Mohammed - Prophet of Peace

[Traitorfish]

I am not labeling Muslims as bad... but I believe that the core message of Islam is bad...

Could you explain what you mean by "core message"? You keep using that phrase, but you haven't actually explained what it means, and it's not one that I've previously encountered in this context.

 

[El_Machinae]

Hey, something that comes up in our hostile atheist circles ..

We're under the impression that the Quran commands the death of apostates, that the penalty for apostasy is death. Is there any reason to suppose this is not true?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Hmmm, the Bible merely calls us fools.

Hey, didn't Jesus introduce the concept of hell? (not sure) Does hell exist in Islam?

 

[Narz]

I believe I was using it in the proper sense, as you were criticizing your perception of Christian doctrine rather than actual Christian doctrine.

But weren't you saying there is no "actual" Christian doctrine that's it all up to interpretation?

Why do you say that?

I could be wrong, I just can't see people continuing to believe in this stuff, seems like a holdover from a bygone age. In general the trend in educated countries is towards being less religious.

Honestly, I was pretty uncharitable toward you. Chalk it up to GIFT I guess. Regardless, I'd like to apologize. I'm a total asshat, but this really doesn't reflect how I ought to be as a Christian.

Meh, I wasn't super nice either, it's the Internet, it happens.

What's "GIFT"?

All these threads on Islam is giving me 'Meet Muslim Singles' adverts. I guess Google's logging of our data is pointless to people to talk about everything.

Here you go

 

[Traitorfish]

Why does it say "cave cave hut cave" when all of those women are clearly from wealthy families?

 

[kochman]

Could you explain what you mean by "core message"? You keep using that phrase, but you haven't actually explained what it means, and it's not one that I've previously encountered in this context.

I have, repeatedly, but will again.

Seek out the infidel and slay him, be good to Muslims (make no bones about this, Islam demands, rightfully, much respect and good will toward fellow muslims, so long as they are male anyhow), make the world Islamic.

 

[Traitorfish]

I have, repeatedly, but will again.

Seek out the infidel and slay him, be good to Muslims (make no bones about this, Islam demands, rightfully, much respect and good will toward fellow muslims, so long as they are male anyhow), make the world Islamic.

I meant the concept of a "core message" as such. What it is, why it's significant, how it's inferred from the greater body of Islam, etc.

 

[_random_]

But weren't you saying there is no "actual" Christian doctrine that's it all up to interpretation?

None that could be applied to Christianity as a whole. A little more specificity would have been nice.

I could be wrong, I just can't see people continuing to believe in this stuff, seems like a holdover from a bygone age. In general the trend in educated countries is towards being less religious.

It's a trend that's come and gone before. Religious faith is such an important aspect of human society I can't see it ever disappearing.

What's "GIFT"?

Greater Internet Somethingwad Theory. Basically, you give decent people with strong opinions anonymity and the results are rarely pretty.

 

[kochman]

I meant the concept of a "core message" as such. What it is, why it's significant, how it's inferred from the greater body of Islam, etc.

Oh... well, you really need me to explain the concept of core message to you?

Ok... I'll give it a shot.
Repeated messages are a good qualifier.

Over and over it talks about Dar-Islam (house of Islam) versus the Dar-something or other I forget (but it means house of war)... and how until the world is Dar-Islam, there must be war.

 

[Traitorfish]

No, again, I'm not asking about the "core message of Islam", I'm asking the idea of a "core message" itself. All you're doing is repeating what you think the "core message of Islam" to be, but you haven't actually given us any reason to believe that this is a useful way of approaching the topic in the first place.

 

[Ajidica]

I am not labeling Muslims as bad... but I believe that the core message of Islam is bad... I wish it weren't so, as I think it would have precluded soooo much killing ...over the centuries right up to today.

Just like you think Christianity would have precluded so much killing in the 30 Years War, the War of Spanish Sucession, the various religious wars, the Seven Years War, the Napoleonic Wars, and both World Wars. With Christianity being more peaceful that Islam, as you say, Christians were still setting Europe on fire roughly every century or so with several smaller wars in between. I hate to imagine what would have happened if they were more violent.

remember, even the Crusades were a reaction, not a spontaneous idea, for example

Yes the Crusades were a reaction, but not in the way you are thinking. Urban's primary reason for calling the crusade (once we look past the rhetoric) was to protect himself by developing Gregory's idea of papal temporal authority. Rome was in serious danger of getting conquered by the Norman adventurers (like Robert Guiscard) after the Normans kicked the Byzantines out. Urban needed a way to get all those lordless knights out of Europe and assert the claims of papal temporal authority. I highly doubt any of that is a reaction to Jerusalem being conqured by Arabs 400 years ago.

 

[kochman]

It says in the Koran, the greater things will be revealed later...
The later stuff is very warlike.

Luckily, and obviously, I don't think most Muslims consider this to be the core message...
Unfortunately, many do... even a small percentage of over 1 billion people is a lot.

 

[kochman]

Yes the Crusades were a reaction, but not in the way you are thinking. Urban's primary reason for calling the crusade (once we look past the rhetoric) was to protect himself by developing Gregory's idea of papal temporal authority. Rome was in serious danger of getting conquered by the Norman adventurers (like Robert Guiscard) after the Normans kicked the Byzantines out. Urban needed a way to get all those lordless knights out of Europe and assert the claims of papal temporal authority. I highly doubt any of that is a reaction to Jerusalem being conqured by Arabs 400 years ago.

Rome did get put to its knees by the Normans...

Anyhow, I think a nice thread about the Crusades would be interesting.

It was also a reaction to the appeal for help from the Byzantines... but yes, the Pope had ulterior motives.

 

[Ajidica]

It was also a reaction to the appeal for help from the Byzantines... but yes, the Pope had ulterior motives.

The appeal from the Byzantine Emperor Alexius had been for a few hundred knights to augment the Byzantine army after what it had suffered from the war with the Normans and the complete collapse of it following the coup against Romanus Diogenes. What Alexius did not ask for was several thousands lords with their own personal knights waltzing through his empire whom he did not control over.

 

[kochman]

The appeal from the Byzantine Emperor Alexius had been for a few hundred knights to augment the Byzantine army after what it had suffered from the war with the Normans and the complete collapse of it following the coup against Romanus Diogenes. What Alexius did not ask for was several thousands lords with their own personal knights waltzing through his empire whom he did not control over.

Yes, he certainly got more than he bargained for... He also wanted to retake the Holy Lands himself, thus the Crusades was a problem for him on many levels.

 

[Ajidica]

He also wanted to retake the Holy Lands himself, thus the Crusades was a problem for him on many levels.

No, Alexius didn't want Jerusalem. It would not have helped the Byzantine Empire in any way, shape, or form. Alexius' objective was to recapture Anatolia to reclaim the prime recruiting grounds of the Byzantine Empire. Even Basil II did not conquer Jerusalem, and that was probably the highest point in Byzantine strength for centuries. Alexius had no serious interest in conquering Jerusalem.

 

[HannibalBarka]

My interpretation, limited as it may be, is it just says turn your backs on those who don't join in your Jihad, rather than killing them, as he commands against the infidels...

But that is not the meaning of the text You can'y have an interpretation that has nothing to do wih the text. You can goback and read the whole surate (it's also translated in english in the link i put), and you'll see that it does not in any way says what you say.

Because the actions of God are not comparable to the actions of humans.

Jesus is God
And let's say you're correct, I still don't see what is it OK to worship a blood thirsty God who does his dirty stuff by himself and consider his message to be "peaceful"; but he outsources his crimes to Human he suddenly become bad?!

Ah. So, then the question is, how does that change? It must be from within, right?
No, many were greedy, opportunists, etc.
Hardly the typical lot... they got money and power... it was common for 2nd and 3rd sons to join the Crusades to inherit lands there, as the holdings in their homeland would go to the 1st son.
I don't know enough about him, actually, but I know the Kings of the european nations at the time also did this stuff for the prestige of their empire, etc. I don't know his specific motives though.

So when Islamic armies go coquering the world it's beause they are blood thirsty fanatics, but when Sain Louis does it, it's becasue he is seeking prestige? What makes you think so? In the case of Saint Louis, historical evidence tend towards his fervent belief in his doing the right job for God though. Saint Louis was known to be a very fervent christian and a nice fellah actually

Except, due to abrogation, the Soufi are technically wrong... but I wish they'd get a bigger voice!

Euh, I think you are not fully understanding the abrogation thing as I showed you above. To be honest with you, and with all due respect, I don't think you who hardly know about the Koran and Islamic theology, can throw to the garbage the Sufi scholar work. That would be as If I blatantly say the Reformation is garbage, or Protestant are wrong

Jesus's Word is quite unambigous.

History does not agree with you. Jesus words were used to justify persecuting the Jews, the Inquisition, slavery, which burning and to maintain a patriarchal society. Don't get me rong, they were also used to combat anti-semitism (though really lately) and to comabt slavery. So they were ambigus indeed. And till this very day they are still used by some wacko to justify crimes against abortionist and discrimination against gays.

I am not labeling Muslims as bad... but I believe that the core message of Islam is bad... I wish it weren't so, as I think it would have precluded soooo much killing (remember, even the Crusades were a reaction, not a spontaneous idea, for example) over the centuries right up to today.

Reaction to what?

 

[HannibalBarka]

I have, repeatedly, but will again.
Seek out the infidel and slay him, be good to Muslims (make no bones about this, Islam demands, rightfully, much respect and good will toward fellow muslims, so long as they are male anyhow), make the world Islamic.

You repeat bringing the male preference rule in Islam as if that was again unique to it. Should I remind you about the position a woman is held in Judaism (go see Kadosh about that, it's a good movie about women situation in Jewish orthodox circles). Christian on the other hand were debating whether women has soul or not
The three abrahamic religions, and almost the whole antique world for that matter considered women as worthless. Women emancipation did occur not thank to religion, what ever religion, but against religion.
Muslims will argue that Mohummad actually improved women s condition compared to the situation before Islam. Burying female new borns was common in the Arbic peninsula for exmaple, Muhammad made it one of the worst crimes, and that is why this habit dispeared from Islamic land.

 

[kochman]

You repeat bringing the male preference rule in Islam as if that was again unique to it. Should I remind you about the position a woman is held in Judaism (go see Kadosh about that, it's a good movie about women situation in Jewish orthodox circles). Christian on the other hand were debating whether women has soul or not
The three abrahamic religions, and almost the whole antique world for that matter considered women as worthless. Women emancipation did occur not thank to religion, what ever religion, but against religion.
Muslims will argue that Mohummad actually improved women s condition compared to the situation before Islam. Burying female new borns was common in the Arbic peninsula for exmaple, Muhammad made it one of the worst crimes, and that is why this habit dispeared from Islamic land.

But Jesus's example towards women is what matter.

Islam may have improved the conditions for the time, but they are reprehensible today. Women simply aren't the possessions that Islam makes them, per the Koran.

Christianity played a large role in women getting equality.

Judaism is harsher, in the Bible... but their culture is very good toward women today (maybe not the ultra-orthodox).

Having spent much time in places that practice the 3 forms, in general Christian areas are the best toward their women (in the world).
Amongst the lowest, Islamic countries that practice Sharia law.

 

[useless]

Christianity played a large role in women getting equality.

[Citation Needed]