Crusades…no shot gun holy war here.

The Church was ‘responding to the cries for help’?


Ah of course, when it’s not busy oppressing it’s own people and forbidding scientific advancements, it must ‘respond’ to the non-existent cries for help by sending a massive genocidal army of uneducated Crusaders (who actually thought Muslims worshiped Satan LOL) to massacre anyone or anything that wasn’t Catholic.

Go open a history book. Please.

The deaths attributed to Islam are about 270,000 million

Seeing how that number is higher than the total number of people that have EVER EXISTED since the dawn of man, let alone Islam’s coming, I can see you made it up off the top of your head.
:tsktsk: Didn’t even bother to make the number BELIEVABLE. You know there are less than 6,000 million people on Earth TODAY.

 

[scipio337]

You’re differentiating between Islam, and the Islamic Empire again, in a “Tu, quoque” argument.

Was the Middle East always Islamic? Why were there Crusades, in the first place? Because Christians hated Muslims?

The heartland of the Islamic empire, the section bordering the Mediterranean rim, was a deeply Christian area, a vital spiritual and economic core of a “Western” imperium which, for over six hundred years before Mohammed’s birth, had included the non-Arab provinces of Turkey (known then as Asia, Galatia, Bithynia, Pontus and Cappadocia–where St. Paul established many of the first churches), Syria (whose city of Damascus was one of the earliest major Christian centers), Egypt (populated at the time by rabidly Christian descendants of the pyramid-builders, along with significant numbers of Greeks and Jews), Libya (the former Cyrenaica), Tunisia (Carthage and its environs, where St. Augustine was born and eventually became bishop of Hippo), and Northern Algeria and Morocco (then called Mauritania).

These were the countries that had produced the Bible, the Christian monastic movement (born in Egypt), St. Jerome’s conversion (in what is now Turkey), St. John of Damascus, the famed early church historian Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea, Origen, Saint Athanasius, the Aryan heresy, a significant number of fathers of the Roman Catholic faith and the Eastern Orthodox creed.

How did Egypt, Syria, Algeria, Turkey, become Islamic? Through grass roots proselytizing? Who doesn’t know history now?

How did the first two Caliphates form?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquest_of_Syria
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_conquest_of_Egypt
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquest_of_Persia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_conquest_of_Afghanistan
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_conquest_of_Armenia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umayyad_conquest_of_North_Africa
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyprus_in_the_Middle_Ages#Arab_Conquest

My relatives are Sicillian and Maltese, so I can tell you all about Islamic conquests.

Let me guess: these were “ethnic conflicts” that had nothing to do with Islam, right?

 

[Ali_Khan]

You are playing by a double standard Ali. That is something that causes even those of who are Christian here and who partially agree wtih you to lose respect for you and your style of debate. You are holding others to a standard you yourself do not abide by. Also you are using as one of your means of proof a book you have previously argued is heavitly corrupted. However it suddenly has become conveniently uncorrupted when it supports your assertions. That’s intellectually highly dishonest of you.

Jharek, I lost respect for you when I noticed how someone who kept patronizing me as a Muslim remained quiet while others (Tocra) were attacking Islam and calling Muhammad ‘the anti-christ’ on the SAME THREAD.

I never said that the OT wasn’t corrupted. I was merely pointing out that since Christian’s accept the OT as divine revelation, then they must also accept that (at least in the past) their God sanctioned the death penalty for apostasy.
Hence it is hypocritical of Christians to attack Islam for the death penalty for apostasy when part of their own scripture (the OT) says the EXACT SAME THING.

Sorry, I cannot call the practice of putting a person to death for their beliefs, change of, or lack thereof, anything but BARBARIC.

Then why do you believe that was in the OT then? Or was God just going through a phase back then?

And how did Muslims come to take possession of Jerusalem? Damascus?

By capturing them from the Byzantines who were AT WAR with the Muslims. When a nation is at war with you, it’s cities are fair game.
And the Byzantines provoked (i.e. started) the war by sanctioning raids into Muslim territory during Abu Bakr’s reign.

The conquest of Jerusalem – the center of Judaism and Christianity’s birthplace of the Savior of the world, and Constantinople as the center of Orthodoxy with its staking of St. Sophia is never justified. Muhammed didn’t have any interest in Jerusalem. It was staked by his followers with faulty history and falsehoods. Now look at the mess…the issue of the Holy Land could very well ignite the Third World War and its end as we know it…and the Christians have shown the value of faith by being the ones who provide peace.

This ‘mess’ was brought about by the creation of Israel in 1948. From the time of the Crusades till 1948, Jerusalem and the Holy Land were peaceful areas.

Honestly, I think nobody here has an accurate understanding of history.
Most of the people here are subscribing to the ‘Islam spread by the sword’ myth when it has already been debunked by most historians.

 

[Ali_Khan]

As I said elsewhere ‘what-aboutery’ and by extension a fruitless form of debate.

Exactly HOW is this what-aboutery?
Pay close attention to what’s happening here.
People say that Islam is violent and evil because of action x,y,z
I respond by saying that Christianity is just as violent and evil because of action x,y,z

Was the Middle East always Islamic? Why were there Crusades, in the first place? Because Christians hated Muslims?

The Crusades were primarily a mean for the Papacy to curb the power of the discontented nobility and the even more discontented peasantry under them that were chafing under feudalism. By sending off a huge portion of dissatisfied knights, lords, and men-at-arms to the Holy Land, the Papacy was able to relieve the socio-economic pressure within European feudal structure at that time.

How did Egypt, Syria, Algeria, Turkey, become Islamic? Through grass roots proselytizing? Who doesn’t know history now?

Over a few centuries, the inhabitants became Muslim. Partly through grass roots proselytizing and partly through the diffusion of the new Islamic teachings through clergy and converts.

How did the first two Caliphates form?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquest_of_Syria
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_conquest_of_Egypt
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquest_of_Persia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic…of_Afghanistan
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_conquest_of_Armenia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umayyad…f_North_Africa
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyprus_…#Arab_Conquest

As I said, Byzantine and Persian territories were fair game because both empires had attacked the early Muslim nation by sanctioning raids into Muslim territory at the Northern borders.
They underestimated the Arabs and thought they could get away with carrying out raids against them. They were wrong.

I keep throwing evidence in your faces. I keep telling you guys the historical facts which I have been taught not only in high school but also in college.
I even cited the name of several historians who are basically saying the same thing I am saying in another thread.
If you guys are honestly gonna blindly keep on denying the facts on a simple ‘good Christian vs. evil Muslim’ interpretation of Muslim history, then I am wasting my time on this thread.
As the Quran says ‘deaf, dumb and blind - they will not return to the path’.

 

[KathleenGee]

Perhaps we need another thread on the status of Christians and Jews in their own Holy Land taken over by the Muslims…there was a recent post showing the conditions Christians and Jews had to follow as well as be taxed in the Holy Land once it was overtaken.

 

[scipio337]

Of course, those were defensive wars

My bad!

Of course, when attacked, the logical thing to do is conquer their people, institute new governments based on your faith, and grand all other faiths 2nd class citizenship.

I believe a young Austrian painter, Adolph Schicklgruber, claimed the same thing about Poland.

It is hard to have any type of reasonable discussion with anyone so blind to history.

 

[scipio337]

This ‘mess’ was brought about by the creation of Israel in 1948. From the time of the Crusades till 1948, Jerusalem and the Holy Land were peaceful areas…

BECAUSE THEY WERE CONTROLLEDC BY MUSLIMS! Christians and Jews had to be happy living as a “dhimma”, or leave. The minute a non-Muslim ruler takes control of what is considered “Muslim lands”, whether it be Kashmir, or the southern Levant, look out!!

Dar al Haarb and Dar al Islam.

 

[KathleenGee]

To keep this thread on track, among Christ’s last dying words were, ‘Father, forgive them for they know not what they do.’ Mohammed’s dying words were, ‘Kill the infidel’.

I personally Islam as that force of belief that will behead so many that the rivers will run miles wide deep in blood…now I just read that it was a Catholic bishop who entered heaven who was actually beheaded in a ritual.

Where, Ali, do you see Christians and Jews wanting to overtake Muslim religious shrines and cities?

Lust…for women, power, land, other people’s religions…not the way to heaven. I see these lusts all condemned by the 10 commandments of Moses.

 

[Ali_Khan]

Scipio, are you honestly comparing Islam to Nazism? :S

When Adolf Hitler himself was a Catholic, not to mention his close associates, and the fact that the Catholic clergy supported him (there are even photos of him with the Pope), your insinuation seems infantile at best.

Of course, when attacked, the logical thing to do is conquer their people, institute new governments based on your faith, and grand all other faiths 2nd class citizenship.

Of course not, Scipio. The logical thing to do is to follow the Christian way!
As has been shown to us by the good noble virtuous Catholic Church in the past!
You’re supposed to invade the country, BEFORE they attack you, attack them first, kill and rape as many civilians as possible, loot as much as you can (hey you gotta fund those cathedrals, right? ) and once you’re satisfied with the rape, slaughter, and plunder - you can tell the survivors to either accept Christ as their Lord and Savior or to die.
And THEN, to top it all off, once the area is firmly under your control, you can grab people at will and torture them for confessions. But that’s just the beginning of the fun. When they confess, you get to publicly burn them alive! YAY!

How could I ever have deluded myself into following the twisted Islamic way?
The Christian way is much better! Burning at the stake FTW!!!

 

[KathleenGee]

(Hitler used the church. There were some bishops in his area who supported him for a brief time. The uncle of Yassar Arafat was in collusion with the Nazis in Palestine and committed some pogroms of his own against the Jews.

The president of Iran and others believe the Holocaust never happened.

But of course, Ali, you have not seen the photos of German Catholic priests, numbering in the thousands who were shot by the Nazis…

If you can, check out www.pavetheway.org…Pave the Way Organization, headed by Jews. They changed their mind and saw Pope Pius XII for the good he had done for their people.

Also the documents on the Inquisition were finally made public in 2003, so you were probably drawing on the typical anti-Catholic materials.)

In my church we are called to the truth, not only about God and Christ, but the truth about others. In the end, we are all equal before God. It is by our fruits we are known.

I don’t care about what people say…what I look at is what people do from their words.

 

[scipio337]

Scipio, are you honestly comparing Islam to Nazism? :S

No, and I will edit the reference. I meant to illustrate I don’t buy the “self defense argument” when building an empire.
Ali Khan:

When Adolf Hitler himself was a Catholic, not to mention his close associates, and the fact that the Catholic clergy supported him (there are even photos of him with the Pope), your insinuation seems infantile at best.

Actually, he was a Thulist. See Mein Kampf, his glorification of Deitrich Eichart.
Ali Khan:

Of course not, Scipio. The logical thing to do is to follow the Christian way!
As has been shown to us by the good noble virtuous Catholic Church in the past!
You’re supposed to invade the country, BEFORE they attack you, attack them first, kill and rape as many civilians as possible, loot as much as you can (hey you gotta fund those cathedrals, right? ) and once you’re satisfied with the rape, slaughter, and plunder - you can tell the survivors to either accept Christ as their Lord and Savior or to die.
And THEN, to top it all off, once the area is firmly under your control, you can grab people at will and torture them for confessions. But that’s just the beginning of the fun. When they confess, you get to publicly burn them alive! YAY!

How could I ever have deluded myself into following the twisted Islamic way?
The Christian way is much better! Burning at the stake FTW!!!

I’m not claiming Christians are justified in all their actions, and don’t sin. The difference is that I’m willing to call it such, (sin, and against God), while you are willing to dismiss it as “self defense”, or somehow justified.

 

[jakasaki]

Scipio, are you honestly comparing Islam to Nazism? :S

When Adolf Hitler himself was a Catholic, not to mention his close associates, and the fact that the Catholic clergy supported him (there are even photos of him with the Pope), your insinuation seems infantile at best.

Why stop there and not mention how the islamic army helped hilter exterminate the Jews.

Hitler went after everyone, including Christians and not just Jews and he had some help from his islamic muslim friends… you know how they are don’t you…???

Edit to add:;;

Hey… there are even photos of him with the islmaic muslim leaders & their troops…

2nd edit to add:

Cursing on these forums is against the forum guidelines & rules.