Trying to Discern Islam Truthfully and Mercifully

[Lion_of_Narnia]

Most current Muslims are better than their founding book or founding human. they are better in spite of the totality of their religion.

The Q’uran was spoken over a period of years, but in two distinct phase. What was spoken when has been worked out by the major schools of Islamic interpretation whichn is utterly important when the Q’uranic principle of “abrogation” is brought to bear

First,the Meccan phase where you have the Surahs regarding tolerance, brotherhood, etc… and these are the ones current Imans or Mullahs stress, especialy when speaking to non-Muslims. these were spoken first.

Second, the Medean phase, where increasingly the emphasis is more militant, less tolerant. This is where you find the “verses of the sword”

Back to Q’uranic abrogation, Surahs 2:106 & 13:39. Essentially, when a later spoken revelation contradicts an earlier revelation, the earlier is nullified.

All the schools of Islamic interpretation agree that the “verses of the sword” were either the LAST or next-to-last revelations spoken by Muhammed. There are NO verses of toleration abrogating these verses.

 

[manualman]

I guess I would like to know more about whether there are cohesive groups of observant Muslims who recognize that Muhammad got a lot wrong, as for example, to issues like rape, marriage to little girls, and waging war against Christians and Jews simply for being Christians and Jews (I hope my understanding of all these is correct).

In other words, to put it in the form of a question: what percentage of Muslims–or serious Muslims–believe that the Quran and the Sunnah are fallible?

I read some of the april 30 2013 Pew Poll which indicated that a lot of Muslims do seem to ignore the bad parts of the Quran, but did find a lot of Muslims especially in North Africa and the Middle East and places like Afganistan and Pakistan who are radically literal about the Quran

I’m just having trouble with conceiving of a group which can be called “Islam” which believes that Muhammad taught serious errors, as well as serious righteousness as to widows, orphans, social justice, protection of the lives of girls, etc.

As I understand it, Chapter (sura) 9-was written very very late in Muhammad’s life. It is very violent toward Christians and Jews. So as to your idea of Muhammad progressing… it seems rather that his teaching degenerated more as you go later into his life. So I’m not sure how that would work.

I have to be rather careful of commenting on the life of Muhammed as I’ve got some mod infractions to show for NOT being careful… If you’ve read those Koran passages yourself then you already have the same concerns and skepticism that I do about the nature of Islam itself. The important thing to remember is that even if one eventually concludes that a particular un-named religion contains some truly awful teachings, this does NOT mean that all nominal adherents of that religion buy into it or even know about it. Maybe we’d be better off if Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, whoever currently holds the Kennedy torch and all those former 1960’s Jesuits who broke their vows and left the order converted to Islam, eh? Then they could help muslims pick and choose which parts of their religion to ignore and figure out rationalizations for doing so!

My point was not so much that Muhammed progressed morally, but Islam has and Muhammed’s life was a snapshot in time. Perhaps they could find a way to explain some of that violence away as if it were similar to the times in the OT that God commanded Israel to exterminate whole cities of people. IMO the OT is VERY explicit about that being a SINGLE time and place while the Koran reads more like establishing a precedent, but perhaps such a re-interpretation is possible? One hopes…

My take on Spencer is that he makes valuable points but should NOT be your only reading on Islam. He seems to see his mission as one of overcoming the willful blindness in the West in regards to some dangerous principles espoused by Muhammend himself and made seemingly permanent in the Koran. It makes him crazy when western leaders who have never read a Surah spout opinions that terrorism has nothing to do with Islam. A side effect of that focus is that he makes the impression that there is nothing good in Islam or even in any muslims. I don’t think he really thinks that way, but you can sometimes get that impression.

 

[Cmc1972]

Jesus never used a sword. Just ask Peter. Jesus spoke of faith hope and love.

A better comparison than the bible vs the Koran would by the Koran vs the art of war

I think we should cautious as a faith and as a nation. The silence from the Muslim nations condemning the acts of violence is deafening.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I still wish I had a book which could really, honestly lay out a balanced and truly Catholic perspective on Islam, which I could aquire at the library.

There is a book translating the Vatican II documents into English, which deals on the subjects of Ecumenism and Evangelization, with those community of believers who are separated from the Catholic Church and those who are non-Christian believers, i.e. Islam.

The CCC gives a brief intro on the subject of non-believers also specifically Islam.

Pope Francis reaching out to the peace spoken of in the Koran is supported by the Vatican II documents and the CCC, with the mind of Christ.

I believe it is important to understand the mind of the Church, when she see’s in all the different religions of the world a certain virtue or trait of divine Truth, which she uses to expound upon, just as Paul does with the pagan Greeks recorded in the book of Acts.

Islam does not have just one interpretation of Islam for all Muslims to follow. Although, Islam has one goal in the world. That one goal interpreted differently by Muslims takes on different forms to reach and pursue the goal of Islam. Be it by peaceful means or by force, in both cases, Islam seeks it’s goal. When the peaceful interpretations of Islam fail at it’s goal, the forceful interpretations of Islam are sure to follow according to history.

Islam has no one authority to teach one Islam to all Muslims.

 

[MysticMansion]

Mercifully I would state that the difference between Islam and Christianity is that they worship different God’s. The God’s are different because the messages and promises of the two Gods are different.

Jesus was God, both the second person of the Blessed Trinity and Human in one being. The person of Christ however, was only God.

One message, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, pray for those who persecute you. One is a message of personal transformation to holiness and adoption as his Children. Only in holiness will heaven be yours.

The second message through Mohammed is kill everyone who refuses to obey our laws, the killing of Christians and Jews is a holy thing, If a Moslem kills a Christian or Jew he is guaranteed heaven.

The messages cannot be from the same God. Therefore they are from two different beings calling themselves God.

Our own first parents listened to the advice of the serpent and fell from grace. Mohammed has listened as did Joseph Smith, (Mormons) and General Booth (Salvation Army), Luther and King Henry the 8th (Protestants) and many others to that voice telling them that there is a better way then the way set in covenant by God in Christ Jesus our Lord and Redeemer.

It is plainly evident that the Allah that Islam worships is the devil in disguise. We should pray for this vast group of persons who have been led into such grievous error as to spend history kidnapping, enslaving, and murdering their way through time all in the name of a God that is so obviously evil.

The only words of peace in the Kuran are for other Moslem’s not outsiders. They will, unless the world bands together to stop them, take over the entire world.

 

[Cmc1972]

There is a book translating the Vatican II documents into English, which deals on the subjects of Ecumenism and Evangelization, with those community of believers who are separated from the Catholic Church and those who are non-Christian believers, i.e. Islam.

The CCC gives a brief intro on the subject of non-believers also specifically Islam.

Pope Francis reaching out to the peace spoken of in the Koran is supported by the Vatican II documents and the CCC, with the mind of Christ.

I believe it is important to understand the mind of the Church, when she see’s in all the different religions of the world a certain virtue or trait of divine Truth, which she uses to expound upon, just as Paul does with the pagan Greeks recorded in the book of Acts.

Islam does not have just one interpretation of Islam for all Muslims to follow. Although, Islam has one goal in the world. That one goal interpreted differently by Muslims takes on different forms to reach and pursue the goal of Islam. Be it by peaceful means or by force, in both cases, Islam seeks it’s goal. When the peaceful interpretations of Islam fail at it’s goal, the forceful interpretations of Islam are sure to follow according to history.

Islam has no one authority to teach one Islam to all Muslims.

Ding ding ding. Winner winner chicken dinner.

No other religion can claim such a violent historry. I have seen nor read anything that will change this reality.

 

[Cmc1972]

I wanted to Bump this thread because it needs to be read.

Youtube bill maher and he recently discussed his views about Muslims and had an interesting guest on stating that roughly 200 to 300 million Muslims can be considered extremists.

It’s only going to get worse
Until we as a nation and a religion have truthful dialogues with ourselves and others about the clear and present dangers these terrorists represent:

 

[peace_at_last]

I suggest the OP and others who wish to investigate Islam ask some questions here:

www.shiachat.com

It is a Shia community strongly opposed to the Wahhabi/takfiri/Sunni violent brand of Islam that are spreading all the lies and false statements against prophet Muhammad in their books.

 

[manualman]

You didn’t explicitly claim otherwise, but Shia Islam has its fair share of violence as well. Hezbollah and Iran are Shia, no?

 

[oldcatholicguy]

You didn’t explicitly claim otherwise, but Shia Islam has its fair share of violence as well. Hezbollah and Iran are Shia, no?

Oh I love your logic. Let me try-
-You’re Christian
-There are Christians and Christian organizations that unjustly/immorally use violence
-You didn’t explicitly claim otherwise
-Conclusion- you must support these Christians and Christian organizations that unjustly/immorally use violence and/or deny that such Christians and Christian organizations exist

Oh, you’re logic is so fun. I wonder what else we can conclude about you because you have not explicitly stated otherwise about them?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

oldcatholicguy;12658747]Oh I love your logic. Let me try-
-You’re Christian
-There are Christians and Christian organizations that unjustly/immorally use violence

Question?
Can you name the Christians and Christian organizations today? who behead little children, crucify non-muslim individuals, kill unarmed innocent people, chop the limbs of persons off etc… all done in the name of Christianity or in the name of Jesus or God?

How do you justify Christians do the same what Muslim Terrorist do in the name of their religion Islam?

 

[manualman]

Oh I love your logic. Let me try-
-You’re Christian
-There are Christians and Christian organizations that unjustly/immorally use violence
-You didn’t explicitly claim otherwise
-Conclusion- you must support these Christians and Christian organizations that unjustly/immorally use violence and/or deny that such Christians and Christian organizations exist

Oh, you’re logic is so fun. I wonder what else we can conclude about you because you have not explicitly stated otherwise about them?

Snark much? There is no attack in my post, there is an invitation to explain an apparent contradiction between people’s observations and his statement.

Unlike Jesus, Muhammed’s life was filled with violence and warfare. The explanation above that suggested that all is well if you just go Shia and avoid those nasty Wahabbi/Sunnis is not an adequate assurance of a real difference unless Muhammed’s own actions are explained somehow in a manner that believably makes his actions and decisions utterly non-applicable outside his own era. I’ve seen no evidence that Shia Islam is any better at that than Sunni Islam is.

I’ve heard Sunnis claim that Taqqiya, for example, is a peculiarly Shia idea that Sunnis don’t endorse. As a non-muslim and non-scholar I don’t understand how Sunnis square that assertion with Muhammed’s actions when he lured a certain Jewish tribe out from their defenses under a flag of truce, then attacked them. Sounds like taqqiya to me. Or maybe muslims read that history differently somehow. I won’t know unless muslims provide a reasonable explanation for us. This poster seems rather open to doing so in a far less snarky manner than you are.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Question?
Can you name the Christians and Christian organizations today? who behead little children, crucify non-muslim individuals, kill unarmed innocent people, chop the limbs of persons off etc… all done in the name of Christianity or in the name of Jesus or God?

How do you justify Christians do the same what Muslim Terrorist do in the name of their religion Islam?

You don’t pay much attention to what goes on the CAR or central Africa do you? Also, putting a “?” at the end of every statement doesn’t actually turn it into a question.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Snark much? There is no attack in my post, there is an invitation to explain an apparent contradiction between people’s observations and his statement.

Unlike Jesus, Muhammed’s life was filled with violence and warfare. The explanation above that suggested that all is well if you just go Shia and avoid those nasty Wahabbi/Sunnis is not an adequate assurance of a real difference unless Muhammed’s own actions are explained somehow in a manner that believably makes his actions and decisions utterly non-applicable outside his own era. I’ve seen no evidence that Shia Islam is any better at that than Sunni Islam is.

I’ve heard Sunnis claim that Taqqiya, for example, is a peculiarly Shia idea that Sunnis don’t endorse. As a non-muslim and non-scholar I don’t understand how Sunnis square that assertion with Muhammed’s actions when he lured a certain Jewish tribe out from their defenses under a flag of truce, then attacked them. Sounds like taqqiya to me. Or maybe muslims read that history differently somehow. I won’t know unless muslims provide a reasonable explanation for us. This poster seems rather open to doing so in a far less snarky manner than you are.

There is an attack in your post. It’s the part where you interject something (Shia based Islamic extremism and terrorism) based on the sole fact that the other poster hadn’t claimed otherwise. It’s really not my fault your own logic you used in order to justify ignoring the other poster’s invitation to actually discuss the topic of this thread- discerning Islam truthfully and mercifully- and instead changing the subject to something your freely admit the other poster had made on claims otherwise on.

And now we have your above in which you make no claims otherwise to my points (see how your logic works?) and instead change the subject to taqqiya. Gee, that sounds like something (avoiding the question and changing the topic) that is often charged against Muslims by posters on this forum as one of “their” tactics when “they” are losing an argument or have to concede a point.

But I digress, you clearly haven’t stated that Christians don’t engage in lying in order to forward their faith so we must assume that you think Christians can lie in order to forward their faith. It’s funny what you can “prove” based on the other poster not having explicitly stating something. I don’t know why you think the sky is red, deserts are lush places, and little green men live on Mars. You have, after all, haven’t explicitly stated otherwise.

 

[manualman]

But I digress, you clearly haven’t stated that Christians don’t engage in lying in order to forward their faith so we must assume that you think Christians can lie in order to forward their faith. It’s funny what you can “prove” based on the other poster not having explicitly stating something. I don’t know why you think the sky is red, deserts are lush places, and little green men live on Mars. You have, after all, haven’t explicitly stated otherwise.

No, sir, it’s you who aren’t listening. Your responses would be excellent rebuttals against someone who characterized Islam as a whole based on the actions of a few adherents. That, however, isn’t remotely what I did. Instead, what I did was to point out that unlike Jesus (who suffered severe violence, but never inflicted any), Muhammed was clearly a warrior. Christians who claim a warrant for violence must do it in SPITE of the teachings and example of their Savior. Muslims who claim a warrant for violence always have the actual example of Muhammed to point to. If there is a significant difference between how Shia and Sunnis interpret Muhammed’s actions I’m open to hearing it. But since both Shia and Sunnis revere Muhammed as the ultimate example of Islamic righteousness AND since both Sunnis and Shia have a long legacy of historical violence, they both share the problem of how to interpret his violent instructions and teachings in some way that does not involve slaying the infidels wholesale. It’s not enough to simply say “The Sunnis are the bad guys” without explaining what the difference really is.

And yes, I went to the site he linked and, even there, there is level-headed calm discussion underway about the conditions under which a society is sufficiently “Islamic” to begin implementing the death penalty for homosexuals… Yes, that’s an anecdote. But when one gets to a certain level of frequency, it’s reasonable to wonder if an avalanche of anecdotes actually has an underlying philosophical cause.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

No, sir, it’s you who aren’t listening. Your responses would be excellent rebuttals against someone who characterized Islam as a whole based on the actions of a few adherents. That, however, isn’t remotely what I did. Instead, what I did was to point out that unlike Jesus (who suffered severe violence, but never inflicted any), Muhammed was clearly a warrior. Christians who claim a warrant for violence must do it in SPITE of the teachings and example of their Savior. Muslims who claim a warrant for violence always have the actual example of Muhammed to point to. If there is a significant difference between how Shia and Sunnis interpret Muhammed’s actions I’m open to hearing it. But since both Shia and Sunnis revere Muhammed as the ultimate example of Islamic righteousness AND since both Sunnis and Shia have a long legacy of historical violence, they both share the problem of how to interpret his violent instructions and teachings in some way that does not involve slaying the infidels wholesale. It’s not enough to simply say “The Sunnis are the bad guys” without explaining what the difference really is.

And yes, I went to the site he linked and, even there, there is level-headed calm discussion underway about the conditions under which a society is sufficiently “Islamic” to begin implementing the death penalty for homosexuals… Yes, that’s an anecdote. But when one gets to a certain level of frequency, it’s reasonable to wonder if an avalanche of anecdotes actually has an underlying philosophical cause.

Oh I’m listening. The poster makes no mention of Sunni’s being the sole source of Islamic extremism or terrorism and you decide that this means he is arguing that Shiite Muslims don’t engage in Islamic extremism or terrorism and that those aren’t an issue within the Shia Islam. Hence your need to preface your comment with- “You didn’t explicitly claim otherwise.” I’ll I’ve done is listen to your comment and use your same logic against you. You didn’t explicitly claim otherwise in regards to X so I’m free to assume you believe/support X. Not my fault your own logic requires you to explicitly state your beliefs otherwise I’m free to assume whatever I want.

And once again I would like to point out how you are trying to introduce new items in order to sidetrack the discussion. First it was taqqiya, and now it is mentioning that some Muslims like some Christians think there should be a death penalty for homosexuals. Should I assume since you haven’t explicitly stated otherwise that there is a Christian form of taqqiya?

 

[manualman]

Still not following you. Perhaps you read this differently than I did.

…It is a Shia community strongly opposed to the Wahhabi/takfiri/Sunni violent brand of Islam that are spreading all the lies and false statements against prophet Muhammad in their books.

What I get out of this is a claim that violent jihadi Islam grows out of the referenced branches, not from the actual teachings of Muhammed which underlie all branches of Islam. It further amounts to an assertion that Wahabbis lie when they say that Muhammed ordered violence and killing against non-muslims.

That claim bears scrutiny, don’t you think? What kind of man was Muhammed, what sorts of things did he do, what sorts of instructions did he give his followers about what Allah wants THEM to do? When it comes to Quran quotes, did his later teachings abrogate his earlier ones when there are conflicts between the two?

If one accepts the idea that Muhammed was the ultimate in Islamic righteousness, then Sunni or Shia matters rather less than what Muhammed actually said and did.

You may now accuse me of believing in werewolves or whatever interesting accusation / leap you are going to make next…

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Still not following you. Perhaps you read this differently than I did.

What I get out of this is a claim that violent jihadi Islam grows out of the referenced branches, not from the actual teachings of Muhammed which underlie all branches of Islam. It further amounts to an assertion that Wahabbis lie when they say that Muhammed ordered violence and killing against non-muslims.

That claim bears scrutiny, don’t you think? What kind of man was Muhammed, what sorts of things did he do, what sorts of instructions did he give his followers about what Allah wants THEM to do? When it comes to Quran quotes, did his later teachings abrogate his earlier ones when there are conflicts between the two?

If one accepts the idea that Muhammed was the ultimate in Islamic righteousness, then Sunni or Shia matters rather less than what Muhammed actually said and did.

You may now accuse me of believing in werewolves or whatever interesting accusation / leap you are going to make next…

Now I feel like another name for a donkey. Yes, I didn’t even think to read the other poster’s statement in the manner you have. Based on your reading of the statement I apologize and retract my previous statements directed at you as your comment toward the other poster is perfectly valid. His wording does force one to ask the logical question as to if he is applying all blame onto Sunni Islam/claiming that Shia Islam is innocent.

 

[manualman]

No sweat, I actually appreciate the way you make people examine potentially unwarranted sweeping generalizations about muslims. My own infraction history suggests my self-censoring ain’t perfect neither!

 

[peace_at_last]

You didn’t explicitly claim otherwise, but Shia Islam has its fair share of violence as well. Hezbollah and Iran are Shia, no?

Can you point me to their fair share of violence?