Why do Catholics distrust Muslims?

[Contarini]

One thing that often upsets me is the double standards my fellow Catholics have.

Indeed. This is something I have frequently pointed out on this forum! Of course, none of us are immune from the occasional double standard–it’s a human tendency.

It seems odd that some amongst us Catholics are so critical of the ‘tolerance’ of Islamic history. Whilst it certainly has its dark times, compared to its comparitive Europe it was really quite liberal.

I have heard this claim. Depending on which Islamic society we are comparing to which European society, it might have some truth. But by and large it seems to me that the practice of the two religions was more or less the same. Islam has clearer and more precise instructions, which served to protect non-Muslims to some degree in the Middle Ages and now sometimes work to make traditional Muslims resistant to modern norms of religious freedom. However, in practice Christians mostly adopted something like the Muslim “dhimmitude” approach, just as Muslims in practice came to apply this concept to Hinduism even though in principle it was supposed to apply only to “people of the Book.” The major difference was that if Muslim rulers felt inclined to exile non-Muslims (as late medieval Christian rulers sometimes did to non-Christians), they had instructions in their own law telling them not to do so. But I’m not sure that they ever did feel so inclined. Certainly Islamic societies were generally more cosmopolitan than Western Europe during the Middle Ages.

I believe that the breakdown of the relative tolerance found in Spain was due initially to the Almoravids, not to the Christians.

I have found Richard Fletcher’s The Cross and the Crescent very helpful in describing the patterns of Christian-Muslim interaction during the Middle Ages.

Maybe general rights of the dhimma were not quite up to the standard of the modern concept of ‘freedom of religion,’ but it would seem naive to think a rich tradition like Islam can’t accomodate such a view as Christiaity has.

I don’t think it’s a matter of “can’t,” but rather of elements in the tradition that resist or facilitate such an accommodation.

The chapter Al-Siyar in Al Hidaya (one oth the most authorotative works in the Hanafi school) makes interesting reading:
If non Muslims pay the jizya they have ‘the same right as Muslims.’
Non payment of the jizya does not invalidate agreement only joining the enemy
Its only due on free able bodied adult males, even monks and the poor are excempt (even the cost is small)
A Muslim in Dar al Har or Dar al Amn (Abode of trust, what the West is) are not to be treacherous and must observe the laws of the land as a sacred trust.
Churches/synagogues etc can’t be newly built but can be repaired or rebuilt

That’s generally superior to the Christian practice, as established by Ambrose in the 4th century.

In the chapter on Hadd it states that a forced conversion is invalid so that if one were to revert they would not have any punishment.

Christians had a similar rule, but in practice tended to define “forced conversion” so narrowly that it was hard to avail oneself of this rule. I can’t remember where, but I’ve read an example of a Jew who converted to save his life from a Christian mob–his claim was rejected because at the time no one was actually threatening him with a weapon (he was inside the church taking sanctuary, and was told by the church officials that they could not continue to guarantee his safety unless he accepted baptism). I believe, though I may be wrong, that Muslims have often similarly “bent” the rule against forced conversion.

Perhaps its worth noting that Dar al Islam is defined here, by Abu Hanifa, as anywhere where Muslims are not stopped from praying.

That’s an extremely interesting point. I’d like to see you and Khalid discuss this

If you trawl through all the books of jurisprudence then you’'ll find less understanding opinions, but they are not the norm (they are really there as discussion points between teacher and student). Generally the scholars of Islam have enjoyed healthy debate, but this does not mean its all available to the masses - traditionally. The masses on the whole only got the ‘mu’tamad’ positions, as articulated above.

Are you sure that the Hanafi view you describe was the position given to the masses as a whole? That seems like a rather improbable claim, since it was the opinion of just one school. I’d like to see evidence for that.

 

[Contarini]

After the revival of Roman law and its Christianising as Canon Law during the Papal revolution (after 1075) then compelle intrare became used more and more to justify crusades (not just to the Levant) and the inquisition.

I know that compelle intrare was used to justify the persecution of heretics. That’s not the point. I’m asking you whether it was used to justify violence against non-Christians, and where it was so used? I know that Aquinas can’t simply be taken as the representative of medieval Christian thought, but he’s a fairly standard one. And here’s what he has to say about the matter:

Among unbelievers there are some who have never received the faith, such as the heathens and the Jews: and these are by no means to be compelled to the faith, in order that they may believe, because to believe depends on the will: nevertheless they should be compelled by the faithful, if it be possible to do so, so that they do not hinder the faith, by their blasphemies, or by their evil persuasions, or even by their open persecutions. It is for this reason that Christ’s faithful often wage war with unbelievers, not indeed for the purpose of forcing them to believe, because even if they were to conquer them, and take them prisoners, they should still leave them free to believe, if they will, but in order to prevent them from hindering the faith of Christ. On the other hand, there are unbelievers who at some time have accepted the faith, and professed it, such as heretics and all apostates: such should be submitted even to bodily compulsion, that they may fulfil what they have promised, and hold what they, at one time, received.

An exception to this rule, mentioned by Jeremy Cohen in The Friars and the Jews, was the opinion of at least some Inquisitors that rabbinic Judaism was a heretical interpretation of the faith of the Old Testament. Unfortunately, they were aided in this by some Jews, who actually accused other Jews to the Inquisition as heretics! However, even in this case I don’t think it was considered legitimate to convert them forcibly to Christianity, but rather to burn their “heretical” Talmudic writings and force them to abandon their “blasphemies” against Christ.

I can certainly see how medieval Christians could have argued that Muslims were heretics, but I’m not aware that they did so (in the relevant sense–i.e., people who could be compelled to accept orthodox Christianity). Probably because they hadn’t been baptized (I suppose it could have been argued that since they practice circumcision they are “Old Testament heretics” like the Jews!).

Heresy became not only a sin, but also the crime of treason to the Papal state

I am unaware of any evidence that heresy was seen as “treason to the Papal state.” Innocent III called it treason against Christ, but that’s not the same thing.

like the Roman law of ‘lese majeste,’ and people were burnt (there is evidence this practice started in the 5th Century, though took off generally much later on).

Are you thinking of Priscillian? He certainly was not burned as a “traitor to the Papal state,” which didn’t exist in his time; nor did the Church approve of his execution.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I’m equally outraged by the continual apologetic “but we did it too!” argument.

Well, I can see why it enrages you. But I’m afraid your rage isn’t going to make a double standard stop being double

In Islam, we have a DOCTRINAL, jurisprudential, AND historical record of this activity.

And also in Christianity.

While Islam lacks a central authority (since the fall of the caliph), when is the last time the Pope issued a fatwa encouraging people to attack Jews?

As you note, the argument that enrages you is “we did it too!” To respond to this by saying, “but we have stopped doing it,” is a non sequitur.

After all, Catholicism does not claim only to have become the true Church in recent years, does it? We Christians have a 2,000 year-old religion. You can’t jump from Jesus to JPII and ignore everything in between!

Where is the doctrinal support in centuries of of Catholic philosophy for treating non-Christians as 2nd class citizens?

Augustine’s interpretation of Psalm 59:11, and of Psalm 69:23 as cited in Romans 3, was used in the Middle Ages to justify something almost identical to “dhimmi status” (identical in every way I can see, but I’m trying not to overstate!) for Jews. Paula Fredriksen has pointed out that Augustine himself never said that Christians should actively enslave or “bend down the backs of” Jews, but that his words were taken that way later there is no doubt.

If you look at Aquinas’s treatment of the compulsion of unbelievers, to which I linked in my previous post, you will see that he thought that unbelievers should be prevented from in any way spreading their errors, and that apostates should be compelled on pain of death to return to the Christian fold. Pretty much the same policy as that taken by Muslims toward non-Muslims.

As for a Biblical basis–that shouldn’t even need pointing out. The violence toward idolaters and apostates mandated in the Torah goes beyond anything I’m aware of in the Islamic tradition. Christians make the excuse that this is the Old Testament—but it’s still the Word of God. Of course the violent potential of these texts can be negated by a judicious use of the OT/NT dichotomy. But the point is that there is a doctrinal basis there to be used by anyone who takes the OT seriously as the Word of God and doesn’t have other theological/ethical principles that preclude such a use.

Sure, every civilization or faith has had its share of monsters

Irrelevant. We aren’t talking about monsters. We’re talking about saints and Doctors of the Church; Popes and Councils, devout mendicant friars; and the divinely inspired authors of the Old Testament.

but one only need look to the treatment of non-Muslims, the human rights record, etc., of the Islamic world TODAY to see this moral equivalence is silly at its best, and outright dangerous at its worst.

Why? Why is it irrelevant to point out that Christians once behaved in the way that many Muslims still behave? How is that silly? (I’m sure it’s dangerous. Everything is dangerous. To use that as an argument truly is silly.)

Christianity did not just start to be the true religion recently, did it? Aren’t we responsible for the entirety of Christian history?

Islam might have been considered progressive for a 7th century desert raider culture, but what is even more surprising is its inability to modernize. Of course, I’m sure this will be dismissed as some cultural phenomena

It could be. But more to the point, I’m not sure what the spiritual value of modernization is. If the best you can say about Christianity is that we are more modernizable, I’m not sure that’s a very good recommendation for us.

Islam is more resistant to modernity than Christianity. That’s both good and bad, surely. It’s certainly not a reason to vilify Islam and forget our own dark record.

Edwin

 

[Marybeloved]

Basically they see it as people will be better off with Islam than without, Rather like the Romans thought of civilising the barbarians. However the main difference is that the Muslims do not have to rule nor do you have to accept their invitation (dawah) for them to achieve their aim. They basically want to be allowed to invite people, and jihad al sayf (physical jihad) is a reaction to those that stop them doing this by force. Perhaps somewhat double standards in that they won’t return the favour to another religion, but their main aim is to preserve their religion - not all that unreasonable

That colonial attitude is the whole point that people mistrust this religion. Every religion claims to have truth, you don’t colonize to spread it to the religious versions of barbarians. That is like a man who refuses to be stopped from seeing a woman who refuses to have anything to do with him- Saying, I just want to be permitted to invite her, so I’ll impose myself until I’m allowed to do that!

Like I said, and someone quoted Pope B16 earlier, those things in Christianity are so drastically opposed to Christ and the Apostles’ life, examples and teachings. We can say w/out any fear of abandoning our faith that these people were downright wrong- And all we need is the sermon on the mount and the suffering and death of the Christ to see that these “justifications” for waging war on people who do not want your proclaimed truth is just a lot excuses- There’s no legitimate reason for religious war. None! The Apostles and Early Church had their faith declared treason both by their own people and the Romans- Did they wage war so that they would be allowed to “invite” where they were denied? Of course not!- That’s why we have so many glorious martyrs from that era.

All the reasons that Christians have used to make war and persecute the Jews, or others on the basis of faith are false- all of them! Completely baseless- no excuses at all! When Christ said turn the other cheek, love your enemies, pray for those who persecute you, rejoice at persecution for my sake, he wasn’t just playing-It’s exactly what he meant! My Q remains- How does Islam reform itself? Which beacon do they look up to? Mohammed and his example?

Only a miracle will save the world from the persecution that is sure to visit the Western lands once Islam grows to majority or a very sizable/significant minority. Western Secular humanism has made sure that this will happen in the next 50+ years- maybe less. Then all of us who rely on the West are doomed. The smaller christian nations will soon follow suit, when the political/economical/military muscle of the West is controlled by Islam. Catholics should pray for the conversion of Muslims and the West and the reunification of the churches. There are some old 1st millennium prophecies that gives me encouragement, and in fact promises that when Europe is in a dire state and Turks (Muslims) overrun Rome, a miraculous conversion of the Muslims will occur "and their fervor in the faith will shock" those who were Christians before them. May their conversion happen sooner!

Peace!

 

[Marybeloved]

Basically they see it as people will be better off with Islam than without, Rather like the Romans thought of civilising the barbarians. However the main difference is that the Muslims do not have to rule nor do you have to accept their invitation (dawah) for them to achieve their aim. They basically want to be allowed to invite people, and jihad al sayf (physical jihad) is a reaction to those that stop them doing this by force. Perhaps somewhat double standards in that they won’t return the favour to another religion, but their main aim is to preserve their religion - not all that unreasonable

That colonial attitude is the whole point that people mistrust this religion. Every religion claims to have truth, you don’t colonize to spread it to the religious versions of barbarians. That is like a man who refuses to be stopped from seeing a woman who refuses to have anything to do with him- Saying, I just want to be permitted to invite her, so I’ll impose myself until I’m allowed to do that! He would be arrested.

Like I said, and someone quoted Pope B16 earlier, those things in Christianity are so drastically opposed to Christ and the Apostles’ life, examples and teachings. We can say w/out any fear of abandoning our faith that these people who committed these crimes in their names were downright wrong- And all we need is the sermon on the mount and the suffering and death of the Christ to see that these “justifications” for waging war on people who do not want your proclaimed truth is just a lot excuses- There’s no legitimate reason for religious war. None! The Apostles and Early Church had their faith declared treason both by their own people and the Romans- Did they wage war so that they would be allowed to “invite” where they were denied? Of course not!- That’s why we have so many glorious martyrs from that era.

All the reasons that Christians have used to make war and persecute the Jews, or others on the basis of faith are false- all of them! Completely baseless- no excuses at all! When Christ said turn the other cheek, love your enemies, pray for those who persecute you, rejoice at persecution for my sake, he wasn’t just playing-It’s exactly what he meant! My Q remains- How does Islam reform itself? Which beacon do they look up to? Mohammed and his example?

Only a miracle will save the world from the persecution that is sure to visit the Western lands once Islam grows to majority or a very sizable minority. Western Secular humanism has made sure that this will happen in the next 50+ years- maybe less. Then all of us who rely on the West are doomed- the smaller secular-christian nations modeled on western faith and political values will soon follow suit. What else could happen when the political-economical-military muscle of the West is controlled by Islam? How would this “muscle” be put to use? Catholics should pray for the conversion of Muslims and the West and the reunification of the churches. There are some old 1st millennium prophecies that gives me encouragement, and in fact promises that when Europe is in a dire state and Turks (Muslims) overrun Rome, a miraculous conversion of the Muslims will occur "and their fervor in the faith will shock" those who were Christians before them. May their conversion happen sooner!

Peace!

 

[Marybeloved]

Basically they see it as people will be better off with Islam than without, Rather like the Romans thought of civilising the barbarians. However the main difference is that the Muslims do not have to rule nor do you have to accept their invitation (dawah) for them to achieve their aim. They basically want to be allowed to invite people, and jihad al sayf (physical jihad) is a reaction to those that stop them doing this by force. Perhaps somewhat double standards in that they won’t return the favour to another religion, but their main aim is to preserve their religion - not all that unreasonable

That colonial attitude is the whole point that people mistrust this religion. Every religion claims to have truth, you don’t colonize to spread it to the religious versions of barbarians. That is like a man who refuses to be stopped from seeing a woman who refuses to have anything to do with him- Saying, I just want to be permitted to invite her, so I’ll impose myself until I’m allowed to do that! He would be arrested.

Like I said, and someone quoted Pope B16 earlier, those things in Christianity are so drastically opposed to Christ and the Apostles’ life, examples and teachings. We can say w/out any fear of abandoning our faith that these people who committed these crimes in their names were downright wrong- And all we need is the sermon on the mount and the suffering and death of the Christ to see that these “justifications” for waging war on people who do not want your proclaimed truth is just a lot excuses- There’s no legitimate reason for religious war. None! The Apostles and Early Church had their faith declared treason both by their own people and the Romans- Did they wage war so that they would be allowed to “invite” where they were denied? Of course not!- That’s why we have so many glorious martyrs from that era.

All the reasons that Christians have used to make war and persecute the Jews, or others on the basis of faith are false- all of them! Completely baseless- no excuses at all! When Christ said turn the other cheek, love your enemies, pray for those who persecute you, rejoice at persecution for my sake, he wasn’t just playing-It’s exactly what he meant! My Q remains- How does Islam reform itself? Which beacon do they look up to? Mohammed and his example?

Only a miracle will save the world from the persecution that is sure to visit the Western lands once Islam grows to majority or a very sizable minority. Western Secular humanism has made sure that this will happen in the next 50+ years- maybe less. Then all of us who rely on the West are doomed- the smaller secular-christian nations modeled on western faith and political values will soon follow suit. What else could happen when the political-economical-military muscle of the West is controlled by Islam? How would this “muscle” be put to use?

Catholics should pray for the conversion of Muslims and the West and the reunification of the churches. There are some old 1st millennium prophecies that gives me encouragement, and in fact promises that when Europe is in a dire state and Turks (Muslims) overrun Rome, a miraculous conversion of the Muslims will occur "and their fervor in the faith will shock" those who were Christians before them. May their conversion happen sooner!

Peace!

 

[Marybeloved]

Basically they see it as people will be better off with Islam than without, Rather like the Romans thought of civilising the barbarians. However the main difference is that the Muslims do not have to rule nor do you have to accept their invitation (dawah) for them to achieve their aim. They basically want to be allowed to invite people, and jihad al sayf (physical jihad) is a reaction to those that stop them doing this by force. Perhaps somewhat double standards in that they won’t return the favour to another religion, but their main aim is to preserve their religion - not all that unreasonable

That colonial attitude is the whole point that people mistrust this religion. Every religion claims to have truth, you don’t colonize to spread it to the religious versions of barbarians. That is like a man who refuses to be stopped from seeing a woman who refuses to have anything to do with him- Saying, I just want to be permitted to invite her, so I’ll impose myself until I’m allowed to do that! He would be arrested.

Like I said, and someone quoted Pope B16 earlier, those things in Christianity are so drastically opposed to Christ and the Apostles’ life, examples and teachings. We can say w/out any fear of abandoning our faith that these people who committed these crimes in their names were downright wrong- And all we need is the sermon on the mount and the suffering and death of the Christ to see that these “justifications” for waging war on people who do not want your proclaimed truth is just a lot excuses- There’s no legitimate reason for religious war. None! The Apostles and Early Church had their faith declared treason both by their own people and the Romans- Did they wage war so that they would be allowed to “invite” where they were denied? Of course not!- That’s why we have so many glorious martyrs from that era.

All the reasons that Christians have used to make war and persecute the Jews, or others on the basis of faith are false- all of them! Completely baseless- no excuses at all! When Christ said turn the other cheek, love your enemies, pray for those who persecute you, rejoice at persecution for my sake, he wasn’t just playing-It’s exactly what he meant! My Q remains- How does Islam reform itself? Which beacon do they look up to? Mohammed and his example?

Only a miracle will save the world from the persecution that is sure to visit the Western lands once Islam grows to majority or a very sizable minority. Western Secular humanism has made sure that this will happen in the next 50+ years- maybe less. Then all of us who rely on the West are doomed- the smaller secular-christian nations modeled on western faith and political values will soon follow suit. What else could happen when the political-economical-military muscle of the West is controlled by Islam? How would this “muscle” be put to use?

Catholics should pray for the conversion of Muslims and the West and the reunification of the churches. There are some old 1st millennium prophecies that gives me encouragement, and in fact promises that when Europe is in a dire state and Turks (Muslims) overrun Rome, a miraculous conversion of the Muslims will occur "and their fervor in the faith will shock" those who were Christians before them. May their conversion happen sooner!

Peace!

 

[Marybeloved]

Oh shoot! How can I delete the multiple postings??? Apologies everyone…Moderator, please help!

 

[Peace_of_cake]

There’s a lot to reply to
Edwin made some really good points. Some put forward rather Protestant defences with regards our history, this is perilous! Whilst there have been better and worse members of the clergy the mass that is the Church keeps us in contact with Christ, should we deny it then we deny him

To put two things together:
The definition by Abu Hanifa of dar al harb is well known in the conscience of the ulama and by extension the Muslims. Admittedly a more widely accepted definition would be if a place fulfilled all three - and has to be all - to qualify:

a) The government implements total un-Islamic law in the country, to such an
extent that Muslims are not able to practice their religion freely.
b) This state is surrounded by other states with similar conditions
(un-Islamic) and not surrounded by an Islamic state.
c) Peace and safety of Muslims is in danger. They may attacked at anytime,
because of them being deprived of safety from the side of the government.
These days it has little relevance as a useful term and the ulama are suggesting these terms are left to history. As Sh Affifi at Oxford reliably informs me there are no two places on Earth that meet the criteria dar al islam and dar al harb.

Some make out that Islam makes the world into and us and them - this isn’t true. They rarely go into the finer details of what these terms have meant. Robert Spencer is a good example. Either he is ignorant of this or deliberately fanning flames. If the former then he’s negligent and if the latter then he’s a deceiver, either way he should be ignored

Not time for much else

Happy Sunday

 

[schaick]

I do not distrust Muslims. I distrust people who abuse any religion to hurt others.

Which Muslims are abusing their religion?

The ones that ignore Mohammad’s example or the ones that follow his horrific example?

 

[schaick]

neat you have a source i have been looking for opportuity to askk this question… is it true the Koran says Muslims have to kill us because we are infadels, i.e. not Muslim???

Fighting and killing for allah is the only sure way a Muslim can reach paradise-

009.111 Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Qur’an: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? then rejoice in the bargain which ye have concluded: that is the achievement supreme.

When you read the Quran realize that the verses are not in choronological order but by length of verses.

There is this nifty little verse:

002.106 None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things?

Quess what!! Mohammad came up with the peaceful verses while there were not many Muslims. The violent verses came later after their numbers increased.

You can see Muslims using this same tactic today. Peaceful and not very demanding while small in numbers in any given country and as soon as their numbers increase start demanding absolutely ridiculous things. Removing crosses from Catholic Universities because it offends them!

 

[pismopal]

There’s a lot to reply to
Edwin made some really good points. Some put forward rather Protestant defences with regards our history, this is perilous! Whilst there have been better and worse members of the clergy the mass that is the Church keeps us in contact with Christ, should we deny it then we deny him

To put two things together:
The definition by Abu Hanifa of dar al harb is well known in the conscience of the ulama and by extension the Muslims. Admittedly a more widely accepted definition would be if a place fulfilled all three - and has to be all - to qualify:

a) The government implements total un-Islamic law in the country, to such an
extent that Muslims are not able to practice their religion freely.
b) This state is surrounded by other states with similar conditions
(un-Islamic) and not surrounded by an Islamic state.
c) Peace and safety of Muslims is in danger. They may attacked at anytime,
because of them being deprived of safety from the side of the government.
These days it has little relevance as a useful term and the ulama are suggesting these terms are left to history. As Sh Affifi at Oxford reliably informs me there are no two places on Earth that meet the criteria dar al islam and dar al harb.

Some make out that Islam makes the world into and us and them - this isn’t true. They rarely go into the finer details of what these terms have meant. Robert Spencer is a good example. Either he is ignorant of this or deliberately fanning flames. If the former then he’s negligent and if the latter then he’s a deceiver, either way he should be ignored

Not time for much else

Happy Sunday

Calling Robert Spencer "ignorant’ …on the subject of islam is very telling…very telling indeed. For those of you who don’t know…Spencer has been invited by countless news and talk show hosts to appear and discuss islam because he is one of the world’s foremost English speaking experts on the subject. Spencer is a polite, practising Catholic
who has written many books on the subject of islam and the koran. Spencer is not a flame-fanner nor is he ignorant nor does he need any defense from me. This is almost laughable …if it weren’t so pathetic

 

[Marybeloved]

a) The government implements total un-Islamic law in the country, to such an
extent that Muslims are not able to practice their religion freely.
b) This state is surrounded by other states with similar conditions
(un-Islamic) and not surrounded by an Islamic state.
c) Peace and safety of Muslims is in danger. They may attacked at anytime,
because of them being deprived of safety from the side of the government.
These days it has little relevance as a useful term and the ulama are suggesting these terms are left to history. As Sh Affifi at Oxford reliably informs me there are no two places on Earth that meet the criteria dar al islam and dar al harb.

Are you serious Peaceofcake? Muslims are in danger?..where in the world exactly? In the West? Are you kidding me? Are they prevented from praying, spreading their faith, building mosques, doing everything every other person does? I wonder if you put as much effort in defending the Copts that the Islamic world targets so horribly! This fake victim mentality where the muslim is made a victim in a land where he enjoys all the freedoms of the other people, but is still “victim” because he can’t apply sharia in the political structure of another country…that means he’s in danger and gives an excuse to wage war? How can you support such a mentality? What has taken over you people in the west?- Why do you have this propensity for political/national/civilization suicide! Secular humanism is a curse on western culture and by extension the rest of us (it’s beginning to take up political space here also)- Only question I ask myself is what you (or we) did to warrant it.

 

[Darran]

I don’t. To all Catholics on this, stop stereotyping Muslims. Not all them are terrorists,

This sort of modern reasoning really grinds my gears. You wouldn’t trust anyone who called themselves a follower of an insane mass murderer. Why does the world think that should change if you add the word “religion” to it?

If not all of them essentially want you dead, they are the exception, not the rule. Rather, are they even the exception? For a muslim not to agree that all non-muslims should be tortured and killed is more similar to a Catholic not agreeing that Jesus is God. They wouldn’t be called Catholics anymore.

 

[Peace_of_cake]

Calling Robert Spencer "ignorant’ …This is almost laughable …if it weren’t so pathetic

Think this is more telling my friend: news and talk shows are where you get your information from!
Well the foremost academics at Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, Priceton etc do not say what Spencer says. Neither do Muslim scholars. He is not on any university nor has he published anything peer reviewed. So for those of you that don’t know this means he’s just some other bloke with a worthless opinion!
Wake up!

And to those who are saying crazy things about Muhammad, then I suggest you go and first read some books on Church history and then something reputable on his life. Otherwise why would people like Fr. Louis Masignon - our foremost scholar of Islam of recent times - have much more positive things to say about Islam? Or does your mere opinion or a very well paid Spencer know better!

Dear oh dear… We finally find the bottom of the barrel!

 

[pismopal]

Which Muslims are abusing their religion?

The ones that ignore Mohammad’s example or the ones that follow his horrific example?

Bingo!

 

[pismopal]

Think this is more telling my friend: news and talk shows are where you get your information from!
Well the foremost academics at Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, Priceton etc do not say what Spencer says. Neither do Muslim scholars. He is not on any university nor has he published anything peer reviewed. So for those of you that don’t know this means he’s just some other bloke with a worthless opinion!
Wake up!

And to those who are saying crazy things about Muhammad, then I suggest you go and first read some books on Church history and then something reputable on his life. Otherwise why would people like Fr. Louis Masignon - our foremost scholar of Islam of recent times - have much more positive things to say about Islam? Or does your mere opinion or a very well paid Spencer know better!

Dear oh dear… We finally find the bottom of the barrel!

“…shows where you get your information from…”

Please don’t end sentences with prepositions but that aside here is a quote from one of my minor sources of information…

“In the seventh century of the Christian era, a wandering Arab of the lineage of Hagar ( ie; Muhammad), the Egyptian, combining the powers of transcendent genius, with the preternatural energy of a fanatic, and the fraudulant spirit of an imposter, proclaimed himself as a messenger from heaven, and spread desolation and delusion over an extensive portion of the earth. Adopting from the sublime conception of the Mosaic law, the doctrine of one omnipotent God; he connected indissolubly with it, the audacious falsehood that he was himself his prophet and apostle. Adopting from the new Revelation of Jesus, the faith and hope of eternal life and of future retribution, he humbled it to the dust by adapting all the rewards and sanctions of his religion to the gratification of the sexual passion. He poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind.”

" THE ESSENCE OF HIS DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST;TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE(Adam’s capital letters) Between these two religions, thus contrasted in their characters, a war of twelve hundred years has already raged. The war is yet flagrant. While the merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false prophet shall furnish motives to human action,there can never be peace upon earth and goodwill towards men."

John Quincy Adams on ISLAM

I left out one of my favorite quotes by Bishop Fulton Sheen…but you can Google for it.

Your “bottom of the barrel” remark is a violation of forum rules. But here is another possible violation.
I do not believe that you are a Catholic as you have said. I think you are a muslim and that would also make you a troll as I understand the definition.
Whatever you have for a religion…your pompous and preposturous remarks are “hanging curve balls” which I am guessing many here see…but you obviously don’t. There is an old saying…" when someone is making a fool of themselves…just don’t interrupt them."

 

[schaubj57]

I don’t distrust them becasue I am Catholic, I distrust them becasue I am an American. When I saw footage after the WTC attack of 1993 and the WTC attack of 2001 and muslims cheering at the deaths of innocent American men and women I knew I could never and would never trust a gourp like that. Right or wrong, it’s how I feel.

Also the entire Shariya Law concept is something I have a real issue with.

 

[Peace_of_cake]

Anyone know how to unsubscribe?

 

[jakasaki]

Anyone know how to unsubscribe?

If you are asking to “unsubscribe” from CAF as a member / user - you cannot

If you wish to leave this site, all you have to do is sign off and don’t log back on.