The peaceful Islam in US !!!

[Not_Sure_1]

The Catholic faith has mostly, with a slight reservation, renounced the use of coercion, true.

But that’s a relatively modern stance.

The Catholic Church has a long history of endorsing violence of many different kinds in order to defend the Faith.

Pope Leo X in Exsurge Domine condemned Luther for criticizing the *burning *of heretics.

Throwing stones at proselytizers is small potatoes by comparison.

I entirely agree that Muslims need to be sent a strong message that this sort of behavior is absolutely out of bounds in the U.S., and that Christians should point out to Muslims that we have renounced this misguided way of defending our faith.

But the claim that somehow this action shows that Islam is fundamentally violent in a way that Christianity isn’t just doesn’t hold up in light of the evidence.

Edwin

We execute murderers do we not.
A heretic is much more heinous than the murderer because he destroys the souls of others, therefore he deserves the just punishment a murderer would receive if not worse.

A heretic was a greater danger to society and committed a more heinous crime.

 

[mark_a]

Lord have mercy.

Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.

Manuel II Palaiologos

And what did Muslims do in response except to prove him right? And where was the condemnation of the perpetrators’ leaders?

Again, Islam suffers from a lack of centralized teaching authority.

 

[Armyvet007]

splcenter.org/blog/2012/06/18/armed-with-pigs-head-evangelicals-confront-michigan-muslims/

"Muslims in Dearborn, Mich., were once again targeted for their beliefs on Friday when a group of protesters calling themselves the “Bible Believers” confronted celebrants at the city’s annual Arab International Festival with a pig’s head on a spike and signs decrying Islam as a false religion, the Detroit Free Press reports.

In addition to the pig’s head – presumably intended to offend observant Muslims, who do not eat pork – Bible Believers reportedly carried signs calling Islam “a religion of blood and murder” and describing the Islamic prophet Muhammad as a “liar,” “false prophet,” “murderer” and “child molesting pervert.”

Is this what we are talking about?

 

[Contarini]

We execute murderers do we not.
A heretic is much more heinous than the murderer because he destroys the souls of others, therefore he deserves the just punishment a murderer would receive if not worse.

A heretic was a greater danger to society and committed a more heinous crime.

I disagree with this argument and don’t think this is the place to get into it, but you have nicely made my point that this kind of thinking is not confined to Muslims, even today (though fortunately most Christians today disagree with you, while many Muslims still think this way).

I hope it’s obvious that executing a heretic is a much more extreme act than chasing people away with stones who are blatantly insulting your religion.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

splcenter.org/blog/2012/06/18/armed-with-pigs-head-evangelicals-confront-michigan-muslims/

"Muslims in Dearborn, Mich., were once again targeted for their beliefs on Friday when a group of protesters calling themselves the “Bible Believers” confronted celebrants at the city’s annual Arab International Festival with a pig’s head on a spike and signs decrying Islam as a false religion, the Detroit Free Press reports.

In addition to the pig’s head – presumably intended to offend observant Muslims, who do not eat pork – Bible Believers reportedly carried signs calling Islam “a religion of blood and murder” and describing the Islamic prophet Muhammad as a “liar,” “false prophet,” “murderer” and “child molesting pervert.”

Is this what we are talking about?

Yes, although according to this website Mr. Israel’s confrontational group came to Dearborn in response to the harassment of peaceful evangelists in previous years. The website in question is certainly far from unbiased itself, of course.

Edwin

 

[meltzerboy]

Lord have mercy.

Manuel II Palaiologos

And what did Muslims do in response except to prove him right? And where was the condemnation of the perpetrators’ leaders?

Again, Islam suffers from a lack of centralized teaching authority.

Judaism doesn’t have centralized teaching authority either. How does this kind of authority ensure peaceful behavior on the part of its followers? Might it not also incite violent behavior?

 

[mark_a]

How does this kind of authority ensure peaceful behavior on the part of its followers?

It does not “ensure” peaceful behavior, what it does is teach a non-violent mindset.

Might it not also incite violent behavior?

Except in Israel, which I understand to be largely agnostic/atheist:shrug:, Judaism may have a numbers problem. I would be interested to hear what Palestinians think of your question.

Who was it that said “To have power is to abuse it”?

 

[mark_a]

I don’t understand what you are saying.

 

[kempo1]

Meltzerboy if someone in authority has no one to keep him or her in check that person may abuse their authority. So many people in authoritu have fallen because they had no one to tell them theywere wrong or making a bad decision. Same problem arises when a person for example starts his own church on his own and has no comitee or governing body to keep him in check, who can tell him he is teaching wrong or making a baddecision?

 

[Contarini]

Judaism doesn’t have centralized teaching authority either. How does this kind of authority ensure peaceful behavior on the part of its followers? Might it not also incite violent behavior?

I think the case would go like this:

Under modern conditions, at least, the decentralized Sunni approach gives a lot of strength to a “fundamentalist” reading of the Qur’an which takes the “violent” passages pretty literally instead of qualifying and contextualizing them.

I think the missing piece in this argument is the “reopening of the gates of ijtihad,” which can lead in either “liberal” or “fundamentalist” directions but either way destabilizes the traditional network of Islamic legal authorities.

I think it’s possible that something like this might develop eventually in Israel, but it hasn’t yet, and is unlikely to do so in Judaism elsewhere because of the social location of Jews. Fundamentalism takes root where there’s a large mass of middle and lower-class folks susceptible to a “literal” interpretation of their sacred texts.

At the same time, ultra-orthodox folks (as distinct from fundamentalists) can also be violent, and I understand that some Israeli Orthodox are pretty militant. So I wouldn’t say that this doesn’t exist in Judaism at all, just that so far there are more checks on it.

Edwin

 

[rfournier103]

In the 21st century… most Catholics, Protestants, and Jews don’t react violently when their religion is ‘insulted.’

If Catholics issued a fatwa every time someone slandered the pope, ridiculed our faith, or mocked us on TV or in the movies… imagine the bad press we’d get! Would anyone say “most Catholics I know are decent, law-abiding citizens”? Maybe. Maybe not.

I know that vast majority of the world’s Muslims obey the law, are non-violent, and pose little threat to the United States. Many may hate us (the U.S.), but hating is one thing; acting on it is another.

What those evangelists did was VERY wrong, but are we to act violently whenever someone of another faith makes us mad? I’m waiting to see if someone from the religion of peace issues a statement condemning the violence.

Lastly, in my 37 years on God’s green earth, I have NEVER seen an “Allah bless America” bumper sticker.

 

[Contarini]

In the 21st century… most Catholics, Protestants, and Jews don’t react violently when their religion is ‘insulted.’

Right. But in the past they did.

The premise of the OP and of several other posts in the thread is that Muslims behave more violently than Christians because their religion is fundamentally more violent.

But the evidence would also support the less flattering (to Christians) explanation that it’s because Western Christians are more secularized.

If Catholics issued a fatwa every time someone slandered the pope, ridiculed our faith, or mocked us on TV or in the movies… imagine the bad press we’d get! Would anyone say “most Catholics I know are decent, law-abiding citizens”? Maybe. Maybe not.

The fatwa remark is unfair, because obviously if the Pope issued a fatwa calling for violence, people would judge Catholicism based on that. Similarly, one may judge the version of Shi’ite Islam dominant in Iran based on fatwas issued by Iran’s leadership.

Leaving that aside, the answer is that most people would and obviously do judge Catholics based on the actions of a few. Look at the abuse scandals for instance. But what’s key is that these judgments are unjust and Catholics rightly resent them. Hence, Catholics (and everyone else) should not engage in this kind of behavior toward others. The fact that most people act this way isn’t the point. People are sinful. But we should try not to sin.

And I would argue that this is a difference between Christianity and Islam. Christianity has the teaching to love our enemies and turn the other cheek. Islam does not have anywhere near as strong an incentive toward this kind of loving behavior–they are much more focused on retributive justice and much more approving of retaliation when they believe injustice has been committed.

So let’s show the difference between Christianity and Islam by treating Muslims as we would like them to treat us, not as we think they would treat us.

Lastly, in my 37 years on God’s green earth, I have NEVER seen an “Allah bless America” bumper sticker.

While there’s nothing wrong with saying “God bless America,” I often find that people use that phrase to express a kind of idolatrous nationalism. The fact that Muslims don’t engage in this is a point in their favor, in my opinion.

Muslims generally recognize that their faith is more important than their national identity. I wish more Christians realized this.

Edwin

 

[mark_a]

I don’t think they could say their behavior is inspired by the new testament.

Would any violent Muslim say that his behavior is inspired by anything but the Koran?

Goalposts returned.

 

[The_Scott]

The Catholic Church has a long history of endorsing violence of many different kinds in order to defend the Faith.

Pope Leo X in Exsurge Domine condemned Luther for criticizing the *burning *of heretics.

The specific quote is “[Luther’s error is] That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.”

Now, it doesn’t specifically say what kind of “burning,” if you will. Does it mean earthly burning (as in, execution) or supernatural burning (as in, Hell). The former is condemned in today’s modern society, where capital punishment in general is frowned upon (not to mention cruel and unusual punishment). But again, that is historically controversial and doesn’t have to do with today’s world. Also, capital punishment, if appropriate and justified, is not contrary to God’s law.

The latter (that heretics will supernaturally burn) is certainly dogma.

Just my thoughts when I read your post.