Can A "good" Muslim be a good American?

[bound]

Not quite true. It is correct that most everyone in Western Europe had lost the historic teachings of the ancient Greeks and Romans etc. during the dark ages. Likewise, the Roman Catholic Church only allowed certain nobles and church hierarchy to be well educated. The Mass was only in Latin and no common people knew Latin etc. Church tradition ruled in the place of educated scholarly understanding and preaching of the Bible. However, what brought about a resurgence of culture, science, and philosophy in Western Europe during that time was the fact that the Islamic Empire took Constantinople. When that city was about to fall to the Muslim invaders the leaders of the Eastern Church (known as the Greek Orthodox today) fled to Western Europe and brought their libraries full of the writings of Plato, Aristotle, Homer, etc. with them. Most of the material ended up in Monasteries in Ireland (read the book How the Irish Saved Civilization).

Hello Bible-boy,

Are you honestly suggesting that How the Irish Saved Civilization is objective historical scholarship?

There was an Arab library at Toledo with over 400,000 books why on God's Green Earth did the Greeks have to bring theirs all the way from war-torn Constantinople and how did they ever get their library past the Sultan?!

In addition, I would have to remind you that the Courts of Europe were filled with Arab Scholars for many years after the fall of Toledo and I don't recall a single Irish Scholar of renown among them....

Come now friend. I have an awfully hard time buying Cahill's little tale.

Be Well.

 

[Bible-boy]

There are plenty of places in the Bible that do, too.

If so, please quote a few and give reference to the Book, chapter, and verses.

If you note, the Koran is very specific that warfare is only justified in cases of oppression. Warfare is "the lesser jihad." What jihad really means is the warfare of the spirit.

If I quote passages directly from the Quran (with references) that would contradict what you are saying will you acknowledge their existence?

Bible-boy, I don't think you have quite got that right. "Massacres" did not take place because of Islam, but in spite of it. The Koran itself is quite specific, no noncombatants are to be harmed. Conversion "by the sword" was not done by and large. Every civilization has its lunatics, though. If you have any stories of this I would appreciate hearing them.

If I can cite an example of a massacre of a Jewish group ordered by Mohammad himself will you acknowledge that the above statement is incorrect?

I have never heard that before and would appreciate a source. The Muslims kept and studied Aristotle and other ancient writers extensively, while the Europeans scraped off and re-used scrolls with his works on them (palimpsests) and lost everything that had been written. Obviously we got our number system, including the concept and symbol for zero, algebra, optics, surgery, and many other sciences from and through Islamic civilization. These are Arabic words.

I already acknowledged that those types of things came about during the “Islamic Golden Age.” Those points are not in dispute. I gave you a great source in the book I suggested How the Irish Saved Civilization. If you have never heard the brief history that I mentioned I must ask what history sources you are using? Are they solely by Islamic scholars?

Can I ask you to please not change the font color, or at least to something besides gray? It virtually disappears against the blue background on my monitor and I have to paste it to be able to read it.

I'd be happy to do so if I knew how. I just hit the quote post button and type my reply. The color that comes out is the color that comes out???

 

[Bible-boy]

Hello Bible-boy,

Are you honestly suggesting that How the Irish Saved Civilization is objective historical scholarship?

There was an Arab library at Toledo with over 400,000 books why on God's Green Earth did the Greeks have to bring theirs all the way from war-torn Constantinople and how did they ever get their library past the Sultan?!

In addition, I would have to remind you that the Courts of Europe were filled with Arab Scholars for many years after the fall of Toledo and I don't recall a single Irish Scholar of renown among them....

Come now friend. I have an awfully hard time buying Cahill's little tale.

Be Well.

I'm not suggesting it is the only source. It was just the first that came to mind. Likewise, I am not arguing that Irish Scholars were active all over Europe, only that material that the Orthodox monks fled Constantinople with ended up in Christian strongholds in Ireland.

Let me check my church history books at home and see what else I can suggest for ya...

 

[Bible-boy]

Sorry yall I have to go for now. It may be hard for me to post for the next week or so. However, I hope we can continue to talk through these issues.

 

[amity]

If so, please quote a few and give reference to the Book, chapter, and verses.

All those places where God said to kill every last person and leave not a man, woman, child, or even a beast alive? You actually want chapter and verse? Hoo-boy! That is a lot of places, actually.

If I quote passages directly from the Quran (with references) that would contradict what you are saying will you acknowledge their existence?

Let me put it this way, I will investigate them to see if they are a specific instance that overrides the general proclamation against killing civilians, or in what other way the conflict between the two needs to be reconciled. In many places, as I already pointed out, the orders to kill are against idolators specifically and really should not be generalized.

If I can cite an example of a massacre of a Jewish group ordered by Mohammad himself will you acknowledge that the above statement is incorrect? .

Yes, I know about that massacre, but it had nothing to do with their religion. They betrayed the Muslims to the Meccans, did they not?

I already acknowledged that those types of things came about during the “Islamic Golden Age.” Those points are not in dispute. I gave you a great source in the book I suggested How the Irish Saved Civilization. If you have never heard the brief history that I mentioned I must ask what history sources you are using? Are they solely by Islamic scholars?

No, general histories, mainly by mainstream American historians, I suppose. I never read that book on Irish history, and I would love to and will. I'll get it on interlibrary loan over the summer. Sounds fascinating, even if it is NOT mainstream history! I would never hold that against it. Some of my favorite history books have been pretty off the wall. It helps to think outside the box sometimes. Lately I have been reading a little about the Dogons! I am interested in Celtic history, too.

I'd be happy to do so if I knew how. I just hit the quote post button and type my reply. The color that comes out is the color that comes out???

Okay, well I forgive you! Don't worry about it at all.

 

[Bible-boy]

Since you mentioned earlier that you liked and trusted wikipedia I’ll quote from there:

The Fall of Constantinople refers to the capture of the Byzantine capital by the Ottoman Empire on Tuesday, May 29, 1453. The event marked the end of the political independence of the millennium-old Byzantine Empire, which was by then already fragmented into several Greek monarchies.[7] Most importantly, the fall of Constantinople accelerated the scholarly exodus of Byzantine Greeks which had caused the influx of Classical Greek Studies into the European Renaissance.[8]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_Constantinople

How’s that for a source?

 

[Bible-boy]

I just got to come back into my office for a while. However, when I leave here at 11:00 PM EST I likely will not be around much for the next week or so.

 

[amity]

That'll do for now, Bible-boy! It is something I would like to know more about.

By the way, I would caution against Wikipedia for many subjects. The articles on Christian topics I think are great. They are well written and don't get vandalized by people who don't know much about the subject, thankfully! The history articles are generally pretty good, too, though not of the caliber of most of the religion articles. So-called "popular subjects" are not reliably good, though,and often fall victim to those with an ax of some sort to grind.

Thanks for your contribution, Bible-boy and I hope to hear more from you when you get back.

 

[DHK]

All those places where God said to kill every last person and leave not a man, woman, child, or even a beast alive? You actually want chapter and verse? Hoo-boy! That is a lot of places, actually.

This was a command given to the Jews of the OT. What has that got to do with present day Christianity, or Christianity of any age? Care to be a bit more relevant.

 

[Bible-boy]

Bible-boy, I don't think you have quite got that right. "Massacres" did not take place because of Islam, but in spite of it. The Koran itself is quite specific, no noncombatants are to be harmed. Conversion "by the sword" was not done by and large. Every civilization has its lunatics, though. If you have any stories of this I would appreciate hearing them.

I point out a massacre ordered by Mohammad himself and you respond with:

Yes, I know about that massacre, but it had nothing to do with their religion. They betrayed the Muslims to the Meccans, did they not?

You are making two different arguments here. In the first statement you say that:

The Koran itself is quite specific, no noncombatants are to be harmed.

However, we are now talking about a massacre, ordered by Mohammad, where all the men, including noncombatants, were killed. When an enemy has put down his weapons and surrendered he is no longer a combatant—he is a noncombatant.

In your second statement you say that:

Yes, I know about that massacre, but it had nothing to do with their religion. They betrayed the Muslims to the Meccans, did they not?

So now you are trying to make it sound like the argument here is about Islam vs. other religions. However, that is not what I am saying. I am saying the Quran does in fact advocate/proscribe violence and in your first statement you maintain that the Quran prohibits violence (except for violence toward idolators).

So either your interpretation of the Quran regarding warfare is incorrect, or it is correct and Mohammad violated the teaching of the Quran.

Here is a brief account for those that do not know what we are talking about:

A consensus Muslim account of the massacre of the Qurayzah has emerged as converyed by classical Muslim scholars of hadith (putative utterances and acts of Muhammad), recorded by pious Muslim transmitters), biographers of Muhammad’s life (especially Ibn Ishaq), jurists, and historians. This narrative is summarized as follows: Alleged to have aided the forces of Muhammad’s enemies in violation of a prior pact, the Qurayzah were subsequently isolated and besieged. Twice the Qurayzah made offers to surrender and depart from their stronghold, leaving behind their land and property. Initially they asked to take one camel load of possessions per person, but when Muhammad refused this request, the Qurayzah asked to be allowed to depart without any property, taking with them only their families. However, Muhammad insisted that the Qurayzah surrender unconditionally and subject themselves to his judgment. Compelled to surrender, the Qurayzah were led to Medina. The men, with their hands pinioned behind their backs, were put in a court, while the women and children were said to have been put into a separate court. A third (and final) appeal for leniency for the Qurayzah was made to Muhammad by their tribal allies the Aus. Muhammad again declined, and instead he appointed as arbiter Sa’d Mu’adh from the Aus, who soon rendered his concise verdict: The men were to be put to death, the women and children sold into slavery, the spoils to be divided among the Muslims.

You can read the rest of the story here: http://www.hirhome.com/islam/art.htm

More from wikipedia:

On the day of the Meccans' withdrawal, Muhammad led his forces against the Banu Qurayza neighborhood. According to the Muslim tradition, he was visited by the angel Gabriel, who asked Muhammad if he had abandoned fighting. When Muhammad answered that he had, the angel urged to attack the Qurayza: "God commands you, Muhammad, to go to Banu Qurayza. I am about to go to them to shake their stronghold!...

… The next morning, the Banu Qurayza unconditionally surrendered and the Muslims seized their stronghold and their weapons. Some among the tribe of Aws wanted to honor their old alliance with Qurayza, are said to asked Muhammad to treat the Qurayza leniently as he had previously treated the Qaynuqa for the sake of Abd-Allah ibn Ubayy. (Arab custom required support of an ally, independent of the ally's conduct to a third party.) Muhammad then suggested that one of the Aws would be an arbitrator, and when they agreed, he appointed Sa'd ibn Mua'dh, a leading man among Aws who was dying from a wound suffered during the siege of the Qurayza, to decide the fate of the Jewish tribe. Sa'd ibn Mua'dh pronounced that "the men should be killed, the property divided, and the women and children taken as captives". Muhammad approved the ruling, calling it similar to God's judgment….

Read the full story here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qurayzah
As best as I can tell the two sources do not conflict with or contradict each other.

 

[AF Guy N Paradise]

This sets my record for most pages of a thread that I actually started.

All I did was see an article that was interesting and brought up several good points.

There was never any hate towards the muslim people by myself or by anyone else I saw. Just their religion and their beliefs and actions.

Like I stated earlier we should all be concerned for lost souls from a tragedy like the VA Tech shootings to all of the muslims being led to hell via a false god.

 

[amity]

No, I certainly never said that Islam prohibits violence! Even Christianity does not prohibit violence. I will read your sources, and that is not terribly different from what I had understood previously, actually.

And would not be too surprised if Mohammad violated the teachings of the Koran. He had something like 11 or 13 wives, you know! Muslims are only allowed four. So i would say yes, his own practices were sometimes quite different from those he enjoined on his followers.

 

[amity]

Like I stated earlier we should all be concerned for lost souls from a tragedy like the VA Tech shootings to all of the muslims being led to hell via a false god.

I am not so sure of that. Who is the false god?

 

[amity]

This was a command given to the Jews of the OT. What has that got to do with present day Christianity, or Christianity of any age? Care to be a bit more relevant.

What does the Old Testament have to do with Christianity ... well, let me see now ....

hmmmmm ....

You are joking, surely.

 

[DHK]

What does the Old Testament have to do with Christianity ... well, let me see now ....

hmmmmm ....

You are joking, surely.

Yes, I am quite serious. Please don't be naive. Judaism and Christianity are not the same religion. The Jews rejected Christ as their Messiah. Whether Jew or Gentile anyone who rejects Christ as Saviour remains unsaved.

OT Judaism was a theocracy under God; Christianity will never be a theocracy until Christ comes and the Millennial Kingdom is set up. God commanded the Israelites to slaughter the Canaanites to rid idolatry from the land. That was a different time and a different dispensation.
God has also sent a world wide flood to destroy the world.
God has also sent fire and brimstone to destroy Sodom and Gomorroh and all the cities surrounding it.
Will you fault God as well?

 

[amity]

God commanded the Israelites to slaughter the Canaanites to rid idolatry from the land. That was a different time and a different dispensation.
God has also sent a world wide flood to destroy the world.
God has also sent fire and brimstone to destroy Sodom and Gomorroh and all the cities surrounding it.
Will you fault God as well?

No, but analogy of Islam and Judaism holds up pretty well, doesn't it?

 

[DHK]

No, but analogy of Islam and Judaism holds up pretty well, doesn't it?

No, it doesn't.
The Exodus took place in 1440 B.C. The events you are referring to took place shortly after that. You are trying to compare events that took place one and a half millennia before the birth of Christ to events that transpired more than half a millenia after the birth of Christ. That is more that a two thousand year time difference. You are comparing apples to oranges.

 

[amity]

What does that time frame have to do with anything?

 

[DHK]

What does that time frame have to do with anything?

Think about it. Muslims today are making excuses that they would never do the things that Mohammed did in the early days of Islam. You do the same thing.
Would you (if a man) take a six year old child as a bride and have sex when she is nine in this society?
Would you exterminate the inhabitants today of one city so that you can set up your headquarters there. Would you do that today? Mohammed did.
Would you marry (if a man) multiple wives, like Mohammed?
And so on. Violence, polygamy, immorality is justified because of what Mohammed did.
It is defended by people like you because they did it in another century.

But the beginnings of Islam was only about 1400 years ago.
The beginnings of Christianity was 2,000 years ago.
The beginnings of Judaism was over 4,000 years ago. Abraham lived 2100 B.C.
However the conquest was about 3,300 years ago.

At that time Israel was still not much more than nomadic tribes. God had given them land, and they were to go and conquer the land that was given them by divine right. Ever since that time the enemies of Israel have been at war trying to keep Israel from occupying that land, especially in more recent times the Muslims.
Today Muslims have no divine right to go and conquer any nation. They have no given right to utter a jihad against anyone. And yet they do. They still conquor by the sword, or try to.
Do you think they still have the divine mandate that God gave to Joshua?
Do you?
Don't you think our civilizations have changed a little in the past 4,000 years?
If you don't, I think something is wrong.

 

[amity]

DHK, I am really in awe to put in mildly. How were people of 1400 or 3600 years ago supposed to accomodate the standards of today? And what makes you think I am defending anything? Both groups are "nothing more than nomadic tribes." Very similar social structures and cultures, etc. I absolutely fail to see your point. And no one claims any right to "do what Muhammad did." They are attempting (hopefully) to live by the standards of the Koran.

And war against Israel is hardly conquering "someone else's land." The Palestinians have a perfect right to attempt to do so, whether Muslim or Christian.