Your opinion on the endurance of islam

[SalamKhan]

So Salam, please clarify, based on this/your above comment and your seemingly agreement about Jesus would you still say that corporeal punishments such as stoning to death is a permissible act under your religious beliefs… ? Because there seems some conflict of your belief there.

There is no conflict in what I am saying. I do not believe that Isa ibn Maryam forbade corporeal punishments, and I have even mentioned the well known fact that the account of the adulteress is a later addition. Furthermore, it is your belief that is inconsistent, it is a fact that the Old Testament (which you claim to believe in) prescribes corporeal punishments, yet you detest the implementation of these corporeal punishments, in other words you detest what God prescribed.

Do you mean that you won’t get personal by answering what you believe about stoning people to death? To me that does get very personal.

The purpose of the Sharia Law is to create an environment in which it is easier to practice Islam by choice, rather than follow one’s desires, for it’s our desires that will lead us to Hell. Adultery brings misery to the spouses who have been cheated, and misery to their families, it is not the corporeal punishment itself that is unjust, but the application of it can be unjust. Many countries with Sharia Law do not follow the correct procedure in trial before applying the punishment e.g. four witnesses who have witnessed the crime in detail.

Perhaps your Christianity also began in the 20th century, and you are a typical, unthinking, conventional-minded, modernist.

 

[dshix]

I know who Robert Spencer is, and I know who David Wood is.

I find it amusing that you consider it a sufficient refutation to simply say “I know who that is”.

How about an actual refutation of the points made in the video?

It is not an obligation for Muslim citizens to enforce Sharia Law, but it is obligatory for the ruler, should he (it is not permissable for women to be rulers in Islam) be a Muslim, to implement Sharia Law.

How does that make Islam any better?

 

[Karen107]

There is no conflict in what I am saying. I do not believe that Isa ibn Maryam forbade corporeal punishments, and I have even mentioned the well known fact that the account of the adulteress is a later addition. Furthermore, it is your belief that is inconsistent, it is a fact that the Old Testament (which you claim to believe in) prescribes corporeal punishments, yet you detest the implementation of these corporeal punishments, in other words you detest what God prescribed.

My belief is very consistent with the OT. Jesus reveals to us the ancient texts and what we are to know about God being merciful and loving… and if you took the time to know God as written in the OT you would see that. God forgave the Isrealites over and over again…God told Moses to free the Hebrews out of bondage, God gave His Mercy on Abraham by telling Him not to kill his son Isaac… over and over we learn of Gods Mercy in the OT and Jesus affirms this in the New Testament. I don’t detest what God prescribes but I believe you have it all wrong because I know that God sacrificed Himself for my sin so that my sin doesn’t end my life but allows me to have life eternal with God in heaven. Islam seems to think it’s their job to make that decision by killing? Well you can’t kill souls dear. You may be able to kill a physical body but you can’t kill souls. They are made by God…

It is not for us to decide who will be punished and who will be shown mercy. That is left for God.

So it is you who reject Jesus teaching on what to do about sinners… There’s the inconsistency… If you really understood Jesus you would know that Jesus never agreed with corporal punishment opting rather to forgive the penitent. That’s written quite clearly many times throughout the gospels this can not be erased because Islam wants it erased. Mercy is up to God…

Exodus 33:19*And he said, “I will make all my goodness pass before you and will proclaim before you my name ‘The Lord.’ And I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy.

 

[SalamKhan]

I find it amusing that you consider it a sufficient refutation to simply say “I know who that is”.

How about an actual refutation of the points made in the video?

How does that make Islam any better?

You’re talking to someone who used to be an ex Muslim (you can check my older posts on this forum), I’ve seen and have followed their content before. I’ll say it in a way you’ll understand, learning about Islam from them is similar to learning about Christianity from Dr. Zakir Naik. I wouldn’t need to mention any of this if you didn’t try to make it personal.

Implementing the Sharia Law and applying its corporeal punishments is the responsibility of the Islamic government. You can take comfort in the fact that Muslims citizens are not allowed to take Sharia Law into their own hands, they cannot for example simply kill someone who has committed a crime that would normally receive the death penalty in an Islamic government. Unless your problem is with the corporeal punishments themselves. If that is the case, answer the following questions:

Are you an unthinking, conventional-minded, modernist?

Did your Christianity start in the 20th century?

Do you detest the corporeal punishments prescribed by God in the Old Testament?

Do you detest some of the Church’s greatest theologians for supporting the application of similar corporeal punishments by the civil authorities?

 

[Karen107]

The purpose of the Sharia Law is to create an environment in which it is easier to practice Islam by choice, rather than follow one’s desires, for it’s our desires that will lead us to Hell. Adultery brings misery to the spouses who have been cheated, and misery to their families, it is not the corporeal punishment itself that is unjust, but the application of it can be unjust. Many countries with Sharia Law do not follow the correct procedure in trial before applying the punishment e.g. four witnesses who have witnessed the crime in detail.

Perhaps your Christianity also began in the 20th century, and you are a typical, unthinking, conventional-minded, modernist.

Whether a person goes to Heaven or Hell is not up to Government it is between God and Man to say otherwise is missing the point entirely. No one is in charge of God.

 

[Karen107]

Yo

Are you an unthinking, conventional-minded, modernist?

I’m a practicing Catholic that speaks for itself. Jesus came for the sick not the well so I will help those needing to be helped to heaven to get there. That doesn’t involve the use of force by any means.

 

[dshix]

You’re talking to someone who used to be an ex Muslim (you can check my older posts on this forum), I’ve seen and have followed their content before. I’ll say it in a way you’ll understand, learning about Islam from them is similar to learning about Christianity from Dr. Zakir Naik. I wouldn’t need to mention any of this if you didn’t try to make it personal.

Implementing the Sharia Law and applying its corporeal punishments is the responsibility of the Islamic government. You can take comfort in the fact that Muslims citizens are not allowed to take Sharia Law into their own hands, they cannot for example simply kill someone who has committed a crime that would normally receive the death penalty in an Islamic government. Unless your problem is with the corporeal punishments themselves.

The point I am making is that Islam is a militaristic system which, when it is allowed to gain a position of power, quickly begins to oppress other religions and inflict suffering upon everyone around it.

I am well aware that not all Muslims are aware or this or support this. Those are Muslims who, essentially, do not yet possess a full, complete understanding of what their faith teaches.

I will answer your questions:

Are you an unthinking, conventional-minded, modernist?

I’m not exactly sure what you mean by “modernist”. Regardless, it seems like a leading question without a purpose.

Did your Christianity start in the 20th century?

No. My religion began with the institution of the Old Covenant with the Jews, and when Jesus Christ the Son of God arrived at about 3 AD, He fulfilled the Old Covenant with the New, instituting the Catholic Church.

My religion is much older than Islam.

Do you detest the corporeal punishments prescribed by God in the Old Testament?

No. God is the creator of the universe, and has the right to give or take away as He chooses.

Thankfully, God is infinitely just and infinitely merciful, so I need not fear that He make evil commands.

Do you detest some of the Church’s greatest theologians for supporting the application of similar corporeal punishments by the civil authorities?

No. The civil authorities have the right to inflict certain corporeal punishments based on the natural law. This does NOT include punishing individuals or restricting their rights for their religion, their beliefs, their opinions, their sex, or their speech.

 

[Karen107]

Y ?

Do you detest the corporeal punishments prescribed by God in the Old Testament?

?

Why don’t you say stoning to death here? Perhaps because you see it as barbaric as I do…

God is the maker of life, He doesn’t agree with killing senselessly and doesn’t contradict Himself on this. A person who is held prisoner for whatever reason does not have to be killed. You should understand that Catholics are against corporal punishment because we know God is the giver of life, not death. This is where we differ in understanding that God is loving and ‘merciful’…

 

[SalamKhan]

Whether a person goes to Heaven or Hell is not up to Government it is between God and Man to say otherwise is missing the point entirely. No one is in charge of God.

How you interpreted my post to mean that the government judges people to Heaven or Hell is beyond me. Remember not to teach your children to avoid sin, as you’re not in charge of God.

It’s probably fair to assume you support seperation of Church and State. Do you realise that this is actually a heresy in the Catholic Church? Or has the so called ‘infallible’ and ‘indefectable’ church changed its stance again?

 

[SalamKhan]

Why don’t you say stoning to death here? Perhaps because you see it as barbaric as I do…

God is the maker of life, He doesn’t agree with killing senselessly and doesn’t contradict Himself on this. A person who is held prisoner for whatever reason does not have to be killed. You should understand that Catholics are against corporal punishment because we know God is the giver of life, not death. This is where we differ in understanding that God is loving and ‘merciful’…

You accused me of being dishonest and not answering questions directly. Tell me, why would God prescribe ‘barbarity’ and ‘senseless killing’ in the Old Testament? Stop avoiding this question.

 

[ffg]

How you interpreted my post to mean that the government judges people to Heaven or Hell is beyond me. Remember not to teach your children to avoid sin, as you’re not in charge of God.

It’s probably fair to assume you support seperation of Church and State. Do you realise that this is actually a heresy in the Catholic Church? Or has the so called ‘infallible’ and ‘indefectable’ church changed its stance again?

The CC has a lot of well catechized people from which to learn, might want to reign in a bit on that which you do not confess.

 

[Vonsalza]

Christians cannot verify that their teachings go back to Isa ibn Maryam (AS), they cannot even verify that their traditions go back to his disciples or verify that his disciples wrote various New Testament documents except from secondary sources at best.

It really depends on what you count as “verification”. The NT has less deviation across its many rival manuscripts than most ancient literature, as several secular studies have shown.

Within Islam, it is well known that Muhammad was illiterate. Thus he didn’t actually write down the Koran. It was codified from memory (RED FLAG ALERT) a few years after his violent life came to an end. There are multiple versions - as many as 20 although Muslims generally recognize 7.

The Koran has several internal issues as well. Plagiarism is fairly obvious, with virtual word-for-word liftings from Isaiah and several extra-canonical books generally ascribed to Christianity.

Verily, one could say that Muhammad was a 7th century Joseph Smith (of the Mormons). He was smart enough to create an approximate fabrication of Judeo-Christian scripture to say what he wanted, but not smart enough to do it well.

In the early centuries of Christianity, Catholics weren’t the only ones who claimed to trace their teachings back to Isa ibn Maryam (AS) and his disciples; there were many other groups who claimed the same or similar things. How can you verify that it was the Catholics who were right in their claim?

Through Ecumenical Councils and declarations from The Seat, of course. Until the protestant reformation, there were really only 3 major communions in Christendom. That’s after 1500 years of Christianity. Islam achieved that number in its opening century.

Many countries with Sharia Law do not follow the correct procedure in trial before applying the punishment e.g. four witnesses who have witnessed the crime in detail.

I’m interested, does the testimony of a women still count as only half that of a man in the Sharia?

---

As an aside, it’s interesting you say:

Don’t get emotional, and don’t get personal.

And follow up with:

Perhaps your Christianity also began in the 20th century, and you are a typical, unthinking, conventional-minded, modernist.

Perhaps you don’t realize your own double-standard? Perhaps this may shed some light on your approach to Catholicism juxtaposed with your own beliefs.

 

[Karen107]

How you interpreted my post to mean that the government judges people to Heaven or Hell is beyond me. Remember not to teach your children to avoid sin, as you’re not in charge of God.

I’m going by what you said about Sharia Law:

The purpose of the Sharia Law is to create an environment in which it is easier to practice Islam by choice, rather than follow one’s desires, for it’s our desires that will lead us to Hell. Adultery brings misery to the spouses who have been cheated, and misery to their families, it is not the corporeal punishment itself that is unjust, but the application of it can be unjust. Many countries with Sharia Law do not follow the correct procedure in trial before applying the punishment e.g. four witnesses who have witnessed the crime in detail. .

Sharia Law sure doesn’t sound like choices to me if corporal punishment is involved… God never interfere with our choices but teaches us right from wrong and we choose to do what’s right or wrong. This is the same God who gave Adam and Eve a ‘choice’ to obey or disobey.

It’s probably fair to assume you support seperation of Church and State. Do you realise that this is actually a heresy in the Catholic Church? Or has the so called ‘infallible’ and ‘indefectable’ church changed its stance again?

I support separation of Church and State because in joining Church and State the State forces the Church to action which it disagrees with and it doesn’t allow for differences in beliefs. The Church used to have that and there were problems. The same problems seen with Sharia Law where people are ‘forced’ to follow a specific belief.

 

[Karen107]

You accused me of being dishonest and not answering questions directly. Tell me, why would God prescribe ‘barbarity’ and ‘senseless killing’ in the Old Testament? Stop avoiding this question.

The bible didn’t stop at the Old Testament… We’ve learned from the OT about right from wrong using the punishments of ‘that day’ in age written down by ancient ‘barbaric’ men of ‘that day’ who punished people with stones which we would never do today because we’re kinder more merciful people… AND also about Gods mercy especially because He came down from heaven to make Himself known through Jesus Christ His Son. Good thing we understand God better and don’t punish people that way. Today we may put people in jail but we don’t kill them with stones. This is how one man Jesus has affected the World with teachings about God and His Mercy. We don’t have to throw out what we have learned but we have to listen to all that has been revealed to us by God.

Micah 6:8 8He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.

 

[SalamKhan]

No. The civil authorities have the right to inflict certain corporeal punishments based on the natural law. This does NOT include punishing individuals or restricting their rights for their religion, their beliefs, their opinions, their sex, or their speech.

The dhimmis are a responsibility of the state, the government must protect its non Muslim citizens from their Muslim neighbours and foreign invasion; the upkeep for maintaining that protection is the jizya tax. You are not aware of what Church theologians have actually taught, it seems. For example, here is Thomas Aquinas on the toleration of heretics.

 

[dshix]

The dhimmis are a responsibility of the state, the government must protect its non Muslim citizens from their Muslim neighbours and foreign invasion; the upkeep for maintaining that protection is the jizya tax.

Right; Jews, Christians, and other non-Muslims are essentially second-class citizens in an Islamic country. Once Islam has sufficient power, those minorities are not even allowed to build places of worship.

Tell me, where in Catholic teaching does such a teaching exist?

You are not aware of what Church theologians have actually taught, it seems. For example, here is Thomas Aquinas on the toleration of heretics.

I am well aware of Catholic teaching. And thank you for bringing up Thomas Aquinas. Do you mind citing for me where in that link St. Thomas tells us that Catholic government ought to take away rights (temporal rights, of this world) of non-Catholic citizens?

You may have failed to observe that St. Thomas’ article is talking about the heretic in regard to the Church, a religious institution. Catholicism is not a system of government, which requires a special tax on non-Catholics, restricts their right to worship, or tries to kill them. All of those things, should they happen, are on the part of a local government, not Catholicism’s teachings.

 

[SalamKhan]

It really depends on what you count as “verification”. The NT has less deviation across its many rival manuscripts than most ancient literature, as several secular studies have shown.

Within Islam, it is well known that Muhammad was illiterate. Thus he didn’t actually write down the Koran. It was codified from memory (RED FLAG ALERT) a few years after his violent life came to an end. There are multiple versions - as many as 20 although Muslims generally recognize 7.

The Koran has several internal issues as well. Plagiarism is fairly obvious, with virtual word-for-word liftings from Isaiah and several extra-canonical books generally ascribed to Christianity.

Verily, one could say that Muhammad was a 7th century Joseph Smith (of the Mormons). He was smart enough to create an approximate fabrication of Judeo-Christian scripture to say what he wanted, but not smart enough to do it well.

Through Ecumenical Councils and declarations from The Seat, of course. Until the protestant reformation, there were really only 3 major communions in Christendom. That’s after 1500 years of Christianity. Islam achieved that number in its opening century.

I’m interested, does the testimony of a women still count as only half that of a man in the Sharia?

---

As an aside, it’s interesting you say:

And follow up with:

Perhaps you don’t realize your own double-standard? Perhaps this may shed some light on your approach to Catholicism juxtaposed with your own beliefs.

I am not talking about manuscript evidence. Manuscript evidence doesn’t prove authorship or authenticity. Authorship and authenticity of the New Testament documents are based on assumptions, and/or second hand sources at best.

The recitation and writing of the Mushaf (Quran) is what we call *Mutawatir*, fabrication is completely out of the question. There was not a single dialect of Arabic during the time of Muhammad (S), just as there is not a single dialect of Arabic today. The Prophet (S) allowed men to recite the Quran according to their own dialects.

I have already addressed the accusation of plagiarism, in my first post on this thread.

How many groups claimed to have received their teachings from the disciples of Isa ibn Maryam (AS) in the first century of Christianity (up to 133 CE)? Catholics? Gnostics? ‘Judaizers’? The Arians were also the majority at one point. So your claim that there came to be three major communions 15 centuries after Christianity began, is false.

Yes, just as it is impermissible for a woman to be a ruler in Islam. Men and women are equal in their humanity, but not equal in their roles. They are prescribed different responsibilities, and the responsibility of women pertaining to law and government is restricted. This is the social order that Allah prescribed for us.

Key phrase you mentioned: "follow up"

I admit, I was being blunt, but my intention was not to personally attack him/her, but rather question his/her integrity after his/her passive aggressive posts and attacks towards me.

 

[SalamKhan]

Right; Jews, Christians, and other non-Muslims are essentially second-class citizens in an Islamic country. Once Islam has sufficient power, those minorities are not even allowed to build places of worship.

Tell me, where in Catholic teaching does such a teaching exist?

I am well aware of Catholic teaching. And thank you for bringing up Thomas Aquinas. Do you mind citing for me where in that link St. Thomas tells us that Catholic government ought to take away rights (temporal rights, of this world) of non-Catholic citizens?

You may have failed to observe that St. Thomas’ article is talking about the heretic in regard to the Church, a religious institution. Catholicism is not a system of government, which requires a special tax on non-Catholics, restricts their right to worship, or tries to kill them. All of those things, should they happen, are on the part of a local government, not Catholicism’s teachings.

I admit, I am not actually aware of whether dhimmis are permitted to build their places of worship. Nonetheless, those in error do not receive the exact same rights as Muslim citizens. Not all religions are equal, if all religions were equal they would have to be either all equally true or all equally false.

Excuse me, but wouldn’t heresy make someone a non Catholic?

Historian Richard Fletcher (author of Conversion of Europe: From Paganism to Christianity), correctly points out that the Muslims have injunctions from the Qur`an to protect their non Muslim citizens, whereas the Christians did not have any such command from the Bible, which gave them reason not to give rights to non Christian subjects.

From the Council of Vienne, under Pope Clement V: Canon [25]:

“It is an insult to the holy name and a disgrace to the Christian faith that in certain parts of the world subject to Christian princes where Saracens live, sometimes apart, sometimes intermingled with Christians, the Saracen priests commonly called Zabazala, in their temples or mosques, in which the Saracens meet to adore the infidel Mahomet, loudly invoke and extol his name each day at certain hours from a high place, in the hearing of both Christians and Saracens and there make public declarations in his honour. There is a place, moreover, where once was buried a certain Saracen whom other Saracens venerate as a saint. A great number of Saracens flock there quite openly from far and near. This brings disrepute on our faith and gives great scandal to the faithful. These practices cannot be tolerated any further without displeasing the divine majesty. We therefore, with the sacred council’s approval, strictly forbid such practices henceforth in Christian lands. We enjoin on catholic princes, one and all, who hold sovereignty over the said Saracens and in whose territory these practices occur, and we lay on them a pressing obligation under the divine judgment that, as true Catholics and zealous for the Christian faith, they give consideration to the disgrace heaped on both them and other Christians. They are to remove this offence altogether from their territories and take care that their subjects remove it, so that they may thereby attain the reward of eternal happiness. They are to forbid expressly the public invocation of the sacrilegious name of Mahomet. They shall also forbid anyone in their dominions to attempt in future the said pilgrimage or in any way give countenance to it. Those who presume to act otherwise are to be so chastised by the princes for their irreverence, that others may be deterred from such boldness.”

 

[Vonsalza]

I am not talking about manuscript evidence. Manuscript evidence doesn’t prove authorship or authenticity. Authorship and authenticity of the New Testament documents are based on assumptions, and/or second hand sources at best.

The recitation and writing of the Mushaf (Quran) is what we call *Mutawatir*, fabrication is completely out of the question. There was not a single dialect of Arabic during the time of Muhammad (S), just as there is not a single dialect of Arabic today. The Prophet (S) allowed men to recite the Quran according to their own dialects.

I have already addressed the accusation of plagiarism, in my first post on this thread.

How many groups claimed to have received their teachings from the disciples of Isa ibn Maryam (AS) in the first century of Christianity (up to 133 CE)? Catholics? Gnostics? ‘Judaizers’? The Arians were also the majority at one point. So your claim that there came to be three major communions 15 centuries after Christianity began, is false.

Yes, just as it is impermissible for a woman to be a ruler in Islam. Men and women are equal in their humanity, but not equal in their roles. They are prescribed different responsibilities, and the responsibility of women pertaining to law and government is restricted. This is the social order that Allah prescribed for us.

Key phrase you mentioned: "follow up"

I admit, I was being blunt, but my intention was not to personally attack him/her, but rather question his/her integrity after his/her passive aggressive posts and attacks towards me.

 

[Vonsalza]

I am not talking about manuscript evidence. Manuscript evidence doesn’t prove authorship or authenticity.

For virtually any event prior to the rise of modern forensics, manuscript evidence is literally all anyone has. Testimony from Muhammad’s earliest -]victims/-] supporters are written…

The Prophet (S) allowed men to recite the Qur`an according to their own dialects.

So which dialect was it written in and who sits in the chair of authority when it comes to interpretation?

I have already addressed the accusation of plagiarism, in my first post on this thread.

You’ve still not dismissed the concept. Some parts of constructed Koran are literally word-for-word liftings from Isaiah and other Christian texts. Plagiarism is the best and most likely explanation, regardless how anyone may feel.

As to fabrication, of course it was fabricated. Muhammad couldn’t even describe the trinity correctly.

How many groups claimed to have received their teachings from the disciples of Isa ibn Maryam (AS)… So your claim that there came to be three major communions 15 centuries after Christianity began, is false.

And as it always has been, the Church held council, defined the beliefs as heretical, and they vanished from the religious landscape. Three major communions persisted after 1500 years. I’m sure you wish there were only three Islamic sects present after Islam’s first 150 years.

I admit, I was being blunt, but my intention was not to personally attack him/her, but rather question his/her integrity after his/her passive aggressive posts and attacks towards me.

So your standards for equanimity are suspended if someone more than lightly disagrees with you? I’m sure the poster is relieved that this is an online forum rather than a physical one…