Is the muslim faith/way of life in the middle east as similar to when it started?

CivGeneral said:
I fell out of the Catholic Church at a young age of six. Only vaguly remember going to CCD classes. Never made first communion, never made it to confirmation, and never made it to first confession.


And the infallibility of eumenical councils dont mean a thing?

Firstly, I am not obsessed with syncretism. I am a mainstream Catholic who veiws The Vatican II as infallible as well as the infallibility of Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI. I am a Catholic who accepted the realities of the modern Church in a post-Vatican II world.

Secondly, I am not anti-Catholic. I view the pope as the leader of the Christian church as well as believe in transubstiation. Being anti-Catholic is not one of them, I am just a Catholic who accepted the realities of the Church after the Second Vatican Council.
Vatican II was not an infallible oecumenical council. By John XXIII's own intention, it was a pastoral council, outside the infallible protection of the Magisterium. You obviously do not know much about what constitutes "infallible" and what does not. The way things are now were never intended to be by John XXIII, whose dying words were "Stop the Council, stop the council..."

What is it you have against Pope Pius IX anyway?
Piusix.jpg
 
Fact: people were put to death by the Inquisitions, and by the Crusades, unjustly. I get that from Catholic sources. Learn some real history.

Also, Mormonism has a central authority, located in Salt Lake City in the good ol' US of A.

Seriously, though, Islam has actually seemed to backtrack in some places in recent years, because of a too-strict dependence on the interpretors of the Qur'an (the jurisprudence, forget the Arabic name) that wasn't even central to Islam under Muhammad. If more Muslim leaders could see that progress is part of the original nature of Islam, and that reactionary conservativism is a recent "innovation", in other words if they could go forward to the past, they could really make a change. Tajdid, reform, is an ancient Muslim tradition.
 
Eran of Arcadia said:
Fact: people were put to death by the Inquisitions, and by the Crusades, unjustly. I get that from Catholic sources. Learn some real history.
The Crusades by Hilaire Belloc, an actual Catholic source. Not your local high school campus ministry director...
 
Inqvisitor said:
The Crusades by Hilaire Belloc, an actual Catholic source. Not your local high school campus ministry director...

What about my Catholic (quite devout) high school HISTORY (you may have heard of history before) teacher? Or my devout Catholic college HISTORY professors? They are all decieved, right? Surely Hilaire Belloc knew better than all the historians in the world? Surely you should listen to him and only him? Shame, I remember reading some of his poetry for children, and it seemed quite funny. Maybe I confused him with someone else.
 
Eran of Arcadia said:
What about my Catholic (quite devout) high school HISTORY (you may have heard of history before) teacher? Or my devout Catholic college HISTORY professors? They are all decieved, right? Surely Hilaire Belloc knew better than all the historians in the world? Surely you should listen to him and only him? Shame, I remember reading some of his poetry for children, and it seemed quite funny. Maybe I confused him with someone else.
Yes, because the history was true Catholic history seldom made available in the English language. Having had personal audiences with Popes Leo XIII and St. Pius X indicate the trust the Church had in such Belloc's Catholic works.

I have no proof whatsoever that the sources you claim are in fact Catholic at all. Catholicism is a centralized religion. When Rome speaks, local schoolteachers shut up.
 
Inqvisitor said:
Yes, because the history was true Catholic history seldom made available in the English language. Having had personal audiences with Popes Leo XIII and St. Pius X indicate the trust the Church had in such Belloc's Catholic works.

I have no proof whatsoever that the sources you claim are in fact Catholic at all. Catholicism is a centralized religion. When Rome speaks, local schoolteachers shut up.

Look, you want to insist that meeting popes makes one a historical expert, whereas doctorates in history don't, then be my guest. But then I get to say that you are ignorant. It is true that the Catholicism of my teachers didn't make them experts. What did was their years of study in history.

But this thread is about Islam, anyways, so let's discuss that.
 
"Is the muslim faith/way of life in the middle east as similar to when it started? "

Just an example: My grandfather used to do all of his prayers, occassionally read Quran and he would never drunk alcohol but I do not make prayers, occassionally get alcohol... But I can say that as people get older(as death approaches) they become more faithful, partly due to the fear of punishment in after-life. But as in the example in two generations muslims changed too much however among muslims the faith also varies. I think I am a muslim but not much faithful, but there are many conservatives and too much faithful ones to the degree of dogmatism. Also there are many atheists, especially among the new urban generation of big cities that are grown up with Western culture. I think as an insider I can provide that much of knowledge without going off-topic, but you should get into a library and search some books.
 
The Muslim way of life is very much similar to that when it first started with a few major divisions, the interpritation of the faith though isn't as Civ pointed out.

Inquisitor I wonder if the Catholic account mentions the slaughter of Jerusalem, the genocide of Jews in Europe or the Canabalism of men women and children in the third crusade, who it is told were roasted on spits and then devoured by starving knights. The crusades were barbaric mostly and after the thrid served an increasingly pointless purpose, a waste of gods children in both Europe and Asia or the middle East.

I forget who said it but the current crusades aren't really crusades, as far as I know Bush or Blair didn't seek permision to fight the Holy lands from the pope or any other religous leader, the current conflicts are driven by more Earthy goals, money, stability, dictatorial overthrow etc,etc. Not that it necessarily makes it any more justified but it certainly isn't a crusade. For that mattter Osamah Bin Laden has no right to call a Jihad on the west since the faith he follows is not even remotely close to Islam.
 
Sidhe said:
For that mattter Osamah Bin Laden has no right to call a Jihad on the west since the faith he follows is not even remotely close to Islam.

Absolutely incorrect . Osama bin Laden is one of the last few true believers in the orthodox , Mohammadean form of Islam .
 
he may believe it but he doesn't follow it, unless killing innocents and suicide are now considered orthodox.

Besides Jihad means your meant to try all other methods of strugling before you resort to war, I see precious little evidence of this, or of any real comprehension of the original orthodox ideas of jihad.
 
aneeshm said:
Absolutely incorrect . Osama bin Laden is one of the last few true believers in the orthodox , Mohammadean form of Islam .

Mohammadean is an incorrect term. Muhammad was a messenger, a prophet sent by God. He did not found Islam, only spread word of it.

And Osama has like, how many wives? definitely more than four. By what do you mean orthodox? Islam has not changed over the centuries, only the interpretation by the people
 
Interesting interpritation, who did then the Archangel Gabriel? Honestly I'm not being fecetious, I have a general interest in religion.
 
Sidhe said:
he may believe it but he doesn't follow it, unless killing innocents and suicide are now considered orthodox.

Besides Jihad means your meant to try all other methods of strugling before you resort to war, I see precious little evidence of this, or of any real comprehension of the original orthodox ideas of jihad.

Not just jihad. War in Islamic teachings is always a last resort. Although nowadays a lot are too quick to fight.
 
King Alexander said:
@Xanikk999: yes, they were more advanced than any western country during the Dark Ages, but that was it and they haven't doen anything specific from then(ok, the last two centuries they were conquered by western countries...speaking for a setback)

Well, The Mongols were nearly as destructive as the later colonial Europeans were, I think. Baghdad, which was a major scientific and economical center, was sacked - for example.

Without muslim world's scientific discoveries, there would've never been a renneisance. Europe obtained many major scientific advances through trade and war with the muslims.
 
naziassbandit said:
Without muslim world's scientific discoveries, there would've never been a renneisance. Europe gained many scientific advances through trade and war with the muslims.

Exactly. And some of Muslim scholars' discoveries were written down in history as being pioneered by westerners. Now that's piracy big time.
 
yes it's stupid really, but that's religous ignorance and a general will to disosciate our technology from Islamic research, I always wondered how the slide from the Islamic golden age into very slow research actually happened, was it a gradual decline in education or just a will to move towards God and away from science?

Did you know Edison never invented the light bulb, an English man got there first Joseph Wilson Swan in 1878. Happens alot, plagiarism.
 
IIRC, it was a corruption as well as a trend of moving away from Islam (in a sense that people began to value wealth over charity, etc). Successive rule was never Islamic actually, and the first four caliphs after the prophet Muhammad was elected by the people. Then came power-hungry individuals. Although things worked out for a time under these dynasties, they're not right.

EDIT:IOW, it was (IMO) a gradual decline in true upholding of Islamic way of life by the masses
 
Back
Top Bottom