What Muslims are taught in their mosques - unbiased

[Contarini]

I do not get why it is a hypocritical pretense.

Because theology is a statement about what is true, not simply a statement about the historical-critical exegesis of a text. No believers actually derive their beliefs from some objective, inductive reading of their sacred text, although many Protestants are silly enough to claim that this is what they are doing.

You presume too much. Why do you limit my right to make judgement on Islamic theology? What does my personal history to do with understanding Islamic theology?

You don’t want to understand it unless it supports your case. At least, you have never shown any willingness to consider those aspects of Islam that contradict your bias. An extreme, even ridiculous example of this is that when I say that the Qur’an has things in it that are true and good, you respond with a list of the things that are bad. This makes no sense–it doesn’t contradict what I said at all.

How do you know I have never said the shahada?

I don’t. But that’s not relevant. You are not, now, proceeding on the belief that the Qur’an is the Word of God. Ex-anythings are usually more biased in their judgment of their former tradition than people like me who have never even been tempted to adhere to that particular tradition.

As a self-avowed scholar of religion

It doesn’t depend on my “avowal.” You can write to Duke University Graduate School of Religion and ask them. You may think they shouldn’t have given me a Ph.D., but in fact they did.

you should know that everyone, no matter of what persuasion, can and have the right to understand someone else’s theology. There is nothing about not belonging to a particular faith that precludes our understanding of it.

Actually, it is precisely because I think about this stuff for a living that I have come to the conclusions I have. Personal commitment is part of what is involved in the doing of theology. The idea that theology is simply a set of deductions from premises is a naive Enlightenment notion with no basis in reality. Of course outsiders can study theological texts and traditions and make observations about them. But they can’t evaluate those texts and traditions theologically. That requires a commitment to the truth of the particular tradition.

In short you have made a judgement that a non-Muslim can have nothing to say about Islamic theology.

No, I did not say that. I said that a non-Muslim cannot make a theological evaluation of a claim within Islamic theology, except as a critique from a Christian or Jewish or Hindu or whatever perspective. You can’t claim whether doctrine X is a valid theological deduction from a given text in the Qur’an, which is what you are saying.

The Catholics on this forum should be agreeing with me. Non-Catholics almost always conclude that the modern Catholic interpretation of “extra ecclesiam nulla salus,” for instance, is a desperate attempt to explain away an unpleasant part of Catholic tradition. Similarly with many things that moderate and liberal Christians would say about the atrocities described in the OT, or the traditional Christian understanding of hell. People who belong to a religious tradition are continually re-evaluating and re-interpreting it. I know this precisely because I am a scholar of religion, and I study how this process works (primarily in the case of Christianity).

Edwin

 

[tomarin]

People who belong to a religious tradition are continually re-evaluating and re-interpreting it.

this is off topic, i know, but i can’t help but ask: if this is true (and it seems reasonable to me) where does it leave the claim of catholicism or any other religion that it teaches unchanging eternal truths? does accepting this necessarily make truth a victim of historical relativism?

 

[Contarini]

this is off topic, i know, but i can’t help but ask: if this is true (and it seems reasonable to me) where does it leave the claim of catholicism or any other religion that it teaches unchanging eternal truths? does accepting this necessarily make truth a victim of historical relativism?

No. While I don’t agree with all the details of Newman’s theory of development, I think he was on the right track. You can have development and continuity at the same time. Where I think I disagree with Newman, and certainly disagree with many on this board, is in saying that an outsider to a tradition simply cannot evaluate this. There is no objective way to distinguish “development” from “corruption,” though obviously some developments are easier to defend than others.

I think much of the “relativism” debate is misguided, because it confuses two things:

1. The claim that all our statements about truth are conditioned by our particular perspective. This is obviously true, and to deny or ignore it is sheer folly.
2. The claim that because no. 1 is true, therefore there is no standard for truth or falsehood outside our own minds. This is, as conservatives never tire of pointing out, a self-defeating statement, which traps its adherents in solipsism and self-contradiction.

As an insider to the Christian tradition, I firmly believe that this tradition is revealed by God and is true in a manner independent of my thoughts and feelings. But obviously I believe this precisely as a Christian. This is paradoxical, but not self-contradictory. Furthermore, I interpret the past of my tradition in a manner conditioned by my perspective as a 21st-century Western Christian. A 13th-century Byzantine Christian would describe the tradition very differently.

Edwin

 

[Grace_Seeker]

No. While I don’t agree with all the details of Newman’s theory of development, I think he was on the right track. You can have development and continuity at the same time. Where I think I disagree with Newman, and certainly disagree with many on this board, is in saying that an outsider to a tradition simply cannot evaluate this. There is no objective way to distinguish “development” from “corruption,” though obviously some developments are easier to defend than others.

I think much of the “relativism” debate is misguided, because it confuses two things:

1. The claim that all our statements about truth are conditioned by our particular perspective. This is obviously true, and to deny or ignore it is sheer folly.
2. The claim that because no. 1 is true, therefore there is no standard for truth or falsehood outside our own minds. This is, as conservatives never tire of pointing out, a self-defeating statement, which traps its adherents in solipsism and self-contradiction.

As an insider to the Christian tradition, I firmly believe that this tradition is revealed by God and is true in a manner independent of my thoughts and feelings. But obviously I believe this precisely as a Christian. This is paradoxical, but not self-contradictory. Furthermore, I interpret the past of my tradition in a manner conditioned by my perspective as a 21st-century Western Christian. A 13th-century Byzantine Christian would describe the tradition very differently.

Edwin

And it is for these reasons that I think that contemporary Catholicism has misinterpreted the statements of Jesus about building his church on Peter into thinking that they apply exclusively to the institution of the Catholic church rather than a larger concept of the catholicity of the Church as being all who are a part of Christ. But this unending discussion is for a hundred other threads, not this one.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

contarini:

RB:

I do not get why it is a hypocritical pretense.

Because theology is a statement about what is true, not simply a statement about the historical-critical exegesis of a text. No believers actually derive their beliefs from some objective, inductive reading of their sacred text, although many Protestants are silly enough to claim that this is what they are doing.

Pure sophistry. Are you making up your own definition now?

I take this definition.

the•ol•o•gy (thē-ŏl’ə-jē)
n., pl. -gies.
The study of the nature of God and religious truth; rational inquiry into religious questions.
A system or school of opinions concerning God and religious questions: Protestant theology; Jewish theology.
A course of specialized religious study usually at a college or seminary.

contarini:

RB:

You presume too much. Why do you limit my right to make judgement on Islamic theology? What does my personal history to do with understanding Islamic theology?

You don’t want to understand it unless it supports your case. At least, you have never shown any willingness to consider those aspects of Islam that contradict your bias. An extreme, even ridiculous example of this is that when I say that the Qur’an has things in it that are true and good, you respond with a list of the things that are bad. This makes no sense–it doesn’t contradict what I said at all.

Your statements were nonsense that’s why I rejected them. You didn’t challenge them then but you now claim I’m biased?

For a supposed scholar you have now descended to ad hominems. Great.

contarini:

RB:

How do you know I have never said the shahada?

I don’t. But that’s not relevant. You are not, now, proceeding on the belief that the Qur’an is the Word of God. Ex-anythings are usually more biased in their judgment of their former tradition than people like me who have never even been tempted to adhere to that particular tradition.

You implied that as a non-Muslim I cannot judge whether or not there is theological justification for a Muslim to claim that the jihad the infidels verses were only applicable during caliphates.

So how do you know that I have never said the shahada?

contarini:

RB:

As a self-avowed scholar of religion

It doesn’t depend on my “avowal.” You can write to Duke University Graduate School of Religion and ask them. You may think they shouldn’t have given me a Ph.D., but in fact they did.

And you’re proud to tell us that?

contarini:

RB:

you should know that everyone, no matter of what persuasion, can and have the right to understand someone else’s theology. There is nothing about not belonging to a particular faith that precludes our understanding of it.

Actually, it is precisely because I think about this stuff for a living that I have come to the conclusions I have. Personal commitment is part of what is involved in the doing of theology. The idea that theology is simply a set of deductions from premises is a naive Enlightenment notion with no basis in reality. Of course outsiders can study theological texts and traditions and make observations about them. But they can’t evaluate those texts and traditions theologically. That requires a commitment to the truth of the particular tradition.

More sophistry.

How do you know I’m an outsider?

I find this particular ridiculous:
Of course outsiders can study theological texts and traditions and make observations about them. But they can’t evaluate those texts and traditions theologically. That requires a commitment to the truth of the particular tradition.

Do you think there’s a switch in your brain that allows you to only understand Islam if you’re a Muslim?

cont.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Contarini:

RB:

In short you have made a judgement that a non-Muslim can have nothing to say about Islamic theology.

No, I did not say that. I said that a non-Muslim cannot make a theological evaluation of a claim within Islamic theology, except as a critique from a Christian or Jewish or Hindu or whatever perspective. You can’t claim whether doctrine X is a valid theological deduction from a given text in the Qur’an, which is what you are saying.

How do you know whether the theological justifications are valid or not if you don’t even know what they are.

Do you know what the theological justifications for the issue are?

Do you even know whether they exist?

How do you know I’m not an ex-Muslim who has studied this issue in depth?

You really do tangle yourself up with a whole bunch of assumptions, don’t you?

Contarini:

The Catholics on this forum should be agreeing with me. Non-Catholics almost always conclude that the modern Catholic interpretation of “extra ecclesiam nulla salus,” for instance, is a desperate attempt to explain away an unpleasant part of Catholic tradition. Similarly with many things that moderate and liberal Christians would say about the atrocities described in the OT, or the traditional Christian understanding of hell. People who belong to a religious tradition are continually re-evaluating and re-interpreting it. I know this precisely because I am a scholar of religion, and I study how this process works (primarily in the case of Christianity).

Yeah right, when in trouble write even more long-winded sophistry.

Everyone has the right and capability to evaluate any theology if they have put in the right study. You have absolutely no right whatsoever to tell someone that they cannot evaluate any aspect of anyone’s theology.

Chau
Rodrigo

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif

*Therefore, Rodrigo’s claim that muslim’s make “excuses without theological justification” is indeed not justifiable, but the observable fact that “jihad” means what it actually does, which is the command to spread islam by ANY means, violence being a valid though “last” option, as “the end justifies ANY means” in the case of spreading islam, can’t be denied,… even by a “reformed” moslem.*I’m not sure what that last part means. “Liberal” Muslims do deny that jihad means what you say it means. I think they are fudging historically, but while that would be bad if they were in a class I was teaching, I don’t see why it matters in terms of our analysis of Islam as a force in the world today.

So-called “liberal moslems” aren’t considered moslems at all by the “jihadis”. I’m only interested in that which threatens (us) when it comes to “islam”, therefore I don’t care what “liberal moslems” believe, but what they DO in relation to their “non-liberal brethren”.

Since “liberal moslems” are not “moslems” to the jihadis, they are either “good soil” or “bad soil” in that they supply either a good medium or a bad medium in which to “germinate” the jihad.

The fact is that some, maybe a lot, of Muslims (probably a minority, though, have reinterpreted Jihad.

The “reinterpretation” of jihad is that it is “internal”.

The “radical” version of islam is the CORRECT interpeter of the term jihad.

The current “moderate” interpretation of jihad is an innovation of either moslems who have FLED areas where islam dominates POLITICALLY and ECONOMICALLY who find it “impossible” to give up REAL islam (which demands conquest via jihad) and have invented “moderate islam” which is a bastardized “new-age-like” quasi-religious mess that they sentimentally call “islam”, or else “stealth jihadis”.

That’s significant and can’t simply be sneered away, as Rodrigo and others are trying to do. It’s a fact of contemporary Islam, just as the rise of a radical version of Islam (which, terrifyingly, goes beyond the aggressive traditions of mainstream Islam) is also a fact of contemporary Islam.

Why do you have it backwards? Simple answer to that. You want to make islam multiculturally acceptable so as to not hurt anyone’s feelings.

Perfectly understandable. Very dhimmiesque of you.

Quote:But since you can define a “defensive war” to include ANY act that you “don’t like from an ‘islamic’ standpoint”, external jihad is ALWAYS an option in ANY case of “insult” to a moslem. I think that is unduly cynical. Certainly many Muslims interpret it this way. But others do not. Many Muslims in the West claim that a democratic society which does not persecute Islam is not part of the “Dar al-Harb.”

Once again, the only group who’s opinion I’m interested in about who is or is not in the “house of war” are those with weapons and the will to kill those in their defined “dar alHarb”.

Certainly the Islamic concept of “honor” and their willingness to respond violently to a perceived attack (even a purely rhetorical one) is one of the most potent sources of violence in the world today.

No argument from me on that.

…continued below:

 

[Keikiolu]

…continued from above:

Quote:But might not one who cares about unjustified (from the non-moslem point of view) violence against non-moslems CARE about what the “insulter” thinks,… or what THEY themself (as a non-moslem) thinks? That is in no way relevant to anything I have said. My point is that any theological claim about what the Qur’an means as God’s Word is going to be made by Muslims, period.

“Moderate moslems” who know only internal jihad are not interested in killing me.

“Radical (actual) moslems” who know only external jihad are interested in killing me.

Which interpreter of jihad should I be concerned with?

Non-Muslims are in no position to talk about what the Qur’an means as God’s Word, any more than non-Christians are in a position to say what the New Testament means as God’s Word.

You’re absolutely right. I don’t care what each individual moslem thinks the koran means. I only care if what that individual moslem chooses will do me harm.

Thus, if Muslims say that the true meaning of jihad is either purely internal or a purely defensive war (as defined by Western just-war theory, say), then that is between them and their tradition.

If they choose the “external jihad” then that is between them and me.

We can say that this was not historically what Muhammad meant, but as I said, why should they care?

They shouldn’t! And they don’t. And I’m not expecting them to.

They should know, however, that if they choose “external jihad” they willhave to deal with my choice of “defeat the invaders”.

Your response was irrelevant to this point.

Quote:Gotta love your head-in-the-sand attitude to the infection of the soul that is radical islam, buckeroo. I have no idea what has justified this gratuitous slam on your part.

You see “moderate islam” as “a kind of islam”.

You see “radical islam” as “a kind of islam”.

You refuse to see that the only “kind of islam” that matters, that is actually ISLAM, is the kind that wants to kill you.

Thus, my dear ostrich, I can only ask, “How’s the sand taste?”

Edwin

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

You see “moderate islam” as “a kind of islam”.

You see “radical islam” as “a kind of islam”.

You refuse to see that the only “kind of islam” that matters, that is actually ISLAM, is the kind that wants to kill you.

Thus, my dear ostrich, I can only ask, “How’s the sand taste?”

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

You scare me.

 

[AgnosTheist]

If they choose the “external jihad” then that is between them and me.

You will prevail, Superman.

 

[Keikiolu]

Originally Posted by Keikiolu
Is it possible for you to remeber the subject of which we are discussing?

I’m all for win-win scenarios. Find one.
But there is in actuallity the scenario of being faced with a foe who only wins if you lose. That scenario, option, if you like, has to be dealt with.

Originally Posted by Keikiolu
God’s job is to judge souls.
A Christian’s job is to judge behaviors and act to correct them.
May you learn from your passivism that which it has to teach you.

First, I’m not a pacifist. I believe in resisting evil as well. But, I do NOT believe the best defense is a good offense. I think the best defense is to love those who you perceive to hate you and to do so actively. It takes the wind out of their sails BEFORE there is conflict.

Absolutely…! How does one “actively love” someone who’s ONLY goal is to kill you such that he lives and you live and you both love each other?
Please DO try to make that happen.

And by loving, I mean that one needs to connect with them and seek to understand their point of view, not just give them food and water. Food and water are some needs that humans have, but there are others and to realize that people have them and leave them unaddressed is also to passively act in unlovingly ways by sins of omission.

Once again you are absolutely right. Your entire strategy hinges on “connecting with them” so as to convince them not to “kill you”.

What if they see your trying to do that as “taking away their culture”, or “insulting their beliefs”?

Your strategy should most certainly be tried first, but you can’t absolutely fixate on it to the exclusion of all else.

To do so is death to the lover, if the beloved is hardened of heart.

I see in your position the same thing that I see in the Islamist radical that you stand ready to correct but are claiming to let God judge. They too underestand that there is a struggle between good and evil in the world. They too truly think that they are standing for righteousness.

And they are quite simply WORNG in their definition of evil, and WRONG in their choice of stance.

Does that mean that they are allowed to do evil because they “think” they are on the right side?

They see the rest of the world as going after sin and feel threatened by it encourchment on them and the lifestyle they want to pass on to their children.

The “good parts” of their “lifestyles” we should all rejoice in, and be glad that they hold onto.

The “bad parts” they must (eventually) give up, and if those “bad parts” cause them to harm their neighbors, then those “bad parts” should be taken from them by those who can.

And rather than wait till it is too late, the are going to defend themselves now and to do so actively rather than passively.

So it’s alright to do evil if you think it’s not evil, even though it is evil, and in defense of their evil they can justifiably do more evil on those who are not doing evil because they “think” their doing good?

About the only different I see between your position and theirs is that their Islamic and you’re not.

I strike them for doing evil. My behavior is to strike.

They strike me because they defend evil. Their behavior is to strike.

We both “strike”. The evil is not in the strike, but in the doing of evil.

You see “striking” as evil, incorrectly, when it is only a behavior in support of either good or evil.

Now on judging and correcting. I must sincerely disagree with what I understand your position to be. Of course, it is possible I misunderstand you, so rather than put words in your mouth, I will just state how I understand Christians are to relate to others.
With non-Christians, Christians are indeed not to judge even their behavior. If we see something that we understand to be a sin that a non-Christian is doing we are simply to not join in that behavior ourselves.

Therefore, if you were to see a non-Christian slay a child, such that you could stop that behavior, you wouldn’t stop the killing of that child?
Very “christian”.

…continued below:

 

[Keikiolu]

…continued from above:

The strong statement that Jesus makes to a someone other than a religious leader in the entire Gospel accounts is to the woman caught in adultery when he tells her to go and sin no more. (And this story is believed to be unauthentic.)

Jesus STOPPED the stoners from doing evil, by persuasion.
By your rules, He would not have stopped them,… He would merely not have joined in. Very “christian”.

But with Christians, with our brothers and sisters we are to hold one another accountable, not in judging, but in as you have indicated in seeking to correct behavior that we might help each other in our Christian walk as we grow in both faith and practice. Thus we recognize that some immature and some are mature, some need milk and some need meat, some need gentle loving words of encouragment, and some are thrown out of the church for their behaviors. But even if the last is done we return to treating them as we would a pagan or a tax collector, and if we are modeling Jesus’ behavior toward those groups it is to love them even still.

Doers of evil, active deliberate evil, are not dealt with this way.
A knife wielding “Christian Killer” would kill every person in a parish you “headed”, by your example.

A “Christian Killing Ideology” would kill every Christian on the planet, by your example.

The reason that God “allows” secular power is to ensure the continuation of Christian humanity.

Your theory of denying the rightful place of secular power would be the end of Christianity, which is why secular power is given it’s due in the Church.

I am sorry, Keikiolu, but I do not believe that the patterns of behaviors that you are suggesting we adopt toward Islam as a whole are going to be productive.

There is no “islam as a whole”. The only part of islam of concern is the part that wants us dead or dhimmi (which means eventually dead).

I think it shows that you understand only in part the Muslim mindset and what motivates them. And for that reason your actions will appear successful for a brief time, but in the end only cause greater strife long term by pushing resistance below the surface from which it will surely erupt once again, and probably confirming to you that you were right in your assessment all along.

What “actions” do you think I propose?

I have proposed no actions as to what to do about “radical islam”, other than to actively fight their evil behavior when it is seen.

Where do we disagree in that?

But if the goal is actual peace, rather than a struggle for supremacy, I suggest another tact completely. That begins with trying to understand not just how much the west is hated by some radical Islamists, but from which that hate comes. It isn’t Christianity that Islam wishes to attack, it is our decadent culture that conservatives in Islam (just like religious conservatives in the west) see as despoiling the young and the future of their society.

Once again we need to remember who we’re talking about as a threat to “us”. The threat is from “radical islamists”, not “moderate moslems”.

Islamists HATE Christianity per se. To deny that is to deny reality.

I’m not arguing with you that to “woo” the “moderate moslem” away from being “good soil” in which to grow powerful islamists we need to make them understand how good we are, and that we’re in the same boat.

What I’m arguing is that the ISLAMIST is not convincable of that fact.

Between that and the USA’s long-term support of Israel we have made ourselves targets.

Now you’re simply being anti-semitic and showing your true “far leftist” colors. I have NO problem with you showing your true colors, of course, as it makes many things perfectly clear as to where you’re coming from. Thanks for the info.

The only way we can remove that target from our back is to show individuals Muslims that it isn’t true that we are attempting to despoil their culture or their youth, that we wrestle with the same things they do, and that we are allies in this war of seeking righteousness.

May you be ultterly successful in doing that. Please inform the planet of your successes in this strategy when you run into the utter intransigence of a true islamist.

That is the jihad that Islam really wishes to fight, you and I are presently just acceptable collateral damage. I suggest building better personal connections with Muslims and the Muslim world so that if we suffer as a resulkt of collateral damage it will not be seen as acceptable.

That is indeed a great and good thing to do. I applaud you for suggesting it, and implementing it.

I must warn you, though, of suggesting our limiting ourselves to that tactic alone.

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:
Rodrigo’s claim that muslim’s make “excuses without theological justification” is indeed not justifiable,

The point I made which some people do not want to understand is that the concept of ‘external violent’ jihad is laid down in the Quran. There is no ambiguity as to what that means.

There IS ambiguity as to what “jihad” means if a person interpreting the koran sees an ambiguity in it.

What some Muslims, the ‘peaceful and good’ types, do to resolve why they don’t go out and jihad the infidels is to justify away why it is not applicable to them.

Correct.

I have given several reasons that they give themselves. The one about jihad being only applicable during caliphates is, I said, without theological justification.

So if you want to take issue with that then please COME UP WITH THE THEOLOGICAL JUSTIFICATION.

Let’s discuss these theological justification that you people are so keen that there are.

Don’t just tell me that I’m wrong - prove it please.

Once again, since NOTHING in the koran is “theologically justifiable”, as the book is not “theological” but socio-political in nature, you are technically correct that “muslim’s make excuses without theological justification”, but it’s an absurd case as ANYTHING based on the koran is “theologically unjustified”.

I agree with you, by the way, that all moslems are either actively at war with Christianity, or are (as I stated above) neutral to good soil for islamists to grow in.

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
*You see “moderate islam” as “a kind of islam”.

You see “radical islam” as “a kind of islam”.

You refuse to see that the only “kind of islam” that matters, that is actually ISLAM, is the kind that wants to kill you.

Thus, my dear ostrich, I can only ask, “How’s the sand taste?”*

You scare me.

I should scare you.

The truth is often very scary. The simple fact is that there is a case where no amount of appeasement or “understanding” can influence a human being to turn away from irrational hate and evil.

We MUST try to be Christ-like, of course, but there is also no command that we be suicidal.

Please check the catechism as regards “just war”.

Sometimes the rubber actually DOES meet the road.

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif

If they choose the “external jihad” then that is between them and me.
You will prevail, Superman.

There’s only One Superman, and He ain’t me, little buckeroo.

And yes, we will prevail. We may need to go through a period of “islamic darkage” due to Ba’al’s influence on our fertility as compared to the enemy’s, but slavemasters who produce nothing but slaves can’t last for long once their prey is eliminated.

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[Montalban]

Not for historic Christianity. Perhaps you are some sort of strange Tolstoyan Anabaptist Orthodox, but for the rest of us there is the OT, the epistles, etc.

Sorry for the late reply. So you think Tolstoyan Anabaptist Orthodox (whatever that is) is representative of ‘historic’ Christianity?

You appear to be very ignorant of Christian history.

You appear to be unobservant!

Christians have frequently justified violence by citing the OT.

I don’t doubt this. Are these the same Chrstians that eat pork?

Hypocrisy is not the sole realm of any one group. You find a causal link between the teachings of Christ and violence, and you’d have a point.

St. Thomas Aquinas managed to justify executing heretics by using NT passages talking about excommunication. I am using examples that most Christians have followed–a consistent and purely non-violent stance is distinctly minority within Christian history (though that’s still a lot more than Islam can claim!).

So most Christians execute heretics by quoting Thomas Aquinas quoting the Bible?

You’re Eastern Orthodox, for heaven’s sake.

Indeed! For heaven’s sake, I’m Orthodox

Your spiritual ancestors marched out to battle with icons of the Blessed Virgin carried in front of the army!

Indeed and they had priests praying for their survival. Hoping to survive has been the realm of all men.

There are a number of passages in the Gospels that have been interpreted otherwise: Jesus’ generally positive attitude toward Roman soldiers without any hint that their profession was incompatible with righteousness (and John the Baptist’s specific instructions to soldiers, which did not include resigning from the army); His cryptic reference to “two swords” in Luke, which was the locus for much medieval political theory; His assertion that He came not to send peace but a sword; and of course His prophecies of future judgment–all of these militate against a purely non-violent view of Jesus.

Ah yes, Jesus was used as a recruitment symbol for the Roman Army

How? Do you really not know that many Christians have embraced these hermeneutical approaches?

How many?

I don’t need to try again–your “most” (rather than “all”) gives me everything I need. (And it needs to be pointed out that while most Muslims historically have believed in violent, aggressive jihad, they have also embraced a code of war that appears to have been rejected wholesale by modern “fundamentalist” Muslims.)

Which code of war is that?

This is, to put it frankly, an intellectually lazy explanation. Gay Catholics make plenty of arguments to support their position–they do not simply live with contradiction.

They live with contradiction no matter what argument they put forward.

Similarly with Muslims who reject the traditional understanding of Jihad.

And they too live with contradiction. That’s the nub of the debate; those who reject violent Jihad separate themselves from historic Islam.

And how does Bostom contradict what I have been saying? I have looked at Bostom (but admittedly not read him through) and take him into account in formulating my views, although with a certain caution owing to his contemptuous attitude to the people who actually study Islam professionally (I think it is far more likely that Bostom has an axe to grind than that professional scholars of Islam are blinded by their sympathy for their subject–certainly I know how wrong-headed similar works in my own field generally are).

Bostom shows the historic trend of Islam over all its major schools (and Suffism - which you think is different) - how over the centuries the opinion of Islamic scholars is in support of violence.

Check out his discussion with other experts here

Edwin

Montalban

 

[Montalban]

You aren’t a Muslim. How do you get to decide what has “theological justification” in Islamic terms?
Edwin

Yet you seem to know! For you argue what is *not *Islamic!

Let’s look, anyway at the example of Muhammed

Muhammad himself oversaw barbarous treatments…
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 261:
Narrated Anas bin Malik:

A group of eight men from the tribe of 'Ukil came to the Prophet and then they found the climate of Medina unsuitable for them. So, they said, “O Allah’s Apostle! Provide us with some milk.” Allah’s Apostle said, “I recommend that you should join the herd of camels.” So they went and drank the urine and the milk of the camels (as a medicine) till they became healthy and fat. Then they killed the shepherd and drove away the camels, and they became unbelievers after they were Muslims. When the Prophet was informed by a shouter for help, he sent some men in their pursuit, and before the sun rose high, they were brought, and he had their hands and feet cut off. Then he ordered for nails which were heated and passed over their eyes, and whey were left in the Harra (i.e. rocky land in Medina). They asked for water, and nobody provided them with water till they died (Abu Qilaba, a sub-narrator said, “They committed murder and theft and fought against Allah and His Apostle, and spread evil in the land.”)
usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/052.sbt.html#004.052.261

con’t…

 

[Montalban]

Muhammad ordered assassinations…
Volume 5, Book 59, Number 369:

Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah:

Allah’s Apostle said, “Who is willing to kill Ka’b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?” Thereupon Muhammad bin Maslama got up saying, “O Allah’s Apostle! Would you like that I kill him?” The Prophet said, “Yes,” Muhammad bin Maslama said, "Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Kab). "The Prophet said, “You may say it.” Then Muhammad bin Maslama went to Kab and said, “That man (i.e. Muhammad demands Sadaqa (i.e. Zakat) from us, and he has troubled us, and I have come to borrow something from you.” On that, Kab said, “By Allah, you will get tired of him!” Muhammad bin Maslama said, “Now as we have followed him, we do not want to leave him unless and until we see how his end is going to be. Now we want you to lend us a camel load or two of food.” (Some difference between narrators about a camel load or two.) Kab said, “Yes, (I will lend you), but you should mortgage something to me.” Muhammad bin Mas-lama and his companion said, “What do you want?” Ka’b replied, “Mortgage your women to me.” They said, “How can we mortgage our women to you and you are the most handsome of the 'Arabs?” Ka’b said, “Then mortgage your sons to me.” They said, “How can we mortgage our sons to you? Later they would be abused by the people’s saying that so-and-so has been mortgaged for a camel load of food. That would cause us great disgrace, but we will mortgage our arms to you.” Muhammad bin Maslama and his companion promised Kab that Muhammad would return to him. He came to Kab at night along with Kab’s foster brother, Abu Na’ila. Kab invited them to come into his fort, and then he went down to them. His wife asked him, “Where are you going at this time?” Kab replied, “None but Muhammad bin Maslama and my (foster) brother Abu Na’ila have come.” His wife said, “I hear a voice as if dropping blood is from him, Ka’b said. “They are none but my brother Muhammad bin Maslama and my foster brother Abu Naila. A generous man should respond to a call at night even if invited to be killed.” Muhammad bin Maslama went with two men. (Some narrators mention the men as 'Abu bin Jabr. Al Harith bin Aus and Abbad bin Bishr). So Muhammad bin Maslama went in together with two men, and sail to them, “When Ka’b comes, I will touch his hair and smell it, and when you see that I have got hold of his head, strip him. I will let you smell his head.” Kab bin Al-Ashraf came down to them wrapped in his clothes, and diffusing perfume. Muhammad bin Maslama said. " have never smelt a better scent than this. Ka’b replied. “I have got the best 'Arab women who know how to use the high class of perfume.” Muhammad bin Maslama requested Ka’b “Will you allow me to smell your head?” Ka’b said, “Yes.” Muhammad smelt it and made his companions smell it as well. Then he requested Ka’b again, “Will you let me (smell your head)?” Ka’b said, “Yes.” When Muhammad got a strong hold of him, he said (to his companions), “Get at him!” So they killed him and went to the Prophet and informed him. (Abu Rafi) was killed after Ka’b bin Al-Ashraf.”

Volume 5, Book 59, Number 370:

Narrated Al-Bara bin Azib:

Allah’s Apostle sent a group of persons to Abu Rafi. Abdullah bin Atik entered his house at night, while he was sleeping, and killed him.

usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/059.sbt.html#005.059.369

See also
answering-islam.org/Authors/Arlandson/free_speech.htm

 

[Contarini]

Yet you seem to know! For you argue what is *not *Islamic!

Please point to the post where I have done so, or retract this accusation.

Edwin

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Absolutely…! How does one “actively love” someone who’s ONLY goal is to kill you such that he lives and you live and you both love each other?
Please DO try to make that happen.

No one was born with a desire to kill me. This was a learned ideology, and it can be unlearned.

To do that requires several things;

1. A willingness to begin with one’s self. Ask the difficult questions, “In what ways have I contributed to the present problem?” Is there anything I can change that might alievate that part of the problem which I have been party to? Am I willing to make such changes? If not, am I willing to live with the consequences?
2. Seek to understand the other person. How is it that he perceives me? Is it a valid perception? Is it one I want him to have? If not, what can I do to re-educate him regarding that point of view?
3. What motivates his ill will toward me? Does he have goals that can be met that don’t require we be in conflict? If it is not intrinsic that we be in conflict, how can I help him meet those goals and avoid conflict? Can I learn another way to deal with him? Can I teach him another way to deal with me?

Yes, these things require risk. But all of life requires risks, including an aggressive defense. We have asked over 3000 of our country’s finest young men and women to lay down their lives for a cause that will not bring us eithe peace or security. While the rest of us blithely go about our routine daily lives. Wouldn’t it be better to have forestalled the need for war by taking the risk of pursuing peace.

But as I said, you get me wrong if you think that I am a pacificist. I think that the President had no other choice than the one he took in pursuing Al-Qeeda in Afghanistan and wherever else bin Laden and other terrorist might have gone. But I think you do wrong to speak as if this justifiies all that you have said here with regard to Islam. You say you are only concerned with the radical Islamists. That is as much sticking one’s head in the sand as any other solution. It is just a different bucket of sand.

The reality of Islam is different than what you write about. You do scare me. You scare me because your rhetoric will agitate those who do not think clearly to react to all Muslims as if they were all terrorists. You scare me because your rhetoric will agitate those Muslims who are not terrorists to fear that they must become such to protect their way of life and their ideology. You scare me because you ratchet up the tension that leads to conflict and do nothing to solve it. And you scare me because you paint with such a broad brush that it is almost as if I am hearing a paraphrase of the words of a 150 years ago when people thought the only good Indian was a dead Indian.

And again, you scare me because you do not understand the issue and yet you speak to it. You ask: “How does one ‘actively love’ someone who’s ONLY goal is to kill you such that he lives and you live and you both love each other?” This presupposes that such a person exists. I do not believe that description even fits the likes of those terrorists who have attacked and killed people. They had other goals. The killing that they have done was a means to an end, it was not the end in itself. Hence it was not their ONLY goal.

Now, how does one “actively love” people who use violence as a means to an end? First, as I indicated above, I think we try to reach them BEFORE things are so bad that people begin to consider violence as an option. Even as we must defend ourselves when actually under attack, and I never suggested otherwise, that doesn’t mean that we have to become attackers ourselves.

Second, how did Jesus respond to the violence that he experienced in his life? Sometimes the result may be that we die for peace, I do not think we should be so afraid of this. What value does terrorism have if it is is not something that terrorizes us?