I'm just wondering if Islam is really a pagan religion?

[SolomonVII]

I brought up the pillaging of Jerusalem by the Christian Crusaders because of your leap of logic that makes a false connection between radical militants and the teachings of Islam. I was trying to show you in a parallel fashion that you would not draw the same conclusion if applied to the Crusaders.

You also can't judge any religion on the basis of who is politically in power. That is a totally wrong way to judge a religion and you ought to know that.

As for apologetics and polemics, I am totally opposed to Christians being misinformed about other religions and promoting that misinformation. We ought not to be casting aspersions at other religions. It makes us appear petty and ignorant. It does not help our cause.

Like yourself, the SDA and many Protestants agree that the Crusades ushered in by the popes are definitely not Christian, and are thereby the indicators of an apostate church.

I myself personally do not agree. For certain, the centuries long 'dark ages' of heretic burnings, and killing, and genocides are very much a part of Christian history, but they were done by people who were convicted of the truth by the church that they were a part of, that they were doing God's will.

This is for all appearance the exactly the same as the Islamist message spreading across the House of Islam now. You can deny it all you want that this is the rising star of Islam, but it is according to your own delusion. It is simply a fact of life from Afghanistan to Libya, and beyond to the streets of London and Paris even.

For all appearances, like you note, what the Catholic Church was involved in in the Ages of Crusades and world conquest in the name of Christ, and via the teachings of an infallible church is the same as what is happening across the Islamic world today. It is happening today, in our modern era, with the consent of many learned and well educated Muslims, native born Arab speakers even, who are at least as knowledgeable of Islam as yourself, who study the Koran daily.

The difference is that, unlike the yokels and primitive semi barbaric people who made up the Church in the 11th century, Muslims today, like all of us, are a post-twentieth century people. We are all aware of the past centuries of zealous destruction of other religions and other peoples, and have all been schooled in the horror that such behavior leads to. We are all witnesses to the Holocaust and the pure evil of such behavior.

This is not the tweflth century any more, not even the twentieth. What is happening in the House of Islam today-and ignore it all you want, these Islamists are winning elections, taking over in civilized, modern countries such as Turkey even- what is happening in the House of Islam, with the rise of Islamists from the Iranian Revolution on down to ISIS, is absolutely demonic.
The leaders of this movement are as educated as you are, and in the finest of Western schools.



Maybe that is the problem, after all.

 

[SolomonVII]

I was using the term as if it was true as per "religion of truth"; "the true religion".

I think I understand.

It is yet another case where it all depends on what the meaning of 'is'is.

 

[PaladinValer]

I think I understand.

It is yet another case where it all depends on what the meaning of 'is'is.

Incorrect. It has to do with what was meant by the word "true" given the context.

 

[SolomonVII]

Incorrect. It has to do with what was meant by the word "true" given the context.

"truth" vs truth?

Or does the meaning you attribute to truth change according to whom you are addressing?

 

[SolomonVII]

Incorrect. It has to do with what was meant by the word "true" given the context.

"truth" vs truth?

Or does the meaning you attribute to truth change according to whom you are addressing?

 

[PaladinValer]

"truth" vs truth?

Or does the meaning you attribute to truth change according to whom you are addressing?

Were my posts actually read?

 

[steve_bakr]

Like yourself, the SDA and many Protestants agree that the Crusades ushered in by the popes are definitely not Christian, and are thereby the indicators of an apostate church.

I myself personally do not agree. For certain, the centuries long 'dark ages' of heretic burnings, and killing, and genocides are very much a part of Christian history, but they were done by people who were convicted of the truth by the church that they were a part of, that they were doing God's will.

This is for all appearance the exactly the same as the Islamist message spreading across the House of Islam now. You can deny it all you want that this is the rising star of Islam, but it is according to your own delusion. It is simply a fact of life from Afghanistan to Libya, and beyond to the streets of London and Paris even.

For all appearances, like you note, what the Catholic Church was involved in in the Ages of Crusades and world conquest in the name of Christ, and via the teachings of an infallible church is the same as what is happening across the Islamic world today. It is happening today, in our modern era, with the consent of many learned and well educated Muslims, native born Arab speakers even, who are at least as knowledgeable of Islam as yourself, who study the Koran daily.

The difference is that, unlike the yokels and primitive semi barbaric people who made up the Church in the 11th century, Muslims today, like all of us, are a post-twentieth century people. We are all aware of the past centuries of zealous destruction of other religions and other peoples, and have all been schooled in the horror that such behavior leads to. We are all witnesses to the Holocaust and the pure evil of such behavior.

This is not the tweflth century any more, not even the twentieth. What is happening in the House of Islam today-and ignore it all you want, these Islamists are winning elections, taking over in civilized, modern countries such as Turkey even- what is happening in the House of Islam, with the rise of Islamists from the Iranian Revolution on down to ISIS, is absolutely demonic.
The leaders of this movement are as educated as you are, and in the finest of Western schools.

Maybe that is the problem, after all.

When I refer to Islam as a religion, I refer to that which follows an accurate exegesis of the Quran and secondarily the Sunna. An accurate exegesis of the Quran would situate all Suras and ayat within not only their internal context but the historical context of what was the occasion for each Sura/aya. An example of such translation and interpretation is done by M. A. S. Abdel Haleem.

Some (i.e. Reza Aslan) think that Islam is going through a period not unlike the Reformation Period in Christianity, which produced untold bloodshed and mutual persecution. Aslan's somewhat optimistic prediction is that it will eventually burn itself out and moderation will prevail.

But I am referring to the original teachings of Islam, not the changing sands of political power. If the teaching of a religion were dependent on political power, then Jesus would have been the most colossal failure ever among religious figures.

But political power is not how we determine the original teachings of a religion. Nor is it determined by mob angst. That is the point I've been trying to make.

 

[SolomonVII]

It would be a colossal mistake to see Christianity and Islam as two peas in the pod.
Jesus did not start a political movement complete with a set of laws and mode of governance and military.

Mohammed, historical figure or mythic one, did start such a political movement inclusive of a strong expansionist military.

Islam is ergo inherently more theocratic than Christianity is.

 

[SolomonVII]

Were my posts actually read?

Yes.
I am still unclear.
What is this truth of which you speak?

 

[PaladinValer]

Yes.
I am still unclear.
What is this truth of which you speak?

Read them again: they are in very clear English.

 

[SolomonVII]

Read them again: they are in very clear English.

Done.

It is still as clear to me as the reasons for accentuating the negatives of Christianity and minimizing the negatives of Islam as a means of properly evangelizing the Christian gospel. It is just way too smart for my simple mind to grasp the wisdom of that kind of method.

But how is that working for you?
Any recent converts from Islam here as a result?

I haven't seen the success. On the contrary, any converts I have seen from these uber-tolerant circles have been in the opposite direction, Christian to Islam.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

When I refer to Islam as a religion, I refer to that which follows an accurate exegesis of the Quran and secondarily the Sunna. An accurate exegesis of the Quran would situate all Suras and ayat within not only their internal context but the historical context of what was the occasion for each Sura/aya. An example of such translation and interpretation is done by M. A. S. Abdel Haleem.

Some (i.e. Reza Aslan) think that Islam is going through a period not unlike the Reformation Period in Christianity, which produced untold bloodshed and mutual persecution. Aslan's somewhat optimistic prediction is that it will eventually burn itself out and moderation will prevail.

But I am referring to the original teachings of Islam, not the changing sands of political power. If the teaching of a religion were dependent on political power, then Jesus would have been the most colossal failure ever among religious figures.

But political power is not how we determine the original teachings of a religion. Nor is it determined by mob angst. That is the point I've been trying to make.

Excellent points - as it concerns the varied ways in which cultural Islam or Imperialistic Islam are directly opposed to Quranic Islam (i.e. going strictly based on the text) - we often forget this reality in the West even though Christianity went through the same exact experience...both with the Reformation (and other Reformations/movements after that) as well as the Catholic world in differing movements (especially with how imperialism was wielded to it when it came to Spain and other countries in the New World/Americas and doing a lot of mess to the natives in the name of Christ).

More specifically, Christ and His teachings were often not represented by either the Catholic world or the Protestant world - many of the Reformers later on had slaves and it is a historical fact that the Protestant Reformation and the Inquisition both indirectly influenced the development of the Transatlantic Slave Trade ...in light of how in different nations, religious persecution by Catholics of Protestant sects, Protestant persecution of Catholics, and the Spanish Inquisition of Jews and other non-Christians led people to migrate to the New World to escape religious persecution and many Christians believed that the conversion of the indigenous population to Christianity was imperative ....some in Africa converting others to the beliefs of the Reformers by force and leading to situations as we see today .[/LEFT]

We see how Dutch missionaries were active in trying to convert Taiwan's population to Christianity - in light of how Protestant missionaries established schools where Biblical religion and the Dutch language were taught - and by 1650, the Dutch had converted 5,900 of the island's inhabitants to Protestant Christianity.....with he same missionary efforts also undertaken in the other Dutch territories......as missionaries were sent by the Dutch East India Company in the Far East to the Malaysians in the early seventeenth

century (alongside Indonesia) - meaning that in the Dutch controlled territories, there was clear Protestant Christian rule, and there were efforts made to evangelize the native populations. For during the era of Protestant Reformation, in the continents of Asia and Africa, British colonial rule was not yet as extensive as that of the Dutch...nor did it do as much good in promoting the Reformed faith as the Dutch.. But in the aftermath of the Protestant Reformation, British rule was to prove more enduring, and its effects more extensive.​

And yet we already see where the Dutch Calvinists - especially in places like South Africa - were EXTREMELY uncomfortable with racial diversity (due to the Eurocentric focus) and we know what came of that when seeing the history of treatment with blacks in South Africa.since the Dutch - like the Puritans - have seen South Africa as a promised land, a New Jerusalem... ( more here and here in The Gospel According to the Marginalized - Page 71 where the "eclectic" sources of South Africa's racial ideology are examined- "Dutch neo-Calvinism, German Romanism and other issues).​

• -Apartheid in South Africa: Calvin's Legacy?
• -The Pilgrim Underground: Calvinism and Apartheid​
• -Calvinism, Slavery and Apartheid - theological contemplations​
• -Calvinism, 1652 and Apartheid: The Development of Afrikaner ​

Racism and theological stances often go directly together ...

If we took their actions as indicative of what Jesus felt on the matter, then Jesus would have been as you noted a very real failure - but we understand how others can take the actions of someone and make them appear out of context when words are avoided.

It's the same with the Quran and the ways others in Islam ignored the context of it to do many things that were based primarily on greed and desire for power. Of course, there have been arguments in the opposite direction that say how one interprets the Quran can make a difference with having an Imperialistic mindset. For a good review, one can go here to Western Civilisation :: Islam's imperialist nature – never discussed, never revealed. or the following:

Conversations with History: Robert Fisk - YouTube


For more reference, there's an interesting read on the matter which I think you'd appreciate entitled Islamic Imperialism: A History . Within the book, the author ( Karsh ) argues that the Middle East's experience is the culmination of long-existing indigenous trends, passions, and patterns of behaviour - with it being the case that foremost among these is Islam's millenarian imperial tradition. Additionally, the author explores the history of Islam's imperialism and the persistence of the Ottoman imperialist dream that outlasted World War I to haunt Islamic and Middle Eastern politics to the present day.

​

But of course, not everyone was seeking to have an Imperialist mindset with Islam - Malcolm X and his experiences with Islam come to mind when it comes to the ways others advocated Islam in a peaceful manner.

 

[PaladinValer]

Done.

It is still as clear to me as the reasons for accentuating the negatives of Christianity and minimizing the negatives of Islam as a means of properly evangelizing the Christian gospel. It is just way too smart for my simple mind to grasp the wisdom of that kind of method.

But how is that working for you?
Any recent converts from Islam here as a result?

I haven't seen the success. On the contrary, any converts I have seen from these uber-tolerant circles have been in the opposite direction, Christian to Islam.

...the relevance is?

Part of Apologetics is making sure we don't make idiots of ourselves by arguing against something that isn't. Making sure our information on and about Islam and Muslims is accurate is vital, and getting our information from unscholarly sources, particular from individuals or groups that have a clear bias, or from observing fringe groups, is something we must avoid at all costs.

That is my part to play in the matter.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Is it okay to say that Islam is a pagan religion despite the fact that it is a monotheistic religion that like Christianity, was founded in the Middle East? Or would it be okay that because Islam has its roots with a different God it is a pagan religion? I wrote about Islam once upon a time and I wrote that Islam is a pagan religion because it is not Judeo-Christian.

I pasted it to a forum where opinions differed. Most of the people believed that Islam is not a pagan religion because of the first criteria. I still believed and even so today that any non Judeo-Christian beliefs constitute paganism. In your opinion, are only poly-theistic religions like Wicca pagan, or is anyone who is not Christian in particular, pagan? If I were to witness to a Muslim and they wanted to know about the differences between a Muslim and a Christian, what would you do?

What follows is an article I think may help you - It's from an article written by a priest in the ROCOR that discusses if Islam and Judaism worship the same God as us.

• The Monotheistic Religions; Do We Have the Same God That Non-Christians Have?

It seemed he was arguing, among other things, that the Jews worshiped a Trinitarian God...even though others have noted how it would be pretty hard to convincingly maintain that they did so knowingly, at least in regards to the bulk of the Jews - for if they knowingly worshipped a Trinitarian God, the entire battle with accepting Christ might have been rather less shocking to them. But if they could, without entirely realizing it, worship a Triniarian God, then it is not necessarily impossible that someone else, like modern Jews or Muslims or other Christian groups emphasizing the oneness of God in a desire to honor Him (even though mistaken), could as well - more discussed in places such as Salvation of Muslims and Jews (as well as here, here and here)..

At the end of the day, we have to always keep God's Mercy in mind when it comes to how He interacts with others. As another noted best:

I would say yes, we worship the same God as the Jews. The difference is they knew Him before us, and so didn't know Him fully, whereas the Muslims met Him after the Incarnation, where He was fully revealed to us, and then rejected the original and changed Him further. To take my "Harry" example up there, Jews knew Harry before we did, but didn't know he lives with his father and brother. They still assert he lives alone, but their friendship with him isn't as close as it would be if they accepted this new information about him. Muslims met Harry after it was common knowledge that he lives with his relatives, but are still refusing to accept it.

It's one thing to doubt a new truth about something when you already knew it. To be introduced to something, then assert you know more about it than what was known by the experts who introduced you to it, is another.

But in regards to the diversity of Muslims as it concerns worship/who is the focus, I think it's worth noting how there are and have always been many Muslims/Muslim camps that have actually advocated this concept when it comes to seeing what is stated directly within the Quran with the Divinity of Christ and others who worship Him - some of this discussed more in the thread entitled Trinitarian Monotheism?

As said there, one camp of Muslims that many are not aware of are the Isawa Isa al-Masih (ee-sah ahl-mah-seeh) – Jesus the Messiah. ... (disciples of Isa) – a sect of Islam in northern Nigeria which exalts Jesus (Isa)...also called the Hausa Muslims - more discussed on them by scholar Mallam Ibrahim in the Encyclopedia of Islamic Civilization and Religion (by Ian Richard Netton ) and My Neighbour's Faith: Islam Explained for African Christians . And other camps similar to them..

There are many others besides this - with the issue of Christ as Divine not being something they have any issue with seeing within the text of the Quran itself. A lot of folks encounter Islam on a very surface level alone, not even aware of how others such as St. John of Damascus and other great Christian scholars of the Early Church interacted with Islam (when Islam in its beginning stages was called “the heresy of the Ishmaelites ).​

 

[steve_bakr]

It would be a colossal mistake to see Christianity and Islam as two peas in the pod.
Jesus did not start a political movement complete with a set of laws and mode of governance and military.

Mohammed, historical figure or mythic one, did start such a political movement inclusive of a strong expansionist military.

Islam is ergo inherently more theocratic than Christianity is.

Muhammad, who was a historical person, founded a religion in which there is no secular or profane life. The religion is inclusive of every area of life. Saying that it is political is to select one aspect at the expense of everything else. But it is true that you are talking exclusively about politics and not religion.

Muhammad spent his ten years in Yathrib (Medina) establishing an alliance within the community, first fighting defensive battles, incuding the Siege of Medina (Battle of the Trench) and then taking the battle to the enemy.

Muhammad's conquest of Mecca was ultimately accomplished through negotiation, with only four of the most hardened enemies executed. Muhammad issued a general pardon to the rest of the Quraysh tribe. He spent the last two years of his life consolidating the Arab alliance.

The Muslim conquests took place after the death of Muhammad. This is a history in itself, but basically these conquests were the most bloodless of any comparable conquests in history.

In most cases, the existing administrative structures were retained, there were no forced conversions, and the People of the Book (Jews and Christians) were allowed to practice their own religion and administer their own affairs in exchange for the Jizya tax.All other taxes were waived, including the poor tax (Zakat).

Much is made of the term "dhimmi," which literally means "protected one." The dhimmis were under the protection of the Muslim State. Yet today Christians are being executed, which is completely against the teaching of the Quran and is therefore not Islam.

 

[SolomonVII]

Muhammad, who was a historical person, founded a religion in which there is no secular or profane life. The religion is inclusive of every area of life. Saying that it is political is to select one aspect at the expense of everything else. But it is true that you are talking exclusively about politics and not religion.

That is pretty much what I said.
The historicity of Mohammed is more open to dispute than that of Jesus of course. It is certainly not a historical fact that he talked to an angel.
There is much myth in the account, unless one's credulity leads on to a total suspension of disbelief

Muhammad spent his ten years in Yathrib (Medina) establishing an alliance within the community, first fighting defensive battles, incuding the Siege of Medina (Battle of the Trench) and then taking the battle to the enemy.

Muhammad's conquest of Mecca was ultimately accomplished through negotiation, with only four of the most hardened enemies executed. Muhammad issued a general pardon to the rest of the Quraysh tribe. He spent the last two years of his life consolidating the Arab alliance.

I am aware of the hagiography.

The Muslim conquests took place after the death of Muhammad. This is a history in itself, but basically these conquests were the most bloodless of any comparable conquests in history.

The blood was spilled in the years before between Byzantine and Persian. The march of the Hagarites was against empires that had already spent all their energy defeating each other.

In most cases, the existing administrative structures were retained, there were no forced conversions, and the People of the Book (Jews and Christians) were allowed to practice their own religion and administer their own affairs in exchange for the Jizya tax.All other taxes were waived, including the poor tax (Zakat).

Modern Copts are not so impressed to be offered such 'protections' anymore, are they?
As long as they are properly humiliated and subdued though, it is all good.

Much is made of the term "dhimmi," which literally means "protected one." The dhimmis were under the protection of the Muslim State. Yet today Christians are being executed, which is completely against the teaching of the Quran and is therefore not Islam.

Again, does it even matter if I or a thousand others on the outside agree with you?
The religion is not defined by the analysis of an outsider, however astute and brilliant and academic you may be.
The religion is defined by those who practice it, and those who submit to the demands/decrees/fatwas of those in command.

It is really a Catholic trait though to deem what the correct practice of a religion is. Catholics have been doing as much to Protestants for centuries now. Fair enough then that Catholics tell Muslims what their true religion is too.

 

[Sasquatchit]

I'm really not talking about categorizing their religion- pagan or not, Abrahamic or not, etc.

But how do you communicate to them that they need Christianity when they think they already have assurance of Paradise in Islam?

2 John 9 "Whoever transgresses and doesn't abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God....."

Good question!

Rom 10:17 "So then faith comes by HEARING, and hearing by the word of God."

 

[steve_bakr]

That is pretty much what I said.
The historicity of Mohammed is more open to dispute than that of Jesus of course. It is certainly not a historical fact that he talked to an angel.
There is much myth in the account, unless one's credulity leads on to a total suspension of disbelief

I am aware of the hagiography.

The blood was spilled in the years before between Byzantine and Persian. The march of the Hagarites was against empires that had already spent all their energy defeating each other.

Modern Copts are not so impressed to be offered such 'protections' anymore, are they?
As long as they are properly humiliated and subdued though, it is all good.

Again, does it even matter if I or a thousand others on the outside agree with you?
The religion is not defined by the analysis of an outsider, however astute and brilliant and academic you may be.
The religion is defined by those who practice it, and those who submit to the demands/decrees/fatwas of those in command.

It is really a Catholic trait though to deem what the correct practice of a religion is. Catholics have been doing as much to Protestants for centuries now. Fair enough then that Catholics tell Muslims what their true religion is too.

Although I have read Western scholars, a large amount of what I have learned comes directly from Muslim sources. Most of the scholars I have named in this thread are in fact Muslims.

But you don't seem to accept the information I have given because I am Catholic and for some reason are making pejorative comments about Catholics.

 

[SolomonVII]

Although I have read Western scholars, a large amount of what I have learned comes directly from Muslim sources. Most of the scholars I have named in this thread are in fact Muslims.

But you don't seem to accept the information I have given because I am Catholic and for some reason are making pejorative comments about Catholics.

If that is what you think, you have not yet comprehended anything that I have been saying.
I am not saying you have bad information. I am not even saying that this is not the authentic belief of some Muslims.
What I have been saying that even if what you or I are saying about Islam is the perfect depiction of the Islamic faith, it does not really matter.

Islam is not a book. It is not a theory. it is not some ideal that is beautiful to contemplate and pleasant to the mind and melodious to the ear.
If that is what it is, it doesn't matter. It is not something that is worth even considering for a Christian, who already has Christ.

What Islam is, is a practice. It does not come to being through study, but through the people who believe and practice it. It hardly matters a whit if what the perfect Islam of the mind teaches that People of the Book are to be esteemed and protected, when Copts in Egypt cannot even get a simple building permit to fix their churches.
And this is what happens at the best of times, not the worst of times, which are much, much worse.
While you are positively drooling over what Islam teaches and how much it has had to offer, you are indifferent to what is actually happening in the here and now through people who actually practice the religion.
I laud Mormons, because even if the divine delivery of the message to the con man who founded that faith is about as believable as the moon being made of green cheese, Mormons by and large are exemplary citizens who make moral choices and bring healthy families into the world, just as general practice. The beginnings of Islam to me are as equally preposterous and unbelievable as the beginnings of Mormonism, in my view, but it is not the theology that interests me much.

I don't much like these practices, this codified law fit for the Middle Age mindset, that was forward reaching for that time, but that makes it difficult for an Egyptian Copt to even get a building permit for his church, or a license to broadcast.
You laud the protection of dhimmi status, and consider yourself a good person, full of tolerance and good will on that account.

I think that anyone who lauds dhimmitude and the demeaning laws made for folks on account of their religion is someone who has lost his moral compass, frankly. It turns my stomach to hear a modern Christian say such thing. Really it does. It makes me blanche.

Seriously, through such laws, what the teachings of Islam do in this modern age is take good people and make them act badly toward their fellow human beings.

 

[SolomonVII]

...the relevance is?

Part of Apologetics is making sure we don't make idiots of ourselves by arguing against something that isn't. Making sure our information on and about Islam and Muslims is accurate is vital, and getting our information from unscholarly sources, particular from individuals or groups that have a clear bias, or from observing fringe groups, is something we must avoid at all costs.

That is my part to play in the matter.

Well I suppose by way of analogy, I would compare apologetics to two men in the bar who see a pretty girl walk in. (And she has a beautiful personality too, of course, because that is what men really are attracted to).
Anyway the one man, let's call him Christian, walks up to the girl with his thick rimmed glasses and the pencil in his pocket protector, and the perfunctory library of books of ancient lore under his arm, and he starts talking her up, trying to sell her on what he has to offer, the message of "Christian" so to speak.
But he does this by lauding the other man in the bar, who happens to be, say, Abdul. He points out how big Abdul's package is, how tight his steely buns are, what a great guy he is, how wonderful is Abdul's family and his lineage. When he talks about himself, he mentions how he has liked to tear the wings off of flies in his past, how insanity and psychopathy runs in his family, and when it comes to his package, he points to the pencil in his pocket as the fitting metaphor. "Truth in advertising!!" WYSIWYG baby, WYSIWYG.

So what is the relevance, Well I guess when compared to the Truth, or the truth or even the 'truth', I do see your point. It really isn't all that relevant who actually gets lucky tonight, be it Christian or be it Abdul.

But even if I must bow down to the Truth as being all important and nothing else is all that relevant, still my curiosity is piqued..
Have you ever scored with any hot Muslima chicks using that line of apologetics?

Because if you have, man, don't I feel like the idiot right now!!