What is the True Face of Islam?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Linusthe2nd
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
GaryTaylor said:
Where the problem lies is where you live and to what degree sharia law is indeed law. From here how the demographics change depends on percentage of Islamic population compared to the general population. In other words when Islam is dominate in the population majority, then they decide to what degree of sharia law is installed. I call that slavery which it seems to me you discover the true face at this point and its degree of truth as the Coptic Christian above apparently did. If I am following this story correctly. :confused:
Click to expand...
The issue isn’t that the majority of population dictates what the laws are. The issue is that Sharia is an unjust system. If it were a just system than the % of the population being Muslim doesn’t matter. It’s the same as the Church wanting abortion outlawed everywhere, not just in countries with a majority of Catholics. A non-Catholic living in a Catholic majority country where abortion is outlawed isn’t being subjected to “slavery” as you call it because the laws against abortion are just and moral. Sharia is wrong not because it can/will be forced on non-Muslims, but because it is unjust/contains immoral demands.
 
oldcatholicguy said:
The issue isn’t that the majority of population dictates what the laws are.
Click to expand...
Its both for as the percentage of population increases there is more influence over law. And the laws of other countries are indeed contested through the legal systems. I agree with the remainder of what your saying, yet you seem to agree if immorally was to be imposed then indeed its slavery and unjust as a whole. Abortion is a teaching in its understanding of the Church not an imposed legal system of Catholicism there is no carnal consequence imposed by the Church on those not in the Church. It would lead me to also believe in final summation your thinking as a whole is Islam is immoral and unjust. I don’t disagree.
 
GaryTaylor said:
Its both for as the percentage of population increases there is more influence over law. And the laws of other countries are indeed contested through the legal systems. I agree with the remainder of what your saying, yet you seem to agree if immorally was to be imposed then indeed its slavery and unjust as a whole. Abortion is a teaching in its understanding of the Church not an imposed legal system of Catholicism there is no carnal consequence imposed by the Church on those not in the Church. It would lead me to also believe in final summation your thinking as a whole is Islam is immoral and unjust. I don’t disagree.
Click to expand...
-I wouldn’t use the term “slavery” to describe the condition of being subject to unjust laws. I think we are just disagreeing on how we define the term and it’s usage.
-The percentage of the population doesn’t matter because the percentage of the population supporting a just or unjust system doesn’t change the justness of the system. A just system imposed by 1 person is still just and an unjust system imposed by 99.99% of the population is still unjust. The usage of Sharia in Muslim dominate countries isn’t unjust because the majority is imposing Sharia on the minority, but because Sharia itself is unjust.
-The immorality of abortion being a teaching versus a law is one of the key differences between Christianity and Islam. Islam combines legality and morality where as Christianity holds legality to be separate from and dependent on morality.
-As a whole Islam is unjust (intentionally or not doesn’t matter here) with parts of it being just. While I would argue that we can not label Islam as a whole as immoral due to parts of it being just, this portion of our discussion is far above my knowledge level on morality and the theology behind it.
 
oldcatholicguy said:
-I wouldn’t use the term “slavery” to describe the condition of being subject to unjust laws. I think we are just disagreeing on how we define the term and it’s usage.
-The percentage of the population doesn’t matter because the percentage of the population supporting a just or unjust system doesn’t change the justness of the system. A just system imposed by 1 person is still just and an unjust system imposed by 99.99% of the population is still unjust. The usage of Sharia in Muslim dominate countries isn’t unjust because the majority is imposing Sharia on the minority, but because Sharia itself is unjust.
-The immorality of abortion being a teaching versus a law is one of the key differences between Christianity and Islam. Islam combines legality and morality where as Christianity holds legality to be separate from and dependent on morality.
-As a whole Islam is unjust (intentionally or not doesn’t matter here) with parts of it being just. While I would argue that we can not label Islam as a whole as immoral due to parts of it being just, this portion of our discussion is far above my knowledge level on morality and the theology behind it.
Click to expand...
The percentage of the population doesn’t matter because the percentage of the population supporting a just or unjust system doesn’t change the justness of the system. A just system imposed by 1 person is still just and an unjust system imposed by 99.99% of the population is still unjust. Right.but my dialogue above is in relation to the USA in the link, so this indicates the sway from just to unjust. I’m not debating the overall unjust areas of sharia law, I’m concerned with how sharia law permeates other countries that are not under any Islamic law.
 
DaisymaeD said:
The Black Moslems I work with are very friendly and polite. They are all American born. The Moslem ladies who run the cash registers at the stores I frequent are very polite, but they seem kind of shy. There’s a language barrier. Moslem men who own the local business generally don’t make eye contact with me, and their demeanor is businesslike. But they wish me a good day.

I also work with a very anti-Moslem coworker, an immigrant and a Coptic. When she goes on her diatribes, I tried to counter with moderate statements, like don’t stereotype, etc. then one day she turned to me and said, “I LIVED with them.”

I didn’t know what to say.
Click to expand...
Sometimes, it is time to listen.
 
healinghands99 said:
Islam is not Catholicism. I think that’s where the problem lies.

God Bless.
Click to expand...
You wrote, “Islam is not Catholicism. I think that’s where the problem lies.”

This statement actually says absolutely nothing, could you enlighten us about what you might mean by this?

How is "Islam not being Catholicism and the inverse, Catholic not being Islamism just “where the problem lies”?

Could it be that Islam calls the Jesus of Catholicism a liar and yet claims Jesus as its prophet, could this be what you are saying or hinting at or whatever?
 
oldcatholicguy said:
Are we talking about Islam or Christianity? World domination itself isn’t a bad thing/in error. The bad thing/in error thing is “why” and “how.” You’ve listed 2 just “hows” (using existing laws, voting) and 1 unjust “how” (unjust use of force/violence) which in the form you specifically mentioned (terrorism) runs counter to the orthodox teachings of Islam.
Click to expand...
If we are talking about Christianity and world domination than we are going against what Jesus taught.

If we are talking about Islam and world domination than we seem to be going just in the way that islam has been since the beginning.

You wrote, “World domination itself isn’t a bad thing/in error.”

Christianity being the “law of the land” is in error.
 
Tom_Baum said:
If we are talking about Christianity and world domination than we are going against what Jesus taught.

If we are talking about Islam and world domination than we seem to be going just in the way that islam has been since the beginning.

You wrote, “World domination itself isn’t a bad thing/in error.”

Christianity being the “law of the land” is in error.
Click to expand...
So, we aren’t to spread the Word to all the world and hope that all the world embraces it? We aren’t to strive to have the only truly 100% accurate morality system to be used by all of humanity; as well as to strive to have those systems of morality that are in error (i.e. all the other ones) be replaced?

Christianity being the “law of the land” is what we are supposed to ultimately strive for. The difference is that unlike in Islam, it being the “law of the land” and dominating the world isn’t rooted in any actual importance of the world or worldly concerns.
 
In Peter Kreefts book, the philosophy of Jesus there is an interesting statement from Muhammad. Muhammad suddenly and surprisingly declares, " But know that if Allah did have a son, I would be the first to worship Him"? Is there a faintest note of uncertainty here. Like David’s in Psalm 139:19-24.
 
onenow1 said:
In Peter Kreefts book, the philosophy of Jesus there is an interesting statement from Muhammad. Muhammad suddenly and surprisingly declares, " But know that if Allah did have a son, I would be the first to worship Him"? Is there a faintest note of uncertainty here. Like David’s in Psalm 139:19-24.
Click to expand...
Or it’s a rejection of Christianity (ie. “If Christianity were true I’d be the first to say so, but it’s not true.”). It really depends on the context of the rest of what Muhammad was discussing.
 
Nan_S said:
You’re confusing the term “true face” with “face of truth.” It actually means “real face.”

The real face of radical Islam is ugly. It hides under a veil, masquerading as righteousness. But what is truly under that veil, what is really under that veil, is total ugliness.
Click to expand...
I’m not confusing anything. I’m saying that there is no meaningful distinction.

When one speaks of the “reality” of a religion, one may mean one of two things:
  1. The sociological/historical reality, which is always going to be as complex and diverse as the people who subscribe to the religion. Hence, there is no “true face.” There are millions of faces.
  2. Some kind of essence that transcends the diverse reality of point 1. But the only such essence, it seems to me, is divinely revealed truth.
Hence, the distinction you want to make fails. Your statement is simply meaningless. Out of the many phenomena with which the historical reality of Islam presents us, you pick out the nasty ones and declare them “true.” But you have no basis whatever to do so except your own prejudice.

Edwin
 
What is the True Face of Islam?

OPINION:

Like Scientology, I do not accept Islam as a Religion. I see the face of Islam as nothing more than a political ideology masquerading as a religion.

I have a deep spiritual feeling telling me that on Judgement Day, God will look at me and say: “Zoltan, you were wrong about a lot of things, but not about Islam.”
 
Zoltan_Cobalt said:
What is the True Face of Islam?

OPINION:

Like Scientology, I do not accept Islam as a Religion. I see the face of Islam as nothing more than a political ideology masquerading as a religion.

I have a deep spiritual feeling telling me that on Judgement Day, God will look at me and say: “Zoltan, you were wrong about a lot of things, but not about Islam.”
Click to expand...
The problem here is that the Church views it as a religion, not a political ideology or a cult.
 
Contarini said:
I’m not confusing anything. I’m saying that there is no meaningful distinction.

When one speaks of the “reality” of a religion, one may mean one of two things:
  1. The sociological/historical reality, which is always going to be as complex and diverse as the people who subscribe to the religion. Hence, there is no “true face.” There are millions of faces.
  2. Some kind of essence that transcends the diverse reality of point 1. But the only such essence, it seems to me, is divinely revealed truth.
Hence, the distinction you want to make fails. Your statement is simply meaningless. Out of the many phenomena with which the historical reality of Islam presents us, you pick out the nasty ones and declare them “true.” But you have no basis whatever to do so except your own prejudice.

Edwin
Click to expand...
The “true face” of Islam would be how Islam existed prior to Muhammad’s death.
 
Hi: I would like to chime in and say that after reading a good many histories on Islam, It seems to me to be a violent religion. At first Muhammad tried to use peaceful means promulgate his religious beliefs but when that did not take turned to violence in order to justify his teachings. After Muhammad died, his group of people went on a rampage killing everyone who did not convert to Islam. History shows that Islam if practiced as the Koran teaches, violence is to be used in order to convert, and subjugate those who refuse to be converted. I realize that there are many Muslems who are peaceful and non-violent, yet, they do nothing to stop the bloodshed that goes on in their own countries. Also tribal and cultural influences have become a part and parcel of Islam in many countries. So to me Islam’s true face is violent religion.
 
GaryTaylor said:
Seems to be much hate for a religion of peace.

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmikereport.wordpress.com%2F2014%2F07%2F13%2Fshocking-anti-semitic-hatefest-in-downtown-seattle%2F&ei=zuHEU5DsF4mxyASmqILoDw&usg=AFQjCNF5Sn2EkZl4boWixxzs5yK4IBXE5A
Click to expand...
Hi Gary Taylor: I have to agree with you on that score. All one has to do is see the violence going on in the Middle East, and elsewhere. It seems to me that if it is not the Jews or Christians then it is among themselves. if it were truly a religion of peace there would not be this violence and killing going on in the name of God and religion.
 
Tough question. I would invite any muslims to give their view. I would suggest that if you want to know the “True Face of Islam” you take it at its word. It means submission, the theology and social structure, the laws and guidelines are all established for the submission to authority. That submission can take the form of conversion, paying a tax to be allowed to live as a secondary citizen or death.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top