What is the True Face of Islam?

[oldcatholicguy]

As I stated earlier, there is a process in Islam called abrogation, in which a contradictory teaching supersedes an earlier teaching. Muslims do not view that as a conflict or it being inconsistent. It is difficult for a Christian mind to understand because our view of the eternal word of God is that it is unchanging at all times. While we recognize that Islam understand the first principle of God (That there is only one God and he is the merciful creator) that does not mean they have a full understanding of God.

While I am currently at work, if you wish I can provide the specific areas in the Koran that explain the violence towards non-muslims and the contempt they hold for Jews and Christians. Though just read Sura 9 and you will have a better understanding of what I am talking about.

I don’t need specific citations. My own general research into Islamic teachings has led me to the conclusion that there are internal conflicts within it and that the “band aid” (a later teaching superseding an earlier one) to solve these internal conflicts doesn’t work and isn’t consistent with the other two Abrahamic faiths (both internally and going from Jewish teachings to Christian teachings).

 

[clintonm]

Without having sources in front of me at the moment, and going by my memory (oh dear), I would say that Mohammad built his concept of Jesus on heretical Gnostic gospels and teachings that were deemed so by the Church and were not contemporaneous with the canonical gospels. That heresy stated that Jesus was not divine, did not die on the cross and that God had Judas take his place at the curcifiction. So without an actual death on the cross there is no resurrection and therefore no justification for the claims to diety. It also explains the complete misunderstanding they have for the trinity. So at that point, without any contradictory evidence, Mohammad probably thought that the Gospels he had easily conformed to Islamic teachings. It is only when they encountered actual Christians that there were problems. So to explain the real Christian view with what they had understood they had to say that the Gospels were corrupted.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

I wonder where you got the idea that a Christian who dies fighting for his faith is assured of paradise? I have never saw that in the NT nor have I ever heard that being taught by the Catholic Church. There is nothing in the NT where Jesus said that it was OK to die fighting for ones faith nor that the Apostles have taught that so far as I know and understand Catholic Church teachings. So Please if you can show me where it say what you claim?

Martyrdom.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Without having sources in front of me at the moment, and going by my memory (oh dear), I would say that Mohammad built his concept of Jesus on heretical Gnostic gospels and teachings that were deemed so by the Church and were not contemporaneous with the canonical gospels. That heresy stated that Jesus was not divine, did not die on the cross and that God had Judas take his place at the curcifiction. So without an actual death on the cross there is no resurrection and therefore no justification for the claims to diety. It also explains the complete misunderstanding they have for the trinity. So at that point, without any contradictory evidence, Mohammad probably thought that the Gospels he had easily conformed to Islamic teachings. It is only when they encountered actual Christians that there were problems. So to explain the real Christian view with what they had understood they had to say that the Gospels were corrupted.

Yeah (your above is what I’ve concluded as well), but that leaves me wondering why Muhammad or the early Muslims didn’t go “no, we don’t mean those Gospels (the real ones), we mean these Gospels (the heretical ones)” when talking about comparing and the opposite when talking about the corruption of the Gospels.

 

[clintonm]

Two things:

1. Martyrdom would be dying for the faith, not fighting for it.
2. I would say that Mohammad made that oversight as a grace from God in order to allow people to see the real evidence of His word even in a heretical holy book as a guiding light to the Truth. If you don’t want to go with divine intervention, then how about plain old human ignorance? That usually covers a lot of issues.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Two things:

1. Martyrdom would be dying for the faith, not fighting for it.
2. I would say that Mohammad made that oversight as a grace from God in order to allow people to see the real evidence of His word even in a heretical holy book as a guiding light to the Truth. If you don’t want to go with divine intervention, then how about plain old human ignorance? That usually covers a lot of issues.

One can fight and die for one’s faith. Christian theology teaches that there is just fighting (here I assume we are talking about just the aspect of the term “fighting” that involves physical violence). One who engages in just fighting in order to defend the faith and dies while doing so would be a martyr would they not? Or is martyrdom limited to those who die for the faith without engaging in physical violence?

 

[clintonm]

I will admit to not knowing the answer to that. So I will do some research into martyrdom from the Church teachings. Unless somebody more learned than I comments.

 

[Tom_Baum]

You’re working under the false assumptions that-
-Christianity is not a morality system.
-it can only be a “relationship between God and God’s Creation” or a morality system.
-Christianity teaches one can not force a just system or just actions on others.

The morality comes from the relationship, it isn’t that the relationship comes from the morality.

Since God is OUR Father, than that means that we are ALL brothers and sisters since God created ALL.

So the relationship between God and God’s Creation is also the relationship amongst ALL of God’s Creation.

You have probably heard of the dysfunctional family, since we are all God’s Family, God’s dysfunctional family is the topper.

We are ALL in this together, a tie is not acceptable, it is that simple.

 

[clintonm]

One can fight and die for one’s faith. Christian theology teaches that there is just fighting (here I assume we are talking about just the aspect of the term “fighting” that involves physical violence). One who engages in just fighting in order to defend the faith and dies while doing so would be a martyr would they not? Or is martyrdom limited to those who die for the faith without engaging in physical violence?

Here we go:

CCC 2473: Martyrdom is the supreme witness given to the truth of the faith: it means bearing witness even unto death. The martyr bears witness to Christ who died and rose, to whom he is united by charity. He bears witness to the truth of the faith and of Christian doctrine. He endures death through an act of fortitude. “Let me become the food of the beasts, through whom it will be given me to reach God.”

There is no implication that the Christian should be fighting to be a martyr, but that they must endure death through an act of fortitude. The Muslim and Catholic / Christian view of martyrdom is completely at odds. Here is a link that explains the difference: catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0576.html

 

[spina1953]

Here we go:

There is no implication that the Christian should be fighting to be a martyr, but that they must endure death through an act of fortitude. The Muslim and Catholic / Christian view of martyrdom is completely at odds. Here is a link that explains the difference: catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0576.html

Hi clintonm: I have to agree with you. There is a big difference in that Muslims seem to think that fighting and then dying one becomes a martyr whereas in Christianity to be a martyr is one dying because one does not give one’s faith and would rather die than give it up, one does not fight to defend one’s faith. All one has to do is look at history, there has been plenty of martyrs who dies because they did not give up their Christian faith.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Here we go:

There is no implication that the Christian should be fighting to be a martyr, but that they must endure death through an act of fortitude. The Muslim and Catholic / Christian view of martyrdom is completely at odds. Here is a link that explains the difference: catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0576.html

Oh, I’m not trying to argue that Christian and Islamic theology define martyrdom in the same manner. I just don’t understand how one can conclude that the just application of violence (commonly defined as “fighting”) in the defense of the faith that leads to one’s death somehow falls outside the Church’s teachings concerning martyrdom. To try to illustrate what I mean-
-Case 1- Christian A is put to death for being a Christian.
-Case 2- Christian B dies while defending (i.e. the just application of violence) himself/others who are being attacked because he/they are Christian.

I don’t see how Case 1 and 2 are different when it comes to determining who died for the faith. For me, to say that Christian B isn’t a martyr because of the use of violence is to invalidate the idea that there is a just application of violence.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Oh, I’m not trying to argue that Christian and Islamic theology define martyrdom in the same manner. I just don’t understand how one can conclude that the just application of violence (commonly defined as “fighting”) in the defense of the faith that leads to one’s death somehow falls outside the Church’s teachings concerning martyrdom. To try to illustrate what I mean-
-Case 1- Christian A is put to death for being a Christian.
-Case 2- Christian B dies while defending (i.e. the just application of violence) himself/others who are being attacked because he/they are Christian.

I don’t see how Case 1 and 2 are different when it comes to determining who died for the faith. For me, to say that Christian B isn’t a martyr because of the use of violence is to invalidate the idea that there is a just application of violence.

You are right, OCG. Christian B is obviously a martyr because he is essentially defending the faith as well as himself.

An Islamic does not really defend his faith (?). He dies a martyr on the offensive…killing others to promote his faith (?) His only goal are his promised virgins.

Not a very nice way of life.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

You are right, OCG. Christian B is obviously a martyr because he is essentially defending the faith as well as himself.

An Islamic does not really defend his faith (?). He dies a martyr on the offensive…killing others to promote his faith (?) His only goal are his promised virgins.

Not a very nice way of life.

We really can’t make such statements as a Muslim doesn’t really defend his faith or that his only goal is the promise of virgins. Both oversimplify the teachings of Islam and the motives behind why a Muslim would act in a particular way. What we can say is that the errors in Islam concerning martyrdom, justice, and the just use of violence/conflict; and the lack of a central teaching authority causes the unjust (intentional or not) use of violence/conflict and confusion on the part of Muslims as to when one is allowed to justly use violence/conflict. We can also state that the carnal focus (as in focusing on physical comfort/pleasures) of Islamic teachings concerning the afterlife leads to a skewed understanding of not only martyrdom, but of why one needs to lead a moral life (Islam stresses the effects [Heaven and all its wonders] over the cause [our relationship with God]).

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

We really can’t make such statements as a Muslim doesn’t really defend his faith or that his only goal is the promise of virgins. Both oversimplify the teachings of Islam and the motives behind why a Muslim would act in a particular way. What we can say is that the errors in Islam concerning martyrdom, justice, and the just use of violence/conflict; and the lack of a central teaching authority causes the unjust (intentional or not) use of violence/conflict and confusion on the part of Muslims as to when one is allowed to justly use violence/conflict. We can also state that the carnal focus (as in focusing on physical comfort/pleasures) of Islamic teachings concerning the afterlife leads to a skewed understanding of not only martyrdom, but of why one needs to lead a moral life (Islam stresses the effects [Heaven and all its wonders] over the cause [our relationship with God]).

Thank you for the correction and amplification.

Your explanation is making Islam sound less and less like a religion. Perhaps we could forward your post on to Rome for consideration to rethink Islam as a militant political ideology rather than a real religion.

 

[spina1953]

It seems to me that it does not take much for some Muslims to take offence and use violence to defend his faith. If someone says anything about Muhanmmad, or about Islam that they do not like many Muslims take offence and go on a rage and use violence as a right to justify their defense and retaliate the wrong they perceive is directed against them and their religion.

 

[clintonm]

Islam views relations with non-muslims like we would contact law. When the Muslim is weak they make peace in 10 year intervals. When they are in command then they enforce sharia law. According to that any infidel that insults Islam, Muhammad, any an office over a Muslim, not giving way on the street, publicly proclaiming a faith other than Islam and many other minor offenses require the death penalty.

Islam is a social system with tapings of a very material religion thrown on.

 

[chimo]

May be someday God will moved the people of Islam into the Christian faith. There must be a better reason why the Lord had permitted Islam to exist alongside Christianity to this present times. I do not think as Christians we have witnessed to them as we could have. The Moslem peoples do have some faith and if God had chosen them to this present day to have faith without the fullness of Christianity than He may reveal Himself in some way so that they will fully except His Son. Jesus had revealed the sign of the Cross to the Roman general Constantine that would changed the Roman empire. Cannot the same Jesus also give to the people of Islam a similar sign so that they will come to accept Him more than they do now?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Until someday arrives we are responsible for our own time frame and everyone in it. Sharia Law and Jihad. Its conversion by the sword and despicable. Tolerance is absent. The demographics are statistically clear be it they may be debated to various degrees population to population.

Religious freedom and freedom of speech are severely lacking in all of Islamic countries. And proposed to be restricted even here and other non Islamic countries.

There is no set of rules which takes Islam outside the arena of fair play with freedom of speech. The strident clamor of evil is unacceptable, and so is the silence to it. And both by these good christians and muslims and in fact everyone else. We are all in this together and responsible for each other, that is Catholic teaching prevalent in all the sacraments.

The violence of Islam creates silence and fear and a fad type conversion of the delusional as we with the nuts running to join Isis and in particular from Europe and America.

 

[chimo]

Have we ever wondered why Islam was so violent as it has been in the past and even now in the present? Cannot this violence points to a lack of what the fullness of Christianity that God is searching in us? It seems to me we are just as violent with all of our wars especially those of the past. Our own wars point also to this lack of charity among Christians. I sense God is trying to awaken the true value, worth and vocation of Christianity and needs the Laity to be the driving force of Christianity. In the past the Laity were not this driving force for the main driving force of Christianity was often on the backs of the clergy and the monastics. Well they cannot do it any longer. The Laity must step in to know of God’s love and become more the Christians for the 21st century Christianity. We need as the Laity to discover this vocation. If we had plenty of wars among Christians during the past 1000 years it doesn’t surprise me that it can also come from Islam. The only answer to all these conflicts is Christians to discover true Christianity and to begin to live it.

 

[GaryTaylor]

There’s no difference in the 21st century Christianity or the first three. I would venture to say the same is in regard to Islam. Growth equates to dissent and in both religions apparently which is a fact of life few would disagree with. So the first century Christians were not just as violent and those actually following Christ, today, last year, last century or any other would be the same.

I don’t see where suggesting some didn’t or are not following the true teaching of Christ today or yesterday is relevant to those following the true teaching of Christ be it laity or not.

No religious freedom and no freedom of speech doesn’t equate to silence, no where including the Bible. Not in first century Rome, not with Islam and not in America today.

There is no silence is regard to evil, and conversion by the sword is in fact evil and immoral. While charity is a fact, silence is not, and nor can truth be silenced. So we talking honest dialogue with “true” Christians not “war”!