Muslims4Lent

[SteveVH]

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

I think you’re in the wrong thread. There is a current thread on Christian mystics.

 

[robwar]

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.

that is totally false. I would suggest the book “Pope Fiction” by Patrick Madrid and in that book, he has a whole chapter about Popes and slavery which totally debunk with quotes from several Pope going way back that condemn slavery. Sorry but only in the 1960’s did even Saudi Arabia try to even outlaw slavery. The slave trade was big business for Muslims and that is where the dutch picked up on it and brought it to the American colonies. What but what is happening in Africa and all these radicalized Muslim countries is a return of slavery. The Koran does not condemn it while Christianity has and where Christianity has spread, slavery and its practice diminished or ended.

 

[JamalChristophr]

Oops,my sincere apologies.

 

[robwar]

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.”

I am always amazed that the horrible deaths, kidnappings, and destruction that is happening to Christians right here and right now at the hands of those claiming to follow Mohammed are not even condemned by fellow Christians yet some OT verse taken out of context about slavery to try to make some weak kneed case that either Jews or Christians supported owning another human. Sorry, but reading all of the OT laws that governed slavery from OT times puts limits and parameters around the practice. I think the concern should be for fellow Christians instead of trying to argue with Catholics how you feel Islam is similar to Christianity.

 

[Mystophilus]

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?

Okay, I thought that I had just covered this. The short answer is “No”; the long answer is “Nooooooooooooooooooooo”. You don’t really think that viewing someone as a liar is the only basis for disagreeing with them, do you?

Let me pick just the Qu’ran one, and see if I can make this clearer.

Muhammad claims that he wrote the text as it was revealed to him by God.
To this claim, we can have seven different basic responses:

1. believe it (which would essentially make us Muslims);
2. disbelieve it with the view that he made it up, i.e. that he was a liar;
3. disbelieve it with the view that he was sincere, but he was hugely *mistaken *about whence his ideas came, since they only truly came from the Devil misleading him;
4. disbelieve it with the view that he was *sincere *but he was hugely *mistaken *about whence his ideas came, since they truly came from within himself (i.e. from his subconscious);
5. disbelieve it with the view that he was *sincere *but he was hugely *mistaken *about whence his ideas came, since they truly came from human sources outside of him (i.e. his upbringing, his culture, his friends, etc);
6. disbelieve it with the view that he was *sincere *but he was hugely *mistaken *about whence his ideas came, since they truly came from some combination of the factors in #3, #4, and #5;
7. disbelieve it with the view that there is insufficient evidence to believe it, irrespective of the writer’s sincerity or accuracy.

Number 6 could actually be teased out into different options for different proportions of the various factors, and so we have at least **seven **options rather than the simple binary of “It’s true or he lied”. The same process can be applied to the writing of most religious texts, most histories, and quite a few news reports.

 

[robwar]

Okay, I thought that I had just covered this. The short answer is “No”; the long answer is “Nooooooooooooooooooooo”. You don’t really think that viewing someone as a liar is the only basis for disagreeing with them, do you?

Let me pick just the Qu’ran one, and see if I can make this clearer.

Muhammad claims that he wrote the text as it was revealed to him by God.
To this claim, we can have seven different basic responses:

1. believe it (which would essentially make us Muslims);
2. disbelieve it with the view that he made it up, i.e. that he was a liar;
3. disbelieve it with the view that he was sincere, but he was hugely *mistaken *about whence his ideas came, since they only truly came from the Devil misleading him;
4. disbelieve it with the view that he was *sincere *but he was hugely *mistaken *about whence his ideas came, since they truly came from within himself (i.e. from his subconscious);
5. disbelieve it with the view that he was *sincere *but he was hugely *mistaken *about whence his ideas came, since they truly came from human sources outside of him (i.e. his upbringing, his culture, his friends, etc);
6. disbelieve it with the view that he was *sincere *but he was hugely *mistaken *about whence his ideas came, since they truly came from some combination of the factors in #3, #4, and #5;
7. disbelieve it with the view that there is insufficient evidence to believe it, irrespective of the writer’s sincerity or accuracy.

Number 6 could actually be teased out into different options for different proportions of the various factors, and so we have at least **seven **options rather than the simple binary of “It’s true or he lied”. The same process can be applied to the writing of most religious texts, most histories, and quite a few news reports.

you are trying to split hairs here. Like you said, if one was to accept Mohammed and his visions as true, then yes, that would make one or be the road to islam. If one doesn’t accept or believe that Mohammed visions are accurate whether he made them up, had something more diabolical than and angel, delusion or what ever, what difference does it make? Mohammed would either be a liar, a lunatic or severely influence by spiritual forces other than God by those that don’t accept Islam.

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Stay on the topic of the OP, follow the very clearly defined posting rules for inter-faith dialogue.

 

[SjMelnychuk]

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?

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

Allah is the same as the Jewish name of God Elohim … Sorry can’t get the correct spelling but God is known by many names. One of which is the short form of Allah so it’s not entirely wrong to refer to God as Allah.

 

[Tom_Baum]

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).

Concerning, “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.”

I don’t remember bringing up anything in my post to you about “Muslims, Muhammad, or any other believer in any other belief system” lying, what I said was, “I do not believe that the forum rules state that we should lie about our beliefs or that we should water down Christianity”, I was talking about MY beliefs and not “lying or watering” these beliefs down to be “politically correct”.

I believe that Muhammad believed that it was indeed Gabriel that came to speak to him, however, I believe that it was NOT Gabriel but was an angel, the angel who is referred to as the “father of lies”.

Do you think/believe that lying about your beliefs, to not offend others, is being charitable?

Personally, I would rather someone be honest with me, concerning their beliefs, as long as their beliefs does not include forcing their beliefs on others.

From what I believe that I have learned concerning islam , it can be considered, basically a virtue, to lie for the spread of islam, is this correct or not?

I can’t think of the term for it now but it starts with the letter t.

 

[Tom_Baum]

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.

I agree with you and I believe that it is a Godly thought.

I happen to think/believe that “God is a searcher of hearts and minds, not of religious affiliations or lack thereof”.

“Religious affiliation or lack thereof” is merely a “part” of a person and I would say that God looks at the “whole” person.

There is something very near the beginning of the bible that says, “Let Us make man (human) in Our Image and …”, it really doesn’t say anything about any beliefs or non-beliefs of these men (humans) and it sure does seem that many, who look to the bible, don’t seem to take notice of this.

Maybe it is time for ALL of humanity to realize that we are ALL brothers and sisters.

And I happen to believe that we are ALL brothers and sisters of God (Incarnation) and that we are ALL sons and daughters of God (creation), no matter what God, god or gods that one believes in or if one does not believe in any God, god or gods.

Others can believe whatever they want, no one should be able to force their beliefs on another and no one should feel that they have to deny or water-down their beliefs for any person’s or any forum’s benefit.

 

[Per_Crucem]

I agree with you and I believe that it is a Godly thought.

I happen to think/believe that “God is a searcher of hearts and minds, not of religious affiliations or lack thereof”.

Indeed.

There is something very near the beginning of the bible that says, “Let Us make man (human) in Our Image and …”, it really doesn’t say anything about any beliefs or non-beliefs of these men (humans) and it sure does seem that many, who look to the bible, don’t seem to take notice of this.

It doesn’t make mention of religious beliefs because at that point in human history, there was only one belief “system.” The false belief systems did not arise until after the Fall.

However, Jesus has plenty to say about beliefs and non-beliefs. What He says about those who deny Him is not very positive.

And I happen to believe that we are ALL brothers and sisters of God (Incarnation) and that we are ALL sons and daughters of God (creation), no matter what God, god or gods that one believes in or if one does not believe in any God, god or gods.

Jesus called those who reject Him sons of their father the devil, not of God. The apostle Paul calls those who are unbelievers “children of wrath” in Ephesians 2. The only ones called children of God in Scripture are those who repent, believe and obey the gospel.

 

[Mystophilus]

I don’t remember bringing up anything in my post to you about “Muslims, Muhammad, or any other believer in any other belief system” lying

When another commenter had described Islam as a fabrication, I responded to that comment by referring to forum rules about charity (and not accusing people of lying). You then replied to that response of mine with the statement that watering down beliefs is not demanded by forum rules. Since you were carrying on the same conversation, I did likewise.

Do you think/believe that lying about your beliefs, to not offend others, is being charitable?

No, but neither do I believe that (as some in this thread have suggested) the only alternatives are calling other people liars or agreeing with what they say. It is perfectly possible to disagree charitably.

From what I believe that I have learned concerning islam , it can be considered, basically a virtue, to lie for the spread of islam, is this correct or not?

I can’t think of the term for it now but it starts with the letter t.

Are you thinking of takfir, the pronouncement that unusual measures are acceptable against unbelievers, used by terrorists as justification for their violence (and remarkably similar to ideas like ‘extraordinary rendition’)? If so, “Mainstream Muslims and Islamist groups reject the concept as a doctrinal deviation” (Oxford Dictionary of Islam, ed. John L Esposito).

In other words, the people who consider it a virtue are they types who also consider suicide bombing a virtue.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

When another commenter had described Islam as a fabrication, I responded to that comment by referring to forum rules about charity (and not accusing people of lying). You then replied to that response of mine with the statement that watering down beliefs is not demanded by forum rules. Since you were carrying on the same conversation, I did likewise.

No, but neither do I believe that (as some in this thread have suggested) the only alternatives are calling other people liars or agreeing with what they say. It is perfectly possible to disagree charitably.

Are you thinking of takfir, the pronouncement that unusual measures are acceptable against unbelievers, used by terrorists as justification for their violence (and remarkably similar to ideas like ‘extraordinary rendition’)? If so, “Mainstream Muslims and Islamist groups reject the concept as a doctrinal deviation” (Oxford Dictionary of Islam, ed. John L Esposito).

In other words, the people who consider it a virtue are they types who also consider suicide bombing a virtue.

Muhammad wasn’t a Prophet, Islam is not a divinely inspired faith, since he wasn’t a Prophet and the Quran didn’t come from God (the divinely inspired part)- the only logical conclusion is that he made it up. The only implication of Muhammad acting with dishonest intent from my statement would be what you or any other reader puts into it. Who authored the Quran is a rather finite list of possibilities. Catholic and Jewish theology both cross God of that finite list of possible authors. Should we now charge both faiths and those who follow them as accusing Muhammad of being a liar since both faiths hold that Islam’s claims are wrong?

 

[Mystophilus]

Muhammad wasn’t a Prophet, Islam is not a divinely inspired faith, since he wasn’t a Prophet and the Quran didn’t come from God (the divinely inspired part)- the only logical conclusion is that he made it up.

Actually, no: assuming that the Qu’ran did not come from God does not logically entail that it came from Muhammad.

The only implication of Muhammad acting with dishonest intent from my statement would be what you or any other reader puts into it.

In what sense do you mean “he made it up” if not “he fabricated it”?

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Actually, no: assuming that the Qu’ran did not come from God does not logically entail that it came from Muhammad.

In what sense do you mean “he made it up” if not “he fabricated it”?

Ok, if the Quran didn’t come from God and didn’t come from Muhammad, where did it come from?

 

[JamalChristophr]

Ok, if the Quran didn’t come from God and didn’t come from Muhammad, where did it come from?

There is also the possibility that the Quran is a from of automatic writing via private revelation through some entity or spirit, as we commonly refer to them.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

There is also the possibility that the Quran is a from of automatic writing via private revelation through some entity or spirit, as we commonly refer to them.

Or in other words of demonic origins. I discount that idea based on the Church not declaring it as such. The options seem to be-
-From God- which runs counter to Church teaching
-From a demonic source- again counter to Church teaching
-From a person other than Muhammad- which the other poster can’t actually claim because this would make Muhammad a liar, and which I discount due to the historical record and tradition around the Quran and Muhammad
-From Muhammad- for a dishonest reason- possible
-From Muhammad- for an honest but mistaken reason- possible
-From Muhammad- as a result of some sort of mental issue- possible, but in my opinion not likely

Bottom line- Muhammad created the Quran either because a) he had some sort of mental issue b) for a dishonest intent (aka “take over the world” evil supervillain laugh) c) for an honest intent (aka make the world a better place, correct what he thought were flaws in Judaism and Christianity, thought he was “on a mission from God”).

 

[JamalChristophr]

Or in other words of demonic origins. I discount that idea based on the Church not declaring it as such. The options seem to be-
-From God- which runs counter to Church teaching
-From a demonic source- again counter to Church teaching
-From a person other than Muhammad- which the other poster can’t actually claim because this would make Muhammad a liar, and which I discount due to the historical record and tradition around the Quran and Muhammad
-From Muhammad- for a dishonest reason- possible
-From Muhammad- for an honest but mistaken reason- possible
-From Muhammad- as a result of some sort of mental issue- possible, but in my opinion not likely

Bottom line- Muhammad created the Quran either because a) he had some sort of mental issue b) for a dishonest intent (aka “take over the world” evil supervillain laugh) c) for an honest intent (aka make the world a better place, correct what he thought were flaws in Judaism and Christianity, thought he was “on a mission from God”).

I’m not sure if the Church has ever explicitly made such a claim that some message or writing is of demonic origin. Or has it??

 

[oldcatholicguy]

I’m not sure if the Church has ever explicitly made such a claim that some message or writing is of demonic origin. Or has it??

Explicitly state- IDK; able to use reason to figure out the Church’s position- yes. One would hardly think that the Church would have a department dedicated to interreligious dialogue with a faith it holds to be of demonic origin for example.

 

[Tom_Baum]

Indeed.

It doesn’t make mention of religious beliefs because at that point in human history, there was only one belief “system.” The false belief systems did not arise until after the Fall.

However, Jesus has plenty to say about beliefs and non-beliefs. What He says about those who deny Him is not very positive.

Jesus called those who reject Him sons of their father the devil, not of God. The apostle Paul calls those who are unbelievers “children of wrath” in Ephesians 2. The only ones called children of God in Scripture are those who repent, believe and obey the gospel.

You wrote, “It doesn’t make mention of religious beliefs because at that point in human history, there was only one belief “system.” The false belief systems did not arise until after the Fall.”

In reply to, “There is something very near the beginning of the bible that says, “Let Us make man (human) in Our Image and …”, it really doesn’t say anything about any beliefs or non-beliefs of these men (humans) and it sure does seem that many, who look to the bible, don’t seem to take notice of this.”

As far as “at that point in human history, there was only one belief “system.””

Not really, because “at that point in human history” there were NO belief systems because there were NO humans to have a belief system, true or false.