Islam seems like such a tragedy.

[Bezant]

Yes, there are many elements of human involvement in Christianity like art…and the Magisterium, Sacred Tradition, Apostolic Succession, which are directly involved in the way the truth is interpreted and explained.

Don’t confuse “man-made” with “made-up.”

Certainly when it comes to the majority of those very examples you’ve given, man-made will certainly mean made-up. The Christian claim is that the magisterium, sacred Tradition and Apostolic succession are not man-made at all but divinely constituted (and innerrant and infallible). If this is not true and they are in fact man-made, then they are made-up and false.

While it’s true Tradition, the Magisterium, and Apostolic Succession are divinely guided and established, they are executed by men.

 

[Bezant]

So why are you calling those things “man-made?” There are many things in the world that are man-made, I’m trying to understand why you are calling Christianity “man-made?” The Magisterium, Sacred Tradition, Apostolic Succession, are only possible because of Jesus Christ and the guidance of the Holy Spirit. So why are you emphasising “man-made?”

Because if Islam open to criticism as a “man-made movement” Christianity is open to the same scrutiny.

 

[Marybeloved]

Because if Islam open to criticism as a “man-made movement” Christianity is open to the same scrutiny.

I’m not getting your point…All religions are open to scrutiny and questioning of their claims- That’s why CAF exists. That’s why it’s called Apologetics. I have never seen anywhere at CAF or this thread where anyone has tried to exempt Christianity from such scrutiny. Christians are well able to defend their faith in that department, no need to hide at all (CAF archives are filled with proof of this). Why exactly should questioning, refuting, denying Islam’s claims force us to say that Christianity is man-made?

It’s like you’re saying, if we deny Islam’s divine origin, then we have to also deny Christianity’s Divine origin…This reasoning is simply inaccurate. We can very much proclaim Islam’s non-divine origins while proclaiming Christianity’s Divine origins from the roof tops. People who question those Christian claims are free to do so and they are always met with formidable answers here at CAF and in many other places. Why exactly can’t Christians deny, refute, reject Islam as a man-made religion; And why should this denial/refutation/rejection mean that they must by the same token deny their own faith’s Divine origins just because they deny Islam’s?

 

[mike52ad]

Islam has always been not so mutch as a religion as a political force. The so called Prophet used it to conquer tribes and changed the beliefs to fit the situation. I pray daily that more Muslims find that their religion isn’t quite what it should be and that they come to Jesus.

I also pray for our fellow Christians in Muslim controlled lands, for they are becomming the true martyrs of our time.

 

[FabiusMaximus]

seems Muslims were in need of monotheism. too bad Christianity couldn’t have reached them first.

Actually, it did.

Christianity was the dominant religion in the Middle East and North Africa until the Islamic armies invaded those areas, slaughtered untold numbers of Christians, and forced the rest to convert to Islam.

 

[Moro_Rock]

Why do you think islam is needed at all to bring in line what you call the “the so-called Christian Western world?” What about Catholicism - is that not good enough?

Don’t forget militant secularism and “Islam with their extremism” have one thing in common, they both deny Jesus Christ as the Son of God.

When Muslims across the world see the pornography, t he promotion of the homosexual lifestyle , the untold millions of abortions, etc. their perception is that this is the product of the Christian West.
As we know this is not Christian but mainly the Secular political leadership pushing this agenda.

 

[FabiusMaximus]

Thanks for relating this important distinction. I agree there is nothing wrong with pointing out falsehoods, from the Catholic perspective, about Islam, Protestantism, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, or any other religion. Calling Islam a false religion is one thing, but bashing Islam, its beliefs, its holy book, its major prophet, and so on, I view as quite another matter.

The issue though is, who gets to determine what is considered “Islam-criticism” and “Islam-bashing”?

Some Christians might point out that the distinctions between the behavior of Jesus and Muhammad might warrant comparison, in order to determine which is a false or true religion - Muhammad’s personal life is often called into question. Is this legitimate criticism, or “bashing”?

How about criticism of the Qur’an? To some, mere criticism or questioning of the Qur’an’s holy status is sufficient to call it bashing.

I’m not really inclined to care about what a Muslim thinks of my opinions on his/her religion. Given that Muslim armies conquered half of the then-Christian world between 600-700 and again 1453-1683, and currently occupy the lands where four out of the five historic Christian patriarchates are established, I don’t know how they can really come and criticize “Christian oppression.”

 

[meltzerboy]

The issue though is, who gets to determine what is considered “Islam-criticism” and “Islam-bashing”?

Some Christians might point out that the distinctions between the behavior of Jesus and Muhammad might warrant comparison, in order to determine which is a false or true religion - Muhammad’s personal life is often called into question. Is this legitimate criticism, or “bashing”?

How about criticism of the Qur’an? To some, mere criticism or questioning of the Qur’an’s holy status is sufficient to call it bashing.

I’m not really inclined to care about what a Muslim thinks of my opinions on his/her religion. Given that Muslim armies conquered half of the then-Christian world between 600-700 and again 1453-1683, and currently occupy the lands where four out of the five historic Christian patriarchates are established, I don’t know how they can really come and criticize “Christian oppression.”

I can’t speak for others, but for me, Islam-bashing involves a type of criticism which bypasses that based on documented evidence or informed hypothesis, but instead involves an overzealous tone of anger, sarcasm, and name-calling, in addition to a dishonest interpretation which pulls verses from the Qur’an out of context and intentionally misinterprets passages to conform to one’s preconceived ideas.

 

[Armyvet007]

I can’t speak for others, but for me, Islam-bashing involves a type of criticism which bypasses that based on documented evidence or informed hypothesis, but instead involves an overzealous tone of anger, sarcasm, and name-calling, in addition to a dishonest interpretation which pulls verses from the Qur’an out of context and intentionally misinterprets passages to conform to one’s preconceived ideas.

Agreed. “Finger pointing” designed only to point out the flaws within Islam and with no intent to help those in error [Muslims] see the error. Completely different then the “finger pointing” to errors with the intent to help those in error [Muslims] see and understand the error and hopefully lead them to the Church.

 

[Trebor135]

I can’t speak for others, but for me, Islam-bashing involves a type of criticism which bypasses that based on documented evidence or informed hypothesis, but instead involves an overzealous tone of anger, sarcasm, and name-calling, in addition to a dishonest interpretation which pulls verses from the Qur’an out of context and intentionally misinterprets passages to conform to one’s preconceived ideas.

I applaud this post, Meltzerboy. It expresses my sentiments on the matter very well–and I believe strongly in the essential nature of conducting apologetics vis-à-vis Islam from a Christian perspective.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

The reason why Islam spread so rapidly in the beginning was the result of several things. The armies of Islam did conquer a lot of land in order to spread their new faith, some nations had had enough of the Byzantine rule and opened their doors freely, others did put up a fight but were defeated. You had the patriarch in Constantinople who didn’t take Islam seriously and thought it was merely just another Christian heresy. But the big reason was that the East really never answered the Arian problem in the East and in north Africa. So when Islam spread to those areas getting converts was easy; Arian Christians already denied Christ’s divinity so it was easy for them to accept the message of the prophet. Essentially the lands in the East and in North Africa couldn’t give an account of themselves and hence they fell to Islam.

The tragedy of Islam is that right away after the death of the Prophet you had these power plays on the part of his successors. You had Abu Baker basically naming himself as Caliph and stealing an election while the Prophet’s son-in-law and daughter had yet to bury him. Abu Baker, Umar(whom AbuBaker had named as Caliph without an election), & Uthman(who was chosen over Ali by a select group of six) all died violently and it could be argued that Uthman in his attempt to place himself on par with the Prophet had altered or edited the Quran and the Haddith to reflect his religious and political views. Ali’s caliphate was a rough one where he spent most of his time trying to put down rebellions.

The split that resulted from these maneuvers on the parts of these men split the Ummah very early on into the Shia(followers of Ali and Fatima) and the Sunni(those who had allegiance to the other Caliphs).

If your interested here is audio from a history professor from Kenrick-Glennon Seminary:michaeljohnwitt.com/ Shows 10 & 11 deal specifically with the rise and spread of Islam and the Caliphs.