Moderate Islam: Great Article

[pro_universal]

First, since you’re quoting a Papal Bull - which is not doctrine of the Christian faith - from the 15th century

Read the document. The Pope clearly thought it was sanctioned by the Christian teaching.

Second, the Inter Caetera was not promoting Christian expansion for the sake of Christian expansion,

Read the bull. It is so explicitly clear that conquest for the sake of spreading Christianity is a good thing that there is no possible way to maintain this claim.

You didn’t answer my question. When did Byzantium attack Islamic forces and provoke a defensive war on the part of Muslims?

They had just finished wiping out the Persian empire, and given time, would have been poised to wipe out anything good the muslims created. The fact that Byzantium was expanding constantly and brutally suppressing all religions other than its own represented a threat to anyone nearby.

I was trying to respect the sensitivities of the Eastern Orthodox. In order to claim that the Eastern Churches are anathema you would have to believe that the Roman Church is the legitimate authority of God since they both excommunicated each other. Is that you’re position?

The issue is what the Crusaders thought, not what we think. I am saying that the pretense of defending Christian neighbors is a farce, because they had just recently declared the Eastern Church anathema.

In some cases Christians sin, in other cases Christians do not. Does it follow, then, that Christianity promotes sin?

No, now how can you not see the same reasoning applied to muslims and islam?

Furthermore, I never said that the Roman’s Imperialist expansion was acceptable. The fact that the moment Islam began it waged war against the world to conquer it says a lot about the religio

And as soon as Christianity had an army, it expanded to conquer the world too. The leader of the Christian faith has at least once in history explicitly stated that conquering “barbarous nations” for the purpose of spreading Christianity is divinely sanctioned.

So does the fact that Christian empires have been making war constantly throughout history, and that Popes have sanctioned said war, make Christianity evil?

Lowered taxes? Is this before or after non-Muslims were subject to dhimmitude?

After. The Jizya tax was far lower than the taxes levied by the Romans.

When Islam says that it’s a “religion of peace,” to where do we look? The first 1000 years of Islam’s existence was mired in wars of conquest and expansion.

And the comparison would be this: As soon as Christians gained any political power, they started making war. And the places they conquered did not get the option of becomming tax-payers to keep their religion. So for most of history, there was far less religious freedom and more oppressive taxation in the lands run by Christians than muslims.

Does that make our Church teaching bad?

 

[murtad]

pro_universal:

Muhammad battled tribes that tried to kill him and wipe out Islam. Had Christians the power to do this, would they have been unjustified in doing it?

Its strange to see a Christian suddenly defend Islam.

Let us ask you some questions:

Question #1
Why did Muhammad not opt for martyrdom? Did he not know it is better to be killed by our enemies like these great personalities before him such as Lord Jesus, St. Peter, St. Paul, St. Justin Martyr and St John Chrysostom? These people all gave their lives willingly not resisted the Emperors.

Question #2
Why did those tribes try to kill Muhammad?

[Note: In the first 400 years of the Great Commission within the Roman Empire, the only time Christians were killed is by those who did not like their followers to become Christians (as happens in modern Muslim-majority lands) but Christians did not resist and accepted martyrdom. The Church canonised all these suffering servants who accepted death without resistance as saints. This still remains policy, if you want sainthood you must be someone who accepts death without resisting (ie. fighting back) your killers. So, I can conclude Muhammad provoked the tribes to kill him. This is no different like Lord Jesus, St Paul and St. John Chrysostom provoked the Jews to kill him. But why should Muhammad kill the tribes when he provoked them first by missionising them? Should not he have willingly accepted death like St. John Chrysostom?]

Question #3
Why did Muhammad not allow those tribes to kill him? Did he not want to follow St. John Chrysostom and St. Paul method of democratically conquering Roman Empire?

Question #4
Why are you suddenly defending Islam ?

pro_universal:

The question is: does the teaching of Christianity prevent christians from making war in the name of their religion? The answer is a clear no. This is also true for Islam.

Answer for your first question is correctly no but this is not true for Islam. Islam does allow war (called injust war) as Muhammad provoked the tribes to kill him, then he massacred them utterly, rather than willing accepting death like St. John Chrysostom, St. Paul or St. Peter before him.

The same goes for Muhammad’s four companions who became his successors, the rightly guided Caliphs of Islam (who are like the 12 Christian Apostles). Whether Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman or Ali their rampaging mobs provoked war (called injust war) when they invaded the predominantly non-Arab Byzantine territories. So, its natural Christian armies have to resort to just war to defend their territory and the Church.

This led to a 1,000 year war between Christian and Muslims, a just war waged by the former and an injust war waged by the latter. Ultimately the good prevailed when Christian General Allenby defeated the Caliph of Islam in 1924 C.E. and seized all the lands Islam stole from Christians and abolished jizyah and kharaj as well as dividing the Muslims into 57 sects.

So, for the time being we are safe as Muslims have 57 Caliphs fighting among themselves for leadership over the Ummah. This is why Islamists today are weak - there is power struggle among themselves for leadership over Ummah (aka the Islamic Church).

We, Christians, OTOH are united. We have the 5 veto powers in the U.N. Security Council and NATO.

 

[pro_universal]

Question #1
Why did Muhammad not opt for martyrdom?

Maybe because if preventing unjust killing can be done, it should be done. There is no Christian principle that prevents this.

Question #2
Why did those tribes try to kill Muhammad?

Because they didn’t want anyone capable of challenging their authority. Persecution of religious minorities is a hallmark of unjust governments.

Question #3
Why did Muhammad not allow those tribes to kill him? Did he not want to follow St. John Chrysostom and St. Paul method of democratically conquering Roman Empire?

This is the same as question 1. Rome was not “democratically conquered.” The Emperor converted because of a vision, and by the end of that same century, all religions besides Christianity were outlawed on pain of death. That’s how Rome became Christian, not by a vote.

Question #4
Why are you suddenly defending Islam ?

Because these are human beings who worship God, and they are being attacked from all corners of the world. It is wrong for us to participate in the dogpiling that is going on right now against muslims.

So, its natural Christian armies have to resort to just war to defend their territory and the Church.

The Byzantines did not fight a just war. They would’ve had to be good leaders who protected their people to do that, and they weren’t. They were mostly corrupt, imposed crushing taxes, and murdered anyone who disagreed with the Emperor’s religion.

This led to a 1,000 year war between Christian and Muslims, a just war waged by the former and an injust war waged by the latter.

There was no such 1000 year war. Alliances shifted, with Christians working with Muslims, muslims working with Christians, etc. The divisions were purely political for most of that time, which is why Europeans supported the Ottomans at some times and fought them at others.

We, Christians, OTOH are united. We have the 5 veto powers in the U.N. Security Council and NATO.

We’re so united that we killed 40 million people just 60 years ago. World War II is a lot closer in history than the conquest of North Africa by muslims.

What unites us now is money, not religion. Secularism rules the day, and I’m not so sure that’s the best way for us to live.

 

[murtad]

pro_universal:

Christianity allows for warfare in some cases, including in self defense or in defense of others.

Self defense doesn’t allow Christian Emperor to conquer territories by sword. This is true since Byzantine army did not conquer Russia, rather a team of missionaries led by a Greek named St. Cyril went there and conquered Russia democratically.

If there is no Christian Emperor, there is no self-defense. Then we are suffering servans like Lord Jesus, St Peter, St Paul, St Justin Martyr and St John Chrysostom who all accepted death willingly. They did not resist those who killed them for announcing the provocating truth.

This is very difference from Muhammad who provoked the tribes by prosetylising them proclaiming “Islam is a true religion. Everyone else are followers of Satan and will burn in hell”. When these tribes attacked him, he massacred them. This is against the teachings of Christian faith and is called injust war for he provoked the war but refused to accept death but in turn fought back.

pro_universal:

That has always been true in the Church’s teachings, and if you look at the map of the Christian world…you’ll find that it coincides quite nicely with the expansion of Christian armies.

If it was not done according to Church teachings, then it was never Christian in the first place. So, Christians and the Church are blameless for acts by Secular Emperors who did so in the name of Secularism.

There are two great models of a Christian conquest. First was the Byzantine Empire, which was conquered democratically (not by means of an invading army) in 400 years time. Second was the Russian Empire that was converted democratically by Byzantine missionaries without help from Byzantine army. Remember, the Greek monk who invented the Cyrillic alphabet? St. Cyril was the man who converted Russia by evangelism not by an invading army.

How about the British army that invaded America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Afrika? They did so out of material reasons and never out of love for Christian faith. This is why most of these lands are godless Protestants who endorse homosexual acts and even ordain homosexual Bishops. Such people are hardly Christian, in fact correctly called non-Christians. What Britain did is not the fault of the Catholic Church or Christians for Britain divorced from the Catholic Church in the time of King Henry.

pro_universal:

All major religions of the world have imperial histories.

This is false. For only Islam has an imperial history that began at the dawn of the 7th century C.E. right until the defeat of the Caliph of Islam at World War 1 in 1924 C.E. when the Islamic Empire was abolished and its lands divided into 57 sects.

Every other religion such as Christian faith, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism and Sikhism do not have imperial histories. If any imperialism occured, it was done by Secular Emperors in the name of Secularism not the Church.

Kindly remember how Buddhism spread? It spread just like the Christian faith, not by the physical sword but by the spiritual sword. The only difference between Buddhism and the Christian faith is the former forbids any kind of war (for war itself is a desire and so puts the person outside the fold of Buddhism). OTOH, Christian faith allows just war as long as it is directed by a lawful civil authority (ie Caesar, Csar, or Emperor). Without such direction, it becomes injust war (ie civil disobidience). Also, for a just war to remain just, the Emperor must impose just form of taxation meaning taxes must be equal for both Christians and non-Christians alike.

Islam, OTOH, imposes one tax for Muslims (called zakat), and two taxes for non-Muslims (called jizyah and kharaj). Kharaj is the most humilating form of taxation for its basis is all land conquered by Islam is owned by Muslims but merely “rented” out to Christians and Jews. If you notice, Islam has three types of taxes, zakat, jizyah and kharaj. The lowest tax is zakat, which is meant to help the poor Muslim. The other two taxes, Jizyah and kharaj are meant to milk the Christian of his money, to enrich the Muslims.

pro_universal:

It’s hypocritical and wrong to attack one for it without defaming the others as well.

It is not hypocritical nor wrong to “attack” a religion. It is however wrong of you to misuse English words and twist the meanings. The correct word that you should have used is “criticise” for we are not “attack” any religion. Only the Islamist apologists like to refer criticisms as an “attack” for Islam by nature cannot tolerate criticism towards it. I know this for a fact as I live in a Muslim-majority nation.

 

[murtad]

pro_universal:

Maybe because if preventing unjust killing can be done, it should be done. There is no Christian principle that prevents this.

You began with “Maybe…” so are you unsure of Catholic teachings? The CCC itself tells us that preventing unjust killing can only be done by a legal civil authority (called “Caesar” by our Lord Jesus). Suppose this civil authority is itself injust, what must we do? We must accept it as the will of God like our Lord who was killed via unjust means. Remember how he told Peter to put down his sword? This Christian principle considers those who seek to be martyrs like the Lord as saints.

Since Muhammad was never legal civil authority (called “Caesar”) for Arabian peninsula he did not any right to kill anyone and force them to pay taxes. Such forcing is called by civilised society ‘extortion’ and hallmark of ‘gangsterism’. So, when we Christians call Muhammad as a bully and a terrorist, it is no lie but the truth.

pro_universal:

Because they didn’t want anyone capable of challenging their authority. Persecution of religious minorities is a hallmark of unjust governments.

Muhammad if he was not a terrorist would “give unto Caesar” for those tribes were legal civil authority. Since Muhammad refused, he is not like our Lord Jesus, who obeyed Caesar and paid his taxes despite the fact the Romans were notorius persecutors of the Jewish people. Our Lord’s rivals, Pharisees refused to pay tribute to Caesar and ultimately this led to their Temple in Jerusalem to be utterly destroyed. IMO, the Pharisees are not much different from the Islamists today who refused to pay tribute to America and the United Nations. This led to 9/11 attacks on New York, the capital of United Nations and subsequently forced U.S.-led anti-terrorism coalition to invade Afganistan and Iraq to depose the Islamists and occupy their lands.

pro_universal:

This is the same as question 1. Rome was not “democratically conquered.”

When you say that, you tell us that you do not even know what “democratically conquered” means Its meaning is very simple: The Lord Jesus preached a simple command that is to make disciples of every nation conquering the heart, mind and soul of Roman subjects, to ultimately convert the Emperor. This is what we call evangelism.

pro_universal:

The Emperor converted because of a vision, and by the end of that same century, all religions besides Christianity were outlawed on pain of death.

What you say is not true. The Emperor only converted in the 4th century C.E. and moved his capital to the East because he saw the silent majority were now Christians and this could give him political career. You and other readers may wonder why did not Vespasion whose army destroyed the Temple in 70 C.E. convert to the religion of terrorists who were attacking Rome? The answer is obvious Of course if Vespasion converted to Judaism, the Temple on Mount Moryah will be still be standing today

Any student of political science will know the secret to any dictators’ success to rule for long periods of time is to maintain support of the majority. The Shah of Iran is an example of a dictator who failed to gain support of majority and so was toppled by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, another dictator who had support of majority.

pro_universal:

That’s how Rome became Christian, not by a vote.

Again, you show us your ignorance Democracy need not happen by a vote. Look up the word “democracy” and you will see it means people rule. German Democratic Republic, Singapore and Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea are ruled by communist dictatorships yet are called democracies. Democracy is about winning the hearts, souls and minds of subjects not by vote. If you can convince the majority not to oppose your rule, you can rule forever. In Singapore, 90% parliamentary seats are won by PAP uncontested. Subjects do not hate to vote for their government, which wins by default. PAP has ruled 40 years uncontested and unchallenged.

 

[murtad]

pro_universal:

Yes they did. They treated the Monophysites like dogs and engaged in war after war, weakening the people’s support for their unjust regime.

Whoa. Your hatred of dogs shows you are Islamist. For “dogs” have always been the best friend of man. Our Lord Jesus commanded Christians to be like dogs to the Emperor by his command “Give unto the Emperor”. So, if the Byzantines treated the monophysites (both Syriacs and Coptics) like dogs, it was as a compliment.

If you study Byzantine history, you will see that monophysites and Jews alike as non-Christians were treated with respect for our Lord commanded us to love your enemies. In fact there were so many Jews living inside Byzantine territory in the years before Islamic invasion?

Now, there were some monophysites who were persecuted and this was mainly because they claimed to be Christians. Under Byzantine law, the use of the TRADEMARKS “Christian”, “Catholic” and “Church” was only allowed for members of the Holy, Catholic Church as these words were owned by the Emperor.

No Jewish or monophysite person could call himself “Christian” or “Catholic” and call his houses of worship, “Church”. If he did, he broke the law and was executed by the Roman sword. That is not persecution, it was protecting society from corruption and confusion. If you not recognised Christian in the eyes of the Emperor, how can you call yourself Christian? If you do, that is disobidience to the Emperor.

Byzantine society offered more freedom of religion that Islamic societies. You can see monophysites had right to exist as long as they called themselves monophysites, a term they refused to call themselves. They wanted to call themselves “Catholics” and this was not allowed. Thus many were executed.

Suppose you Pro-Universal lived in Byzantine society, you too could be executed as you are hardly Catholic but Islamist. An Islamist has no right to use the words “Catholic”, “Christian”, and “Church” which are trademarks of Vatican.

pro_universal:

The muslims did in fact do better for heretical christians, poor orthodox, and jews.

The Islamists did not treat non-Muslims better. Otherwise how come monophysite-majority Egypt became Islamist-majority? Why did Islamists kill those Muslims who wanted to become monophysite? Simply because Islamist law was worse than Byzantine law! The Islamic Empire murdered monophysites who converted to Islam and back to monophysite belief again. Islamic law was clearly worse: ONCE BECOME MUSLIM, YOU CAN NEVER REVERT BACK TO MONOPHYSITE EVER AGAIN.

Also, I ask you: what do you mean by poor orthodox? FYI, the Orthodox (called today as Greek Orthodox) were the rulers of the Byzantine Empire? Your lack of knowledge of Byzantine history and your own confusion between Roman Catholic, Orthodox, monophysite and Jews tells us a lot about you.

Roman Catholics ruled the Western Europe, while the Orthodox ruled the Byzantine Empire. In fact, Orthodox resisted Islamic invasion of Egypt but they suffered terribly due to persecution by monophysites and Muslims who ransacked Orthodox churches.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[Vintagecoils]

Well based on all that has been said I say this:

1. I am glad that though Christianity has its splits and reformations, fundamentalists, crusades and down right crazies associated with it the Promise of Christ that the gates of hell shall not prevail against his Church holds true. (could that be the sign that it is the true faith of God? I think so)
2. As far as the post article taliking about islam being the fastest growing religion i think they are not looking far enough down the road.
   a. as Islamic countries become more western, rich and leaning to democracy as many are the door of assylum will close.
   b. If you have not heard African Americans numbers are on the decline and are no longer the lead in minorities. Tey were ther contibuting to the conversion of Islam. Also as AfricanAmerican become more affluent they ae less likely to convert. Much of the conversions were in rejection of white america and its religion. Additionally there is growing social problems between Arabs and African Americans. I also would not lump that nationalist black muslum group to the islam from the middle east as ignorant whites do.
   c. Thirdly the fastest growing minority in the U. S. happens to hail from Catholic countries(south America, mexico and christian assylumseekers from south east asia) and are more ap to stay Catholic or drift to other forms of christianity and not as likely to convert to Islam.
   d. Fourth many many Islamic countries are growing harder or down right intolerant of christians(such as Irag). The assylum door is opening for them because of this.
   e. Eastern Europe countries like romania and bulgaria stemmed the tide of the islamic move into Europe in the 1400’s and they have not forgotten. Those imagrants have had the doors to America open to them because of helping in the war. They will also get into the European Union before Turkey.
   f. Finally, many americans are becoming aware faster than Europeans of the demographics going on there. Americans will react strongly just like that Dubia deal has shown. Americans will not be turning the country over to Islam and is more ap to react strongly to the pleas that we accomadate Islam on any large scale.

 

[Contarini]

murtad:

If you study Byzantine history, you will see that monophysites and Jews alike as non-Christians were treated with respect for our Lord commanded us to love your enemies. In fact there were so many Jews living inside Byzantine territory in the years before Islamic invasion?

Yes, and they were persecuted with increasing viciousness.

Now, there were some monophysites who were persecuted and this was mainly because they claimed to be Christians.

Which they were!

No Jewish or monophysite person could call himself “Christian” or “Catholic” and call his houses of worship, “Church”. If he did, he broke the law and was executed by the Roman sword. That is not persecution, it was protecting society from corruption and confusion. If you not recognised Christian in the eyes of the Emperor, how can you call yourself Christian? If you do, that is disobidience to the Emperor.

Truly bizarre. I wish your post was a spoof. I’ve certainly seen many spoofs that were less ridiculous.

To say that the Emperor gets to define who is “Christian” is persecution. Period. No argument about it.

Byzantine society offered more freedom of religion that Islamic societies.

This depends on which period we are talking about and which Islamic society we are talking about. But the historians I have read (especially Marshall Hodgson’s The Venture of Islam) indicate that at least at the time of the conquest this was definitely not true. As pro_universal says, religious minorities and the poor generally fared better–the poll tax on dhimmis was fairer and less exorbitant than the Byzantine taxes (again, I’m relying on secondary sources such as Hodgson for this). Attempts to convert the subject peoples did not begin on a large scale until the Abbasid period, and even then it was a fairly gradual process with little direct coercion (with some major exceptions such as the mad Fatimite caliph Al-Hakim).

You can see monophysites had right to exist as long as they called themselves monophysites, a term they refused to call themselves. They wanted to call themselves “Catholics” and this was not allowed. Thus many were executed.

This is really one of the most pathetic examples of spin control I’ve ever seen. How could they call themselves monophysites when they didn’t think that was what they were?

Justinian’s armies massacred men, women, and children. This was a monstrous atrocity. Any attempt to claim otherwise is immoral.

The Islamists did not treat non-Muslims better. Otherwise how come monophysite-majority Egypt became Islamist-majority?

The far more interesting question is–why did it happen so slowly and why are there so many Christians in Egypt today?

Of course the Muslims repressed non-Muslim religions. If anyone claims that Muslims practiced complete toleration, they are crazy. The claim is made by historians such as Hodgson that the Muslims were considerably more tolerant than Christians of the same era. I’m not sure this is fair–Christian policies differed widely and on the whole were not that different from those of Muslims, I’d argue. Nonetheless, it is remarkable (given the claims of Islam) that non-Muslims prospered as much as they did under Islamic rule. (And yes, the same is true for Jews in Christian countries until the later Middle Ages, when Christian policies took a marked turn for the worse in most areas.)

Why did Islamists kill those Muslims who wanted to become monophysite? Simply because Islamist law was worse than Byzantine law!

Are you suggesting that it was OK according to Byzantine law for a Christian to abandon the Faith? That would truly surprise me.

Also, I ask you: what do you mean by poor orthodox?

I presume he means Orthodox people who were poor. In other words, not only religious minorities but even Orthodox people who did not have socially privileged positions suffered from heavy taxation and government oppression under the Byzantine Empire–and on the whole their lot was better under Islamic rule, at least early on. (The Islamic caliphs increasingly came to act like any other absolute monarchs.)

I don’t know if this is entirely accurate or not. But it is the impression I’ve received from Hodgson, who was a recognized expert on Islamic history. I want to read more to get other perspectives.

I’m aware of the danger of well-meaning Christians such as myself whitewashing Islam (a favor very few Muslims are likely to return). The only thing that will serve the cause of the Gospel is truth. But when the facts are not entirely clear, the only thing for us to do is to err (if we must err) on the side of charity. That is not the attitude I see prevalent on this board.

Edwin

 

[cestusdei]

How many Christians of any kind are left in the heartland of Byzantium today? How many Jews? I think the answer says it all as to who were the most vicious persecutors.

 

[mike182d]

pro_universal:

Read the document. The Pope clearly thought it was sanctioned by the Christian teaching.

Are you saying a Pope cannot be wrong in his opinions? A Papal Bull is not Christian doctrine.

Read the bull. It is so explicitly clear that conquest for the sake of spreading Christianity is a good thing that there is no possible way to maintain this claim.

Read Catholic theology regarding doctrine. It is so explicitely clear that just because a Pope says something doesn’t mean its true or a belief of the Christian faith that is to be adhered to necessarily.

They had just finished wiping out the Persian empire, and given time, would have been poised to wipe out anything good the muslims created. The fact that Byzantium was expanding constantly and brutally suppressing all religions other than its own represented a threat to anyone nearby.

And…that gives Muslims from an entirely different nation the right to conquer them and subdue them, why?

The issue is what the Crusaders thought, not what we think. I am saying that the pretense of defending Christian neighbors is a farce, because they had just recently declared the Eastern Church anathema.

Ever heard of reconciliation? There were several motives for Pope Urban II calling the Crusades. Unlike early Islam, when Christians fall from the faith the Church doesn’t cut them off permanently from the Church - figuratively or literally. Pope Urban II was trying to *reconcile *the split by coming to their aid in a time of desperate need. Reconciliation is not a new concept and is continuing as we speak with Pope Benedict XVI trying to bring the Eastern Orthodox back.

No, now how can you not see the same reasoning applied to muslims and islam?

Because, the authenticity of a religion is in relation to the founders and its beginnings. Christ and the first several hundred years before Muslim invasions was a *peaceful *religion. Christianity did not take up arms against to conquer nations. The Romans did, but not Christianity and there is a difference. For instance, when America fought Britain in the Revolutionary war, that was not a “Christian” war even though both nations were Christian. Christianity and the Western world seperates the Church from the State while Islam does not. Thus, if a Christian today were to attack a member of another religion, we can say he was being very un-Christian because that’s not what Jesus would have done. When a Muslim attacks enemies of his faith, we can say he was being very un-Muslim because…of Muhammed? Of Abu Bakr? Of the first thousand years of Islam in which the religion was in a constant state of war against everyone? Who do you point to as an example of peace?

And as soon as Christianity had an army, it expanded to conquer the world too. The leader of the Christian faith has at least once in history explicitly stated that conquering “barbarous nations” for the purpose of spreading Christianity is divinely sanctioned.

What? When did Christianity have an army? Spain isn’t “Christianity.” The armies of King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella weren’t armies of “Christianity” they were armies of “Spain,” which held its own autonomy and own interests apart from the Church in Rome.

So does the fact that Christian empires have been making war constantly throughout history, and that Popes have sanctioned said war, make Christianity evil?

Which Christian Empire are you talking about? The Holy Roman Empire that fizzled out in the early Middle Ages? The Roman Empire after it had made Christianity its official religion? Unles the Vatican city states have formed a military powerhouse and invaded the whole of Europe, there is no Christian empire.

And the comparison would be this: As soon as Christians gained any political power, they started making war.

No, they did not.

If Islam is so peaceful and tolerant of religions, why did the Caliph of Egypt destroy the Catholic Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem? Why were Christians trying to visit the Holy Land attacked, robbed, and killed?

 

[mike182d]

pro_universal:

Does that make our Church teaching bad?

Since you’re found of quotes:

From the Hanafi school (as given in the Hidayah of Shaikh Burhanuddin Ali of Marghinan, d. 1196) [13]

"It is not lawful to make war upon any people who have never before been called to the faith, without previously requiring them to embrace it, because the Prophet so instructed his commanders, directing them to call the infidels to the faith, and also because the people will hence perceive that they are attacked for the sake of religion, and not for the sake of taking their property, or making slaves of their children, and on this consideration it is possible that they may be induced to agree to the call, in order to save themselves from the troubles of war… If the infidels, upon receiving the call, neither consent to it nor agree to pay capitation tax, it is then incumbent on the Muslims to call upon God for assistance, and to make war upon them, because God is the assistant of those who serve Him, and the destroyer of His enemies, the infidels, and it is necessary to implore His aid upon every occasion; the Prophet, moreover, commands us so to do."

Pay our tax for not being Muslim or die sounds just and tolerant, does it not?

From Ibn Khaldun (d. 1406), jurist (Maliki), renowned philosopher, historian, and sociologist, summarized these consensus opinions from five centuries of prior Sunni Muslim jurisprudence with regard to the uniquely Islamic institution of jihad: [15]

"In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the [Muslim] mission and [the obligation to] convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force… The other religious groups did not have a universal mission, and the holy war was not a religious duty for them, save only for purposes of defense… Islam is under obligation to gain power over other nations."

From al-Mawardi (d. 1058 ), Shafi’i jurist [14]

“…The mushrikun [infidels] of Dar al-Harb (the arena of battle) are of two types: First, those whom the call of Islam has reached, but they have refused it and have taken up arms. The amir of the army has the option of fighting them…in accordance with what he judges to be in the best interest of the Muslims and most harmful to the mushrikun… Second, those whom the invitation to Islam has not reached, although such persons are few nowadays since Allah has made manifest the call of his Messenger…it is forbidden to…begin an attack before explaining the invitation to Islam to them, informing them of the miracles of the Prophet and making plain the proofs so as to encourage acceptance on their part; if they still refuse to accept after this, war is waged against them and they are treated as those whom the call has reached…”

 

[pro_universal]

Are you saying a Pope cannot be wrong in his opinions? A Papal Bull is not Christian doctrine.

Alright, now consider your choice quotes below. If the head of the Catholic Church can be disregarded in some of his writings, why would snippets from various scholars of islam (all from hundreds of years after the time of Muhammad) have to be “owned” by the muslims?

This is a fundamentally hypocritical statement you are making. You disown the words of the head of the Catholic Church as to what the faith requires, and then demand that muslims own everything said by another muslim.

And…that gives Muslims from an entirely different nation the right to conquer them and subdue them, why?

For the benefit of the people who live there. I shed no tears when evil regimes fall, and neither should you, and no one did for the Byzantines either.

ope Urban II was trying to reconcile the split by coming to their aid in a time of desperate need. Reconciliation is not a new concept and is continuing as we speak with Pope Benedict XVI trying to bring the Eastern Orthodox back.

Read the call. The only thing I see evidence of Urban II doing is getting the brigands and mercenaries out of Europe and into the middle east. There’s not a single word about “reconciliation”.

When a Muslim attacks enemies of his faith, we can say he was being very un-Muslim because…of Muhammed? Of Abu Bakr? Of the first thousand years of Islam in which the religion was in a constant state of war against everyone? Who do you point to as an example of peace?

Your error here is in assuming that anyone who isn’t muslim is an enemy of Islam. Even your own quotes prove that this isn’t true.

What? When did Christianity have an army? Spain isn’t “Christianity.”

By this logic, there was no muslim army. Just Turkish, Arab, and Persian armies.

The Papal state did have its own army at one point in history, btw.

If Islam is so peaceful and tolerant of religions, why did the Caliph of Egypt destroy the Catholic Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem? Why were Christians trying to visit the Holy Land attacked, robbed, and killed?

You are referring to the Caliph Al Hakim, who was actually not a muslim…he’s the first Druze, and had declared himself God, and was hated by the orthodox muslims of the day.

What I find astounding is that people who are eager to point out the political, non-christian aspects of the crimes of christians automatically assume that no thing a muslim ever does is somehow unconnected to religion. I think this is the root of the problem here.

 

[exoflare]

pro_universal:

What I find astounding is that people who are eager to point out the political, non-christian aspects of the crimes of christians automatically assume that no thing a muslim ever does is somehow unconnected to religion. I think this is the root of the problem here.

Muslims don’t think of it in the same way Catholics do. To them, no separation between religious beliefs and secular life can possibly exist. On top of that, there is no standard interpretation of the Quran… every Muslim is his/her own Pope, so to speak. With Catholicism, the actions of any individual can be examined objectively against the official doctrines that the Church upholds.

 

[pro_universal]

exoflare:

Muslims don’t think of it in the same way Catholics do. To them, no separation between religious beliefs and secular life can possibly exist. On top of that, there is no standard interpretation of the Quran… every Muslim is his/her own Pope, so to speak. With Catholicism, the actions of any individual can be examined objectively against the official doctrines that the Church upholds.

Alright, if every muslim is his/her own pope…how can you authoritatively say that for all muslims, there is no separation of religion and government?

Do you realize the contradiction there? You can’t say on the one hand “it’s impossible to measure what the standard interpretation of Islam is” on the one hand, and then turn around with your other hand and say “but all muslims believe x”

 

[brotherhrolf]

Hey Pro? Like I said, your English is very good. Unfortunately, there ARE chinks in your armor. Your colloquial English is most decidedly off. Had you stuck to standard formal English…The devil is in the details my friend and your details scream Islamic apologist not Catholic. Come clean sir. If you quack like a duck and waddle like a duck , you must be a duck. And if you are indeed Catholic why then no profession of faith?

 

[exoflare]

pro_universal:

Alright, if every muslim is his/her own pope…how can you authoritatively say that for all muslims, there is no separation of religion and government?

Do you realize the contradiction there? You can’t say on the one hand “it’s impossible to measure what the standard interpretation of Islam is” on the one hand, and then turn around with your other hand and say “but all muslims believe x”

I can’t say it authoritatively, you’re right… but spend enough time on any Islamic forum or whatever and you’ll quickly find that is the prevailing viewpoint.

This is the exact reason we have to use a different measuring stick for Islam, though. The best we can hope to do is get a good idea of what the Quran tells them and how most Muslims interpret it and how Muslim culture is put into action.

 

[exoflare]

brotherhrolf:

Hey Pro? Like I said, your English is very good. Unfortunately, there ARE chinks in your armor. Your colloquial English is most decidedly off. Had you stuck to standard formal English…The devil is in the details my friend and your details scream Islamic apologist not Catholic. Come clean sir. If you quack like a duck and waddle like a duck , you must be a duck. And if you are indeed Catholic why then no profession of faith?

He’s NOT a Catholic… We figured that one out long ago.

 

[pro_universal]

brotherhrolf:

Hey Pro? Like I said, your English is very good. Unfortunately, there ARE chinks in your armor. Your colloquial English is most decidedly off. Had you stuck to standard formal English…The devil is in the details my friend and your details scream Islamic apologist not Catholic. Come clean sir. If you quack like a duck and waddle like a duck , you must be a duck. And if you are indeed Catholic why then no profession of faith?

1. Whether or not I’m catholic has got zero to do with the truth of the points on this thread. Every claim I make about the Church can be verified by reference to authoritative writings of the Church.
2. I have professed that I am Catholic over and over.
3. As a native english speaker from America who barely speaks another language besides english, your continued accusation that my colloquial english is bad is really…well, funny.

 

[creativecat]

Muhammad was a pedophile who married a nine year girl. He had many many wives later on in his career. He was controlled by lust and greed. (Unlike Christ who gave up all human power in order to be crucified, dying for us.) Muhammad even thought at some point that some of the verses he received was not from God but from Satan; it took his other wife to convince him it was from God. These are the infamous “Satanic Verses” so often spoken about. Muhammad conquered people, was a caravan thief, he killed an entire tribe of Jews that refused to submit to him. Whenever he conquered people he let his followers take their wifes and female children as sexual slaves and even told them this was what God wanted. Islam is a false religion like Scientology and the Moonies. It only gets the respect it does because it has so many followers. It is our duty as Christains to save people from Islam. We need to show compassion but also tell them the truth. We can not allow the liberal media to blur right and wrong, lie and truth. Most people who try to whitewash Islam are either Muslim, deceived by the liberal media, or naive. The truth must be told. It is a false religion. We must start praying for Muslims and their conversion.

 

[cestusdei]

Hakin wasn’t a muslim? Who says? Sure later on the Druze sect started, but he thought he was muslim. And he did destroy Christs tomb. Muslims also raided Rome and desecrated St. Peter’s. Recently they tried to kill John Paul II. Do we begin to see a pattern here?