Islam, Religion of Peace or......Think about it.

[Catolico65]

This is an interesting topic and I believe it is relevant and only logical to distinguish between wars started by church leaders as opposed to it’s members of their own accord.

 

[Contarini]

Oddly enough, the news today is that Khalid Sheikh Mohammedagrees that Islam forbids forced conversions.

The problem? He says he is the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks.

No contradiction here. The 9/11 attacks weren’t about converting anyone. They were, in the minds of the attackers, an act of holy war against a nation that had conducted repeated acts of aggression against Muslims.

The traditional Islamic attitude here is pretty much the same as that of medieval Christianity: forced conversion per se is wrong, but pressure to convert is OK and once people convert they can’t go back. On that point, I don’t see any historical difference between the two religions. If anything, Islam was historically clearer than Christianity on the inadmissibility of forced conversions for “people of the book.” The attitude with regard to polytheists was much harsher. (Similarly, the Teutonic Knights in Eastern Europe were much more ruthless than the Crusaders in Muslim lands were. Christians did not, contrary to the stereotype, force Muslims they conquered to convert.)

Edwin

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

I simply cannot accept Islam as a “Religion of Peace” or even a religion for that matter.

I see a political ideology masking itself as a religion with world domination as its goal.

Oy vey, guess I have to post it again:

Originally Posted by Judas Thaddeus forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
Mormonism is a cult. Islam is a religion. Whether it talks about violent things or
wacky ideas, Islam is a religion. If Pope Francis would say Islam is a cult, then
I might be with you. The Second Vatican Council taught that Muslims worship
the one true God:
The Church regards with esteem also the Muslims. They adore the
one God, living and subsisting in himself; merciful and all–powerful,
the Creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to men; they take
pains to submit wholeheartedly to even his inscrutable decrees, just
as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking
itself, submitted to God.
– (Nostra Aetate 3)

Islam is a religion, deal with it. http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/jj557/Miss__Priss/emotions/RollingEyesSmiley5.gif

 

[St_Francis]

Got it. You don’t care for Islam so you do a Jedi hand wave in regards to the barbarous acts done by Western civilization. A Western civilization which is built upon Catholic teachings and therefore has even less excuse for such acts than those done by Islamic cultures (whose barbarous acts pale in comparison to what the West has done). You might want to take that beam out of your eye.

i think Western culture has looked at the beam. What do you think was the impetus for the numerous rules we have anout warfare, including *the prohibition on targeting civilians? The prohibition of resistance forces from hiding behind civilians? *

What the Christians did was wrong. We were able to tell it was wrong because we had a set body of teachings against which to measure, and these teachings showed the wrongness of what we were doing. And gradually we assimilated the teachings into our actions and laws.

However, Islam has a different set if teachings, and the teachings do not condemn or even support much of what we regard as the worst of what Moslems do, including lying to the enemy.

 

[St_Francis]

No contradiction here. The 9/11 attacks weren’t about converting anyone. They were, in the minds of the attackers, an act of holy war against a nation that had conducted repeated acts of aggression against Muslims.

The traditional Islamic attitude here is pretty much the same as that of medieval Christianity: forced conversion per se is wrong, but pressure to convert is OK and once people convert they can’t go back.

I think that a lot of what we saw with that was after the Reconquista, and was more related to what we might now call national security than religion. Other more isolated instances were to protect people’s eternal souls as well.

I don’t know that what you say about Islam’s attitude towards non-Moslems is accurate. To be sure, the Koran differentiates between “People of the Book” and those who have other religions, but istm that they forced converion onto a couple of reporters who from our point of view would be secular but from what I can gather of their point of view would be seen as Christian.

On that point, I don’t see any historical difference between the two religions. If anything, Islam was historically clearer than Christianity on the inadmissibility of forced conversions for “people of the book.” The attitude with regard to polytheists was much harsher. (Similarly, the Teutonic Knights in Eastern Europe were much more ruthless than the Crusaders in Muslim lands were. Christians did not, contrary to the stereotype, force Muslims they conquered to convert.)

Assuming that this is correct, I would say only that we have since cleaned up our acts *as a result of our Christian Faith. *

IOW, I see Christianity as having been a sort of fertilizer allowing a garden to grow. Yes, there were times when this or that was happening, but Christianity is at the core, is in fact the impetus or engine for a culture which *rejected *those acts.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

i think Western culture has looked at the beam. What do you think was the impetus for the numerous rules we have anout warfare, including *the prohibition on targeting civilians? The prohibition of resistance forces from hiding behind civilians? *

What the Christians did was wrong. We were able to tell it was wrong because we had a set body of teachings against which to measure, and these teachings showed the wrongness of what we were doing. And gradually we assimilated the teachings into our actions and laws.

However, Islam has a different set if teachings, and the teachings do not condemn or even support much of what we regard as the worst of what Moslems do, including lying to the enemy.

-Those restrictions were already in place and had been in place for a very long time for much of what the West did. Another Jedi hand wave attempt.
-Islam doesn’t condemn the targeting of non-combatants? Yeah it does. Doesn’t condemn torture? Yeah, does that too. Mistreatment of prisoners? Yeah prohibits that too. Well it must support the use of suicide attacks? No, actually it doesn’t.
-Lying to the enemy is horrible? Ever watch that movie about the dead body the Brits dressed up as an officer and dropped off the coast of Spain with fake military documents in order to facilitate a successful D-Day landing? Or look into what military and civilian intelligence organizations actually do?

 

[oldcatholicguy]

I think that a lot of what we saw with that was after the Reconquista, and was more related to what we might now call national security than religion. **Other more isolated instances were to protect people’s eternal souls as well. **

I don’t know that what you say about Islam’s attitude towards non-Moslems is accurate. To be sure, the Koran differentiates between “People of the Book” and those who have other religions, but istm that they forced converion onto a couple of reporters who from our point of view would be secular but from what I can gather of their point of view would be seen as Christian.

Assuming that this is correct, I would say only that we have since cleaned up our acts *as a result of our Christian Faith. *

IOW, I see Christianity as having been a sort of fertilizer allowing a garden to grow. Yes, there were times when this or that was happening, but Christianity is at the core, is in fact the impetus or engine for a culture which *rejected *those acts.

Mind citing where the bold is allowed or supported by the Church’s teachings?

 

[St_Francis]

Mind citing where the bold is allowed or supported by the Church’s teachings?

Yes, I was talking about the prosecution of heretics when they were leading others astray.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Yes, I was talking about the prosecution of heretics when they were leading others astray.

Thanks for the clarification. I wouldn’t really group that in with forced conversions since the heretics were already Catholic.

 

[JB_Dugan]

The history of the Roman Catholic Church, the Papacy, and Medieval History itself are wonderful studies.

Of course there was war and violence…and yes the Church was involved…but for the most part the atrocities and destruction was the responsibility of secular governments and power hungry nobility. These entities used the Church as an excuse or in some cases pressured popes to support them. Don’t be quick to blame the Church.

The Crusades began as a noble cause. They deteriorated as kings and princes saw them as a land grab or a source of bounty. I think it is ironic that liberal scholars today are so quick to condemn the Crusades yet support something like the currently failed War on Poverty. These folks tend to judge things on their good intentions and not their achievements.

But I digress and this is, well…ancient history.

As St Francis says a few posts back:

What the Christians did was wrong. We were able to tell it was wrong because we had a set body of teachings against which to measure, and these teachings showed the wrongness of what we were doing. And gradually we assimilated the teachings into our actions and laws.

Essentially we became civilized. Islam did not. They are still wallowing in 7th century barbarianism.

Think about it…

In the past few centuries how many “religious” wars have been fought within Western culture? When was the last time the Church led a war of conquest against another religion? Today we are facing this Islamic “pseudo religion” with no borders, waging an unjustified war of terror against anyone who will not accept their laws.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Think about it…

In the past few centuries how many “religious” wars have been fought within Western culture? When was the last time the Church led a war of conquest against another religion? Today we are facing this Islamic “pseudo religion” with no borders, waging an unjustified war of terror against anyone who will not accept their laws.

Mind explaining how a non-centralized non-state religion without a governing body, let alone a leader, and deep internal divides between the two major sects is somehow waging a war against “anyone who will not accept their laws”?

 

[JB_Dugan]

Mind explaining how a non-centralized non-state religion without a governing body, let alone a leader, and deep internal divides between the two major sects is somehow waging a war against “anyone who will not accept their laws”?

Gee, that’s a good question. Now you have me thinking…

I wonder how a “non-centralized non-state religion without a governing body, let alone a leader, and deep internal divides between the two major sects” could plan and execute an attack as efficiently deadly as 9/11…???

or…the hundreds of terror attacks worldwide in the last few years…???

Maybe they are really good at what they do…(what else do they do anyway?)

and,maybe…,we are foolishly being tolerant and non-judgmental of this kind of brutal behavior.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Gee, that’s a good question. Now you have me thinking…

I wonder how a “non-centralized non-state religion without a governing body, let alone a leader, and deep internal divides between the two major sects” could plan and execute an attack as efficiently deadly as 9/11…???

or…the hundreds of terror attacks worldwide in the last few years…???

Maybe they are really good at what they do…(what else do they do anyway?)

and,maybe…,we are foolishly being tolerant and non-judgmental of this kind of brutal behavior.

Last I checked terrorists were responsible for terrorist attacks, not Islam. Do you seriously wish to get into a discussion in which a religion is blamed for the actions of it’s followers or those who claim to follow it? I personally think such discussions are rather silly since they assume a religion is somehow responsible for the actions of all its members (real members and members in name only), but I’m more than willing to engage in such a discussion if it shows you how uninformed your current position is.

 

[JB_Dugan]

Last I checked terrorists were responsible for terrorist attacks, not Islam. Do you seriously wish to get into a discussion in which a religion is blamed for the actions of it’s followers or those who claim to follow it? I personally think such discussions are rather silly since they assume a religion is somehow responsible for the actions of all its members (real members and members in name only), but I’m more than willing to engage in such a discussion if it shows you how uninformed your current position is.

Last I checked those terrorists were all Muslim men who proudly shouted “allah akabar”.

I really do not want to get into a discussion involving "religion"either. As I stated a few posts back…I do not consider Islam to be a religion. I view it as a political ideology masking itself as a religion. To raise the acceptance of barbarianism to the level of religion is absurd.

If you want to continue this and “inform” me, I am always willing to learn.

Let’s start with this position:** It is not nice to deliberately fly airplanes into buildings and kill innocent people.**

 

[St_Francis]

Last I checked terrorists were responsible for terrorist attacks, not Islam. Do you seriously wish to get into a discussion in which a religion is blamed for the actions of it’s followers or those who claim to follow it? I personally think such discussions are rather silly since they assume a religion is somehow responsible for the actions of all its members (real members and members in name only), but I’m more than willing to engage in such a discussion if it shows you how uninformed your current position is.

There is one point you are missing. When members of group X do bad things which are *forbidden *by the parameters of group X, then their behavior cannot be attributed to being members of group X, nor can X-ism be responsible for their actions.

The issue wrt Islam is that the bad guys (terrorists and others) claim to be acting *in accord with *the teachings of Islam and for Islam.

Thus the question is: is Islam a religion which advocates or mandates these types of behaviors or not?

 

[oldcatholicguy]

There is one point you are missing. When members of group X do bad things which are *forbidden *by the parameters of group X, then their behavior cannot be attributed to being members of group X, nor can X-ism be responsible for their actions.

The issue wrt Islam is that the bad guys (terrorists and others) claim to be acting *in accord with *the teachings of Islam and for Islam.

Thus the question is: is Islam a religion which advocates or mandates these types of behaviors or not?

The consensus (and we have to use a consensus since one of the flaws of Islam is the lack of a central authority) of Islamic scholars (both those who are Muslim and those who are not), theologians (same here as scholars), Islamic history, and Islamic societies is that these individuals and groups are not acting within the parameters of the Islamic faith.

 

[St_Francis]

The consensus (and we have to use a consensus since one of the flaws of Islam is the lack of a central authority) of Islamic scholars (both those who are Muslim and those who are not), theologians (same here as scholars), Islamic history, and Islamic societies is that these individuals and groups are not acting within the parameters of the Islamic faith.

What about Mohammed and his behavior?

 

[oldcatholicguy]

What about Mohammed and his behavior?

Which behavior?

 

[Contarini]

i think Western culture has looked at the beam. What do you think was the impetus for the numerous rules we have anout warfare, including *the prohibition on targeting civilians? The prohibition of resistance forces from hiding behind civilians? *

What the Christians did was wrong. We were able to tell it was wrong because we had a set body of teachings against which to measure, and these teachings showed the wrongness of what we were doing. And gradually we assimilated the teachings into our actions and laws.

However, Islam has a different set if teachings, and the teachings do not condemn or even support much of what we regard as the worst of what Moslems do, including lying to the enemy.

Then how do you explain the outpouring of condemnation of 9/11 by Islamic authorities?

The leading experts in Islamic law made it clear that this kind of mass attack on civilians is beyond the pale.

Islamic law has more detailed prescriptions on the limits of warfare, if anything, than Christianity does. That is also a problem, because it means that traditional Muslims are more locked into the use of force as part of their tradition than Christians are. But you are simply showing your ignorance of the Islamic tradition when you say this.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Last I checked those terrorists were all Muslim men who proudly shouted “allah akabar”.

I really do not want to get into a discussion involving "religion"either. As I stated a few posts back…I do not consider Islam to be a religion. I view it as a political ideology masking itself as a religion. To raise the acceptance of barbarianism to the level of religion is absurd.

If you want to continue this and “inform” me, I am always willing to learn.

Let’s start with this position:** It is not nice to deliberately fly airplanes into buildings and kill innocent people.**

Indeed. And pretty much all leading Islamic authorities agree with you.

Now let’s talk about a “religion.” What is a “religion”? On what do you base this definition? You speak as if “religion” were some sort of merit badge that you award at your pleasure.

Edwin