Their fruits

[RPRPsych]

First of all, I must thank you for a very stimulating and thought-provoking debate. Thank you for your patience with a younger man, and my apologies if I have worn yours thin.

Those who abet and shield terrorists I would classify as terrorists. The ones who “applaud or justify” unfortunately exist (and I would even argue that such people exist as a good sized portion of a given population dependent on where we were talking about). But, we can’t judge an entire population based on this. We can’t judge the entire population because a)we don’t know their level of “applaud or justify” b)we don’t know if their applauding and justifying is based on self interest (in Iraq I ran across a lot of Iraqis who “supported” the insurgents because if they didn’t their families would be killed) and c)because such a judgment would be counterproductive to resolving the issue (usually with a “well you people do it too” argument [see the various threads about what is going on in the CAR for examples of Christians trying to justify what is going on there])

Well, I’ve seen Muslim-majority villages in India where slogans of “Bush = Terrorist, Osama = Freedom Fighter” were painted quite prominently on the walls, and they certainly aren’t doing it out of self-interest. But as a good scientist, I know I shouldn’t generalize from cases. I think what we’re seeing today is Islam as a cultural and political movement, rather than a religion. Granted, that was implicit in Mohammed’s original conception, but it’s been turned up to eleven now,

The smiley makes me think you said this in jest. If not, we can address that site on a new thread.

I assumed it would be trustworthy because Spencer’s book, “Not Peace But A Sword” (ironically, a quote from Our Lord Jesus and not Mohammed) was promoted by CAF. But perusing the site a little more, I see what you mean. There’s more than a soupcon of shrill conspiracism there, though there is also good material.

Yes, but you are assuming that such teachings in Islam exist or that those who claim such teachings are correct about their claims.

“Whip your wife if she disobeys” is more or less a direct quote from the Quran; the verses on jihad are also there, though their interpretation varies.

Did they support the Third Reich with full knowledge of what it was doing; and did they do so freely (as in they didn’t need to fear a midnight knock if they spoke out against it)? The same questions apply to Muslim populations, especially since they, unlike the Germans, usually live in a failed state in which the government can not protect itself (see Pakistan and it’s issues with access to certain part of it’s own country) let alone it’s citizens.

I agree about Pakistan being a failed state (and a creation of the British, rather than of any Wahhabist movement.) But I’m not sure if this objection applies to, say, Iran.

-According to some Catholics it does teach that, if not right, abortion is not wrong (which is pretty much the same).

But that isn’t authoritative Church teaching; every Pope up to Francis has denounced it.

-Who exactly do you think has the authority to speak for all of Islam and for all Muslims? It hasn’t had a central authoritative voice since the death of Muhammad (Sunni Islam and Shia Islam exist as I direct result over the issue of who was the authority). Trying to find an authoritative voice for Islam is like trying to find an authoritative voice for Protestantism.

Now, that’s an excellent point, and one that I believe Spencer misses.

-As for Muslims not speaking out against terrorism or just “a few liberal scholars in non-Islamic countries” doing so, how hard have you looked? Google “Islamic leaders condemn terrorism”.

I looked, and there is indeed more depth to this than I suspected. However, I’d still respectfully submit that it’s a minority view, and not one that is popular in Islamic-majority countries.

However, looking back at our discussion, I see that I have some serious thinking and reading to do on this issue. Maybe I’ll check out the expert you mentioned, re-read Nostra Aetate and Evangelii Gaudium as penance , pray over it, and then see if my views remain the same.

Once more, thanks and God bless.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

First of all, I must thank you for a very stimulating and thought-provoking debate. Thank you for your patience with a younger man, and my apologies if I have worn yours thin.

Well, I’ve seen Muslim-majority villages in India where slogans of “Bush = Terrorist, Osama = Freedom Fighter” were painted quite prominently on the walls, and they certainly aren’t doing it out of self-interest. But as a good scientist, I know I shouldn’t generalize from cases. I think what we’re seeing today is Islam as a cultural and political movement, rather than a religion. Granted, that was implicit in Mohammed’s original conception, but it’s been turned up to eleven now,

I assumed it would be trustworthy because Spencer’s book, “Not Peace But A Sword” (ironically, a quote from Our Lord Jesus and not Mohammed) was promoted by CAF. But perusing the site a little more, I see what you mean. There’s more than a soupcon of shrill conspiracism there, though there is also good material.

“Whip your wife if she disobeys” is more or less a direct quote from the Quran; the verses on jihad are also there, though their interpretation varies.

I agree about Pakistan being a failed state (and a creation of the British, rather than of any Wahhabist movement.) But I’m not sure if this objection applies to, say, Iran.

But that isn’t authoritative Church teaching; every Pope up to Francis has denounced it.

Now, that’s an excellent point, and one that I believe Spencer misses.

I looked, and there is indeed more depth to this than I suspected. However, I’d still respectfully submit that it’s a minority view, and not one that is popular in Islamic-majority countries.

However, looking back at our discussion, I see that I have some serious thinking and reading to do on this issue. Maybe I’ll check out the expert you mentioned, re-read Nostra Aetate and Evangelii Gaudium as penance , pray over it, and then see if my views remain the same.

Once more, thanks and God bless.

I think we’ve reached the end of this discussion, but I want to add the following for clarity-

My main objection to Mr. Spencer and his site is with his lack of creditability. Stating that Mr. Spencer and his site aren’t creditable isn’t the same as stating everything he or the site says is incorrect. Going with the extreme, even a broken clock is right at least twice a day (well as long as it’s not a 24hour clock or on military time). His lack of creditability means that a) we can’t trust his work being right, or wrong, without referring to a creditable expert (and therefore why not just go to the creditable expert first) and b) if we do use him we must therefore shift the discussion from the issue to that of defending his conclusions (Spencer says X, response- why should we believe him he’s not an expert, conversation shifts to authenticating Spencer as an expert).

Oddly enough, one of the reasons I don’t read his works or use his site is because I’d wager (and I’m not a betting man) he and it do get some things correct and I don’t want to bias myself against what they do get correct. Spencer said X (which is correct) and Y (which is incorrect), I know Spencer isn’t an expert, I know I don’t like his politics (I don’t, but that’s one of those biases we all try to control for but can’t ever eliminate completely), I know from creditable sources he got Y wrong, so he must also be wrong in regards to X. It’s just easier for me to go to individuals and sites I know are creditable (like the Church) and go from there.

 

[RPRPsych]

I think we’ve reached the end of this discussion, but I want to add the following for clarity-

My main objection to Mr. Spencer and his site is with his lack of creditability. Stating that Mr. Spencer and his site aren’t creditable isn’t the same as stating everything he or the site says is incorrect. Going with the extreme, even a broken clock is right at least twice a day (well as long as it’s not a 24hour clock or on military time). His lack of creditability means that a) we can’t trust his work being right, or wrong, without referring to a creditable expert (and therefore why not just go to the creditable expert first) and b) if we do use him we must therefore shift the discussion from the issue to that of defending his conclusions (Spencer says X, response- why should we believe him he’s not an expert, conversation shifts to authenticating Spencer as an expert).

Oddly enough, one of the reasons I don’t read his works or use his site is because I’d wager (and I’m not a betting man) he and it do get some things correct and I don’t want to bias myself against what they do get correct. Spencer said X (which is correct) and Y (which is incorrect), I know Spencer isn’t an expert, I know I don’t like his politics (I don’t, but that’s one of those biases we all try to control for but can’t ever eliminate completely), I know from creditable sources he got Y wrong, so he must also be wrong in regards to X. It’s just easier for me to go to individuals and sites I know are creditable (like the Church) and go from there.

Fair enough.

 

[mikekle]

According to what Lord Jesus said, One tree can’t have both good fruit and bad fruit! But we have some claims that have both! Muhammad is a example!

besides the founder of Islam, I personally know quite a few non-religious people that do alot of good works, they give money to many different charities, even some christian charities, I also know a non-religious couple that are in their late 60s, have been happily married since they were 17 years old, had a great family and continue to do good deeds around the city, they work the soup kitchens, give their time for many other worthy causes and generally help alot of people.

If the bible is accurate, these people are ravenous wolves who should not be trusted. How can good works even be coming from them in the first place when the verse claims a ‘diseased’ tree CANNOT bear good fruit? There is no talk of both good and bad works by the same person, the verse makes it clear this cannot happen, but when I see the above mentioned couple, (and many others like them)…what am I to believe?

I think it is pretty clear the bible was wrong about this, or WE are wrong in our belief that these people are doing good works…cant be both…??

 

[byzantium]

The original poster clearly is ignorant of the last 1400 years of Islamic history

By their fruits you will know them, Muhammad was nothing more than a warlord.
And the very first thing his companions did after his death was invade the surrounding countries. He conquered, murdered and was a rapist. And his followers have done a pretty good job since he died.

By their fruits you will know them

 

[oldcatholicguy]

besides the founder of Islam, I personally know quite a few non-religious people that do alot of good works, they give money to many different charities, even some christian charities, I also know a non-religious couple that are in their late 60s, have been happily married since they were 17 years old, had a great family and continue to do good deeds around the city, they work the soup kitchens, give their time for many other worthy causes and generally help alot of people.

If the bible is accurate, these people are ravenous wolves who should not be trusted. How can good works even be coming from them in the first place when the verse claims a ‘diseased’ tree CANNOT bear good fruit? There is no talk of both good and bad works by the same person, the verse makes it clear this cannot happen, but when I see the above mentioned couple, (and many others like them)…what am I to believe?

I think it is pretty clear the bible was wrong about this, or WE are wrong in our belief that these people are doing good works…cant be both…??

1. So is Christ talking about everyone in general, or just about a specific type of person (like say someone claiming to be a prophet)?
2. Last I checked the Church does not teach that it is impossible for a non-believer to be moral or to do good works.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

The original poster clearly is ignorant of the last 1400 years of Islamic history

By their fruits you will know them, Muhammad was nothing more than a warlord.
And the very first thing his companions did after his death was invade the surrounding countries. He conquered, murdered and was a rapist. And his followers have done a pretty good job since he died.

By their fruits you will know them

-How many other warlords have produced a religious-political system that has lasted 1400 years? I personally can’t think of too many. The lasting effects of warlords usually don’t increase after their death, but start to decrease. Apparently Muhammad was more than just a warlord.
-Bad actions can be found in any faith, even Catholicism. The “bad fruit” of Islam you need to identify isn’t the actions of it’s followers, but the errors within it’s teachings.

 

[javid]

So let me get this straight: the Koran teaches that Jesus is the word of God, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity made man who died for our salvation. I don’t think so.

Well, then maybe you’re saying it does not deny that Jesus is the word of God, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity made man who died for our salvation.

I too have a Koran . . . with a commentary. Dr Zohurul Hoque, The Translation and Commentary on The Holy Qur-an, Centersville, OH: Holy Qur-an Publishing Project, 2000.

In fact the Koran does deny it, according to actual Muslim scholars.

In the index on p. 1139 under “Christianity” it presents, with texts, a “refutation” of:
–“the death of Jesus on the Cross”;
–“divinity of Jesus”;
–the “Sonship of Jesus”; and
–“trinity.”

Regarding a refutation of the divinity of Jesus it refers to a further entry (p. 1174 s.v., “‘Isa”) presenting a refutation of Jesus’ divinity as being “denounced by himself” and incompatible with “death” and the fact that Allah is “Unity–sonless” and not a “trinity.”

All of these “refutations” cite the passages I cited and with the same understanding.

We actually have a third issue:

1. What you say.

You style yourself a Christian and present an interpretation of the Koran that flies in the face of the fundamentals of Islam. What makes you able to judge against the consensus of muslim scholars?

Take the web site IslamiCity:
“Prophet Muhammad (blessings of Allah and peace be upon him) has enjoined us to believe in five articles of faith:
1) Belief in one God Who has absolutely no associate with Him in His divinity;”

You might have your own version or spin on Islam but you disagree with the majority opinion among Muslim scholars on doctrines fundamental to Islamic faith and identity.

ِِِDear sir. As a christian I had a few studies on islam. The only first-hand source about muhammad is the Quran. Other sources written one century after his death. So only Quran can says us what did he exactly said. Do you accept what written in 2nd and 3rd century Gospels?

In Quran, Lord Jesus is word of God:

[And mention] when the angels said, "O Mary, indeed Allah gives you good tidings of a word from Him, whose name will be the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary - distinguished in this world and the Hereafter and among those brought near [to Allah ].(3:45)

The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allah and His word which He directed to Mary and a soul [created at a command] from Him.(4:171)

So in Koran, Lord Jesus is God’s word.

 

[javid]

Islam has two views on Judaism and Christianity-
-they have produced “good fruit,” the whole justification for Islam is that it is the conclusion of both faiths
-they have produced “bad fruit,” they have been corrupted

Given your argument (something can’t produce “good” and “bad” fruit), Islam is in internal conflict with itself and is therefore invalid. I therefore suggest you take the copy of the Quran you have and donate it to a local Mosque as you no longer need it.

Dear sir. I am a Christian and I am asking about What Lord Jesus said. According his words, a prophet can’t produce “good” and “bad” fruit. Muhammad didn’t say any thing about Judaism and Christianity. Muslims say those things. They mean The prophets were good but the believer didn’t follow them correctly. But according to these verses, if he is a false prophet, he must had no good fruit. Why he had good fruits?

On the other hand. I love my faith(Christianity and Catholicism) and do not want convert!!

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

ِِِDear sir. As a christian I had a few studies on islam. The only first-hand source about muhammad is the Quran. Other sources written one century after his death. So only Quran can says us what did he exactly said. Do you accept what written in 2nd and 3rd century Gospels?

In Quran, Lord Jesus is word of God:

[And mention] when the angels said, "O Mary, indeed Allah gives you good tidings of a word from Him, whose name will be the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary - distinguished in this world and the Hereafter and among those brought near [to Allah ].(3:45)

The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allah and His word which He directed to Mary and a soul [created at a command] from Him.(4:171)

So in Koran, Lord Jesus is God’s word.

So then why should I pay heed to what you say 1400 years after the fact?

More than that, commentators do not pretend to offer another sacred text–they present a commentary to help others understand the sacred text. 2nd and third century gospels pretend to be another inspired, sacred text. Big difference.

So we’re back to what I said above. On the one hand I have an accomplished Muslim scholar commenting on what the Koran teaches about Jesus consistent with the consensus of Muslims scholars regarding doctrines fundamental to Islamic faith and identity. On the other I have your thoughts which differ sharply not only with him, but and present an interpretation of the Koran that flies in the face of the consensus regarding doctrines fundamental to Islamic faith and identity.

Also let’s look at what you say. One of the question is whether the Koran teaches that Jesus is a divine Person in the Blessed Trinity. The two passages from the Koran that you cite at most teach that Jesus is a messenger from God with a word/message he teaches. They do not say–in fact the Koran denies–that Jesus is the a divine person, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, the Son of God, the Word of God (a divine Person) made flesh. The consensus of Muslim scholars confirms this denial.

Again I ask: Why should I listen to you rather than Dr. Zohurul Hoque? And, what qualifies you to judge against the consensus of Muslim scholars?

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Dear sir. I am a Christian and I am asking about What Lord Jesus said. According his words, a prophet can’t produce “good” and “bad” fruit. Muhammad didn’t say any thing about Judaism and Christianity. Muslims say those things. They mean The prophets were good but the believer didn’t follow them correctly. But according to these verses, if he is a false prophet, he must had no good fruit. Why he had good fruits?

On the other hand. I love my faith(Christianity and Catholicism) and do not want convert!!

Muhammad didn’t say anything about Judaism or Christianity? Than where exactly did the Islamic teaching that Judaism and Christianity (the actual teachings from God, not the people) have been corrupted come from? No other prophet ever claimed that God’s teachings were corrupted. Plenty claimed that the people turned away from His teachings, but not one claimed His teachings themselves were corrupted.

 

[javid]

So then why should I pay heed to what you say 1400 years after the fact?

More than that, commentators do not pretend to offer another sacred text–they present a commentary to help others understand the sacred text. 2nd and third century gospels pretend to be another inspired, sacred text. Big difference.

So we’re back to what I said above. On the one hand I have an accomplished Muslim scholar commenting on what the Koran teaches about Jesus consistent with the consensus of Muslims scholars regarding doctrines fundamental to Islamic faith and identity. On the other I have your thoughts which differ sharply not only with him, but and present an interpretation of the Koran that flies in the face of the consensus regarding doctrines fundamental to Islamic faith and identity.

Also let’s look at what you say. One of the question is whether the Koran teaches that Jesus is a divine Person in the Blessed Trinity. The two passages from the Koran that you cite at most teach that Jesus is a messenger from God with a word/message he teaches. They do not say–in fact the Koran denies–that Jesus is the a divine person, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, the Son of God, the Word of God (a divine Person) made flesh. The consensus of Muslim scholars confirms this denial.

Again I ask: Why should I listen to you rather than Dr. Zohurul Hoque? And, what qualifies you to judge against the consensus of Muslim scholars?

I am Christian sir!

Let me know: Do we talk about What Muhammad said or What Muhammadans say? If we talk about Muhammad, we must give a good evidence for our claims and our only reliable evidence is Quran, others written centuries after him.

Quran as the only first-hand evidence about Muhammad, Doesn’t teach orthodox trinity, neither The Holy Bible!

Quran didn’t say Jesus is God, Lord jesus didn’t say “I am God” too!
Quran didn’t say Jesus is not God, Lord Jesus didn’t say “I am not God, too”

Quran doesn’t talk about orthodox trinity(We don’t know author believe in it or not!) Quran didn’t say Jesus died on Cross or else!(It just says jews didn’t kill him, and according to the Gospels we know Jews didn’t kill him! Romans did it) If Muhammad didn’t say some thing and his follower several centuries after him say that thing, it is not true to say Muhammad said that!

My main Question is another thing and Muhammad is Just a example: “Can’t a false prophet have a good fruit?”

 

[javid]

Muhammad didn’t say anything about Judaism or Christianity? Than where exactly did the Islamic teaching that Judaism and Christianity (the actual teachings from God, not the people) have been corrupted come from? No other prophet ever claimed that God’s teachings were corrupted. Plenty claimed that the people turned away from His teachings, but not one claimed His teachings themselves were corrupted.

I don’t know where did come from, sir. Islam has it’s own preachers, But only thing Quran exactly says is that it is not enough to Believe in Torah and Gospel and they must believe in Quran and Islam, as we think believe in Old Testament is not enough and people must believe in New Testament and Christianity. In Quran, Torah and Gospel are Holy Books, and Quran doesn’t say they are corrupted. Quran talks about some cults of Christians and Jews, But it doesn’t talk about Orthodox/Catholic Christianity and Orthodox Judaism.

Dear sir, you didn’t answer me. My main question is not about Muhammad. Muhammad is just a example. You believe he is a false prophet but has some good teachings. O.K. But according to Matthew7:18, a diseased tree can’t bear good fruit. How do you explain it?

 

[oldcatholicguy]

I am Christian sir!

I’m pretty sure no one on this thread has stated otherwise given that doing so would be a violation of forum rules.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

I don’t know where did come from, sir. Islam has it’s own preachers, But only thing Quran exactly says is that it is not enough to Believe in Torah and Gospel and they must believe in Quran and Islam, as we think believe in Old Testament is not enough and people must believe in New Testament and Christianity. In Quran, Torah and Gospel are Holy Books, and Quran doesn’t say they are corrupted. Quran talks about some cults of Christians and Jews, But it doesn’t talk about Orthodox/Catholic Christianity and Orthodox Judaism.

Dear sir, you didn’t answer me. My main question is not about Muhammad. Muhammad is just a example. You believe he is a false prophet but has some good teachings. O.K. But according to Matthew7:18, a diseased tree can’t bear good fruit. How do you explain it?

I have answered your question. Your interpretation of Scripture is wrong. Google Matthew 7:18 commentary.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

I am Christian sir!

Let me know: Do we talk about What Muhammad said or What Muhammadans say? If we talk about Muhammad, we must give a good evidence for our claims and our only reliable evidence is Quran, others written centuries after him.

Quran as the only first-hand evidence about Muhammad, Doesn’t teach orthodox trinity, neither The Holy Bible!

Quran didn’t say Jesus is God, Lord jesus didn’t say “I am God” too!
Quran didn’t say Jesus is not God, Lord Jesus didn’t say “I am not God, too”

Quran doesn’t talk about orthodox trinity(We don’t know author believe in it or not!) Quran didn’t say Jesus died on Cross or else!(It just says jews didn’t kill him, and according to the Gospels we know Jews didn’t kill him! Romans did it) If Muhammad didn’t say some thing and his follower several centuries after him say that thing, it is not true to say Muhammad said that!

So once again, I ask you the question you have refused to answer 3 times: Why should I believe what you say above when actual Quranic scholars who, just like you live centuries after Mohammed, say the Koran does deny the divinity of Jesus, the Sonship of Jesus, the Trinity, the death of Jesus on the Cross, all based on the Koran?

Oh, and actual biblical scholars do teach that Jesus and NT authors affirm His divinity.

My main Question is another thing and Muhammad is Just a example: “Can’t a false prophet have a good fruit?”

OK, how do you define fruits?

If “fruits” means some things in, or some consequences of Islam, are in accord with Christian teaching, then obviously “yes”–as is the case with 99% of the religions in history.

However if "fruits’ is defined as per the Gospel of John in which Jesus said (15:4): “Just as a branch cannot bear fruit on its own unless it remains on the vine, so neither can you unless you remain in me.”, then “No.”