Islam & Allah O.K. in public schools,

[misereremi]

[quote name='Era Might' post='991971' date='May 28 2006, 11:09 PM']
My point here is that it's not very respectful for us to define Islam for Muslims, and it's also not very respectful to take isolated passages and throw it in their face, because they can return the favor just as easily. Are there Muslims who follow an extreme form of Islam? Of course. Just as there are Christians who follow an extreme (and warped) form of Christianity. Neither group defines their respective religion. And I think it's pretty dishonest to harp on isolated and problematic passages in the Koran, when the book is by and large a treatise on worship and the spiritual life.


And again, if we expect the right to contextualize our own Scriptures, we ought to return the same right to Muslims.

[/quote]

I agree with Era Might's post above-esp, these points. I have asked Muslim sholars to explain the context to me many times. Context is always important. The ayats that were quoted earlier out of context refer to what was revealed around the the time of the battle of Badr, when Mohammed had done hijrah to Medina and the pagans-who had persecuted them without reprisals from Mohammed for 13 years- came from Mecca to destroy their city. The guidance was for self-defence, never to be an aggressor. Muslims can quote just as many ayats from the Qur’an that speak of peaceful dealings with people of the book and other non believers.

There are numerous hadiths which show that Mohammed dealt peacefully with people of other faiths. A Muslim scholar gave me this to read from the hadith- a message from Mohammed to the Mount Sinai monks of St. Catherine:

"This is a message written by Muhammad ibn Abdullah, as a covenant to those who adopt Christianity, far and near, we are behind them. Verily, I defend them by myself, the servants, the helpers, and my followers, because Christians are my citizens; and by Allah! I hold out against anything that displeases them. No compulsion is to be on them. Neither are their judges to be changed from their jobs, nor their monks from their monasteries. No one is to destroy a house of their religion, to damage it, or to carry anything from it to the Muslims' houses. Should anyone take any of these, he would spoil God's covenant and disobey His Prophet. Verily, they (Christians) are my allies and have my secure charter against all that they hate. No one is to force them to travel or to oblige them to fight. The Muslims are to fight for them. If a female Christian is married to a Muslim, this is not to take place without her own wish. She is not to be prevented from going to her church to pray. Their churches are to be respected. They are neither to be prevented from repairing them nor the sacredness of their covenants. No one of the nation is to disobey this covenant till the Day of Judgment and the end of the world."

There aren't many (any?) "Muslim" countries left in the world today. Muslims will agree that most of them are corrupt and/or extremist, blatantly practicing shirk and all manner of harram acitvity.

[Myles Domini]

Its true that context is important but again who decides what the context is and how it is applicable in todays context? The fact that certain ayah are connected with historical events has not prevented them from being used to supported armed expansion of Islam subsequent to his death. The actions of the '6 righteous caliphs' who exported Islam out of Arabia and across the Near East and North Africa into Spain are testament to that fact. There are some scholars who take a moderate view, thats true, but in all honesty its sort of fudges the issue. You can interpret the Koran and the ahadith in many different ways, in theory, but in practice Isalm being a judicial religion its down to the Mufti's interpret the correct interpretation based on prior precedent as in any legal ruiling. The history of this tradition of interpretation is filled with blood and nobody can actually argue otherwise convincingly which is where the problem arises.

Its all well and good trying to argue a new interpretation of the law but what exactly gives you the right if a judge in a past era has already established a ruiling that has become part of common law? Even today an attitude of Dhimmitude continues to be prevalent as [url="http://www.archons.org/pdf/yalelawstudy.pdf"]This Yale Law study of Turkey's treatment of the Patriarchate of Constantinople illustrates[/url] and with good cause. What legal precedent is there upon which to base a new interpretation?

There is some wisdom in saying that Arab nationalism has an influence on this. The inability of the Arab countries to really emerge as nation-states has accentuated the search for identity that began shortly after September 11th 1683 leading to the birth of Wahabism. That being said, the logical place for most Arabs to turn in this circumstance is to the Ummah. Islam fundamentally is an Arabic religion after all, it may have a universal mission but it exalts the Arab language and most things Arabic. If you as an Arab were suffering an identity crisis it would probably would be the first place you looked to reaffirm your manifest destiny and it is quite telling that if there were free and fair elections in places like Egypt the Muslim Brotherhood would win a landslide victory.

There is more to the current rage against the West than religious fervour, true enough as I think this article [url="http://www.newyorker.com/printables/fact/020916fa_fact2"]The Man Behind Bin Laden[/url] illustrates. Still, historically it was by this method that Mohammed united the tribes of Arabia and subsequently that his followers subdued the surrounding Byzantine and Parthian territories until they were defeated in France by Charles Martel in the mid 8th century. Islam was initially used as a means by which to unite the Arab people is it thus such a surprise that in the 21st century Arab potentates are using it towards the same ends? Drawing upon historical examples like the 6 righteous caliphs etc. to legitimise this fact? Where does the Ummah end and the Arab nation actually begin? Until the 21st century did the Arabs even have any concept of nation-state?

Its far too simplistic to say that this is nationalism and not religion because by my reading of history the two are almost insperable within Islamdom. The fact that we can still use the term Islamdom whereas we can no longer call what was once Christendom anything other than "the West" is illustrative of the fact that we realise this. Indeed, whenever "the West" does something Islamdom dislikes usually it protests to the Church because the way in which they concieve of "the West" is the way in which they conceive of their their own society wherein the secular and the religious remain intimately wedded.

[misereremi]

[quote name='Myles Domini' post='992245' date='May 29 2006, 10:39 AM']

Where does the Ummah end and the Arab nation actually begin? Until the 21st century did the Arabs even have any concept of nation-state?

Its far too simplistic to say that this is nationalism and not religion because by my reading of history the two are almost insperable within Islamdom. The fact that we can still use the term Islamdom whereas we can no longer call what was once Christendom anything other than "the West" is illustrative of the fact that we realise this. Indeed, whenever "the West" does something Islamdom dislikes usually it protests to the Church because the way in which they concieve of "the West" is the way in which they conceive of their their own society wherein the secular and the religious remain intimately wedded.
[/quote]

Hi Myles. Honestly, I'm a very thick person, where is Islamdom today? Does it include Southern Philippines, Turkey, Jordan, Egypt, Saudi...? When I visit places where the prevalent religion is Islam and the West does something, people blame Bush & Blair, greedy politicians and businessmen or our poor troops, not the Church, except when people use words like Crusade to describe the mission in Iraq. This "us and them" sentiment is doing nobody any favours. It certainly got my head kicked in.

Whatever your definition of Islam, as a religion it is growing quickly in the West without force. How should Catholics deal with Muslims here in the West? Maybe the topic of another thread...

[Myles Domini]

[quote name='misereremi' post='992288' date='May 29 2006, 02:12 PM']
Hi Myles. Honestly, I'm a very thick person, where is Islamdom today? Does it include Southern Philippines, Turkey, Jordan, Egypt, Saudi...? When I visit places where the prevalent religion is Islam and the West does something, people blame Bush & Blair, greedy politicians and businessmen or our poor troops, not the Church, except when people use words like Crusade to describe the mission in Iraq. This "us and them" sentiment is doing nobody any favours. It certainly got my head kicked in.

Whatever your definition of Islam, as a religion it is growing quickly in the West without force. How should Catholics deal with Muslims here in the West? Maybe the topic of another thread...
[/quote]

Islamdom is in all those places that you've mentioned. The people you talk to may blame Western politicians indeed but the Church recieves her fair share of ill treatment also one only need to keep up with the bulletins from Zenit, Asia News etc. to see that. The dwindling of the native Middle Eastern Christian communities such as the Melkites and Chaldeans attests to this also. Would it be fair not to acknowledge the suffering of many Christians around the world because it sounds like I'm being antagonistic? When the Mohammed cartoons were released was not Fr Andrea shot in Turkey and a Friar beaten? Was not a church stoned in Lebanon? It is not a figment of my imagination that Palestinian Christians, for instance, have been oft treated as a 5th column and often suffered harsh treatment by both the Druze and the Palestinian Arab Muslim community. The stastistics of their exodus West is testament to that fact.

I dont dislike Muslims, I dont dislike anyone, you cant bring the love of Jesus Christ to someone you dont love. What I do dislike is misrepresentation of the facts, hence the reason for my post. Nothing in my post is false and everything I said was either a lawful statement or a lawful question. The Yale Law study is not a fabrication, Turkey really has done all the things it says. It is not a lie to say that with Islam Mohammed united the Arabs and that Muslim leaders thoroughout history have utilised it in the same manner. It is not a lie to say the division of church and state is a Western innovation that has never really been swallowed by the Muslim world and was effectively forced upon it by the destruction of the Ottoman state. Nor is it a lie to say that the expansion of Islam into Spain across the Middle East, North Africa and Asia minor was by military force. Again, how is it inaccurate to say that the Mufti's make their ruilings based upon established legal precedent and to ask what legal theory can one provide for novel interpretation accordingly?

Lastly, there needn't be a thread devoted to Islam and Catholicism. Catholics should treat Muslims the same way they should treat all non-Catholics. A) Pray for their conversion; B) Be ready to give answer to any questions they may have about the faith in order to encourage conversion and C) Spread the gospel through word and deed.

[misereremi]

^^True, Myles. Btw I never said anything you said was a lie (?) and I'm sorry you think I did. No one can deny the killing and suffering of Christians, especially not me. My heart always goes out to my fam there.

But it's clear to me that no matter how people describe Islam, it is spreading here without coersion and many Muslims- be they deluded or devout- don't see their faith as condoning violence and don't know that the Ummah is not simply people who follow the deen. I'm finding it's a real mission trying to bring the gospel in word and deed to these converts, especially with the secular govt revelling in suppressing and belittling Christianity, and even saying they rep Christians, and Christians saying we are at war against these heretics, and others watering down the faith not knowing that it's orthodoxy that these people are seeking etc. etc.

Vent over, I'm sorry people
San Ramon Nonnatus ora pro nobis

(the suggestion of the new topic was bc I was going off-topic from the orginal topic about schools, apologies, nvrmind. )

[Mateo el Feo]

Myles,

Great posts. The following question hits the center of this discussion:[quote name='Myles Domini' post='992313' date='May 29 2006, 10:20 AM']Would it be fair not to acknowledge the suffering of many Christians around the world because it sounds like I'm being antagonistic?[/quote]Everyone should consider this question.

I hope we've moved the discussion beyond the idea that we're fighting against a small band of "false Muslims" and confront the fact that the non-Muslim persecution in the Muslim world is commited by a variety of religious and nominally secular governments, not to mention the quasi-governmental "religious police" in some countries and other vigilantes who act with the complicit approval of the government.

There is a diversity of thought within Islamic jurisprudence. Unfortunately, the institutional persecution of non-Muslims is one of the things that they seem to agree on. As a consequence of this fact, it seems apparent that non-Muslims don't really want Muslims to adopt an existing "moderate Islam." Instead, they want Muslims to drop 1400 years of well-established Islamic Law.

Islam has an institutional history which demands that Muslims (as individuals or through government) treat all non-Muslims as second class citizens. Non-Muslim rights are all subject to the bounds of Sharia ([url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cairo_Declaration_on_Human_Rights_in_Islam"]link[/url]). And while 20th century Middle Eastern secular movements have advanced the cause of non-Muslim rights, those same secular movements are increasingly being seen as a failed experiment whose cure is a return to "true" Islam.

In posts above, there have been discussion of Osama bin Laden and Arab Nationalism. If anyone questions that these are red herrings, I would have no problem isolating my citations of non-Muslim persecution to non-Arabs who have nothing to do with Al Qaeda. Unfortunately, the news gives us more evidence each day of human rights abuses by Muslim faithful.

[b]The Catholic Church's Response to Islam[/b]
Above, someone cited Pope John Paul II's words of reconciliation toward Islam. While I am for peaceful co-existence, my opinion is that JPII's words may have caused negative side effects that were not anticipated. For example: some seem to have interpreted these statements as a modern form of indifferentialism (i.e. one religion is as good as another). Pope John Paul II's conciliatory tone led one of the Muslim posters to believe that the Pope had secretly converted to Islam! I suspect that he wasn't the only person to believe this conspiracy theory. [url="http://www.amirbutler.com/archives/2002/11/15/12"]See this link for a discussion of Muslim Conspiracy theories written by a Muslim.[/url]

The Vatican--along with bishops around the world--are calling on Muslims to respect Christians and other non-Muslims, just as the West respects the freedom of Muslims in its midst. Today, the Vatican is realizing more and more that it cannot remain silent when non-Muslim abuse occurs, even if Muslims are "offended" by us bringing up these ugly facts.

Edited May 29, 2006 by Mateo el Feo

[Myles Domini]

[quote name='misereremi' post='992364' date='May 29 2006, 05:37 PM']
^^True, Myles. Btw I never said anything you said was a lie (?) and I'm sorry you think I did. No one can deny the killing and suffering of Christians, especially not me. My heart always goes out to my fam there.

But it's clear to me that no matter how people describe Islam, it is spreading here without coersion and many Muslims- be they deluded or devout- don't see their faith as condoning violence and don't know that the Ummah is not simply people who follow the deen. I'm finding it's a real mission trying to bring the gospel in word and deed to these converts, especially with the secular govt revelling in suppressing and belittling Christianity, and even saying they rep Christians, and Christians saying we are at war against these heretics, and others watering down the faith not knowing that it's orthodoxy that these people are seeking etc. etc.

Vent over, I'm sorry people
San Ramon Nonnatus ora pro nobis

(the suggestion of the new topic was bc I was going off-topic from the orginal topic about schools, apologies, nvrmind. )
[/quote]

I apologise if you felt I was accusing you. It was not my intention to do so, simply that I interpreted your comment about having a "them and us" mentality as implying that my comments were being unduly aggressive and adversarial towards Muslims.

I'm well aware that Islam in the West is spreading without violence. I did not make any reference to the contemporary Western situation because I did not believe it was strictly relevant to the points being addressed when I entered this debate. My attitude towards them as towards all people is the same though, as previously stated, bring them the love of God. Come prepared with the Catechetical teaching of the Church and be willing to enter into dialogue.

Be able to challenge the historical veracity of Surah 61; be able to illustrate that Surah 6's comments about God needing to have a consort to have a Son are only true in a material sense--a sense Christianity rejects; be able to identify the error of Muslims in using the so-called 'gospel of Barnabas' which if true nullifies the Koran since it claims Jesus is not the Messiah a claim the Koran wants to make etc.etc. Know your own faith, know the questions that will arise and be ready to give answer to them. Essentially debating with Muslims isnt so different from arguing against Jehovah Witnesses' or Mormons. Proving we didnt change the Bible, giving evidence that Jesus was divine yadda yadda yadda. If you're able to carry a healthy apologetics on one front you should be able to do it on basically any front.

The problem of the Church is the lack of theologian bishops actually willing to enter into controversy. Did Athanasius ignore the challenge from the pagans and Arians? Did the Cappodacians simply sit still before Apollinarius, Eunomius and co? Did Ambrose quietly allow Auxentius to cease his basilica? Did Augustine meekly hold his tongue before the Manichees, the Platonists, the Homoions and the Pelagians? Having isolated apologists carrying on the struggle is good but they need a platform wherein their message can be widely broadcast. Only the episcopate really has that capacity and indeed only they have the right by episcopal orders. Essential (in the philosophical sense of what it means to be by nature something) to the Bishop's vocation is that he [b]preach[/b] and propagate the faith. The inability to do this, though understandable, is damaging. After all if the shepherds do not tend the sheep who will?

[Guest maryhasopenarms]

the Islamic and the Christians praise the same God.

[musturde]

[quote name='Myles Domini' post='992313' date='May 29 2006, 09:20 AM']
Islamdom is in all those places that you've mentioned.[/quote]
Did you come up with this word yourself? lol

[quote]
The people you talk to may blame Western politicians indeed but the Church recieves her fair share of ill treatment also one only need to keep up with the bulletins from Zenit, Asia News etc. to see that. The dwindling of the native Middle Eastern Christian communities such as the Melkites and Chaldeans attests to this also. Would it be fair not to acknowledge the suffering of many Christians around the world because it sounds like I'm being antagonistic? When the Mohammed cartoons were released was not Fr Andrea shot in Turkey and a Friar beaten? Was not a church stoned in Lebanon? It is not a figment of my imagination that Palestinian Christians, for instance, have been oft treated as a 5th column and often suffered harsh treatment by both the Druze and the Palestinian Arab Muslim community. The stastistics of their exodus West is testament to that fact.
[/quote]
Its true that a priest and a friar were killed and injured when the cartoon was out. However, this was done by unneducated idiots who don't know the truth about Islam. What is the truth about Islam? Who is to decide it? Well just as the Bible, true Islam can be seen by how the Muslim Scholars see it. The Muslim scholars in N. America came together and agreed that terrorism is a Haram. Of course this is obvious, however they came together and anounced it so that people wouldn't think that everyone in the religion was a bloodsucking Bin Laden worshipper. A Church was stoned in Lebanon by the closed minded Muslims. I believe this was already discussed. The true Muslims in Lebanon went against this act. There was a group of Idiots who dreamed to be in Achrafieh where all the crimes against Christians were happening. They finally had a reason. These thugs aren't real Muslims and the Islamic community in Lebanon was hoping that the Christians knew that they didn't agree with it and that they were not part of this stupid riot. Muslims still boycotted Danish goods in Lebanon (although I still don't agree with the idea) but for the most part didn't participate in such acts. If that was the case, another Civil War would have errupted. Also, the Druze Community is a different story. The Druze aren't Muslim.


[quote]Again, how is it inaccurate to say that the Mufti's make their ruilings based upon established legal precedent and to ask what legal theory can one provide for novel interpretation accordingly? [/quote]
This isn't everywhere.

[quote]
Lastly, there needn't be a thread devoted to Islam and Catholicism. Catholics should treat Muslims the same way they should treat all non-Catholics. A) Pray for their conversion; B) Be ready to give answer to any questions they may have about the faith in order to encourage conversion and C) Spread the gospel through word and deed.
[/quote]

Better to learn more about a religion if you seek to convert the followers of it. I think it's a nice thread.

[musturde]

[quote]The media is simply respecting the Muslim practice of not translating the term. If you speak English with them, Christian Arabs will tell you that they worship God, and not "Allah." If you speak English with a Muslim, they will speak of Allah. As an aside, I have heard that the historical practice of Christian Arabs calling the God of the Bible "Allah" came about with a bit of arm-twisting from their Muslim rulers. I think that explanation has some merit. In fact, I found that Muslims try their best to pepper their discussions with Arabic terms.[/quote]

I don't know where you're getting your information from. Perhaps the history is true. Whatever the history is, the fact remains, Christian Arabs use Allah during worship and say the same phrases Muslims do "allah Mahuk" (God Be With You), "Enshallah" (Ojala in espanol), which means "If God Wills", and the casual "Ya Allah!", which translates, "Oh God". Most Christians I know say that Allah is the same God (without Jesus and the Holy Spirit). Unless you are talking to Christians who hate Muslims so much they refuse to admit they worship the same God lol.

[musturde]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' post='992424' date='May 29 2006, 02:27 PM']
Myles,

Great posts. The following question hits the center of this discussion:Everyone should consider this question.
[/quote]
We should consider it and work to change it in the areas in which it is occuring. These are Human Rights Violation, not a religious successes.
[quote]
I hope we've moved the discussion beyond the idea that we're fighting against a small band of "false Muslims" and confront the fact that the non-Muslim persecution in the Muslim world is commited by a variety of religious and nominally secular governments, not to mention the quasi-governmental "religious police" in some countries and other vigilantes who act with the complicit approval of the government.
[/quote]
True, there are many Muslims who are idiots and use their religion for political gain. These Muslims use their power to bring in Muslims with a lower faith, people with the same political goals, or Muslims who don't know much about their religion.

[quote]
There is a diversity of thought within Islamic jurisprudence. Unfortunately, the institutional persecution of non-Muslims is one of the things that they seem to agree on. As a consequence of this fact, it seems apparent that non-Muslims don't really want Muslims to adopt an existing "moderate Islam." Instead, they want Muslims to drop 1400 years of well-established Islamic Law.
[/quote]
This is true when it comes to wars. There are governments that tolerate Christians. Muhammad taught tolerance of other religions.

[quote]Islam has an institutional history which demands that Muslims (as individuals or through government) treat all non-Muslims as second class citizens. Non-Muslim rights are all subject to the bounds of Sharia ([url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cairo_Declaration_on_Human_Rights_in_Islam"]link[/url]). And while 20th century Middle Eastern secular movements have advanced the cause of non-Muslim rights, those same secular movements are increasingly being seen as a failed experiment whose cure is a return to "true" Islam.
[/quote]

A return of their view of true Islam. A state should never incorporate religion. Although it is traditional. Even Christian based governments (that are based on rules and regulations strictly for a specific religion) were oppressive.

[quote]In posts above, there have been discussion of Osama bin Laden and Arab Nationalism. If anyone questions that these are red herrings, I would have no problem isolating my citations of non-Muslim persecution to non-Arabs who have nothing to do with Al Qaeda. Unfortunately, the news gives us more evidence each day of human rights abuses by Muslim faithful.[/quote]

Wait, I'm confused. You agree with Era Might on this one? (just clarifying)

[quote]
[b]The Catholic Church's Response to Islam[/b]
Above, someone cited Pope John Paul II's words of reconciliation toward Islam. While I am for peaceful co-existence, my opinion is that JPII's words may have caused negative side effects that were not anticipated. For example: some seem to have interpreted these statements as a modern form of indifferentialism (i.e. one religion is as good as another). Pope John Paul II's conciliatory tone led one of the Muslim posters to believe that the Pope had secretly converted to Islam! I suspect that he wasn't the only person to believe this conspiracy theory. [url="http://www.amirbutler.com/archives/2002/11/15/12"]See this link for a discussion of Muslim Conspiracy theories written by a Muslim.[/url][/quote]

The idea of saying that Islam is just like Christianity is not what the Pope intended. Also, he didn't intend people to bash the religion and say every true follower has to blow up a Christian. There are two extremes.
[quote]
The Vatican--along with bishops around the world--are calling on Muslims to respect Christians and other non-Muslims, just as the West respects the freedom of Muslims in its midst. Today, the Vatican is realizing more and more that it cannot remain silent when non-Muslim abuse occurs, even if Muslims are "offended" by us bringing up these ugly facts.
[/quote]
The Bishops have always been doing this (at least the Bishops I'm thinking of). Muslims wouldn't be offended by these "ugly facts" because many aren't a part of them. Educated people in bigger cities (even in Afghanistan) are more prone to open minds.

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='musturde' post='992526' date='May 29 2006, 08:41 PM']
I don't know where you're getting your information from. Perhaps the history is true. Whatever the history is, the fact remains, Christian Arabs use Allah during worship and say the same phrases Muslims do "allah Mahuk" (God Be With You), "Enshallah" (Ojala in espanol), which means "If God Wills", and the casual "Ya Allah!", which translates, "Oh God". Most Christians I know say that Allah is the same God (without Jesus and the Holy Spirit). Unless you are talking to Christians who hate Muslims so much they refuse to admit they worship the same God lol.
[/quote]Hi Musturde,

First, could you refrain from stuff like, "Unless you are talking to Christians who hate Muslims so much they refuse to admit they worship the same God"? It feels a little bit like [i]ad hominem[/i]. I don't believe that I even brought up the "God is the same as Allah" question.

Maybe you've misunderstood what my statement was. I'm trying to be as precise as possible. I've spoken of the usage of the terms "Allah" and "God" in the English language. This is my claim: When Christian Arabs speak [u]English[/u], they [i]always[/i] refer to the Divine Being as "God." When Muslims speak [u]English[/u], they [i]tend to[/i] refer to the Divine being as "Allah." I've seen exceptions to the latter rule, but never the former.

Here's a couple Arab Christian websites in English:
[url="http://www.bkerke.org.lb/themaronites.html"]http://www.bkerke.org.lb/themaronites.html[/url]
[url="http://www.melkite.org/PRIMER.htm"]http://www.melkite.org/PRIMER.htm[/url]

Aside from people's names, you won't be able to find the word "Allah" mentioned anywhere.

In contrast, here's a quote from the Wiki ([url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allah"]link[/url]):
[quote]Islamic scholars often translate Allah directly into English as 'God', especially Qur'an Alone Muslims. Other scholars feel that Allah should not be translated arguing that Allah is the term for "The God" in a glorified pronunciation. This is a significant issue when translating the Qur'an.[/quote]

Edited May 30, 2006 by Mateo el Feo

[kujo]

[quote name='Socrates' post='991627' date='May 27 2006, 08:20 PM']
"...the cause of the Crusades was just, and was a response to violent Muslim aggression.

The Inquisition did not have the purpose of killing Muslims.

And Islam itself was originally spread by violent military conquest, in which those attacked by the Muslims had to either submit to Islam or die.

Islam has historically been far from a "religion of peace," and in most violent conflicts between Christianity and Islam, the Muslims were the original aggressors.
[/quote]

Not to play semantics here, but I see some fallacies in your historical clarifications:
1. Whether or not the "purpose" of The Inquisition was to kill Muslims, Christians did engage in some heinous (not "less-than-honorable") acts. The ends do not justify the means, and our mission (a noble one) in no way excuses the fact that some within our ranks used this cause for their own personal gain.

2. As for the expansion of Islam through military conquest...join the club. Christianity was spread in a similar way, my friend. You know that.

[quote name='Akalyte' post='991422' date='May 27 2006, 11:06 AM']
The crusades and inquisitions were mostly myths, when will catholics stop believing in protestant lies?

again, history shows what muslims have done since their founding.

personally, I wish catholics would stop defending other religions and start defending and protecting their own.

yeah the bible has cruelty and violence in it too. But muslims have done far worse/
[/quote]

Can you justify your claims that the Crusades and Inquisition was a myth? Or is this just mindless-rhetoric?

[musturde]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' post='992629' date='May 29 2006, 10:33 PM']
Hi Musturde,

First, could you refrain from stuff like, "Unless you are talking to Christians who hate Muslims so much they refuse to admit they worship the same God"? It feels a little bit like [i]ad hominem[/i]. I don't believe that I even brought up the "God is the same as Allah" question.[/quote]

Sorry If I missinterpretted. However, you stated that Christian Arabs would say they worship God. I thought you meant that they would differentiate between God and Allah. There are some Christian Arabs who do in fact hate Muslims soo much that they would say something like this. This is why I said "most" of the people I know would say they worship the same God as the Muslims. I'm sorry for the mix up.

[quote]
Maybe you've misunderstood what my statement was. I'm trying to be as precise as possible. I've spoken of the usage of the terms "Allah" and "God" in the English language. This is my claim: When Christian Arabs speak [u]English[/u], they [i]always[/i] refer to the Divine Being as "God." When Muslims speak [u]English[/u], they [i]tend to[/i] refer to the Divine being as "Allah." I've seen exceptions to the latter rule, but never the former.
[/quote]
Yes, this is true. Muslims do this because they hold the Arabic language as a sacred language. Muslims highly revere God and the prophets of God. That is why they believe that Arabic, being the Language God revealed the Koran to Mohhamad through, is a sacred language. That is why they say Allah, which is God translated into Arabic, instead of God. They believe the language is Sacred.

[quote]
Here's a couple Arab Christian websites in English:
[url="http://www.bkerke.org.lb/themaronites.html"]http://www.bkerke.org.lb/themaronites.html[/url]
[url="http://www.melkite.org/PRIMER.htm"]http://www.melkite.org/PRIMER.htm[/url]

Aside from people's names, you won't be able to find the word "Allah" mentioned anywhere.

In contrast, here's a quote from the Wiki ([url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allah"]link[/url]):
[/quote]

Of course, Christians just use it as a translation. Muslims believe the language of Arabic is sacred and that is why Allah is never translated when the Koran is translated (Muslim authority prefer the Koran not to be translated but if it must be, Allah, must not be translated).

Peace

Btw, just wondering, are you eastern rite Matt?

[Mateo el Feo]

Trying to catch up...
[quote name='musturde' post='992537' date='May 29 2006, 09:01 PM']True, there are many Muslims who are idiots and use their religion for political gain. These Muslims use their power to bring in Muslims with a lower faith, people with the same political goals, or Muslims who don't know much about their religion.[/quote]If the Muslims don't know much about their faith, then it concerns me that Saudi Arabia is pumping all the money it can into educating the worldwide Ummah with Wahabbism. ([url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahabbism#Modern_spread_of_Wahhabism"]link[/url])
[quote name='musturde' post='992537' date='May 29 2006, 09:01 PM']This is true when it comes to wars. There are governments that tolerate Christians. Muhammad taught tolerance of other religions.[/quote]This is not exactly correct. Starting with non-monotheistic religions, here's a direct quote of the Prophet from Bukhari's collection of Hadith([url="http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/052.sbt.html#004.052.288"]link[/url]):
[quote name='Bukhari' date=' Volume 4, Book 52, Number 288']The Prophet on his death-bed, gave three orders saying, "[b]Expel the pagans from the Arabian Peninsula[/b], respect and give gifts to the foreign delegates as you have seen me dealing with them." I forgot the third (order)" (Ya'qub bin Muhammad said, "I asked Al-Mughira bin 'Abdur-Rahman about the Arabian Peninsula and he said, 'It comprises Mecca, Medina, Al-Yama-ma and Yemen." Ya'qub added, "And Al-Arj, the beginning of Tihama.")[/quote]Non-monotheists have generally had more problems (e.g. massacres) because of Islam than "People of the Book."

The Quran teaches both tolerance and intolerance of the People of the Book. (see [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_of_the_Book#Qur.27an"]link[/url]). Often, a slow strangling of non-Muslim religion was preferred. It also helped Islam to piggyback on Greek and Roman culture by keeping the Christians and Jews intellectuals alive in the areas occupied by Muslim armies.
[quote name='musturde' post='992537' date='May 29 2006, 09:01 PM'] A return of their view of true Islam. A state should never incorporate religion. Although it is traditional. Even Christian based governments (that are based on rules and regulations strictly for a specific religion) were oppressive.[/quote]There have been Christian monarchies, but this idea is not central to Christianity. Our Lord never says that He wanted to establish a temporal domain for His followers. In contrast, Islam is both a religious and a political system.
[quote name='musturde' post='992537' date='May 29 2006, 09:01 PM']Wait, I'm confused. You agree with Era Might on this one? (just clarifying)[/quote]I'm sorry. I think my wording was bad. Try number 2: I believe that trying to argue that Osama and/or Arab Nationalism are the cause for non-Muslim persecution is a red herring. For those who disagree, I'd be happy to focus on those Muslims who are neither Arab nor members of Al Qaeda, in order to more clearly make the connection between the religion of Islam and the systematic persecution of non-Muslims. Does that make sense?
[quote name='musturde' post='992537' date='May 29 2006, 09:01 PM']The Bishops have always been doing this (at least the Bishops I'm thinking of). Muslims wouldn't be offended by these "ugly facts" because many aren't a part of them. Educated people in bigger cities (even in Afghanistan) are more prone to open minds.[/quote]I am sure that there are a large number of Muslims who are educated enough to reject this kind of institutional bigotry. It may be that many of them are also educated enough to keep their mouth shut so as not to call attention to themselves and risk harm to themselves by their government or the local mob/militia. As it is commonly said: "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

Edited May 30, 2006 by Mateo el Feo