What is your (your church's) view of Islam?

[Lukaris]

Right, I wanted to clarify what may be evident to us but not to the OP (as far as our beliefs are concerned).

Agreed, one can stridently express what one feels is a necessary truth, discard self righteousness, not leave the other feeling hopeless or having to have a contrived & coerced sense of havng to agree.

 

[Joshua G.]

Lukaris: I'm not sure I understood what you were saying? I can't tell if you agree with me or if my comment bothered you? If it's the former, I'll leave it at that. If it's the latter, I apologize if I have inadvertently stepped on your toes. That certainly wasn't my intention, Brother.

Joshua

 

[Macarius]

I don't know about this. An honest reading of Byzatine history, in my mind, leaves no question that it was every bit as warlike and territorial as the West. I don't think there's much of a difference between the Christian West, the Christian East, and Islam here (except as you point out that the earliest Christian movement did not practice war.)

The difference is in the Church's attitude. In the East, violence (even that of a soldier) always required confession and often involved being withheld from communion for a period of time, sometimes years. This was true in the West up until the Crusades; with the Crusades, the West (for a few hundred years) began claiming that violent warfare not only didn't require confession, but if done in the name of the Church ("Holy" war) it could even "wipe away one's temporal sins and remit someone from future purgatory." In other words, it was considered an ascetic spiritual discipline on par with fasting or charity (in its ability, in the medieval western calculus, to "pay off" purgatorial debt).

This sense of warfare as penance and as spiritually edifying wasn't endorsed by the East; warfare was viewed as a necessary evil, but something to be repented of.

To be sure, the Byzantines (politically) were aggressive militarily and quite brutal at times (even the majority of the time). My point had more to do with the Church's attitude towards the violence, and more to do with the core and root of that attitude (for Christianity, it is rooted in Christ's pacifism), and that this made a striking contrast to the formative years of Islam.

 

[Lukaris]

Lukaris: I'm not sure I understood what you were saying? I can't tell if you agree with me or if my comment bothered you? If it's the former, I'll leave it at that. If it's the latter, I apologize if I have inadvertently stepped on your toes. That certainly wasn't my intention, Brother.

Joshua

No problem at all friend, I was just having an abstract moment at my work cubicle (I was just rambling, I think.)

 

[zhilan]

Abu Kareem, you'll get a very wide range of views towards Islam within the Orthodox community and that will probably stem more from the individuals background than from any overriding sentiment of the Orthodox Church.

In so far as Orthodoxy is concerned, we believe we are the true Church possessing the fullness of the faith. This is not intended to be a statement of arrogance or superiority, but a commitment to the truth handed down to us from Christ.

 

[tekiahteruah]

The difference is in the Church's attitude. In the East, violence (even that of a soldier) always required confession and often involved being withheld from communion for a period of time, sometimes years. This was true in the West up until the Crusades; with the Crusades, the West (for a few hundred years) began claiming that violent warfare not only didn't require confession, but if done in the name of the Church ("Holy" war) it could even "wipe away one's temporal sins and remit someone from future purgatory." In other words, it was considered an ascetic spiritual discipline on par with fasting or charity (in its ability, in the medieval western calculus, to "pay off" purgatorial debt).

This sense of warfare as penance and as spiritually edifying wasn't endorsed by the East; warfare was viewed as a necessary evil, but something to be repented of.

To be sure, the Byzantines (politically) were aggressive militarily and quite brutal at times (even the majority of the time). My point had more to do with the Church's attitude towards the violence, and more to do with the core and root of that attitude (for Christianity, it is rooted in Christ's pacifism), and that this made a striking contrast to the formative years of Islam.

Well, I'm certainly no defender of the Crusades, but I don't think it's entirely true that the West did not see violence as a sin. The Church often put serious boundaries on violence in the west (cf. the "truce of God"). I think it's also hard to separate the Church's view of violence from the state's view of violence in Byzantium, as the Emperor was in many ways the head of the Church on earth. Of course it's true that the West did often see holy war as a righteous possibility, but the West isn't monolithic on this count... in any case, it's probably true that this is a distraction from the main point in the thread and I apologize for bringing it up.

 

[Joshua G.]

This would, however, be an interesting (separate thread).

The point, as pertaining to this thread, is that violence plays no justified part in the foundation of the Church. Certainly there have been aberrations in the West and even in the East even if the justification was different, but such does not mean that it is representative of Christianity.

In Islam, the line is AT BEST blurred because violence played a vital role in the "evangelism" of this faith from the time it was founded and this role was justified by Mohammed himself. That doesn't mean that all or even most Muslims are inherently violent, push come to shove, especially those who are well assimilated to the west like those in Detroit, but the focus here is not on Muslims as much as the religion of Islam and that is, perhaps, a very important distinction to be highlighted in this thread.

Joshua

 

[Kareem]

Kareem,
You will find that many protestant forms of Christianity stake a lot of importance on Israel, rebuilding the temple, etc. Quite frankly, I find all of that odd at best and at worst (but realistically) distracting from the true purpose of Christianity. It becomes an obsession and a deterrent to Christ because it politicizes a faith that is apolitical by nature. Christ came for all people and he cares just as much about the plight of the Jewish mother who lost her son to a suicide bomber as the Palestinian family who's entire neighborhood was run down by a tank or who's children were "calateral" in a bombing mission from a few months ago. He doesn't look at their flag or political party but at their heart.

You are very insightful. I too believe this. Which is one of the reasons that led me to ask my original question. I wanted to see if others agreed.

 

[Kareem]

And I have always wondered about that too. However, perhaps this would be a good new thread. I just don't want to distract from the main, more important point: Christianity is at its core a faith of peace. It is true that Christian leaders have called for violent uprisings in the past and much blood has been spilled in the name of "Christ", if you look at the Scriptures (in the NT, because it must be remembered that the OT had a much more finite nad earthly view on everything, whereas Christ's coming has redirected us beyond the mundane to the heavenly) and the Early Church, those Christian leaders don't have much of a leg to stand on. Aberrations can always happen. now, that is not to say that Christian people can not defend themselves, especially for the sake of protecting innocents, but that is wholly different from starting an offensive. That said, it can be argued that Christ has called us to be even more passive than that. But that may be an entirely different thread. The line between peaceful and coawardly can be quite easily blurred and I don't believe that I am the one to properly define that.

Joshua

But, from the prospective of radical Muslims, this is exactly their views. They feel threatened by the West, because they feel that they have been wronged. They look upon the establishment of Israel as a punishment and denounce the severe interference of the U.S. military in the region. These are not my views, merely what I have observed as the justification for such actions. Truthfully, I believe ALL religions are peaceful, yet there are always those who use religion as a shield to really get what they are after, which is very wrong and deceitful.

 

[Joshua G.]

Hi Kareem,

First of all I don't think any of us here wish to tell YOU about your personal beliefs. So when what I am about to say (or rather repeat) is not meant to represent what you believe or even most muslims (I have no idea). We are merely commenting on the actual religion at its foundation, and the same goes with Christianity.

An important way in which the founder of your religion spread the faith was by the sword. This is documented both within the writings of your own religion and in secular accounts as well. The same cannot be said about Christianity at its foundation in Christ. In saying that, we are not saying that we distrust muslims or assume anything about their intentions (or, at least, that such would be justified), but we do distrust the religion at its very foundation.

This point is, I beleive, importnat, but this should not be given undue attention over other issues, such as God being Trinity which is essential to understanding God as Love. This is the much bigger and over-arching point.

God bless you friend,

Joshua

 

[tekiahteruah]

Of course, Jesus's context was very different from Muhammad's. Jesus was an itinerant Galilean preacher from an agrarian village teaching at the time of the Roman occupation of Judea; Muhammad was born into the Quraysh tribe in a time when resources were such that tribes had to routinely fight for territory. Muhammad's situation was much closer to that of Moses and the children of Israel fighting for land after being freed from Egypt. Of course, Muhammad could have renounced his claims to any land and lived as a hermit in the desert, but Islam is a message that claims to transform society, not deny it (think Byzantine Empire, not desert fathers.) War was a necessity once staying in society was established. In general, Muhammad's wars were wars of self-defense, and Muhammad routinely preferred a peaceful solution where it could be found even if the terms were not favorable for Muslims (cf. the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah), although he did commit some acts I find very hard to understand or conscience (such as the wholesale massacre of the Jewish Banu Qurayza tribe.) In terms of "spreading Islam with the sword," it's true that war was always a part of Islam, with Muhammad and then more assertively during the Rashidun and beyond, but the religion was more actively spread through trade than by sword. In any case, my point is that I think Muhammad should not be compared to Jesus for Christians, but should be compared to Moses for Jews and Christians, as both lived in a society that demanded war in order to survive. One can criticize Muhammad for accepting that, but first of all, if that is the case, one must equally criticize every Orthodox saint that has acted similarly (think of all the Byzantine emperors who are saints!)

 

[E.C.]

But, from the prospective of radical Muslims, this is exactly their views. They feel threatened by the West, because they feel that they have been wronged. They look upon the establishment of Israel as a punishment and denounce the severe interference of the U.S. military in the region. These are not my views, merely what I have observed as the justification for such actions. Truthfully, I believe ALL religions are peaceful, yet there are always those who use religion as a shield to really get what they are after, which is very wrong and deceitful.

On the one hand I can not help but understand the feeling on Israel being a punishment. After all, in the days of the British Mandate the Jews cooperated with the British while at the same time killing them. The Haganah and Irgun, both terrorist organizations in their days, eventually became the Israeli Defense Force (who saw that one coming?). With a legacy like that it is no wonder the IDF bulldozes houses with impunity.
The Arabs just killed the British. Period. Thus giving the British no real desire to consider the Arabs, Muslim or Christian, as human beings.

If anything the extremists should be angrier with the UK and not the US. The UK was the country that took the divide and conquer idea to an extreme and created this whole mess by saying to the Jews, "yes, you can have this place".

But on the other hand I have to remember that in 1948 and 1967 and 1993 the Arab countries could have ended this whole conflict quite easily. I think in hindsight what would have been best is if the Mandate was just granted independence as a whole and not divided up.


Forgive me, I tend to go off on tangents.

 

[Joshua G.]

Of course, Jesus's context was very different from Muhammad's. Jesus was an itinerant Galilean preacher from an agrarian village teaching at the time of the Roman occupation of Judea; Muhammad was born into the Quraysh tribe in a time when resources were such that tribes had to routinely fight for territory. Muhammad's situation was much closer to that of Moses and the children of Israel fighting for land after being freed from Egypt. Of course, Muhammad could have renounced his claims to any land and lived as a hermit in the desert, but Islam is a message that claims to transform society, not deny it (think Byzantine Empire, not desert fathers.) War was a necessity once staying in society was established. In general, Muhammad's wars were wars of self-defense, and Muhammad routinely preferred a peaceful solution where it could be found even if the terms were not favorable for Muslims (cf. the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah), although he did commit some acts I find very hard to understand or conscience (such as the wholesale massacre of the Jewish Banu Qurayza tribe.) In terms of "spreading Islam with the sword," it's true that war was always a part of Islam, with Muhammad and then more assertively during the Rashidun and beyond, but the religion was more actively spread through trade than by sword. In any case, my point is that I think Muhammad should not be compared to Jesus for Christians, but should be compared to Moses for Jews and Christians, as both lived in a society that demanded war in order to survive. One can criticize Muhammad for accepting that, but first of all, if that is the case, one must equally criticize every Orthodox saint that has acted similarly (think of all the Byzantine emperors who are saints!)

But the point is not the societal pressures Mohommed was under. If he was truly sent by God why couldn't this newly revealed/fulfilled faith TRANSCEND societal pressures? If we look at the OT, we do see much violence, but God's will had not been fully fulfilled until the New Testament in Christ. Islam is supposed to be the Final Testament of God's revelation within creation, yet it couldn't transcend violence. Also, I would like to knwo in what may most of these were "defensive". A lot of heads sure had to roll for a new religion that still did nto have myriads of followers.

On top of that, to compare the Byzantine Empire to Mohommed only does one of two things either 1) misrepresents how Mohommed's calling is understood by Muslims or 2) sheds light on why mohommed as a prophet of God's Final Revelation is disheartening at best (for he was not able to overcome the evil of the world).

Despite my disagreements with your basic premises, I do respect your effort to be fair and not reactionary with the faith. You may be right and I may be wrong, but as it stands I just don't see it as you do.

With sincere respect,

Joshua

 

[tekiahteruah]

Joshua,

I think you're right, this is going to have to just be a respected shared difference. I abhor violence, so I am really sympathetic to your point, but I do still see Muhammad as a man who did the best he could to create a loving, compassionate society within the context of his own world. It is heartbreaking, though, to think of all of the innocent people killed at his command, and of course I can understand why for some it would be hard to believe a prophet or saint (whether it be Moses, Muhammad, St. Constantine or St. Justinian) could tolerate such things. I guess in the end we just have to trust that God will sort it all out for us-- we just have to try to be as peaceful as we can and love God as much as we can.

 

[Joshua G.]

Joshua,

I think you're right, this is going to have to just be a respected shared difference. I abhor violence, so I am really sympathetic to your point, but I do still see Muhammad as a man who did the best he could to create a loving, compassionate society within the context of his own world. It is heartbreaking, though, to think of all of the innocent people killed at his command, and of course I can understand why for some it would be hard to believe a prophet or saint (whether it be Moses, Muhammad, St. Constantine or St. Justinian) could tolerate such things. I guess in the end we just have to trust that God will sort it all out for us-- we just have to try to be as peaceful as we can and love God as much as we can.

Hmmmm... but I'm not sure I made it clear as to what I disagree with. Let's say it's a given that Muhammad did try is best to preserve peace but in the end felt forced (in only a few circumstances) to result to violence in order to spread the word. This means that God was not able to send a prophet who could both transcend all social evils and offer His final revelation to the world. We can look at Muhammad from a purely (imperfect) human point of view and perhaps justify his actions saying "we're only human" have sympathy on him, but it only goes to show how imperfect the muslim story is. It is a story of a religion that was unable to overcome all social evils. A faith that is admirable in many ways, but, in the end, limited by mere humanity/human imperfectness. Christianity is a story of many imperfect men doing their best often and other times offering their worst. But it's very foundation is not founded on an imperfect and limited man but on a Man who was the very Word of God made Man. It is a story of true triumph over this imperfect world at it's very core. Islam cannot claim that, not by its highest prophet or even it's Word, the Qu'ran. As much wisdom and beauty as there is in Islam, it's fatal flaw is seen in the fact that we should even have to be sympathetic to Mohammed. Your sympathy may very well be righteous, but it only furthers to bigger point. There is no real triumph in a religion that must dominate in order to be legitimate. Christianity is strongest when it is weakest.

Joshua

 

[Joshua G.]

Kareem,

I just want to reiterate that I do not pretend to know the intentions of muslims as individuals. Please always keep in mind that this is about the respective faiths, not necessarily individuals. If it were I would not only commit the sin of severe judgment on others' souls but would commit the sin of amazing pride if I thought I ressembled the perfection of the Christian Faith.

That of course does not mean that you won't take anything personally, for obviously your faith is personal and important to you as it is to me. With that said, I apologize for anything I have said that has felt like a personal attack. With your OP, it is impossible to truthfully answer your question without saying something that would be somewhat offensive to your sensibilities.

Also, I wish to reiterate as I and others have said that the great difference is that of the Trinity. All other issues put aside (for I could be way off base in my discussion with Tekiateruha), THIS is where it matters. I know I am repeating myself, but I fear that I (not Tekiateruha) have clouded the real issue. Peace to you.

Joshua

 

[brewmama]

Joshua,

I think you're right, this is going to have to just be a respected shared difference. I abhor violence, so I am really sympathetic to your point, but I do still see Muhammad as a man who did the best he could to create a loving, compassionate society within the context of his own world. It is heartbreaking, though, to think of all of the innocent people killed at his command, and of course I can understand why for some it would be hard to believe a prophet or saint (whether it be Moses, Muhammad, St. Constantine or St. Justinian) could tolerate such things. I guess in the end we just have to trust that God will sort it all out for us-- we just have to try to be as peaceful as we can and love God as much as we can.

Mohammad was creating a loving, compassionate society? I beg to differ. He became strong by having his henchmen murder his criticizers, and when he became strong enough, he went back to his original town, (that had thrown him out) and slaughtered them purely for vengeance. At first he thought the Jews and Christians would accept him, and he wrote peaceably about them, but later, when it became evident they weren't interested in his religion, he turned on them and wrote about them as enemies. These writings, as later writings, have more validity than the earlier writings. So cherry picking out quotes where he desires peace with "people of the book" are meaningless, when later verses advise slaying them.
Violence is bad enough, but there is also the matter of his lust and sensuality. It is not commonly known, but along with getting virgins in heaven for sex, saints get "pearl-like boys" to have sex with. I found this on a lot of ex-Muslim sites, it's commonly known there, but I had a private conversation with an Indonesian Orthodox priest who had left Islam for Orthodoxy, (and of course whose life was at risk, another topic not even mentioned yet) and I asked him about it. He acknowledged that it was true, but he didn't like to bring it up in his talks about Islam because it automatically turned people's hearts against Muslims. And I would have to agree. It certainly chilled my heart.

 

[Macarius]

when he became strong enough, he went back to his original town, (that had thrown him out) and slaughtered them purely for vengeance.

What source says that? Every source I'm familiar with says when he returned to Mecca (after winning the war) he entered peacefully and harmed no one, but went to the Kabba and destroyed the idols there.

I mean, I agree with your overall thesis (he did have to fight a war to reach Mecca, though the Meccans attacked him in Medina first), but this seems to go beyond what I've heard before, and I'm curious where you found it.

In Christ,
Macarius

 

[brewmama]

What source says that? Every source I'm familiar with says when he returned to Mecca (after winning the war) he entered peacefully and harmed no one, but went to the Kabba and destroyed the idols there.

I mean, I agree with your overall thesis (he did have to fight a war to reach Mecca, though the Meccans attacked him in Medina first), but this seems to go beyond what I've heard before, and I'm curious where you found it.

In Christ,
Macarius

The Sword of the Prophet by Serge Trifkovic
For instance,

"Only fighting the despised Meccans would satisfy the desire for revenge of true believers who were slighted and persecuted by the haughty merchants" p35

So he started raids on Meccan merchants, and eventually became successful, launching his first successful raid against them in Ramadan, taking them by surprise. God had just conveniently given a revelation that raids were allowed in Ramadan, how lucky for Muhammad! Raids continued, growing into battles, even though " It was most unusual for an Arab to go so far in his estrangement from his tribe as Muhammad had done even before Badr; to take arms against his kinsmen was unprecedented...divine justification was required for so radical a step as ambushing and murdering one's own kin." Again, lucky for the religion of peace, "Allah's messages, conveyed by Muhammed, grew accordingly more bellicose:" I will strike terror, etc etc, smite them, etc" p 36

Allah also conveniently made booty and ransom lawful and good at this point, and when a dispute arose over division of the spoils, Allah told Muhammed that he should take the whole lot. p37

Now where do you find that the Meccans attacked him in Medina first? That contradicts everything in here.

Anyway, Muhammad dealt very harshly with his prisoners, beheading them all, (hmm, that sounds familiar). Then he "returned to Medina in triumph and proceeded to settle scores with his detractors there. An atmosphere of fear descended on the city; informers all disrespectful or merely careless remarks to the prophet, who followed them up with "proceedings that were sometimes both cruel and unscrupulous". ...The options for all Medinans were reduced to conversion, expulsion, or death." p38-39

and on and on. p 39 gives examples of two political murders 2 poets who spoke out against him were murdered by his followers, although "that a person of so advanced an age should be murdered for a verbal slight would have been inconceivable to the pre-Islamic Arab custom."

There's a lot more, truly horrifying stuff. That such a religion could be called the Religion of Peace, or put on the same par with Christianity and it's beginnings, and similarities found between them is just...wrong.

 

[Rkman]

I read an article by Yuri Maximov ‘Why Christians can not consider Muhammed for a prophet’. I will write some of the reasons he listed.
1. He wasn’t morally fit to be prophet
No Old Testament prophet ever took nine year old child for wife Like Muhammed took Aisha. Some other deeds of Muhammed are torturing Kinan, raping Jewish woman Rayhana whom he captured in battle, forcing others to call him a prophet under death threat, sending paid killers to deal with his opponents Ka'ab bin Ashraf, Asma' bint Marwan, Abu Afak and others, attacking and looting caravans.
2. was incapable of performing any miracles like other Old Testament prophets, was making excuses when people asked him to show them a miracle.
3. No other Old Testament prophets ever took money or other assets from people for their personal gain. That was considered a great sin. No prophet ever said like Muhammed ‘All assets you capture in battle belong to me’ or ‘ I can have unlimited number of wifes’.
4. He made false prophecies: ‘Once the Prophet led us in the 'Isha' prayer during the last days of his life and after finishing it (the prayer) (with Taslim) he said: "Do you realize (the importance of) this night?" Nobody present on the surface of the earth tonight will be living after the completion of one hundred years from this night."
And Bible says about false prophets:
Deuteronomy 18:20
'But any prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, or who presumes to speak in my name a word that I have not commanded the prophet to speak—that prophet shall die.’ 21You may say to yourself, ‘How can we recognize a word that the Lord has not spoken?’ 22If a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord but the thing does not take place or prove true, it is a word that the Lord has not spoken.