Moderate Islam: Great Article

[mike182d]

pro_universal:

This is absolutely not the case. Wars of conquest can be allowed if the religion of Christianity is threatened. And we’ve had Popes specifically call for war to “annihilate the saracens.” So no, Christian teaching does not absolutely forbid conquest.

You may want to read this article: catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0182.html

"Finally, St. Thomas said the warring party must have the right intention, "so that they intend the advancement of good or the avoidance of evil. " St. Augustine noted, “True religion looks upon as peaceful those wars that are waged not for motives of aggrandizement or cruelty, but with the object of securing peace or punishing evil-doers, and of uplifting the good. " An evil intention, such as to destroy a race or to absorb another nation, can turn a legitimately declared war waged for just cause into a wrongful act.”

Wars of conquest are *always *unjust. *Period. *The Church has always taught that.

Furthermore, I would like the source of your quote of the Pope. The Popes during the Crusades began them as defensive wars agaist Muslim aggression. In fact, you will not even find the concept of “holy war” present in Christian thought until after their exposure to the brutal and expansive wars of the Muslims in the 6th and 7th centuries.

 

[discipleofJesus]

pro_universal:

disciple:

that would require an entire article by a Sheikh, which I’ve posted. But I will do snippets with quotes, sure.

1. Jihad violence: (see above, living islam link.)
2. Imposing Shariah on others:amislam.com/review.htm
3. Women’s rights: frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=19444

Firstly, you didn’t even quote Robert Spencer’s book which you claimed

pro_universal:

Yes, I read it. It’s not just politically incorrect, it’s factually incorrect and the product of a hate campaign. That is not surprising, since Spencer is not a historian.

let alone refute it or show that it is factually incorrect.

Secondly, what is the point of quoting Palazzi regarding whether or not wearing the veil is mandatory or voluntary? Whether it is mandatory or voluntary says almost nothing in regards to whether Islam treats women badly or whether Islam gives women equal rights with men.

Thirdly, your link to amislam.com/review.htm doesn’t prove that the idea that Sharia law should be instituted in the Muslim and non-Muslim world is not an Islamic idea.

Fourthly, your link to livingislam.org/maa/dcmm_e.html doesn’t prove that Islam doesn’t teach violence (via jihad) towards non-Muslims, because it clearly does!

Islam gives Christians and Jews (and possibly Zoroastrians) 3 choices:
1- become Muslim
2- or live under Islam and pay Jizya in humiliation
3- or die

Other non-Muslims have 2 choices
1- become Muslim
2- or die

the article you linked to does not refute this.

A lot of what you have written in your above posts are unsubstantiated claims and accusations and sweeping statements with no proof.

You say i quoted the Quran and Hadith out of context, when I quoted both in context. The Quranic verse and the Hadith that i quoted are clear.

 

[pro_universal]

the article you linked to does not refute this.

It specifically dealt with the question of attacks on non-muslims. You did not read it, but chose to say what it did or did not refute anyway.

As for the other two: the government article proves that muslims aren’t required to have a muslim government. The role of islam in the government is incidental to the religious teaching.

The women’s choice snippet is part of a larger discussion of women’s rights. Women cannot be forced to do things for religion is his point, and I’d say that’s a pretty clear statement of equality.

The verses and hadiths you posted are matters dealt precisely with at the living islam link. Please take the time the read the entire article before you make claims about it.

 

[Muslim]

wow so much hatred in this thread and this board alone.
its nice to have people like pro_universal who arent biased and is open minded.

the reason for so much hatred towards christians and the west especially by the Muslim world is because they think ALL Christians and ALL of West is ignorant and filled with hatred towards Muslim. If any of them came to this thread, they would not be disappointed.

just like actions of few “Muslims” makes Islam look bad, actions of few “Christians” or the “West” makes the entire group look bad for the Muslims.

and like the other Muslim said here, there is no such thing as “Moderate” Muslim. We believe either you are a Muslim or you are not. you dont mix and match or choose your religion the way you see fit.

 

[Kirane]

discipleofJesus:

Islam gives Christians and Jews (and possibly Zoroastrians) 3 choices:
1- become Muslim
2- or live under Islam and pay Jizya in humiliation
3- or die
.

Does Roman Catholicism believe something similar to this? Did the great theologians of the Roman Catholic Church ever teach that if you are guilty of heresy, or you don;t believe an article of the Roman Catholic relgion, that you should be exterminated ? And in some cases, the extermination is to take place by being burned alive in public while being tied to a stake?
Isn’t this a rather humilating form of putting someone to death just to show your sheer power over that person and humilate him publicly and then torture and kill him just because he does not believe in one article of Roman Catholicism?

 

[onesimplemind]

Muslim:

wow so much hatred in this thread and this board alone.
.

Lets lighten it up a little for a while…

Bukhari:V1B4N139 “I asked Allah’s Apostle about a person who imagined they passed wind during prayer. He replied: ‘He should not leave his prayer unless he hears sound or smells something.’”

Bukhari:V7B71N590 “The climate of Medina did not suit some people so the Prophet ordered them to drink camel urine as a medicine.”

Tabari I:267 “And Allah taught Adam all the names as follows: He taught him the name of everything, down to fart and little fart.”

Are these the right translations? I wish the Bible had such good humour.

Qur’an 86:13 “Lo this (Qur’an) is a conclusive Word; it is not a thing for amusement. It is no pleasantry. And it is no joke.”

Ok, I am sorry, I just wanted to lighten things up, back to the topic…

 

[murtad]

Shadowcry:

Maybe the bible should be banned too.

There is no good reason for Christian nations to ban the Bible, whether the Torah (“Old Testament”) or the Gospel (“New Testament”) as these are Christian books and its message is that of love and peace.

We need a Trinitarian Muslim Society to be established by the Catholic Church so that evangelism of Muslims will be easier.

Such Muslims will say “We are Muslims who support Israel and oppose Palestine. We are Muslims who believe in Trinity by confessing Nicene Creed” because they are like Jews for Jesus, people who love our Lord and God Jesus the Messiah.

 

[Gnosis]

Does Roman Catholicism believe something similar to this? Did the great theologians of the Roman Catholic Church ever teach that if you are guilty of heresy, or you don;t believe an article of the Roman Catholic relgion, that you should be exterminated ?

Thomas Aquinas stated, in one of his works, something to the effect of having all heretics or dissenters from the Church killed.

Looking at the Inquisition, I think they took his advice.

 

[mike182d]

pro_universal:

This is apples and oranges, because the circumstances of both religions were different.

No, they weren’t. Every religion to have come out of the Roman provinces has shared the same fate.

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?

You mean like when the Roman Empire tried to kill and wipe out Christianity? Muhammad and the Muslims aren’t the only one’s to have ever been oppressed. Christianity’s response has been completely different.

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.

What on earth are you talking about? The teachings of Christianity do not allow making war in the name of their religion. Period. Have Christians done it? Yes. Was it against the teachings of the Church? Yes.

Where do you get your information about Christianity?

 

[mike182d]

Gnosis:

Thomas Aquinas stated, in one of his works, something to the effect of having all heretics or dissenters from the Church killed.

Could you provide the source, please?

Looking at the Inquisition, I think they took his advice.

It would probably surprise you to know that the Catholic Church didn’t kill anybody during the Inquistion and that it was done at the hands of Kings and Queens. You should probably take a closer look at the Inquisition before making statements based upon revisionist history.

 

[Booklover]

onesimplemind:

Lets lighten it up a little for a while…

Bukhari:V1B4N139 “I asked Allah’s Apostle about a person who imagined they passed wind during prayer. He replied: ‘He should not leave his prayer unless he hears sound or smells something.’”

Bukhari:V7B71N590 “The climate of Medina did not suit some people so the Prophet ordered them to drink camel urine as a medicine.”

Tabari I:267 “And Allah taught Adam all the names as follows: He taught him the name of everything, down to fart and little fart.”

Are these the right translations? I wish the Bible had such good humour.

Qur’an 86:13 “Lo this (Qur’an) is a conclusive Word; it is not a thing for amusement. It is no pleasantry. And it is no joke.”

Ok, I am sorry, I just wanted to lighten things up, back to the topic…

Just a little more to lighten the tension!
The Hadith
Bukhari Vol. IV No. 516
Satan stays in the upper part of the nose all night!

Muslim Vo.1 No. 462
Abu Huraira reported:The Apostle of Allah said "When any of you wakes from sleep or performs ablution, he must clean his nose three times, for the the devil spends the night in the interior of his nose.



Back to the topic…

 

[pro_universal]

No, they weren’t. Every religion to have come out of the Roman provinces has shared the same fate

Islam did not come from a Roman province.

Muhammad and the Muslims aren’t the only one’s to have ever been oppressed. Christianity’s response has been completely different.

Muhammad was the leader of a city, and had political authority of his own. There was no such political authority possible in Jerusalem at the time, and the threat of it is what made the rulers there so afraid of Jesus.

The teachings of Christianity do not allow making war in the name of their religion. Period. Have Christians done it? Yes. Was it against the teachings of the Church? Yes.

Where do you get your information about Christianity?

From Pope Urban’s 1095 call to crusade, from Augustine, from Aquinas’s various writings on the just war, and from the legal practice of propositioning native tribesmen in America for conversion before attacking them.

 

[mike182d]

pro_universal:

Islam did not come from a Roman province.

My mistake. I forgot how far south of the Byzantine Empire’s Medina was. For some reason I thought it was further north in Saudi Arabia. Lucky for them. With Muhammed’s approach towards spreading religion, the Romans would have ended his revolt rather quickly.

Muhammad was the leader of a city, and had political authority of his own. There was no such political authority possible in Jerusalem at the time, and the threat of it is what made the rulers there so afraid of Jesus.

Was this before or after the hijira into Medina? It was my understanding that he was a merchant.

From Pope Urban’s 1095 call to crusade, from Augustine, from Aquinas’s various writings on the just war, and from the legal practice of propositioning native tribesmen in America for conversion before attacking them.

Interestingly enough, none of them promote a war of spreading religion. Pope Urban’s call for the Crusades was not to promote Christianity but to prevent the rising Islamic military powerhouse from conquering the West and destroying Byzantium. Augustine never advocated war for religion nor did Aquinas. However, perhaps there is a passage I might have missed. If you could provide me with a source I’ll look into it.

Self defense isn’t the same as “destroying the infidels.” Christianity has *never *believed that.

 

[Shadowcry]

Then why did the crusaders sack Constantinople if they were sent to protect it?

 

[mike182d]

Shadowcry:

Then why did the crusaders sack Constantinople if they were sent to protect it?

That was the fourth Crusade about two hundred years later. If you’re going to combine three centuries of war into a single event, you’re going to have a very, *very *skewed perception of history.

The sack of Constantinople was a tragic day in the history of the Church, but the intent was not to attack Constantinople, but rather Egypt in order to reclaim the Holy Land back from the Muslims. The warriors were diverted and sacked Constantinople of their own accord after a series of grave misunderstandings on the way.

 

[Shadowcry]

Why did they have to reclaim the Holy Land?

 

[mike182d]

Shadowcry:

Why did they have to reclaim the Holy Land?

Why did the Muslims have to claim the Holy Land from the Christians/Jews and sack the city?

 

[pro_universal]

mike182,

Muslims sanction warfare for self-defense also. There is no “let’s kill every last unbeliever teaching there” either.

Just to show you how similar historical christianity can be to what some people accuse islam of being, I have some sources:

From Pope Leo IV to the Franks:

Now we hope that none of you will be slain, but we wish you to know that the kingdom of heaven will be given as a reward to those who shall be killed in this war. For the Omnipotent knows that they lost their lives fighting for the truth of the faith, for the preservation of their country, aiid the defence of Christians. And therefore God will give then, the reward which we have named.

fordham.edu/HALSALL/source/leo4-ind850.html

Here we have it on record: If a Christian dies fighting pagans, he gets the reward of heaven.

Here again from Urban II:

All who die by the way, whether by land or by sea, or in battle against the pagans, shall have immediate remission of sins. This I grant them through the power of God with which I am invested. O what a disgrace if such a despised and base race, which worships demons, should conquer a people which has the faith of omnipotent God and is made glorious with the name of Christ! With what reproaches will the Lord overwhelm us if you do not aid those who, with us, profess the Christian religion! Let those who have been accustomed unjustly to wage private warfare against the faithful now go against the infidels and end with victory this war which should have been begun long ago. Let those who for a long time, have been robbers, now become knights. Let those who have been fighting against their brothers and relatives now fight in a proper way against the barbarians. Let those who have been serving as mercenaries for small pay now obtain the eternal reward.

fordham.edu/HALSALL/source/urban2-5vers.html

More of the same.

And how did the crusade start? Naturally, at home…Emico slaughtered the Jews of the Rhineland:

From this cruel slaughter of the Jews a few escaped; and a few because of fear, rather than because of love of the Christian faith, were baptized. With very great spoils taken from these people, Count Emico, Clarebold, Thomas, and all that intolerable company of men and women then continued on their way to Jerusalem, directing their course towards the Kingdom of Hungary, where passage along the royal highway was usually not denied the pilgrims. But on arriving at Wieselburg, the fortress of the King, which the rivers Danube and Leytha protect with marshes, the bridge and gate of the fortress were found closed by command of the King of Hungary, for great fear had entered all the Hungarians because of the slaughter which had happened to their brethren. . . .

fordham.edu/HALSALL/source/1096jews.html

 

[pro_universal]

The warriors were diverted and sacked Constantinople of their own accord after a series of grave misunderstandings on the way.

Mike, the warriors of even the first crusade were violent, and attacked Jews and Christians before they ever saw one “invading Muslim” in the holy land. (The muslims had been there since the 7th century…that’s a long time to call it “repelling an invasion”).

 

[onesimplemind]

pro_universal:

mike182,

Muslims sanction warfare for self-defense also. There is no “let’s kill every last unbeliever teaching there” either.

Ishaq:324 “He said, ‘Fight them so that there is no more rebellion, and religion, all of it, is for Allah only. Allah must have no rivals.’”

There is a vast difference between Christians seeking power and a religion preaching warfare.