H
Hunter24
Guest
WILL THE REAL SLIM SHADY PLEASE STAND UP!
sorry i couldnt resist
sorry i couldnt resist
- Status
B
Battleaxe
Guest
If a non-Catholic wants to put in a bit of effort, he can go to reliable sources: Vatican documents, conciliar documents, literature which doesn`t badmouth the successor of Peter…
That doesn
t make sense. The WBTS exists. Its core teachings are false. In spite of that, that`s the REAL WBTS.And the WBTS most certainly exists.
*
So??? Of course i don
t know all of the Muslim sources, but there are enough passages in the Quran to give all of us a very good idea of its agenda. Plus individuals whom i trust; and theyre the vital reason for my stand on this. It didn`t come overnight, either.A well-studied one could. Just ask Fr Zakaria Botros.
Tim Staples (already mentioned) is another one. There are plenty of other non-Muslims and ex-Muslims who have been revolted by its violent nature. There`s enough evidence in the Quran. i happen to trust these people.
accept. [and the Church infallibly teaches] But since you don’t accept any version of Islam as true…
Again:??? You can tell my “version” from my first post on this thread.
i
m too tired to go on arguing about this. Were on different wavelengths. You think of this as a “debate”. You`re arguing for the sake of it.The sources i accept are in a position to know.
Apart from anything else, we`re off-topic.
*
T
TheAtheist
Guest
Well that was…unproductive.
S
Sam_777
Guest
You don’t look at what few Muslims do nowadays, you look at what the dogma teaches…
B
Battleaxe
Guest
Yep. It`s there if we care to look.
We bury our heads in the sand at our own peril.
U
Usbek_de_Perse
Guest
Will the real Christianity please stand up!
Come on…
Come on…
C
Contarini
Guest
Of course. And that will tell the non-Catholic what official, “magisterial” Catholicism teaches. Even so, there are widely different interpretations. Non-Catholics who study Catholicism in the way you are approaching Islam–looking at selected bits of official teaching and consulting polemical sources with a bias against Catholicism–come up with interpretations of Catholicism that you would not recognize as real Catholicism. Even non-Catholics who study Catholicism quite thoroughly using original documents and works of Catholic scholarship often fail to grasp important principles because of their lack of sympathy with Catholicism.
But the idea that Catholicism is to be identified with official, magisterial teaching is itself something that an outsider, who does not trust in the guidance given by the Holy Spirit to the Magisterium, has no reason to believe. An outsider has no way to adjudicate the complex issues of development and interpretation that arise when you compare, say, the teachings of Trent to those of Vatican II, or the various interpretations of Vatican II, or the different understandings of just which papal statements are authoritative and in precisely what way. An outsider following your principles might well decide that the sedevacantists are the “real” Catholics, or he/she might be persuaded by the arguments of more liberal Catholics that authoritarianism is a corruption of Catholicism and that dissidents more truly express the true spirit of Catholicism–and so on and so forth. It’s simply absurd to expect a non-Catholic to make those decisions in the first place.
And the final point–relevant to your example of the WBTS (an acronym which took me a while to figure out)–is that your argument works better for Catholicism than for Islam because Catholicism is, historically, a more centralized tradition. (Perhaps I should have compared Islam with Christianity as a whole rather than with Catholicism.) Sunni Islam has no magisterium in the Catholic sense–no centralized authority. Obviously one can say something about what a particular institution officially teaches. But Catholicism is more than an official institution–and Sunni Islam is not a unified official institution at all, but a very complex set of institutions and popular traditions. The WBTS is far more centralized and monolithic than Catholicism, as far as I can tell, so it’s easier to say what exactly it believes. But even so, an outsider might well misinterpret many things, and more to the point if there were dissident Jehovah’s Witnesses who claimed to understand the principles of the movement better than the official leaders, there would be no ground on which we would be able to say that they were less “real” Jehovah’s Witnesses than the official leaders of the WBTS.
So your example of the WBTS fails utterly as a parallel with Sunni Islam.
D
Dave_Noonan
Guest
This is probably most easily proved by contemplating the horrendous acts over the centuries that have been carried out in the name of Christianity.
M
Mystophilus
Guest
Pretty much: you should not look at what the few extremists do; you should look at what doctrine the majority of the world’s 1500000000 Muslims practice.
muslim.org/islam/tolerance.htm
al-islam.org/religious-tolerance-Islam/1.htm
islamreligion.com/articles/207/
islamreligion.com/articles/208/
M
Mystophilus
Guest
When someone from [my group] does something bad, it’s an aberration. When someone from [their group] does something bad, it’s proof of their wrongness.
B
Battleaxe
Guest
That
s right. And using my own definition of "real Catholicism", that IS real Catholicism. Your definition is what the majority do, eg contracept. If you want to define it that way thats your business. We have to agree to disagree.The Truth is the Truth.
Very arrogant words. It`d look good on rhe stage, complete with sword-waving.
As said previously, there`s enough in the Quran alone to give a definite direction.
Branding someone (“cherry-pick”) is dangerous.
Branding again.
i trust them more than i`d trust your emotion-inducing sources.
Jesus` statement in Matthew 7:5 may well apply.
Same here.
Rather emotional, don`t you think?
“People who live in glass houses…” Your own touchiness, as demonstrated here, far surpasses mine.
So you
re an expert? Sorry, i didnt realise! 
i don`t believe in being an ostrich.
Your continuous outburst doesn`t say much for your own powers of reasoning. Re-read your own posts.
Your insulting prose has reinforced my convictions, so some good has come of it.
T
ThatOrthodoxGuy
Guest
Islam has been spread by the sword. Violence is at its core.
B
Battleaxe
Guest
And we ignore the obvious at our own peril.
S
Sam_777
Guest
:tsktsk:, let me explain that in details:
Extremist Muslims = Orthodox Muslims, (i.e., following Islamic dogma 100%), (e.g., Clerics, Imams, Alqaida, Taliban, Muslims brotherhood movement, Hamas group, etc).
Majority Muslims = Nowadays Muslims, (i.e., following Islamic dogma 50%-80%), (e.g., Muslims living in Islamic countries or in western countries).
Those Majority Muslims take Fatwas from the Extremists and follow accordingly, similar to what happened recently in Egypt when the Muslims brotherhood movement issued Fatwas telling Muslims to elect their candidate, also similar to current violate protests against US worldwide, those people protesting because their mosques Imams told them to do so…
T
TheAtheist
Guest
Didn’t your Messiah something about being overly conscietnous about motes in your neighbor’s eye…when there’s a plank stuck in your own?
When someone from [my group] does something bad, it’s an aberration. When someone from [their group] does something bad, it’s proof of their wrongness.
C
Contarini
Guest
You keep using the word dogma. But Sunni Islam doesn’t have an equivalent of the Catholic Magisterium. So it’s not entirely clear to me what “Islamic dogma” actually consists of.
With all due respect, you do come from Saudi Arabia, right? Most scholars of Islam would not identify Wahhabi Islam, which dominates modern Saudi Arabia, with traditional, orthodox Islam. I recognize that Wahhabis insist that they are the only real, consistent Muslims, and I can see why as an ex-Wahhabi you would accept that claim.
In Christ,
Edwin
V
Vouthon
Guest
I’m not sure if that’s strictly true. Some Sufi missionaries apparently spread Islam peacefully throughout North Africa; though admittedly they also accompanied invading Islamic armies such as the ones that entered India during the Middle Ages, and usually peacefully inculturated the population with Islamic values in the wake of more martial attempts to do so by forceful means on the part of the military men and some of the ulema. At times we also have dynasties founded by violent warrior Sufis such as the Safavids in Iran. Its a more complex situation though than your fleeting statement above. Certainly, what you say has warrant in sayings attributed to Muhammad in the Hadiths (the Qur’an itself is not as simple to interpret in a purely antagonistic offensive attitude towards war, although this is highly debateable of course):
Whilst this seems pretty explicit and clear - and while admittedly I cannot find a parralel to this harshly worded and violent statement in the New Testament or Church Fathers but probably could from later Christian writings during the Middle Ages - note that this oft quoted phrase does not actually explicitly say anything about “offensive warfare”. It could be defensive battle - this phrase could thus be a stirring call to defesive battle against an enemy threatening one’s livelihood and existence.
Either way, its not pretty to those who follow the peaceful teachings of Christ, but neither is the slaughter of the Cathar heretics during the Middle Ages by Catholic armies, who were often accompanied - like marauding Islamic armies were by Sufi ascetics - by Catholic monks such as the Cistercians, who peacefully tried to persuade heretics in concert with more martial attepts to do so by military men. Think of Saint Bernard who was tasked with calling the diastrous Third Crusade.
Don’t get me wrong - I believe that in essence Christian principles are more condusive to peace and pacifism than Islam. The Early Church Fathers spoke repeatedly against warfare, killing and the death penalty to an extent that one does not find in any early Muslim source - Islam being a religion which was born out of a state of tribal warfare and intimately bound up with the military success and power of Caliphates (earthly Empires). To this end, even the great 13th century Islamic mystic Rumi - adored by the modern New Age movement and most people in general - could appear to support warfare against unbelievers in a manner one is not likely to find in Eckhart or Saint John of the Cross or Saint Gregory Palamas (but perhaps Saint Bernard of Clairvaux?):
It was only later on, when Christianity became the state religion of Rome and later was influenced by the warlike belief systems and culture of the German barbarians that invaded and occupied the territories of the former Roman Empire during the Early Medieval period, that it accomodated itself to the idea of “just war” and later during the Crusades the ridiculous & short-lived concept (from a Christian perspective) of “Holy War” which is as far removed from Jesus Christ’s teachings and that of his immediate sucessors the Fathers, as I could imagine (although its a teaching of Islam to war or struggle in the way of Allah, no matter if understood in a more spiritual fashion as with the Sufis Greater Jihad against the self although the latter has parrallels with Christian monks “battles” against the passions or demons).
Some argue that the Medieval Church actually inherited the idea of “holy war” during the Crusades from the Islamic world (ie Avicenna and Al Ghazali amidst other Muslim writers were widely read and respected by medieval Catholic theologians). Certainly it had no pedigree or basis in prior Catholic tradition.
However we cannot generalize and simply castigate a 1,400 year old faith as “violent” or “barabaric”. Its far more complex than this.
Islam was spread by the sword during the Muslim conquests of the 7th century. The Arab Empire(s) was/were the fastest expanding Empire(s) in human history. However at other times in history, Islam has been spread in a more peaceful fashion. So its not cut-and-dried.
V
Vouthon
Guest
In essence my point is this:
To claim that Islam was not spread by the sword is revisionist and even dangerous. Even Shi’ism (whose theology and history I am generally more disposed towards ie the relatively tolerant Fatimid Caliphate & the modern Nizari Ismailis) had violent aspects. Even the Blessed Imam Ali was a military leader. Nonetheless to claim it as a solely violent faith on the basis of episodes of it being spread by the sword is equally disingenious in my opinion and indeed far too simplistic; and of course offensive to the brighter lights and good points of Islamic civilisation (which like any old civilisation had reprehensible elements and better elements). Other religions, and yes including our own beloved Christianity, has at times been spread by the sword: so is this really a considerate & good comparison? One can also think of Japanese Shinto, a faith spread by the sword and which inspired much offensive warfare * and widespread human suffering during the 20th century (including suicide bombers) but which was once largely peaceful in older forms and is now peaceful (when have you heard of Shinto extremists since World War II?).
Islam was spread by the sword during the Muslim conquests of the 7th century. In fact, it was not only spread by the sword but it was certainly spread by conquest on many occasions. The Caliphate was the fastest expanding empire in human history, this certainly did not happen as a result of discussion and consultation. However at other times in history, Islam has been spread in a more peaceful fashion such as by Sufi missionaries in North Africa. So its not cut-and-dried.
To claim that Islam was not spread by the sword is revisionist and even dangerous. Even Shi’ism (whose theology and history I am generally more disposed towards ie the relatively tolerant Fatimid Caliphate & the modern Nizari Ismailis) had violent aspects. Even the Blessed Imam Ali was a military leader. Nonetheless to claim it as a solely violent faith on the basis of episodes of it being spread by the sword is equally disingenious in my opinion and indeed far too simplistic; and of course offensive to the brighter lights and good points of Islamic civilisation (which like any old civilisation had reprehensible elements and better elements). Other religions, and yes including our own beloved Christianity, has at times been spread by the sword: so is this really a considerate & good comparison? One can also think of Japanese Shinto, a faith spread by the sword and which inspired much offensive warfare * and widespread human suffering during the 20th century (including suicide bombers) but which was once largely peaceful in older forms and is now peaceful (when have you heard of Shinto extremists since World War II?).
Islam was spread by the sword during the Muslim conquests of the 7th century. In fact, it was not only spread by the sword but it was certainly spread by conquest on many occasions. The Caliphate was the fastest expanding empire in human history, this certainly did not happen as a result of discussion and consultation. However at other times in history, Islam has been spread in a more peaceful fashion such as by Sufi missionaries in North Africa. So its not cut-and-dried.
C
Contarini
Guest
Indeed. And you’re a Catholic, so that’s entirely legitimate. Indeed, I have a definition of “real Catholicism” myself, which may not be identical to yours but is relatively close to it (most basically, the Catholicism taught in the CCC). But my definition is, as I said, the Catholicism I find compelling and think may well be true. What would not be legitimate would be for a non-Catholic convinced Catholicism as a whole is false to weigh on in what is “real Catholicism,” particularly if they were doing this for the purpose of attacking Catholicism. I have no doubt whatever that you would see the injustice of this very quickly. Hence my anger with your double standard.
No, it isn’t. Insofar as I’m willing to speak of “real Catholicism” at all, I would certainly say that real Catholicism forbids contraception. But again, I only have a (somewhat tenuous) right to use this language because I think Catholicism is very likely true, and the Catholicism whose truth I am considering is the Catholicism that forbids contraception. (I might question whether this position is as completely set in stone as you no doubt think it is, but discussing that would be a digression.) A Protestant who believes Catholicism is false would have no grounds for telling, say, Prof. Charles Curran that he isn’t teaching “real” Catholicism–though as you say it would be easy to ascertain that he’s not teaching the version of Catholicism officially sanctioned by the hierarchy. (And as I pointed out in my earlier post, Sunni Islam doesn’t have a centralized hierarchy, so that definition of “real Islam” isn’t available to you.)
Fine. But equally axiomatically, someone who doesn’t believe the Truth doesn’t believe it. Hence, it’s absurd to expect such a person to know what real Catholicism is.
Backed up by arguments. Address the arguments. Where do you find in Sunni Islam a centralized authority structure like the WTBS?
When you say "there’s enough in the Qur’an. . . " you are obviously cherry-picking. That is to say, by your own admission, you are choosing out certain parts of the Qur’an which support a certain conclusion, and declaring the other parts of the Qur’an and of the Islamic tradition as a whole irrelevant.
Again, you would easily recognize the injustice of this if a non-Catholic did it to Catholicism.
My anger against Catholics who use this method on Islam stems in part from the fact that I spent much of my early adulthood sorting through the haze of unfair accusations directed against Catholicism. It’s easy to recognize that the same tactics are being used by many Christians against Islam, and it’s infuriating to see Catholics, of all people, use such methods.
You have what I find the very odd idea that there’s something wrong with emotion, and that emotion is incompatible with reason.i trust them more than i`d trust your emotion-inducing sources.
Would you apply this consistently? Would you hold it against someone that they got emotional about the killing of innocents that takes place in abortion? Would you not rather judge that a person who got emotional about this appalling practice did so because they saw clearly and logically the nature of the practice?
If you were to get emotional about the evils of Islam, I would not hold it against you. What I hold against you is your refusal to address logical arguments logically. I knew that you would probably take my outburst as a reason to avoid addressing my arguments. That is the only reason I regret it. I cannot judge my language to be unjust, or uncharitable except insofar as confirming you in your error is highly uncharitable behavior on my part. On that ground and on that ground only, I apologize for my language.
I repeat: you have failed to show how an outsider can judge which of various versions of a religious tradition is “real.” Your examples apply only to centralized institutions, not to traditions as a whole. Since Sunni Islam is not a centralized institution, your argument fails. (And it fails even with regard to the Jehovah’s Witnesses and Catholicism insofar as these are seen as traditions and not simply identified with certain authoritative structures.)
Then act like it. Answer my arguments.
Note that I have never questioned your motives. I assume that you are motivated by a love of truth and by charity for your neighbors, whom you wish to protect from the evils of Islam. I just think you are wrong
, and I think that because you’re so sure you are right (without rational reasons for your certainty) you are prone to dismiss this very serious issue without due consideration and to dismiss anyone who challenges you as a fuzzy-minded liberal who can’t see the truth. That’s the worst I think of you.
I was way, way beyond touchy
.And the reason was that you dismissed my arguments instead of answering them. You take offense and use that as an excuse to stop the argument. I use anger as part of my argument. I recognize that this is counter-productive, but it would in no way bother me if you did the same thing. Throw all the thunder you like at me about how I’m colluding with Islamic aggression and so on and so forth, but back your rhetoric up with arguments.
C
Contarini
Guest
I’m not sure how you thought I was implying such a thing. You don’t have to be an expert to ask hard questions. My students ask me hard questions all the time.
I have a Ph.D. in religion, but to my regret I did not choose to focus on Islam even as a minor (I wasn’t very interested in it–I still find it less interesting and appealing than most major religions, with the exception of its Sufi forms; and I was too narcissistic to realize, as a more clear-sighted colleague of mine did even back before 9-11, that for the good of the world I should probably take every opportunity to study Islam seriously). Hence I cannot claim to be an expert. I teach world religions and spend a couple of weeks every semester on Islam, and I have done a good deal of reading as part of my preparation for teaching the subject. But again, that doesn’t make me an expert. Just moderately well-informed.
Note that you, not I, introduced the argumentum ad auctoritatem. You waved authorities whom you say you trust, but their credentials appear to be primarily agreement with your own biases. I would be happy to agree that mainstream scholars of Islam such as John Esposito have their own biases, and I don’t trust them implicitly. But I take them very seriously–as I do other scholars with more negative views, such as Huntington and Bernard Lewis, and even folks without formal credentials as long as I can learn something from them. For instance, I find Andrew Bostom’s collection of primary sources dealing with jihad very interesting and informative, and I don’t dismiss it just because he’s a non-specialist with an obvious axe to grind. I have listened to Spencer and don’t simply dismiss him, but I don’t find that he adds much to what folks with more formal credentials have to say (Lewis and Huntington, for instance, on the more “anti-Islamic” side of the scholarly spectrum).
As soon as you pick your “favorites” to listen to and ignore everyone else, you have turned your back on truth, no matter which side of the question you are on.
Edwin
- Status