The fact that Gabriel Said Reynolds, who demonstrates here that he is either abjectly ignorant or willfully dishonest about Islam, is a professor of theology at Notre Dame shows how much our nation’s universities (and the Catholic Church) are dominated by fantasy and wishful thinking rather than being willing to deal with unpleasant realities. Reynolds is an academic laden with honors, employed at Notre Dame and published in the New York Daily News, not because he speaks the truth, with which he is either unacquainted or unwilling to disclose, but because he tells people what they want to hear: that Islam, if only it were properly understood, is actually a religion of peace. How it came to be that so many Muslims misunderstand the religion they follow so devoutly, he does not bother to explain.
Meanwhile, would the New York Daily News ever publish a comparably lengthy theological defense of Christianity? Not on your life.
Anyway, to make his case that in Islam, vengeance belongs to Allah alone, Reynolds quotes a number of Qur’an verses, but he doesn’t even mention or attempt to explain away others that disprove his case. There is actually a great support, passed over in silence by Reynolds here, in the Qur’an and Sunnah for the death penalty for blasphemy. It can arguably be found in this verse: “Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment.” (5:33)
But if you don’t think that verse justifies killing those who insult Islam, there is this: “Those who annoy Allah and His Messenger – Allah has cursed them in this World and in the Hereafter, and has prepared for them a humiliating Punishment” (33:57)
Yes, he has cursed them both in this world and the hereafter. What does a curse in this world look like? Muslims are told to fight such people: “If they violate their oaths after pledging to keep their covenants, and attack your religion, you may fight the leaders of paganism – you are no longer bound by your covenant with them – that they may refrain” (9:12).
Not only that, but the Qur’an explicitly says that Allah will punish people by the hands of the believers: “Fight them; Allah will punish them by your hands and will disgrace them and give you victory over them and satisfy the breasts of a believing people, and remove the fury in the believers’ hearts.” (9:14-15)
There is more in the hadith. In one, Muhammad asked: “Who is willing to kill Ka’b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?” One of the Muslims, Muhammad bin Maslama, answered, “O Allah’s Apostle! Would you like that I kill him?” When Muhammad said that he would, Muhammad bin Maslama said, “Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Kab).” Muhammad responded: “You may say it.” Muhammad bin Maslama duly lied to Ka’b, luring him into his trap, and murdered him. (Bukhari 5.59.369)
“A Jewess used to abuse the Prophet and disparage him. A man strangled her till she died. The Apostle of Allah declared that no recompense was payable for her blood.” (Sunan Abu-Dawud 38.4349)
Why doesn’t Gabriel Said Reynolds mention any of those passages?
“What radical Muslims get wrong about the Koran: Vengeance is reserved for God alone,” by Gabriel Said Reynolds, New York Daily News, March 1, 2020:
In the name of Allah, militant Muslims continue taking up arms against people they consider threats to their faith and way of life. But does it make theological sense for humans to pick up swords and guns to exact retribution in this life?
The Koran, the book those same Muslims purport to revere, says no….
The irony of blasphemy laws, and the tragedy of these attacks carried out in supposed defense of Islam, is that the Koran time and again insists that it is God’s right, and God’s right alone, to exact vengeance.
Allah does not need Muslims to step in and punish those who insult Him. In fact, Allah does not want Muslims to do so. The God of the Koran is clear: He is the only avenger of Islam.
The case of blasphemy laws in Islam is particularly peculiar in light of the example of Muhammad himself. The Koran describes how the unbelievers in his native city of Mecca disputed his claims of prophethood and insulted him.
Koran 68:51 describes how they accused him of insanity: “Indeed, the faithless almost devour you with their eyes when they hear this Reminder, and they say, ‘He is indeed crazy.’”
The Koran does not respond by demanding that the blasphemers be killed for their insolence. It simply affirms the claims of Muhammad.
Elsewhere in the Koran, the voice of God counsels Muhammad to be patient when faced with opposition. Koran 16:126 alludes to some persecution or affliction which Muhammad has suffered from the unbelievers.
The next verse, in response, suggests that Muhammad could strike back in moderation, but should simply endure the persecution patiently: “If you retaliate, retaliate with the like of what you have been made to suffer, but if you are patient, that is surely better for the steadfast.”
This does not mean that the idea of vengeance is foreign to the Koran. The question the Koran poses is not whether offenses against Islam and Muslims should be avenged, but who should do the avenging.
And the answer is consistent: “God.”
Remarkably, and if only Boko Haram and other Salafi-Jihadis would listen, the Koran even teaches this lesson specifically about Christians. In Sura 5, God asks some questions of Jesus about those who followed him, but Jesus does not demand that the wrongdoers be punished.
He leaves their fate in God’s hands: “If Thou chastisest them, they are Thy servants; if Thou forgivest them, Thou art the All-mighty, the All-wise.”
The same lesson is taught about Muslims who are unfaithful to the laws of Islam. In chapter 5, verse 95, the Koran describes the laws of the pilgrimage to Mecca (known as the Hajj). But as for he who breaks the rules, the Koran gives no worldly punishment: “God will take vengeance on him, God is all-mighty, Vengeful.”
So what does divine vengeance look like in the Koran? Allah punishes those who offend Him in hell. The Koran not only describes paradise in vivid colors (as a place with food, drink, and women), it also describes hell in gruesome detail.
Angels of punishment will strike the damned from the front and the back. The damned will be condemned to drink boiling water and eat from a tree named Zaqqum whose fruit is like the heads of demons.
The Koran clearly considers this punishment enough for an unbeliever. Whereas the standard schools of Islam teach that someone who leaves the religion, an apostate, is to be killed, the only punishment for apostasy spoken of in the Koran is hell: “’Did you disbelieve after you had believed? Then taste the chastisement for that you disbelieved!’” (Quran 3:106).
The Koran also teaches that God need not wait for the afterlife to punish unbelievers. He is the lord of the universe and can intervene when He chooses.
A number of chapters in the Koran tell a series of tales, dubbed “punishment stories” by scholars, in which unbelieving peoples are punished for rejecting the prophet who is sent to them. Among these prophets are Biblical figures including Noah, Lot, and Moses, and others who seem to come from Arabian lore with names like Hud, Salih, and Shuʿayb.
In each story it is not the Prophet but God who intervenes….
Wellington says
This idiotic academic (excuse the redundancy) could not be more wrong. Here’s why: Most every religion issues two threats—1) One will be punished in the next life for not believing in, or not doing, this, that or the other thing; 2) A deity or deities might punish a person in this life for not believing in, or not doing, this, that or the other thing. Here Islam is no different from other religions. (Personally, I don’t like either of these two threats and it is part of the reason why I am not religious, but I also recognize that these two threats do not imperil man’s freedom under a decent legal system here on earth.)
But only Islam has a “third threat,” to wit, its own followers can use force in this world against those who in one way or another do not pay Islam full respect and obeisance.
This “third threat” is unique to Islam and can be found again and again in the Islamic texts (Koran, hadiths and sira—as well as being upheld by Islamic schools of theology and Islamic apologists to this very day).
Minus this “third threat” 9/11 would not have occurred, nor the over 36,000 documented Islamic attacks worldwide since 9/11, nor would Jihad Watch even have to exist.
The massive malevolence and odiousness of Islam is all wrapped up with the “third threat.” This unique characteristic of Islam is what makes Islam a menace to liberty and to mankind in general. This is the long and short of it.
James Lincoln says
Wellington,
You are correct, without the unique islamic “third threat”, islam would be “irrelevant” to Western “nonbelievers”…
There would also be no need for websites like Jihad Watch, etc.
keith says
There is another group who used a similar threat as part of the motivation for their followers, the IRA at one point used this.
They pulled their heads in after a quiet word from the Vatican and never did it after that, but still, radicalism feeds off itself and you have to wonder where the IRA got the motivation to use that statement?
Wellington says
The IRA got that motivation from their hatred of the English domination of Ireland from the time of Henry II, but such motivation was not ultimately religious in nature but political, though it was often “wrapped in religious clothing.”
However, such “clothing” had nothing to do with Roman Catholic theology per se, contra Islamic theology which has been enthralled with violence from its inception. Indeed, Islam in its basic theory thrives by violence perpetrated by its believers in this world while Christianity in its basic theory wants nothing to do with violence.
In short, it’s Mohammed versus Jesus and, given the choice, I will side with Jesus all the time. Better for humanity. Better for freedom. Better overall.
gravenimage says
+1
TruthWFree says
+2
Jule Bacal says
So maybe this guy does not define acts of Jihad as revenge but Duty or Allah’s warriors working through them. But he must be called out. Surely there are people who can call him out on this as he Teaches people. The Catholic Church needs to see as well, even if they do not speak out.
Rob Porter says
Wellington, considering all these things, why would any sane Western government permit such people to immigrate to their country? It simply invites endless conflict and grief for the host nation’s people, particularly women and girls. The accompanying stupidity and cowardice from Western bureaucrats is astounding. One case in many that I recall was that of a Yazidi woman from Syria who for a long time was held as a sex slave by an ISIS man. Having moved to Canada and living in London, Ontario, she came face to face with the ISIS man who had held her captive and raped her. She went to authorities to report this frightening experience and a cowardly and vile Canadian bureaucrat, a male, told her she should just keep quiet about it. An ISIS rapist in Canada and she should keep quiet about it! Next time you hear about Canada’s ‘point system’ for allowing in immigrants, take it with a grain of salt. Pretty much any type of scum now enters this country.
Larry says
The professor is a LIAR. I guess the professor thinks that no one can read for themselves.
It’s just more taqiyyah.
mortimer says
Reynolds is very knowledgeable on Islam. I cannot understand why he makes such a counterfactual claim when he knows he will have to face a storm of valid criticism.
There are 164 jihad verses that prove he is wrong. Jihadists are Allah’s bounty hunters. Jihadists are paid for killing kafirs with eternal sex with slaves in Islam’s sensual paradise.
Robert Spencer has quoted the main contradiction to Reynolds’s erroneous claim: “Fight them; Allah will punish them by your hands and will disgrace them and give you victory over them and satisfy the breasts of a believing people, and remove the fury in the believers’ hearts.” (9:14-15)
Reynolds’s claim makes no sense.
gravenimage says
Notre Dame prof Gabriel Said Reynolds falsely claims that Qur’an teaches only Allah should take revenge
………………………….
If Gabriel Said Reynolds *really* believed this, wouldn’t he try to convince violent Muslims that this is what Islam teaches, rather than bothering the good Infidels reading the New York Daily News?
Indeed so. He teaches the Qur’an and “Muslim/Christian relations”.
He’s pulled this crap before–that while he acknowledges that Islam plans to take over in the last days, that those like ISIS supposedly differ from orthodox Muslims “regarding what to do with Christians between now and doomsday”–in other words, the false claim that ordinary Muslims would never harm Christians and other Infidels. Of course, this is utter claptrap.
New York Daily News also allowed itself to be used for this load of Taqiyya back in 2016:
“What ISIS thinks of Christianity: The way to defeat the terror movement is to attack its religious propaganda head-on”
https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/gabriel-reynolds-isis-thinks-christianity-article-1.2813519
“Most Muslims hold that Islam is compatible with democracy and other religions. Many hold that a society should encourage Muslims to follow Islamic laws as much as possible — regarding the headscarf, alcohol or sexual morality — but that non-Muslims should be free to live according their own principles. God will judge them in the end.
“ISIS sees things differently. Since Islam is the true religion, ISIS holds, all people should be compelled to live according to its laws. Muslims are to fight, to kill if necessary, those who refuse to do so…”
Of course, this is not unique to ISIS. This is how *all* pious Muslims think, and indeed what Islam teaches.
I’m not sure what Gabriel Said Reynolds’ background is. With a name like this, he is probably not Muslim himself, unless he has converted to Islam. But that middle name–Said–is Middle Eastern. Sadly, some Christians and other non-Muslims from the area have internalized dhimmitude, and believe they have to whitewash Islam. That may be a factor here.
Or maybe he is just a dhimmi leftist academic useful idiot.
Michael Copeland says
He has a long string of works on Islam listed. Under Islam’s rules kafirs are not supposed to teach Islam: it is a capital offence.
gravenimage says
True–but Muslims sometimes make exceptions for useful idiots.
mortimer says
Reynolds is promoting DHIMMI THEOLOGY. He disregards most all of Islamic history.
For 1300 years, Muslims understood that Muslims are responsible for subjugating the kafirs by force and for taking revenge against those who resist Islam by thought, word or deed.
– “In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the [Muslim] mission and [the obligation to] convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force… The other religious groups did not have a universal mission, and the holy war was not a religious duty for them, save only for purposes of defense… Islam is under obligation to gain power over other nations.” (Ibn Khaldun, d.1406)
mortimer says
Reply to GI: THE POPE commissioned Reynolds to promote the pope’s false ‘Islam-is-benign’ narrative.
This is the explanation. Reynolds is following orders from the top. He should have said ‘no’.
Reynolds knows that the pope’s claims are hogwash. This is very queer.
tim gallagher says
So this professor is saying that all those Muslims, who know how violent the content of the Koran and other Islamic texts are, and who know that Muslims are called to go and commit hate-filled, murderously violent acts against non-believers, are wrong. It seems like amazing arrogance on this clown’s part. So he is the knower of the truth, the true and very peaceful nature of islam, but all the Muslims and also other scholars of Islam, who can see in the Islamic texts that Muslims are called on to go out and commit violence against non-Muslims and aren’t meant to leave it all to Allah, are wrong. Then again, it sounds similar to the present Pope’s view of peaceful islam. Some people are just perverse. If you say something is white, they’ll say, nope, it’s black . Maybe this professor is one of those types of people. Academics have plenty of time to study and, say, read the Koran, etc, so there’s no excuse for these types of people. The average type of person might be too busy to read up on the content of Islam, but not someone like this wanker. I wonder what is in for people like him, and others who try to whitewash islam. Unless he is a Muslim, he will be one of Islam’s untold victims if Islam wins and ever gets control. I find him beneath contempt for telling such lies. He could not believe what he is saying is true.
mortimer says
Reynolds is quoting from the Koran ONLY and ignoring the SACRED EXAMPLE of the warlord Mohammed in the Sira and hadiths.
Islam is composed of the Koran and the SUNNA (example of Mohammed).
tim gallagher says
Thanks for the information, Mortimer. I often think your knowledge of Islam is right up there with Robert Spencer’s. You must have done an extraordinary amount of research over the years. Your knowledge is very impressive. I have read a few books, such as Robert Spencer’s “The History of Jihad” and , years ago, “Islam Unveiled” (and parts of a couple of other books) and I checked out a copy of the Koran, unreadable crap I found it to be, to check on those calls for Muslims to murder non-Muslims and I decided that Islam was barbaric and loathsome. And the actions of Muslims throughout the world constantly reinforce my loathing for this disgusting ideology. I knew there was both the Koran and the examples or legends about Muhammad, the scumbag’s, life. “Sacred example” indeed, Muhammad was such a piece of shit of a human being. Like many other readers of jihad Watch, I learn a lot from your comments, so thanks for your contributions. You definitely seem very much like a scholar, with your knowledge of Islam.
mortimer says
REVENGE KILLING IS DECREED BY ALLAH IN THE KORAN … Retribution is classical, canonical Islam
-K.11.173 “Believers, retaliation is decreed for you in bloodshed.”
-K.2.178 “O you who believe! Retaliation is prescribed for you in the matter of the slain.”
-K.5:33 “The reprisal against those who wage war on Allah and His Messenger, and go about the earth corrupting it, is that they should be killed or crucified, or have their alternate hands and feet cut off, or be banished from the land.”
Honor is restored to a Muslim through the shedding of blood. No kafir is ‘innocent’. All kafirs deserve to be killed only because they reject Mohammed. The citizens of an entire kafir country can be held responsible because they pay taxes to support their military which attacks jihadists overseas. Islam thus considers all civilians legitimate targets for revenge in settling a matter of Islamic honor.
-Waging war against Allah is rejecting Him.”–Tafsir of Imam al-Bukhari
-Imam AbdulLatif ibn AbdurRahman rahimullah said, “It is not possible for someone to realize Tawheed and act upon it, and yet not be hostile against the mushrikeen. So anyone who isn’t hostile against the mushrikeen, then it can’t be said that he acts upon Tawheed, nor that he realizes it.” [ad-Durar as-Saniyyah 8/167]
-(The recompense of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and do mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off on the opposite sides, or be exiled from the land.) `Wage war’ mentioned here means: oppose and contradict, and it includes (opposing) disbelief.”–Tafsir Ibn Kathir “Surat al-Ma’idah [Q 5]”
libertyORdeath says
Great evidence as usual mortimer, which is something this “scholar” is lacking in his article. If not for the evidence that you provided there would be no need for an article like this. What need is there to defend something that is obviously true? It amazes me how many people are willing to play the cherry picking game to try to convince the West that a spade is not in fact a spade.
Shirley Ann says
Notre Dame has long since ceased being a Roman Catholic Center of Learning & has even ceased paying Lip-Service to Christianity, of any Type. Mr Alinsky got some of his most devout followers from the LEFT-WING Clergy at that Institution! My Opinion!
Graham says
The prof here is giving the Walt Disney version of Islam!
Francis Lankester says
Reynolds is a very prominent (RC) scholar. It is interesting to compare his scholarship (the ecumenist) with Marc Durie (the evangelist). Reynolds’ ‘The Quran & Its Biblical Subtext’ and Durie’s ‘The Quran and Its Biblical Reflexes’ give a good view of their approaches to Islam. I warn that both are heavy intellectual stuff-but very worthwhile in understanding Islam from a Western viewpoint.
gravenimage says
Reynolds is flat out wrong in his claims about the Qur’an here.
UNCLE VLADDI says
Re: (This) “shows how much our nation’s universities … are dominated by fantasy and wishful thinking rather than being willing to deal with unpleasant realities.” All the academic fields are the same, because of their publish-or-perish dictats and lucrative “There’s No Money In Solutions, so Please Give Generously – AGAIN!” motto, they tend to (at best!) simply try to re-name old things after them selves, to pretend to have invented or discovered them; at worst, like fractious little kids, invent new fields by asking “But, why!”? all the time, thus forever stepping-back the answers in the search of new effects to present as causes in themselves:
Here’s how the so-called “soft” sciences aka “humanities” (anthropology, psychology, sociology, and even Law or criminology) really work: They all started off by examining the various symptoms and EFFECTS of human behavior, thinking, group-thinking behavior, and of criminal free-will CHOICES, respectively, but then self-invalidated by looking for hidden mysterious predestined and predetermined inevitable force “CAUSES” of it all, which degraded them all into only one criminal, excuse-making alibi topic:
“VICTIMOLOGY!”
So we get these two, permanently opposed philosophical poles:
Law-abiding Conservatives: “Criminal behavior is an effect of free-will choice!”
Criminal libertines: “But what CAUSED that choice? There’s always a cause!”
Their implication is that there are no crimes nor criminals because we’re all “victims.”
In short: they went from studying HOW people CHOOSE to act, to focusing on WHY (ruling out free will choice entirely)!
And that “why” PRESUMES a fear of pain will ALWAYS trump rationality! “So” we are all really ever only helpless victims! Asking “why” people (‘always’) give in to the fear of pain, presumes that: “SINCE anything CAN go wrong, SO it WILL always go wrong, SO we MUST pity and forgive everyone for their mistakes, as being equally helpless fellow victims!”
But in reality, the only reason WHY people commit crimes, is that they still think they can have rights without responsibilities, and so they weigh all the risks and rewards in different situational circumstances first!
And they only try to do so in each and every separate circumstantial situation, because they haven’t learned that rights ALWAYS only come with responsibilities, causes with effects, and effects with causes, and so they either remain ignorant of, or choose to ignore, the simple Golden Rule of Law moral Principle:
“Do Not Attack First.”
BOTTOM LINE:
These days, uselessly PITYING the victims (and the criminals AS “fellow victims,”) is held up as the highest moral virtue, while being usefully ANGRY at, (or “hateful” towards) criminals and crime is deemed to be the most vile sin.
But what is more useful in solving problems and remedying crime: being angry at criminals for their predatory choices, or encouraging them to commit more crimes, by pitying them as “equally-helpless fellow victims,” too?
The answer is obvious.
All soft-science humanities only “teach” excuse-making idolatry alibis, amounting to: “I didn’t do it! That tree hit my car!”
And even studies in the sciences like biology and oncology, have an up to 89% fail rate when attempting to replicate their findings, simply because of all the above reasons: they are all mostly “FAKE SCIENCE!”
https://unclevladdi.blogspot.com/2019/11/most-psychology-and-other-social.html
gravenimage says
The idea that the study of history and law is *intrinsically* about victimology is mistaken, just because this is the tack all too many leftists take.
FYI says
Another smug academic who cheerfully preaches falsehood about islam.Perhaps he imagines that he has conducted a “proper reading” of the koran like pope francis and yet completely missed the PRESCRIPTIVE violence{164 Jihadi verses}of the koran.
They all sound like dr craig considine and his islamic apologetics.
“When I started studying prophet muhammed ,I learned about his saying..
“The best among you is the one who doesn’t harm others with his tongue and hands”
This speaks volumes.Indeed,caring speaks volumes”
Craig considine tweet 29 feb 2020
Yes indeed.He should have studied more.
ABU DAWUD 4390: muhammed the mass murderer of Jews.
Since muhammed harmed many Jews {with his hands}, by his own saying given by craig considine, that would mean…….. muhammed is the WORST among people.
{Didn’t the Jewish captives of Banu Qurayzah suffer harm at the hands of muhammed when he mass-murdered them?Such a lack of caring on mo’s part speaks volumes}
dr craig also tells us “God’s love is in the koran” {Mar 2 tweet}which is absolutely hilarious as allah COMPLETELY MISSED the Golden Rule{Matthew 7 v 12} and teaches the OPPOSITE to the 2 chief commandments of God{law #1 Deuteronomy 6:4-9.law #2 Lev 19:18}by
1]giving permission to violate the Exodus 20 laws thus making it impossible for law#1 to be satisfied{Love God;demonstrated by OBEYING His commandments,not violating them as the ‘holy’ koran teaches muslims to do}also muslims teach their children to HATE which is a violation of both Chief laws{Love God,Love Others}
2}telling muslims NOT to love their infidel neighbor k5:51 as they are the WORST of created beings k98:6 with islam’s Doctrine of Hate al walaa wal baraa and apartheid system{muslims vs infidels}:thus no “love thy neighbor” is possible in islam which means law#2 {Love Others} is violated in islam and the koran
These 2 chief laws are the WHOLE of the law{Matthew 22 v 37-40}:and allah doesn’t follow them.
The absence of the Golden Rule{which is equated with being “the MEANING of the Law of Moses and the teachings of the prophets”} along with the violations of both of the Chief Commandments of God in islam show the koran to be false and its god deficient.
The absence of the Golden Rule means allah does not know the MEANING of the Law of Moses and the teachings of the Prophets!
But such wisdom is lost on many academics:see 1 Corinthians 1 v 18-31
“I will destroy the wise and set aside the understanding of the scholars”
What sort of academics miss the errors in the koran{like koran 5:116 allah tells us he thinks Christians believe MARY is in the Trinity}?it is either through sheer laziness or else being funded by saudis{who pay them to promote such falsehood}
Robert Spencer is a proper Academic.
mortimer says
Robert Spencer asks if Reynolds is being dishonest. After reading the following bio, I concur that Reynolds is being dishonest about the RETRIBUTION DOCTRINE in Islam.
It is clear that Allah commissioned Muslims to take revenge and punish the kafirs.
Deplorable dishonesty!
Pope Francis has appointed Notre Dame theologian to commission for Catholic-Muslim dialogue.
Gabriel Said Reynolds did his doctoral work at Yale University in Islamic Studies. Currently he researches the Qur’ān and Muslim/Christian relations and is Professor of Islamic Studies and Theology in the Department of Theology at Notre Dame. He is the author of The Qur’ān and Its Biblical Subtext (Routledge 2010) and The Emergence of Islam (Fortress, 2012), the translator of ʿAbd al-Jabbar’s Critique of Christian Origins (BYU 2008), and editor of The Qur’ān in Its Historical Context (Routledge 2008) and New Perspectives on the Qur’ān.
Ann says
, the attended one class in a series of discussions on Islam held at my Catholic Church two years ago. It used Reynolds’ book Introduction to Islam, but it was really just whitewashed promotion of Islam. When Sister read an encomium of Caliph Omar, I said that he had imposed many tyrannical laws and institutionalized dhimmitude, the subjection and exploitation of Christians. Everyone turned on me with fury. Several indicated that one woman in the class was married to a Muslim, which in itself was supposed to prove that Islam really was a religion of peace. One woman asked if we could all put on a Muslim culture night and prepare a meal of all- Muslim foods. I had Tommy Robinson’s Qur’an with me and read unpeaceful passages from it, but everyone shouted that that was WRONG. Sister emailed me and said I’d have to come to her office and talk to her before I was permitted to continue in the class. I went, with several books, including Christian clergyman Mark Durie‘’a The Third Choice (dhimmitude), but ultimately Sister said I was kicked out of the class.
FYI says
You didn’t do anything wrong:you were dealing with naive dhimmi Christian fools.
The pro-islam agenda in the RCC comes straight from the top in Rome.
The koran DENIES everything about Jesus which means that Logically and Theologically allah cannot be the same as the Christian God{although pope francis and naive academics teach otherwise -even though it is clearly HERESY to do so!}
I suggest you use the koran as a reference.
Perhaps “sister” might like to know what the koran says about Christians.
Perhaps you could email these koranic references to sister.
Had I been in your situation I would send these koranic references and ask for a response.
Here are some facts for naive dhimmi Christians..
The koran CURSES Christians simply for believing in Jesus Christ {koran 9:30}
The koran denies Christ was crucified thus negating Christianity{koran 4:157}
The koran {indirectly}denies the Holy Spirit{=God’s Wisdom and the source of prophecy 2 Peter 1 v 20-21};one of the “three” is the Holy Spirit{Koran 4:171}
The koran gets Christian Theology completely wrong{koran 5:116}
{MARY is NOT part of the Trinity!Note that the Holy Spirit is MISSING in islam}
The koran tells muslims NOT to be friends with Christians {koran 5:51}
{allah missed the 2nd chief commandment:there is no “love thy neighbor” in islam as in islam the infidel is inferior and the WORST of created beings}Thus all this nonsense about “interfaith” with muslims is disingenuous and fraudulent[at least from the muslim side:naive dhimmi christians don’t see that}
The koran teaches Jews and Christians are “the WORST of created beings”
{koran 98:6}
{Jesus Christ is JEWISH and “It is from the Jews that salvation comes” John 4 v 22.This statement demolishes the koran’s antisemitism
Here are some questions for muslims to answer..
Explain why islam has a Doctrine of HATRED{al walaa wal baraa}
Explain How and why the Golden Rule is missing in islam
Explain why Christians should be CURSED for believing in Jesus koran 9:30
Explain why Christians{and Jews} are the WORST of created beings koran 98:6
Explain how allah,in his “perfect” book the koran, gets CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY so spectacularly wrong {koran 5:116:The Trinity is MONOTHEISTIC and Mary{Mary!}is not involved in it}Christians are not polytheists and do not see God as being divided into parts{koran 4:171}
What sort of god misunderstands THEOLOGY?allah the ARAB god of islam.
UNCLE VLADDI says
TAQIYA! It’s obvious that he changed his name to “GEBRIL SAID” Reynolds, so he’s a muslim “revert.”