Question on Islam -- round 4

[tomarin]

That quote has nothing to do with an actual sword or Jesus advocating violence!!! I am not arguing anything about pacifism with you - I’m just appalled that you are using that quote as an argument for violence. As a Catholic you should understand the meaning and context of Jesus’ words - not be giving Planten-esque arguments with it.

If you read the Catechism paragraph I posted, then you will understand that sometimes violence is necessary to defend oneself or one’s family, or one’s country. I don’t think that’s contrary to Jesus’s teachings in any way. That is the context in which I understand Jesus’s statement about bringing a sword. I honestly don’t see why that should upset you.

Violence is permitted by Christianity in some circumstances. Otherwise why would we have chaplains in the army? Why would we allow Catholics to serve in the military for that matter?

 

[Jay53]

If you read the Catechism paragraph I posted, then you will understand that sometimes violence is necessary to defend oneself or one’s family, or one’s country. I don’t think that’s contrary to Jesus’s teachings in any way. That is the context in which I understand Jesus’s statement about bringing a sword. I honestly don’t see why that should upset you.

Violence is permitted by Christianity in some circumstances. Otherwise why would we have chaplains in the army? Why would we allow Catholics to serve in the military for that matter?

Again, I am not arguing the permissability of defending oneself - I fully agree with you. But Jesus’ quote you are using does not have to do with that at all - here is the full verse:

Matthew 10:34-39 (New International Version)

34"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn
" ‘a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law -
36a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’[a]

37"Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; 38and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.

Now you cannot possibly believe that Jesus meant people were supposed to take up arms and slaughter their families? The context and meaning of the quote is that we are supposed to love God more than we love anyone, including our own families. It has nothing to do with actually taking up arms.

 

[tomarin]

Now you cannot possibly believe that Jesus meant people were supposed to take up arms and slaughter their families? The context and meaning of the quote is that we are supposed to love God more than we love anyone, including our own families. It has nothing to do with actually taking up arms.

You’re right of course, and I’m sorry if I offended you or appeared to be taking Scripture out of context. My only point in quoting that was to indicate that someone who was a pacifist would probably not use those words. Remember that Scriptural passages can have more than one meaning.

I also think that taken as a whole the passage indicates that Christianity is not going to get anywhere without “making waves” so to speak, and some of that will involve strife. When you take up your cross as Jesus’s disciple you will inevitably come into conflict with the world, and the worldly, and some of them may even be your own family members.

 

[Jay53]

You’re right of course, and I’m sorry if I offended you or appeared to be taking Scripture out of context. My only point in quoting that was to indicate that someone who was a pacifist would probably not use those words. Remember that Scriptural passages can have more than one meaning.

Don’t worry - I’m not offended. It just pushes my buttons when someone (it’s usually Planten ) uses that quote to exemplify violence in Christianity. I fully agree with you on the point that some violence is necessary when you are fighting evil. Fight the good fight and all that.

 

[jakasaki]

Don’t worry - I’m not offended. It just pushes my buttons when someone (it’s usually Planten ) uses that quote to exemplify violence in Christianity. I fully agree with you on the point that some violence is necessary when you are fighting evil. Fight the good fight and all that.

Haven’t seen our dear friend Planten around for a while now… Maybe he’s on vacation or something. I remember that “sword” verse was one of his favorites.

 

[Jay53]

And for all our Muslim friends I would like to point out that the aforementioned verse is another one where Jesus confirms His Divinity:

37"Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; 38and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. (Matthew 10:37-39)



(Or perhaps Muslims will argue that they are to love all of the prophets more than anyone, including their families? No doubt they’ll come up with something. )

 

[tomarin]

Don’t worry - I’m not offended. It just pushes my buttons when someone (it’s usually Planten ) uses that quote to exemplify violence in Christianity.

I understand. Keep in mind though that I brought it up in response to Agabriel’s claim that all Jesus’s teachings were peaceful. Obviously that verse does not sanction violence for violence’s sake, but I think it reflects a more nuanced view of conflict than out-and-out pacifism (which isn’t endorsed by our Church anyway).

 

[Agabriel]

Here is a good summary. Scroll down to the part of the essay subtitled “Science” to read about classical Islamic civilization’s achievements in math, science, and medicine.

I will read it today, thanks.

I think I’m communicating clearly. What part of what I’m saying doesn’t make sense?

One line rebuttals with nothing to back them up is what I was referring to and then wanting me to do your hoomework. I did mine, you do your own.

It’s a sad state of affairs (science in Islam today) but it wasn’t always true, so it’s not correct to blame it on some intrinsic quality of Islam.

When the practitioners of Islam prohibits half its population to go to school, when practitioners of Islam have the ones who do go to school only study the Quran - there will indeed be a ‘intrinsic quality of Islam’ that prohibits progress.

I am not a pacifist.

I am not surprised.

I don’t know who this Servier guy is, but he sounds like a bit of a racist (which is not a word I toss around casually).

Muslims, or Islam, is not a race. So nice try. It is just another excuse when someone figures Islam out. And I also provided a book, with a different author, to back up Servier’s claim. How about Churchill? Here goes:

WINSTON CHURCHILL ON ISLAM - IN 1899!

("How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries!
Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia
in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many
countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods
of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet
rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the
next of its dignity and sanctity.

The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as
his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must
delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased
to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid
qualities - but the influence of the religion paralyses the social
development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists
in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and
proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa,
raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity
is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it
had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell
the civilization of ancient Rome."

-Sir Winston Churchill (The River War, first edition, Vol. II, pages
248-50 (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1899).
1 November 2005 – Australia)

 

[tomarin]

Muslims, or Islam, is not a race.

Indeed not. But Arabs are.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Muslims, or Islam, is not a race. So nice try. It is just another excuse when someone figures Islam out. And I also provided a book, with a different author, to back up Servier’s claim. How about Churchill? Here goes:

Powerful words from Winston … and I concede I’ve always loved Churchill. I wonder what he meant by his remark:

“were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.”

Churchill rarely if ever (besides his wedding day) attended his Anglican church (and was probably something close to an agnostic or atheist). Think about those words you quoted. He probably did make some fair points about Islam, but he also made pretty clear that he’s no fan of religious zealotry of any sort (including Christianity … and I wonder how he felt about Catholicism?).

I’ve already found a few web sites that list Churchill as agnostic … but I need to do more research.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Interesting, for all the hoopla and anti-atheist or agnostic sentiment I see (comparing us to communists, Nazi’s, and every other horrible thing under the sun) it seems most of our founding fathers (at least the major ones) didn’t believe the bible to be literally true (including all the miracles, the resurrection, etc.). For them the important thing was its moral message, in other words its practical utility for maintaining an orderly society. However, from Franklin to Jefferson few of our founders could be defined as Christians according to modern standards.

Moreover, I confirmed, Winston Churchill was agnostic. In addition the commonly cited mantra that Einstein was a monotheist is also wrong (indeed nothing could be further from the truth). Einstein didn’t believe in an afterlife, didn’t believe there was a god who answered prayers or involved himself in human affairs, etc.

Anyways …

 

[Agabriel]

tomarin, by the way I am only a pacifist if I can ‘fight’ peacefully as much as I/we can. (that is why I joined Act for America). but there is indeed a time to fight. And I support fully our troops being an ex-military person myself (USMC). And I was in during a time of peace, but the Muslims were attacking and successfully killing our men (Beirut).

I fully supported the Desert Storm and the Gulf War, and what is going on in Afghanistan and also our troops are in many places that our media is braindead in letting us know. We are in Africa, and other places.

I resent our media for their untruths in these wars (the ‘Bush lied, people died’ diatribes, or insinuations).

And here is a source to find out that there was indeed a link between Al Qaeda and Saddam, and also the Muslim brotherhood, the Abu Sayaff, CAIR, and other organizations. And our MSA has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood also which should all warn us that they are in our schools influencing our young adults. But even more, they are even influence our younger kid’s history books with their revisionist history.

‘The Link, The Secret Relationship between Saddam and Al Qaida’

But as you can read the peaceful ‘fight’ is a tough one.

 

[Agabriel]

Powerful words from Winston … and I concede I’ve always loved Churchill. I wonder what he meant by his remark:

“were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.”

Churchill rarely if ever (besides his wedding day) attended his Anglican church (and was probably something close to an agnostic or atheist). Think about those words you quoted. He probably did make some fair points about Islam, but he also made pretty clear that he’s no fan of religious zealotry of any sort (including Christianity … and I wonder how he felt about Catholicism?).

I’ve already found a few web sites that list Churchill as agnostic … but I need to do more research.

I really don’t care what his religion, or lack thereof, was. He had it right on Islam. As for going to the way of secularism, or agnosticism, that is sad. Secularism is a failed ‘experiment’ in Europe. But, as with all failed things in Europe (socialized medicine, secularism, etc), too many in the USA want to glom onto them.

I guess the dumbing down of America has worked. We should thank our left wing liberals for that! (please note heavy sarcasm)

 

[Muslim_Woman]

In the name of Allah , Most Gracious, Most Merciful

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Garrisoning in the Cause of Allah

habib : What is meant by Al-Ribat Fi Sabil Allah and what is its virtue in Islam?

Name of Mufti : Standing Committee for Islamic Research and Ifta’

.... Al-Ribat Fi Sabil Allah means garrisoning Muslim frontiers (i.e. keeping a guarding army ready to defend Muslim frontiers against enemies and against any attempts to invade Muslim countries).

Many hadiths have been reported declaring the virtue of guarding Muslim frontiers in the cause of Allah.

1. … “To guard Muslim frontiers in Allah’s Cause for one day is better than the world and everything it contains.”
2. …“Guarding the Muslim frontiers for a day and a night is better (in point of reward) than fasting for a whole month and offering Qiyam Al-Layl (Night Vigil Prayer) every night.”
3. Moreover, those who do this duty will be saved from the trials of the grave and the rewards of their deeds will not cease by their death…The deeds of every deceased person come to a halt by his death except the one who is on the frontier in the cause of Allah, for their deeds will continue to grow and they will be safe from the trials of the grave."

Related Questions

• Levels of Jihad
• Hadiths on the Merits of Jihad
• Jihad: Its True Meaning and Purpose
• What is Jihad in Islam?

Allah Almighty knows best.

islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?cid=1239888817272&pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar%2FFatwaE%2FFatwaEAskTheScholar

 

[Agabriel]

tomarin, your link to prove that Islam had a Golden Age actually bears out what I asserted. The concentration on the Quran. In the beginning of the conquests, before the dhimmi and newly reverted Muslims (probably many reverted out of fear at first and then they condemned their future generations to it) were still being influenced by a pre-Islamic time period. most of what was innovative was pre-Islamic.

And we already know the history that the Muslims tell us - most of it isn’t even correct.

And there isn’t too much past the 1300s to even note.

They had a Golden Age, or they think, only due to their ravaging other cultures.

Take note of the dates of their jihads against these peoples:

The Jihad against Arabs (622 to 634)

The Jihad against Zoroastrian Persians of Iran, Baluchistan and Afghanistan (634 to 651)

The Jihad against the Byzantine Christians (634 to 1453)

The Jihad against Christian Coptic Egyptians (640 to 655)

The Jihad against Christian Coptic Nubians - modern Sudanese (650)

The Jihad against pagan Berbers - North Africans (650 to 700)

The Jihad against Spaniards (711 to 730)

The Reconquista against Jihad in Spain (730 to 1492)

The Jihad against Franks - modern French (720 to 732)

The Jihad against Sicilians in Italy (812 to 940)

The Jihad against Chinese (751)

The Jihad against Turks (651 to 751)

The Jihad against Armenians and Georgians (1071 to 1920)

The Crusade against Jihad (1096 – 1291 ongoing)

These histories can be gotten from this link.

The Jihad against Mongols (1260 to 1300)

The Jihad against Hindus of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh (638 to 1857)

 

[humble_in_doubt]

I really don’t care what his religion, or lack thereof, was. He had it right on Islam. As for going to the way of secularism, or agnosticism, that is sad. Secularism is a failed ‘experiment’ in Europe. But, as with all failed things in Europe (socialized medicine, secularism, etc), too many in the USA want to glom onto them.

I guess the dumbing down of America has worked. We should thank our left wing liberals for that! (please note heavy sarcasm)

the dumbing down of America, gee that’s a new one? Too bad I have two masters degrees huh? Oh yeah, the smartest group in America are atheists and agnostics, sorry to burst your bubble …

In fact not only are we the smartest, but tend to be the most affluent, least likely to commit a felony, and the most secular countries in the world are rated the happiest. Hmmm? Anyway … yeah you’re right about the dumbing down of America, you’re just wrong about who the dumb people are!

As far as Islam goes … you’re right, they did all those things. How about this … on my next deployment – the first one I pop will be just for you.

 

[Agabriel]

the dumbing down of America, gee that’s a new one? Too bad I have two masters degrees huh? Oh yeah, the smartest group in America are atheists and agnostics, sorry to burst your bubble …

In fact not only are we the smartest, but tend to be the most affluent, least likely to commit a felony, and the most secular countries in the world are rated the happiest. Hmmm? Anyway … yeah you’re right about the dumbing down of America, you’re just wrong about who the dumb people are!

Please post your statistics. Especially since crimes in Europe are skyrocketing (source: While Europe Slept and/or Menace in Europe and/or Eurasia).

All of my friends are conservative, Republicans or Independents and Christian, and very affluent. Most are either in Catholic schools, or do extra training at home in music, Russian, and also math since the left wing liberal controlled schools are so deficient in some things. Some even home school.

As for crimes, they seem to be high in areas where left wing liberals control those cities. Chicago! Gee, who came from there?!? Oakland. San Francisco. And these are controlled by left wing liberals. I could probably look up more cities controlled by left wing liberals, these are just ones that I know about off the top of my head.

How do you measure happiness? Is it by the vileness of the jokes that come from that group? The comedians like Jeanine Garafolo? Or how about that nastiness from the one (I forget her name) that wished Rush would get a kidney disease?

I think you are trying to argue on points that can be refuted and are quite honestly, not provable from your standpoint.

It is like the Muslims throwing out accusations that we are more immoral than they are when they have Sharia laws that sanction violence against not only their women, but any unbelievers. There is no protection for them if there is violence directed at them. Or their saying we are immoral because of adultry when all they do is rename it to ‘weekend marriages’, or just marry and divorce so easily. Or that ‘honor killings’ are ok under sharia laws.

Or this is a favorite of theirs - Hitler was a Christian. And when we look closer Hitler didn’t practice Christianity at all, but in fact had an alliance with such Muslims as the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. And there were Bosnian Muslim divisions fighting for the Nazis. And no Muslim nation came to the rescue during this war, but a USA did indeed as did Great Britain and other Judeo-Christian type of nations.

But, please prove your assertions. I look forward to it.

By the way, I was talking about the ‘dumbing down of America’ in our educational system in reference to the USA trying to socialize things. Oops, your Masters Degrees didn’t help you understand that though, did they?

 

[richrdCohn]

There was no pagan ruler involved here I don’t know where you got that information from all of the people involved in the crucifixion of Jesus were Jewish.

If there wa no pagan ruler involved in the beating badly / killing of your Christian God, then who was in fact? Jews?
Your Christian God too was a Jew, yes or no?

As for why it happened Jesus said it himself as he was being nailed to the cross, father forgive them they know not what they do."

I see… so your Christian God told you that he will be beaten badly and get killed before his death?

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Please post your statistics. Especially since crimes in Europe are skyrocketing (source: While Europe Slept and/or Menace in Europe and/or Eurasia).

All of my friends are conservative, Republicans or Independents and Christian, and very affluent. Most are either in Catholic schools, or do extra training at home in music, Russian, and also math since the left wing liberal controlled schools are so deficient in some things. Some even home school.

In fact there is a correlation between IQ, test scores, profession, and an individuals religious preferences (See: kspark.kaist.ac.kr/Jesus/Intelligence%20&%20religion.htm, the source cites numerous studies showing this to be true).

We have the highest SAT scores, most scientists (including physicists who actually have the lowest number at only 20%), biologists, mathematicians, etc. do not believe in god, and so on.

As for crimes, they seem to be high in areas where left wing liberals control those cities. Chicago! Gee, who came from there?!? Oakland. San Francisco. And these are controlled by left wing liberals. I could probably look up more cities controlled by left wing liberals, these are just ones that I know about off the top of my head.

Just look at the real numbers:

The Federal Bureau of Prisons does have statistics on religious affiliations of inmates. The following are total number of inmates per religion category:[8]

*
      o Catholic 29267 39.164%
      o Protestant 26162 35.008%
      o Muslim 5435 7.273%
      o American Indian 2408 3.222%
      o Nation 1734 2.320%
      o Rasta 1485 1.987%
      o Jewish 1325 1.773%
      o Church of Christ 1303 1.744%
      o Pentecostal 1093 1.463%
      o Moorish 1066 1.426%
      o Buddhist 882 1.180%
      o Jehovah Witness 665 0.890%
      o Adventist 621 0.831%
      o Orthodox 375 0.502%
      o Mormon 298 0.399%
      o Scientology 190 0.254%
      o Atheist 156 0.209%

freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Percentage_of_atheists

How do you measure happiness? Is it by the vileness of the jokes that come from that group? The comedians like Jeanine Garafolo? Or how about that nastiness from the one (I forget her name) that wished Rush would get a kidney disease?

In addition, you might like to know democrats overwhelmingly believe god exists. 65% of democrats believe god is the “all-knowing, perfect creator and ruler of the universe” (see Barna study, link here).

As for happiness studies:

Denmark, Finland and the Netherlands rated at the top of the list, ranking first, second and third, respectively. Outside Europe, New Zealand and Canada landed at Nos. 8 and 6, respectively. The U.S. did not crack the top 10. Switzerland placed seventh and Belgium placed tenth. Russian Federation is not even listed in the report.

Forbes did the study (see link here).

As far as it’s methodology, you can question it if you like (and dig deeper into it). However, having been to Europe many times I don’t question the study (not to mention Forbes can hardly be called a tool of the left).

Or this is a favorite of theirs - Hitler was a Christian. And when we look closer Hitler didn’t practice Christianity at all, but in fact had an alliance with such Muslims as the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. And there were Bosnian Muslim divisions fighting for the Nazis. And no Muslim nation came to the rescue during this war, but a USA did indeed as did Great Britain and other Judeo-Christian type of nations.

Not that I’m saying Hitler was a Christian (because I don’t think he was). However, the inference you’re trying to draw here is not only bizarre and illogical, but it really makes your bigotry shine.

But, please prove your assertions. I look forward to it.

I just did …

 

[tomarin]

tomarin, your link to prove that Islam had a Golden Age actually bears out what I asserted. The concentration on the Quran. In the beginning of the conquests, before the dhimmi and newly reverted Muslims (probably many reverted out of fear at first and then they condemned their future generations to it) were still being influenced by a pre-Islamic time period. most of what was innovative was pre-Islamic.

I think what you originally said was “Islam has always been in a bad place,” which granted, could mean a lot of different things, but I took it to mean that the countries which practiced Islam were always stuck in a rut materially and spiritually. I don’t think that’s a fair assessment since there was this period from roughly 800 to 1250 (until the Mongols invaded Baghdad and ended the Caliphate by beheading said Caliph) when theirs was the leading civilization on earth, measured in terms of scientific, technological and artistic achievements.

It’s true that some of their achievements were revivals of knowledge from the ancient world or the civilizations they conquered and absorbed, but much of it was original or a synthesis of Islamic thought and pre-existing knowledge. So Islam has this very rich cultural and intellectual heritage which I wish more people were aware of because it’s really all of the world’s heritage in many respects (mathematics in particular) and because awareness of it would make it more difficult for people to engage in overly simplistic thinking about this complex topic.