Muslims say they will conquer the world...

[dzheremi]

I missed oldcatholicguy’s post until you quoted it, JPJ. Thanks for that. I would say that as I am not a relativist, I believe that there are absolutes in life. Things that are bad are bad without necessary reference to other things, just like things that are good are good without reference to other things. The Muslim invasion of Spain is bad, regardless of who may have invaded the same territory before or after the Muslims had their turn at it.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

I missed oldcatholicguy’s post until you quoted it, JPJ. Thanks for that. I would say that as I am not a relativist, I believe that there are absolutes in life. Things that are bad are bad without necessary reference to other things, just like things that are good are good without reference to other things. The Muslim invasion of Spain is bad, regardless of who may have invaded the same territory before or after the Muslims had their turn at it.

You’re right you aren’t a relativist, you’re worse. You’re the religious equivalent of “My country right or wrong.” Your position isn’t one centered on morality, it’s centered on religious identity (yeah, there’s a difference).

As for the charge of relativism, if you define a relativist as someone who points out that the Muslims didn’t really do anything different morality wise than any other invader prior to or after them and therefore your argument is pretty much “it was bad because they were Muslim, and even though the Church doesn’t teach it, we all know Muslims are bad because they are Muslim; and the Catholic invasions were good, despite the fact the same immoral acts took place during them, because they were Catholic” than I guess I’m a relativist. Not my definition of relativism, but whatever works for you.

I find it odd that in these “Muslims are bad” threads everyone points to the Muslim invasions of Iberia and the Holy Land, and sometimes North Africa, but no one ever really seems to mention or care about similar invasions into sub-Sahara Africa, SW Asia, India, or SE Asia. Apparently people think the non-Catholic Christians, Hindu, Buddhist, and pagans in these areas were more “bad” than the Muslims. That or people are too lazy to bother to actually learn history that took place outside of Europe.

 

[dzheremi]

You’re right you aren’t a relativist, you’re worse. You’re the religious equivalent of “My country right or wrong.” Your position isn’t one centered on morality, it’s centered on religious identity (yeah, there’s a difference).

How do you figure? I’m not a Roman Catholic. I really do not appreciate your tone here.

As for the charge of relativism

What ‘charge’ of relativism? I think you’re reading things into my post that aren’t there. I don’t know you from Adam, so please do not assume I have you in mind when I write anything.

if you define a relativist as someone who points out that the Muslims didn’t really do anything different morality wise than any other invader prior to or after them and therefore your argument is pretty much “it was bad because they were Muslim, and even though the Church doesn’t teach it, we all know Muslims are bad because they are Muslim; and the Catholic invasions were good, despite the fact the same immoral acts took place during them, because they were Catholic” than I guess I’m a relativist. Not my definition of relativism, but whatever works for you.

This is really tiring. Again: Nothing I wrote was ‘charging’ you or anyone with anything, and I am not a Roman Catholic. Please stop responding to my posts in such an unnecessarily hostile and sarcastic manner. I have done nothing to you to merit this kind of reply, and my posts in this thread (post 15 and post 41) other than the one you’ve chosen to criticize are reminding Christians not to freak out about some kind of “Muslim invasion” or what have you. So I don’t know where you’re coming from with all this. You seem very frustrated, but why I’m the target of your frustration, I don’t know.

I find it odd that in these “Muslims are bad” threads everyone points to the Muslim invasions of Iberia and the Holy Land, and sometimes North Africa, but no one ever really seems to mention or care about similar invasions into sub-Sahara Africa, SW Asia, India, or SE Asia.

I’d imagine it’s because this thread is not about those things, though you’re right, there are similar events in other parts of the world. You could make a thread about them, if you want to.

Apparently people think the non-Catholic Christians, Hindu, Buddhist, and pagans in these areas were more “bad” than the Muslims. That or people are too lazy to bother to actually learn history that took place outside of Europe.

“People” maybe, but again, why is this coming out in response to my posts? I’m not a Roman Catholic, and I’ve not written such things. I do not appreciate this association. If you’re so bothered about what you perceive as anti-Muslim bias on this message board, then perhaps a thread titled “Muslims say they will conquer the world” is not the most productive place you could spend your time.

 

[KathleenGee]

During the Iraq war, with the ongoing instability there in the country after Saddam, I had a dream one night, and it was about a map, and it showed Iran, and the dream implied that all the upheaval in the Islamic world was coming from Iran.

The Hezbollah in Lebanon, from what I understand, are militants of Iran. Some how I perceived Arab Spring actually a springboard to set off militant Islam. This am on news, it is looking like Iran is firing up Egypt, Syrian militants – a woman religious observed saying it was all based on ‘terrorism’…I would say this movement that is happening there since Arab Spring, Libya,

It making me think now of Ezechial 38…But what I see is these countries possibly forming to destroy Israel under leadership of Iran is expending alot of fighting, and eventually hot air, and I don’t know if the other Islamic countries will join. They will end up, I believe some how defeated.

So when Muslims say they will take over, are they Shi ites or Sunnis or a blend of the Muslim Brotherhood. Either way, they will eventually lose. But at what cost?

 

[Usbek_de_Perse]

Projections of the future that are based on current trends, especially involving choices made by humans are not wise exercises. The kids born in Belgium to Muslim parents will be Belgians, with a European mindset. We see this even in Iran, where the children of the 1979 revolutionaries are certainly more moderate in their Islam than their parents. They want decadent Western culture.

I expect the Islam of 2050 in Europe to be like Christianity in Europe in 1975 or so. A force, but a weakening one.

Very disturbing video; youtu.be/Ne6W3ceMc_cin Belgium the largest religious group are the muslims; because they are not affected by modernism, they are the only ones that make kids…50 years they will be the majority and they want to change democracy into sharia, the muslim law…
Somebody forgot something on those immigration papers…
And they are allowed to skip evolutionism in the science classes!!!? How did they do it?

 

[KathleenGee]

Usbek…thanks for insight.

BTW, the Muslim Brotherhood has its momentum from Iran. I read about its origin in Egypt in the 1920’s, and was responsible for some pogroms against the Jews in those days as well as a collaborator with the Nazis.

You would think our country knew that when it poured millions again of taxpayer money into the new government…A Christian Egyptian said the former government had 1 dictator…now with Muslim Brotherhood, you really are not seeing a replacement of one dictator but a group of them.

I cannot help but believe that this idea of conquering the world is coming mainly from Iran…and will turn in on itself in defeat…and this will aide in moderating future generation of Moslems.

 

[Usbek_de_Perse]

There are aspects of classic Islamic political theology that are at play here: Muslims are not to be governed in Muslim lands by other than Muslims. Christians and Jews (but not Zoroastrians and Baha’is) are relegated to dhimmi status, meaning they are protected minorities. (Zoroastrians and Baha’is are not protected and are often persecuted.) Thus, when Jews started to acquire land and present themselves as a political force in British Palestine, the Muslim Brotherhood would be happy to accept aid from the Nazis under the “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” principle. I don’t think that the Muslim Brotherhood has any Nazi sympathies. They are far too orthodox in their Islam.

Also, even though Iran may applaud the rise of the Brotherhood, the Brotherhood is an orthodox Sunni movement that looks on Iranian Shi’ism with distrust (to say the least).

Islam is perhaps a little more cohesive than Christianity in terms of denominational divides, but the Sunni-Shi’i divide remains an enduring obstacle to creation of an Islamic monolith.

The sad part of my earlier analysis is that Christians (like me) are relying on the corrupting influence of Western culture to moderate Islam. We decry that same culture. But absent some new evangelistic movement, some cultural return to Christianity, the real winner is the culture of nihilism.

Usbek…thanks for insight.

BTW, the Muslim Brotherhood has its momentum from Iran. I read about its origin in Egypt in the 1920’s, and was responsible for some pogroms against the Jews in those days as well as a collaborator with the Nazis.

You would think our country knew that when it poured millions again of taxpayer money into the new government…A Christian Egyptian said the former government had 1 dictator…now with Muslim Brotherhood, you really are not seeing a replacement of one dictator but a group of them.

I cannot help but believe that this idea of conquering the world is coming mainly from Iran…and will turn in on itself in defeat…and this will aide in moderating future generation of Moslems.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

How do you figure? I’m not a Roman Catholic. I really do not appreciate your tone here.

What ‘charge’ of relativism? I think you’re reading things into my post that aren’t there. I don’t know you from Adam, so please do not assume I have you in mind when I write anything.

This is really tiring. Again: Nothing I wrote was ‘charging’ you or anyone with anything, and I am not a Roman Catholic. Please stop responding to my posts in such an unnecessarily hostile and sarcastic manner. I have done nothing to you to merit this kind of reply, and my posts in this thread (post 15 and post 41) other than the one you’ve chosen to criticize are reminding Christians not to freak out about some kind of “Muslim invasion” or what have you. So I don’t know where you’re coming from with all this. You seem very frustrated, but why I’m the target of your frustration, I don’t know.

I’d imagine it’s because this thread is not about those things, though you’re right, there are similar events in other parts of the world. You could make a thread about them, if you want to.

“People” maybe, but again, why is this coming out in response to my posts? I’m not a Roman Catholic, and I’ve not written such things. I do not appreciate this association. If you’re so bothered about what you perceive as anti-Muslim bias on this message board, then perhaps a thread titled “Muslims say they will conquer the world” is not the most productive place you could spend your time.

I apologize for unfairly using you and your post as a target for my frustration (and yes I know you aren’t Roman Catholic, my comment/rant was directed more at my fellow Roman Catholics than at you). I’m just sick and tired of seeing the theme of “Muslims are bad” being repeated over and over again with no attempt to justify why they are bad other than the fact that they are Muslim. The prime example of this being Iberia. The only difference between what the Muslims did and what all the other invaders did is that they were Muslim. That’s it. As for an anti-Muslim bias on these boards, there unfortunately is one; and me avoiding these types of threads isn’t going to do anything to fix it.

Once again, I’m sorry I used you as a target for my frustration. Thank you for calling me on it.

 

[dzheremi]

In certain places where the dominant religion of the conquered was not one of the preexisting monotheistic religions, dhimmi status was granted to peoples such as Hindus and Buddhists. Muhammad Bin Qasim, who conquered Sindh and West Punjab (then parts of India, now Pakistan) during the time of the Umayyads, did this basically out of necessity, as the ruling class which he needed to incorporate into the new governing structure (as they were the people who knew how to run everything) was composed of Hindus and Buddhists. This kind of pragmatism is also how Christians of the east, such as John of Damascus and his relatives, were allowed to stay in governing positions over Muslims…for a time. Of course, eventually Christians were ordered out of government service (John of Damascus was retired to a monastery) once there were enough Muslims to replace them.

 

[7_Sorrows]

In Europe, they are a demographic time bomb, and their numbers are exploding every year, both because of high birthrates as well as immigration.

If you want to see what an Islamic Europe would be like, all you have to do is go into the areas of major cities in Britain and France where Muslims already comprise a majority, like areas of East London or in French ZUS (Zones Urbaines Sensibles, Sensible Urban Zones).

Things are going to come to a head.

i have heard this. doesn’t sound good.

 

[dzheremi]

Oldcatholicguy: Thank you for your kind reply. I appreciate it. We all get frustrated sometimes, so I can relate to where you’re coming from. I’m very glad we have been able to discuss these matters in an irenic way, as befits this place where many people of different backgrounds come together. Pax tecum.

 

[Kaninchen]

Projections of the future that are based on current trends, especially involving choices made by humans are not wise exercises. The kids born in Belgium to Muslim parents will be Belgians, with a European mindset. We see this even in Iran, where the children of the 1979 revolutionaries are certainly more moderate in their Islam than their parents. They want decadent Western culture.

I expect the Islam of 2050 in Europe to be like Christianity in Europe in 1975 or so. A force, but a weakening one.

I remember quoting (on the World News forum) an attitudinal survey of Muslim girls in the UK, they had the usual hopes (education, family etc) and a distinct and very commendable desire to start their own business.

Doesn’t sound terribly menacing.

 

[Augustine3]

Do not be deceived by Muslims when they claim they are tolerant and peaceful. Whoever says that is either lying or ignorant. Please read below, this is taken from an authentic hadith, I’ll let the readers decide for themselves what it means…

Allah’s Apostle said, “I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.’ And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally and their reckoning will be with Allah.” - Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 8, Number 387

 

[dzheremi]

I’ve read that hadith before, and I always find it interesting, knowing at least some minimal background on the history of Islam, that it includes “face our qibla”, in light of the fact that the Muslim direction of prayer was originally toward Jerusalem, and was only later changed to face the Kaaba in Mecca. So I always wonder: Is it with reference to Jerusalem, toward which we already pray (“Stand up! Look toward the East!”), or is it after the change to face Mecca? If it’s before, no problem – we’ve already got that covered. If it’s after, doesn’t it strike anyone as odd that Muhammad would insist on a particular direction he only changed after being rejected by the people (Jews and Christians) who already pray in the direction he himself originally also adopted? That strikes me as funny.

“Pray as we do!”
“Yeah, we already do that. You go that from us.”
“Oh. I mean…uh…GOD means, pray in this other direction, over there!”
“You clearly just made that up…”
“…God is veryyyy angry at you for questioning this divine command!” :tsktsk:

(Disclaimer: The above discussion may not have actually happened. But you can imagine it, right?)

 

[Augustine3]

Really? I’m very much interested to find out why they would not believe Catholics when Catholics say they are tolerant and peaceful…

God bless,

 

[dzheremi]

Indeed. It is easy to forget that as recently as the 1960s there were serious concerns about electing a Roman Catholic to the presidency of the USA, as there were people who worried that JFK would have divided loyalties between Rome and the USA. It seems pretty ridiculous to consider that now, but the USA has a very long and deep history of anti-Catholicism.

Granted, some of those same people might’ve also worried that they’d catch incurable blackness from drinking from the wrong water fountain, but still…

 

[KathleenGee]

Kennedy didn’t so much divide the country as he divided his wife among his countless others.

But going back to Iberia, I studied Monsignor Kelly’s book, ‘Blood Drenched Altars’, the suffering Spain underwent by 700 years of plundering, the second class status of Jews and Christians, how they had to wear green and some kind of badge, how they didn’t have full rights in Cordoba…I read a document of it, and Islam appeared quite totalitarian and inhumane in its golden age at Cordoba.

 

[KathleenGee]

If people here do not know, the Maronites celebrate the Maronite rite in communion with the Holy Father whose people are Lebanese.

Iran developed Hezebelloh, remember their brutality, and they settled in among border next to Israel.

It is looking like Egypt is Iran’s starting point to inflame and rise up anti-Israel militants. Reading today how our country is getting ready to fight Iran. I remember in my late 20’s when the Shah was overthrown. Some of my co-workers had gone to Iran, and were among those who got out in the nick of time back in the late 70’s. Iran is now coming to its head…

Wonder how many Muslims will want to participate…how many Iranians unhappy with that government there…

 

[John_Paul_Jones]

Crikey funny enough I’ve heard exactly the same thing said about us Catholics and how people should not be deceived by us when we claim we are tolerant and peaceful.
[/quote]

I’m sorry but I missed what was so funny about the “… slaughter as we slaughter…” part.

I guess some regard islam as a religion of peace, maybe even a twin religion to Catholicism. So no matter what a person says about islam it can be turned around against them as if they were speaking about Catholics, because the equivalent of a muslim is a Catholic since it is practically the same religion they have. It seems anything said about islam can be turned around to mean “muslims are bad” or it’s the same thing about Catholics.

 

[dzheremi]

JPJ: I was under the impression that this refers to the ritual slaughter of animals as per Islamic regulations, as this is what fits in with the context of the rest of the saying (stuff about the “qibla”, for instance, which concerns the direction that Muslims must face when performing their ritual prayers). Perhaps I’m wrong here, but I never took it as anything sinister (well, unless you’re an animal, I guess).