The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Printer-friendly version
PDF versionBeyond a 'tea and cookies' dialogue with Islam
by John L Allen Jr on Oct. 15, 2010
ROME -- Given the setting of the Middle East, Christians are compelled to pursue dialogue with the vast Muslim majority; in fact, it would be virtually impossible to avoid.
Several participants at the Oct. 10-24 Synod of Bishops for the Middle East, however, seem eager to push that dialogue beyond a “tea and cookies” stage, where the point is merely being polite to one another, into blunt talk about religious freedom, democracy, and what one speaker described as “satanic plans by fundamental extremist groups” to extinguish Christianity in the region.
While it’s not clear what real impact either the local churches of the Middle East or Catholicism generally can have on those fronts, there appears to be a strong feeling in the synod that it’s time to lay things on the line.
| Read NCR's full coverage of the Synod of Bishops for the Middle East: Index of stories from the Synod. |
One such call came from Archbishop Cyrille Salim Bustros, a Greek-Melkite prelate in the United States.
“On one hand and in principle, the assertion of tolerance is clear in the Koran,” Bustros said. “On the other hand, and in fact, the laws of all the Arab countries, except for Lebanon where one is allowed to change religion, threaten death to all Muslims who convert to another religion."
Mincing no words, Bustros added, “We ask here: where can tolerance be found?”
“The first principle of all societies is the equality of all citizens before the law,” Bustros said. “The respect for the conscience of each individual is the sign of the recognition of the dignity of the human being.”
Chaldean Archbishop Thomas Meram of Iran was equally candid.
“The Christian hears every day from loudspeakers, television, newspapers and magazines that he is an infidel, and he is treated as a second-class citizen,” Meram said.
Those words seemed to have a special resonance in light of a presentation to the synod by Ayatollah Sayed Mostafa Mohaghegh Ahmadabadi, who claimed that “in most Islamic countries, notably Iran, as it has been stipulated also by law, Christians live side by side and in peace with their Muslim brothers.”
Despite the pressures he described, Meram said that Christians “stand firm and solid and … become more courageous and proud of their faith.”
Subscribe to NCR
Want to read more about important issues in the life of the Church? A subscription to NCR will keep you up to date and informed.
Maronite Bishop Paul-Emile Saadé of Lebanon said that accelerating migration out of the Middle East is robbing the Christian community of its “brains and specialized personnel,” violating their right to build a future.
“Their homeland is the land of their ancestors,” Saadé said, adding a clinching sound-bite: “The homeland is not a hotel.”
In that light, Saadé, it’s critical for Christians to engage moderate Muslims and encourage them “to stand firmly against fanatical extremist religious movements.”
Cardinal Peter Turkson of Ghana, President of the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, also delivered a blunt diagnosis.
“The churches and minority religions in the Middle East must not be subject to discrimination, violence, defamatory propaganda (anti-Christian), the denial of building permits for places of worship and the organization of public functions,” he said.
Turkson told NCR Friday morning that when he spoke about building permits, he was partly thinking of a situation in Egypt where a Coptic church is crumbling but local political authorities have so far refused to issue permits for repairs. Turkson said that it seems as if there’s a deliberate policy to allow the church, and eventually its faithful, to disappear.
Turkson also took on a resolution of the United Nations on “Defamation of Religions,” which decries words or actions perceived as attacks on a religion, and which has been backed by Islamic nations. Some Christian activists have criticized the resolution as a not-so-subtle way of criminalizing Christian missionary efforts and of defending the controversial “blasphemy laws” in some Islamic states.
“Promotion of the resolution against the Defamation of Religions in the framework of the United Nations should not limit itself to Islam, or ‘Islamophobia, in the Western world,” Turkson said. “It should include Christianity, or ‘Christianophobia,’in the Islamic world.”
“We can also promote the adoption, again within the UN framework, of a resolution on religious freedom as an alternative to the resolution on the defamation of religions,” Turkson said.
Fr. Raymond Moussalli, an official of the Chaldean patriarchate in Jordan, said that Christians in Iraq are under attack – and he describeditt in unstinting terms.
“There is a deliberate campaign to drive Christians out of the country,” Moussalli said. “There are satanic plans by fundamental extremist groups that are not only against Iraqi Christians in Iraq, but Christians throughout the Middle East.”
Moussalli pled for global outrage.
“We want to make the international community aware that it cannot remain silent in the face of the massacre of Christians in Iraq, the countries with the Catholic tradition, so that they might do something for Iraqi Christians, beginning with placing pressure on local government,” he said.
Perhaps the most emotional speech of the day came Archbishop Ruggero Franceschini of Izmir, Turkey, who is also struggling to lead the small Catholic community in Anatolia after its own bishop, Italian Capuchin Luigi Padovese, was murdered in June by his longtime driver. Though the driver’s motives remain murky, many have speculated that he came under the influence of extremist groups.
Franceschini said the “organizers” of the killing are now spreading “intolerable slander,” likely a reference to claims initially voiced by police sources in Turkey that Padovese had subjected his driver to homosexual abuse. Those claims have been strongly denied by church personnel in Turkey.
“The survival of the Church of Anatoly is at risk,” Franceschini said, “and this is a situation in which I ask you, gravely and urgently, to participate.”
Franceschini openly described “a dark plot of complicity between ultra-nationalists and religious fanatics, experts in schemes of tension,” which is targeting the Christian presence.
Turkson said that the Catholic church may not be able to directly influence either the political realities in the Middle East or internal debates within Islam, but it can, and must, speak out, because the situation is too dire for diplomatic silence.
Certainly yesterday at the Synod of Bishops, that seemed to be the spirit of things.
Editor's Note: John Allen had a full week in Rome, and not just at the Synod of Bishops from the Middle East. Read a full accounting of his week in his Friday online column, All Things Catholic: "Sweeps week in Rome."
What did Saint Francis and
What did Saint Francis and the Sultan have? Tea and cookies? Or prayers and peace with one another . . .
The question is not how intolerant the other may be. The question is how very intolerant I am, and what am I going to do about it . . .
Love one another
Love the one with whom you do not now share love
God is Love
What do I do right now to spread this Gospel of Love beyond words?
How can I tolerate more?
I was hoping first you would
I was hoping first you would live your preaching while in Iraqi soil then come to this forum and leave this intolerant remark.
Thank you Mr. Allen for the
Thank you Mr. Allen for the coverage.
I pray and believe the Holy Spirit is working with everyone in the Middle East Synod.
"Turkson said that the Catholic church may not be able to directly influence either the political realities in the Middle East or internal debates within Islam, but it can, and must, speak out, because the situation is too dire for diplomatic silence."
We all must have courage. As Pope John Paul II's motto, to comfort the world and especially during the time Communism seemed like a hopeless battle to secular society:
Be not afraid!
The same intolerance can be
The same intolerance can be spoken of here in the west and in the united states more specifcially. Recent arson attacks on Mosque construction sites in Tennessee, uproar against the building of Islamic Centers in Detroit neighborhoods already heavly populated with Muslims, and in upstate new york local officials adament in digging up graves of a muslim cemetery are just some of the examples that point to our own intolerance.
What I don't understand is how we are so quick to attack inequalities overseas in someone else's home before confront our own demons. If we are to engage in dialogue we should be ready for it and not just speak empty rhetoric.
Well Mr. Anonymous, this is
Well Mr. Anonymous, this is an outrageous comparison you're making here, wouldn't you say??? How many Muslims have been kidnapped, raped, and beheaded for their faith by Christians in the US? How many were forced to convert under a gun point? How many were forced to pay a special tax specifically for being Muslim? How many mosques were blown up by Christians? Please answer ONE of these questions, then perhaps you can go on and on about how we should be more tolerant. Any more tolerance and who knows, maybe one day you'll get to witness a Muslim entering your home and raping your mother in front of your eyes. I wonder what you would say then??? Your remark contains nothing but indifference and insensitivity towards Catholics of the Middle East, while at the same time expressing sympathy for the villain. Bishop Sheen had a name for this type of sympathy, he called it "false compassion." These are the good bishop's own words, not mine.
I'm not expressing sympathy
I'm not expressing sympathy for any villain. We should better define who these villains are. Muslims are not the villains, just the same I should not posit that every white man is the villain or that every African-American is the villain. We should seperate what is the culture/practices/and conditions that have allowed certain actions or behaviors by certain groups to occurr? Rather than lumping every person with shared beliefs and qualities in the same basket, we should be looking for solutions to the problem. Since part of the problem lies in the recent historical development of the region, we should consider anaylzing that before damning Muslims as being intolerant and closed.
Didn't St. Francis invite the
Didn't St. Francis invite the Sultan to light a fire and St. Francis would step into the fire if one of the Sultan's men would do the same? The challenge was refused. That is not exactly a tea and cookies challenge, but rather a challenge of of a saint who believes in God with all his heart, strength, and mind!
The sultan's of the ottoman
The sultan's of the ottoman period, which i'm assuming you are referring to, can be hardly be seen as saintly, albeit they could be seen as pious. Many Muslim saints such as Rumi, Ahmed Yasavi, and Said Nursi would have and have endured physical transgressions and have sacrificed all of themselves. They are key examples of the richness and beauty of Islam just as St. Francis of Assisi.
It's these that we should recall and be thankful for their guidance and wisdom.
Muslims don't have "saints."
Muslims don't have "saints." A saint is one who is called by our Lord Jesus Christ. Read Romans 1:7; 1 Corinthians 1:1-2. Your knowledge in religious issues seems quite poor and lacking. Read up before you go round instructing other people on how to behave and respond. Sadly you'll find that every single peaceful Muslim was harassed/tortured/killed by other Muslims rather than by non-Muslims. You're probably, in your endless effort to beatify the other, going to refer to saints who were martyred by other Christians (of course, this is not out of the goodness of your heart, I don't think it's anything else other than hypocrisy). It's not a coincidence that every single peaceful Muslim who rose to prominence was killed by another Muslim, simply because he is preaching heresy according to real Islam and has strayed away from the true Islam.
Also your position is very very offensive to the Christians of the Middle East. You're very insensitive to their history, pains, and hardships. Do you think you can a bit more considerate?
No, as a muslim convert, I've
No, as a muslim convert, I've been harassed by Christians through emails, by rhetoric, name calling, etc. I've also been harassed by Muslims. All have been harassed in some sort or kind by people of every religion, color, group. It's hardly fair to single out a group that you disagree with with such disrespect and knowledge. I've been in the Middle East, Latin America, Europe, and the former Soviet Republics. I have done extensive research on Islam and Secularism, Islam after the fall of the Soviet Empire, and have worked closely with Muslim communities building bridges with those of other faiths. My field of study which I've spent the better part of the last seven years has been focused on Near Eastern Civilizations including their religions.
No where in the Bible is sainthood limited to only Christianity. You should be careful to not misinterpret quotes from the Bible just to serve an emotion. This is the same technique Muslims on the outer periphery use in manipulating young people. The Bible, the Word of God, was not meant to serve an upper hand. It was not served to speak in the terms that you are speaking. Neither did I attack you, nor have I called you a hypocrite or assumed you were one.
Bigotry and the denial of saints in other religions should not be tolerated. There exists exemplars of every religion and when you disseminate such spew you do a huge disservice to your own religion and the beauty it was intended for.
Umm let me see. I would like
Umm let me see. I would like to perform a search in the entire Koran, the hadith database, the entire sira for the word "saint." Searching, searching, searching....nope, nothing. Where did you get this word?
"No where in the Bible is sainthood limited to only Christianity" I quoted Romans 1:7 and 1 Corinthians 1:2, clearly limit sainthood only to Christianity. Plz find me elsewhere that proves your case.
"Bigotry and the denial of saints in other religions should not be tolerated"
I thought you were a prince of tolerance. Here's what the Koran says about this issue: "If anyone desires a religion other than Islam, never will it be accepted of him" (Koran 3:85). Who is the bigot now?
stop name-calling and start dealing with these issues please, otherwise, it's pointless.
The question here is how to
The question here is how to take what is written. One of the problems that naysayers of Islam have and share with extremists have is not in understanding that The Arabic language is very complex and that the Quran is written in poetic verse form -? The question is how to interpret what is written. Do we accept it for what it is? What is it? Is it on the same level as GOD or is it subordinate to GOD and open to interpretation? Who should interpret the Quran? These are very important questions that have been raised over and over again by traditionalist, jurists and commentators. Luckily, Mutazzalites and philosophers from all three religions have worked together in answring this by joining in theological discourse on the matter. Case in point? How is "Islam" to be viewed. Although, it seems rather straightforward, how do we take it? do we view it merely in terms of a religion? an ethnic group? or do we put it into more general terms along the lines of maybe The Truth? I raised this issue. Currently, i'm not a good practicing Muslim because of my own pitfalls as a human being, but I lived with the Turks for several years, here in Turkey and in Central Asia. I raised issues like this and also can vouch that during my stay, i never heard of Quranic scripture being translated into the realities of their lives. Instead, other items were taking into account such as how to better fight their inner desires - carnal self. issues of what not only courage is, but also what is moderation - what do they struggle against and restrain themselves from. All of this has always been internal. I never heard different and I was deeply immersed with these Muslim communities. I'm not sure about Arabic communities except for Jordanian, but this is my experience and those I've surrounded myself with.
This entire post does not
This entire post does not answer a single IOTA of what I raised on the post above it. The answer to who should interpret the Koran is quite clear. Read Koran 3:7 "None knows the true meaning thereof except GOD and those well founded in knowledge. They say, "We believe in this - all of it comes from our Lord." Only those who possess intelligence will take heed."
I ask who are the "well founded in knowledge" people like you, Muslim converts who hardly speak Arabic, or those scholars who spent their entire lives studying Islam and who lived closer to Mohamad than you and modern pseudo-imams do?
Do not attempt a new interpretation of Koran, otherwise you'll be beheaded by your brethren, so be careful, just a friendly advice.
Then why are you relying on
Then why are you relying on the Quran to carry your argument. You are relying on Arabic translations to come up with your interpretation. If you take the Quran as it were, then who are you to interpret what it says. The translations you rely upon are taking out of context. It is the same as irrational naysayers of Christianity to selectively dissect the Bible and to use its words against itself.
Quran 3:7 points to this: there are different levels of understanding: the well-established meaning, and the ones open to interpretation - implying none should be so dogmatic as to limit/manipulate the passage(s).
The other part it pointedly says is to avoid those who "with pervesity" tear apart the Books to create discord and to speak against God. It is only those with understanding that will be abel to uncover "these hidden meanings" closed-minded people try to control, monopolize one, manipulate with.
These well founded people are God-fearing people possessing ethical virtues. These are the ones that practice humility, that endure and struggle the calamities of life and fight against their carnal turbidity to reach God. They are the one's dedicated to being of the poor disciples or companions. They are the one's that have aimed to purify themselves in order to reach the light of God. They are the St. John's of the Cross, Said Nursi's, Ghandi's of the world. They are the one's worthy of understanding and of speaking truthfully without bias and without the intention to find error or fault in God's words. This is taught by sufism which relies on Quranic verses and Hadiths.
Arabic is not a translation
Arabic is not a translation for the Quran. It is its original language. I shouldn't have to point this out to you if you have indeed done a 7 year research into Islam. Read your explanation of Quran 3:7. Where did you get this explanation? Is it based on your own merits or is there an actual Tafsir that says that. I know there isn't one. I know you're inventing and making up explanations. Let me quote some tafsirs for you.
Ibn Kathir: "...The Prophet said "I fear three things for my people. They may become abundant in money and start fighting one another; the Book may be open for them and they begin to interpret it (which is what you're doing right now); and the third is they may become abundant in knowledge and then disregard it (Quran) and then it may become lost." (http://quran.al-islam.com/Page.aspx?pageid=221&BookID=11&Page=1).
Al Tabary: "...calling them 'well founded in knowledge' necessitates that they possess a knowledge that surpasses the knowledge of all others in the Arabic language. What other reason would they be 'well founded in knowledge'?"
You said "Quran 3:7 points to this: there are different levels of understanding: the well-established meaning, and the ones open to interpretation - implying none should be so dogmatic as to limit/manipulate the passage(s)."
You're right there are different levels of understanding but not issues concerning dogmas or doctrines. Rules of Quranic interpretations are very clearly stated. Read Usool al Tafsir (http://kalamullah.com/Books/Usool_at-Tafseer.pdf)
Quranic interpretation is based on:
1-The Quran
2-Mohamad (Hadith)
3-Companions
4-The Followers (the next generation after the Companions)
Read this Hadith
The best of people are my generation, then those who follow after them, then those who follow after them, then there will come after them a people who will be fat, and they will love obesity, bearing witness before being asked to."[related by the Umars, sons of Husayn(r)] [Tirmidthee, authenticated by Imaam Al Haakim] Shaykh Al Albaanee declares it to be Saheeh. See Silsilatul Ahaadeeth As-Saheehah no. 699, and Saheeh Al Jaami' no. 3294.
"The best of people is my generation, then those who come after them, then those who come after them (i.e. the first three generations of Muslims)." [Reported by Bukhari and Muslim- Mutawaatir. Muslim, Narrated 'Aisha - Shaykh Al Albaanee declares it Hasan in Saheeh Al Jaami' no.3288].
If you feel you want to refute this, by all means. Except, don't write anything again if you're not going to quote anyone. And not just anyone, you have to quote a companion or the generation that came after. Otherwise, your words do not mean anything. And likewise, another Muslim will rise up and say something completely different than you and yet call himself a "good" Muslim. Who should I believe? These are not complaints. These are the complaints of Mohamad and Sahaba when they instituted rules of interpretation.
You said "They are the St. John's of the Cross, Said Nursi's, Ghandi's of the world. "
According to Koran 5:17 St. John is a Kaffir (infidel) since he worshiped Christ, and according to 9:29, he must pay "jizyah" while he is "subdued," which means "degraded, humiliated, and made miserable" according to tafsir Ibn Kathir; According to 9:5, Ghandi is a "polytheist" and you must "slay" him "wherever ye may find him" and according to 9:30, he is "najs" which means "dirty." Please get your facts straight.
you're right arabic is not a
you're right arabic is not a translation. during the heat of my writing....i screwed up.
interpretations are very dangerous. there are schools that have been in place that are meant to aid in developing interpretative skill. arguments between the ulama and have persisted for ages (just as in Christianity)...how to approach the Quran - who should approach it, etc., don't rely on my interpretations (as I'm sure you won't) but be more open and understand who you are fighting against. Islam, the Quran is not the problem. The problem rests in various schools of thought or practitioners of faulty/manipulative doctrines based on lewd interpretations of the Quran.
There's an idea in the hadith you mentioned concerning the generations... As time goes by, men lose their sense of tradition and start to become more liberal in how they practice. the same is held in Catholicism and that is why tradtion is so important. this is something that was taught to me. that for each succeeding generation, we become steps away from the essence/message of Islam. but we must be decisive and careful in following it.
There are two types of Christians (to get to the other argument), those who believe in Christ as God, and those who believe in Christ as a messenger. (they exist in se turkey). 5:17 takes aim at them and the succeeding verses at those who have forsaken their faith. this should serve as awarning not only to Jews and Christians, but also to Muslims.
Concerning St. John of the Cross,I have wrestled with this verse before. I am aMuslim for a reason - as a result of an epiphany and aset of experiences that have led me to Islam. Personally,I don't know how to answer for that verse and i shouldn't have to because i don't believe in the trinity. I think kafir is something to take heavily and it is very matter of fact, but i also remember a story told to me by some elders about a man who prayed on a tree in the wrong manner and in the wrong direction. essentially,if we pray,act, and live in faith there's no greater effort to give.
What i mean is that i used my own reason. st john of the cross is worthy to be followed as an example even if i don't believe in Christianity. because he is an exemplar of faith. My grandmother,a devout christian,is also worthy of this. no one can tell me otherwise. of course this won't be accepted by some, most or all of Muslims or the same reciprocally for christians for certain muslims because muslims are not followers of christ.
Please don't compare the
Please don't compare the interpretation of Islam and Christianity. No where in any of the Church Father's writings will you ever read to go make war against the non-Christians, and "slaughter them wherever ye may find them." No where will you ever find that you must use weapons to force others to become Christians. This is only found in Islam. So, don't try to make the two religions, and their interpretation, similar.
Second, rules of interpretation and schools of thought have already been established and not further schlarship. In fact, there is a very famous Islamic saying, "Any new scholarship is innovation (bid'aa) or heresy." Contemporary Islamic scholars (some, not all) cannot stand a chance when they're debating with Orthodox Muslims because Orthodox Muslims always back their interpretation with Koran, Hadith, and Sira. Why do you think entire nations today are terrorists. Why do you think, all an Imam has to do is preach from verses like 5:17, 4:171, or 5:60. Next thing you know, they're all burning with hatred and revenge.
"each succeeding generation, we become steps away from the essence/message of Islam." This is what I mean. Your interpretation of Islam is erroneous. YOu made it up. If you practice original Islam as it was preached by Mohamad, you would be killing your neighbour or forcing him to pay jizyah with degradation and humiliation.
5:17 clearly states that those who worship "Christ" as "God" are "Kaffirs." Not sure where "Christians who believe in Christ as messenger" come in. I'm not asking you to justify this verse, because I know you can't. Islam deems Christinas Kaffirs, precisely why Islam is militant and it wants to wipe away all kaffirs, or "subdue" them. I'm glad though that you admit you "don't know how to answer" for this verse. Meanwhile you're here preaching to us about tolerance. Where is the tolerance in the religion that you follow? Where is the tolerance for others and their beliefs? Definitely not in Islam.
"a man who prayed on a tree in the wrong manner and in the wrong direction. essentially,if we pray,act, and live in faith there's no greater effort to give." I'm glad you're not a practicing Muslim then. Stick to this philosophy please and don't become an actual, real Muslim.
Meanwhile, I still think it's quite hypocritical to call someone Kaffir on one hand and on the other hand, you deem him worthy of imitation.
it's funny how you work to
it's funny how you work to perpetuate this image you have. As an outsider, I'm sure you've never had dinner with a muslim, engaged in a conversation, or had any Muslim friends. I'm sure that you've never even cared for a Muslim and would rather all Muslims die because "they had taken your Christian ancestors land."
The lands of Arabia and of the mishraq were not always occupied by Christians and Christians have not always been, and as demonstrated by you and others like you, have not been tolerant of outside groups. Hence the birth of the US through exiled quakers. Also, read manuscripts of European travelers to Central Asia (the journals of these Europeans (often monks) demonstrate the shared attitude by the Mongols of europeans as being intolerant and showcases the travelers intolerant actions and condescending attitudes to Mongol barbarians.
"As an outsider, I'm sure
"As an outsider, I'm sure you've never had dinner with a muslim, engaged in a conversation, or had any Muslim friends. I'm sure that you've never even cared for a Muslim and would rather all Muslims die because "they had taken your Christian ancestors land."
Where is your Muslim love?
How do you know that I've never had a dinner with a Muslim, or whether I engaged in a conversation with one? How do you that I had never had (or have) any Muslim friend? How do you know that I never even cared for a Muslim or if I would rather all Muslims die because they took my Christian land? How do you know all these things? Someone is being pre-judgmental. Where's your liberalism and tolerance for the other? Strange.
I don't need to justify or demonstrate my past or current friendship with Muslims to you. It's enough that my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ knows that I love Muslims and want them to come to the truth and be saved in the same way that God loves them and wants to save them as well. Why do you think I'm engaged in this conversation with you. It would've been far easier for me to just trash Mohamad and tell you off and leave the conversation with a couple of well-chosen, descriptive adjectives to describe your religion. On the other hand, I'm patiently (to the best of my ability) presenting you with facts, religious, historical, and textual proof that Islam is not a religion from the true living, loving God.
Christianity originated from the Middle East and within two years of Christ's ascension, St. Thomas and his two disciples Mar Adai and Mar Mari were already in full engagement with the Persians who resided in Mesopotamia (modern day Iraq). Note, they did not form armies and conquer by threats and swords. They did not slice anyone's throat or "expand" (euphemism for military conquer and colonization) as Mohamad and his Sahaba did. They simply preached as beggars and slaves the name of Christ. The entire country was converted with 80 years. Read some history http://www.religion-online.org/showchapter.asp?title=1553&C=1361
This is the same case with the entire Middle East. Egypt was pagan in 33 AD. As soon as St. Mark entered it, he converted it to Christianity within a century. Not by conquering and slicing throats, or threatening kings. He entered it as a beggar as well. He preached Christ and performed all sorts of miracles in Christ's name. Next thing you know, the entire country became Christian. Omar Ibn Al As, a companion of Mohamad, came and with the usual violence and use of sword that always accompanied Islam everywhere it went, colonized the country, put Pact of Omar in force, forced Jizyah on the Christians, and "humiliated and degraded" as many as possible those who refused to be forced to become Muslims.
I never claimed that people who called themselves Christians always acted accordingly with their religious precepts. While I'm not familiar with "European journals" that were written by "monks," and I'm willing to read anything you might help me out with, but I just hope by "condescending" you don't mean they condemned some barbaric behaviour that might be found amongst the Eastern cultures. If you're angry at that, then you definitely have a lot to be angry about Islam and what it teaches about polytheists and others.
Where's your liberalism and
Where's your liberalism and tolerance for the other?
This is what i've trying to ask you the whole time.
You have called Islam a religion of killing and have said true Muslims are murderes
"If you practice original Islam as it was preached by Mohamad, you would be killing your neighbour or forcing him to pay jizyah with degradation and humiliation."
You have also accused Muslims and Islam as condescending and irresponsible. You have attacked me numerous times as being hypocritical, stupid, and not worth your time. Now where's the tolerance? It's you that have been condescending and when i feed you the same stuff you serve, then I'm being intolerant.
All of you've done in this conversation is trash Muhammed and trash Islam and trash Muslims. You have not said one positive thing about Muslims and you have grouped them all as well as Islam as hypocritical and backwards.
See the difference between you and me, i'm willing to find fault with those "muslims" who think they have a monopoly on it and think they can hijack it with the violence they use. I have engaged them numerous times. i don't see you engaging or actively attacking christians, buddhists, or others who engage in the same thing. I don't see you name calling and calling them out as hypocritical.
"See the difference between
"See the difference between you and me, i'm willing to find fault with those "muslims" who think they have a monopoly on it and think they can hijack it with the violence they use"...therefore, you're better than I,right? I'm not sure what can be more condescending than this?
Don't go round accusing people of being intolerant, especially people in this Catholic forum, people who have gone to the farthest extent possible to render every single excuse at Muslims' disposal for the sole purpose of fostering peaceful relations and maintaining an open line of dialogue. I did call you hypocritical because your book trashes Christians and St. John of the Cross, meanwhile you're here trying to convince us that you look favourably upon the saint. Of course, at the mosque, when these hateful verses are being preached, then you're willing to dismiss that tiny voice in your head that keeps you reminding you of your ulterior persona which you deploy in Christians' presence. Unfortunately, you're willing to bury that voice while listening to these hateful verses and not put a single moment of thought into why Islam teaches you to have two different faces. Read what Abu Darda, Mohamad's companion once said
Koran 9:29 (Ibn Katheer)"...Abu Darda said, we believers [Muslims] smile in the face of Kaffirs, but in our hearts we curse them"
The difference between you and I is that I quote the Koran, hadith, Sirah, top scholars, whereas you, you simply refuse to engage these Islamic texts, and instead you prefer to offer your distorted and corrupted Christian reading of Islam and Muslims. I'll ask you one last time, why do you refuse to deal with these Koranic verses, hadiths, scholars and quotations from sirah that I'm presenting you with? Is it because you have no explanation or understanding of Islam, or are you just running away from this topic and trying to shove the dirt under the rug?
P.S. I never called you stupid.
I have engaged these
I have engaged these readings. I have engaged those who practice hatred in my religion. I became Muslim ten years ago, nearly. After I did, I lived in a mosque so i could be closer to the Imam and the readings. I had questions - being an ex-Catholic of Jewish descent, I had numerous questions. I had to wrestle with what was in the book and didn't always accept it. I brought this up numerous times and when I did, I was told to look into my heart for the true interpretation - either passages are historical, circumstantial, or for the most part allegorical. I look at this book and it's passages on the interpretations of my guides, and according to my heart. That's how I've been taught. I also have to remember that I came into this religion seekign guidance and I should understand that's the purpose of this book and the Prophet - to serve as guides and exemplars. (say what you will, but i don't believe you look openly enough at it). You and I can look at the same passage and we can see something totally differently. What i see is a religion calling for discipline. That's what i see. i think if i never encountered Islam I would be acting still as a hedonistic fiend. This religion has grounded me, but to answer your question more simply, i take those scriptures and i ask about them and i meditate on them. but they are no different than in the old testament because the torah was given as law,christianity as love, and islam as discipline.
concerning hate speeches from imams at mosques. i don't attend mosques with hate speeches or those calling for violence or those singling out individuals or groups of people. If i do, and I have, come across this type of speech, i call it out and ask about it.
i have been taught from my Central Asian muslim brothers and sisters that i can take the likes of St. John of the Cross as an example. I don't have to hold his beliefs as canon truth for me, but the way he practiced, and the way he held on to faith is exemplary and serves as a model. I'm not being hypocritical when I do that, because as I've confronted the Quran and have been taught by teachers (Central Asians) who have learned Arabic and spent years learning Islamic theology, this is ok.
(I'm not willing to bury any voice - you don't know my history, nor my history with the religion. You don't my struggles with it, my epiphanies stemming from it, nor what is inside me to make statements as you do).
"I brought this up numerous
"I brought this up numerous times and when I did, I was told to look into my heart for the true interpretation - either passages are historical, circumstantial, or for the most part allegorical."
If this was what you've been told and bought into it, then allow me to tell you that you sir have been duped.
Above, I quoted for you an authentic hadith where Mohamad expressed one of his biggest fears, that is, Muslims interpreting the Koran "according" to their "hearts." It's definitely not the Islamic way of reading the Koran. Not according to Mohamad.
You believe Mohamad is an exemplar, then you have yet to explain his letter to the Omani brothers, is that the right way of spreading your religion, through threats of violence? Read Koran 33:37, and the reason (historical context) of that verse. Mohamad went to his adopted son, Ziad's house and saw Ziad's wife, Zainab. It's written that Mohamad saw her with light clothing and "fancied," or lusted after, her. Is this an example for you to follow? This is precisely why Islam has prohibited adoption, so that after Mohamad "fancied," or lusted after Zainab, he wanted to marry her. Of course, he couldn't marry his adopted son's wife. Therefore, he had to disapprove of adoption all together. Now Ziad is no longer considered to be his son. Now Mohamad can marry Zainab, since he lusted after her. I'm not sure how much of an example this could serve for you.
"i think if i never encountered Islam I would be acting still as a hedonistic fiend"
You don't need Islam to teach you to control yourself. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ is more than sufficient to help you overcome any selfish whims you may possess. The message of self-denial is no where more epitomized than in Christianity. And if you had read The Book of Ecclesiastes, "vanity of vanities," you shouldn't go round searching for alien and strange philosophies to remove the "hedonistic fiend" out of you. Say, you don't really believe that we should stone adulterers, do you? Or do you really believe we should chop a thief's hand? If this is not a strange philosophy, then I don't know what is.
"I'm not being hypocritical when I do that, because as I've confronted the Quran and have been taught by teachers (Central Asians) who have learned Arabic and spent years learning Islamic theology, this is ok."
This is definitely NOT okay. On one hand your book labels St. John of the Cross with all sorts of derogatory and offensive labels, on the other hand you're here claiming that you respect the man. If this is how you truly feel, then you're condemning your own book. You're saying the Koran is unjust when it labels St. John of the Cross as a "dirty" person (najs 9:28); or Kaffir (lightly translated to infidel, someone whose spiritual blindness is so severe that he has blasphemed against the holiest of holy Koran 5:17); or Mushrik (polytheist, Koran 4:171); or "swine and ape" precisely because of his spiritual affiliations since he rejected the "truth" as promulgated by Mohamad. Please deal with these inner philosophical discrepancies that manifest themselves every time you make a statement contradictory to the book upon which your religious legislation must be based.
I have yet to read a tiny response from you that addresses these issues. All you do, is you keep going round in circles. Instead of dealing with these passages, you simply state over and over again, they're explicable. Perhaps you can explain them for me here. Stop beating around the bush and running away and start dealing with the issue at hand please.
To the church of God that is
To the church of God that is in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints together with all those who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both their Lord and ours:
This passage doesn't limit "sainthood" or the idea of it to only Christians. What Paul is doing is addressing his audience of which is the Church of God in Corinth and those called to be saints, which in this case are those sanctified in Christ Jesus.
But this is a contentious argument that both of us have because of the etymology of the word, saint - which is solely a christian word from the thirteenth century. The idea of saints does exist in Islam, although by many especially Wahabis and many arab groups, an idea of sainthood is considered blasphemous or impossible. In sufi tradition, they do exist. They are the blessed ones who by excellence of character and through trial and steadfastness of belief have persevered. If i recall the word is vali. It is a significant term especially among central asian turkic peoples and even iranians. Shrines/tombs have been erected based on these uniquely blessed peoples. Said Nursi is one - and that's why the Turkish goverment removed his body from his tomb shortly after being buried in the 1960's. to keep people from venerating him and perhaps from revolting against the ubersecular and oppressive government of turkey. others that i have become familiar with are magtymguly of turkmens (now buried in iran), ahmed yasevi (whose shrine was erected by emir temur in turkestan) and alisher navai who is buried in herat.
I'm not sure what you mean by
I'm not sure what you mean by the word "contentious." Everything seems to be contentious for you. There is not contention about the word "Saint" and thankfully you did admit that it does not exist in the Islamic holy writ. You said the "vali" means something similar to it. I'm not looking for anything similar, I'm looking for the exact word, since the original argument was that you felt "offended" since I was limiting sainthood to Christians only. I guess now you have no reason to be offended. Let's go back to this word you said, "vali" You don't mean by any chance "wali" do you? Because vali is definitely not Arabic, and anything not Arabic, I can say with all certainty is an innovation to the Islamic faith, which pretty much guarantees you a place in any Arabic jail cell, if not torture or even murder. A wail and a saint are two different things. A person who is deemed to be a "good" person in a religious tradition differs from one tradition to another. Hence, wali and saint are two different things.
"What Paul is doing is addressing his audience of which is the Church of God in Corinth and those called to be saints, which in this case are those sanctified in Christ Jesus."
My favourite thing is when a Muslim attempts to explain my own Scriptures for me. Can you cite anywhere that there are multiple ways of obtaining this "sanctifying grace" other than our Lord Christ Jesus?
"to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints together with all those who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both their Lord and ours"
Let me replace your terrible explanation for this verse with a better one. St. Paul sets what is known in the world of linguistics, a parallel. A parallel is when a writer uses the same patter of wording to achieve not just a similitude between these words, but also to show that these words (or ideas) have the same level of importance. Note the words "to those" are repeated to indicate the people who are "sanctified in Christ Jesus," "called to be saints," and who "in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ." The parallelism indicates an identical equality in meaning and value. Therefore, "saints" are only those who are "sanctified in Christ Jesus"
"the etymology of the word, saint - which is solely a christian word from the thirteenth century"
I guess I should be safe to assume that you're an ex Catholic who knew nothing of his religion. It's strange how you attribute the word "saint" to the 13th century when there are documents from 1st century that clearly define the word. Have you read the New Testament?
may i ask, why you are so
may i ask, why you are so condescending your approach?
this is why i don't want to engage in conversation with you. you treat me as less and call for dialogue when i'm in discourse with you. all the while forgetting that dialogue is a partnership of equals, otherwise it's not a dialogue.
while i take pride from learning of your beliefs, standpoints, and corrections where applicable (issue of saint) (which by the way - you will not find the same exact word in any other religion as it is purely christian dating back to the thirteenth century - a millenium after the new testament was put together - thus telling me the word didn't exist and possibly have the same meaning then) i sincerely do not want to continue this conversation with the level of disrespect you are showing.
My friend, let's get one
My friend, let's get one thing straight. If there is anyone who is condescending and disdainful, it would be Islam and Muslims. Look at your comments to everyone here. You go round instructing and teaching others on how to be "tolerant" and how to stop being "hypocrites"
Who are you to teach the rest of us if you don't mind me asking? Shouldn't you teach your own people who won't even leave Christians alone on a Sunday inside a Church to celebrate their faith? Shouldn't you be addressing the problems of your Muslim brethren and the rioting and pillaging and murdering they undertake all in the name of Allah and Islam? Please teach your own people before you come here preaching to the rest of us.
"it is purely christian dating back to the thirteenth century - a millenium after the new testament was put together"
What's your source on this? I just quoted for you a first-century document that clearly stated the word "saint." Read the New Testament.
Yes, I'm pushing for
Yes, I'm pushing for tolerance. I'm pushing for people to realize that a large number of muslim communities are involved in dialogue and do engage violent/hypocritical muslims to be just as tolerant.
i'm saying not to denounce muslims as being passive and irresponsible. do not overlook their efforts. if any progress will be made, then these muslims engaged in dialogue and on improving the plight of their communities (muslim or not) require us to be mutual with them.
and i do share my thoughts with muslim and call them out when i am with them and when they deserve to be called out.
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/europe/091021/bosnian-jews
also email this person, her name is masguda. she will tell you first hand experience of muslims and christians helping one another out post soviet union
http://sub.tatars.com/photos/ENG/80/
Muslims are exactly that,
Muslims are exactly that, "passive and irresponsible." Newsflash, compassion is a Christian virtue, not a Muslim one. Islam and compassion for the other have nothing to do with each other. You don't have to go far, check out October 31st slaughter of Iraqi Christians while praying for peace in Iraq. How many demonstrations by Muslims did you see. In fact, how much reporting did this incident receive from the Islamic media (or the liberal one for that matter). Sorry, don't try to make this case for Muslims. Tha vast vast majority does not care a single tiny iota about other people's suffering. All they care about is spreading Islam and getting revenge on the Kaffir west. Some obscure pastor from Florida threatens to burn the Koran, and what happens? The Entire Muslim world goes up in flames, ready to bomb, slaughter and murder, an entire arsenal of worldwide media reports the matter and asks every single earth resident's opinion about. Meanwhile, 58 peaceful people are slaughtered, people who have never threatened anyone or ever done the slightest thing to deserve this debauchery, and what happens? THe world is asleep, especially the Muslim world. They're too busy calling Christians names, kaffirs, pigs and apes. They're too busy plotting revenge and wallowing over their losses, for which, of course, they purely blame the west. It's never them. It's always the Kaffirs.
I read the news reports, and
I read the news reports, and I'm appalled by this. These are the ones' you should be slandering. You should be fighting against these murderers and those that manipulated them by manipulating Islamic ideals and thought against them.
Something that I learned however, is that violence usually comes out of a social ill or malady. to really solve this problem i think it's imperative to look at the social conditions of those who would engage in this... what drives them to act as such. is it religious fervour alone? i don't think so. i think religiosity is just an excuse and a means of trying to justify their actions although it has nothing to do with it.
Violence is a social malady.
Violence is a social malady. Religion is what constructs a social norm. Did you not read in those reports that these terrorists were reciting verses from the Koran and screaming Allahu Akbar while inside the Church? Did you not read how they kept calling the Christians in the Church "Kaffirs"? Is this not a Muslim thing to do? Have you not read 5:17; 5:116; 4:171 from the Koran? Explain why the terrorists are always quoting the Koran, Hadith and Islamic slogans whenever they conduct their abhorrent acts of violence?
the word "saint" either in
the word "saint" either in its form or meaning does not exist in the original greek either. The word you use, "Saint" is taken from latin and was originally used for those who were sanctified by death - through spilled blood as a matyr - through the foremost of all sacrifices - life. It didn't take another form until the 13th century or so, when it started to limit saints as those as extremely holy and exemplary person who in death watches over and intercedes for.
holy is closer to the greek word that is used. luckily, i studied latin for several years and also studied greek (albeit for a very short period). but the word saint is not the same as holy. Greek hayus (hagio) (hagio sophia).is holy. hardly is a place a saint, though it can be holy.
if we are can take this word as saint, then you must take the arabic version of this which is karim. quran al-karim.The Noble (holy) Quran.
but it's impossible to say that holy and saint are the same. they have different roots/origins and different connotations.
Perhaps next time, you can
Perhaps next time, you can quote something when you write (I've said this to you a million times). All you have is hearsay. You must've hung around people who had a real lack of knowledge when it comes to the Catholic faith.
The word saint means "holy one." This "holy one" has very specific attributes.
There are three types of Saints
1-First, they are called by Christ (Rom 1:7). Their calling starts with Baptism, (1 cor 1:3; Titus 3:5; They have to be sanctified by the blood of Christ (Romans 1:3; 5:9). This specifically means that a person has to believe in Christ's divinity and his death and resurrection. Unless if you're a Christian, you don't believe these about Lord Jesus. This means non-Christians cannot be "saints"
2-There are those "saints" who are considered above other "saints" while still alive. They are set apart from the rest of the saints because of their worthiness. Read 1 Cor 4:16; Heb 6:12; Phili 3:17; 4:9/
3-There are those "saints" who have finished their race here on earth and have attained an exemplery level that is worthy of imitation. On these you can read Hebrews 13:7.
All these categories are found from the earliest days of Christianity. St. Paul calls all those "who are called" to be "holy ones" or "saints." Then he deems himself as worthy of imitation 1 COrinithians 11:1, setting himself apart from the rest of the "holy ones" Finally, those whose life is finished on earth and had lived an exemplery life were always considered a class of their own, Hebrews 13:7.
The term saint and holy ones are synonomous, and both have very speicif attributes which cannot be found in a religion outside of Christianity.
I gave you these sources just off the top of my head as I was writing. If you want a further sources of Patristic view of "sainthood," let me know, I don't mind.
Noble Koran is a terrible translation of "Quran al Kareem." Kareem in Arabic means Generous. Noble in Arabic is nabeel, and not kareem. generosity and holliness are two different things. Here, I'd like to make a remark. The Quran is called Kareem in Arabic because it was generous to Mohamad in all the priviliges that it granted to him. 16 all in all.
Pursue dialog with Muslims? I
Pursue dialog with Muslims? I suggest anyone contemplating that should study Islam 101:This is a religion of lies, deception and murder.Later Suras abrogate earlier ones. Would you engage in dialog with Satan? Evangelize Muslims, it's a much more successful approach.
If you consider Islam to be
If you consider Islam to be the case, then I'm sure Muslims would argue the same against Christianity, especially starting with Justinian. During the 2nd century, three popes were tragically matyred, one more specifically by a sword. Also, Popes in the past were able to buy their papacy and even engaged in war to secure it. Despite the violent and often heinous nature of some of these Christian/Catholic leaders, it's hardly fair to say Christianity is violent. It's the same with Islam. Islam after the second century was often highjacked by political ambitions just like the Church often was, but the books, if properly read with the openness to understand speak differntly.
to witness2hope: many in the
to witness2hope: many in the west are just as discouraging against Muslims in building mosques or openly practicing their faith. In Tennessee, for instance, anti-muslim groups set fire to a construction site that was going to be a new Islamic center. Elsewhere in Detroit and other places the same exists. In upstate New York, a cemetery for Muslims, has been ordered by local council members to be excavated and dug up.
This is the same country where Catholic communites such as Ave Maria experience stong opposition. Before attacking some other place millions of miles away, start here. Don't be so hypocritical in thinking we do not engage in the same tactics. Before we preach the truth, we better live it.
You must've stayed up till 2
You must've stayed up till 2 am in the morning for a month to research all this non sense that you write here. Have you done a 10 minute research on Muslim occupied Middle Eastern countries? When you come to your senses and start that research, you'll find that all these countries consisted of a Christian population, just like the US is today. Muslims, the nice people that you make them out to be, in carrying out their religious duties towards infidels, conquered by force, raped, pillaged and forced millions to convert or be killed. This was done by Mohamad first, then by his companions, the people who are deemed as worthy of imitation. If Islam did this to any other country that it forced itself into, why wouldn't it do the same to the US? Hypocrisy is what you are doing right here on this forum, trying to justify an evil religion and evil followers of that religion. Isaiah 5:20 talks about people who do this sort of thing. My questions that often go unanswered by you still stand, and rather than stopping by and leaving a deluded response here and there, make an honest attempt to answer at least one of them.
1st. islam is a dynamic
1st. islam is a dynamic religion, full of diverse populations of Muslim peoples. Islam, like Christianity, has many varied interpretations. What is an Islamic society to one Muslim is not the same notion to another. Is a Muslim society one in which Muslims are the greater majority? Is it one where social behavior is governed? Is a Muslim society political as well as social? Is a Muslim society behavioral? We have the same questions in the west under Christianity. I doubt seriously there are concerted efforts by Muslims to take over the US.
Learn the history of Islam and the formation of the first group of Muslims. Muhammed and his companions was persecuted by members of the Quraysh tribe - a pagan worshiping tribe. As a monotheist, his ideas, threatened to upset the economic and social hegemony of the elite there. They then started to torture and beat these new believers. Muhammad, rather than resorting to violence, moved out with his companions to Medina.
many of the battles he led were in response to inter tribal intolerance and threats. As Muhammed and his companions began to grow into communities and later into whole societies, other tribes reacted with threats and often pursued Muhammed.
After his death, violence did ensue. Many Christians and Jews of early Islamic history, often welcomed the Muslims because of the heavy taxation of the Byzantines. If they didn't convert they paid taxes and weren't required to serve in militarily but these taxes never compared to that under the Byzantines.
But Muhammed and many after never forced anyone to convert. It's not acceptable. Historically, forced conversions have been rare but it has occurred. The same, however, is true for other religions. The inquisition of the 15th and 16th century is a key example. Charlemaigne as well was an exemplar in exerting forced conversion. But these occasions hardly define the essence of Christianity, and those that forced these conversions acted against the rules/principles of Christianity as set forth in the Bible. Now what you are seeing on tv and the media is a type of psychological warfare - initiated by key Muslim groups out to upset the status quo they are suffering through and perpetuated by fear mongers aiming to capitalize on it.
I know what you are saying as far as letting churches fall into disarray because of strict laws on taxation and a deteriorating number of followers able to help keep up with the payment of such taxes. It exists in Turkey, although over the past ten years, the situation has improved. (In Turkey, though there is a huge backlash against Muslim followers as well)....
But these situations are hardly reason enough to call Muslims as violent and Islam as evil.
Your argument is not correct. Because someone can easily use the same argument to argue against the encroachment of Christianity in the middle east and I'm sure it has been done - maybe that's why certain governments allow for churches to fall into disuse.
Muslims are people. There are bad and there are good. I've lived with them, i've worked with them, and i've prayed with them. Its hardly fair to call them evil.
(btw my research in Islam is has been for more than just ten mintues - try seven years. I've done extensive research in turkey and kyrgyzstan on the topic.
It is very obvious here that
It is very obvious here that you've been feeding on Islamic propaganda currently being circulated in the west for a long time. Note that in your rosy description of Islam you did not quote a single Muslim source here. Instead, all you do is regurgitate what Muslims in the west are attempting to brainwash those who have not lived under the tyranny of Islam. To your surprise, I'm a Chadean Catholic. I lived in a Muslim country for 14 years. I recently went back and lived in a gulf state for a year. I speak Arabic, I've read Islamic texts and a whole range of different interpreters, and I can assure you one hundred percent that what you described up there has nothing to do with the real Islam in which Mohamad himself founded for the sole purpose of governing this world and collecting whatever power, money, and women his political stature can win for him. But don't listen to me. Let's see what Muslim texts and original scholars (not pseudo-imams, who have re-interpreted the Koran to suit the 21st century human maturation. If you disagree with what you read here, then it is your duty to bring me a written text by an original scholar who disputes these claims. Otherwise, I'll advise you right now, do not pursue this conversation.
"Muhammed and his companions was persecuted by members of the Quraysh tribe - a pagan worshiping tribe. As a monotheist, his ideas, threatened to upset the economic and social hegemony of the elite there. They then started to torture and beat these new believers. Muhammad, rather than resorting to violence, moved out with his companions to Medina."
What you wrote there is true. Mohamad did respond peacefully when he was persecuted by Quraysh in the early stages, but this is not because he was a peaceful man or his message was a message of love. Instead, this was because he was WEAK. He had no power to respond. Otherwise, rest assure, he would have annihilated Quraysh and their mothers as well. Here's my proof. According to Koran, there are four stages of Jihad (Holy War):
1)Meccan Phase
When Muhammad began preaching Islam in 610 A. D. in Mecca, his fellow tribesmen Koreish, became increasingly hostile toward him because of his condemnation of their idolatry. The suras of the Koran which originated during the 13 years Muhammad continued to live in Mecca, contain no instruction about fighting, in spite of the severe persecution suffered by his small band of followers. Why? Simply because his few followers stood no chance to win in a physical conflict. Thus it was a wise survival strategy to avoid violent confrontations. Few verses will serve to illustrate this teaching.
Verses of Peace
16:125 (Kortoby) This verse was revealed in Mecca during the peace treaty with Quraysh and it ordered Mohamad to invite them into Allah’s religion and statutes with gentleness and leniency. This verse still stands when dealing with monotheists but is abrogated by the fighting verse (9:5) when dealing with infidels.
41:34 Kortoby…“Repel (Evil) with what is better” has been abrogated by the verse of the sword (9:5). This verse came down with regards to Aby Jahl who used to hurt the Prophet (PBUH) and Allah ordered him to treat Aby Jahl with patience and forgiveness. This was before the order to fight.
52:45 Kortoby… “So leave them alone” has been abrogated by the verse of the sword (9:5)
73:10 Al Tabary…Do not aggravate them and do not busy yourself with answering them for in such response is the abandoning of prayer to Allah. This was before the order to fight. He (Mohamad) was then ordered to fight them and kill them,
hence the fighting verse abrogated what was revealed before with regards to leaving them in peace. Abu Darda’ said: We (Muslims) may sneer at the faces of people or we may laugh with them while our heart mocks and curses them.
Read above how every single original scholar of Islam was fully convinced that these peaceful verses were abrogated, rendered null and void by later verses that called for a violent attack on all non-believers. Here's the next stage of Jihad
2) Medina Phase
i) Defensive War is Permitted
On July 15, 622, the increasing opposition forced Muhammad and his followers to flee from Mecca to Medina, a distance of 250 miles North. This is an important date, known as the Hegira, because it marks the beginning of the Moslem calendar. In Medina Muhammad was recognized as a prophet and was able to consolidate his power. His followers began looting the Meccan caravans passing through Medina. This practice eventually led to several battles between the Koreish tribes of Mecca and his followers.
22:39 Jalalayn…This is the first verse revealed with regards to Jihad(Holy War).
22:40 Ibn Katheer…Those who were expelled from Mecca to Medina
22:41,58
ii) Defensive War is Commanded
A few months after granting permission to fight in self-defence, Muhammad instructed his followers in making war as a religious obligation. At first the enemies were the idol worshippers of the Koreish tribe in Mecca, but later it included the Jews and Christians who did not accept Muhammad as prophet.
2:190 Ibn Katheer…This is the first verse revealed in Medina with regards to fighting. At this time, the Prophet (PBUH) fought against whoever fought him and stopped fighting whoever desisted fighting with him. This verse has been abrogated by the verse of the sword (9:5).
2:216 Kortoby…While the Prophet (PBUH) was in Mecca, he was not permitted to fight and when he migrated to Medina and 22:39 was revealed to him, he was permitted to fight all pagans who fought him.
Jihad (Holy War) has been prescribed upon all nation of Mohamad (PBUH), to fulfill the needs of war and if enough Muslims take it on, then it will be rendered unnecessary for the rest until the fighting is brought the Muslims’ quarters, then everyone must join.
8:12, 13 … defensive war. Fingers chopped off to render them incapable of bearing arms once more or slaughtering them by smiting their necks and finishing them.
61:4, 11-13 benefits reaped.
iii) Offensive War is Commanded
The final phase of Muhammad's teaching on warfare developed after he conquered Mecca in 630 A. D. Most of the pagans living in the city became Muslims. At that time Muhammad was able to take over the city and cleanse the Ka'aba (sacred shrine) of some 360 idols resident there. At this point it became evident to Muhammad that Jews and Christians would not accept him as prophet, so they became part of the list of Islam's enemies to be conquered. Thus, warfare was no longer to be a defensive fighting, but an aggressive Jihad against all unbelievers. This is the final teaching of the Koran which is still in force today and has inspired the recent acts of terrorism.
5:33 Ibn Kathir…”whoever wages war against Allah and his Messenger” is the opposing and conflicting (with Allah and his Messenger) and it comprises infidelity this verse was revealed concerning the pagans, whoever repents (accepts Islam)
8:39 Al Tabary…fight them so that paganism will cease to exist and no one is to be worshiped but Allah to whom there is no partner.
9:5 Kortoby…“slay the pagans” is a general command that applies to all pagans.
“wherever they may be” is a general command that applies in any place pagans are to be found.
This verse has abrogated all the other verses that advocate conditional peace with pagans or patience with them. “but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity” meaning the slaying will cease when paganism ceases and that necessitates the killing to stop simply by repentance.
9:12 Kortoby…This verse has confirms the necessity of killing whoever ‘taunts’ the religion (Islam) and ‘taunting’ is attributing to Islam that which is inappropriate. All scholars have agreed whoever cusses the Prophet, must die… “thus they may be restrained” restrained from paganism and embrace Islam.
9:29 Ibn Kathir…When they (People of the Book), similarly (as Pagans), blasphemed against Mohamad (PBUH), they no longer have the true faith and have rejected all prophets along with the prophets’ messages and prophecies. Instead, they follow their own opinions and interpretations…this is the first verse revealed to fight the People of the two Books (Christians and Jews) and it was in 9 H. This is why the Prophet (PBUH) made ready to fight the Byzantines.
I ask here, why the change in Mohamad's behaviour and message. Why does he change when he began to gain power? Why did he respond with gruesome force against anyone who opposed him when he began to gain the strength in numbers and army? Why did he not continue to preach the same peaceful message as he was in Mecca when he was weak? Note what the Koran and the scholars clearly say, especially in 9:29 and 9:5, that Muslims must "slay the pagans" wherever they would find them. This is precisely what Mohamad did when he became strong enough. Of course the typical pseudo-imam response to these verses is that Surat Al Towba, chapter 9, was revealed in time of war. I ask, where do the contemporary imams get this explanation? Where is this found in the original scholars of Islam. If you give me a citation (you find it anywhere), then you better hope that it's within the first two centuries after Mohamad, otherwise it is innovation and any innovation in Islam is considered a heresy.
Also read 9:29, the jizyah, the famous "poll" tax. Why do Christians have to pay this "Christian tax" while they are "subdued." Ibn Katheer says "subdued" means "humiliated, degraded, and made miserable." These are not my words, your Muslim scholars words and your Koran's words. Where do you stand with this bigotry, racism, and out-right persecution of a religious sect?
"Many Christians and Jews of early Islamic history, often welcomed the Muslims because of the heavy taxation of the Byzantines"
where did you get this non sense? What's your proof. Please don't tell me your friend Mohamad from Palestine told you this while you were drinking a coffee together at the student centre. Next time anyone blurts this non sense to you, ask for proof.
"But Muhammed and many after never forced anyone to convert."
how do you explain 9:5 "slay them wherever ye find them until they repent and establish regular prayers"? Watch you cob a pseudo-imam explanation for me, nothing what original scholars said.
"Historically, forced conversions have been rare but it has occurred" I find your ignorance here quite astonishing. What were the Wars of Apostasy. What did Abu Bakr do to those apostates from Islam immediately after Mohamad died, which clearly shows how they were forced into Islam. He killed them, all 25,000 of them. Read for yourself, stop following your Muslim friends blindly. If you have an answer, back it up with real life examples. Give me names, sources, historical records, just like I'm doing here.
Finally, you compared Charlamagne and 15th and 16th Century followers of a religion with a man who established a religion. Those "Christians" were sinners and their book deems them as such. But in your case, it's your own prophet who went around raping, killing and conquering countries by force. Here's something Mohamad wrote, perhaps you can meditate on:
"Peace be upon the one who follows the right path! I call you to Islam. Accept my call, and you shall be unharmed. I am God's Messenger to mankind, and the word shall be carried out upon the miscreants. If, therefore, you recognize Islam, I shall bestow power upon you. But if you refuse to accept Islam, your power shall vanish, my horses shall camp on the expanse of your territory and my prophecy shall prevail in your kingdom."
Strange, he sounds more like a thug who is about to rob a convenient store than a prophet from God.
22:39 Jalalayn…This is the
22:39 Jalalayn…This is the first verse revealed with regards to Jihad(Holy War).
22:40 Ibn Katheer…Those who were expelled from Mecca to Medina
22:41,58
I think one way to look at this is to point out the fundamental difference between islam and christianity - namely being that christianity tends not to support violence of any kind - even in defense whereas in islam, defense is often permitted by example - of course in the form of surahs and hadiths. so outsiders of islam, especially christains and maybe Buddhists may have a hard time understanding this. but we must be mindful of something akin to what kirkegard was demonstrating when he wrote about abraham's long walk, with son in tow, to sacrifice him. to outsiders the responsible may seem irresponsible.
when i became muslim and we had meetings (usually like church meetings were set up -) we were taught the importance of these passages were to look at the words of our Prophets - the books as guidance - not to reject them but to take them as a way to deal against our temptations, etc., the quran gives scenarios/examples as to what may befall us if we reject this guidance. the passage concerning the 58th verse of the sura was always meant as hijret. for many of the turks/turkmens/central asians who ended up in the u.s., it was very difficult. the imam when he spoke to us would point towards this. that it is necessary so that we may take that education and go home and improve the plight of the families, but we must first put Allah first even before the worries of our families. in doing so our reward is greater. his words helped the students cope with the seperation from family and friends till they were able to return home.
i will continue later, i had a long day, but the problem with interpretations, whether its you or i arguing or muslim scholars in discourse, is that interpretations will vary. all i can say is that many of the issues you raise, i struggled with and dealt with head on. i had to learn from them within practical situations, more than merely being told what each was. i lived through my debates with those around me.
Who is talking about a
Who is talking about a defensive war? Did you not read the entire post? The second phase of Jihad is the defensive war. The third and last stage is when an Offensive War is not only permitted, but commanded. Read Toba 29, 5 (Koran 9:5, 29). Scholars definitely don't have a disagreement there. This precisely why you keep hearing Muslims today quoting the peaceful verses. They cannot explain the violent verses and remain real Muslims without offending the entire world. Allah himself has commanded Muslims to "fight(kill) everyone until they say 'there is no god but Allah and Mohamad is his prophet"
What Abraham did, he did not do to people of other faiths. It was between him and his son. I have to stop here and clear this story for you:
Then God said, "Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love (Genesis 22:2)
God is prophesying what He will do in the future, namely that He will take his "son," his "only son," "whom" He loves and He will sacrifice him for us. Abraham knew that the Lord would give him his son back again.
"The fire and wood are here," Isaac said, "but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?" 8 Abraham answered, "God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son." And the two of them went on together."
Notice Abraham's answer, "God himself will provide the lamb for the burn offering." He knew Isaac would not die and that he would be spared. This also refers to the "lamb of God who will take away the sin of the world" (John 1:29). John is answering Isaac's question, "where's the lamb for the burnt offering." Of course this story in the Koran turns Abraham into a psychopathic father specifically because it has no redemptive merit.
Finally, I'll go with this, the violence in Koran is destructive and harmful to "the other." Islam has no regard for the other and all it seeks to do is to spread itself even using violence.
Muslims,esp. in the United
Muslims,esp. in the United States, must reach out for more contact in Christians, following the example of their Jewish brethren. I rcall this situation being raised at a Bible study,I used to attend at a Missouri Synod Luthern Church in Brooklyn. All the members had several Jewish friends,none of us had any close Muslim contacts. Are Muslims staying aloof? In my younger years, the local Rabbi let me study Hebrew in our local Synagogue. Perhaps, a model for further co-operation.
Because you haven't seen or
Because you haven't seen or experienced Muslims reaching out doesn't mean that their isn't considerable effort. I've seen local MSA students in Houston invite and fast with non-Muslims and raise money for local charity organizations. The Turkish community has gone above and beyond dialogue to join their Christian and Jewish brethen (www.interfaithdialog.org). Not only are they in daily contact/communication with locals in Texas and surrounding states, but also back in Turkey.
Philidelphia, 2006, Muslims, Christians, and Jews came together for a walk through much of downtown. They ended their program with a series of prayers. Muslims have been very present in American communities in establishing dialogue and have been very vocal against those enjoining violent means to the religion.
The refusal to see this tells me you are not ready for dialogue and alarms me that you would use so much emotion to condemn someone without seeing the truth of what really exists.
"The refusal to see this
"The refusal to see this tells me you are not ready for dialogue and alarms me that you would use so much emotion to condemn someone without seeing the truth of what really exists."
I hope you're not the same "Anonymous" that I'm corresponding with up there, you sure do sound alike, Muslim happy. In your reference to "emotion" as an object of interference to a real "dialogue," what would you label as the "truth"? Would you say the Muslims who are nice people can survive in Muslim countries and indeed be vocal and effective advocates of dialogue with people of other religions, especially the Christian west? If you answer yes, then I need an example that would quench my thirst for such a la-la land portrayal of Islam.
Example:
Example: www.interfaithdialog.org
http://en.fgulen.com/press-room/columns/3456-the-writers-and-journalists... (although i don't like the writer's comments at the end - kind of arrogant)....
they do have the writers and journalists' foundation in turkey as well.
in uzbekistan - historically there have been the jadidist movement which called for a balance of knowledge and science along with islamic belief to fight against the reactionary responses groups opposed to Russian/Soviet occupation in then Turkestan.
Chingiz Aitmatov is another. His books such as Jamila and others speak volumes on the dialogue he was living out and that was necessary not only for muslims but for kyrgyz in general.
in turkey, orhan pamuk and elif (i forget her name - author of the flea palace) have been using literature as a way to argue against ideas born from extremism (either from nationalism or from religious idealogies).
and lastly Said Nursi - his writings speak on balance and moderation - the need for muslims to go back to the essence of the
Quran, Muhammed, and to stay away from the destructive politics of the time. By doing so, he called muslims to act in accordance to the True essence of Islam - harmony, cohesion, and Truth.
interfaith.org is an
interfaith.org is an organization based in Houston, USA.
http://en.fgulen.com/press-room/columns/3456-the-writers-and-journalists... is anything but "effective," locked in the dungeons of obscurity.
The rest of literary personalities you mentioned, while they may very well be meritorious in addressing some aspect of treating the other in terms of how to improve the social fabric, they never deal with the subject of persecution of minorities, namely Christians, head on. This simply echoes, not only their lack of enthusiasm to support an equality among all citizens of a land, but also their oblivious and possibly intentional disregard for the pains of Christians. As far as I'm concerned, they're no consolation for me or any other Christian who truly wants to be able to speak freely of his love for our Lord Jesus, who wants to preach and proclaim the good news without fearing for his head being decapitated. All these examples remain sterile and lacking. Nursi's work is not accepted by Muslim scholars. His cause landed him in jail, in persecution, which really tells me that anyone who even makes an attempt at setting Christians and Muslims on an equal footing will not make it till the dawn of day. I even doubt that Nursi made this attempt. The only reason he wanted to mobilize the people of any faith background was because he wanted to rid Turkey of any communist element. After that who knows, he could very well have acted just like Mohamad did when he invaded Iraq. First, he asked for access while promising he will not take any land, and the moment his troops made it deep into the country, he turned against its inhabitants and he laid his sword on them forcing them either to convert, pay jizya or leave the country, the famous three options. Here, read this authentic hadith and ask yourself, how would you feel, for any reason whatsoever, that if a "Christian" government gave you an ultimatum such as the following:
Sahih Muslim, Number 4294
Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. Then invite them to migrate from their lands to the land of Muhairs and inform them that, if they do so, they shall have all the privileges and obligations of the Muhajirs. If they refuse to migrate, tell them that they will have the status of Bedouin Muilims and will be subjected to the Commands of Allah like other Muslims, but they will not get any share from the spoils of war or Fai' except when they actually fight with the Muslims (against the disbelievers). If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them.
Or yet, my favourite, if you convert you die! If you're born Muslim, guess what, you better stay Muslim, otherwise Allah has commanded you die. So, if you are indeed a Muslim convert like you said you are, you should better hope that you never discover the Truth elsewhere, otherwise you have to die. Go figure. How do you justify this non sense? How can you actually believe that this is a religion from an all good, all loving God? OOh, I guess I shouldn't be surprised, because even though Allah has 99 names (Al Azhar university in Cairo, the biggest, most authoritative Islamic university in the world has recently cancelled out 27 names, deeming them unseemly to describe God), and yet Allha is not love. Mind you, he's everything else, except love. Subhanallah!
i think i will quit this
i think i will quit this conversation with you. it's difficult, not because of the arguments you make, but because you continue making derogatory comments about, "my intellect," whole groups of people, and Islam. The comments you made against Muhammed, especially are inflammatory and explosive. You now this better than I do because you've lived in Muslim Arabia. It is the same as madonna kissing the likes of Jesus or sinead o'connor tearing a picture of the Pope. I don't want any part of that.
I've given you my take on it. That's all i can do. but i can live without the attacks.
In other words, you do not
In other words, you do not have a logical answer and you would like to run away and save face instead of confronting these facts you're presented with. I quoted your scriptures and your books, I didn't tear a picture.
"You now this better than I do because you've lived in Muslim Arabia"
Let's thank God that I'm not in Arabia and I can actually speak my mind. I do not need to cite cases in the Islamic media where day and night they make derogatory comments about Christians and the entire Christian faith. These, of course, you got nothing to say about. These, you're willing to ignore and not condemn. Let's cite actual Koranic verses where derogatory comments are made about Christians and Jews specifically:
[5:60] Say, "Let me tell you who are worse in the sight of GOD: those who are condemned by GOD after incurring His wrath until He made them (as despicable as) monkeys and pigs, and the idol worshipers. These are far worse, and farther from the right path."
Say, Mr. Anonymous, whom do you the Koran is calling "monkeys and pigs"?
Or better yet, who are the Kaffirs and Infidels?
"Certainly, infidels are those who say, .God is the MasiH, son of Maryam (Jesus son of Mary).. Say, .Who then has the power to do anything against Allah, if He wills to eliminate the MasiH son of Maryam and his mother and all those on earth?. Unto Allah belongs the kingdom of the heavens and the earth and what lies between them. He creates what He wills. Allah is powerful over everything."
So the question is why does Mohamad engage in name-calling?
I was hoping you would not run away and begin actually dealing with these facts that I'm presenting you with. But this is a typical Islamic way of dealing with "the other." IF the other makes an argument you cannot deal with, you simply either run away (if you do not have the upper hand), or "slay them wherever ye find them" to quote a certain verse (Koran 9:5) just in case if you do not get my gist.
I think you're real initials
I think you're real initials are JM.
The same exists here where we degrade muslims and call them names. we first need to fix our own society/culture. because this is the same place that mocks catholicism, the same place that mocks mexicans, the same place that mocks women.
the quotes you point to from above (5:60) points to those who have cursed believers and have turned their way against God. They behave as apes because of the lack of morality and they are cursed (not by man but by God) and this has been stated all before (Deut) for instance. This is why religion is so crucial. Without that understanding of God and the practice of following Him, we are nothing but apes.
If we are swines, dirty and unkept, and wild like demons. Think back to Matthew. Jesus calls the Pharises "brood of vipers" because they are wicked. Those wicked or full of demons would rather be as swine. Remember when Jesus cast the two demons into pigs. (my idea is that he's talking implicitly about the demons and wickedness that possess men)
when reading the text, it is clear that the Prophet is telling his believers not to mind the mockery of those around them when it comes to fulfilling the basic requirements of what it is to serve God such as through prayer. The reference to the book of the people basically ( in short) says, "don't mind us," (it's your disloyalty as followers of your own religions that you should mind." When William Rubruck traveled all the way to Mongolia and a discussion was held between Muslim reps, Christian reps, and buddist reps - the Khan mentioned this disloyalty as being a problem for Christians. This is akin to what it refers to.
and i'm not running awy. i just don't appreciate your insults. words are worse than the tearing up of pictures.
Once a local Khan asked a vizier's daughter to cook him the worst meal, so she cooked him a tongue. he was satisfied with this. and so the nexxt day he asked her to cook her the best thing. again she cooked him a tongue. upon this he asked why she did this, and she said that words can cut deeper than knives and do more damage, and yet the words keep the memory of ancestors alive and are used for praise and truth.
You are taking the words out of context in 9:5. take in mind the pagans, like the Muslims were nomadic peoples. the pagans had broken some type of treaty and a period of four months was given as immunity. during that time they could reflect on what they have done, and repent -. the Muslims were called to denounce this by going to war with them if they had not themselves denounced what they did and accept the faith. (this part also implies that if they turn to be Monothiest- they cannot be killed, but for pagans this would be the case). Notice though in the 4th verse not all pagans are targets just those who had broken their treaties.
for the part "then fight and slay the pagans wherever you find them" (two things) they were out to get a certain group which were nomadic - to find them and fight them with vigour unless they denounce their ways and accept the Faith of monothiests. this is the consequence of breaking treaties and for allowing war to occurr.
if by "muslims" you mean
if by "muslims" you mean terrorists, then you're right, we do call them names and rightly so because they are terrorists. These are the same people who hang and decapitate and rape anyone who criticizes Islam. So much for freedom of speech. Please don't start on how they're not real Muslims. Read 9:12 and tafsir by Ibn Kathir, Jalalayn, Qurtobi and Tabari. All of them have agreed, whoever insults Allah, he can be forgiven, but whoever insults Mohamad and Islam, have to be killed. Thank heavens you can actually speak your mind here. BTW, Catholic Church does not protest peaceful criticism. Christianity is built on Freedom. "I stand at the door and knock, WHOEVER opens the door for me, I will come in and supp with him" Revelation 3:20. God himself has given us this sacred freedom of expression. Human beings and islam on the other hand take it away from us.
"the quotes you point to from above (5:60) points to those who have cursed believers and have turned their way against God"
If you read any original tafsir, you will find that "all Christians have turned against God because they rejected Mohamad" All Christians have gone astray. This is precisely why Allah turned those people in the Koran into "Apes and Swine." You want to turn this into figurative language "If we are swines, dirty and unkept, and wild like demons." This is the pathetic attempt to render the Quran 21st century like. Let's read this verse again:
5:60 Shall I tell thee of a worse (case) than theirs for retribution with Allah ? (Worse is the case of him) whom Allah hath cursed, him on whom His wrath hath fallen and of whose sort Allah hath turned some to apes and swine, and who serveth idols. Such are in worse plight and further astray from the plain road.
Can you trace any hints of figurative language here? NO, it's not figurative language because it is not a metaphor or simile (comparisons). It is something that Allah has actually done, he "turned" them into "apes and swine." Not "like" apes and as "dirty" as swine like you said. Instead, he actually "turned" them into "apes" and "swine." Conversely, our Lord calls the pharisees "brood of vipers" in a clearly figurative, metaphorical language. "You brood of vipers" meanwhile they are human beings. How can you reconcile this if it is not a metaphor? A comparison is being made here between snakes, which are cunning and evil, and the pharisees, who are also duplicitous and bad. The two things being compared and snakes and pharisees, what they share in common is their cunning and evil ways. Can you say the same thing about Quran 5:60 where Allah, wishing to punish human beings, he actually "turns" them into despicable animals? And also, why apes? What's wrong with apes? I like apes. This is tribal mentality and bedouin mindset of Mohamad which degrades even the creation of God and renders it ugly.
Look at your (or rather I should say Islam's) hatred for Christians "When William Rubruck traveled all the way to Mongolia and a discussion was held between Muslim reps, Christian reps, and buddist reps - the Khan mentioned this disloyalty as being a problem for Christians"
I got news for you, any Christian who dares open his mouth about the terrible way they're treated in countries that Muslims invaded is deemed "unpatriotic" and "disloyal." On the other hand, let me ask you a question, where are your loyalties? Are you loyal to the US or to Islam?
Your explanation of 9:5 is a modern invention. Otherwise, you would still find churches in Saudi Arabia, you would still find Jewish synagogues there where Judaism actually flourished just before Mohamad wiped them out. Why do you think they won't let the 1.25 million Catholics there practice their religion? Why do you think they refuse to build a single Chruch there? Let me give a more orthodox interpretation of 9:5
9:5 Kortoby…“slay the pagans” is a general command that applies to all pagans.
“wherever they may be” is a general command that applies in any place pagans are to be found. This verse has abrogated all the other verses that advocate conditional peace with pagans or patience with them. “but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity” meaning the slaying will cease when paganism ceases and that necessitates the killing to stop simply by repentance."
41:34 Kortoby…“Repel (Evil) with what is better” has been abrogated by the verse of the sword (9:5). This verse came down with regards to Aby Jahl who used to hurt the Prophet (PBUH) and Allah ordered him to treat Aby Jahl with patience and forgiveness. This was before the order to fight.
2:190 Ibn Katheer…This is the first verse revealed in Medina with regards to fighting. At this time, the Prophet (PBUH) fought against whoever fought him and stopped fighting whoever desisted fighting with him. This verse has been abrogated by the verse of the sword (9:5).
Anymore sugarcoating and I think we'll turn diabetic.
"for the part "then fight and slay the pagans wherever you find them" (two things) they were out to get a certain group which were nomadic - to find them and fight them with vigour unless they denounce their ways and accept the Faith of monothiests. this is the consequence of breaking treaties and for allowing war to occurr."
Is forcing others into a religion through vilence the proper answer for their dishonesty? There shouldn't be any forced conversions under the sword for any reason. What kind of weak God is this that forces people to join his religion?
9:4 Excepting those of the idolaters with whom ye (Muslims) have a treaty, and who have since abated nothing of your right nor have supported anyone against you. (As for these), fulfill their treaty to them till their term. Lo! Allah loveth those who keep their duty (unto Him).
If want to put a sequence (although the sequence of the verses was not actually done by Mohamad, and there's no logical sequence, be it chronological or narrative) then please tell me how does the exception take place prior to the general command. An exception is stated after a general command is given. If this exception was indeed valid, then you should still have been able to find idolaters and Mushriks in Arabia, since some of them kept the treaty as you claim the verse says. In any case, provide me an actual tafsir. I quote the best of the best. Who are you quoting besides yourself?
don't accuse me of hating
don't accuse me of hating anyone. i stated a fact. a fact that was written about by rubruck himself. I've never hinted that i hated muslims.
my whole point for responding to you is to have you realize that the same inequalities/violence/hatred spewing from/withing these muslim countries exist here. if you cannot see it, you too are just as blind as you say they are.
get over your hatred for muslims. you should be fighting against the white man who in his quest to maintain material wealth rages war against minorities through major media outlets. you should speak against the white man who does nothing but aid his child's leisurely usage of drugs while the lives of mexicans below the border suffer death and torture. but it doesn't matter to white men because mexicans, blacks and all minorities are less than them. not even women have the same rights as white men here. that's inequality for you. men are afraid of women - especially women who are smarter and have power. everyday situations in the u.s. demonstrate intolerance against women - either they are exploited or shunned. no matter how far up they travel or under what sacrifice they made, white men will always treat them as less.
white american men - the same ones that randomly shoot german men as sport as they wait in line for bread (germany post wwII from conversation an elderly german). The same white men who turned against kennedy - not only because he was catholic but because he and his wife spoke/knew foreign languages.
white men - deeply derogatory comments exist for every ethnic/racial group but white men. nigger, wetback, kike, redneck (used offensively for the irish of tennessee)....honkey or cracker is hardly the same.
white men are the ones that have created huge levels of disparity existing in the world. they are the main source of these responses against colonialism/imperialism. these are the same people who occupied hawaii for capital gain and deposed their own Queen - thse are the same people who killed off millions of people and made sport of it.
this is truly the last statement - because i am tired of your rhetoric and frustrated with your obstinacy.
I noticed you didn't remark
I noticed you didn't remark about this... Why?
"my whole point for
"my whole point for responding to you is to have you realize that the same inequalities/violence/hatred spewing from/withing these muslim countries exist here. if you cannot see it, you too are just as blind as you say they are."
When was the last time anyone of your Christian relatives attempted to murder you for leaving Christianity? If your answer is Never, then your statement above is incorrect. When was the last time you were put in jail for inviting people to become Muslims. If your answer is never then your statement above is incorrect. When was the last time you were sentenced to jail for carrying a Koran with you in public. If your answer is never, then your statement above is incorrect. I could go on forever to show that it is definitely not the same thing here as it is in countries that were invaded by Muslims. All you I see in your comments is hypocrisy and self-righteousness. BTW you can stop responding anytime you want. No one will come knocking on your door and forcing you to utter Christian "shahada."
Finally, your racist views come out. Finally, you make it very clear that you are racist against whites and sexist against white men. I imagine a number of white men will be offended at this non-sense. Your position is very very offensive towards Christians of Middle East as well. You want to brush all the persecution we have faced throughout the centuries as a cultural misdeed of white men, who only happen to set foot on Middle Eastern soil since early 20th C. and onwards. This is indeed very strange. You also want to trivialize everything we have been through for some minor inconvenience that Muslims, supposedly face in the US? Fix your religion before you come here fixing us please.
You're missing the point.
You're missing the point. violence, whether because of religious, racial, or other convictions is violence. violence is violence and it is not only endemic to muslims. It's an epidemic humanitarian problem.
You insist that I fight against other muslims and remind them of their responsibility as part of the human race - something i rightfully have done and continue to do, and something that you should remind all people to do - not just muslims - and i urge you to fight the same violence brewing from Christian circles.
It's one thing to call out the hatred and inequalities created in muslim societies but its another to attack a religion based on the biases you have while overlooking the actions of your Christian brethren.
Christian history, like Muslim history, is replete with violence and forced conversions. Neither is right and should be checked.
We know of what's happening in the muslim world - trust me when i say when i first became Muslim and after living with it for a couple of years, i felt compelled to fight against the hatred and backwardness of Muslims (not Islam but Muslims) who confine their religion within cultural paradigms (honor killings for example). One way i did that was to gather houston muslim converts with muslim immigrants for a round table discussion.Our group emphasized the compatibility of American Values (true American values versus the raping of our value system by modern commercialism)with islam and vice versa. We focused on separating these cultural born nuances from the religion itself, and focused on things like women's rights and the ethical excellence of living with Christians, Jews, and other Muslims. We took examples from Andalusia and Bagdhad during the Abbassid Dynasty where you had Jewish, Christian, and Muslim scholars learning from one another. Even so, other cultures exhibited the same degree of acceptance and interchange.
But corning violence as just being a Muslim thing or treating Islam as violent is wrong. Again, just to point out the how epidemic the problem is, I'll highlight Christian examples of this so that YOU can remind your christian brothers before you slander Islam and every Muslim with your insensitive diatribe.
Ex. 1. Boethius (480-524) - from Rome, He wrote "The consolation of Philosophy" he was placed under house arrest and later executed by Theodoric for his Catholic ( who himself was Christian).
Justinian I of Constantinople built his rule on the sword - believing that he was called to battle after receiving an image of Christ in a bloodied sky- he forced Christianity on the pagans. during his rule and shortly after, greek philosophy was outlawed and many of the greeks who relied on greek philosophy and paganism left the country so as to not be forced to conversion.
The inquisition of the 15th century in spain was meant to force Catholicism on Jews and Muslims while driving out those who refused. It was the Muslim Ottoman Empire that took these populations in.
But its violence is okayed by the church which accepts the teachings of San Augustine in his "just war" theories.
http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/bible/augustine.stm
Today Armenia engages in the same destruction that those who try to push out Catholics in Iraq. It takes many forms, educational inequality, disparity, religious/cultural isolation, etc., While you call attention to this I call attention to the Azeris, but the difference is that I don't condemn Armenians in general or Christianity. I condemn the continued existence of this violence.
http://www.azerigenocide.org/genocidecampaign.htm
But there's a double standard that exists among Christians who call for the end of radicalism and Islam in general. While it's ok to print cartoon caricatures of Muhammed, it's hardly ok for Madonna to use a cross in a concert. Not only were Danish and Russian Christian radicals calling for a boycott, but she also received numerous death threats as a result of this usage.
http://www.freemuse.org/sw14580.asp
examples of further violence by Christians:
St. Barthelemew's day massacre:
national liberation front of Tripura
manmasi national christian army of india
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_4-12-2004_pg7_26 (demands for end of freedome of speech in response to davinci code)
The Northern Ireland incident is replete with paramilitary Catholic/Protestant terrorists
Easter rising of 1916 - http://books.google.com/books?id=_RhCAAAAIAAJ&dq=%22military+council%22+...
Don't forget the Arians and Nestorians who were forced to convert and chased out of The west for fear of being killed
Or the forced conversions of Natives in Mexico and Latin America
"the mexican civil war" was centered on landownership and the Roman Catholic Church's abuse of locals in its hunger for land. my grandmother's mother, in her old age, bequeathed her land and property to the church after her death. They evicted her before she died and put all her private belongings on the street.
the iron guard of romania
http://www.claremontmckenna.edu/hist/jpetropoulos/ironguard/
Or the Russian National Unity....
or this one a mass grave of Palestinian who had fled the invasion of Israel on southern Lubnan and Palestine by Lubnan Christians....
http://www.cnn.com/2010/SPORT/golf/10/22/golf.lebanon.club.hezbollah/ind...
My point is, this violence exists everywhere. I'm calling you to not overlook it and not to single out Muslims as the proprietors of violence. It's irresponsible. I will call out mine, and you focus on the survival of Catholics in Iraq and against the violence spewed against Catholics. This is your mission. It doesn't make sense to attack Islam or Muslims not engaged in this. If you adopt this then you must attack Christians, white men, colonial powers, etc.,
Terrible, terrible examples
Terrible, terrible examples and scholarship.
The more you keep insisting that you condemn violence, the more you condemn the book that you claim you follow. Note how when offering historical examples, suddenly the page was filled and you had no problem pointing out examples (albeit they be terrible ones), but when the conversation revolved around religious texts and Koranic verses, your response, "I do not know how to explain that verse," which really tells me that you label yourself a Muslim, not because of a true religious epiphany. Instead, you became Muslim because of the terrible scholarship you were exposed to while conducting your lessons in history. You, along with 90% of westerners who turn Muslims, do not really believe in Islam. Rather, you join this religion as a backlash against the purported history that is painted with a Christian background, from which all evils of the world stem. Hence, you become the supposed "champion" of the other. Who is this 'other'? It's the Eastern world (as opposed to the western). And what better way to champion the other, if not by joining its ranks? What better way to fight the "evils" of the west other than joining the "antidote" for its decadence, Islam. It simply follows that you do not hold any true Islamic religious convictions. Rather what you want to be is a cultural Muslim, a Muslim who is willing to do away with all that which construes and makes up the Islamic religion, and attempt to reconcile the Islamic texts with the 21st century modernity. The way I know this is simply by juxtaposing your views with those of the Koran, Sunna, Hadith, and Sirah of Mohamad, for which there is no reconciliation possible.
Let me tell you why I think your examples are terrible.
First, note how you immediately jumped to the 5th century to offer an example where "Christians" commit gruesome acts. I don't need to jump 500 years after Mohamad. Compare oranges to oranges and apples to apples, not apples to oranges. You cannot compare those who instituted a religion with those who follow a religion. You got issues with Christianity, cite the NT, not "Christians" who came 500 years after Christ. For myself, everything I say, I relate it to Koran and Mohamad's sira. The reason why Islam has NEVER, NEVER, been disentangled from fascism and violence is because violence and fascism are embedded in Islamic texts.
Let me give you some examples (these examples come from one of the most trusted/authoritative biography of Mohamad, Sirat Ibn Hisham, p.301):
1-
In the year 625 A.D. after suffering several raids, lootings and killings by the Muslims, the various tribes of Bani Layhan gathered around their chief Sofyan ibn Khalid discussing what to do about the continuous problems that they faced. Muhammad’s spies informed him of this gathering and he dispatched Abdullah ibn Oneis, with instructions to assassinate Sofyan. Abdullah went forth alone, and joining himself as a volunteer to Sofyan, fell upon him unaware while no one was near, cut off his head, and carried it with him. He eluded pursuit, and reaching Medina in safety, presented himself before Muhammad in the Mosque. The Prophet welcomed him, and asked the issue of his adventure. Abdullah replied by displaying the head of his victim. Muhammad was so highly gratified at the success, that he presented the assassin with his staff: - This;" said he, "shall be a token betwixt you and me on the day of resurrection. Verily few on that day shall have anything to lean upon."
2-
After Muhammad raided the fortress of Kheibar and the unarmed population were taken by surprise, Muslim fighters killed many of the citizens until they surrendered. Muhammad allowed them to leave the country, but that they should give up all their property to the conqueror. With the rest, came forth Kinana, chief of the Jews of Kheibar, and his cousin. Muhammad accused them both of keeping back, in contravention of the compact, a portion of their riches, especially the treasures of the Bani Nadhir, which Kinana had obtained as a marriage portion with his wife, Safiyah the daughter of the chief of that tribe. "Where are the vessels of gold," he asked," which you used to lend to the people of Mecca?" They protested that they no longer possessed them. "if you conceal anything from me," continued Muhammad, "and I should gain knowledge of it, then your lives and the lives of your families shall be at my disposal." They answered that it should be so. A traitorous Jew, having divulged to Muhammad the place in which a part of their wealth was deposited, he sent and fetched it. On the discovery of this attempt at imposition, Kinana was subjected to cruel torture, -- "fire being placed upon his breast till his breath had almost departed," -in the hope that he would confess where the rest of his treasures were concealed. Muhammad then gave command, and the heads of the two chiefs were severed from their bodies.”
On that very night Muhammad took the 17 year old Safiyah the bride of Kinana to his tent and claimed her as his wife.
3-
But the most gruesome scene of beheading is that of the Bani Qurayza. Muhammad besieged their fortress cutting the water to them and after they surrendered, he ordered that all the men and boys passed their puberty to be beheaded.
The men were penned up in a closed yard, while graves or trenches were being dug for them in the chief marketplace of the city. When these were ready, Muhammad, himself a spectator of the tragedy, gave command that the captives should be brought forth in companies of five or six at a time. Each company was made to sit down by the brink of the trench destined for its grave, and there beheaded. Party by party they were thus led out, and butchered in cold blood, till the whole were slain. Zoheir, an aged Jew, who had saved some of Muhammad’s allies of the Bani Aws in the battle of Boath, Thabit interceded and procured a pardon, including the restoration of his family and his property. "But what hath become of all our chiefs, - of Kab, of Huwey, of Ozzal ibn Samuel?" asked the old man. As one after another he named the leading chiefs of his tribe, he received to each inquiry the same reply; - they had all been slain already. - "Then of what use is life to me any longer? Slay me also, that I may go and join those that have preceded me." When this was told to Muhammad, he said, "Yea, he shall join them, in the fire of Hell?" and he too was beheaded.
I’ll stop there, even though there are plenty more of these examples where Mohamad clearly perpetrated acts of terrorism and violence that certainly fall below the standard our Lord Jesus had instituted.
Second: Rather than quoting a Christian authoritative text to demonstrate the slightest link between the actions of these “Christians” to the religion they claim they follow, you simply cite examples of people who lived in the past, who committed evil acts, for which they stand condemned by the Bible and by the Sacred Traditions.
Although I’m not interested in detailing every example, the points I made above should be sufficient to render almost all of them inefficacious and non-effectual. One of these arguments did stand out to me though, the issue of Just War Theory and how you related it to the Spanish Inquisition. This is laughable. The two do not have anything to do with each other. Your portrayal of Just War Theory is definitely a caricature rendition that cannot be taken seriously (I’m talking about the link you posted there). Here is a better link that will explain in detail what Just War Theory is and it is more than sufficient to respond to your preposterous claim (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15546c.htm)
None of the examples you provided have anything to do with Christianity, meanwhile, every single act of barbarism and violence carried out by Muslims was always backed up by Koranic verses, hadith, and Mohamad’s sirah. You keep singing the same old tune, it’s not Islam, it’s the Muslims. Then how do you explain the three points above about Mohamad’s behaviour? How do you explain his letter he sent to Oman’s Julanda brothers "Peace be upon the one who follows the right path! I call you to Islam. Accept my call, and you shall be unharmed. I am God's Messenger to mankind, and the word shall be carried out upon the miscreants. If, therefore, you recognize Islam, I shall bestow power upon you. But if you refuse to accept Islam, your power shall vanish, my horses shall camp on the expanse of your territory and my prophecy shall prevail in your kingdom"? You can’t possibly divorce Mohamad from the barbaric behaviour of Muslims today. You can’t divorce the behaviour of Muslims who slice throats in the name of Allah from the behaviour of Sahaba (Companions of Mohamad) whom you are suppose to imitate. Read The Pact of Omar and tell me, how is it possible for you to tell me that Islam is peace and justice for all. P.S. Omar is the second Khalifa after Mohamad, and one of the closest companions of Mohamad whom you as a Muslim MUST imitate.
In the name of God, the Merciful and Compassionate. This is a letter to the servant of God Umar [ibn al-Khattab], Commander of the Faithful, from the Christians of such-and-such a city. When you came against us, we asked you for safe-conduct (aman) for ourselves, our descendants, our property, and the people of our community, and we undertook the following obligations toward you:
1. We shall not build, in our cities or in their neighborhood, new monasteries, Churches, convents, or monks' cells, nor shall we repair, by day or by night, such of them as fall in ruins or are situated in the quarters of the Muslims.
2. We shall keep our gates wide open for passersby and travelers. We shall give board and lodging to all Muslims who pass our way for three days.
3. We shall not give shelter in our churches or in our dwellings to any spy, nor bide him from the Muslims.
4. We shall not teach the Qur'an to our children.
5. We shall not manifest our religion publicly nor convert anyone to it. We shall not prevent any of our kin from entering Islam if they wish it.
6. We shall show respect toward the Muslims, and we shall rise from our seats when they wish to sit.
7. We shall not seek to resemble the Muslims by imitating any of their garments, the qalansuwa, the turban, footwear, or the parting of the hair. We shall not speak as they do, nor shall we adopt their kunyas.
8. We shall not mount on saddles, nor shall we gird swords nor bear any kind of arms nor carry them on our- persons.
9. We shall not engrave Arabic inscriptions on our seals.
10. We shall not sell fermented drinks.
11. We shall clip the fronts of our heads.
12. We shall always dress in the same way wherever we may be, and we shall bind the zunar round our waists
13. We shall not display our crosses or our books in the roads or markets of the Muslims. We shall use only clappers in our churches very softly. We shall not raise our voices when following our dead. We shall not show lights on any of the roads of the Muslims or in their markets. We shall not bury our dead near the Muslims.
14. We shall not take slaves who have been allotted to Muslims.
15. We shall not build houses overtopping the houses of the Muslims.
(When I brought the letter to Umar, may God be pleased with him, he added, "We shall not strike a Muslim.")
We accept these conditions for ourselves and for the people of our community, and in return we receive safe-conduct.
If we in any way violate these undertakings for which we ourselves stand surety, we forfeit our covenant [dhimma], and we become liable to the penalties for contumacy and sedition.
Umar ibn al-Khittab replied: Sign what they ask, but add two clauses and impose them in addition to those which they have undertaken. They are: "They shall not buy anyone made prisoner by the Muslims," and "Whoever strikes a Muslim with deliberate intent shall forfeit the protection of this pact."
(from Al-Turtushi, Siraj al-Muluk, pp. 229-230)
Violence and Christianity as a religion have nothing to do with each other, on the other hand, violence and Islam are not only embedded, but are in marriage and their marriage is consummated on daily basis every time you hear someone is blown up, another is beheaded and the other was raped or forced to pay jizya. This has been going on for the last 1400 years.
Explain all this nonsense for me please.
Your arguments are full of
Your arguments are full of fallacies. First, just because a wrong doesn't happen to me doesn't mean that it hasn't happened to someone else. I've had friends threatened and ostracized by their Christian parents and siblings for converting to Islam or any other religion. I've had friends who have also been threatened for being Gay by Christian parents and family members. I've even had friends who have been threatened for more trivial items having nothing to do with convictions. I think it's even worse to threaten someone or to make move without even a conviction or belief to inspire that move. and everyday this happens here in the states.
I've been ridiculed and spit at and talked behind my back by Christians because of my conversion. If it wasn't for the mutual contract of the law I'm sure worse would have befallen me. The only safeguard is not the rational of our people in the states, it's the penal system that scares them from doing anything.
And i'm not being hypocritical. Name one way I'm being hypocritical. My point in originally writing and responding was to bring to light that Muslims do not have a monopoly on violence and that Christians, just like the rest engage in it. Just like I tell my muslim brothers, so I urge you to fight the negative reactionary diatribe that you yourself are spreading.
and I urge you to look deeper
and I urge you to look deeper into Islam before you divorce it from Muslims' behaviour. The actions of those "Christians" that you claimed threatened you and spat on you or ostracized you stand condemned by our Lord Jesus. Can you say the same thing about Muslims who kill the apostates in the same manner Mohamad ordered? Can you say the same thing about Muslims who "expand" their rulership through military conquest in the same manner Mohamad and his Sahaba did? Can you say the same thing about those Muslims who stone adulterers in the same manner Mohamad and his Sahaba did? The answer is NO you can't because Mohamad himself engaged in this abhorrent behaviour. That's the whole point I've been trying to make, which you refuse to address. You have not addressed the behaviour of Mohamad so far. All you do around here is try to appear superior to the rest of commentators here by offering advice as though you stand upon a superior moral ground. The moral ground you stand upon is sheer deception. Once the light of truth is shed upon it, it crumbles and falls like the walls of Jericho. Mohamad certainly wouldn't go round engaging in peaceful talks. Instead, he would send assassins to murder anyone who criticizes him.
You're being hypocritical because (I feel tired because I said this over three times already) on one hand your books labels St. John of the Cross as "dirty," "Kaffir," and "Mushrik." On the other hand you're here trying to tell us that St. John of the Cross is worthy of imitation. Which is it? Is he "dirty," "Kaffir," and "Polytheist," like the Koran says, or is he a role model who should be set on a pedastool for the rest of us to imitate and copy?
interfaithdialog.org is
interfaithdialog.org is actually a turkish based organization - based in Turkey just like the other turkish organized interfaith dialogue organizations throughout the world. they follow and are inspired by Gulen.
Strange, you chose to ignore
Strange, you chose to ignore everything else I said and declined to respond except to this bit.
I ask, where was this organization when the highest Roman Catholic ranking official, a bishop, was slain? Where is this organization when the blood of over 1.5 million Christians has been spilled without even so much as a recognition? Where is your organization when the government officials went berserk after Patriarch Bartholomiw went on television (60 minutes) and simply described the struggles of Christians in that country? Do this organization take effective actions to bring the Christians on par with Muslim citizens? No! Unfortunately, the answer is one big fat NO!.
where were you and other
where were you and other christians when this happened? where were you when uyghur muslims are persecuted by chinese? where are you when mexcicans are being tortured and killed because of leisurely drug usage by our teenagers?
where are you when gulen condemns chechens and their activities against russians. where are you when events/meetings are constructed with orthodox leaders in turkey? have been to any? they exist?
pill
where are you for the muslim community in greece that is not on par with christians there. greece and turkey messed up. they should have never exchanged their populations. the government reaction is not the same as the organization's actions.
these churches that are museums in turkey were once mosques too. ataturk took them away. places of belief. during the crusades, christian knights pillaged churches like the hagia sophia and desecrated their icons for loot. the muslims did not desecrate the images. instead they simply plastered over it. the msising funds because of dwindling members in Turkey should be enough concern for the christians around the world to donate money. this isn't happening though.
not every action/defense on behalf of christians you will hear about. you probably will never hear about the muslims in bosnia that aided Jewish refugees escaping the horrors brought upon by nazis. you will probably never hear about the muslims who helped jews escape the inquisition of the 15th century or the muslims and christians who helped each other build their religious places of worship in tataristan after the fall of the soviet union.
the
When "this happened," my
When "this happened," my ancestors were busy running for their lives from you Muslim brethren in Northern Iraq. We were busy fending for our survival from the demonic ideology that demands from its followers to slay others in the name of God. Muslims being persecuted by Chinese and Mexicans being mistreated were not a result of Christian ideals. If anything, compassion, consideration, and kindness for the other (regardless of religion) is something our Lord himself has always taught. Read the Good Samaritan. Read about the Syrio-phoenician woman whom our Lord raised even above His own kind in flesh. You never find regard for the "other" in Islam. All you find is degradation, humiliation and misery towards the other. Ask me and all Christians who lived under the tyranny of Islam.
You mentioned the Crusades. Here we go again. The Crusades were nothing more than defensive wars. What were Muslims doing there to begin with? How did they arrive to Jerusalem if not by force, war and murder. Not by some misguided follower of Islam, but by the Companions themselves, people you're suppose to imitate. You seem quite misguided "Muslims did not desecrate these images" http://www.traditioninaction.org/History/A_002_Crusades_Horvat.htm read what the good doctor says. Here's another good response you should check into www.frontline.org.za/articles/JihadAndCrusades.htm
The dwindling numbers of Christians in Turkey and the Middle East is not because of legitimate conversions to Islam. It's because of the second-hand citizenry they're forced to have. It's because of persecution and evil treatment they receive from Muslims specifically because of what Islam teaches.
Finally, please cite some cases of Muslims aiding Jewish people. Give me sources, I don't want to just read what you write.
I am so sorry to see that God
I am so sorry to see that God did not let St. Francis of Assisi to walk in the fire before Sultan to prove the Holy Trinity is the true God. When I told the Armenian Orthodox priest about the story of St. Francis and said that I, Francis the sinner, would walk in the fire in front of Islamic Sheiks and Muslims, the Armenian priest told me that even if God would let me survive after walking through the fire, today's Muslims would not believe Christ is the true God.
Post new comment