Muslims posters: a polite point

[Valke2]

Do you believe Islam is in need of or is heading for a reformation?

Is there room in the religion to have the Islami clergy interpet verse of the Quran somewhat differently than it may have been interpeted in the past?

 

[jack_hawkins]

And shock tactics is what ultimately undermines each and every one of the discussions in NCR.

Best bet would be to argue logical points on merit and proceed with the charity, intellect, and mercy that God wishes of us.

for shock tactics read “intellectual honesty”
why let people carry on in deception because you are afraid to offend them by “insulting” their prophet?
that would be wrong
it is right to examine the life of “Muhammad” as Islam stands or falls pretty well on the life and person of this man
therefore it is logical to discuss the known historical facts - which is totally in line with what you desire
tiptoeing about resolves nothing

 

[Rachel_Malloy]

for shock tactics read “intellectual honesty”
why let people carry on in deception because you are afraid to offend them by “insulting” their prophet?

Insulting is wrong, underhanded and not befitting of a good christian.

Those who cannot play by these rules will be asked to leave.

Non-Catholics are not only welcome, but INVITED to come here to discuss non-Catholic topics. Those who do not like it, can avoid this section of the forums.

that would be wrong
it is right to examine the life of “Muhammad” as Islam stands or falls pretty well on the life and person of this man
therefore it is logical to discuss the known historical facts - which is totally in line with what you desire
tiptoeing about resolves nothing

Examine the topics with intellectual integrity, and honesty-- without drama and terms only geared to drum up shock value.

This goes for everyone.

 

[jack_hawkins]

Insulting is wrong, underhanded and not befitting of a good christian.

Rachel, please note I put “insulting” in quotation marks, the implication being from that and the context that I was not talking about insulting “Muhammad”, but about the fact that asserting certain historical facts about “Muhammad” would be deemed insulting potentially by Muslims. Do you accept that it is OK to quote historical facts about “Muhammad” even if they may offend Muslims?
If not, then it would as well to stop any debate about Islam in that case - since it would not be possible to debate with any intellectual honesty.
I await your reply with interest.
I wasn’t aware that a Catholic forum would treat the Islamic faith with the same kid gloves as secular fora (even more in fact).
Furthermore will similar strictures be put on Muslim posters not to say things that are insulting eg Jesus is just a prophet, “Muhammad” is the Seal of the Prophets, Jesus was a Muslim, etc etc?
Again I await your reply with interest.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

for shock tactics read “intellectual honesty”
why let people carry on in deception because you are afraid to offend them by “insulting” their prophet?
that would be wrong
it is right to examine the life of “Muhammad” as Islam stands or falls pretty well on the life and person of this man
therefore it is logical to discuss the known historical facts - which is totally in line with what you desire
tiptoeing about resolves nothing

Shock tactics and intellectual honesty are not the same thing. Maybe that is why you put “intellectual honesty” in quotes, because you were really talking about being intellectually honest.

Referring back to your discussion of Muhammad as a murderer. That was a shock tactic. Pointing out that Muhammad had someone killed for mocking him is seeking intellectual honesty. Please do this. If after that, you want to state that doing so is, in your opinion, the same a murder, do it there. After you have given something to substantiate the charge. But otherwise all you are about is simply seeking to shock people and that does not lead to conversation which heals but conflict that divides. An unsubstantiated accusation is nothing other than slander, and as Christians we are under scriptural injunctions “to slander one one” (James 3:2); calling it shock tactics or intellectual honesty doesn’t change the biblical command to avoid being contentious.

 

[jack_hawkins]

Even Muslims know that Muhammad had someone assassinated, but to avoid cognitive dissonance they don’t see it as murder somehow. It is also part of the circular way of thinking where Muslims see everything “Muhammad” did as OK, therefore having sex with an 8 year old is OK. Why skirt around the issue? He was a murderer plain and simple. If you have someone killed for mocking you, that is murder - there is no opinion about that.
Your comment about slander is therefore completely missing the point.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Even Muslims know that Muhammad had someone assassinated, but to avoid cognitive dissonance they don’t see it as murder somehow. It is also part of the circular way of thinking where Muslims see everything “Muhammad” did as OK, therefore having sex with an 8 year old is OK. Why skirt around the issue? He was a murderer plain and simple. If you have someone killed for mocking you, that is murder - there is no opinion about that.
Your comment about slander is therefore completely missing the point.

I agree that having someone killed for mocking you is wrong. I am not trying to defend Muhammad. I am trying to help you make your point in a way that gets you a hearing. Especially when you know that someone is engaged in cognitive dissonance you want to engage them intellectually BEFORE inciting their emotions. You have done the converse. Simply giving someone a label, without giving the reasons for that label is not the way to win friends or influence enemies.

 

[birdsong]

But that’s exactly what jack, montablan, cestusdei and countless others have been doing here all along: they back up their arguments with muslim literature, their own scholars describe in horrific detail the actions of the so-called prophet !! …… and when muslims copy-paste their propaganda with alleged “scientific miracles” in the koran, others have refuted them with logic and facts … speaking about emotions, I understand that it would be difficult for me to hear, for example, that my father is a murderer …. Nonetheless, it would be incredibly dishonest on my part (and perhaps even foolish) if, after hearing and reading all the overwhelming evidence and testimonies that incriminate my father, I continued to defend his actions and even say that he was all right all along !! …… well, that’s exactly what muslims do all the time: the twist and turn logic and facts all they want and need so as to make their “prophet” look not as bad as all the evidence shows him to be ……

I agree that having someone killed for mocking you is wrong. I am not trying to defend Muhammad. I am trying to help you make your point in a way that gets you a hearing. Especially when you know that someone is engaged in cognitive dissonance you want to engage them intellectually BEFORE inciting their emotions. You have done the converse. Simply giving someone a label, without giving the reasons for that label is not the way to win friends or influence enemies.

 

[Rachel_Malloy]

Rachel, please note I put “insulting” in quotation marks, the implication being from that and the context that I was not talking about insulting “Muhammad”, but about the fact that asserting certain historical facts about “Muhammad” would be deemed insulting potentially by Muslims.

I understand your comments and your use of quotes. My point is beyond your grammatical gymnastics, and is quite straightforward. Remember your intellectual honesty and charity when posting in these forums. I expect it from Catholics and non-Catholics alike.

If a Muslim poster wishes to advance that he believes the sky is green and the grass is blue… he certainly can use whatever intellectual tools he wishes to try to convey that belief if he remains charitable and within the constraints of honorable debate. He’d be wrong of course, but I have no problem letting him try.

I expect the same from our Catholic posters, even you.

Do you accept that it is OK to quote historical facts about “Muhammad” even if they may offend Muslims?

Depends on how they are conveyed. If they are conveyed not only to make a point, but to hurt, undermine and be ugly then NO I do not accept it. Not because they are historical facts, but because your choice in the delivery of those facts is uncharitable and provoking.

If not, then it would as well to stop any debate about Islam in that case - since it would not be possible to debate with any intellectual honesty.

I hope you clearly see that intellectual honesty by definition cannot contain shock value nor emotion. It is what it is of it’s own device. You are welcome to be intellectualy honest in all commentary and debate. You are not encouraged to be dramatic and shocking and hurtful.

I await your reply with interest.
I wasn’t aware that a Catholic forum would treat the Islamic faith with the same kid gloves as secular fora (even more in fact).

You are free to have your opinion on the moderation of the fora, and you are free to avoid them if you find them so distasteful.

Furthermore will similar strictures be put on Muslim posters not to say things that are insulting eg Jesus is just a prophet, “Muhammad” is the Seal of the Prophets, Jesus was a Muslim, etc etc?
Again I await your reply with interest.

I will continue to moderate the NCR forum with the same goals that I have made very clear several times. You can choose to stay and participate under those guidlines or not.

Ultimately your OP is right on the money. I expect charity and dignity from everyone.

 

[birdsong]

With all due respect Rachel, I can’t understand on what basis you, as a moderator of this forum, will find stating a fact (e.g.; muhhamad assassinated people who simply mocked him) as being “hurtful”, “undermining” or “ugly” or not being any one of these things ….…… all I have seen from people like Jack, montalban, cestudei and many others is that they are just stating facts with muslim literature to back up their assertions …… so what will be the criteria to classify the stating of a historical fact as being offensive? …. If the requisite is that muslims feel offended, well, you can count on that they will feel so when they are confronted with all the info about the actions of their prophet ……

Perhaps, if possible, you could show us how you’d state that Muhhamad had his adversaries murdered for simply mocking him in a way that muslims would not find “ugly”, “hurtful” or “undermining” …. this way members of this forum will be less in the dark about what is permissible or not …

I understand your comments and your use of quotes. My point is beyond your grammatical gymnastics, and is quite straightforward. Remember your intellectual honesty and charity when posting in these forums. I expect it from Catholics and non-Catholics alike.

If a Muslim poster wishes to advance that he believes the sky is green and the grass is blue… he certainly can use whatever intellectual tools he wishes to try to convey that belief if he remains charitable and within the constraints of honorable debate. He’d be wrong of course, but I have no problem letting him try.

I expect the same from our Catholic posters, even you.

Depends on how they are conveyed. If they are conveyed not only to make a point, but to hurt, undermine and be ugly then NO I do not accept it. Not because they are historical facts, but because your choice in the delivery of those facts is uncharitable and provoking.

I hope you clearly see that intellectual honesty by definition cannot contain shock value nor emotion. It is what it is of it’s own device. You are welcome to be intellectualy honest in all commentary and debate. You are not encouraged to be dramatic and shocking and hurtful.

You are free to have your opinion on the moderation of the fora, and you are free to avoid them if you find them so distasteful.

I will continue to moderate the NCR forum with the same goals that I have made very clear several times. You can choose to stay and participate under those guidlines or not.

Ultimately your OP is right on the money. I expect charity and dignity from everyone.

 

[Rachel_Malloy]

Again, birdsong, I will allow someone to attempt to prove the sky is green and the grass is blue if he remains charitable. I’m not sure how to make that any more clear.

There are a couple years worth of threads in storage here you can review to get a sense of what is acceptable and what is not.

 

[birdsong]

I don’t mean to be confrontational Rachel, but since I see that you are not willing to disentangle this issue more that what I think you should, I just will write a few last comments on this thread:

The problem here is not that people are trying to prove that the sun is red, so to speak, …. and I find it surprising that don’t understand it … The issue is way more complex than that, because it involves the analysis and discussion of someone (muhhamad), who many people think is the best example for all humanity to follow …… the point I am trying to make is that emotions are, and always will be, intrinsically attached to the issue of analysing and discussing the actions of muhhamad, particularly in light of what Jesus taught us was rightful, good and pleasant to Him and His Father ……

As I said to you before, all I have seen from many members here is just the confronting and stating of facts about the actions of muhhamad and his followers in a way that is intellectually honest and accurate, with examples and details from the muslim literature to back up their assertions …… muslims are always offended that we find the actions of their prophet objectionable (to say the least!), and thus they claim we’re being disrespectful, uncharitable etc, etc ……

I politely asked you or any other moderator to give us a clear example of how you, for example, would state the fact that we Christians can not consider muhhamad a true prophet of God, in no small part because of the very objectionable things that he did (slept with a 9 year old girl, had people killed because they mocked him, etc) in a way that muslims do not find it offensive or ugly, but you refused to do it …… it’s ok, I just wanted to have a clearer idea of what is permissible and not permissible in this forum ……

cheers !

Again, birdsong, I will allow someone to attempt to prove the sky is green and the grass is blue if he remains charitable. I’m not sure how to make that any more clear.

There are a couple years worth of threads in storage here you can review to get a sense of what is acceptable and what is not.

 

[birdsong]

I don’t mean to be confrontational Rachel, but since I see that you are not willing to disentangle this issue more that what I think you should, I just will write a few last comments on this thread:

The problem here is not that people are trying to prove the sun is red, so to speak, …. And I find it surprising that you don’t understand it …. The issue is way more complex than that, because it involves the analysis and discussion of someone (muhhamad), who many people think is the best example for all humanity to follow …… the point I am trying to make is that emotions are, and always will be, intrinsically attached to the issue of analysing and discussing the actions of muhhamad, particularly in light of what Jesus taught us was rightful, good and pleasant to Him and His Father ……

As I said to you before, all I have seen from many members here is just the confronting and stating of facts about the actions of muhhamad and his followers in a way that is intellectually honest and accurate, with examples and details from the muslim literature to back up their assertions …… muslims are always offended that we find the actions of their prophet objectionable (to say the least!), and thus they claim we’re being disrespectful, uncharitable etc, etc ……

I politely asked you or any other moderator to give us a clear example of how you, for example, would state the fact that we Christians can not consider muhhamad a true prophet of God, in no small part because of the very objectionable things that he did (slept with a 9 year old girl, had people killed because they mocked him, etc) in a way that muslims do not find it offensive or ugly, but you refused to do it …… it’s ok, I just wanted to have a clearer idea of what is permissible and not permissible in this forum ……

Again, birdsong, I will allow someone to attempt to prove the sky is green and the grass is blue if he remains charitable. I’m not sure how to make that any more clear.

There are a couple years worth of threads in storage here you can review to get a sense of what is acceptable and what is not.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Okay, I won’t label Muhammad a murderer even though Islamic traditions and historical accounts say that he ordered someone ‘made dead’ for writing unpleasant poems about him and he ordered a woman ‘made deceased’ for writing poems eulogizing his enemies and he ordered an unarmed prisoner of war to be ‘made aware of great pain’ and then ‘parted his head from his shoulders’.

But Muhammad wasn’t a murderer even though he caused many people to meet their maker in what to me are immoral circumstances.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

LOL

You’ve made great strides quickly.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

Greetings and peace be with you Grace Seeker; we meet again, it’s a small world on this internet, you make some good points about talking with our Muslim brothers and sisters.

There is one God the creator of all that is seen and unseen, and when I walk through town I see a part of God’s wonderful creation. I see people who could be atheists, Christians, Muslims, Hindu and all of us created by the same God.

We each have a duty of care to look after God’s creation, and that has to mean looking after each other.

In the spirit of praying for peace on Earth

Eric

 

[jack_hawkins]

I agree that having someone killed for mocking you is wrong. I am not trying to defend Muhammad. I am trying to help you make your point in a way that gets you a hearing. Especially when you know that someone is engaged in cognitive dissonance you want to engage them intellectually BEFORE inciting their emotions. You have done the converse. Simply giving someone a label, without giving the reasons for that label is not the way to win friends or influence enemies.

OK, I had misunderstood where you were coming from - yes I agree you are right:thumbsup:
people are more receptive that way
in other words, softly, softly, catchy monkey…

 

[jack_hawkins]

Rachel, with respect, I will reiterate my point as I think it has been missed. Being honest about the facts means telling the truth about “Muhammad” even if that fact hurts, undermines or is ugly. Since the life of “Muhammad” is very relevant to the truth of Islam, then pretty well every fact about “Muhammad” would be valid for posting here in NCR. The fact that it might shock people is immaterial. I don’t see why we should be Bowdlerising the history of Islam and “Muhammad”?

 

[Valke2]

Rachel, with respect, I will reiterate my point as I think it has been missed. Being honest about the facts means telling the truth about “Muhammad” even if that fact hurts, undermines or is ugly. Since the life of “Muhammad” is very relevant to the truth of Islam, then pretty well every fact about “Muhammad” would be valid for posting here in NCR. The fact that it might shock people is immaterial. I don’t see why we should be Bowdlerising the history of Islam and “Muhammad”?

If I spent every post discussing atrocities committed by the Church during the Crusades or the INquisition, and the antisemetisim inherent and blatant in the Gospel of John and in Paul, I could argue that I was telling the truth about the Church. And that thefact that these facts hurt and were ugly doesn’t detract from them being honest. However, doing so would I believe violate the spirit, if not the rules, of this forum.

 

[jack_hawkins]

Oh going over history is not necessarily helpful I agree - every civilization and religion has gone through phases they would rather regret. It would be wrong to be banned from bringing these up at all tho, esp if someone was trying to maintain that the Church was perfect and had never done these things.

Since “Muhammad” is held up as the perfect example for mankind for all time, and since Islam revolves around Muhammad like the Church of Latter Day Saints revolves around Joseph Smith, and the Unification Church revolves around Rev Moon, then it is reasonable to examine his life tho.