What Muslims are taught in their mosques - unbiased

[Contarini]

For Christians the teachings of Jesus is all there is.

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.

It’s not a fallacy because you’re trying to use ‘examples’ Christians don’t follow and blame Christianity for those.

You appear to be very ignorant of Christian history. Christians have frequently justified violence by citing the OT. 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!).

You’re Eastern Orthodox, for heaven’s sake. Your spiritual ancestors marched out to battle with icons of the Blessed Virgin carried in front of the army!

No. Jesus was continually non-violent not just restricted to one lesson.

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.

Now you state the reason you’re argument is false!

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

That’s what most Moslems believe; abrogation. Try again!

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.)

No they don’t. Moderate Moslems ignore the calls to violence because they choose to live peacefully. It’s the same internal justification that a gay Catholic might adopt in order to justify his staying with the church.

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. Similarly with Muslims who reject the traditional understanding of Jihad.

Go read Bostom’s *The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims *where he catalogues Islamic opinion on Jihad over the four major schools, even the Sufis are cited - over the life of 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).

Edwin

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

contarini:

Similarly with Muslims who reject the traditional understanding of Jihad.

Did you know that the Quran lays down quite clearly and specifically what this traditional understanding of jihad?

It’s there in black and white what jihading the infidels mean. Therefore, it’s pretty hard for Muslims to reject the traditional understanding of jihad. They just make excuses, without theological justification, like jihading the infidels is only valid if there is a caliph, or they ignore it all together.

But the traditional understanding of jihad (as in the external violent type) is unchanged.

Just thought I’d clarify that. Please carry on.

 

[Contarini]

Did you know that the Quran lays down quite clearly and specifically what this traditional understanding of jihad?

It’s there in black and white what jihading the infidels mean. Therefore, it’s pretty hard for Muslims to reject the traditional understanding of jihad. They just make excuses, without theological justification, like jihading the infidels is only valid if there is a caliph,

You aren’t a Muslim. How do you get to decide what has “theological justification” in Islamic terms? As I’ve said a million times, this makes no sense. You can observe what Muslims have said and done, but you can’t make theological judgments based on a religion in which you don’t believe.

or they ignore it all together.

But the traditional understanding of jihad (as in the external violent type) is unchanged.

Just thought I’d clarify that. Please carry on.

I’m sorry, but there are many Muslims who do not believe in “external jihad” except in the sense of a defensive war. You may not think that their views are exegetically justified, but why would anyone care what you or I think on the subject? We aren’t Muslims.

Edwin

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

contarini:

You aren’t a Muslim. How do you get to decide what has “theological justification” in Islamic terms? As I’ve said a million times, this makes no sense. You can observe what Muslims have said and done, but you can’t make theological judgments based on a religion in which you don’t believe.

What a gas. You’ve just thrown out the entire body of scholarship known as “Comparative Religions”.

Have you caught Pro’s bug about only a muslim can understand Islam? If so what gives you the right to discuss Islam?

Is what i said untrue? No. The Quran explicitly states what jihading the infidels mean.

contarini:

I’m sorry, but there are many Muslims who do not believe in “external jihad” except in the sense of a defensive war. You may not think that their views are exegetically justified, but why would anyone care what you or I think on the subject? We aren’t Muslims.

Obviously you care enough to come up with your last paragraph.

Like I said - many Muslims make excuses as to why they personally don’t jihad the infidels. This is one of them. If they knew the context of surah 9 they’d see this ‘defensive’ excuse is unjustified.

 

[Palladio]

You aren’t a Muslim. How do you get to decide what has “theological justification” in Islamic terms? As I’ve said a million times, this makes no sense. You can observe what Muslims have said and done, but you can’t make theological judgments based on a religion in which you don’t believe.

I’m sorry, but there are many Muslims who do not believe in “external jihad” except in the sense of a defensive war. You may not think that their views are exegetically justified, but why would anyone care what you or I think on the subject? We aren’t Muslims.

Edwin

Edwin, Good morning.

I think what a lot of us, impatient with Islam, want are answers, but ones which square with commonsense observation (and even that Pew poll, which gives no comfort at all), not SCR hairsplitting. We’ve seen a lot of death and destruction in the name of Allah and we–anyway I–want to know who the enemy is and is not. I know I feel misled by the old school chestnut that we worship the same God–even Neuhaus in First Things defends that view–because when we dip into the Koran and find nothing like what we’ve been told (Islam is a religion of peace, and on and on) or look at the pattern of persecution by Muslims of Christians across the Middle East we see what we do not want to see here, where Muslims live in very small numbers.

 

[Contarini]

Edwin, Good morning.

I think what a lot of us, impatient with Islam, want are answers, but ones which square with commonsense observation (and even that Pew poll, which gives no comfort at all), not SCR hairsplitting. We’ve seen a lot of death and destruction in the name of Allah and we–anyway I–want to know who the enemy is and is not. I know I feel misled by the old school chestnut that we worship the same God–even Neuhaus in First Things defends that view–because when we dip into the Koran and find nothing like what we’ve been told (Islam is a religion of peace, and on and on) or look at the pattern of persecution by Muslims of Christians across the Middle East we see what we do not want to see here, where Muslims live in very small numbers.

Well, I’ve read much, probably most, of the Qur’an, and I see no reason to say that we don’t worship the same God. Unquestionably the Islamic view of God emphasizes wrath and judgment way too much, and there is certainly a trend within Islam toward a “divine command” theory that has never been quite as dominant within Christianity. But it doesn’t appear universal within Islam, and it’s certainly played an important role in Christianity.

The basic fallacy of Rodrigo’s posts is that because Muslims do bad things in the name of God, therefore Muslims can’t be worshiping the true God. I presume I don’t have to show you just why this is a fallacy?

I think that the cliche “Islam is a religion of peace” has been very harmful, both because it lulls those who believe it into the silly belief that violent Muslims aren’t “real” Muslims and because it provokes those who reject it into the opposite (though probably less inaccurate statistically) error of saying that non-violent Muslims aren’t “real” Muslims (note that by violent I don’t mean just “those who support suicide bombing or 9/11” but “those who are basically open to the use of force to advance Islam, think apostates are worthy of death, etc.”).

Islam is a label for the beliefs and practices of a group of people throughout time and space. In other words, I think it’s a mistake to be a realist with regards to a religion other than the one truly revealed by God. Religions that are based on human opinion and tradition and/or mistaken/fraudulent claims of revelation do not have an essence. The only essence of religion is divinely revealed truth. Therefore, when speaking of non-Christian religions we must be nominalists. This is the case I’ve been making on this board for some months, and as you can guess it has met with little approval!

Edwin

 

[dessert]

Right from my first post I showed that Islam is just as much a religion of peace as Christianity is a religion of love ** I don’t want to misunderstand you,
They can be both, God is not a respector of persons and opens His arms to anyone that professes to believe.
I’m sure you don’t mean that God is dividing Himself, He gives gifts to anyone who will receive them. God is just and fair allowing all to recieve peace and love. **

. .

Dessert

 

[Palladio]

Well, I’ve read much, probably most, of the Qur’an, and I see no reason to say that we don’t worship the same God. Unquestionably the Islamic view of God emphasizes wrath and judgment way too much, and there is certainly a trend within Islam toward a “divine command” theory that has never been quite as dominant within Christianity. But it doesn’t appear universal within Islam, and it’s certainly played an important role in Christianity.

The basic fallacy of Rodrigo’s posts is that because Muslims do bad things in the name of God, therefore Muslims can’t be worshiping the true God. I presume I don’t have to show you just why this is a fallacy?

I think that the cliche “Islam is a religion of peace” has been very harmful, both because it lulls those who believe it into the silly belief that violent Muslims aren’t “real” Muslims and because it provokes those who reject it into the opposite (though probably less inaccurate statistically) error of saying that non-violent Muslims aren’t “real” Muslims (note that by violent I don’t mean just “those who support suicide bombing or 9/11” but “those who are basically open to the use of force to advance Islam, think apostates are worthy of death, etc.”).

Islam is a label for the beliefs and practices of a group of people throughout time and space. In other words, I think it’s a mistake to be a realist with regards to a religion other than the one truly revealed by God. Religions that are based on human opinion and tradition and/or mistaken/fraudulent claims of revelation do not have an essence. The only essence of religion is divinely revealed truth. Therefore, when speaking of non-Christian religions we must be nominalists. This is the case I’ve been making on this board for some months, and as you can guess it has met with little approval!

Edwin

I’m a little surprised by some of your reply.

You don’t find that the Koran is simply made up based on severe, perhaps total, misunderstanding of the NT (which I know better than the OT)? The very idea of God implied by it is what I find incredible.

I think you sidestepped my remarks, while ably defending your own.

For example, seven percent of Muslim Americans feels that suicide bombing of innocents is sometimes justified.

That’s an astronomical percentage, as I am sure I don’t have to tell you, but it is one sad fact among too many to emerge about a religion (however complex) as it impinges on the part of the world which has had so little to do with it. Naturally, people are interested, and demanding answers, commonsense answers, and that is the spirit I take a lot of the remarks here.

 

[Contarini]

What a gas. You’ve just thrown out the entire body of scholarship known as “Comparative Religions”.

First of all, no I haven’t, because I have never said that you can’t compare beliefs and practices of different peoples. What you can’t do is say that there is a “real Islam” that has some kind of essence distinct from what individual Muslims say and do. “Islam” is a generalization, nothing more. Insofar as older scholarship on comparative religion ignored this, it does indeed need to be thrown out. There isn’t something called “religion” of which specific traditions are sub-categories each with its own essence. That was indeed a mistaken approach, as G. K. Chesterton pointed out a century ago. Contemporary scholars of religion are backing away from this kind of language.

I am a member of the American Academy of Religion and I have a Ph.D. in religion (though admittedly it is in the history of Christianity, not in comparative religion). I do know something about the current state of the field. And some would say that comparative religion is as good as dead, because (among other reasons) it rests on essentialist claims that cannot be justified.

Have you caught Pro’s bug about only a muslim can understand Islam?

Only a Muslim can understand Islam the way a Muslim does–that’s a tautology. Only a Muslim can make an argument about what is theologically true on the basis of Islam. You and I do not accept Islam as true. I make claims about what is theologically true on the basis of Christianity. I don’t know what you do, because you are coy with regard to your own religious beliefs, making it almost impossible to have a meaningful dialogue with you (how can we possibly discuss whether the Islamic God and the Christian God are the same being when you won’t even say if you believe in any God at all?).

Is what i said untrue? No. The Quran explicitly states what jihading the infidels mean.

Viewed historically, you may be right. But why should Muslims care? I believe that the Bible says many things that no non-Christian scholar thinks the Bible says. And as far as I know you aren’t even a scholar of Islam–you are just a very biased outsider reading the Qur’an with your own agenda.

Like I said - many Muslims make excuses as to why they personally don’t jihad the infidels. This is one of them. If they knew the context of surah 9 they’d see this ‘defensive’ excuse is unjustified.

Maybe they don’t care about the particular context you are talking about. Or maybe they–Muslims who believe in the Qur’an and study it with religious devotion–understand the context better than you do. It doesn’t matter for our present purposes.

Unjustified on what basis? Muslims are not reading the Qur’an with your eyes. They are reading it with the eyes of faith. I don’t read the Bible the way Mirdath does, for instance.

Edwin

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

contarini:

The basic fallacy of Rodrigo’s posts is that because Muslims do bad things in the name of God, therefore Muslims can’t be worshiping the true God. I presume I don’t have to show you just why this is a fallacy?

Please don’t tell untruths, contarini. It reflects badly on you, particularly when you tell people you’re a Christian, signing off with “In Christ”.

For the hundredth time, I say that Islamic Allah is not the God of Jesus Christ because Islamic Allah commands the Muslims to persecute Christians and also to do many other evil acts.

You have twisted my words to make it seem as if Islamic Allah has the same characteristics as the God of Jesus Christ. It is only the Muslims who have misinterpreted their Islamic Allah to do bad things in his name.

This is most untrue. The source of the evil is Islamic Allah himself, not the Muslims merely doing bad things in his name.

I hope you’ll see it is you who have committed the fallacy. Not me.

 

[Contarini]

I’m a little surprised by some of your reply.

You don’t find that the Koran is simply made up based on severe, perhaps total, misunderstanding of the NT (which I know better than the OT)? The very idea of God implied by it is what I find incredible.

I think it’s based on a very garbled understanding of the whole Judeo-Christian tradition. I don’t think Muhammad ever read any part of the Bible–what he knew seems to have come from oral accounts by Jews and Christians (Rodrigo says that he based a lot on apocryphal writings, which may be true, though I’m not sure how familiar Muhammad was with any actual writings, or even how well he could read).

For example, seven percent of Muslim Americans feels that suicide bombing of innocents is sometimes justified.

That’s an astronomical percentage, as I am sure I don’t have to tell you, but it is one sad fact among too many to emerge about a religion (however complex) as it impinges on the part of the world which has had so little to do with it. Naturally, people are interested, and demanding answers, commonsense answers, and that is the spirit I take a lot of the remarks here.

I don’t see much desire for commonsense answers on this thread, and I don’t think commonsense answers are very helpful when dealing with religion.

I’m not sure what I am dodging. I said that to describe Islam as a whole as a “religion of peace” is seriously misleading.

What “answers” are you looking for?

Edwin

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

First of all, no I haven’t, because I have never said that you can’t compare beliefs and practices of different peoples. What you can’t do is say that there is a “real Islam” that has some kind of essence distinct from what individual Muslims say and do. “Islam” is a generalization, nothing more. Insofar as older scholarship on comparative religion ignored this, it does indeed need to be thrown out. There isn’t something called “religion” of which specific traditions are sub-categories each with its own essence. That was indeed a mistaken approach, as G. K. Chesterton pointed out a century ago. Contemporary scholars of religion are backing away from this kind of language.

I get it - you don’t like me to say that the Muslims have no theological justification for claiming the the jihad the infidel verses are only for when there’s a caliph.

So where’s the theological justification? Is there theological justification or not?

Your entire para is utterly meaningless.

contarini:

Only a Muslim can understand Islam the way a Muslim does–that’s a tautology. Only a Muslim can make an argument about what is theologically true on the basis of Islam. You and I do not accept Islam as true. I make claims about what is theologically true on the basis of Christianity. I don’t know what you do, because you are coy with regard to your own religious beliefs, making it almost impossible to have a meaningful dialogue with you (how can we possibly discuss whether the Islamic God and the Christian God are the same being when you won’t even say if you believe in any God at all?).

I am not coy at all about my beliefs. I have said it about a dozen times already. It is irrelevant anyway.

Anyone can study a religion and understand it. You don’t have to be a Muslim to understand Islam.

To say this is ridiculous. Is there a switch in your brain that make you understand islam just because you say the shahada?

When you say the shahada suddenly you are an expert in Islam. If you don’t say the shahada you are eternally unable to read and listen to the same theological sources as Muslims to derive the same understanding?

What nonsense.

contarini:

Viewed historically, you may be right. But why should Muslims care? I believe that the Bible says many things that no non-Christian scholar thinks the Bible says. And as far as I know you aren’t even a scholar of Islam–you are just a very biased outsider reading the Qur’an with your own agenda.

That’s another logical fallacy you’ve committed. Unable to disprove me even once you now demonize me by calling me biased.

It might be more helpful if you read up on the Quran, hadiths and sira and come up with counter arguments instead of just labelling me as biased.

contarini:

Maybe they don’t care about the particular context you are talking about. Or maybe they–Muslims who believe in the Qur’an and study it with religious devotion–understand the context better than you do. It doesn’t matter for our present purposes.

Maybe the moon is made of green cheese.

contarini:

Unjustified on what basis? Muslims are not reading the Qur’an with your eyes. They are reading it with the eyes of faith. I don’t read the Bible the way Mirdath does, for instance.

Edwin

You only have to read Maududi to find out the context of surah 9, buddy. Don’t take my word for it. It is clear you’re speaking from the position of ignorance.

Try this and google: surah 9 maududi.

That’ll tell you the context of surah 9 - particularly the verses of the sword.

Now, wasn’t that biased of me to point out how to get the context of surah 9?

 

[Palladio]

I think it’s based on a very garbled understanding of the whole Judeo-Christian tradition. I don’t think Muhammad ever read any part of the Bible–what he knew seems to have come from oral accounts by Jews and Christians (Rodrigo says that he based a lot on apocryphal writings, which may be true, though I’m not sure how familiar Muhammad was with any actual writings, or even how well he could read).

I don’t see much desire for commonsense answers on this thread, and I don’t think commonsense answers are very helpful when dealing with religion.

I’m not sure what I am dodging. I said that to describe Islam as a whole as a “religion of peace” is seriously misleading.

What “answers” are you looking for?

Edwin

And now I think you are being stubborn: as someone, like most people in the U. S., ignorant of a religion which, is some form or form, suddenly murders and destroys in the name of Allah, I want to know how to think about it, from its scripture to its jihadi, from its persecution abroad to its presence here… What other sort of questions would someone like me–most people–ask?

 

[paarsurrey]

Try this and google: surah 9 maududi.
That’ll tell you the context of surah 9 - particularly the verses of the sword.
Now, wasn’t that biased of me to point out how to get the context of surah 9?

Hi

Maududi was a politician, he has no credentials/authority to represent Islam. He was a Mullah and represented only MullahSharia and MullahIslam what satisfied his political ends.

Quranic verses don’t support him.

You are mistaken my friend.

Thanks

 

[dessert]

Well, I’ve read much, probably most, of the Qur’an, and I see no reason to say that we don’t worship the same God. Unquestionably the Islamic view of God emphasizes wrath and judgment way too much, and there is certainly a trend within Islam toward a “divine command” theory that has never been quite as dominant within Christianity. But it doesn’t appear universal within Islam, and it’s certainly played an important role in Christianity.

The basic fallacy of Rodrigo’s posts is that because Muslims do bad things in the name of God, therefore Muslims can’t be worshiping the true God. I presume I don’t have to show you just why this is a fallacy?

I think that the cliche “Islam is a religion of peace” has been very harmful, both because it lulls those who believe it into the silly belief that violent Muslims aren’t “real” Muslims and because it provokes those who reject it into the opposite (though probably less inaccurate statistically) error of saying that non-violent Muslims aren’t “real” Muslims (note that by violent I don’t mean just “those who support suicide bombing or 9/11” but “those who are basically open to the use of force to advance Islam, think apostates are worthy of death, etc.”).

Islam is a label for the beliefs and practices of a group of people throughout time and space. In other words, I think it’s a mistake to be a realist with regards to a religion other than the one truly revealed by God. Religions that are based on human opinion and tradition and/or mistaken/fraudulent claims of revelation do not have an essence. The only essence of religion is divinely revealed truth. Therefore, when speaking of non-Christian religions we must be nominalists. This is the case I’ve been making on this board for some months, and as you can guess it has met with little approval!

Edwin

Good morning to you all too!
Here is a secular view that I have seen in some religions per se’
I’m welcome for your opinion;

Some rule authoratative ly; with rules, consequences, fairly just and this leads to delegating jobs to others.
ex;.'s Kings and Queens
Menonites etc some other religions depending on the leadership

Some rule authoritarian; Hitler style
ex;'s Monarchy’s , Amish etc. depending on leadership

IMHO it would take a longggg time to birth a new concept to a religion that has been as the Islam has generations more than not.
It isn’t going to happen overnight.
I’ve watched some of the videos and watched them fluctuate back and forth from the very aggressive to the passive, kind of like two personalities struggling within.
Dessert

 

[Contarini]

And now I think you are being stubborn: as someone, like most people in the U. S., ignorant of a religion which, is some form or form, suddenly murders and destroys in the name of Allah, I want to know how to think about it, from its scripture to its jihadi, from its persecution abroad to its presence here… What other sort of questions would someone like me–most people–ask?

Then by all means learn more about it. As a scholar of the history of Christianity who is currently teaching world religions at a small Christian college, I’m trying to do the same thing. I just don’t know what you are getting at. I have said that if you want to learn about the “essence” of Islam, I think this is misguided, and I have said why.

One book I would recommend for understanding how radical Islam works today is *My Year inside Radical Islam *by Daveed Gartenstein-Ross. What is interesting about this book is that the author first converted to Islam in a definitely non-fundamentalist environment, and then gravitated (briefly) toward radical Wahhabism before abandoning Islam altogether. So he gives a cross-section of several different versions of contemporary Islam.

Edwin

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Paarsurrey
I think you need to do some research - particularly on how it is incorrect to commit logical fallacies in discussions. You have committed the logical fallacy of ad hominem against Abul Ala Maududi.

I know you’re an Ahmediyya but to malign a Sunni theologian just because he also happened to be a politician is just wrong.

Maududi was also a great Islamic thinker and recognized as a Sheikh. He wrote many theological books and even a tafsir.

I know you Ahmediyyas don’t like him because he and his party declared you lot kafirs and caused 2,000 Ahmediyya deaths in the Punjab in 1953.

It might be nice if you actually disproved what he wrote instead of maligning his person. That’s usually the sign of a weakness in either debating technique or knowledge.

 

[Contarini]

I get it - you don’t like me to say that the Muslims have no theological justification for claiming the the jihad the infidel verses are only for when there’s a caliph.

So where’s the theological justification? Is there theological justification or not?

There is no theological justification for believing that the Qur’an is the Word of God in the first place!

It is nonsense to talk about “theological justification” with regard to a religion that isn’t itself revealed by God. Only Muslims can talk about theological justifications for Muslim beliefs. The only question we can ask is what Muslims think is or is not a theological justification. You want to do Muslim theology, become a Muslim. You want to do Christian theology, become a Christian. That’s how theology works. It can only be done from the inside.

I am not coy at all about my beliefs. I have said it about a dozen times already. It is irrelevant anyway.

Then repeat it so I am clear on just what you believe (I vaguely remember reading some statement of your beliefs a while ago, but I don’t remember it well). It is highly relevant if you want to talk theology.

Anyone can study a religion and understand it.

Not theologically–that is, from the inside. You an understand it historically and sociologically.

When you say the shahada suddenly you are an expert in Islam. If you don’t say the shahada you are eternally unable to read and listen to the same theological sources as Muslims to derive the same understanding?

If you don’t believe the Qur’an is true, then the Qur’an is not a basis for your theology. It’s self-contradictory to try to do Islamic theology without being a Muslim. Muslims are interpreting the Qur’an based on the belief that it is the Word of God. You and I don’t believe this, therefore we are interpreting the Qur’an based on completely different presuppositions.

Unable to disprove me even once you now demonize me by calling me biased.

Calling you biased is not demonizing you–it’s humanizing you. Everyone is biased, but you are proceeding solely on the basis of your bias.

You only have to read Maududi to find out the context of surah 9, buddy. Don’t take my word for it. It is clear you’re speaking from the position of ignorance.

Try this and google: surah 9 maududi.

That’ll tell you the context of surah 9 - particularly the verses of the sword.

Now, wasn’t that biased of me to point out how to get the context of surah 9?

It was very biased of you to assume that a particular Islamic thinker from the 20th century gives the one and only Islamic interpretation of that passage, yes.

Edwin

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

There is no theological justification for believing that the Qur’an is the Word of God in the first place!

It is nonsense to talk about “theological justification” with regard to a religion that isn’t itself revealed by God. Only Muslims can talk about theological justifications for Muslim beliefs. The only question we can ask is what Muslims think is or is not a theological justification. You want to do Muslim theology, become a Muslim. You want to do Christian theology, become a Christian. That’s how theology works. It can only be done from the inside.

Now you’re being silly. The word theology extends to Islam as well in the generic sense.

I take it you don’t know the answer to whether there is theological justification or not.

contarini:

Then repeat it so I am clear on just what you believe (I vaguely remember reading some statement of your beliefs a while ago, but I don’t remember it well). It is highly relevant if you want to talk theology.

Why is it relevant? If I converted to Islam does it make me an expert in Islam? If I then apostatized do I lose my knowledge of Islam?

You are just being silly.

contarini:

Not theologically–that is, from the inside. You an understand it historically and sociologically.

I find it difficult to believe you’re a scholar of any sort with statements like that.

contarini:

If you don’t believe the Qur’an is true, then the Qur’an is not a basis for your theology. It’s self-contradictory to try to do Islamic theology without being a Muslim. Muslims are interpreting the Qur’an based on the belief that it is the Word of God. You and I don’t believe this, therefore we are interpreting the Qur’an based on completely different presuppositions.

Do you have to believe in someone’s belief in order to understand it? No.

contarini:

Calling you biased is not demonizing you–it’s humanizing you. Everyone is biased, but you are proceeding solely on the basis of your bias.

So why did you point out specifically and pointedly that I was biased? Does that make you feel good or did you just run out of valid arguments as usual?

contarini:

It was very biased of you to assume that a particular Islamic thinker from the 20th century gives the one and only Islamic interpretation of that passage, yes.

Edwin

Did I say that Maududi provides the one and only islamic interpretation? No. I merely pointed out that you can find out the context easily using Maududi. Of course there are others but they’re not so easy to find out on the internet.

But thanks again for twisting my words to make a specious, not to mention spurious, point.

 

[cranster]

This is my first visit to this site, and here is my immediate impression. If Catholics spent way more time in front of the Blessed Sacrament, praying the Rosary, fasting, reading scripture, receiving the Eucharist, and uniting their sufferings to Jesus on the Cross for the salvation of souls it would be far more profitable than engaging in endless circular arguments that are inevitably going to lead to frustration, anger, and even hatred. Peoples minds are set for the most part, and are interested only in what will support their already firmly held belief, but nothing is impossible for God.

Eph 6:12, For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world.

I believe wholeheartedly that this battle is best fought with our Rosaries, through fasting, in front of the Blessed Sacrament.

This is how hearts and minds are changed.