Muslims4Lent

[Thorolfr]

Islam is in no way “theologically closer” to Christianity. Judeo-Christian legal system is based as its roots on the ten commandments. Islamic Sharia law is not. Judeo-Christian tradition recognizes the inherit worth of every living human. Sharia Law does not and that is why slavery is still prevalent in these countries. Persecuted Catholics in England under Henry the 8th and Elizabeth the 1st has nothing to do with this conversation.

I don’t know of any Muslim countries where slavery is still legal and Christians do not have a very noble history when it comes to slavery either. Muslim slaves were still manning papal galleys until 1800 and the papacy did not officially condemn the slave trade until 1839.

 

[Mystophilus]

Where is the dishonesty of Muhammad’s actions in this claim- “Mohammed took some Nestorian heretical ideas and mixed them with some Jewish and Zoroastrian ideas to come up with Islam.”?

It represents Islam as a fabrication, whereas Muhammad himself described it as a revelation from God: saying that he made it up is saying that he was lying about the revelation.

 

[Mystophilus]

You do know that “Allah” is the generic word for God in Arabic, in that it means the same as God does in English, don’t you?

Precisely my point. If Allah is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, then Islam, Christianity, and Judaism share one God, and the Muslim statement to that effect is no lie.

I do not know for a “fact” but I do not believe that “early Muslims’ belief” was that Yahweh Is God, do you know?

It is very clear in the text:

“We [Allah speaking the plural of majesty] gave Moses the Scriptures” Qu’ran 2.54? (my translation does not have exact passage numbering, so it could be a verse or so out)

“Abraham was an upright man, one who submitted to God” 3.68? trans. N J Dawood

That part of sura 3 has an extended discourse on Judaism, Christianity, and Islam sharing one God. Being in the Qu’ran locates this belief within the first twenty-two years of Islam.

 

[Thorolfr]

Judeo-Christian tradition recognizes the inherit worth of every living human.

Hmmm…What about this from Exodus 21:20-21: “20 When a slaveowner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately, the owner shall be punished. 21 But if the slave survives a day or two, there is no punishment; for the slave is the owner’s property.”

 

[oldcatholicguy]

It represents Islam as a fabrication, whereas Muhammad himself described it as a revelation from God: saying that he made it up is saying that he was lying about the revelation.

Islam- Claims that it is divinely inspired, Christianity and Judaism corrupted
Catholicism- Claims that Islam is fabricated (aka man-made, not divinely inspired), Christianity and Judaism not corrupted

So it’s insulting to Islam to not agree with its own conclusions, but its not insulting to Catholicism to not agree with its own conclusions?

 

[Mystophilus]

I do not believe that the forum rules state that we should lie about our beliefs or that we should water down Christianity.

Nor do I. I do, however, understand that believing passionately in Christianity does not by any means require believing that Muslims, Muhammad, or any other believer in any other belief system is lying.

Let me take the obvious example: you’re a Catholic; I’m not. I do not believe in Catholicism. I believe that some aspects of Catholicism are not correct. This does not at all oblige me to believe that you are, or that any other Catholic is, dishonest, or that any part of Catholicism was wilfully fabricated by people wishing to deceive others.

Such a belief on my part would be uncharitable, it would not be treating others as I should prefer them to treat me, and it would be illogical as well (because other possible explanations still coherent with the idea of its being incorrect do exist).

 

[FreciaMarie]

Happy second anniversary…

Thank you! I didn’t realize today was the day, until your post!

 

[Mystophilus]

the papacy did not officially condemn the slave trade until 1839.

Doesn’t that still put them a few decades ahead of the USA?

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Nor do I. I do, however, understand that believing passionately in Christianity does not by any means require believing that Muslims, Muhammad, or any other believer in any other belief system is lying.

Let me take the obvious example: you’re a Catholic; I’m not. I do not believe in Catholicism. I believe that some aspects of Catholicism are not correct. This does not at all oblige me to believe that you are, or that any other Catholic is, dishonest, or that any part of Catholicism was wilfully fabricated by people wishing to deceive others.

Such a belief on my part would be uncharitable, it would not be treating others as I should prefer them to treat me, and it would be illogical as well (because other possible explanations still coherent with the idea of its being incorrect do exist).

So a Catholic who holds to Church teachings about-
-Muhammad not being a Prophet even though Islam claims he was one
-The Quran not being divinely inspired, but made up by Muhammad even though Islam claims God wrote it and gave it to Muhammad (either God wrote it or Muhammad did)
-and Christianity and Judaism not being corrupted even though Islam claims they are

is by default claiming that Islam and Muhammad are lying? Doesn’t that mean that by default you are claiming that Catholicism is lying in regards to those aspects of it you disagree with?

 

[Thorolfr]

So a Catholic who holds to Church teachings about-
-Muhammad not being a Prophet even though Islam claims he was one
-The Quran not being divinely inspired, but made up by Muhammad even though Islam claims God wrote it and gave it to Muhammad (either God wrote it or Muhammad did)
-and Christianity and Judaism not being corrupted even though Islam claims they are

is by default claiming that Islam and Muhammad are lying? Doesn’t that mean that by default you are claiming that Catholicism is lying in regards to those aspects of it you disagree with?

Regardless of what Muslims and Christians think about the truth claims of the other, I still think that what the Muslims for Lent did was a nice gesture. It’s always a good thing to thank and encourage people of any faith who do this kind of thing.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Regardless of what Muslims and Christians think about the truth claims of the other, I still think that what the Muslims for Lent did was a nice gesture. It’s always a good thing to thank and encourage people of any faith who do this kind of thing.

Yes, it is a nice gesture.

 

[meltzerboy]

Hi Meltzer,

In the 20+ times Apostasy is mentioned in the Quran, not in one occasion is the death penalty proscribed for those who leave Islam. Influential Muslim scholars such as the late SA Rahmen(Sunni Muslim from Pakistan) and the late Hussein Montizeri(Shia Muslim from Iran)) suggested that punishment for apostasy is to be judged during afterlife.

That’s what I suspected but nonetheless wanted to confirm. Thank you for the information.

 

[JamalChristophr]

That may be true. But what does the Quran say about Infidels who refuse to convert to Islam??

 

[Thorolfr]

That may be true. But what does the Quran say about Infidels who refuse to convert to Islam??

Islam does not force non-Muslims to convert to Islam. Historically, during the Muslim conquests, non-Muslim communities which submitted were required to pay a tax called the jizya. According to Wikipedia:

Under Islamic law, jizya or jizyah (Arabic: جزية‎ ǧizyah IPA: [dʒizja]; Ottoman Turkish: cizye) is a per capita tax levied on a section of an Islamic state’s non-Muslim subjects, who meet certain criteria. The tax is and was to be levied on able-bodied adult males of military age (but with specific exemptions).[1][2] From the point of view of the Muslim rulers, jizya was a material proof of the non-Muslims’ acceptance of subjection to the state and its laws. In return, non-Muslim subjects are permitted to practice their faith, to enjoy a measure of communal autonomy, to be entitled to the Muslim state’s protection from outside aggression, and to be exempted from military service and from the zakat tax levied upon Muslim citizens.[3][4] The jizya continued to be applied in Persia and many North African countries into the 19th century, but almost vanished in the 20th century.[5] The tax is no longer imposed by nation states in the Islamic world.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jizya

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Islam does not force non-Muslims to convert to Islam. Historically, during the Muslim conquests, non-Muslim communities which submitted were required to pay a tax called the jizya. According to Wikipedia:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jizya

And if they didn’t submit, what would happen to them?

 

[Thorolfr]

And if they didn’t submit, what would happen to them?

They were probably treated harshly like enemy combatants were usually treated back then. But that was hardly unique to Muslims. Christian armies back then didn’t treat enemies who refused to surrender very well either.

 

[Thorolfr]

And if they didn’t submit, what would happen to them?

Christians often didn’t even treat other Christians very well. In 1527, the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V attacked Rome to punish Pope Leo X for having sided in a dispute with Francis I, King of France. As many as 12,000 people in Rome were butchered by the emperor’s troops and according to an eyewitness, Luigi Guicciardini:

Many were suspended for hours by the arms; many were cruelly bound by the genitals; many were suspended by the feet high above the road or over the river, while their tormentors threatened to cut the cord. Some were half buried in the cellars; others were nailed up in casks or villainously beaten or wounded; not a few were branded all over their persons with red hot irons. Some were tortured by extreme thirst, having their teeth brutally drawn. Others again were forced to eat their own ears or nose or their roasted testicles, and yet more were subjected to strange, unheard-of martyrdoms that move me too much even to think of, much less describe.

 

[DebChris]

As previously stated, I lived in a Muslim country where I enjoyed religious freedom. The Muslim king recently donated land for the building of a new Catholic cathedral.
Sikhs wear their headdress and Indians celebrate Dawali. There are many Hindus in the country. No, I did not have to pay an extra tax, nor did I wear a hajib.

 

[JamalChristophr]

I think we could say that St. John the Evangelist and St. Paul were mystics, right?

 

[oldcatholicguy]

They were probably treated harshly like enemy combatants were usually treated back then. But that was hardly unique to Muslims. Christian armies back then didn’t treat enemies who refused to surrender very well either.

-Treated harshly? Define harshly.
-We aren’t just talking about combatants.
-What Christian armies did or did not do has no bearing on what Islamic armies did or didn’t do in regards to forcible conversion of non-Muslims. In fact, what Islamic armies did or didn’t do doesn’t really matter either. What matters is what Islam itself teaches about dealing with non-combatants who refuse to convert and refuse to submit to dhimmi. What does Islam teach to do to non-combatants who refuse to submit to dhimmi and refuse to convert?