Jump to content
An Old School Catholic Message Board

ISIS Rejects Pope's Interpetation Of Their Own Religion


Guest

Recommended Posts

On 8/13/2016 at 8:36 PM, Socrates said:

There's a lot that is wrong and inaccurate in your post, but I'll try to deal with the main point here.

Well then. Thank you for enlightening me on the matters on which you decided to respond to. I will take what I can get.

On 8/13/2016 at 8:36 PM, Socrates said:

While they don't regard him as divine, the truth is that Muslims do in fact regard their "prophet" Mohammed as the highest exemplar of human behavior, and a model to be followed.  I'm too lazy to look up sources now, but this is confirmed by everything I've read or heard on the topic.  

My dear Socrates, I think that you are well aware that I do not value the private research of random people on the internet. If you do not post the information it is of little use in furthering a discussion between us.

On 8/13/2016 at 8:36 PM, Socrates said:

You won't find a single serious Muslim who would claim that Mohammed himself had become corrupted, or that he lived a life contrary to Islam, or was otherwise a "bad Muslim."

That may very well be the case, but fortunately for me, I am not searching for such a Muslim. Nor is the presence or absence of such a Muslim particularly relevant to the fact that Credo's argument was a form of the genetic fallacy.

On 8/13/2016 at 8:36 PM, Socrates said:

The example of violent conquest was continued by his immediate successors, who quickly, through military force, conquered all of Christian North Africa and then Christian Spain, before being stopped in France.  

There is some doubt as to whether Muhammad was a real person in history who actually existed and performed the various actions that are attributed to him, but who were his immediate successors? Was every single person on the Earth who claimed to be a follower of Muhammad violent?  If not, why is the standard being judged based on the actions of the violent ones rather than the non-violent ones?

Regardless, all of those actions are largely irrelevant to the questions at hand, for the reasons I set forth above.

On 8/13/2016 at 8:36 PM, Socrates said:

While one could conceivably argue that they had strayed, I think it's a weak argument to claim that the early Muslims got Islam all wrong,

 I do not particularly care whether you think it is a weak argument. You have not demonstrated why any of the arguments I presented are false or weak.

And as an aside, were you not the same person who took issue with the holding of Marbury v. Madison a while back? If the Supreme Court and the rest of the country country who followed them could have gotten the constitution wrong only a few years after it was ratified, you should not find it so implausible that the same could happen with respect to a religion.

On 8/13/2016 at 8:36 PM, Socrates said:

and only in comparatively modern times did anybody figure out the "true meaning" of Islam.

I have no idea whether anyone has figured out the "true meaning" of Islam nor do I particularly care. The only point that I set out to prove was that Credo's argument was a form of the genetic fallacy. And I do not see any refutation of that in your post.

On 8/13/2016 at 8:36 PM, Socrates said:

Again, the means of the spread of the early Church contrasts dramatically with the means of the early spread of Islam.

Thank you for the clarification. But as I noted above this is of no relevance. If early Christianity spread by means of force, as it did many years later, would that mean that Christianity itself is a religion of violence? No, it would not have. But the same illogical argument is being applied against Islam.

On 8/13/2016 at 8:36 PM, Socrates said:

As a Catholic Christian, presumably you don't believe the "revelations" of Mohammed to be genuine, so the issue of whether or not Mohammed or anyone else interprets them rightly is a moot point.  But if you're trying to defend "true Islam" and its teachings, you fail, because your arguments are ones no actual believing Muslims would ever entertain.  In fact, they would likely find them sacrilegious and insulting.

I have no idea what "true islam" is. I have not set out here to prove what "true islam". Nowhere on this forum have I asserted that Islam is a religion of peace. I asserted that Credo's argument was a form of the genetic fallacy. If you want to assert that Islam is a religion of violence then you should use arguments that are not logical fallacies. Either that or do not be surprised if intelligent people do not find your argument persuasive.

My response to Credo was based on the assumption that there is such a thing as "True Islam". He appears to make this assumption in his assertion that authentic Islam is a religion of violence. If we hypothetically define "True Islam" as the properly understood teaching of the Koran, for example, it is an application of genetic fallacy to assert that the "True Islam" is violent because Muhammad or some of this followers were violent. It is logically the same as arguing that the US Constitution is racist because many of the Founding Fathers were racist.

Now, as you, I tend to believe that there is no such thing as "true Islam" but rather, what is important is to look at the religion as people living today understand it. If we want to operate under this assumption, then I do not see why violence committed by Muhammad or violence committed by his followers is relevant at all. Why would it matter to anyone if Muslims living today view Muhammad as an example, if they do not believe that their own religion advocates violence? We should be asking the question "Do Muslims who live today advocate violence as part of their religion?" If you would rather discuss that question I think it would transition the thread into something that is much more relevant to all of us.  Do any more than a small percentage of radical Muslims today go around advocating that Christians should be violently forced into submission? Good luck with that, should anyone desire to make that assertion.

On 8/13/2016 at 8:36 PM, Socrates said:

I'm not even sure what point you're trying to make concerning the saints, but as Christians we do in fact look to Christ as the ultimate example of how to live, and seek to imitate Him.  The canonized saints are persons recognized as exemplary in imitating and following Christ in their lives.  While some may have lived sinful lives prior to converting to Christ, none of them led lives in any significant way contrary to Christ following their conversion.

The point was that the extent to which the saints sinned, or did not sin, does not not change the teachings of Christ as handed down by himself and the apostles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/12/2016 at 10:26 PM, Credo in Deum said:

We look to the saints, Church Fathers, etc and honor them insomuch as they imitated and reflect the divine image of Christ! This is why they're saints!  We honor the goodness of their lives, a goodness which we do not attribute to them, but to Christ Himself. This is the reason we tell Protestants or other people who accuse of "worshiping" saints that when we honor the saints we honor Christ!

Cool. Could you kindly explain how any of that is relevant my assertion that your argument is a form of genetic fallacy?

On 8/12/2016 at 10:26 PM, Credo in Deum said:

Incorrect. It does change it since had he not lived his message after receiving it then he is neither holy nor is he a prophet from God nor can his message be trusted.  His entire message becomes suspect.  Perfect examples is your "what if" scenario which leaves us with the important question, what parts are still authentic and which are the parts he manipulated once he became corrupt?  I mean the credibility of a witness is used either for or against them when they testify.  Is that fallacious reasosing too?  Do you follow, Peace?  If Christ said one thing but did another we would not be following Christ. 

Well. There are various exceptions, but as a general matter evidence of character is not admissible at trial to prove a fact. It is generally considered by courts to be of little probative value and to be prejudicial. Check out the notes to Federal Rule of Evidence 404, for example:

Quote

 

(2) Character evidence is susceptible of being used for the purpose of suggesting an inference that the person acted on the occasion in question consistently with his character. This use of character is often described as “circumstantial.” Illustrations are: evidence of a violent disposition to prove that the person was the aggressor in an affray, or evidence of honesty in disproof of a charge of theft. This circumstantial use of character evidence raises questions of relevancy as well as questions of allowable methods of proof.

In most jurisdictions today, the circumstantial use of character is rejected but with important exceptions: (1) an accused may introduce pertinent evidence of good character (often misleadingly described as “putting his character in issue”), in which event the prosecution may rebut with evidence of bad character; (2) an accused may introduce pertinent evidence of the character of the victim, as in support of a claim of self-defense to a charge of homicide or consent in a case of rape, and the prosecution may introduce similar evidence in rebuttal of the character evidence, or, in a homicide case, to rebut a claim that deceased was the first aggressor, however proved; and (3) the character of a witness may be gone into as bearing on his credibility.

 

On 8/12/2016 at 10:26 PM, Credo in Deum said:

You clearly have an opinion on it and you clearly care since if you didn't you wouldn't have bothered with all of these mental gymnastics.  

As far as I can tell the only opinion that I have offered in this thread is that your arguments are a form of genetic fallacy. What is the opinion that I have and to which you refer? I honestly have no idea what you are talking about, but if you could kindly state what opinion it is that you believe I have, I will be happy to confirm whether or not I hold that opinion.

As far as mental gymnastics, the only mental gymnastic that I am aware of in this thread is the argument you have put forth concerning your assertion that Islam is a violent religion. I have already explained why that form of argument is fallacious.

On 8/12/2016 at 10:26 PM, Credo in Deum said:

Regardless you cannot compare a secular document with Sacred Scripture.  The constitution is neither protected by infallibility nor it's founders with impeccability (free from sin).  

Catholics quite often compare Sacred Scripture to the US Constitution. Here is one example:

http://www.catholiceducation.org/en/culture/catholic-contributions/vatican-ii-on-divine-revelation.html

Quote

Every written document is subject to interpretation, especially when it was written hundreds or thousands of years ago. Thus, we have a Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution of the United States. The Council says that the only authentic interpreter of the Word of God, whether written or in the form of Tradition, is the teaching office of the Church, which is also called the Magisterium. In His Providence God has so arranged things that Tradition, Scripture and the Magisterium are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others (#10). This means that problems or questions about true faith and morals must be solved by resorting to these three basic sources.

But that is a bit beside the point anyway, because the main comparison that I drew in my analogy was a comparison between two secular documents (the US Constitution and the Koran (and other Islamic texts)).

On 8/12/2016 at 10:26 PM, Credo in Deum said:

As to your last sentence those arguments cannot be used to attack Christianity because its founder, Christ, is sinless!  There is nothing about His life which isn't 100% impeccable.  Nothing.  This is why as Christians aka FOLLOWERS OF CHRIST, we look to His life and His example of what it means to be Christian; Chirstlike. Our enemies even look to Christ as our rule for how we ought to conduct ourselves. We are judged based on our adherence and faithfulness to His image. 

Unfortunately for your arguments, all of the principles of Christianity were not directly communicated by Jesus. Some of that work he left to his apostles, who were most certainly sinners. You see examples in the New Testament itself where one apostle rebukes another for sin. So then, are we to throw out the Book of Peter and the letters of Paul because they were sinners? Are we to say that the parts of the Christian faith that they communicated to us are properly understood as advocating sin, because of the sins that they committed in their personal lives?

On 8/12/2016 at 10:26 PM, Credo in Deum said:

If Muhammad's conquests are not seen as wrong then there is no reason for any Muslim to view ISIS as being wrong in their mission of global conquest for the glory of Islam.

This does not seem to be a logical conclusion.  If person A believes that the United State's entry into the second world war was just, does mean that he must also agree that our entry into Vietnam was just?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<3 PopeFrancis
On 8/14/2016 at 5:10 PM, Credo in Deum said:

As Ven. Fulton J Sheen points out that one needs only the use of Reason and History to find God.

True.  What worries me are the souls that are lost in the process.  I mean if the Traditionalists are "absolutely" right, then they must understand that people were being led astray "on purpose".  

Well, based on what only I know so far I would guess that the Anti-Christ is Islam.  And please before the hair-splitting bleeding hearts attack  I said Islam - not Muslim.

Yes. Is this Life of Christ by Bishop Fulton Sheen.  It is one of my favorite readings.  Oh and I didn't know the Bishop was Venerable. :clap3:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<3 PopeFrancis
1 hour ago, <3 PopeFrancis said:

Well, based on what only I know so far I would guess that the Anti-Christ is Islam.  And please before the hair-splitting bleeding hearts attack  I said Islam - not Muslim.

Please scratch all of that.  I do not believe or guess  that the anti-Christ is Islam.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/15/2016 at 3:49 PM, Peace said:

Well then. Thank you for enlightening me on the matters on which you decided to respond to. I will take what I can get.

My dear Socrates, I think that you are well aware that I do not value the private research of random people on the internet. If you do not post the information it is of little use in furthering a discussion between us.

If you're actually interested, you can easily do your own research.  A quick google search gave a ton of information, but I'll give you this link to an actual Muslim site, lest you dismiss it all as anti-Muslim propaganda:  http://www.lastprophet.info/the-importance-of-prophet-muhammad-and-his-status-as-a-role-model

Of course, if you can find anything from actual believing Muslims claiming that their "prophet" was an exemplar of right behavior, feel free to share it.

 

Quote

That may very well be the case, but fortunately for me, I am not searching for such a Muslim. Nor is the presence or absence of such a Muslim particularly relevant to the fact that Credo's argument was a form of the genetic fallacy.

It would only be a genetic fallacy (regarding either the Christian Faith or Islam) if Christians or Muslims did not in fact regard themselves as followers of the founders of their respective religions, and regard them as models to be followed, and teachers of timeless, unchanging truths.

But if you want to argue that Mohammed and his actions are irrelevant, and Islam has no inherent meaning, and means simply whatever any given Muslim at any given time wants it to mean, then this whole debate becomes pointless.  Who then are you to say that Muslims who claim that Islam necessitates their violent actions are wrong, or not following "true Islam"?

 

On 8/15/2016 at 8:18 PM, Peace said:

 

On 8/15/2016 at 3:49 PM, Peace said:

There is some doubt as to whether Muhammad was a real person in history who actually existed and performed the various actions that are attributed to him, but who were his immediate successors?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Muslim_conquests

 

On 8/15/2016 at 8:18 PM, Peace said:

But that is a bit beside the point anyway, because the main comparison that I drew in my analogy was a comparison between two secular documents (the US Constitution and the Koran (and other Islamic texts)).

The Koran is a secular document?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Socrates said:

Of course, if you can find anything from actual believing Muslims claiming that their "prophet" was an exemplar of right behavior, feel free to share it.

Should read, "Of course, if you can find anything from actual believing Muslims claiming that their "prophet" was not an exemplar of right behavior, feel free to share it."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Socrates said:

If you're actually interested, you can easily do your own research.  A quick google search gave a ton of information, but I'll give you this link to an actual Muslim site, lest you dismiss it all as anti-Muslim propaganda:  http://www.lastprophet.info/the-importance-of-prophet-muhammad-and-his-status-as-a-role-model

Of course, if you can find anything from actual believing Muslims claiming that their "prophet" was an exemplar of right behavior, feel free to share it.

Thank you for the information. I will concede your point. Muslims look at Muhammad as a role model.

I do not think the point is relevant to the question of whether the argument is a form of genetic fallacy so I am more than happy to concede it to you.

2 hours ago, Socrates said:

It would only be a genetic fallacy (regarding either the Christian Faith or Islam) if Christians or Muslims did not in fact regard themselves as followers of the founders of their respective religions, and regard them as models to be followed, and teachers of timeless, unchanging truths.

I do not see why this must logically follow.

As I explained earlier, my assertion that Credo's argument is a form of genetic fallacy was based on his seeming assumption that there is such a thing as "true Islam" (e.g. the Koran as properly understood by its author). Under this assumption, how are Muhammad's actions after / during the course of writing the Koran any more relevant to the interpretation (original intent) of the Koran than the Founding Father's holding of slaves are relevant to the interpretation (original intent) of the US Constitution? I do not see a logical difference.

Nor is it relevant whether Muslims view Muhammad as a role model. Muslims could view his various violent acts as the ideal form of Islam, but that does impact how the Koran was intended to be understood by it's author. Take the US Constitution again as an example.  Let us assume that the drafters of the US Constitution intended the constitution to be a document that abhors public racism, and that the US Constitution was in fact drafted according to that intent.  After that, the people who drafted and signed the constitution went out, bought 100 slaves each and called each of them the N-Word 100 times a day.  The rest of the public sees this and says "Gee Whiz. The people who wrote the constitution are racist. I think they are an excellent example of what the US Constitution must stand for. Let us be racist too in accordance with our understanding of the Constitution." 

Does that then make the US Constitution as originally drafted a racist document?  No. And I think you can see the logical reason why.

But that seems to me to be the exact same argument that has been made here against Islam. How is your argument different?

2 hours ago, Socrates said:

But if you want to argue that Mohammed and his actions are irrelevant, and Islam has no inherent meaning, and means simply whatever any given Muslim at any given time wants it to mean, then this whole debate becomes pointless.  

As I wrote above, my assertion assumed that there is such a thing as "true Islam" (e.g. the Koran as properly understood by it's author at the time it was written).  If St. Peter denied Jesus 3 times does that mean that the books of the Bible he wrote were intended to advocate denying Jesus? Of course not.  Then if Muhammad does violent acts, why must it logically follow that the book he (allegedly) wrote must teach violence? I do not see a logical difference, but perhaps you can explain it to me.

2 hours ago, Socrates said:

Who then are you to say that Muslims who claim that Islam necessitates their violent actions are wrong, or not following "true Islam"?

They would be following "true Islam" if you define "true Islam" as their own personal interpretation of the Koran. In this case there are as many "true Islams" as there are professing Muslims on the Earth.

But again, this is not the assumption that I have been operating under in this thread. As I wrote, if you want to change the discussion to what Muslims living today actually believe that would be an advancement I think. I do not honestly know, but my impression is that the vast majority of Muslims do not believe that their religion would advocate (at least today) the violent overthrow and suppression of Christian peoples. Those type of Muslims we would generally refer to as radicals or extremists.

2 hours ago, Socrates said:

I do not see much information in that article about Muhammad at all. What point is it exactly that you desire to make with the link? If you read the Wiki called "Historicity of Muhammad" you will see that there are scholars who question whether Muhammad was an actual person who existed in history.

2 hours ago, Socrates said:

The Koran is a secular document?

Insofar as the analogy is concerned it is. Neither document has any kind of divine authorship or authority. I do not see why we should not consider the Koran as on the same level as the US Constitution, Moby Dick, or any other regular document drafted by men.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oremus Pro Invicem
9 hours ago, Peace said:

Insofar as the analogy is concerned it is. Neither document has any kind of divine authorship or authority. I do not see why we should not consider the Koran as on the same level as the US Constitution, Moby Dick, or any other regular document drafted by men.

I would encourage you to think about a couple things. Firstly, that Muslims do believe the Quran is divinely inspired.  They hold it as an infallible message which was given to Mohammad by the angel Gabriel and that it was first recited by Mohammad and orally taught by him to his companions.  Secondly, because the Quran was divinely handed to Mohammad he is therefor seen as being a holy prophet protected by God from sin. While Muslims believe Mohammad could make mistakes/accidents, they do not believe he could sin or that he could teach/live anything other than the Quran he recieved from Allah.   Thirdly Mohammad, unlike St. Peter, did what he did for the Glory of Islam or as some would say in the name of Islam.  He conquered for Islam and therefor by doing so attributed his actions as something a true Muslim would do for Islam, based on the message (Quran) he recieved from Allah by the angel Gabriel.  Lastly, Muhammad is not seen by the Muslims as being the author of the Quarn. God is seen as being the author and Muhammad is seen as being the first person to recite the Quarn. While we now have the Quran in text, making it scripture, it was never written by Muhammad which means all of his actions are seen as being the living embodiment of the Quran and the spirit of the Quran.  This is why his conquests are viewed by Muslims the world over as being holy and just.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Oremus Pro Invicem said:

I would encourage you to think about a couple things. Firstly, that Muslims do believe the Quran is divinely inspired.  They hold it as an infallible message which was given to Mohammad by the angel Gabriel and that it was first recited by Mohammad and orally taught by him to his companions.  Secondly, because the Quran was divinely handed to Mohammad he is therefor seen as being a holy prophet protected by God from sin. While Muslims believe Mohammad could make mistakes/accidents, they do not believe he could sin or that he could teach/live anything other than the Quran he recieved from Allah.   Thirdly Mohammad, unlike St. Peter, did what he did for the Glory of Islam or as some would say in the name of Islam.  He conquered for Islam and therefor by doing so attributed his actions as something a true Muslim would do for Islam, based on the message (Quran) he recieved from Allah by the angel Gabriel.  Lastly, Muhammad is not seen by the Muslims as being the author of the Quarn. God is seen as being the author and Muhammad is seen as being the first person to recite the Quarn. While we now have the Quran in text, making it scripture, it was never written by Muhammad which means all of his actions are seen as being the living embodiment of the Quran and the spirit of the Quran.  This is why his conquests are viewed by Muslims the world over as being holy and just.  

 

Thank you for your comments. I have thought about them. What conclusion is it that you think I should draw, and why? 

I have a sense of what you are attempting to argue, but I do not see how you would avoid the same kind arguments being applied to King David's conquests, or any of the violent actions in the Bible directly taken by God himself. 

In the same sense that you describe above we believe that God is the author of the Bible. Was it not good for God to direct King David to capture Jerusalem? Was it not good for God to destroy Sodom? If those things are good, as they must be, does that then mean that God's religion is violent? Should we believe that God desires us to destroy the Castro District today because God destroyed Sodom thousands of years ago? No. Of course not.

But how is that any different than what you are arguing? It is not as if an invalid argument becomes valid because it is being used against Islam rather than Christianity (as atheists and others often use these types of arguments against Christians).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When we talk about Muslims, we're taking about over a billion people- 22% of the world's population spread across continents. There is tremendous diversity of language, culture and ethnicity.  They include extremist psychopaths, hippies, hijabis and women in jeans with bare bellies... .The entire social and political spectrum.  The media doesn't show this diversity and I blame them for a lot of the difficulty people have when trying to discuss Muslims and Islam.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oremus Pro Invicem
38 minutes ago, Peace said:

Thank you for your comments. I have thought about them. What conclusion is it that you think I should draw, and why? 

I have a sense of what you are attempting to argue, but I do not see how you would avoid the same kind arguments being applied to King David's conquests, or any of the violent actions in the Bible directly taken by God himself. 

In the same sense that you describe above we believe that God is the author of the Bible. Was it not good for God to direct King David to capture Jerusalem? Was it not good for God to destroy Sodom? If those things are good, as they must be, does that then mean that God's religion is violent? Should we believe that God desires us to destroy the Castro District today because God destroyed Sodom thousands of years ago? No. Of course not.

But how is that any different than what you are arguing? It is not as if an invalid argument becomes valid because it is being used against Islam rather than Christianity (as atheists and others often use these types of arguments against Christians)

I think what it comes down to is a lack of a central teaching authority.  We have the Magesterium of the Church who's mission it is to tell us when and in what times conquests are from God and when violence is permitted/legitimate. We have a Just War Doctrine for this very reason.  Yet with Islam this becomes more of a complicated matter because there is no central teaching authority, so some Muslims start their conquering in imitation of Muhammad for the glory Islam while others do not feel such a conquest is justified or holy.  Which is correct? Without a central teaching authority we can only logically look towards Muhammad's life and ask ourselves if the current Muslims are in immitation of their founder/authoritative figure. Did he conquer? Why did he conquer? How? Etc.    Within Christianity this is likewise done, however, because we have the Church which is the Bride of Christ, we know that we are only in immitation of Christ if we are in uniformity with the Magesterium.  

But in answer to your question regarding King David, I would say if all we had were the oral teachings of King David and no central teaching authority, then yes we would logically follow and look towards King David's life as an example of how to live our Davidic Faith. It's a logical conclusion that a holy figure should be imitated if that figure is seen as the founder of the faith.  This is why we look to Christ  (John 13:15, 1 Peter 2:21, 1 Corinthians 11:1, 1 John 2:6). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Oremus Pro Invicem said:

I think what it comes down to is a lack of a central teaching authority.  We have the Magesterium of the Church who's mission it is to tell us when and in what times conquests are from God and when violence is permitted/legitimate. We have a Just War Doctrine for this very reason.  Yet with Islam this becomes more of a complicated matter because there is no central teaching authority, so some Muslims start their conquering in imitation of Muhammad for the glory Islam while others do not feel such a conquest is justified or holy.  Which is correct? Without a central teaching authority we can only logically look towards Muhammad's life and ask ourselves if the current Muslims are in immitation of their founder/authoritative figure. Did he conquer? Why did he conquer? How? Etc.    Within Christianity this is likewise done, however, because we have the Church which is the Bride of Christ, we know that we are only in immitation of Christ if we are in uniformity with the Magesterium.  

But in answer to your question regarding King David, I would say if all we had were the oral teachings of King David and no central teaching authority, then yes we would logically follow and look towards King David's life as an example of how to live our Davidic Faith. It's a logical conclusion that a holy figure should be imitated if that figure is seen as the founder of the faith.  This is why we look to Christ  (John 13:15, 1 Peter 2:21, 1 Corinthians 11:1, 1 John 2:6). 

Fair enough. I am not sure if that would really get us anywhere because each situation is different. In other words, assuming that there is no central Christian authority walking the Earth today (as Protestants assume, for example) would we be justified in thinking "David captured Jerusalem therefore we should capture Mecca today"? I don't think so. We could imitate David is some very general sense but we could not imitate him precisely because the situations are different. We would say "even though David's actions were good and justified in the situation that he found himself, today we do not have exactly the same situation so it does not necessarily follow that we should sack Mecca." 

So I don't see why some people here seem to suggest that Muslims are incapable of making the same distinction. In other words, the fact that a Muslim may think that Muhammad's actions many centuries ago were good or justified, should not cause us to think that they would advocate for the violent conquest of Christians today. That seems to be a rare view among Muslim extremists.

Edited by Peace
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...