At Opinion Duel (thanks to all who sent this in) there is a revealing debate on this topic between Andrew McCarthy and Mansoor Ijaz. McCarthy is impressively well-informed -- perhaps he has been reading Jihad Watch? -- and politely eviscerates Ijaz's dissembling apologetics.
Dissembling apologetics? You heard me. Ijaz explains Qur'an 9:29 as referring to alms that all must pay, which outrages its obvious and traditional interpretation as mandating a special tax to be levied only on the People of the Book.
Read it all. (It goes from the bottom up.)
Is this the same Mansour Ijaz you've polished off before? A glutton for punishment. He apparently keeps betting on the notion that Infidels are not going to read the Qur'an and Hadith with comprehension. He is wrong.
"Can the Mafia police itself?" is more possible.
Only exterior opposition will blunt the sword of Islamic Imperialism.
And call their slimy, smarmy deceptions, clearly and unequivocally, the Koranically-approved lies that they are.
These debates are so pathetic. I've read, listened or watched hundreds of them now. Muslim apologists always have the same tired arguments:
1) You have to be a Muslim to understand Islam;
2) Islam is perfect; it has just been misinterpreted.
3) All the terrible things in the Qur'an, Ahadith and the example of Muhammad's life (who was the perfect man doncha know)were only meant to apply at that time not now; yet, at the same time, the Qur'an is the perfect and unalterable word of God. How can something be perfect, unalterable and for all time and, at the same time, be only for the context of the time in which it was written. You can't have it both ways. For Muslim reformers, this poses an unacceptable position: they have to say that some of the teachings of the Qur'an, Ahadith and Muhammad's example are wrong and don't apply now. But, practically speaking, they can't say this because that would deny the "perfection" of the Qur'an and Muhammad's life.
The only hope is that large numbers of Muslims largely abandon most of their faith or convert to another religion. Either one of those options is possible. Many people who call themselves Muslims "live" like they have abandoned most of their faith and some of them publicly proclaim (like Tarek Fatah - in my opinion only - Tarek would never agree with me)that you can pick and choose what you want from Islam and still call yourself a Muslim. Tarek has more or less stated that all you have to do is follow the 5 pillars and you are a Muslim. So, there is hope, just not much.
Is Mansoor Ijaz getting worse lately, or are his true colors only becoming more obvious?
Good debate from Andrew's side. Followed their links via FDD to
http://www.stopterroristmedia.org/TerrorTV/
and viewed clip 1 which I think is some Palastinian propaganda programme. Following the subtitles they say:
"We don't fear America,
We only fear God,
By the word of Justice, the word of ceration
The word of the revelation that guides in all times"
I think that pretty much sums up where they think the Koran stands - guideing for all time(s). Good luck to the reformists...
Ken Livingstone defends himself in the Guardian and makes an (implicit) claim that he is not an anti-Semite. He says:
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1720442,00.html
Here Livingstone is seen embracing Sheikh Yousef al-Qaradawi:
http://www.londoncommunitycoalition.org/graphics/topsmall.jpg
Qaradawi recently on Qatari television:
Livingstone has thrust this bloodthirsty barbarian at the British public and, even after he has made such statements, has made no attempt to dissociate himself from him. He expects the British public (who do not, for the most part, read MEMRI and do not know what his friend really thinks) to take his implicit claim not to be an anti-Semite on trust.
I think Mansoor is living in denial. He wants to be a good American I believe, unfortunately, when he ignores the reality about Islam and its texts and its history, he just looks like another taqiyyamaster. Too bad.
If it isn't obvious now, it should be. The "moderate muslims" have no legs to stand on. I read this debate with interest hoping that Ijaz would have some Koranic backing for the peace of Islam. Any explanation, with some foundation, would have been nice. Instead his statements were a mass of contradictions, blusterings, and baseless assertions.
I'm not doubting his sincerity. However, if he can't convince an infidel, how does anyone expect him to convince a fellow muslim? McCarthy was almost begging him to explain away the violent verses. Instead, Ijaz ignores him and offers explanations for other things that are just baseless. A person without preconceived notions would quickly realize the bankruptcy of the moderates. In all honesty, they should just form a new religion and call themselves something other than muslim.
The most outrageous comment was Mansoor's contention that we need to appoint
muslims to posts like FBI director and Defense secretary, in order to
convince "moderates" that we can all live together. What lunacy...
Gadzooks...I read the entire thing...where did I put my Prozac?
What I want to know is, if Islam is somehow reformed to take out or nutralize the objectionable parts, will muslims in Nigeria, Pakistan, and other places, still riot and kill people over Mohammad cartoons?
I would be interesting to remind Mansoor that 'all' muslims are 'obligated' to support jihad, and then ask him what he is doing to fulfill this demand...
Not long ago Hugh suggested they return to Zoroastrianism, perhaps a more feasible route might be the Baha'i faith, in Iran anyhow. How unreal would that be if they started to turn to a tomb in Israel for prayer?
NoMo -
Let's hope that Pesident Clouseau is not following this discussion.
A couple short and interesting reads on Islam v. Christianity. Top two posts on this blog:
http://baconandbeer.blogspot.com/
Vojimbo:
Ken Livingstone isn't actually germane to this thread,unless presenting Sheik Qawadari as a "moderate" is a reasonable connection, but since you mention him, both Normblog http://normblog.typepad.com/normblog/ (see "call it nonsense" and Harry's Place http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/ (see "the boy who cried Zionist") have good stuff about him posted over the last day or so since the adjudicating body recommended a month's suspension of his mayoral duties, an appeal of which which is now before the courts.
I expect his whine in today's Gruniad will be taken apart by Shalom Lappin at Engage, as capably as Shalom did to another Livingstone whine uttered in supposed defence of not apologizing to Oliver Feingold. Lappin unfortunately misquotes Livingstone who merely accused Feingold of acting like a Nazi guard and not of actually being one.
BTW, it appears pigs must be out there flying over Iranian airspace. Normblog carries a report of Iran's former "reformist" premier Mohammad Khatami stating that the Holocaust is a historic reality in a "stinging attack" on the Thug-in-Chief and likewise, a mainstream Iranian newspaper, Ahmadinejad also came under attack from the prominent and centrist Shargh newspaper, complained:
...that "the Holocaust has, as wished for by the president, become a topic of our foreign policy".
"The Jewish question was never a problem for Iran or Islam, and is a Christian-European problem," the paper argued.
"Don't we have enough with the nuclear question, human rights, free elections and political in-fighting, so do we need to add another problem to that?" it said, saying Iran would be better off "thinking of the creation of a Palestinian state rather than the destruction of Israel".
I suspect Iranian Jews might have a different picture of Jewish life in Iran for the last few centuries, if not milenia, which is why there are only 25,000 of them left in Iran with as many or more Iranian Jews in Israel. (I can't place the story of Esther in time at the moment, but believe it dates to pre-Islamic times, so it's not really a new thing with Persians.)
There are few things more delectable than reading only the finely argued counterpoints of McCarthy in this Ijaz vs. McCarthy debate, and utterly ignoring the Ijaz portions.
Andrew hit it right on the head
"The fanatics are always quoting from scriptures, the reformers run away from it."
I guess Mansoor in his many readings of the Koran must have missed this one.
18.27] And recite what has been revealed to you of the Book of your Lord, there is none who can alter His words; and you shall not find any refuge besides Him.
Rat
I just finsihed reading the debate. It was very edifying. All the more so because Ijaz is thought to be one of the good guys, a "moderate".
Though he won't admist it Ijaz knows in his heart he just had his ass handed to him.
Ijaz brought up the point that, or suggeted the point, that IF McCarthy is right it could lead to having to "kill all the muslims".
McCarthy didn't touch that point and would not touch it with a ten foot pole.
The fact is: McCarthy is right; Islam cannot or will note change.
So...unless the West submits to Islam....well, draw your own conclusions.
"If this burden of reformation were shared more openly by us as Americans ... we might find that the Muslim world's hearts are in the right place and that their leaders who have taken them down a path of ruin disguising it as the road to paradise..."
"...But we, not they, must start by understanding the massive internal conflict posed for Muslims who yearn to be free and like us, but cannot get past their own internal demons of anger and animosity when they see how we treat them in our press and how we portray their religion and their prophet in our judeo-Christian world...."
This is where he loses me in his very first paragraphs -- HOW DARE HE lay this at our feet? Not only once, but twice...
First ... by laying the burden on we hapless "infidels" for resolving the gargantuan inconsistencies and flaws of Islam... and Second, by, YET ONCE AGAIN, laying the blame somehow on our shoulders for simply noticing the barbarity backwardness and hatred which he himself acknowledges!
It's too much to bear. I am now more convinced than ever that Muslims are utterly hopeless as a cause for the West -- at the very least we must expunge these deranged, dangerous, duplicitous persons from our midst... But as long as Muslms lurk in the dark wasteland of their own creation, beyond the pickets of our clean well lit domains and far beyond the framework of our intellectual, spiritual, moral, scientific, and logical universe... they will continue to pose the gravest threat to our world, and our existence.
Draw whatever conclusions you wish from my conclusions... I believe this is the defining moment of humanity -- when the world finally lives cheek by jowl -- and there's little remaining of formerly eternal seeming separations, barriers, and buffer zones -- Will the insane backward hate filled barbarism and primitivism of a heathen creed win out? or will the enlightenment of the West prevail?
ALL Muslim apologists are now in my "enemies" camp. I am sure I am not alone. What do Muslims like Ijaz really imagine will happen as the wheel continues to turn, and there's still no sign of reform in Islam itself, and no sign that the West is willing to bear this unbearable and uncarriable burder. Again -- HOW DARE THIS MUSLIMS demand that we, who bear NO RESPONSIBILITY whatsoever for the deplorable state that Muslims and Arabs find themselves in, pick up the insurmountable burden to reform the irredeemable and altogether vicious disgusting and completely broken ideology of that illiterate filthy desert vile vagrant vagabond, Islam's false "prophet" Muhammad?
It's just too much to bear listening to his tripe.
Isn't Mansoor the same moron who holds forth with confused musings several times a week on FoxNews? Well, imagine that. A most exalted Arabian Prince paying a fat retainer to a Paki lap dog who once negotiated on behalf of Bill Clinton.
MOHAMMED OUR PROPHET ALLAH OUR GOD NEITHER WITH FELONY CONVICTIONS
I'm excited about the hot new Irshad Mahadi. You're so toast, Mansoor. This one's a chick and has actual spikey hair and PhD in Total Stupidity from Yale and her brown eyes cross when she lies to Bill O'Reilly and the American people about the Koran. Then Bill's eyes cross too. Moslem love in a Wahabbi news studio. Did you know that Bill got a fake degree from Harvard?
Irshad, the bubbly Moslem. Bill, the money-grubbing ex-Christian with boils emitting steam into his ever-present cloud of indignity.
Two problems with McCarthy's argument:
"The question is whether Muslims believe it can be changed—and whether they will believe it in overwhelming enough numbers that the militants who take the scriptures very literally can be marginalized."
He should not stop at "marginalized". The militants must be legally, culturally and psychologically ostracized by the vast majority of Muslims.
"I don’t see “reform” as a project for completely overhauling Islam (although I suppose it could be). It is a project for arriving at a nigh-universal understanding of Islam that so discredits the militants they become a true fringe at most."
Asking for a nigh-universal understanding of Islam is unrealistic: Islam could theoretically be rendered innocuous by ideological fragmentation -- as has happened with Christianity (not that Christianity was as inimical to humanity as Islam has been). The point is, it's not a unified peaceful Islam that would be the only logical solution: Islam needs to dissolve itself, on certain levels, into the modern secularist worldview, relinquishing its claims to eschatologically-driven hegemony over the social, political and legal realms of existence -- as all the other great religions have done.
Islam has no reason to reform...It is forcing the World to reform:
http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/index.php?menuID=1&subID=321
Foreign Secretary sucks up to Prophet
Jack Straw favours Islam at the expense of the other world religions, says sean thomas
How much "respect" should we give religions? It's a question that is vexing the BBC, where arguments (such as that on Radio 4's Feedback last week) are raging as to whether Mohammad should always be called "the Prophet". The BBC itself appears confused on the issue, with its website sometimes adopting the prefix, and sometimes not.
By contrast, no such confusion seems to afflict the Foreign Secretary. The other day a friend of mine told me that he'd seen Jack Straw, on television, not just using the phrase "Prophet Mohammad", but actually following it with "Peace Be Upon Him".
Astonished by this, I telephoned the Foreign Secretary's press office and inquired. Had Jack Straw ever used the phrase "Peace be Upon Him", after the words "Prophet Mohammad"?
At first, they tried to finesse the issue ("clearly use of such a phrase implies respect for all communities, but these things are a matter of individual choice"), but - after I rang back - they admitted the truth. Yes, the Foreign Secretary really did say, on British television, "the Prophet Mohammad, Peace Be Upon Him".
It's difficult to know whether this is comic, or disturbing, or both. Why should the foreign minister of a secular, mildly Christian country use this peculiar phrase? What's next? Is he going to start crossing himself when discussing church matters? Will he commence any discussions on Israel with the greeting "shalom"? Maybe he will slaughter a chicken before conferring with the new prime minister of Haiti.
Of course, we know he isn't going to do any of these things, because he doesn't feel the need to grovel to the Christian community, or appease the Jewish lobby. Yet for some reason he does feel the need to make this asinine and embarrassing gesture towards Britain's 1.6 million Muslims. Bless him.
FIRST POSTED MARCH 1, 2006
HOW DARE THIS MUSLIM demand that we, who bear NO RESPONSIBILITY whatsoever for the deplorable state that Muslims and Arabs find themselves in, pick up the insurmountable burden to reform the irredeemable and altogether vicious disgusting and completely broken ideology of that illiterate filthy desert vile vagrant vagabond, Islam's false "prophet" Muhammad?
Very well put, jsla. I am continually amazed by the inability of muslims to make even the slightest bit of attempt at self-introspection. While there may be many ex-muslims who are willing to speak the truth about Islam, so far I've come across only one muslim who has had the intellectual honesty to tell it like it is, i.e Wafa Sultan see:
http://switch3.castup.net/cunet/gm.asp?ai=214&ar=1050wmv&ak=null
(Note: this was brought up in earlier threads by Yojimbo & others, but I thought it was worth repeating)
I'm not doubting his sincerity.
I agree. I wouldn't either. He's likely a better and kinder man than I, too. But, as we all know, none of that is to the point. What is to the point is that he cannot sustain this argument plausibly under questioning:
Why should I not turn that on its head? Why not equally well conclude that if many Muslims are perfectly harmless and agreeable people that is down to them and not the message?
I don't, however, agree with Andrew C. McCarthy that there is some "objective" Islam separate from how it is taught or practised that we can judge. This is almost Platonic in its assumptions - as if there could be an unchanging "form" of Islam (or anything else) laid up somewhere. Like all phenomena in the world it is varied and subject to change.
However, I think he neatly points to the basic problem: that the Koran is said to be the word of God "as promulgated through the Angel Gabriel" (to use Mansoor's words). As Andrew points out there would be room for maneuver if it were only believed to be "inspired" and subject to human error. The consequence is that anyone who feels moved to demand a return to stricter interpretations is not easily countered.
Mansoor is always going to open to more-Islamic-than-thou type arguments. After all, what to make someone who says at one point: "My faith in Islam never once played an important role."?
Not that he is not attached to his beliefs. Clearly, they give him great comfort and he's not about to let them go. As a result he - obviously an intelligent man - is led into making a ridiculous statement like this:
I imagine a philologist or linguist would have great amusement at that assertion.
THE PRIMARY REASON ISLAM IS UNABLE TO REFORM ITSELF IS THAT IT IS already-- already-- already-- already acting in accordance with its founding and guiding principles!!!
Furthermore, insofar as non-violent reinterpretations of the Kuran are concerned, for every non-violent re-interpretation that can be pronounced by some reform-minded folks there's equally violent interpretations that can be pronounced by others, interpretations or just plain readings that do not require any re-interpretations since they are actually in the Kuran and ARE already in accordance with the Kuran and can easily and successfully stalemate any and all reformist re-interpretations of Islamic doctrine in the Kuran.
For example: the much-vaunted (and supposedly non-violent) Sufist interpretation of the Kuran has in essence failed to stem Islam's inherent violence. Just look at "moderate" and Sufist Chechnya--which is not a very peaceful place (to be charitable) and certainly no example of peace that anyone interested in world peace would seriously look into. Defanging Islam through Sufist re-interpretations has manifestly proven to be a failure--after about a thousand years of trying.
Any attempt at reformation of Islam would lead to Islam conforming to non-Islamic doctrines. How many Muslims would agree to doing this, especially Islamic 'religious' leaders? I would say not many. And when has THIS OCCURRED?? AND WHERE??? Any essential changes in Islamic doctrine and practice are therefore HIGHLY UNLIKELY--to say the least.
And this explains why a reformation was possible for Christianity and not Islam. Prior to the reformation, Christianity was run by 'the Church' whose rulers paid little heed to Christianity's founding and guiding principles--including the 10 Commandments. It was therefore possible for angry, reform-minded folks to point out that the Roman Catholic Church and most other bastions of Christianity were failing Yahweh their deity miserably, and institute a renewed faith that WAS run in accordance with Christianity's intended and original doctrines.
Ijaz loses. Sorry, pal.
Yojimbo -- that turn of phrase, on its face so absurd, also struck me... I don't think Mr. Ijaz meant that Arabic didn't exist as such, but that a written form of it didn't exist. Even so, this deeply anti-intellectual, utterly illogical argument trips off his tongue in the most rote-like manner, unquestioningly, insensately. At best such circular logic does nothing to prove his illogical and unquestioned supposition -- that Islam is the revealed and untainted word of God.
How many Arabs have you heard saying things like: "If you just read the Koran -- and in the original Arabic, you'd KNOW that it's unlike anything else ever written, and that no man could possibly have written it!"
Clearly Mr. Ijaz's indoctrination with Islam is deeply rooted. But what chance of reform is there if such inane pronouncements bound from the mouths of so-called "moderates" such as Mr. Ijaz -- Also, if upon examination such fallacious beliefs and assertions are exposed for the bald faced absurdities that they are, and if, furthermore, such expositions reveal that Islam's most fundamental premises are false or can easily be repudiated, then any reformation of Islam will axiomatically mean the destruction of Islam... This is probably why questioning and challenge and apostacy is met with death... Who wants a bunch of nay-sayers wandering around showing how flimsy the whole house of cards is, after all?
This flimsiness and fragility in Islam also pertains to the Muslim unwillingness to examine the execrable record of their "prophet" Muhammad -- The horrid exemplar of violence, ignorance, hatred, revenge, murder, genocide, rape, thievery, and lies. I have sometimes accused dar al Islam of being the world's largest and most dangerous dysfunctional family in human history --
Here's the internal dialogue -- the cartoon bubble -- the voice playing in a never ending loop in the addled Muslim mind:
'Daddy rapes mommy -- daddy beats and hurts everybody --Daddy hates everybody if they don't do what he says... Daddy drinks. He commits incest, and bangs little girls. Sometimes he even has delusional fugues and blacks out from time to time, he imagines angels are talking to him, and justifies his atrocities post facto by saying "God told me to do it exactly thus...". He robs, murders, lies, cheats and steals the live long day. ..
'But if anybody TALKS about how bad he is -- if anybody says ANYTHING that might be considered offensive about him -- if they draw a picture of him, or even notice how ugly his behavior was in life... Well then, they must be killed! -- It's really as simple as that.
'Nobody gets to interfere with my image of Daddy as the perfect man!'
Replace Daddy with Muhammad -- you get the picture... Everybody knows, even his victims, that he's an abomination -- but if you deal with the facts as they are, and not the fantasies of injured victims or the insane gymnastics which must be performed in order to depict Muhammad as God's "chosen messenger", then the whole rotten structure of Islam, built upon a steaming heap of garbage, comes crashing down. And, what's worse, the Satanic monster/Father figure might come and do to you what he did to all his other victims!
Rather than honestly facing the utter horrors which Islam has unleished on humanity -- rather than facing the terrorism central to Islam, the hatred central to Islam, the violence, supremacism, and insanity of Islam -- the Muslim apparently prefers to continue to threaten, kill, and subjugate the rest of humanity instead of stopping the gargantuan abuse in which they are now all complicit.
Yojimbo -- that turn of phrase, on its face so absurd, also struck me... I don't think Mr. Ijaz meant that Arabic didn't exist as such, but that a written form of it didn't exist.
Ah, thanks, jsla - that may well be it.
Even so, it's, as you point out, a fantastic claim. I just tried googling for some sites that have information on historical linguistics and found a statement that even written Arabic dates back to the 3rd century AD.
http://www.ancientscripts.com/arabic.html
I suppose one could even say that, in his hurry to produce an argument that validates Islam, he actually sells Arabic culture short.
Amazing.
I was reading Bernard Williams on the conquest of Persia the other day. Now, Williams often seems to bend over backwards to be as "fair" to Islam as he can, but he is too honest not to make it clear that this was a case of a high civilization succumbing to an inferior one. It makes you wonder: If the ordinary person in Iran actually knew any history, would he get nostalgic for pre-Islamic Persia? Or is the fascination with Islam just too strong?
As I write this I have beside me on my bookshelf some flint cores and blades. These are Mesolithic, and I picked them up in a field behind a church I know. The church itself is a motley affair, many times added to, with parts that go back to Norman times. And within a few yards of that are the remains of a Roman road. One feels an interest in, and a kind of connection, with all this. And, of course, an urge to understand - and understand aright - as much of it as possible. It's difficult for me to grasp a people, a mentality, that fixes monomaniacally on one phase of its own past.
"It makes you wonder: If the ordinary person in Iran actually knew any history, would he get nostalgic for pre-Islamic Persia? Or is the fascination with Islam just too strong?"
Indeed.
But also consider Fear within Islam -- and Loathing too, rather than "fascination".
The cultural, scientific, and social inertia which Islam inherited from Hindu India, Zorastrian Persia, Christian/Hellenistic Byzantium, Christian Egypt, Christian Spain etc etc probably explains much about the peculiar but consistent trajectories Islam took in each case...
First the onslaught -- always bloody -- then a brief period of what appears like a flourishing society, but which really was little more than usurpation and cooption -- these are the periods most Muslims refer to when they brag and dream about Islam's "high points" -- her "golden periods" now long gone... Those periods always followed immediately after Muslims first insinuated themselves and then brutally dismantled and deconstructed those far superior cultures. The Muslims, for a time, appeared to be more sophisticated and civilized than they truly were... but reality caught up with them in each case...
After sucking the remnants of marrow out of the bones and carcasses of the formerly great nations they attacked, infested and murdered, the Muslims never could avoid driving those entire ventures into the universal Islamic ditch we see today and everywhere -- Think of all the fantastic cultures, religions, and societies which the Muslims have reduced to muck, offal, and decay!?!
And still they brag about the "invention of zero", arabic numerals, and plumbing in Andalus... These common myths that these are in any way Muslim inventions all predate the birth of their execrable "prophet" and therefore predate Islam -- in some cases by more than a thousand years -- yet these cultural carbuncles continue to claim these inherited boons as their own inventions! They refer to them as Islam's contribution to humanity when nothing could be further from the truth.
Look at them today to see what Islam truly offers -- there is no other reality about islam than what our eyes can plainly see in the worst sewers and cesspools of the planet -- Nigeria -- Turkey -- Sudan -- Egypt -- Iran -- Iraq -- Afghanistan -- Saudi Arabia -- Syria -- Libya -- etc. etc. & etc...
Muslims, who should be hard put to rise from their beds each day out of sheer shame for their global and historic failures, instead talk about conquering us -- and lecturing us with those infamous wagging fingers and angry brows and accusations of intolerance and bigotry and "Islamophobia"... Rather than hanging their heads in shame, or better yet, jettisoning their putrid religion, they continue plotting about our annihilation -- dreaming about our destruction by their strangling murderous hands --
I am a lifelong dedicated agnostic -- but Muslims and Islam almost persuade me to at least believe in Satan and his evil teachings -- if anything ever came closer to representing the epitome of evil and Satanism -- I don't know what it would be other than Islam!
In case nobody noticed -- I am not a fan of Islam.
Correction, Robert: it goes from the top down.
I'm in the midst of it right now. Worth reading all the way through. Sadly it seems we have another mealy-mouthed taqqiyotomist here, talking mush and evading the hard questions.
How can any sane person believe in Islam? I really do wonder.
"Reform must begin by agreeing that the part of the Koran and Hadith that are of value for the purposes of bringing Muslims forward in time do not have to do with commandments to kill the enemies of Islam that were aligned against a prophet who won his wars by birds dropping stones on the heads of his enemies at that time."
Wha? WHA? WTF?
Springes to catch woodcocks, as the Bard would say.
Cato -- they just flipped the "debate" -- it was as Robert said only moments ago... Now, Bottom for Snout -- as the Bard may have said...
Thanks for clarifying that, JSLA.
This Mansoor guy is an incoherent reasoner. I have to say I'm deeply disappointed. If this is the best "lay theologian" the so-called Muslim reformists can muster, then I am afraid the project of reforming Islam is doomed from the start. One can embrace it, one can reject it, but how can one change it? At root it is a supremacist ideology, which even this apologist admits when he says, The words of Allah in the Koran, as promulgated through the Angel Gabriel and uttered and written down in words by Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), are unalterable. On this point, we agree. You may not know this, but we Muslims are taught that God brought Islam to mankind in this way because in both the Old Testament and the New Testament, once the book had been given, man changed the literal words of God through interpretation, interpolation and in some cases, just outright made stuff up, that did not reflect what God had intended. Nothing derogatory there, eh? To avoid this problem with Islam, it was given through an illiterate man, Muhammad, in a language, Arabic, that did not at the time exist. [Um, yeah, whatever. This way there could be no doubt it was the word of God and that those words were unalterable. They have remained so throughout time.
And then there's this: Almost every single passage in the Koran--and I tell you this as a person who has read it over and again--that has to do with the killing/maiming/go kill the Jews stuff, or whatever other phraseology there is in the Koran which non-Muslims believe is derogatory and anti-human, refers to God's commandments on His followers for events at that time that had to do with the struggle to have Islam triumph as the accepted norm of religious belief.
Triumph as the accepted norm of religious belief, no less. Not much room for interpretation there.
"The cultural, scientific, and social inertia which Islam inherited from Hindu India, Zorastrian Persia, Christian/Hellenistic Byzantium, Christian Egypt, Christian Spain etc etc probably explains much about the peculiar but consistent trajectories Islam took in each case..."
What the heck does this mean?
1492 when Ferdinand and Isabella got the last of the Muslims out of Spain was the same year that they bravely sponsored Christopher Columbus who ___________ (fill in the blank)
It was the Zoroastrians who were so mathematically inclined that they were call "Magi", that is, wise men.
Did you ever notice that most mosques look like Santa Sophia in the former Constantinople which was built by the Byzantines?
The Muslims didn't inherit moribund cultures, although the Byzantines had been awfully drained by years and years of fighting off the really cultured barbarians from the steppes of Asia before they finally broke down the gates.
Are you saying it's the West's fault that Islam turned out like it did?
"And this explains why a reformation was possible for Christianity and not Islam. Prior to the reformation, Christianity was run by 'the Church' whose rulers paid little heed to Christianity's founding and guiding principles--including the 10 Commandments. It was therefore possible for angry, reform-minded folks to point out that the Roman Catholic Church and most other bastions of Christianity were failing Yahweh their deity miserably, and institute a renewed faith that WAS run in accordance with Christianity's intended and original doctrines."
The Reformation wasn't all that successful; there are still a billion + unrepentant Roman Catholics in the world still doing and believing pretty much the same things. This doesn't even count all the Orthodox who have nearly the same doctrinal beliefs and liturgy as Catholics.
And yet I don't see any Catholics blowing themselves up to murder women and children anywhere....
Basically, Islam can never reform itself. I may state it as a wish from time to time, but I'm just being nice.
The real truth is, Islam must be marginalized into the cult that it is, the theocratic ideology that is has always been and the Constitution must be amended so that such virulent cults are not protected by American Law when it is so obvious that "religion" is only disguising a body of people that are bent on reducing the Constitution to so much ash.
A Memo to Dr. Pepper:
We take exception to your comparisons between Islam and Christianity! Although Islam and Christianity are BOTH ideologies any and ALL similarities end THERE.
Christianity was NOT made innocuous to humanity through fragmentation as you have stated. Christianity was made innocuous by being forced TO LIVE UP TO ITS OWN TEACHINGS AND PRINCIPLES...FOR EXAMPLE THE 10 COMMANDMENTS (notably among them "Thou shalt not kill"). What was the Catholic Church doing killing its own members anyway? Jesus and the 10 Commandments outlaw this EXPLICITLY, do they not?
Christianity was in fact made MORE vulnerable to the use of violence because of internal divisions, as the papist vs. anti-papist wars raging through England in the 1600s (and sent the Pilgrims fleeing from there on the ship the Mayflower) testify to!!
What I think you were trying to come to terms with is that ANY ideology can be dangerous if the people trying to impose it on others have unchecked power they can abuse. The European monarchies and the Roman Catholic Church could be found guilty of this. As I say, this is not really because of anything inherent in Christianity!
We need not recount the horrors that Christians (and non-christians as in Spain in the 1400s)endured or in some cases inflicted (as in Mexico and Peru). What we need to understand here is that it was as I have said the PEOPLE who ran the Roman Catholic Church along with the European monarchies who exercised and frequently abused their political powers who were the problem with Christianity in pre-reformation times since there was no one who could force them to obey the Christian principles they allegedly were administering to humanity (but in reality were NOT DOING). When Martin Luther came on the scene and fought for reforms of Christendom...then finally Christianity did finally become relatively benign in keeping with its teachings which generally (if not completely) are so. The Magna Carta and US Constitution were written by Christians--and are these documents not benign?
We know none of this will be the case with Islam which is doing exactly what its source material tells it to do.
"The Muslims didn't inherit moribund cultures..."
And that is what I'm saying also. Do you know anything about physics? Inertia is the tendency for objects which are still to remain still, and for objects which are in motion to remain in motion (unless acted upon.)
You, for whatever reason, have decided to interpret my use of the word "inertia" to indicate only stillness, or moribundity, which, if you read more closely, is hardly the case.
In simpler terms I was suggesting that the brakes of Islam were slammed onto cultures which were rich, vibrant, and forward moving -- the tendency of these cultures to continue in such a manner unless acted upon is the social inertia I was referring to. The "acted upon" part of the equation which changed the fate of Persia, Byzantium, Egypt, Spain, India, etc was the interference or impedance of Islam.
I attribute the claims of various brief "flourishings" which Muslims attribute solely to Islam as actually being the stolen property of the various murdered non-Muslim cultures and civilizations. Islam destroys nearly everything in its path.
Islam is a wasteland.
Oh I see -- Now I regret even addressing the poster portia91.
At first I wondered about the "they bravely sponsored Christopher Columbus who ___________ (fill in the blank)" clause.
Clearly this is just another troll more intent on getting this thread off topic and castigating Christians and the West for _____________ rather than discussing Islamic Jihad.
Go away troll! You're a waste of space.
"And yet I don't see any Catholics blowing themselves up to murder women and children anywhere"
Yup, I guess it's only Dan Brown that thinks we're a threat these days. The Swiss Guards are only for defensive purposes. And the Knights of Columbus are no threat either.
Clearly simpler terms don't work for trolls like this -- learn about a topic before you pollute the site with your excreta.
Oh, and -- the last time I checked, the web domain called:
EverythingwrongwiththeworldisthefaultoftheChristians.com is still available -- why don't you go start your own boring terror-sympathizing site?
PS: I also checked and I'llpostwithouttheslightestideaaboutwhati'mtalkingabout.com is also available -- this would also be a good site for you to take and tend!
portia91-
People are not being burned at the stake in the Christian countries as was once commonplace. The Roman Catholic Church is no longer killing its members for insubordination, something that went on for centuries. This won't ever happen with Islam which was all along set up to kill people...
Most of the countries where political asylum is being sought after are Christian ones. There they have protections against the worst elements of human societies. How many non-Christian countries can say this? Not even democratic India can; not with its hundreds of millions of "untouchables' forced to endure subhuman living and social conditions along with punishment for being alive. How many people really want to live out their lives in places like Cuba or Iran or China or Malaysia if they can avoid doing so? Christian beliefs do have something to do with this.
The difference between feudal Europe ruled under the Roman Catholic Church and monarchies and the western world today is in fact very dramatic even in Catholic countries like Italy. So the reformation had its successes even if you are not aware of them.
I would suggest you read your history more carefully before you toss off any more uninformed revisions of Christian (and world) history.
To give George Orwell his due, he pegged Islam perfectly in three words:
"Orthodoxy is unconsciousness."
All we see are REM eye movements and all we hear are nightmare mutterings.
Never addressing the questions, never answering the relevant quotes, never admitting anything could be wrong with the Koran, itself, or their pedophile "prophet", himself.
Useless.
We need to stop wasting water on dead plants.
they bravely sponsored Christopher Columbus who ___________ got off his butt and discovered an entire NEW WORLD. Not much inertia there.
"verythingwrongwiththeworldisthefaultoftheChristians.com is still available -- why don't you go start your own boring terror-sympathizing site?"
I'm objecting to your piling on in regards to Catholics. The religious wars in Europe killed as many Catholics as it did Protestants. And the Pilgrims left England not to escape the Jesuits but to escape the 2nd class treatment they received from the Church of England along with the Catholics.
The new Church of England destroyed Catholic churches and confiscated church property and denied Catholics the vote, education and free worship until sometime in the 1800s.
There were a lot of witches burned by Protestants in Europe. Ever hear of the Salem witch trials in the colonies? Read your history.
In Williamsburg you can learn that everyone had to attend the Anglican Church every Sunday or they were fined. And no other religion was allowed to have worship services long after the town was founded.
Lay off the Catholic Church.
Perhaps drugs...?
jsla said: "Clearly this is just another troll more intent on getting this thread off topic and castigating Christians and the West for _____________ rather than discussing Islamic Jihad."
1) I was NOT castigating Christians and the West.
2) I was a interested lurker until my faith started getting castigated - I believe Pythagorus got this thread off-track, not me.
Pythagorus said: "Prior to the reformation, Christianity was run by 'the Church' whose rulers paid little heed to Christianity's founding and guiding principles--including the 10 Commandments. It was therefore possible for angry, reform-minded folks to point out that the Roman Catholic Church and most other bastions of Christianity were failing Yahweh their deity miserably, and institute a renewed faith that WAS run in accordance with Christianity's intended and original doctrines."
Pythagorus also said:"Christianity was in fact made MORE vulnerable to the use of violence because of internal divisions, as the papist vs. anti-papist wars raging through England in the 1600s (and sent the Pilgrims fleeing from there on the ship the Mayflower) testify to!!"
Pythagorus also said: "The European monarchies and the Roman Catholic Church could be found guilty of this. As I say, this is not really because of anything inherent in Christianity!"
Pythagorus also said: "What we need to understand here is that it was as I have said the PEOPLE who ran the Roman Catholic Church along with the European monarchies who exercised and frequently abused their political powers who were the problem with Christianity in pre-reformation times since there was no one who could force them to obey the Christian principles they allegedly were administering to humanity (but in reality were NOT DOING). When Martin Luther came on the scene and fought for reforms of Christendom...then finally Christianity did finally become relatively benign in keeping with its teachings which generally (if not completely) are so. The Magna Carta and US Constitution were written by Christians--and are these documents not benign?"
Pythagorus also said: "The Roman Catholic Church is no longer killing its members for insubordination, something that went on for centuries."
It IS drugs!
jsla: I'm high on life, what's your problem?
bye
pythagoras,
"Christianity was in fact made MORE vulnerable to the use of violence because of internal divisions"
In the short run, yes. But those sometimes tragic and horrendous conflicts must be looked at in a broader, macro perspective: they were the painful birth pangs of the modern West -- arguably the most progressive, beneficent civilization in all history (not without many faults; nothing's perfect in this life, but some things are superior to others within the framework of imperfection, and it is the zealously tenacious obsession with perfection that is Islam's chief flaw).
SORRY FOR THE LENGTH OF MY RESPONSE -- BUT I JUST HAD TO HIT SOME OF THESE POINTS ONE BY ONE
___
“when they see how we treat them in our press and how we portray their religion and their prophet in our judeo-Christian world”
So, once again, westerners are wrong. We drove them to this. No word about how Muslims portray other religions or that deaths as a response to a cartoon is seriously out of line with the free speech and other American principles and ideals the author said he not only supports but embodies.
“It worked again in Kashmir”
The Kashmir problem is far from solved and I acutally expect to see substantially increased pressure on that issue as a result of the progress that HAS been made.
“killing/maiming/go kill the Jews stuff, or whatever other phraseology there is in the Koran which non-Muslims believe is derogatory and anti-human, refers to God's commandments on His followers for events at that time that had to do with the struggle to have Islam triumph as the accepted norm of religious belief”
So, what? God got lazy and no longer cares to have Islam the one true religion triumph? If God wanted Islam to triumph as the accepted “norm of religious belief” wouldn’t he still want that? And wouldn’t he still endorse the same routes to achieve it? Or is God fickle?
“Now, the problem is that today, the bin Laden's and Zawahiri's and Zarqawi's of the world have succeeded in dredging up the anger harbored inside otherwise docile Muslim followers by harking back to a time that has no relationship whatsoever to modern day realities”
Oh, I see, somehow, without my noticing, Islam DID become the accepted religious belief world wide and there are no longer widows. What a minute, then what’s all this we see on the news about the martyrs and war dead and the enemies of Islam. Either I or the author are quite confused about the reality of the world we are living in.
(insert: YAY! Further in debate McCarthy nails this point)
“the part of the Koran and Hadith that are of value”
Uhm, starting to have trouble following this. Earlier we were assured that the whole point of God dictating via Gabriel in a then unknown language to an illiterate man was because his earlier works had been corrupted by man’s interpretation (to include picking an choosing I am quite certain) and so the Koran is the Koran, is undeniable and unalterable. I think that includes blacking out pieces like a freedom of information act document that is now unreadable due to all the black “highlighting”
“Your argument about Islam the message being the problem vs. Islam the body of believers makes exactly the point bin Laden would have us all believe--that in today's world, Muslims have prostituted the original words of God and he is here to save us all from that folly. Nonsense. I will never accept that as a premise for rational debate.
You rely, because of sheer lack of knowledge of how true Islam is taught and practiced, on a prescription that serves the purpose only of your argument rather than trying to broaden the understanding to determine where the failure point is, or how it arose so that we can go on to correct it.”
I kind of read this as you don’t believe in Islam because you don’t believe in Islam and since you don’t believe in Islam you are unqualified for debate.
“How often do we see coverage of the ruler of Dubai going into the classrooms of his city-state's schools and finding out firsthand what the problems are for teachers to bring broader education platforms to their students”
Okay, okay, he got me there. I don’t know. But I DO know that the ruler of Dubai offers a prize for memorizing the Koran. So whether he likes broader education platforms or not, I think we can see what education he considers to be most important.
“Second point. Since you are not Muslim, you cannot know what we are taught and what we are not. Just as I never learned the Bible in your ways in school and must rely on your understanding, you never learned the Koran in my way. Therefore, when you say it is not possible to know, you speak only for yourself and others like you who, mostly for good reason, just don't know any better.”
Again with the you must become Islam to debate Islam. Except, Muslims don’t debate Islam. That’s what it means to be a Muslim. And if you do debate it you’re a bad muslim and it seems the Muslim version of excommunication is death.
“Okay, I'll take your point, so let's go through it. I'll present below each of your statements and give you my view of context and meaning, as a Muslim. We can either agree or disagree, but taking the position that unless I simply fold and agree with you that Islam is evil, as you see it, from its root source leads us to one conclusion--and one conclusion only, that there is no solution.”
Oh, I think there are several solutions. We can either separate for all time each in our spaces and accept that in those spaces the others will live as they like without interference. This means westerners might have to turn a blind eye to what they consider barbaric practices towards women, and members of the now segregated Islamic world would have to accept that the western world can print whatever cartoons it wants.
“Finally, gentlemen, bear in mind that we could be having exactly the same argument about Christianity or Judaism. The Old Testament, in particular, is filled with stuff that does not measure up to modern values – slavery, genocide, you name it. Nonetheless, Jews and Christians do not in fact advocate the stoning of disobedient children. I suggest we give Muslims no less credit.”
These words were reposted by the main author to “sum up” he says. But I feel he uses it more to sidestep. I also point out that in Christianity, the old testament was superceded by Christ and became a history -- not a law to live by.
Wow. Ships in the night indeed…
And this explains why a reformation was possible for Christianity and not Islam. Prior to the reformation, Christianity was run by 'the Church' whose rulers paid little heed to Christianity's founding and guiding principles--including the 10 Commandments. It was therefore possible for angry, reform-minded folks to point out that the Roman Catholic Church and most other bastions of Christianity were failing Yahweh their deity miserably, and institute a renewed faith that WAS run in accordance with Christianity's intended and original doctrines."
The Reformation wasn't all that successful...
=================
Actually, it was. The abuses of the Catholic church - such things as 'indulgences' - and other corrupt practices were rooted out of the Catholic church during the Reformation. Self-examination did produce change in the Catholics after the large separation that Luther created.
However, I do have a problem with equating the Ten Commandments as a 'founding and guiding principle' of Christianity. As Paul says over and over in his epistles, the Law has no place in a believer's life. The Reformation did nothing to try to put the Law back into the life of a believer. Instead, it rejected non-Biblical additions to doctrine, i.e. infallibility of the Pope, shriving of the dead, confession by a priest, unmarried state of priests and nuns, authority of priests, and on and on. Such statements show a lack of understanding of Christianity.
You cannot equate the Christian Reformation to an Islamic Reformation. If you throw out non-Biblical doctrine, there is a very substantial and livable way of life remaining. There is nothing inherently objectionable with fundamental ideas espoused in the New Testament which stress forgiveness, mercy, patience, kindness, meekness, turning the other cheek.
Unfortunately, when you root out the unacceptable tenets of Islam, there will only be fragments left, which may not resemble the Koran at all.
When Christians reformed, we went BACK to the Bible, when Islam reforms, we hope they get away from the Koran.
I was very disappointed in Ijaz. I thought he would show more substance that what he showed in this debate. It was all deflecting issues and redirecting blame, refusing to pinpoint the true problem and unwilling to deal with it.
His suggestion that we can reform Islam by appointing Muslim leaders in top positions was chilling. Until there is a fundamental change in the belief system of Muslims, the idea that they will put their struggle to see Islam "triumph as the accepted norm of religious belief" as Ijaz puts it, makes me hope they never are appointed.
And hey, while we are throwing fuel on the fire from other religions -- John Calvin said that Islam was one of the two horns of the beast of the end times.
Ah, I can see the headlines now! Islam outlaws Calvinism worldwide. Street burnings live at six!
(though, he also said the RCC was the other)
I'm joining this topic pretty late but I have some questions for Mr. McCarthy and the whole NRO staff in general.
Mansoor Ijaz has been known to lie about Islam frequently and his columns are at best misleading and at worst willfully deceptive. Have any of his columns gotten spiked for any of these reasons? His lies are easily revealed with a quick Google search and a quick reference to some of the most reputable Islamic writings on sharia. Infidels can challenge Muslims on what Islam really means, they need not shy away from "not knowing Arabic" (and for those who DO know Arabic, they are criticized for not knowing "classical Arabic" and so on) since most Muslims don't know Arabic and they aren't shy at all about telling us what's in the Qu'ran. No, studying Islam is not like climbing Mount Everest. You don't need a shirpa (Muslim) to guide you.
John Derbyshire gets a column spiked every now and then because it is deemed a little too politically incorrect for NRO. Fine. That's for them to decide but why are they punishing Derbyshire for publishing what he thinks while they are letting Ijaz get away with apologia for Islam and presenting it as fact? Why do they insist on carrying him if he insists on lying? Is it because he's a member of the Cult of Bush? Is it because he's a "conservative"? Or is it because NRO is so committed to the myth of the moderate Muslim that they are willing to overlook him not answering the tough questions or fudging the truth a litte on sensitive questions (such as the one on jizya)? NRO has some splainin' to do. How can they claim to have more moral authority than the NYT on covering the "real" issues and be staunch supporters of the "War on Terror" when they are giving some of the worst apologists of Islam (Aykol and Ijaz) a platform in their publication?
There is no difference of opinion on what the main tenets of Islam are. There is no debate and there hasn't been one for atleast one thousand years. Islam is what it is. Saying some of the bad parts have been discarded or are no longer practiced because they are "medieval concepts" is a blatant lie. Ijaz wants America to support Pakistan and Musharraf to the hilt. Based on what he has written in the NRO (and elsewhere) about Islam and knowing how misleading he is, should we take his policy suggestion seriously? Should we take him seriously? Why does the NRO?
Mr. Goldberg, call your office.
Kay said: "The abuses of the Catholic church - such things as 'indulgences' - and other corrupt practices were rooted out of the Catholic church during the Reformation."
Actually, the Roman Catholic Church does still have indulgences. You are misinformed.
Portia, you have been castigated several times for your inaccuracy, so I won't do it again. Here is a bit of info for you:
System of Indulgences. Indulgences were a system of exchange whereby the priests employed their special rapport with God to perform certain religious acts for laymen. For a price, Clergy would pray, fast and read scripture for a person. In other words, priestly services were bought. This was later developed into buying up time one might have to spend in purgatory.
“Incest, if not detected, was to cost five groats; and six, if it was known. There was a stated price for murder, infanticide, adultery, perjury, burglary, etc. ‘O disgrace of Rome!’ exclaims Claude d’Espence, a Roman divine: and we may add, O disgrace of human nature! for we can utter no reproach against Rome that does not recoil on man himself. Rome is human nature exalted in some of its worst propensities” (D’aubigne).
============================
This is no longer promoted by the RCC. You cannot go to your local priest and pay money for him to read the Bible to you, and neither can you pay to spend less time in purgatory.
To be more precise, paying MONEY for indulgences is what was rooted out of the Catholic Church. That is what made them evil. After the Reformation, the Catholic Church did not charge money for this forgiveness of sin (indulgence) but gave the forgivenss (indulgence for free).
Kay-
Drat!
Indulge me-
I was about to dig down in the cushions of my couch to see if I could scare up a quarter or a few nickels to reduce Mohammad's time in Hell by a nanosecond or two.
Sorry, Mo. No go.
There was no dog in this fight.
Kay: You should be more precise in what you say about my church. You did not specify that it was PAYING for indulgences, you said: "The abuses of the Catholic church - such things as 'indulgences' - and other corrupt practices were rooted out of the Catholic church during the Reformation."
In my 61 years I have earned a fair number of indulgences. I believe the particular practice that incensed Luther was the granting of indulgences for money that was over-enthusiastically being gathered to build the new St. Peter's.
By the way, indulgences were and are not for "forgiveness of sin (indulgence)" as you say. They were and are to satisfy the earthly penance or time in purgatory imposed for a sin that has been forgiven in confession - where money never changed hands. Indulgences are of no effect for unconfessed and/or unrepented sins.
Also: it is still common practice when a loved one dies to give a stipend to the local priest or a religious order as a gratuity for the saying of Masses for the repose of the soul of the departed. It's kind of like the tip you give the priest or minister who performs a wedding. This is not considered buying "priestly services", and, absent abuse by an unscrupulous priest, it was not considered buying "priestly services" at the time of the Reformation either.
We've been treated to Ijaz's "jazz" performances before. Recently, Robert took some of his claims apart, and then the rest of us joined in the fun.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/010300.php#comments
As for the Ijaz jazz in the debate with McCarthy, some of his misinformation about the Koran caught my eye.
Ijaz: "The rest of the chapter on Women (Sura 4) deals with how a man who has chosen to take multiple wives must behave and deal with them equally."
Actually, although the chapter is titled "Women," several other topics are addressed (e.g., killing infidels, burning them in hell…the usual stuff). Very little of the chapter has anything to do with treating wives equally. Verse 4:129 even questions whether a man can treat his wives equally.
4:129 “Ye will not be able to deal equally between (your) wives, however much ye wish (to do so). But turn not altogether away (from one), leaving her as in suspense. If ye do good and keep from evil, lo! Allah is ever Forgiving, Merciful.”
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/4/index.htm
I-jazz also claimed that, in reference to verses 2:223 and 4:3, that these were from "two very early chapters in the Koran." Actually, chapters (Suras) 2 and 4 are regarded as having been revealed in Medina and they are relatively late overall. Out of 114 Suras, Sura 2 is about 87th and Sura 4 is about 92nd. I'm not entirely sure what I-jazz would hope to gain by saying they are early, but anyways that claim is false. "Very early" would imply the early part of the Meccan phase; that phase precedes the Medinian phase.
Another bit of Ijaz jazz: the Koran's dictims are limited to a specific time, etc. Actually, some verses state explicitly that Allah's words cannot be changed.
33:60 If the hypocrites, and those in whose hearts is a disease, and the alarmists in the city do not cease, We verily shall urge thee on against them, then they will be your neighbours in it but a little while.
33:61 Accursed, they will be seized wherever found and slain with a (fierce) slaughter.
33:62 That was the way of Allah in the case of those who passed away of old; thou wilt not find for the way of Allah aught of power to change.
Taking the assumptions of this belief system as given, including that the Koran has one author (Allah), and allowing for the abrogation exceptions, the statement in 33:62 applies not only to the immediately preceeding verses, but to Allah's policy in general (i.e., it is not subject to change).
portia91:
Who doesn't have indulgences? So what, may I ask you?
portia91:
The fact that these historical events you mention rarely if ever happen today (and virtually never receive official Church approval) in the Christian nations proves to me that the Reformation was successful.
Much of your carping about Christians (and in particular Catholics) stems from failings in human nature. And not from Christianity's actual teachings.
As for Spain in the 1400s and 1500s, it had not unlearned 7oo years of Islamic doctrine and practices that had been deeply ingrained into the Spanish society and mindset. Note if you will that Spain has been the poorest and least productive of western European countries and the last one to democratize. All this results from the imprint left by Islam. The Spanish Conquistadors broke nearly every one of the 10 Commandments--especially "THOU SHALT NOT STEAL" THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT MURDER"" etc. These commandments do NOT EXIST IN ISLAM (at least not if dealing with non-Muslims). Even the justly-maligned Inquistion resembles a jihadist operation if you look at analytically.
Well said pythagoras. The other lesson to take from Spain is that you have almost have to become like muslims/Islam to remove them once they are imbedded in your society. Notice that the Balkans suffer the same problem.
Where did you guys get the idea I'm carping about Christians?
The issue of this thread is whether Islam can reform itself and you all are going on and on about how the Protestant Reformation changed the awful Papists.
I'm pointing out to you that a lot of what you see is erroneous.
1) The Catholic Church pretty much still believes and practices the same things it always did and is billion+ members strong.
2) The Catholic Church reformed itself through the Council of Trent; Luther was invited but didn't show.
3) The witch burning you mention mostly occurred AFTER the Reformation and involved as many Reformers as Catholics.
4) The persecution of Catholics in England occurred AFTER the Reformation and continued into the 1800s.
5) Witch burnings in the colonial American, and its requirement that everyone attend the Church of England and tithe on its behalf occurred AFTER the Reformation. Talk about dhimmitude.
If you are wanting to use the Protestant Reformation as as example, get your facts straight or your analogies will not be valid.
The modern world we have now has as much or more to do with the Renaissance which predated the Reformation.
Your off topic rants are unwelcome here, or didn't you notice? This site is plagued with endless posters such as yourself who relentlessly try to divert the threads onto their various pet themes. Nothing in your posts even vaguely relates to the topic of reform in Islam -- the only mention of it is in passing, and then you revert to the same old tired out swill.
Stop polluting this splendid site with your twaddle.
Speaking of facts, "witches" in the colonies were hanged or drowned, not burned.
Back to the show.
I'm glad you all have gotten bored with trashing Catholics. That was my purpose here. Or aren't we allowed to defend ourselves? You guys started it. I would have lurked forever otherwise.
Ciao
For Pete's sake, this thread was not about 'bashing' Catholics. Take off your kneejerk defensive blinders for one second. The Catholic Church did some bad things. Catholics fixed it. Christianity has the mechanisms within it to do that. The comparison was being made to Islam in that the latter is not capable of the same kind of introspection and evolution. Catholicism comes out in a more favorable light. Throwing tantrums and making charges of "you guys started it" is the signature of Mohammedans. Be better than that.
That should have been 'trashing' Catholics.
I regret the time I spent reading myself through this dreck.
The furious frustration I feel inside of me over this slimy Mohammedans (Ijaz) Taqiyya -s#*t makes my skin crawl.
He demands positions in high places for Mohammedans in government and in the FBI: He is pissing on us, on all of us!
Fortunately, no matter how much perfume and lipstick he put's on his swine called Islam, it remains a swine!
This McCarthy doesn't do him justice: I would have liked to see Hugh or Robert write him off.
The only thing I regret (apart from reading this s#*t) is that I don't have a chance to personally give this creep a shoe in his fat ass. But who knows, perhaps, one day?
I'm looking forward to it.
No dialogue, no more PC: Internment and deportations. The ME is big enough for all of them...
I think McCarthy could have challenged Mnasoor on the wives thing. A number of Mohammad’s wives were not widows or orphans so Mansoor is simply deceitful in his explanation. Examples are Aisha (the 9 year old, unlikely yo have been a widow!). and Zaynab the daughter in law who he lusted after and hey presto Allah gave him the ok. Islam portrays it as an approval by Allah to marry adopted son’s wives. But on the teaching of Jesus both Mohammad and Zaynab are guilty of adultery, so Allah contradicts both the teaching of the Bible and Jesus.
How about the widow who became a widow because Mohammad had her husband and all the men of the Quarayza Jewish tribe beheaded. Islam’s first genocidal action. The context of these actions is not explained in the Koran but in the hadiths (and the biography by Ishaq Ed Hisham, unread by almost all Muslims.)
How about suggesting that if Mohammad was a prophet like Jesus then murder and mayhem would not have occurred at any point (Garden of Getheseme and trial of Jesus as the template for a true prophet’s behavior post Jesus, like Stephen for example)
Mansoor doesn’t understand that Jesus ushered in a kingdom that was based on peace and love (in the non-hippie sense) and murder was not an option for “extending” God’s kingdom. Islam might have had some credibility had it pre dated Christianity. It could then have seen as an Arab Old Testament, but then Mohammad would have become a Jew. Oh the confusion!.
Neither did I intend to 'trash Catholics'. I think the point is that any institution, any religion can go off course. Thank goodness that Christianity can REFORM, which we do, whether Catholic or Protestant. Yes, the Protestants had to reform and get rid of hunting for witches. Yes, there have been many heresies. But at least they CAN reform. I don't know, maybe it is because Christianity is REAL!
Yes, I also wonder about the 'wives' thing. At this moment, my brother has welcomed his wife's sister into his home because her husband died. She has a 9 month old son. He takes care of this widow and her orphan. I am certain that he doesn't feel like he has to have sex with her in order to provide for her while she recovers and until she remarries. That is the missing element here: the idea that you must assume that a widow who is living with another family is having sex with the male of the household. Is it impossible for a muslim male to refrain from having sex with the unmarried women in his household? Why else must he marry them?