Basics That Every Non-Muslim Should Know About Islam

[LivingWordUnity]

Qu'ran scholars don't advocate taking fragments out of context.

The same Western "Qu'ran scholars" who say that have their own quotes that they use from the Koran to try to justify their position. These are the early more tolerant verses. But later verses of the Koran clearly advocate violence, enslavement, and killing of non-Muslims. The so-called "academics" ignore the later violent verses and focus exclusively on the early tolerant verses. But the article talks about both kinds of verses and explains it within the context of Islamic history. The context is to look at the actions of Muhammad and the history of Islam which is what the so-called "academics" don't want to look at. The reason why there are some early verses in the Koran which seem tolerant is because it was before Muhammad began winning battles and before he became established and feared as a ruthless warlord. Once he gained enough followers who were willing and able to win battle victories for him he no longer felt the need to show patience with those who would not accept his new religion.

 

[Armoured]

The same ones who say that have their own quotes that they use from the Koran to try to justify their position. These are the early more tolerant verses. But later verses of the Koran clearly advocate violence, enslavement, and killing of non-Muslims. The so-called "academics" ignore the violent verses and focus exclusively on the tolerant, early verses. But the article talks about both kinds of verses and explains it within the context of Islamic history. The context is to look at the actions of Muhammad and the history of Islam which is what the so-called "academics" don't want to look at. The reason why there are some early verses in the Koran which seem tolerant is because it was before Muhammad began winning battles and before he became established and feared as a ruthless warlord. Once he gained enough followers who were willing and able to win battle victories for him he no longer felt the need to show patience with those who would not accept him and his new religion.

As opposed to looking at the actions of Christians, I suppose.

Double standards are always so obvious to everyone but the people who hold them, huh?

 

[LivingWordUnity]

As opposed to looking at the actions of Christians, I suppose.

Double standards are always so obvious to everyone but the people who hold them, huh?

According to Islam, Muslims are supposed to try to be like Muhammad. But Christians are supposed to try to be like Jesus.
Try to compare Muhammad to Jesus. The two are complete opposites.

 

[Armoured]

Christians are supposed to try to be like Jesus. Muslims are supposed to try to be like Muhammad. Try to compare Muhammad to Jesus. The two are complete opposites.

Compare him to Joshua, or Moses, or several of the other patriarchs who claimed Canaan with violence.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

Compare him to Joshua, or Moses, or several of the other patriarchs who claimed Canaan with violence.

I'm surprised that you don't know what the role of Jesus is in Christianity. For Christians, everything in the Holy Bible is supposed to be understood in light of the teachings and life of Jesus. And furthermore, in Catholicism we know that this also extends to the teachings of the Catholic Church. If you want to talk about a faith without Jesus you are no longer talking about Christianity. But for Muslims, they believe that Muhammad's life and teachings are the ultimate model for living. And it's undeniable that Muhammad was a ruthless warlord.

 

[Antigone]

I'm surprised that you don't know what the role of Jesus is in Christianity.

Ad hominem.

For Christians, everything in the Holy Bible is supposed to be understood in light of the teachings and life of Jesus. And furthermore, in Catholicism we know that this also extends to the teachings of the Catholic Church. If you want to talk about a faith without Jesus you are no longer talking about Christianity.

Pretty sure there's a No True Scotsman in there, but I'll grant you it's a thin one.

But for Muslims, they believe that Muhammad's life and teachings are the ultimate model for living. And it's undeniable that Muhammad was a ruthless warlord.

Source, please.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

I'm surprised you don't know that the role of Jesus in Christianity is not analogous to the role of Mohamed in Islam, what with you being such an expert and all.

Christianity was founded by Jesus. Islam was founded by Muhammad. Christians are supposed to be like Jesus. But according to Islam, Muslims are supposed to be like Muhammad. Why is this hard for you to believe?

 

[LivingWordUnity]

Ad hominem.

Pretty sure there's a No True Scotsman in there, but I'll grant you it's a thin one.

Source, please.

And still no one is able to refute what is said in the article. I haven't even seen an attempt to do it.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

There is no separation between the religious and the political in Islam; rather Islam and Sharia constitute a comprehensive means of ordering society at every level.

The notion separation between the religious and political spheres is a uniquely Western one; we first find it in history in the fourth century when the Roman Empire became Christian. In antiquity, to refuse to worship the state's gods was to challenge the legitimacy of the state itself. This is why Socrates was executed, and this is why the Roman Empire persecuted Christians. Or course, this notion is alien to Islam as well.

So here's the question, should we think of Islam as a religion or a political ideology?

As one may see, there are few aspects of life that Sharia does not specifically govern. Everything from washing one’s hands to child-rearing to taxation to military policy fall under its dictates.

We have a word to describe ideologies like this: totalitarian.

That is the fundamental problem with Islam. It's really not about "violence" or "terror". It's that Islam molds God into the image of an oriental despot and reduces man to an automation.

 

[MikeK]

The article refutes itself. It is a shameless violation of the golden rule and is not worthy of the dignity of a response. To refute it would take time and effort that simply is not warranted by a bunch of non-Muslims on a Catholic website. Noting that is is garbage similar to what the enemies of our Church use against us is sufficient. You've been told this. You've been shown this.

Repeating this over and over again doesn't make it true.

You are correct that repetition is not what makes it true.

 

[Antigone]

And still no one is able to refute what is said in the article. I haven't even seen an attempt to do it.

None of us are experts on Islam, so the best thing we can do is look at the source to see whether or not the material is worth studying. We did and concluded it isn't because the source is biased and because it selectively quotes the Qu'ran. If we want to learn about Islam, there are better sources to go to.

Also, as I've said before, your caustic attitude to anything remotely academic combined with your seeming inability to grasp the scientific process and deduce its value makes it, well, not worth my time.

For the umpteenth time, selectively quoting material gives the wrong idea. You have been told this about a million times now and you keep ignoring this.

You still haven't provided sources to back up your claims about the SPLC. I am still waiting for those. You haven't attempted that either.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

None of us are experts on Islam, so the best thing we can do is look at the source to see whether or not the material is worth studying. We did and concluded it isn't because the source is biased and because it selectively quotes the Qu'ran.

You keep saying that. But you never could show how it unfairly quotes from the Qur'an. How is it possible to quote from a book without being selective? Who would ever try to quote the entire text of a book? It wouldn't make any sense. Quoting, by definition, is selection of text. How can someone fairly talk about the Qur'an without quoting from it? You have no problem with it when the Western so-called "scholars" that you trust selectively quote from the Qur'an. They are actually the ones who are doing the cherry picking since they only quote the earlier peaceful verses while completely ignoring the violent verses that come later. They don't bother to even ask why there is this apparent contradiction in the Qur'an. But if you would ever read the article that I posted, you would be able to see that the peaceful verses of the Qur'an are not ignored. The article explains why there is this contradiction by informing us of the historical context.

 

[brewmama]

Sounds like an objective source

Sure, let's not listen to people with actual experience with Muslims or who have done extensive and in-depth research (at the expense of their own life), let's only listen to those scholastic academic experts who really know Islam, the SPLC.

 

[brewmama]

Weren't we told that the article used the Koran which is a Primary Source? How is that crazy and hate filled and inaccurate then?

If it is claimed that the article in question is inaccurate, in what way? What are the specifics? Aren't we allowed to read all articles in question--ones that are considered accurate (are there any?) and this one that everyone seems to be against? What's wrong with reading all? (For instance, I've read both the Jack Chick series--the booklets were actually sent to me from the Catholic League--and also the Catechism of the Catholic Church. And I think that the Catholic League is right for encouraging the reading of both. Allows a person to know what is REALLY being said.)

And another thing, why can't we ascertain the accuracy or inaccuracy of the article in question without talk about the site that the article is from? (I've never figured that out. How DID we devolve from discussing the information put out there for our reading to discussing the site where the information came from? Those are two different thoughts.)

They are never going to answer this, because there is no answer to it. It's just a way to avoid any real discussion; just accuse the source of invalidity (with no real evidence) and ignore the argument.

 

[brewmama]

Sounds like an objective source

What do you have against the Archbishop?

 

[AMDG]

BTW, I hope that one realizes that just reading a book (like the Bible or the BOM or even the Koran) is NOT going to inform a person of the beliefs of the religion. For Catholics, one needs to look at the Catechism of the Catholic Church (which does indeed have excerpts from the Bible used to explain the Catholic beliefs) and for Mormons, their beliefs that tend to differ from mainline Christianity are contained in the Pearl of Great Price and the Doctrines and Covenants.

With the Muslim religion, what seems to help is the history of Mohammed. I've noted that the sects of Muslims (Shiites and Sunnis) seem to have different beliefs. (I would guess those beliefs are cultural.) Still I would not reject "out of hand" any article concerning the Muslims. To just assume that they are "just like me in what I believe" is insulting them.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

Sure, let's not listen to people with actual experience with Muslims or who have done extensive and in-depth research (at the expense of their own life), let's only listen to those scholastic academic experts who really know Islam, the SPLC.

Anyone can criticize the Catholic Church and Catholicism. But no criticism of Islam is allowed or it's called "hate." The SPLC is very political with who they label as being hateful. I'm sure that they consider me to be a racist because I didn't vote for Obama and a bigot because I'm a Catholic who accepts what the Church teaches about sex and marriage. They even targeted the Family Research Council. The irony is that when the SPLC listed the FRC as a "hate group" this labeling inspired an angry gun-toting liberal to commit a hate crime against the FRC.

See:
Suspect charged in Washington Family Research Council shooting

 

[brewmama]

Anyone can criticize the Catholic Church and Catholicism. But no criticism of Islam is allowed or it's called "hate." The SPLC is very political with who they label as being hateful. I'm sure that they consider me to be a racist because I didn't vote for Obama and a bigot because I'm a Catholic who accepts what the Church teaches about sex and marriage. They even targeted the Family Research Council. The irony is that when the SPLC listed the FRC as a "hate group" this labeling inspired an angry gun-toting liberal to commit a hate crime against the FRC.

See:
Suspect charged in Washington Family Research Council shooting

Yep. Notice that for some reason, he wasn't charged with a hate crime. Only people that criticize Islam or stick to Christian principles or who are white can hate.

 

[eastcoast_bsc]

JihadWatch is an evil group with a twisted agenda. It is no more honest to suggest jihadwatch as a source on Islam than it is to use a Christian white power website to learn about Christianity. The truth about Islam is ugly enough that we should not reduce ourselves to promoting such garbage. Educate yourself about jihadwatch before you post share abject garbage. We must be better than this and not let our fears enslave us and make us resort to the exact behavior that has made Muslims and Jews hate eachother for several hundred years.

http://www.splcenter.org/get-inform...sues/2011/summer/the-anti-muslim-inner-circle

SPL is as left-wing group as they come. The article didn't produce a shred of facts. did you read it?

 

[MikeK]

SPL is as left-wing group as they come. The article didn't produce a shred of facts. did you read it?

Then choose the other major hategroup watch group that /also/ called out jihad watch. Or read the other articles from the SPLC about jihad watch. Or note that the SPLC does not hessitate to call out leftist hate and terror organizations. Or take a look at the local Bishops who have, upon learning about this guy, refused to let him speak in their diocese.

Or elect to embrace a double standard violating the Golden Rule. That's an option you have. Also, call everything you don't like "leftist". Here we have a man making his living off smearing a religion that opposes women's rights, same sex marriage, and abortion. If the SPLC was all that leftist and dishonest they'd be joining him.