S
sedonaman
Guest
What kind of logic is a person using who knows a few nice Muslims and concludes that Islam is good?
- Status
S
sedonaman
Guest
Could you give us your take on the exchange that starts with post #792 between “samaan” et al in the thread forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=299511&page=53 ?
Of particular interest is the part a few posts later where “samaan” says,
C
camerong
Guest
Agree, list them. Well, there are certainly “intolerant” passages; Christ is not tolerant of sinful behavior or thought. But “intolerant” of people? Or Hateful? Yes, please, do list them.
Y
yankee_doodle
Guest
while it’s fair enough to point out anecdotal experiences cannot prove anything regarding an entire people, nevertheless it shows practicing Muslims have the capacity to be tolerant good people. Therefore, Islam can be constistent with peace and tolerance (albeit there are some disturbing passages in its scriptures).
C
camerong
Guest
I would argue that such people are mistaken. It is certainly possible for people to misunderstand their own faith, right? It is inconsistent to say that Allah of the Qur’an means anything other than God from the New Testament or YHWH from the Hebew Bible–the Qur’an itself refers to Allah as God of the Hebrew Bible. Its as if I wrote a sequal to the Jane Eyre, and had Jane as a character in my book, but claimed that MY Jane was a different Jane than that in Emily Bronte’s novel. Either the Muslims who claim Allah means something besides God are mistaken, or they don’t really believe in the Qur’an.
No argument here, I was merely wishing to show that Islam is typically interpreted to hold Jews and Christians in higher esteem than your typical non-Muslim. One word for people of the book, dhimmi, means more literally something like the protected ones, right? (It has been some years since I studied this language.)We do not call ourselves “People of the Book”, though. This is their term for us, and it reflects the projection of inherently flawed Islamic epistemology on us. I don’t accept it, and I don’t think any other Christian should. We are people of Christ, who is not a book. Better to be “Masihiyeen” than one of the “Ahl al-kitab”, no?
I’m not sure the jizyah was a form of significant oppression–in most places, it was accompanied by protection. (I’m not aware that any countries still have it?) But no doubt, it was also intended to remind those people of their difference, which is sufficient for at least symbolic oppression. I’m not sure what you are saying in the last part of the above paragraph–are you saying that modern Muslims have outlawed Christianity? That’s true, but certainly not in every Muslim country. The largest Muslim country, Indonesia, has no such laws, to my knowledge.
Do you mean to say that you are making conclusions about Muslims as a whole from your impression of those Muslims you meet arguing on a Catholic forum? It seems more likely that those who understand their faith well and can defend it don’t spend time on such a forum. I don’t spend time defending Catholicism on Muslim forums… My brother is an exceptionally intelligent chap who converted to Islam after analyzing the religion. He went own to become fluent in Arabic and has continued his study. So, my anecdotal evidence shows not what most Muslims are–you may be correct, but I would hate to say what someone says of most Christians–but that Muslims can be intelligent and well-reasoned in their faith. I think he’s mistaken, but not violently so so.
What would help the victims of Islamic terror? Disparaging Islam, even if you are rightfully doing so?
I’m not intending to say we should read Islam with kid gloves. What mean to say is that first, we need to approach this with much less hate. If we are talking to Muslims, then they are very unlikely to be those who are in any way responsible, or in any way support, the way that Muslims have hurt us. In fact, terrorism really ought not be an issue here–the mostly Hindu Tamil Tigers have committed far more acts of terrorism for far longer than all groups of Muslims combined (at least this was true several years ago, the tide may be turning with Iraq). Why Islam has spawned terrorists is an extremely complicated issue, and there is at least as much burden on colonialism or their countries lack of non-oil natural resources as the religion–and I would (and many experts in this field) would argue far more. The Qur’an explicitly bans killing innocent, noncombatants. Keep in mind, the 9/11 bombers went to a strip club the night before the killing. My professor in this area considers al Queda a POLITICAL, not religious, terrorist organization. It is far more concerned with the political self-determination of Palestine and the Middle East than with the plight of Islam throughout the world. This is not even close to a proper treatment on the topic–but my point is only to say is that Islam is not the sole, or I would argue, even the major or proximate cause of Muslim terrorists. As I noted above, Islam is bad, but not because it spawns terrorists.
BTW, I like your signature–I don’t have Cyrillic installed on this computer, but let me transliterate (poorly) to say Ya saglasni.
D
dzheremi
Guest
Well, I’m not interested in or able to vouch for the Qur’an, but notice that what you are now writing in response to what I wrote is different than what I was responding to. You wrote that Allah is simply the Arabic word for God, and I responded, knowing the kinds of arguments that have been presented to me by Muslims themselves, that this is not exactly true. Or rather, it is true of Arab Christians, but not of Arab Muslims. That’s all. If you disagree with the Muslims who claim that “Allah” is a proper name, that’s fine. I do too, in fact, though this is not really worth arguing with them (or anyone) over, in my opinion.
This is indeed what Muslims claim when performing dawah, but it is highly debatable just what this means. I personally do not agree that there is anything inherently respectable about this arrangement, but that’s an argument for another thread, I suppose.
I don’t doubt it, though it has been a little while since I’ve been in Arabic classes, too, and my dictionary is in a box somewhere right now.
Well then you need to do more reading. The Maronites, Copts, and others certainly didn’t see it as some form of Muslim benevolence during those periods when it was the rule.
It has made a resurgence as of late, as well, in Iraq, where it is imposed upon the Christian minority in exchange for not being murdered by terrorists, basically. No oppression there, is there?
“Symbolic”? I’m not sure what’s so symbolic about the prohibitions placed upon the dhimmi in public life. Not being able to repair or build churches, proselytize, hold government office that would place one in a higher rank than a Muslim, etc. don’t seem like symbolic restrictions to me.
No. I’m not making any statement about the laws of any particular modern Islamic country. I’m saying that what constitutes “oppression” of Islam (the crucial justifying factor for the legitimization of jihad, dhimmitude, etc) is not determined by the non-Muslim. Non-Muslims have been accused of oppressing or defaming Islam for allowing a teddy bear to be named Muhammad (the famous “Teddy Bear Blasphemy case” in Sudan), sending text messages that allegedly defamed Muhammad, preaching the Gospel to Muslims, attempting to maintain the grounds of their monasteries, etc. All of these have incurred harsh punishments, either officially or with the tacit approval of the local or national government and police under stringent blasphemy laws such as those on the books in Pakistan and other Islamic nations.
Since it definitely was not my point that all Muslim nations do X or Y, I don’t really see what this has to do with anything.
No.
That’s nice and all, but I’m at a bit of a loss as to how I should respond to it, since it has nothing to do with what I wrote. I wrote that it is Muslims themselves who ought to be doing the deep analysis of the Qur’an and the other Islamic texts, but if they’re doing it, we’re certainly not hearing about it, and none of my friends from Islamic nations have ever given me the slightest indication that it is something that is done or is to be done. That was my point in bringing up the Muslims here, as they share a similar view: “this is not true Islam”, “that is not true Islam”, “Islam is peace”, blahblahblah. Of course your brother has done so in the process of converting to Islam (and good for him; everyone should take their faith that seriously), but what about those who have never had the chance to critically examine Islamic claims because they were born into the religion and may not have been encouraged to do so? There has never been, as far as I can tell, the sort of large scale academic, scientific, relatively impartial study of the claims of the Qur’an by Muslims themselves as the Bible has been subjected to in the nominally “Christian” west. So it’s no wonder if Muslims are not prepared for it or inclined to do it.
Just so we’re clear, I do base my opinions of Muslims as a whole on Muslims I personally know. as they include both “born Muslims” of several Islamic nations and some converts.
QUOTE]What would help the victims of Islamic terror? Disparaging Islam, even if you are rightfully doing so?
You say disparaging, I say asking hard questions that I would like some sort of substantial answers to. Muslims need to hear the sorts of questions that we have if they expect us to listen to all their missionary efforts. Maybe it will cause some of them to question what they’ve heretofore assumed to be true, or at least help them to become better apologists. The bar is, I must say, pretty low in terms of the popular faces of Islamic apologetics, at least of the type that get a lot of play around here, like Ahmed Deedat and his cronies.
(cont’d below)
D
dzheremi
Guest
I can see that you and I have vastly different viewpoints of what constitutes Islamic terrorism. I see it as an unbroken line running as an undercurrent (and sometimes, I suppose, “overcurrent”, if that’s a word) throughout Islamic history starting (arguably) with the “futahat” (which were OFFENSIVE WARS to spread Islam) that began after the death of Muhammad to today. Islamic terrorism is just as much to be found in the story of the Muslim conquest of the Indian subcontinent as it is today in occupied Assyria.
Modern Islamic terrorism maybe, but where were the colonial powers at work or their demands for oil when the Copts of Egypt risked having their tongues cut out if they spoke their native Coptic language in front of one of the Muslim conquerers during the Islamicization of Egypt? I’m sorry, but no matter how many “experts” you can cite who buy into Islamic revisionist history, there are always far more counter-examples where the Muslim force IS the conquerer and there is no excuse for it then. Quit passing the dinar onto someone else. If it was wrong when France brutalized Algeria during the long struggle for independence of that nation (and it was), then was just as wrong when Muslims invaded North Africa and crushed the native culture and religions of the Imazghen in order to create more Islamic territory. History is never such that one side is only a victim.
Well then an awful lot of Muslims, including Muhammad himself, have done a ****-poor job of following the Qur’an in this regard throught the centuries.
And this is supposed to make anyone feel more at ease with them how? Islam itself is a political system as well as a religion. I myself have heard Muslims brag about that.
I am also concerned with the political self-determination of Palestine, yet you don’t see me (or most people) murdering anyone over it. Palestine is the cause celebre for many Islamic terrorist organizations around the world. It rings hollow coming from the mouths of some Afghan or Saudi. It is another way they make the rest of the world into a metaphysical enemy. I’m not interested in placating that kind of world view. I don’t think it is in the least bit legitimate.
I don’t think anything is ever the sole cause of anything else. The world is not so simple that one can comfortably make statements such as “Muslim bad, Christian good” or what have you. I think that Islam is inherently against the kind of society I want to live in (to deal with the political aspect of it), and of course also against the true religion, which is Christianity (to deal with the religious aspect of it), but honestly I think there is an awful lot of wishing and hoping in replies such as yours. It benefits only the propagators of terrorism (whether you want to call them “Islamic terrorists” or not) to turn your eyes away from their own justifications of what they do, just as it only benefits those same terrorists when you take their blanket condemnations of “crusaders”, “zionists”, etc. as some sort of truth. I would submit to you that the real truth is in the middle somewhere: Muslims are not eternal victims even as many of them happen to currently be victims of oppressive regimes. We must take a wider view of history than that. They sought to impose their law in the past just as surely and as sternly as western colonizers would one day seek to impose their own on the Muslim populations they would come to rule by equally morally repugnant means. What I am arguing against is the tendency, fed by revisionist Islamist writings, to claim that Muslims are merely reacting against “imperialist” western nations, or that everything boils down to Israel/Palestine, or that there is no oppression of the “People of the Book” inherent in Islam. This is all BS. Everything that you see today that can be argued to be the fault of modern geopolitics more than Islam has its roots in periods of Islamic history when geopolitics were not as they are now, and Islam was the great conquering force bending the rest of the world to its will (the “America” of its time, if you will). It is just not as forcefully argued as the revisionist position because much of modern academia is afraid to call a spade a spade for fear of seeming “racist” or “discriminatory”.
Спасибо большое! It is actually supposed to be a near approximation of Old Church Slavonic, borrowed from another user who kindly suggested that I not use the Russian form that I had there previously, but I unfortunately do not have the proper font support for the Slavonic character set, with all of its nasalized vowels and whatnot. So it stays even though it apparently confuses some Russian users and is slightly irksome to me. The message is right on, though.
S
staffsgt7
Guest
Thanks I couldn’t have said it better.I have also had great Muslim friends, none of whom were “faking it”. The problem is that Islam is not your or my friends. It is the Qur’an, Sunnah, and Hadith. It is fatwas, Mullahs, and Imams. All of these things are the problem. Your friends or my friends obviously aren’t the problem.
By your method of argumentation, I could argue that because none of the Christians that I personally know are anything but good, you should agree that Christians are good, and if you don’t you’re a “bigot”.
Judging from your post history and terrible signature, I don’t think you’ll agree to that. It seems obvious to me that you are another atheistic defender of “freedom” so long as that includes every belief system BUT Christianity.
Atheism, of course, is essentially illegal in Muslim-dominated countries like Iran, Egypt, and Jordan which require their citizens to be officially counted as members of a religious community for the purposes of official identification (and hence, any of the rights that come from being a citizen), but you can go ahead and continue thinking that it is Christians who are being so awfully discriminatory, and Christianity is really the problem and threat to you as an oh-so-englightened person.
There will always be exceptions to the rules. And with Islam we have to sometimes separate Islam from many Muslims who are indeed ignorant. We should be able to discuss Islam without having to always recognize that individual someone knows who is seemingly, or really, not following the rules of Islam.
S
staffsgt7
Guest
It really does seem like you cannot discern between Islam and some Muslims. Can we talk about Islam without you having to include individuals that might not be considered good Muslims or are practicing taqiyya that you seem to be unaware?
And if you read ‘The Reliance of the Traveler’ which are sharia laws, or the Koran and the history you would find that peace is not compatible with Islam unless you meet their idea of it. I have already posted what those conditions for peace with Islam is. Whether they wage Jihad in a violent way or by stealth, the end is still the same for unbelievers.
Calling me names just because I do not agree with you is playing right into the hands of those telling you that Islam is peaceful. When they tell you of it being peaceful and referring to others they are only referring to other Muslims. And that is even not always the case since more Muslims have been killed by Muslims than by Non-Muslims. And many of the ones who did the killing were stopped by non-Muslim countries, not muslim countries.
And then there are the casualties of war. We know that too many Jihadists hide behind and use their own in their propaganda against the non-Muslims. Hezbollah and Hamas both have done it and the world only bashes Israel who sends out aid and also pamphlets to let the innocents get out of the way.
Here is an article from the Atheist Conservate about terrorism in Islam. They are trying to tell us the same thing that some Christians like Robert Spencer, Brigitte Gabriel, and Geert Wilders is trying to tell us. Not only about Jihad but about dhimmitude or subjugation and the stealth Jihad verses the violent Jihad.
B
Benadam
Guest
With God’s willing, we are terrorists to the bone. So, many thanks to God… We ask to be near to God,** we fight you and destroy you** and terrorize you. The Jihad in god’s [sic] cause is a great duty in our religion.’
To believe in a book that is written by God is a dangerous thing. To be a member of the people, according to the book, that God chooses to reveal to the world the true religion. Conversion or destruction is the unbelievers end. Without a clear teaching that destruction isn’t carried out by man’s hand or man’s will there is an increased pressure towards an ego god replacement syndrome. An unbalance that feeds fundamentalist atheists christians, of all colores. An example of ego god
rerplacement is the fundamentalist who aren’t aware that the meaning they attach to some scripture isn’t necessarily God’s meaning. When you disagrewe with them about some scriptue they often say " you don’t accet the Word of God? If there isn’t the opposite even.
To submit to destruction in the cause of conversion offers the weightiest counterbalance there can be to the ego/god replacement syndrome. Desteruction of unbelievers must be clearly not an act man’s hand can ever be taught as participating in.
To believe in a book that is written by God is a dangerous thing. To be a member of the people, according to the book, that God chooses to reveal to the world the true religion. Conversion or destruction is the unbelievers end. Without a clear teaching that destruction isn’t carried out by man’s hand or man’s will there is an increased pressure towards an ego god replacement syndrome. An unbalance that feeds fundamentalist atheists christians, of all colores. An example of ego god
rerplacement is the fundamentalist who aren’t aware that the meaning they attach to some scripture isn’t necessarily God’s meaning. When you disagrewe with them about some scriptue they often say " you don’t accet the Word of God? If there isn’t the opposite even.To submit to destruction in the cause of conversion offers the weightiest counterbalance there can be to the ego/god replacement syndrome. Desteruction of unbelievers must be clearly not an act man’s hand can ever be taught as participating in.
R
rcscwc
Guest
Parbhakaran and other top leadership of LTTE were CATHOLICS, and are known to have been funded by the church.
S
Sam_777
Guest
Sorry jakasaki I didn’t see your post earlier, please just CC me next time on busy threads, and thank you Booklover for the English link.
However, yes those headbands are saying “allah akhbar”, however, the main part of that Article is this hadith:
Sahih Muslim, Book 020, Number 4696:
It has been narrated on the authority of Abu Huraira that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: One who died but did not fight in the way of Allah nor did he express any desire (or determination) for Jihid died the death of a hypocrite.
صحيح مسلم:
قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم من مات ولم يغز ولم يحدث به نفسه مات على شعبة من نفاق
(E) (A) قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم من مات ولم يغز ولم يحدث به نفسه مات على شعبة من نفاق
S
Sam_777
Guest
At least she knows the way of the true God which you yet to find :dts:.
Vickie is one of the jewels on this forum, her contribution always befit others.
I hope you find God’s way on her hands…
Vickie.
B
Booklover
Guest
Thanks, Sam! Bless you too!At least she knows the way of the true God which you yet to find :dts:.
Vickie is one of the jewels on this forum, her contribution always befit others.
I hope you find God’s way on her hands…
Vickie
F
frantony
Guest
Let me repeat "Jesus also said that anything that is not with Him is against Him."
B
Booklover
Guest
“Whatever is forced on you contrary to the Christian faith, whatever is presented to you contrary to the commandments of God, it comes from the deceptions of the one who tries with many wiles to divert you from eternal life” Saint Leo the Great
Vickie
S
sedonaman
Guest
C
camerong
Guest
I have no reason to respond to anything you wrote after this. Please try to be more charitable, and not to make false and insulting assumptions.
C
camerong
Guest
I am appreciating our intelligent, respectful discussion! You have very good points on several issues. For the purpose of expediency, I wish to focus the discussion on one main point, and concede the rest.
Muslim terrorists deserve all of the blame given to them, and more. But I do not see a link between Islam as a religion and terrorism. Or, if it is, it is a relatively small factor. There are over a billion Muslims in the world, and at most, a few hundred people who commit terrorist acts each year. That is a mighty feat of inductive logic to draw conclusions about the religion of a billion from its worst .0000001 percent (or so).
You might say that Muslims are to blame for the lack of outrage over things like 9/11. First, there was more outrage than you might think. Secondly, most Muslim societies are not in a position to express outrage as we are; Muslims occupy the very poorest countries in the world, with the worst education, and the greatest amount of government control over speech. Third, many Muslims see the plight of the Palestinians as suffering terror at the hands of the Israelis, so when other Muslims commit terrorist acts in response (as Palestine was undoubtedly the main motivating factor for 9/11), it may not seem so outrageous or terrible. Are they blameworthy to think this? Absolutely. But not violent monsters–more like, tired and cynical.
Again, there are lots of problems with Islam, but one of the least clear problems is that it spawns terrorism.
What Muhammad did in Mecca and Medina was absolutely not terrorism. It was surely violent–and, I would agree, shows the lack of God’s true inspiration in Muhammad’s commands. It does not qualify as terrorism, in fact, it might even qualify as a just war, under the just war theory–he was, at least at the beginning, fighting for his survival. But he was fighting war, not taking actions with the sole intent to strike terror into the hearts of others (a reasonable definition for terrorism, I would submit).
Again, I do not see a link between Islamic violence throughout history and modern terrorists from Islamic fundamentalists (although, I would argue many of the suicide bombers in Iraq have little in common with the 9/11 hijackers). Most cultures and rulers were cruel and violent over the years. Certainly this can be said of most European nations. Can I say that Timothy McVeigh was just carrying on the violence of the Crusades? Even if I grant that Muslims have been exceedingly violent and oppressive over the years towards non-Muslims (and Muslims who do not share their interpretation), they were not violent for any of the same reasons as Muslim terrorists. No Muslims are killing because they are trying to conquer others and impose their religion on them. Muslims are killing to get non-Muslims out of their lands (9/11, the suicide bombing in Iraq, much of it in Afghanistan). They are also killing to gain control from Muslims and non-Muslims whom they dislike (Afghanistan, Pakistan, India). They may even be killing to try to spread their version of Islam among other Muslims (again, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India). But I do not see them killing to spread Islam to non-Muslims.
Muslim terrorists deserve all of the blame given to them, and more. But I do not see a link between Islam as a religion and terrorism. Or, if it is, it is a relatively small factor. There are over a billion Muslims in the world, and at most, a few hundred people who commit terrorist acts each year. That is a mighty feat of inductive logic to draw conclusions about the religion of a billion from its worst .0000001 percent (or so).
You might say that Muslims are to blame for the lack of outrage over things like 9/11. First, there was more outrage than you might think. Secondly, most Muslim societies are not in a position to express outrage as we are; Muslims occupy the very poorest countries in the world, with the worst education, and the greatest amount of government control over speech. Third, many Muslims see the plight of the Palestinians as suffering terror at the hands of the Israelis, so when other Muslims commit terrorist acts in response (as Palestine was undoubtedly the main motivating factor for 9/11), it may not seem so outrageous or terrible. Are they blameworthy to think this? Absolutely. But not violent monsters–more like, tired and cynical.
Again, there are lots of problems with Islam, but one of the least clear problems is that it spawns terrorism.
This is neat. If I get some time, I would like to learn the Rosary in Russian, so that over the years I can keep a little vocabulary in my mind, at least!Спасибо большое! It is actually supposed to be a near approximation of Old Church Slavonic, borrowed from another user who kindly suggested that I not use the Russian form that I had there previously, but I unfortunately do not have the proper font support for the Slavonic character set, with all of its nasalized vowels and whatnot. So it stays even though it apparently confuses some Russian users and is slightly irksome to me. The message is right on, though.
S
staffsgt7
Guest
To say there is no correlation between the 9/11 suicide bombers, the suicide bombers of Hamas, Hezbollah, and other Jihadists, and of history is to not know the teachings of Mohammed. And we must not forget all the celebrations done by Muslims worldwide after 9/11. Celebrations on the same order of a wedding are done when a family member is a suicide bomber. They do not call them suicide bombers they call them shahid, or shaheed - martyrs. The family usually gets money from zakat of others, and they are usually happy because they are fairly certain they will be saved too since the martyr gets to name many people with him that get to go to heaven.
It is usually ‘damage contol’ when we are told there is no correlation. About 5 days after 9/11 there were many churches in the USA that were contacted by Imams and clerics to do ‘damage control’. This tells me that there was a knowledge by many Muslims that this was going to take place. Not necessarily all Muslims, but many in positions of power within the power structure of such organizations as the Muslim Brotherhood that exists within the USA.
#1. All Muslims must wage Jihad
(I would take time to read the articles, or if you don’t want to read someone’s interpretation of the Koran and Hadith then you are going to have to do the reading for yourself. It doesn’t do one any good to have an opinion on this unless they do some reading)
#2. Jihad in the texts of Islam is 98% violence against the unbelievers.
#3. The surest way to attain salvation is to die in battle against the unbelievers. Sometimes Mohammed said that it would elevate the person in heaven if they died while doing battle against the unbeliever.
If you want to just stick to the Koran, then here are some verses from the Koran:
There are many many more verses from all their texts. It gets tiring to cut/paste all of them as it does to read them. The violence comes from their own teachings.
- Status