Islam supports religious freedom than Catholic

[r.gonzales]

shockerfan:

Since I don’t consider any of the options acceptable, I support our country’s war on terrorism.

you mean your country’s current attempts at imperial expansion, hegemony, and war on islam. and as my brother in faith, shenango, mentioned, the muslim state is the authority to declare war on others, not “ragtag” bands of extremists who twist religious texts, mininterpreting and misusing them to suit their vain desires and ill intents.

Wolseley:

The article in that link has so many errors in it, I don’t know where to begin.

i was more interested in the descriptions of the forms of punishment used… not the other details mentioned in the article, which is why i gave that link. if i was more interested in factual details of what went on during the various inquisitions carried out by catholics throughout the years (other than those of the methods of punishment used), i would have provided a link that was a tad more credible than “rotten.com”.

St.Eric:

The command of endless “Jihad” pretty much puts tolerance in the category of “lip service.”

as has been mentioned numerous times already, the concept of jihaad in islam is a vast one and includes many different types and levels. the command to fight the polytheists is one that has its conditions and restrictions, the main one being ability and strength. also, as i mentioned above, the third option given to opposing forces the muslim armies come upon in their offensive campaigns is fighting, not dying. the intent behind the fighting is not wanton killing, but rather to defeat and establish Allah’s laws and legislations upon the land.

as for what discipleofjesus mentioned, then his taking an issue that is differred upon by islam’s scholars (i.e., who the jizyah is taken from and who it isn’t) and trying to pass it off as what the correct islamic position regarding the issue is shows his ignorance regarding islamic beliefs. the magians/zoroastrians who chose to live as citizens of a muslim state are required to pay the jizyah, it’s not merely “a possibility”. taking the jizyah from non-muslim citizens of a muslim state is also required for members of other faiths as well, as is stated in the Quranic exegesis taiseer al-kareem ar-rahmaan by ibn naasir as-sa’dee. the three options given by the invading muslim army to anyone they come upon.

 

[St.Eric]

r.gonzales:

as has been mentioned numerous times already, the concept of jihaad in islam is a vast one and includes many different types and levels. the command to fight the polytheists is one that has its conditions and restrictions, the main one being ability and strength. also, as i mentioned above, the third option given to opposing forces the muslim armies come upon in their offensive campaigns is fighting, not dying. the intent behind the fighting is not wanton killing, but rather to defeat and establish Allah’s laws and legislations upon the land.

I think what we have here is a failure to communicate. I beleive the islamic notion of tolerance and freedom varies quite dramatically from the Western Christian notion of freedom and tolerance. You summed up your definition of freedom quite well above. It boils down to “you are free to practice your religion as long as it falls within the laws of allah…” That,my friend, is quite far from my definition of freedom. When I think of freedom, I think of Sir William Wallace…

 

[Rachel_Malloy]

Thank you for your patience as we contemplated this thread for it’s contribution to the Catholic Answers Forum.

The purpose and spirit of the NCR forum is to facilitate the dialogue between people of different religions. We embrace this dialogue, and are proud that we are one of the only Christian Forums which do so.

We do not hesitate to support those posters who, though they may not agree with the non-Catholic topic, post valid questions and comments in a well thought out and charitable way. It is possible to disagree with someone, and defend your beliefs without becoming uncharitable or hostile.

We expect non-Catholics who wish to post on CAF to uphold that standard of content and tone, and we would certainly expect no less from our Catholic posters.

There have been comments made which, seem to be examples of the equivalent of Anti-Catholics coming here, and telling us we follow the Anti-Christ and worship Mary the pagan queen and Rome is the Whore of Babylon. Posters who come here and espouse such claims, even have so called ‘evidence’ to support them.

The policy for this issue attempts to resolve it this way:

Members are not allowed to be disrespectful of anyone’s faith or religion, whether it is Catholicism or not. If a member is disrespectful, he will generally be counseled first and suspended if he persists in disrespectful postings.

If the nature of an initial posting is blatantly disrespectful to any religion (e.g., “the pope is the anti-Christ” or “Rome is the Whore of Babylon” or “Muslims are terrorists”), suspension may be immediate and without prior counseling.

Members are free to discuss, dialogue, question, disagree with, and debate the doctrines and dogmas of both Catholicism and non-Catholic religions. However, all discourse must be civil and charitable.

You can see the rest of this policy here

Again, the NCR is a place where people come to discuss other religions on fairly neutral ground. How else can good dialogue and the passing of quality information about other religions occur if the emotionally based dialogue isn’t avoided?

Please consider this as you continue this discussion.

 

[Darrel]

r.gonzales:

you mean your country’s current attempts at imperial expansion, hegemony, and war on islam. and as my brother in faith, shenango, mentioned, the muslim state is the authority to declare war on others, not “ragtag” bands of extremists who twist religious texts, mininterpreting and misusing them to suit their vain desires and ill intents.

I can’t understand this notion of imperial expansion. How are we doing this? We are letting the people of Iraq setup a government of there own and looking to scale down our presence. I think the real concern on the part of Islam is that the young people all over the middle east are sick and tired of Islamic rule. We are only helping them in the end.

On a side note.

In an earlier post you once again sited the ancient past in how Catholics commited attrocities. Is this relevent to today? Catholics will all admit the Church has does wrong in the past and that Islam does wrong in the present. I see a day coming when Islam will have to say they have done wrong in the past. It’s only a matter of time before Islam will have to change it’s ways if it wishes be a part of the civilized world. The people of Islam will eventualy put leaders in place who will actually have the best interest of the people in mind. It’s all just a matter of time and generational leader swapping. The old school seems to be fading fast in Islam.

-D

 

[r.gonzales]

St.Eric:

I think what we have here is a failure to communicate.

indeed. my reference to Allah’s laws and legislations being established were with specific regards to the laws and legislations that Allah has ordained with respect to government and society; such as laws to protect the state citizens’ welfares, properties and wealth, and honours, as well as the punishments prescribed and ordained for those who break these laws; such as theft, adultery, slander, drunkenness, murder, public indecency, etc.

Darrel:

We are letting the people of Iraq setup a government of there own and looking to scale down our presence. I think the real concern on the part of Islam is that the young people all over the middle east are sick and tired of Islamic rule. We are only helping them in the end.

firstly, what the u.s. and “coalition forces” have done was to remove the government that was there. they are now currently trying to install a government of their liking, with candidates hand picked to suit their interests; a government mind you that has nothing to do with islam and is rejected by it.

as for saddam husain and the supplanted iraqi government and what you call “islamic rule”, then they had nothing to do with islam either. they were ba’thist communists, which is also a form of government rejected by islam. as for your assertion that young people all over the middle east being sick and tired of islamic rule, while that might be true of those ignorant of their religion, for others like some of the youth in turkey and elsewhere, there is a growing want and need to be ruled under true islamic government, which you won’t find on the face of the earth in our current day and age in its complete form.

Darrel:

I see a day coming when Islam will have to say they have done wrong in the past. It’s only a matter of time before Islam will have to change it’s ways if it wishes be a part of the civilized world. The people of Islam will eventualy put leaders in place who will actually have the best interest of the people in mind. It’s all just a matter of time and generational leader swapping. The old school seems to be fading fast in Islam.

typical western thinking. perhaps reading some of edward w. said’s works would be beneficial to you (particularly “orientalism” and “covering islam”). f.y.i., the islamic empire was the civilized world back during the time when the west was in the dark ages, living as cavemen and barbarians. islam doesn’t need to be “part of today’s civilized world”. it already is.

today, the muslims of the world finds itself in a dire state, not because of islam… on the contrary, it’s because the vast majority of muslims–commoners and leaders–have moved away from islam and its tenets; they are ignorant of its teachings and beliefs.

 

[George_Waters]

r.gonzales,

You are correct; many horrible things have been down in the name of God in the past. I will neither condone or defend such ungodly actions by anyone, but the acts you cite were hundreds of years ago and the legislation you speak of is still a current reality.

I stumbled across something at the library last week that seems relevant to this conversation. It was a book, I am afraid I do not remember the title, that showed a 16th century painting in a Turkish museum. The caption read something to the effect of; Mohammed over seeing the execution of several Arabian Jews who refused to convert. I know this gives you very little to go on, and will try and find the book again, but assuming the caption is correct, why do you believe their faith was not respected and they were beheaded for not converting to Islam?

Peace,

George

 

[JOHNYJ]

No Islamic country in the world is known for defending freedom of religion, none.A muslim in Israel has more rights than a muslim in most muslim countries .One of the reasons Jerusalem must never be Muslim ! Is acess to the holy places wold be endangered if muslims were in charge of Jerusalem.

 

[Darrel]

r.gonzales:

.

today, the muslims of the world finds itself in a dire state, not because of islam… on the contrary, it’s because the vast majority of muslims–commoners and leaders–have moved away from islam and its tenets; they are ignorant of its teachings and beliefs.

I agree,

This is the whole point in a nutshell. The people are moving away from Islam and it’s tenets as you say. So what is the eventual outcome of this in time? Islam has no leader to unify anything, so a total implosion of Islamic ruled states is inevitable in the due course of time. Unlike the CC which has a leadership structure given from God, Islam simply splinters like the protestant church. Eventualy a large percentage of Islamic states will become liberal and cast away the laws of Islam. They won’t tolerate the sort of nonsense that comes from the Iranian president of late for example.

-D

 

[MugenOne]

Yup,

Just look at Bethlehem.

JOHNYJ:

No Islamic country in the world is known for defending freedom of religion, none.A muslim in Israel has more rights than a muslim in most muslim countries .One of the reasons Jerusalem must never be Muslim ! Is acess to the holy places wold be endangered if muslims were in charge of Jerusalem.

 

[shockerfan]

r.gonzales:

today, the muslims of the world finds itself in a dire state, not because of islam… on the contrary, it’s because the vast majority of muslims–commoners and leaders–have moved away from islam and its tenets; they are ignorant of its teachings and beliefs.

Who in Islam has the authority to state just what the definitive teachings and beliefs are? Who is the arbitor of disagreements within Islam?

 

[shockerfan]

r.gonzales:

you mean your country’s current attempts at imperial expansion, hegemony, and war on islam. and as my brother in faith, shenango, mentioned, the muslim state is the authority to declare war on others, not “ragtag” bands of extremists who twist religious texts, mininterpreting and misusing them to suit their vain desires and ill intents.

The same way you feel frustration with “westerners” who think Osama bin Laden’s view of Islam is the actual view of Islam, people like me feel frustration when you call our “war on terror” as a “war on Islam”. Simply look at our defense of the Bosnians (most Muslim) against Milosevic. How many times does Bush have to call Islam a ‘religion of peace’? The only Muslims who need to fear the US are those who believe they will get 72 virgins for murdering innocent people. You refer to them as the “ragtag bands of extremists”.

 

[cute2904]

Agree with shockerfan. They are willing to kill for 72 virgins… Pretty much worth I guess.

 

[Rachel_Malloy]

This thread is getting off topic.

Please review your comments for it’s contribution to the topic at hand.

Thanks-

Rachel

 

[Lance]

Prove it. Give specific examples within the past 50 years or else admit you have no proof and it is just your opinion.

 

[r.gonzales]

George Waters:

You are correct; many horrible things have been down in the name of God in the past. I will neither condone or defend such ungodly actions by anyone, but the acts you cite were hundreds of years ago and the legislation you speak of is still a current reality.

the islamic legislation i speak of is not the cause of the strife and tribulations being caused by extremists. the islamic legislation i speak of prohibits these things and puts things in place which prevent them. the source of these calamities are the extremists themselves and this is the point that too many people seem to miss altogether. extremists are extremists, they hold and advocate extreme views contrary to the religion’s teachings. every religion has them—including christianity; they take their religion’s texts, misinterpret and misuse them according to their diseased hearts’ desires. they exist within every religion, in every era throughout history—including present day—and are not a phenomenon specific to islam. the current focus however, is upon the extremists who claim adherence to islam, while all others are ignored and overlooked.
George Waters:

I stumbled across something at the library last week that seems relevant to this conversation. It was a book, I am afraid I do not remember the title, that showed a 16th century painting in a Turkish museum. The caption read something to the effect of; Mohammed over seeing the execution of several Arabian Jews who refused to convert. I know this gives you very little to go on, and will try and find the book again, but assuming the caption is correct, why do you believe their faith was not respected and they were beheaded for not converting to Islam?

i suspect the caption you found is in reference to what occurred with the tribe of banee quraidhah. from what i know, they weren’t killed because of their refusal to accept islam. they were killed on account of a judgement given by someone they chose to give it, sa’d bin mu’aadh. banee quraidhah was fought due to their betrayal of the treaty and covenant that existed between them and the muslims. when they broke this agreement, the muslims went to confront them. the muslims lay seige on their encampments and defeated them. thereafter they (the jews of banee quraidhah) agreed to have sa’d bin mu’aadh issue the verdict concerning their outcome.
quraan.com/index.aspx?tabindex=4&tabid=11&bid=7&cid=29

 

[r.gonzales]

Darrel:

The people are moving away from Islam and it’s tenets as you say.

no, they’re not moving away from it. they’ve already moved away from it, which is why you see many muslims being oppressed by other muslims as well as non-muslims, why you see corrupt muslim governments in power, and why you see muslim extremists being able to run a muck the way they currently are. what is needed is a return to islam and its tenets, where life, wealth, and people’s rights and honours are preserved and protected.

Darrel:

Islam has no leader to unify anything, so a total implosion of Islamic ruled states is inevitable in the due course of time.

islam’s authority is Allah’s book and the prophet’s sunnah. these things have been preserved and interpreted by those who received them. what is upon the muslims is to hear and obey—something they are not doing and haven’t been doing for quite some time.

Darrel:

Unlike the CC which has a leadership structure given from God, Islam simply splinters like the protestant church.

actually, christianity as a whole is just as splintered, if not more so, than islam despite your centralised catholic church leadership.

while islam gives allowance for differring in minor jurisprudential issues, muslims are prohibited from splitting from the main group of ahl as-sunnah and from splitting into groups or sects. however, this prohibition will not stop everyone from doing so—just as is the case with christianity and every other world religion. so don’t pretend that your faith is some sort of exception to the rule that is reality.

Darrel:

They won’t tolerate the sort of nonsense that comes from the Iranian president of late for example.

if you think that the iranian government is an example of “islamic” rule, you’re greatly mistaken, and that’s probably the reason why you—and many others—understand so little about islam and the muslims. but then again, that’s no great surprise considering the great orientalist tradition that continues until today, with the “west” representing the “east” to its peoples…

 

[r.gonzales]

Lance:

Prove it. Give specific examples within the past 50 years or else admit you have no proof and it is just your opinion.

using the quote function the site provides will aid others greatly in knowing who and what you’re referring to.

 

[Lance]

r.gonzales:

using the quote function the site provides will aid others greatly in knowing who and what you’re referring to.

I am talking about the topic of this thread which says that Islam supports religious freedom {better/more} than Catholic[ism]. :banghead:

 

[tomaskovarik]

TheProphet:

From the history and present situation, it’s proven that Islam stays to be the most peacful and tolerants religion. The Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) was promoting peace during his lifetime and is considered to be the most influential figure.

If you want to talk about religious tolerance, I would point out that Buddhism would be number one. This is the most peaceful religion of them all. Both Christianity and Islam are not very peaceful if you look at the history, unfortunately.
But Jesus was peaceful, christianity greatly distorted Jesus’ message (if you live by the sword, you will die by the sword).
We, as Christians are not proud of our bloody history, and judging from the current news, I don’t see much peace in Islam either.
So, it is Buddhism…but Buddhism is not really a theistic religion.
Tomas

 

[discipleofJesus]

r.gonzales:

as for what discipleofjesus mentioned, then his taking an issue that is differred upon by islam’s scholars (i.e., who the jizyah is taken from and who it isn’t) and trying to pass it off as what the correct islamic position regarding the issue is shows his ignorance regarding islamic beliefs. the magians/zoroastrians who chose to live as citizens of a muslim state are required to pay the jizyah, it’s not merely “a possibility”. taking the jizyah from non-muslim citizens of a muslim state is also required for members of other faiths as well, as is stated in the Quranic exegesis taiseer al-kareem ar-rahmaan by ibn naasir as-sa’dee. the three options given by the invading muslim army to anyone they come upon.

I recall you stated you are a Salafi Muslim on another thread? Am I correct?

I also recall that you linked to this Salafi Muslim website before as a reference islam-qa.com/

Well here is a quote from this same Salafi Muslim website. Let me know if there is anything wrong in it.

‘Question #34770: There is no compulsion to accept Islam’
63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=eng&ds=qa&lv=browse&QR=34770&dgn=4

This applies unless they are People of the Book, i.e., Jews and Christians, or Magians, because Islam says that these three groups may be given the choice: they may enter Islam or they may pay the jizyah and feel themselves subdued.
Some of the scholars are of the view that others may also be given the choice between Islam and jizyah, *but the most correct view is that **no others *** should be given this choice, rather these three groups are the only ones who may be given the choice, because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) fought the kuffaar in the Arabian Peninsula and he only accepted their becoming Muslim. And Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“But if they repent [by rejecting Shirk (polytheism) and accept Islamic Monotheism] and perform As-Salaah (Iqaamat-as-Salaah), and give Zakaah, then leave their way free. Verily, Allaah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful”
[al-Tawbah 9:5]
He did not say, “if they pay the jizyah”. The Jews, Christians and Magians are to be asked to enter Islam; if they refuse then they should be asked to pay the jizyah. If they refuse to pay the jizyah then the Muslims must fight them if they are able to do so. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allaah, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allaah and His Messenger (Muhammad), (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued”
[al-Tawbah 9:29]
And it was proven that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) accepted the jizyah from the Magians, but it was not proven that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) or his companions (may Allaah be pleased with them) accepted the jizyah from anyone except the three groups mentioned above.

The basic principle concerning that is the words of Allaah (interpretation of the meaning):

“And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism, i.e. worshipping others besides Allaah), and the religion (worship) will all be for Allaah Alone [in the whole of the world]”

[al-Anfaal 8:39]

“Then when the Sacred Months (the 1st, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islamic calendar) have passed, then kill the Mushrikoon (see V.2:105) wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush. But if they repent [by rejecting Shirk (polytheism) and accept Islamic Monotheism] and perform As-Salaah (Iqaamat-as-Salaah), and give Zakaah, then leave their way free. Verily, Allaah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful”

[al-Tawbah 9:5]

**This verse is known as Ayat al-Sayf (the verse of the sword).

These and similar verses abrogate the verses which say that there is no compulsion to become Muslim. **

And Allaah is the Source of strength.

Majmoo’ Fataawa wa Maqaalaat li’l-Shaykh Ibn Baaz, 6/219 (www.islam-qa.com)

Click on the link to read the full question and full answer.

You say

r.gonzales:

taking the jizyah from non-muslim citizens of a muslim state is also required for members of other faiths as well, as is stated in the Quranic exegesis taiseer al-kareem ar-rahmaan by ibn naasir as-sa’dee.

But the site I quoted says what I said earlier

Correct me and/or the site if we are wrong please.