What Muslims are Taught in their Mosques

[Contarini]

Not quite true. Catholic England, with the Pope’s blessing (the only English pope - Hadrian IV) effectively took over Ireland.

" Ireland was a feudal territory of the English monarch under the nominal overlordship of the papacy until 1541, when it became a kingdom belonging solely to the King of England."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadrian_IV#Adrian_IV_and_Ireland

When England became Protestant they had troubles in their Irish lands and decided to settle the most troublesome part of their possession with Protestants, in what is known as the Plantations.

However you can’t say that “Protestant England invaded” ignoring that it was already *their *domain.

True enough. But the Norman overlords had assimilated to Irish culture. What went on in the Elizabethan era was much more vicious–a deliberate attempt to destroy Irish society and “civilize” the Irish by turning them into British Protestants (or failing that, reduce them to a state akin to slavery and introduce colonies of good British Protestants). I’ve seen it claimed that the Irish experience was the primary model used by the British in their treatment of Native Americans.

Edwin

 

[tomarin]

However you can’t say that “Protestant England invaded” ignoring that it was already *their *domain.

i’ll be sure to inform my irish relatives that they are actually subjects of the british crown, thanks.

 

[paarsurrey]

Hi

I want to write a few lines on what ought to be taught in a Mosque; I think it won’t be much off the topic, since it is a religious discussion forum not a war strategic studies forum.

The first Masjid (the word used in Arabic in Quran) or Mosque, its equivalent in use in English was constructed, the first thing Muhammad, a true ProphetMessenger of GodAllahYHWH, did when he migrated to Medina, as God’s worship was the corner stone of his entire life and his eyes remained always focused on it, in peace, and also in war that was the main purpose of his life.

It would be pertinent to mention here that Baitul-Haram is also sometimes called as Masjid-ul-Haram, with same connotations in meaning, but that was erected at Medina by Abraham and Ishmael-the Sacrifice of GodAllahYHWH, the first known House of Allah erected by two Prophets together, for worship of GodAllahYHWH, as mentioned in Quran.

The Masjid/Mosque erected by Muhammad, the TrueProphet at Medina is called by Muslims, Masjid-e-Nabawi or the Mosque of the Prophet for only use of worship by the righteous people.

The Holy Quran : Chapter 9: Al-Taubah

[9:107] And among the **Hypocrites are those who have built a mosque in order to injure Islam **and help disbelief and to cause a division among the believers, and to prepare an ambush for him who warred against Allah and His Messenger before this. And they will surely swear; ‘We meant nothing but good;’ But Allah bears witness that they are certainly liars.

[9:108] Never stand to pray therein. *A Mosque founded upon piety from the very first day is surely more worthy that thou shouldst stand to pray therein. **In it are men who love to become purified, And Allah loves those who purify themselves.

[9:109] Is he, then, who founded his building on the fear of Allah and His pleasure better or he who has founded his building on the brink of a tottering water-worn bank which tumbled down with him into the fire of Hell? And Allah guides not the wrongdoing people.

[9:110] This building of theirs, which they have built, will ever continue to be a source of disquiet in their hearts, unless their hearts be cut into pieces. And Allah is All-knowing, Wise.
*Masjid e Nabawi . Unquote

All Mosques built anywhere in the world later, have to be in essence or spirit according to Masjid e Nabawi, used for worship only, if not used for and with the intent of worship, then they are not mosques of the Prophet Muhammad. It would not be out of place here when a delegation of Christians visited Muhammad at Medina, he allowed Christians to worship their own prayer in that Mosque, he was such an open minded person.

Now, I give a Prophecy of our TrueProphet Muhammad, of the readers of this post are a witness.
Prophecy regarding the hardened clergy (or Maulvis)

Hazrat Ali narrated from Muhammad SAW that the Prophet said: There will come an era on the people of Islam that the real teachings of Islam would not be left but only in name in them (i.e. they would be devoid of the real and truthful teachings of Islam). There would not be left from the Quran except its written text.

**The mosques of people of that age would inhabit to the full outwardly but these would be empty of the guidance. Their Ulema or scholars would be the worst of the creatures beneath the sky. Tribulations would rise out from such mosques and would return to them (i.e. they would be the source of all the evils of that period). **

This Hadith has been traditionally narrated by al-Behqui under the al-Iemaan, classification. Its reference is: Mishkat, Kitabul Ilm, al-fasl-us Thalith page 38; Kanzul Ummal volume 6, page 43

Thanks

 

[Montalban]

True enough. But the Norman overlords had assimilated to Irish culture. What went on in the Elizabethan era was much more vicious–a deliberate attempt to destroy Irish society and “civilize” the Irish by turning them into British Protestants (or failing that, reduce them to a state akin to slavery and introduce colonies of good British Protestants). I’ve seen it claimed that the Irish experience was the primary model used by the British in their treatment of Native Americans.

Edwin

I agree that they were assimilated, and are known to history as the Anglo-Irish, and they too were dispossessed by the plantations. However they themselves were a type of plantation.

What I think exacerbated the situation in the case of the Elizabethan era plantations was religion. Oddly enough the more severe plantations occurred under the Stuarts (a ‘Celtic’* Dynasty) using Scots** who became known as Ulster Scots (who themselves became amazingly strong supporters of American Independence).

*-well, sort of, as although they were originally themselves from Normandy, they were ‘of’ Scotland for centuries. Even Catholic Stewarts such as James II, and his son ‘the Old Pretender’ and grandson ‘Bonnie Prince Charles’ were supported by Protestant clans -so religion was not always an issue.

**-the Scots originally came from Ireland - although many of the plantation were from the lowlands

 

[Montalban]

i’ll be sure to inform my irish relatives that they are actually subjects of the british crown, thanks.

Did I say that they are, now?

Until 1922, they all were. And six counties in the north still are.

 

[Montalban]

Thanks

No! Thank you

No thank you!

 

[tomarin]

Did I say that they are, now?

Until 1922, they all were. And six counties in the north still are.

i understood you to mean that ireland “belonged” to the english because of a medieval papal decree. therefore when cromwell conquered the country and attempted to cleanse it of catholicism he wasn’t conquering it at all, just settling my ancestors’ bacon as was his right as appointee of their feudal master.

i happen to think all people have an inherent right to self determination, that cannot be abrogated even by so high a spiritual authority as the pope.

you and i will have to agree to disagree, i guess.

 

[Montalban]

i understood you to mean that Ireland “belonged” to the English because of a medieval papal decree. therefore when Cromwell conquered the country and attempted to cleanse it of Catholicism he wasn’t conquering it at all, just settling my ancestors’ bacon as was his right as appointee of their feudal master.

As Cromwell was an usurper to power who also had to ‘conquer’* Wales - which was also ‘legally’ under the same realm, your point has not been made. He laid siege to many an English town in England, such as Oxford**. Does this mean that they too, were independent?

Incidentally, you’ve now walked into my favourite period of history!

i happen to think all people have an inherent right to self determination, that cannot be abrogated even by so high a spiritual authority as the pope.

you and i will have to agree to disagree, i guess.

That’s not even the issue here.

There’s two distinct arguments here.

One is: Ireland was English - legally, from the time of the Normans. That is a fact you’ve not disproved.

Second is: Ireland deserves to be governed as according to the people of Ireland. I’ve not argued for or against this in any form, you simply introduce it here as a process of either showing you want to start discussion on another topic, or you’re not aware it’s another topic.

*- to use your terminology.

**-held by Prince Rupert, acting on behalf of the King.

 

[pro_universal]

One is: Ireland was English - legally, from the time of the Normans. That is a fact you’ve not disproved.

Wha? Who decided that this was a “legal” fact?

It seems that in my absence the drumbeat of anti-Islamic hype has not subsided. That’s most of what I see in this thread. Too bad.

 

[dolphinlove]

Welcome back pro…

 

[Montalban]

Wha? Who decided that this was a “legal” fact?

the Pope. It’d be interesting now for you to jump in and say these Catholics who are claiming that they were invaded don’t believe the Pope.

Perhaps you’re back too soon?

It seems that in my absence the drumbeat of anti-Islamic hype has not subsided. That’s most of what I see in this thread. Too bad.

Ah, well, so much for your reasoned response to the topic! Ooops, no, you were not discussing that, but this side-issue!

 

[Catholic_Vegan]

Jesus told us He is the way, the truth and the light; no one comes to the Father except through the Son. Jesus is the second person of the Blessed Trinity. God will always have compassion on all his creatures if they live a holy and peaceful life. No matter what religion God loves us all. Jesus came to fulfill the scriptures. No one before or after Jesus (prophets) called himself the Son of God! Good people exist in all religions and evil people exist in all religions.
I am humbled to know that Jesus is the Son of God and I pray that all people come to know Him even better than I do!
Peace to all God’s creatures

 

[pro_universal]

the Pope. It’d be interesting now for you to jump in and say these Catholics who are claiming that they were invaded don’t believe the Pope.

Perhaps you’re back too soon?

Uh, in what document does the Pope declare the conquest of Ireland “legal”? And what made the pronouncement legal in fact?

Is it your claim that anything the Pope says constitutes the law? Or what? And does this apply to the later Protestant conquests too? Or does that all not count in the history of Ireland?

I’m really confused as to how saying “the Pope said so” constitutes the be all and end all of legality.

Ah, well, so much for your reasoned response to the topic! Ooops, no, you were not discussing that, but this side-issue!

What’s to discuss? No amount of fact or presentation of Muslim beliefs will change what you and others say is “the real Islam.” You can’t challenge someone who is debating the boogeyman, instead of a real position.

 

[Ella]

Welcome back, Pro.

I do see some muslims that give me hope… Irshad Manji for instance. Are you familiar with her?
muslim-refusenik.com/

 

[pro_universal]

Welcome back, Pro.

I do see some muslims that give me hope… Irshad Manji for instance. Are you familiar with her?
muslim-refusenik.com/

Yes. It’s amazing to read her detailed discussions of texts that she cannot read, and views on a language she doesn’t speak. I don’t think she’s actually Muslim, either. She’s more of an anti-Islam polemicist than anything else.

And I can see why she might be so harsh with Islam: like Catholicism, Islam condemns homosexual behavior. As a gay rights activist and lesbian, Manji probably is upset with the fact that most Muslims won’t accept and legitimize that behavior.

You might be interested to read her debate with Asad AbuKhalildemocracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/02/07/1458210#transcript

An excerpt:

AS’AD ABUKHALIL: **Well, if you read Arabic, which you don’t, and maybe you want to learn it, **you would realize that many writers and intellectuals have written about these issues, have condemned anti-Semitic writings wherever they occur. If they do not appear in certain demonstrations, because these governments do not allow the demonstrations –

IRSHAD MANJI: Where are the demonstrations?

 

[Montalban]

Uh, in what document does the Pope declare the conquest of Ireland “legal”? And what made the pronouncement legal in fact?

I already referenced this.

Is it your claim that anything the Pope says constitutes the law?

No. I pointed out that a Catholic complaining about a “Protestant conquest” can’t deny the Pope’s authority that allowed the English in in the first place

Or what? And does this apply to the later Protestant conquests too? Or does that all not count in the history of Ireland?

Well there’s no country called ‘Protestant’ so it’s over-simplistic to talk of a “Protestant conquest”. Your objections, anyway stem from a misunderstanding of the legal status of Ireland in the first place - being as it was, under the English crown

I’m really confused as to how saying “the Pope said so” constitutes the be all and end all of legality.

It did at the time he stated it.

And yes, you are confused.

What’s to discuss? No amount of fact or presentation of Muslim beliefs will change what you and others say is “the real Islam.” You can’t challenge someone who is debating the boogeyman, instead of a real position.

Cool, then I expect that this was your last post EVER on Islam

 

[Ella]

Yes. It’s amazing to read her detailed discussions of texts that she cannot read, and views on a language she doesn’t speak. I don’t think she’s actually Muslim, either. She’s more of an anti-Islam polemicist than anything else.

She is Muslim. Have you not been to her website?
muslim-refusenik.com/

And I can see why she might be so harsh with Islam: like Catholicism, Islam condemns homosexual behavior. As a gay rights activist and lesbian, Manji probably is upset with the fact that most Muslims won’t accept and legitimize that behavior.

How is she ‘harsh with Islam’? I notice you say, ‘might’ and ‘probably’. You should read her website.

Of all the people who post on this board I thought you would appreciate her, Pro.

 

[pro_universal]

She is Muslim. Have you not been to her website?
muslim-refusenik.com/

How is she ‘harsh with Islam’? I notice you say, ‘might’ and ‘probably’. You should read her website.

Of all the people who post on this board I thought you would appreciate her, Pro.

I did read her website. That’s why I found out that a central aim of her mission is to promote gay rights.

I think you are confusing “muslim” as identity (which is clearly what she means) and Muslim as religious practice. It’s clear that she isn’t interested in the practice of her faith, but rather (like many in the Catholic world) wants to convince everyone that they should forget all the rules on sexual behavior.

Pointing to her as an example of what’s good with Islam is like pointing to Madonna (the singer) as an example of good trends in Catholicism.

 

[pro_universal]

I already referenced this.

No. I pointed out that a Catholic complaining about a “Protestant conquest” can’t deny the Pope’s authority that allowed the English in in the first place

Well there’s no country called ‘Protestant’ so it’s over-simplistic to talk of a “Protestant conquest”. Your objections, anyway stem from a misunderstanding of the legal status of Ireland in the first place - being as it was, under the English crown

It did at the time he stated it.

And yes, you are confused.

Cool, then I expect that this was your last post EVER on Islam

Uh, where was this document referenced? And I ask again: What makes whatever the Pope says law?

How did the Pope continue to assert legal authority over the later conquests (separate, ie, reinvasions) under the Protestant kings?

I think perhaps your hazy details on the history are confusing your vision.

 

[Montalban]

Uh, where was this document referenced?

Adrian IV during his reign issued a papal bull, Laudabiliter, granting dominion over Ireland to the English monarch, Henry II. The bull made Ireland a feudal possession of the King of England under the nominal overlordship of the papacy. The title the English King was to hold over Ireland was “Lord of Ireland”. The pope claimed the right to grant sovereignty over islands in Europe to different monarchs because of a forged document called the Donation of Constantine. The theory of western Christendom was that certain states were recognised and others were not; Laudabiliter formally brought Ireland as a political entity into the European polity.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadrian_IV

And I ask again: What makes whatever the Pope says law?

I’ve already answered this, I don’t believe what he says is law, but a Catholic would have a different persepective, espcially in the Middle Ages

How did the Pope continue to assert legal authority over the later conquests (separate, ie, reinvasions) under the Protestant kings?

He didn’t. The point is, by then Ireland was already English

I think perhaps your hazy details on the history are confusing your vision.

No, you simply want to argue against points not made, and to challenge on points already met.

Here it is again, in s-l-o-w motion

Hadrian was the Pope. All of the west AT THAT TIME was Catholic. They all recognised his authority to make Papal Bulls.

He gave one granting to the Norman-English the right to take Ireland. England was Catholic. Ireland was Catholic.

England took Ireland. It became ‘English’ (land). Many centuries later the English monarch and peoples converted to Protestantism. They thus had one nation with several parts still Catholic. They planted Protestant settlers in northern Ireland. It was still "English’ (land) so they had the legal right to do so.

Another person was raised in this topic as if it were an issue; Cromwell.

Cromwell himself usurped authority from the English Crown. He then conquered England (much of it Protestant), Scotland (some of it Protestant), Wales, (Catholic) and Ireland (Catholic)

The Irish who rebelled weren’t ‘independents’ but pro-monarchy, which was Protestant (Charles I who was excecuted is considered and “Anglican Martyr”)

Cromwell was succeeded eventually by a restored monarch, who was Protestant… Charles II.

Ireland STILL continued to be under his authority. Such was their loyalty to the crown that they fought for his brother James II and lost. James II was Catholic, but he wasn’t Irish. AND it was his family that had firmly established the Plantations

The monarchy under William IV became permenently Protestant.

There then arose an Irish ‘nationalism’. No one denies their right to fight for their own nation. But it is patently false the objection put to me, and it’s absolutely hillarious that you would then champion it after the facts have been stated!

Perhaps another break for you?