What Muslims are Taught in their Mosques

[udoc89]

Don’t know if it’s true are not, but I read recently (can’t remember where) that our immigration policy is somewhat stricter than Europe’s in the wake of Sept. 11/01, but that large numbers of Islamic terrorists carry European passports. Since citizens of Great Britain and some other European nations do not require a VISA to travel in the US, it is becoming quite easy for terrorists to come into this country using their European passports. That’s a scary proposition.

I believe Hilaire Belloc predicted many decades ago that the West’s bloody struggle with Islam was far from over.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

tomarin:

most of the places in the world which have converted to islam (like indonesia for example) were not forced to convert but did so for other reasons, like the advantage of religion in forming trade networks. in other places, like north africa and persia, it was the result of military conquest by arabs and the tax that non-muslims had to pay. by converting they were able to avoid paying this tax, which was a big incentive.

Actually this is untrue. Almost all the places converted to Islam did so by the sword. Including Indonesia. This ‘peaceful conversion of Indonesia’ is a myth.

The initial conversion of the Indonesian was peaceful when the Arab traders brought Islam to Indonesia. That is true. This part is peaceful. But this is only a very small part.

When the Sultan of Demak was converted to Islam he began the overthrow of the Hindu Majapahit empire - hence the majority of the conversion of Indonesia to Islam was by the sword.

Muslims always focus on the initial peaceful phase and forget the more profound and bloody second phase. The Hindus were forced out of Java and Sumatra and Borneo into the small island of Bali.

Thus to claim that the conversion of Indonesia to Islam was peaceful is an ignorance of the true bloody history of conversion.

 

[Montalban]

This kind of stuff is sometimes preached in third world countries, but not in the United States.

That’s because in the US they’re after converts and they have to tailor the Islamic message to suit US audiences. In their own countries they don’t need to worry about such things as public opinon and you thus get Islamic messages that are more genuine.

And if even if they were - you are all on this forum posting bad things about Islams, feeding hatred for their religion. It’s the same exact thing. You should try to not be hypocritical.

If they were, then posting these things would be called saying the truth.

 

[Montalban]

most of the places in the world which have converted to islam (like indonesia for example) were not forced to convert but did so for other reasons, like the advantage of religion in forming trade networks. in other places, like north africa and persia, it was the result of military conquest by arabs and the tax that non-muslims had to pay. by converting they were able to avoid paying this tax, which was a big incentive.

That’s simply false.

The entire Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan, Asia Minor, Inida were all conquered. These are where the vast majority of Moslems are. Iberia and the Balkans, Sicily, southern Italy, southern Russia (Crimea), the Caucus area, were also taken by force.

Inodensia, the southern Phillipines, and China were exceptions. BUT only insofar as Islam reaching there. They still forced out the Hindu kingdoms of Java

 

[StMarkEofE]

That’s simply false.

The entire Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan, Asia Minor, Inida were all conquered. These are where the vast majority of Moslems are. Iberia and the Balkans, Sicily, southern Italy, southern Russia (Crimea), the Caucus area, were also taken by force.

Inodensia, the southern Phillipines, and China were exceptions. BUT only insofar as Islam reaching there. They still forced out the Hindu kingdoms of Java

My question is:

If Islam is the great religion she says she is then why would she have to beat populations into it’s submission. Would they not see this “truth” and come to it willingly? And if it is so tolerant why would countries like Saudi Arabia and Darfar Qatar etc not allow the Christians to worship in the open without persecution?
You wear the cap (or what ever you call it) and the women the Hijab as a sign of your faith, why cant you let us Christians wear the cross outwardly as a sign of our faith in these Muslim countries?

 

[Contarini]

I would really like to think that deep down, Islam is a religion of peace that has just been hijacked by extremists who are bent on world domination and the forced conversion or death of all “infidels”

Why does it matter to you what Islam is “deep down”? Do you think Islam is true? If it isn’t, then it has no “deep down.” If Islam is not true, then “true Islam” is a self-contradictory term. The only “essence” of any religion is Truth with a capital T. Islam is simply a group of beliefs and practices held by people who identify themselves with a particular tradition. For us as Christians, there is no “true” or “false” version of Islam. There are just Muslims–that is to say, people who identify themselves with the Islamic tradition.

Edwin

 

[Shoshana]

Fr John Corapi has stated that 40% of all Muslims believe in terrorism. I do not know where he got his stats from.

 

[StMarkEofE]

Fr John Corapi has stated that 40% of all Muslims believe in terrorism. I do not know where he got his stats from.

How many in the world now claim to be Muslim? Last estimate puts the count is between 750,000,000 and 1,000,000,000.

Even if we take only 1/10th of 1%, and if my math is correct, that still leaves us what - 750,000 to 1,000,000.

Thats a lot of potential terrorists to keep and eye one.

 

[tomarin]

That’s simply false.

The entire Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan, Asia Minor, Inida were all conquered. These are where the vast majority of Moslems are. Iberia and the Balkans, Sicily, southern Italy, southern Russia (Crimea), the Caucus area, were also taken by force.

Inodensia, the southern Phillipines, and China were exceptions. BUT only insofar as Islam reaching there. They still forced out the Hindu kingdoms of Java

i’m not saying they weren’t conquered. i’m saying the populations in the conquered lands were not necessarily forced to convert, provided they were followers of scriptural religions (i.e. not pagan polytheists). most did convert but not necessarily because someone held a scimitar to their neck. they did so because they found there was an incentive or perhaps they were moved to do so for some other reason.

conversion is a complicated process and should not be reduced to such black-and-white reasoning. if this were so why did my ancestors in ireland remain roman catholics despite intense religious persecution from the british? on the contrary it seems to me that throughout history we have example after example that affirms that religious persecution is often the most effective way to strengthen a community’s sense of religious identity.

this thread reminds me of christ’s commandmant to love your neighbor as you love yourself. who is our neighbor? is it only christians? or only christians who are roman catholics?

the jews and the samaritans were enemies in biblical times, but we learn in the ninth chapter of luke that jesus didn’t want his disciples to rain down fire from heaven on the samaritan village because they refused to let him, a jew, pass on his way to jerusalem.in fact he rebuked them for the suggestion. furthermore it was a samaritan who saved the jewish traveler in the famous parable found in luke chapter ten, suggesting that “our neighbor” is any sufferer who needs your help (even amongst “the enemy”).

how are the muslims of today different from the samaritans of biblical times? i don’t want to judge anyone here or pretend that i’m such a great christian, i ususally fall very short of that lofty goal, but shouldn’t we keep in mind “love your neighbor” before posting so many negative things about muslims, especially in this particular moment in history? my neighbors are literally and figuratively muslims.

i’m also reminded of this paragraph from the compendium of the catechism of the catholic church:

**170. What is the bond that exists between the Catholic Church and non-Christian religions?
**
There is a bond between all peoples which comes especially from the common origin and end of the entire human race. The Catholic Church recognizes that whatever is good or true in other religions comes from God and is a reflection of his truth. As such it can prepare for the acceptance of the Gospel and act as a stimulus for the unity of humanity in the Church of Christ.

 

[Montalban]

i’m not saying they weren’t conquered. i’m saying the populations in the conquered lands were not necessarily forced to convert, provided they were followers of scriptural religions (i.e. not pagan polytheists). most did convert but not necessarily because someone held a scimitar to their neck. they did so because they found there was an incentive or perhaps they were moved to do so for some other reason.

conversion is a complicated process and should not be reduced to such black-and-white reasoning. if this were so why did my ancestors in ireland remain roman catholics despite intense religious persecution from the british? on the contrary it seems to me that throughout history we have example after example that affirms that religious persecution is often the most effective way to strengthen a community’s sense of religious identity.

It goes to show you that the persecutions under Islam were more severe.

In Islam a Moslem man can marry up to four women and have slaves. That makes him the father of many children. All his children will become Moslems. A Moslem woman may not marry a non-Moslem. Islam bred out populations. In the east where Orthodox priests can have a wife, if she died, the priest can’t re-marry. Killing the wife then would ensure the priest had no children.

Under Islam there were special taxes one had to pay just to be non-Moslem. One was also discriminated before the law, where a non-Moslem could not testify against a Moslem.

Even in England where they restricted Catholics from public office (under the Test Act) they didn’t have special taxes on Catholics, nor had such laws against crimes against Catholics.

Catholics did not need to wear special clothing to show that they were Catholic.

Under Islam Jews and Christians had to.

There were no laws against Catholics marrying non-Catholics in England (that I’m aware of - except for the Monarch* - which is still in force)

Under Turkey a special tax of boys was undertaken. Young boys were taken from their families and forced into the Turkish army to become the most feared Islamic troops of their day; the Janissaries. There was no such thing by the English in Ireland.

Certainly the English tried a form of ethnic-cleansing by establishing populations of Protestants in northern Ireland (known as the ‘plantations’). However they didn’t steal Catholics and force them to become Anglicans as the Turks stole boys and made them Moslem warriors.

You clearly are comparing vastly different systems of thought.

Whilst there was persecutions of Catholics in Ireland, it wasn’t on the same scale. And it is scale that you’re trying to diminish.

*-the Monarch and his/her consort must still abide by the Test Act.

 

[Montalban]

I would agree with what you say completely. We are to respect all religions, but we do not have to respect the despicable things done in the name of a religion.

But if it’s part of that religion, and its deplorable, then we can condemn that religion.

In India the Thugee groups* believed in ritualised strangulations.

Some Hindus practiced suttee; the killing of a widow upon the funeral pyre of her late husband.

The English put a stop to both these practices. They were deplorable practices.

*We get the word thug from them

 

[paarsurrey]

But if it’s part of that religion, and its deplorable, then we can condemn that religion.
In India the Thugee groups* believed in ritualised strangulations.
Some Hindus practiced suttee; the killing of a widow upon the funeral pyre of her late husband.
The English put a stop to both these practices. They were deplorable practices.
*We get the word thug from them

Hi
We praise the English for doing these things in India, that was a positive thing done by them. They also established a good justice system, an unbiased one, a remarkable thing to do , even the English judges would give decisions against there own Christian coreligionists. Promised Messiah ( which is SECOND COMING of Jesus) has given examples of justice done by the English. They were/ and are a good people. They freed Muslims from the Khalsa cruel rule, who had put many restrictions on the Muslims. Muslims could not announce Azan for the prayer, and one who did announce it was either killed or much persecuted. English people were benefactors of Muslims to free them from the Khalsa cruel rule . Thanks English men.

Thanks

 

[Antwill]

Why does it matter to you what Islam is “deep down”? Do you think Islam is true? If it isn’t, then it has no “deep down.” If Islam is not true, then “true Islam” is a self-contradictory term. The only “essence” of any religion is Truth with a capital T. Islam is simply a group of beliefs and practices held by people who identify themselves with a particular tradition. For us as Christians, there is no “true” or “false” version of Islam. There are just Muslims–that is to say, people who identify themselves with the Islamic tradition.

Edwin

Of course, I don’t believe Islam is True. However, that does not mean that there is not a “true” Islam - one that either really does condone violence or one that is truly peaceful.

I don’t feel as if your Episcopalian faith is True, either. Although it contains elements of Truth, just as the Catholic Church has taught that Islam contains some “Truth”, just not all of it. (Of course, your faith contains much more Truth than Islam)

I would like to know what “true” Islam is so that I know if I need to be prepared to openly oppose it 100% (as would be the case if it “truly” condones and teaches forced conversion or death) or if I simply need to oppose that radical element that is twisting the teachings to condone their acts of violence and work with the “true” Muslims who are following a peaceful faith in hopes of bringing them to the fullness of Truth found in the Catholic Church.

 

[Antwill]

But if it’s part of that religion, and its deplorable, then we can condemn that religion.

In India the Thugee groups* believed in ritualised strangulations.

Some Hindus practiced suttee; the killing of a widow upon the funeral pyre of her late husband.

The English put a stop to both these practices. They were deplorable practices.

*We get the word thug from them

That is only if those acts are truly part of that religion. There are radical Christians out their that say Christianity gives them the okay to kill abortion doctors and bomb clinics. Those acts are deplorable, but not part of Christian teaching.

I think we are one the same page, here.

 

[StMarkEofE]

That is only if those acts are truly part of that religion. There are radical Christians out their that say Christianity gives them the okay to kill abortion doctors and bomb clinics. Those acts are deplorable, but not part of Christian teaching.

I think we are one the same page, here.

Somehow I dont see the comparision of Islamic Terrorism to what you portray as acts of Christian radicalism. Its like comparing an elephant to a flea.

 

[Antwill]

Somehow I dont see the comparision of Islamic Terrorism to what you portray as acts of Christian radicalism. Its like comparing an elephant to a flea.

Do you not see some of the bombings of abortion clinics as acts of Christian radicals? Ever heard of Eric Rudolph? He insists his acts were God’s will. And no where did I say that acts of terrorism by Christian radicals are anywhere as prevalent as that of Islamic radicals.

My point was simply that IF true Islam teaches peace and not violence, then we need to stand up against those who are twisting that faith to justify those acts just like we have to stand up against people such as Mr. Rudolph who twist Christianity to condone what they are doing.

Of course, if true Islam really does condone such behavior, that’s a whole different story. Given the frequency of the terrorist acts and the relative non-denunciation by most Muslims of the world, I am having my doubts that it truly is a religion of peace.

 

[jessicae]

Do you not see some of the bombings of abortion clinics as acts of Christian radicals? Ever heard of Eric Rudolph? He insists his acts were God’s will. And no where did I say that acts of terrorism by Christian radicals are anywhere as prevalent as that of Islamic radicals.

My point was simply that IF true Islam teaches peace and not violence, then we need to stand up against those who are twisting that faith to justify those acts just like we have to stand up against people such as Mr. Rudolph who twist Christianity to condone what they are doing.

Of course, if true Islam really does condone such behavior, that’s a whole different story. Given the frequency of the terrorist acts and the relative non-denunciation by most Muslims of the world, I am having my doubts that it truly is a religion of peace.

I am a Muslim and we do believe in peace and love killing is so wrong. The bad Muslims are not truly Muslim. They drink liquor and eat pork. (Which we are not allowed to do). The Quran only talks about killing during war time. You can not kill your self or the innocent. If you want to know the truth of Islam why don’t you talk to a true Muslim. The media only shows the bad. In the VT shootings 2 Muslims died trying to save others. In the JFK it was a Muslim that told of the plots. The same with the plot at the military base.

 

[Antwill]

I am a Muslim and we do believe in peace and love killing is so wrong. The bad Muslims are not truly Muslim. They drink liquor and eat pork. (Which we are not allowed to do). The Quran only talks about killing during war time. You can not kill your self or the innocent. If you want to know the truth of Islam why don’t you talk to a true Muslim. The media only shows the bad. In the VT shootings 2 Muslims died trying to save others. In the JFK it was a Muslim that told of the plots. The same with the plot at the military base.

I have asked several times on this board for Muslims posting here to come forth and denounce the terroristic violence of acts such as 9/11. To date, you are the first Muslim to respond that Islam does not condone such acts of violence.

So, from your perspective, why has there not been more of an outcry by “true” Muslims such as yourself against these terrible acts? I know there has been some demonstrations, but it would seem to me that there would be a lot more given what a bad name these extremists are giving to Islam as a whole.

 

[Chris_LaRock]

I’ve seen a lot of discussion on here about the Middle Eastern Muslims who do terrorism in the name of thier religion. But what about the racist Black Separatist Muslims? Are they also hijacking Islam?

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

The difference between Eric Roberts and Islamo-terrorists should be obvious. I have said this many time before and will say it again.

Eric Roberts may insist that his acts were according to Christian theology. That is a mistake belief of a mad man. Nowhere in Christian theology does Christ order his followers to kill anyone.

In contrast:

Islamo-terrorists are not only obeying the command of Allah, they are following the teachings and behavior of Muhammad.

That is the difference. Therefore, anyone who claims an equivalence between Eric Roberts and Islamo-terrorists are missing a crucial difference in the respective religions.

Also, this idea that the Islamo-terrorists have ‘hijacked’ the peaceful religion of islam is a myth. They have not hijacked Islam - they are following the command of Allah and the teachings and behavior of Muhammad.

Before anyone jumps up to disagree please read the Quran and the hadiths where Muhammad killed people. Jesus did not.

Muhammad told his followers to kill people. Jesus did not.

There simply is no equivalence.