What Muslims are taught in their mosques - unbiased

[Sunflower15]

Interesting that supposedly the Jews are the people of the law of God, the Christians are the people of the love of God, and the Muslims are the people of the mercy of God.
But, all we do with God’s gifts to humanity [including those 3 above] is to dishonor them.

I studied in a Catholic university in Houston, TX, where I had so many Muslim friends that I asked the Dean of Students [at the time] to allow a Muslim friendship student organization on campus. The Dean, a priest, was sincerely happy & very helpful.

My Muslim friends were very grateful. And, I noticed they were very open to us Catholics. They explained to me that in their side of the world, many go to Catholic schools & universities that the Franciscans started centuries ago for the quality of education. So, they were used to being around Christians in a friendly environment.

In terms of values, to me both religions seemed similar, especially in terms of Social Justice and Almsgiving, as well as Prayer, Fasting, Pilgrimage. In many instances, I had more issues trying to explain my Catholic beliefs regarding those issues to my Protestant friends. Muslims understood immediately.

Of course, in Theology we are very different. They can’t see why we consider ourselves monotheistic. I can see why they would think that way. But, we REALLY are. And we worship ONLY God!

They showed me the passage in the Qu’ran about the Archangel Gabriel visiting Mary & her virgin birth. To me that truth is more important than all the wars that have EVER taken place on Earth!

To the Muslims on this site. Thank you for making an attempt to understand us & create peace in the world. Maybe you could point out other similarities you know of. We only have to open a newspaper or go online to know the differences! Personally, I want to know in what ways we worship God similarly.

 

[Palladio]

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

Edwin: highhorse.

Bias is the weight at the bottom of a bowl.

So, in using the figure of speech called metaphor, you still have to admit Rodrigo Bivar could be speaking truly.

Again, this is why I think you are sidestepping and being stubborn.

If you really want to stop all discussion, why not just say, as Muslims often do, unless you read Arabic you cannot understand the Koran?

 

[Contarini]

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

Obviously it extends to Islam for Muslims. Theology is the study of what is true about God and God’s revelation to human beings.

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?

Having observed a lot of converts from Catholicism to Protestantism and vice versa, they definitely do lose a kind of understanding of their previous tradition when they abandon belief in it. This is undeniable. Ex-Catholics routinely misrepresent Protestantism. Ex-Protestants don’t do it as badly, but they still typically have a “tin ear” for nuances that once would have seemed obvious.

However, I am not even making that point. I’m making the obvious point that Muslim exegesis of the Qur’an is based on belief that the Qur’an is the Word of God. If you don’t approach the Qur’an with that belief, you will come to different conclusions than if you did.

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

Actually, it is precisely because I am a scholar that I say these things that you find nonsensical.

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

There is a sense in which you do. You can of course reach a kind of understanding of a belief you don’t share. But not a full understanding. Again, if you actually studied religion you would know this. But you don’t–you have a very narrow agenda of proving how wicked Islam is.

So why did you point out specifically and pointedly that I was biased?

Because your bias drives your interest in Islam–you aren’t generally curious about what Muslims believe and practice, as a real scholar of the subject would be. You simply want to find arguments to debunk it. That makes you a less than ideal source for understanding of Islam. It doesn’t mean that you can’t get some things right, or that I and others can’t learn from you. But we must treat your arguments with a pinch of salt, knowing that you are going to be blind to anything that doesn’t support your agenda.

I’m biased against Islam too. Just much less so than you are (and in this context I’m working hard against my bias in order to provide some balance to this forum–if I were dealing with people who were pro-Islamic I would give voice to my suspicions of Islam).

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.

You can find out Maududi’s interpretation of the context. Which is, as you admit, simply one interpretation. That is all I am saying. Different Muslims interpret the Qur’an differently. People who study the Qur’an historically can judge whether or not their interpretations are historically plausible. But that is really irrelevant to the question of what Muslims believe today. Muslims do not decide what to believe based on what non-Muslim scholars conclude about the historical context of the Qur’an–nor should they. And Muslims who are not followers of Maududi are not necessarily going to agree with Maududi’s interpretation of the context–nor should they.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Edwin: highhorse.

Bias is the weight at the bottom of a bowl.

So, in using the figure of speech called metaphor, you still have to admit Rodrigo Bivar could be speaking truly.

Sure, he can be speaking truly about historical/sociological facts. He can’t be speaking truly about what the Qur’an means as the Word of God, because he doesn’t believe the Qur’an is the Word of God any more than I do. In fact, no one can reach theologically correct conclusions on that basis. But Muslims can reach what they believe are theologically correct conclusions, and that is what we should be interested in. Rodrigo is trying to critique Muslims theologically, and this is nonsense.

Again, this is why I think you are sidestepping and being stubborn.

If you really want to stop all discussion, why not just say, as Muslims often do, unless you read Arabic you cannot understand the Koran?

Obviously because I don’t want to stop all discussion. I just want to stop discussion based on patently false pretences (i.e., that Rodrigo believes the Qur’an is the Word of God, which is the only basis for any statement concerning the theologically correct interpretation of the Qur’an).

Edwin

 

[dessert]

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.

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.**
What you are saying doesn’t make sense, so if I uderstand you correctly and atheist even if he doesn’t believe in God can understand God! This is preposterous. You have the advantage as some others as having been read up on the religion.
The personality the delves and stays focused on all the bad fruits of any man made religion is as misled as the one following the same. And continuing NOT to change to include any good fruits into their mind, it is tooooo crowded and can’t except as it’s mind is made up, so full of hate and bitterness that it may be too late some day and not until the person is on the death bed as the thief on the cross and say to the Lord now I see the truth. **

To say this is ridiculous. Is there a switch in your brain that make you understand islam just because you say the shahada?
None of us Catholics claim to understand everything albeit maybe YOU.

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?
You are confusing the theological with the political sources.

What nonsense.

That’s another logical fallacy you’ve committed. Unable to disprove me even once you now demonize me by calling me biased.
**No one has called you a demon and this is questionable statements and totally uncalled for, appologize.
**
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.
**Why are you muslim now? **

Maybe the moon is made of green cheese.

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?

**I could think of more words to describe, but I could not print them in this forum, would not be Christian. **
Dessert

 

[Palladio]

Sure, he can be speaking truly about historical/sociological facts. He can’t be speaking truly about what the Qur’an means as the Word of God, because he doesn’t believe the Qur’an is the Word of God any more than I do. In fact, no one can reach theologically correct conclusions on that basis. But Muslims can reach what they believe are theologically correct conclusions, and that is what we should be interested in. Rodrigo is trying to critique Muslims theologically, and this is nonsense.

Obviously because I don’t want to stop all discussion. I just want to stop discussion based on patently false pretences (i.e., that Rodrigo believes the Qur’an is the Word of God, which is the only basis for any statement concerning the theologically correct interpretation of the Qur’an).

Edwin

But I think you are giving lessons Rodrigo Bivar may rightly not want to hear or at all–much more to my point–need. I take his points to be offered in a commonsense way, not as definitive of theology as distinct from anything else. I really see no harm in it. We all come to commonsense views from the outside in, and Rodrigo Bivar has taken more time than most to argue from the Koran what he finds strange, objectionable, or threatening, and he also engaged with some Muslims to show that their own position was a narrow or untenable one. Again, I see no harm.
I do see the motive, which I think is a good one, even if it does not meet with distinctions important not perhaps sub specie aeternitatis (or to a tenure committee) but hic et nunc.

 

[Sunflower15]

Edwin,

Do you believe that Muslims’ understanding of God is more similar to a Christian understanding of God the Father?
Do you see any attributes in their concept of God similar to our
2nd & 3rd Persons of the Triune God?

To me the Jewish concept of God is also mostly God the Father, but I also see definite similarities between Shekinah & the Holy Spirit [3rd Person]?

And of course, the 2nd Person of the Triune God [the Son] would be the equivalent of their Messiah, no? But, is there anything in God they perceive similar to our Lord?

I enjoy Theology as well. But mostly to find how I can improve MY understanding from others’ points of view, rather than to seek to change OTHERS’ understanding from MY faith.

If for nothing else, because I have NO control over others’ decisions regarding their faith.

AND, if I make a mistake and unjustly accuse someone else of something they really don’t do or believe in, then I break the 8th Commandment, don’t I? *

Therefore, I appreciate anyone sharing their knowledge of the nature of God, so I can love Him more & worship Him better.
Not to sound simplistic [my undergraduate degree is in Philosophy from a Catholic univ.], but when it comes to our relationship with our God, isn’t this primary above all other knowledge?

Thanks for your temperance!*

 

[Sunflower15]

Edwin,

Do you believe that Muslims’ understanding of God is more similar to a Christian understanding of God the Father?
Do you see any attributes in their concept of God similar to our
2nd & 3rd Persons of the Triune God?

To me the Jewish concept of God is also mostly God the Father, but I also see definite similarities between Shekinah & the Holy Spirit [3rd Person]?

And of course, the 2nd Person of the Triune God [the Son] would be the equivalent of their Messiah, no? But, is there anything in God they perceive similar to our Lord?

I enjoy Theology as well. But mostly to find how I can improve MY understanding from others’ points of view, rather than to seek to change OTHERS’ understanding from MY faith.

If for nothing else, because I have NO control over others’ decisions regarding their faith.

AND, if I make a mistake and unjustly accuse someone else of something they really don’t do or believe in, then I break the 8th Commandment, don’t I? *

Therefore, I appreciate anyone sharing their knowledge of the nature of God, so I can love Him more & worship Him better.
Not to sound simplistic [my undergraduate degree is in Philosophy from a Catholic univ.], but when it comes to our relationship with our God, isn’t this primary above all other knowledge?

Thanks for your temperance!*

 

[dessert]

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 I thought Mohammad was the islamic great thinker to themand recognized as a Sheikh. He wrote many theological books and even a tafsir.You sound like you respected him.

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.**I think that would cause me to Not like him ither, oh but only 2000 that is what Bin Laden said of the WTC in a clip “they only lost about max 2000, not much. .” **

It might be nice if you actually disproved what he wrote instead of maligning his person. **And again what were you trying to prove?**That’s usually the sign of a weakness in either debating technique or knowledge.

Dessert

 

[Keikiolu]

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

Christians are FORBIDDEN to “condemn” (“judge”) others “souls”, meaning that they can’t state that someone is EVIL (therefore “going to hell” if unrepentent), BUT we are commanded to pass judgement on other’s BEHAVIOR (what they DO) and to act to counter their evil as necessary.

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.

Quote:
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.

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.

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.

The person effected by jihad is ALWAYS “the insulter of islam”, therefore, YOU’RE RIGHT,… Why would a moslem intent on jihad care a whit about what the “insulter” thinks?

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?

Edwin

Gotta love your head-in-the-sand attitude to the infection of the soul that is radical islam, buckeroo.

I’m CERTAINLY not saying that all islam is radical islam, of course, as that would be “vile” and not at all nice, so I wouldn’t DARE say such a thing, as even a “liberal ‘catholic’ fatwa” would decend rapidly on anyone who actually verbalized such a dreadful thought…!

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

 

[Sunflower15]

1. It seems us Christians [or even Westerners] are obsessed about what Jihad means or doesn’t mean…but we are not obsessed about finding out what the Muslim concept of God is or is not.
2. It seems that Christians spend far more time trying to convince Muslims that their faith is wrong than praying for Christians living in Eastern countries where they are a minority & are misunderstood. These Christians in their midst, by their life & example, are the best argument we could possibly have for Christianity. They CERTAINLY could use our prayers!
3. I’m new to this website & am sincerely trying to understand how it works. Does someone simply start with a statement every day & then everyone attacks them all day long? I must be missing something…

 

[Grace_Seeker]

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.

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.

This way of interpreting does in fact exist, but it is important to note two things with regard to it:

First, the radical form of it that results in justifying nearly any action is a relatively new experience in Islam beginning with Nassar in the 1960s (for a centuries old faith that is still “relatively” new, even if it may be longer than your own lifespan).

Second, it is still by no means universally accepted and far short of the dominant ideology of most Muslims. World events may be pushing it, but I know of no Muslims who personally condone this view, and having Muslims relatives (both American and Turkish) I think I can speak to that as one who knows what Muslims are thinking and saying inside their mosques, not just in public.

 

[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.

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.

This way of interpreting does in fact exist, but it is important to note two things with regard to it:

First, the radical form of it that results in justifying nearly any action is a relatively new experience in Islam beginning with Nassar in the 1960s (for a centuries old faith that is still “relatively” new, even if it may be longer than your own lifespan).

The fact that the Ottoman empire’s expansion, or for that matter ANY islamic expansion from Mo forward, could be rationalized as “defensive” (which it must have under islamic law) shows that islam has been playing the “jihad is always external and only ‘intellectually internal’ game” since it’s inception.

Second, it is still by no means universally accepted and far short of the dominant ideology of most Muslims.

The “active minority (soldiers)” of the Golden Horde, for example, was a TINY minority of the population of their people.

Why should a “tiny minority” of a population be “deemed harmless” when history proves the potency of dedicated “tiny minorities”…?

World events may be pushing it, but I know of no Muslims who personally condone this view, and having Muslims relatives (both American and Turkish) I think I can speak to that as one who knows what Muslims are thinking and saying inside their mosques, not just in public.

I’m not interested, as you shouldn’t be either, in ANY PEOPLE but the aforementioned “tiny minority”.

Until the “moslem people”, the “overwhelming majority”, can control their “tiny minority” such that they don’t pose the threat that they do, proven by their actions, what you, your relatives, and your “religious leaders” say is irrelevant to the “pronouncements” of that destructive “tiny minority”.

The burden is on the “overwhelming majority” of a people to act, and the burden of the “inflicted by the tiny majority” to react to their attackers.

Now let’s both of us do our respective jobs. OK…!?

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

 

[Grace_Seeker]

I’m not interested, as you shouldn’t be either, in ANY PEOPLE but the aforementioned “tiny minority”.

I am VERY interested in the life of many others besides this “tiny minority”. I suggest to you that to only be concerned with the life of some and not all people is a decidely unChristian response to the world. Jesus calls us who follow him to love our brothers, our neighbors, and even our enemies. That seems to include some people that you are not interested in. I suppose that is between you and Jesus, but as for myself, as far as it depends on me, I will seek to live in harmony and peace with all men. I grant you it is not always easy and there is sometimes a heavy cost to it, but it is always commanded:

Romans 12
17Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. 18If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. 19Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,”[d]says the Lord. 20On the contrary:
“If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.
In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.”[e] 21Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

Now let’s both of us do our respective jobs. OK…!?

And what do you propose is YOUR job?

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif *I’m not interested, as you shouldn’t be either, in ANY PEOPLE but the aforementioned “tiny minority”.*I am VERY interested in the life of many others besides this “tiny minority”. I suggest to you that to only be concerned with the life of some and not all people is a decidely unChristian response to the world.

By “interested in” the “tiny minority” I mean that it concerns me that this “tiny minority” is the group of people who are “evil” and “do bad things” that I am interested in seeing NOT HAPPEN.

Why should I be “interested in”, in the aforementioned way, the majority portion of a population who are not threatening?

Is it possible for you to remeber the subject of which we are discussing?

Jesus calls us who follow him to love our brothers, our neighbors, and even our enemies. That seems to include some people that you are not interested in.

I do indeed love those who are good, and well behaved, and who don’t threaten their fellow human beings.

I also love those who are evil and have hatred for their neighbors. I love their souls, which are being abused by their “personalities” to do evil, but I actively hate their evil behaviors and will act to limit the damage that those behaviors can do.

I suppose that is between you and Jesus, but as for myself, as far as it depends on me, I will seek to live in harmony and peace with all men.

Hear hear…! As will I.

But what does it say of you if you allow evil (behavior) to flourish?

I grant you it is not always easy and there is sometimes a heavy cost to it, but it is always commanded:

Quote:Romans 1217Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. 18If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. 19Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,”[d]says the Lord. 20On the contrary: “If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.”[e] 21Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

Never repay evil with evil. Repay evil with good, which can be “correcting” or “stopping” the behavior of those who do evil.

If it is possible to live in peace with everybody, do so, but if it is impossible, then do what is right and good to see that evil is minimized.

Take no revenge, but it is not revenge to correct evil. God will correct that which only He can correct, but you must correct that which you can correct.

DO feed and slake the thirst of your enemy, as that will show him his own evil all the more clearly, as he would not do the same for you.

Overcome evil with good, and make your good a strong and corrective good.

Quote:Now let’s both of us do our respective jobs. OK…!? And what do you propose is YOUR job?

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.

Best to 'ya, buckeroo.

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

 

[Contarini]

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

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.”

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.

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

Your response was irrelevant to this point.

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.

Edwin

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

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.

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.

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.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Is it possible for you to remeber the subject of which we are discussing?

Believe me I do. Ultimately behind this conversation we are talking about how we choose to relate to people we are in conflict with. Is it about me vs them? Or might there be win-win options available?

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.

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.

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. 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. And rather than wait till it is too late, the are going to defend themselves now and to do so actively rather than passively. About the only different I see between your position and theirs is that their Islamic and you’re not.

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. 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.)

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.

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

 

[Contarini]

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.

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.

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.

Rodrigo, I should probably give up, but I’m stubborn, so I’ll say it one more time:

I AM NOT A MUSLIM. Therefore, I don’t think Islam as a whole has theological justification. You are not a Muslim either. So saying that any Islamic belief (insofar as it differs from whatever beliefs you hold) has theological justification is nothing more than a hypocritical pretense.

Liberal Islam may lack a historical basis for some of its views. But adherents to any religion have no particular reason to base their theology on the historical judgments of outsiders. It’s simply irrelevant.

Edwin

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Rodrigo, I should probably give up, but I’m stubborn, so I’ll say it one more time:

I AM NOT A MUSLIM. Therefore, I don’t think Islam as a whole has theological justification. You are not a Muslim either. So saying that any Islamic belief (insofar as it differs from whatever beliefs you hold) has theological justification is nothing more than a hypocritical pretense.

Liberal Islam may lack a historical basis for some of its views. But adherents to any religion have no particular reason to base their theology on the historical judgments of outsiders. It’s simply irrelevant.

Edwin

I do not get why it is a hypocritical pretense. My understanding of Islamic theology is as good as most Muslims. I don’t have to say the shahada to understand Islamic theology when I have read the same sources, heard the same imams, been to the same mosques.

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?

How do you know I have never said the shahada? How do you know I have never been a Muslim? How do you know anything about me to make such judgement?

As a self-avowed scholar of religion - 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.

Remember that all I said was that the Muslims have no theological basis for claiming that the jihad the infidels verses are active only during a caliphate. That was all I said. I know there is no theological basis because I have researched the topic and discussed it elsewhere with Muslims.

In short you have made a judgement that a non-Muslim can have nothing to say about Islamic theology. That’s just simply wrong.