Can doctrinal Islam not always seek to "Conquer the world"??

Beggars All blog ^ | January 05, 2013 | Ken T

[daniel1212]

Can doctrinal Islam not always seek to "Conquer the world"??

Here is a story on captured Jihadists in Syria being interviewed.  ( I saw this from Dr. White's tweet and link to it, "Hard times ahead for our brothers and sisters in Syria".)  You should read the article and watch the video.  The beginning of the video was confusing to me without context, but the article makes it more organized.

Not all Muslims believe this application of Islam, but this does seem to be the expression of real doctrinal and consistent Islam from Muhammad and the early centuries of Islamic history.  The news reporter seemed like he did not know what with do with the Muslims who were kind of friendly and smiling and open and yet expressed that to follow real Islam, they will make war with Christians and give them the choice of surrendering and paying the Jiziye or the Muslims will fight you to the death, after they take back Israel and Spain and Portugal.

We hope not, but it does honestly seem that the "Arab Spring" and the take-down of dictators like Hosni Mubarak in Egypt and Muammar Qaddafi of Libya - could eventually result in some kind of Islamist State that seeks to get back to the way Muhammad and the Caliphate carried out aggressive war after 621/622 AD and applied Islamic Law in their lands for centuries.

Caliph is translated from the Arabic word khalifa (خليفة - khalīfah) meaning "successor" (of Muhammad), "viceroy", "substitute", "lieutenant-leader". 

The periods of the Islamic Caliphate - 632 AD - 1924 (after the fall of the Ottoman Empire and World War 1)

1.  Rashidun Caliphate (The first four "rightly guided" Caliphs - Abu Bakr, Omar, Uthman, and Ali - 632-661 AD)  All Salafi and Wahabi and Jihadist movements seek to return the Muslim world to the period of Muhammad after the Hegira (622-632 AD) and the Rashidun Caliphate.   "Salaf" means the "pioneer - leaders of old".

2.   the Ummayid Caliphate (661-750 AD).  (headquartered in Damascus, Syria)

3.  the Abbasid Caliphate, (750 - 1258 AD)  Based in Baghdad.  Within the Abbasid period, the Fatimids gained power in North Africa and Egypt and the Hijaz (Mecca and Medina).  (see below)

4.  The Fatimid Caliphate.  (909 - 1171 AD) was an Ismaili Shiite movement that covered mostly N. Africa and Egypt, until the defeat of the Crusaders by Saladin.

5.  The Mamluk period.   They fought the Mongols and drove the Crusaders out of the land of Israel/Palestine.  They are not technically a "Caliphate" period.  (1250-1517)

6.  The Ottoman Empire Caliphate.  (1517-1924)

The Muslims interviewed in the video were very candid and seemed relaxed in saying that a non-Muslim must convert to Islam, or if they are a Christian (or Jew), they must pay the Jiziye tax with willing submission, being humiliated.  This is clear in the Qur'an Surah 9:29 and many Hadith - see one classic Hadith below, and one on the law of apostasy.

Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.  Surah 9:29 

Hadith - Sahih Al Bukhari Volume 9, Book 84, Number 59:  Narrated Abu Huraira:
When the Prophet died and Abu Bakr became his successor and some of the Arabs reverted to disbelief, 'Umar said, "O Abu Bakr! How can you fight these people although Allah's Apostle said, 'I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah, 'and whoever said, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah', Allah will save his property and his life from me, unless (he does something for which he receives legal punishment) justly, and his account will be with Allah?' "Abu Bakr said, "By Allah! I will fight whoever differentiates between prayers and Zakat as Zakat is the right to be taken from property (according to Allah's Orders). By Allah! If they refused to pay me even a kid they used to pay to Allah's Apostle, I would fight with them for withholding it." 'Umar said, "By Allah: It was nothing, but I noticed that Allah opened Abu Bakr's chest towards the decision to fight, therefore I realized that his decision was right." 

The Law of Apostasy in Islam - death - based on this Hadith

Sahih Al Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57:  Narrated 'Ikrima:
Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to 'Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn 'Abbas who said, "If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah's Apostle forbade it, saying, 'Do not punish anybody with Allah's punishment (fire).' I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah's Apostle, 'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'"

The historical reality seems to be, that there has never been much of any other kind of political Islam except either the Caliphate Empires or Dictatorships.  (except for modern Turkey and some other farther east countries like Indonesia) There does not seem to be a "middle ground" of a secular/democratic Muslim country that is not a dictatorship.  (What western liberals seem to think is possible.)   What is there by example between the Islamic Caliphate/Sharia Law/no freedom of religion or speech vs. the secular/Arab nationalists Dictators like Saddam Hussein, Moammar Qaddafi, Gamel Abdul Nasser/Anwar Sedat/Hosni Mubarak or authoritarian monarchies like Saudi Arabia in the Muslim world, except maybe secular Turkey since Mustapha Kemal Ataturk and far Asian countries like Indonesia?

Paul Bilal Williams, the British convert to Islam who looks down his nose in arrogance at all Christians who believe the Bible is true; at his own blog, states that the restoration of the Caliphate is obligatory for true Muslims and he gives a whole page on why he supports the Hizb ut Tahrir in England.  

"The Khilafah (or ‘Caliphate’) is an obligation for Muslims and something we took for granted for well over a thousand years, much like the obligation of Salah (prayer) and fasting today which, al-hamdulillah, are not open to discussion and debate."  Paul Bilal Williams

Most of my last comments were banned from commenting on his blog, so I have given up trying to comment or reason with him there.  He couldn't handle me calling him out as inconsistent for not debating Dr. White and saying the reason is because he is a "fundamentalist"; but at the same time, he was debating Chris Green who believes pretty much the same things that I and Dr. White believe on issues of the Trinity, the Deity of Christ, and the inerrancy of Scripture.   Paul Williams thinks I am a "Fundamentalist Christian" like James White and Chris Green.  I asked him a while back, before being banned, if he wants the Caliphate to be brought to England, he said no, that the purpose of Hizb e Tahrir is to restore the Caliphate in Muslim lands.

I guess my question is, then why does Paul and the Hizb e Tahrir operate in England?  Why don't they go to a Muslim country and work to restore the Caliphate there? 

After quoting a Hadith(you can look it up there at his site), Williams writes:

"This hadith holds a meaning that is especially reflective of our times, for in the last hundred years this noble Ummah has witnessed the destruction of her State and with that, due to the colonization of her lands by the colonialists, the crushing tidal wave of Western culture. Western culture completely engulfed her to the point of suffocation. It turned black into white and white into black. Never did the Ummah encounter such cultural strangulation, which left her bewildered and confused about the most basic and rudimentary tenets of her Deen."

Williams and Hizb-ut-Tahrir blame the downfall of the Khalifate on colonialism, but it was Mustapha Kemal Ataturk of Turkey who abolished the Khalifate in 1924.  Ataturk was a secularist but from a Muslim culture.  And the Ottoman Empire was justly punished for siding with Kaiser Wilhelm and Germany in World War I (1914-1917).  The breakup of the Ottoman Empire and Khalifate was the Muslims doing, not the west.  The west just came in and filled the vacuum left by the breakup of the Ottoman Empire and the desire for the Arabs to be free from their Turkish masters.

 He gives a link to Hizb-Ut-Tahrir and says it does not work to re-establish the Khalifah here in the west.  But it honestly does seem to be part of the agenda, if one reads the articles and subjects that Paul writes on and emphasizes.  It honestly seems that they want the west to fall from within because of secular liberalism/socialism/homosexual/abortion/pornographic/materialistic culture, and then the Muslims will be happy to fill the vacuum that left-wing liberalism/secular anti-Christian and pro-homosexual culture is creating.

"Hizb-Ut-Tahrir is a global Islamic political party working to re-establish the Khilafah in the Muslim world. It does this by a political and intellectual method, following the example of the prophet Muhammad (upon whom be peace). Hizb-Ut-Tahrir does not work to re-establish the Khilafah here in the West. It also works to preserve and protect the values of Muslims in the West, and carry a correct understanding of Islam to non-Muslim society."

I am glad they state that they are not working to re-establish the Khalifah in the west, but the statement "It also works to preserve and protect the values of Muslims in the West" is by nature contradictory to that; because in order to have all of consistent and doctrinal and Sharia law Islam all the way in the west would be to seek to destroy western freedom of speech(insults to Islam and Muhammad are forbidden), freedom of religion (apostasy from Islam is punishable by death); and separation of church and state are contradictions in Islam, and free market capitalism (Zakat and Islamic finance law are by nature contradictory to free market capitalism and banking systems in the west.)  Some Muslim articles and speeches offer Islamic law as a moral alternative to the homosexual agenda in the west that the church is failing to fight; and offering Islamic "justice and equality" by the Zakat and Islamic finance instead of greedy western Ayn Rand-type capitalism and materialism and secularism.

If you want to understand the hizb-ut-Tahrir's agenda for seeking to re-establish the Khalifate, see here, where they answer some questions.  It seems clear that if the Khalifate is re-established, they will eventually attack Israel(see the question on how they will deal with Israel.)   Not all questions that westerners have are asked there, and some of the answers need a lot more details, but if someone understands doctrinal Islam from all the Islamic sources - Qur'an, Hadith, Tafsirs, Sira literature, Tarikh (history of Islam by Al Tabari) and the subsequent history of how Islam actually carried out it's agenda of spreading Islam, it seems obvious that if they establish the Khalifate in a part of the Muslim world and then work out from it by Da'awa and then Jihad, they will seek to take back all lands that used to be Islamic - especially Spain and Portugal (Al Andolous) and Israel, and then declare Jihads against the west, atheist Russia, pagan Hindus and pagan Buddhists.

[daniel1212]

This could be in the religious section, but it applies more broadly.

While many Muslims I have met are nice people, and some have been exceptionally kind, and I have friendly neighbors of commendable morality (in contrast to many of the natives in the the same inner city), who seem to want freedom from Taliban types, the problem is that fundamentally their source of faith exhorts and fosters religious violence. And which many are ignorant of.

There is no "New Covenant" in Islam (and in the OT, unlike in Islam, wars of conquest were preceded by overt supernatural manifestations confirmatory of Divine sanction), and if anything resembled that it was in Muhammad's preMedinic days when he was a minority in Mecca (where he once spoke against religious oppression).

But as in cults, his visions accommodated his needs and desires.

It is also believable that he could not read, which would explain his skewed versions of Biblical stories which he alludes to while at one time affirming the veracity of the Bible. He likely received some beliefs from illiterate Catholic traders. How else could he have the idea that the Trinity was composed of God, Jesus and Mary?

As Islam is supposed to be a successor to Christianity, it depends upon the Bible, and these contradictions required the charge that the Bible was changed in the places where the Qur'an disagrees with it, such as Jesus being the Son of God and who died for our sins and rose from the dead.

However, this would entail far more than a few changes (and if the Catholic changed the Bible to support doctrine then I can think of many more things they could have easily changed in that interest), but essentially requires rewriting of the NT and substantial changes to the Old.

[daniel1212]

Article from Beggars All on Islam.

Many of the contradictions between the Qur’an and the Bible can be seen here. http://www.peacebyjesus.net/jesus.vs.muhammad.html

See also Bible versus Qur’an: http://www.conservapedia.com/The_Bible_versus_the_Qur%27an

[ConorMacNessa]

Short answer" NO!

"Take the jihad and killing out of Islam and you cut its head off!"

(Loosely quoted from the Blind Imam)



Keep Faith with the Fallen of Benghazi! Let the Obama Regime, for once, tell the Truth!

Fiat Justitia, Ruat Coelum!

Genuflectimus non ad principem sed ad Principem Pacis!

Listen, O isles, unto me; and hearken, ye people, from far; The LORD hath called me from the womb; from the bowels of my mother hath he made mention of my name. (Isaiah 49:1 KJV)

[theBuckwheat]

Islam demands that each faithful member of the ummah wage jihad against the infidel. So, the short answer to the title question is: NO.

[Secret Agent Man]

no. next question.

[Cronos]

Sorry, your post's utter ignorance about Islam is incredible

There IS a "New Covenant" in Islam and those are the Surahs -- they hold to the OT and they hold to the NT while they consider that the NT is corrupted. They also hold to sola scriptura (at least the Sunnah who comprise 80% of Moslems)

Finally, "illiterate Catholic traders"? your posts are error bound always -- the region of Mecca was nearly conquered by Ethiopians and the regions to the south were Jewish kingdoms like the Himyarite kingdom -- while our Ethiopian brethren are part of the One Holy Apostolic and Catholic Church, they are and were not "Catholic" in the sense you want to make of Roman Catholic and they were not traders

There were Syriac missionaries in the region of Mecca and Madinah because there were Jews there -- and because this was outside the Roman Empire, these were also primarily Arian and Gnostic -- the Hejaz and Nejd were not Roman otherwise they would have been in orthodoxy, they were not in the Axumite sphere of influence or they would be Ethiopic/Coptic, and they were not in the Persian lands or they would have been Assyrian

They fel between these 3 empires and were a free for all -- with a lot of the various sects that were banned in these 3 empires -- like Manichaens, Mandaens, Gnostics, Arians etc.

[Cronos]

Wrong --> There IS a "New Covenant" in Islam and those are the Surahs -- they hold to the OT and they hold to the NT while they consider that the NT is corrupted. They also hold to sola scriptura (at least the Sunnah who comprise 80% of Moslems)

Finally, "illiterate Catholic traders"? do read a little bit -- the region of Mecca was nearly conquered by Ethiopians and the regions to the south were Jewish kingdoms like the Himyarite kingdom -- while our Ethiopian brethren are part of the One Holy Apostolic and Catholic Church, they are and were not "Catholic" in the sense you want to make of Roman Catholic and they were not traders

There were Syriac missionaries in the region of Mecca and Madinah because there were Jews there -- and because this was outside the Roman Empire, these were also primarily Arian and Gnostic -- the Hejaz and Nejd were not Roman otherwise they would have been in orthodoxy, they were not in the Axumite sphere of influence or they would be Ethiopic/Coptic, and they were not in the Persian lands or they would have been Assyrian

They fel between these 3 empires and were a free for all -- with a lot of the various sects that were banned in these 3 empires -- like Manichaens, Mandaens, Gnostics, Arians etc.

[Cronos]

daniel : if the Catholic changed the Bible to support doctrine

Strangely, that is exactly the same accusation made by Moslems -- are you holding to their philosophy now?

[Cronos]

As long as folks post things like Daniel “ if the Catholic changed the Bible to support doctrine “ then there will be these converts to Islam...

[Cronos]

Islam holds to strict monotheism and, just like Daniel, the Moslems too say that the Catholic changed the Bible to support doctrine of the Trinity). Lots of similarities around the name Daneel/دانيال -

[Elsie]

Can doctrinal Islam not always seek to "Conquer the world"??

Can ANY religion???

[daniel1212]

daniel : if the Catholic changed the Bible to support doctrine Crnos: Strangely, that is exactly the same accusation made by Moslems -- are you holding to their philosophy now?

Rather than your Muslim-like knee-jerk overeaction to any perceive offense toward the earthly object of your allegiance, try to read carefully and comprehend what is being said before hasty posting your venom based upon your misunderstanding.

[daniel1212]

Sorry, your post's utter ignorance about Islam is incredible...your posts are error bound always

And Cronos must resort to personalize slander in his knee-jerk reaction against anything that may impugn upon Rome in the slightest? In my extensive correspondence with you, far from my posts even coming close to being characteristically error-bound, it is your many mischaracterizations and sophistry that must be corrected. .

There IS a "New Covenant" in Islam and those are the Surahs

There IS? Then Cronos can all a lot of scholars ignorant as well. Sura or Surah, refers to a division of the Qur'an, and is derived from the Pahlavi word suri meaning red color. Go find your "Surah" sect among the multitude of Islamic schools and branches of Islam. If such does exist, it is so negligible as to make your argument look even more desperate. Perhaps you meant Sunni.

The Sunni, Shi'a, Ja'fari, Ismaili, Zaidi, Sufis, Ahmadiyya, Ibadi, Ijtihad, Kharijites, Salafi, Ibadism, Wahabi, Quranist, Khariji, Mu'tazila, Batini, qadiani, Alevi, Alawi,Drush, Hanafi, Shafi, Tableegi, Akhbari, Yazidi, Druze, Bábí, Bahá'í, Berghouata, Naqshbandi, Bektashi, Chishti, Ha-Mim, Qadiri, Zaidiyyah, Oveyssi, Suhrawardiyya ,Hanafi Shafi`i, Maliki, Salafi, Ash'ari, Murji'ah, Mu'tazili, Athari, Zahiri, Twelver, Usuli, Akhbari, Shaykhism, Ismailism, Nizari, Mustaali, Dawoodi Bohra, Sulaymani, Alavi Bohra, Hebtiahs, Atba-i-Malak, Druze, Zaidiyyah, Alawi, Alevi, Sufism, Qadiri, Bektashi, Chishti, Oveyssi, Suhrawardiyya, Ahmadiyya, Kharijite, Ibadi, Ahl-e Haqq, Mahdavism etc

As for a New Covenant, your claim is wrong, as what you describe is not such, nor does it correlate to the sense (violence) in which i said, There is no "New Covenant" in Islam .. and if anything resembled that it was in Muhammad's preMedinic days when he was a minority in Mecca (where he once spoke against religious oppression). Even though most Muslims affirm the Injil, they reject this and other New Covenant distinctions therein.

They also hold to sola scriptura (at least the Sunnah who comprise 80% of Moslems)

Usually referred to as Sunni Islam (in English known as Sunni Muslims, Sunnis, Sunnites) as "Sunni" comes from the term Sunnah (Arabic: سنة‎), which refers to the sayings and actions of the prophet Muhammad as recorded in Hadiths. “The Hadith are found in several collections, and Sunnis view some of these collections to be more holy and authentic than others, especially the Bukhari collection of hadith.” (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/sunni.html) As apparently in the context of biographical records of Muhammad sunnah often stands as synonymous with hadith, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunnah#Sunnah_and_hadith) it would be better to refer to them as Sunni. The term Hadeeth has become a synonym for the term Sunnah, though there is some difference in their meanings. Sunnah, as a technical term in the Science of Hadeeth, refers to whatever statements, acts, approvals, physical or character descriptions that are attributable to the Prophet (pbuh) along with his biography before or after the beginning of his prophet hood. Hadith on the other hand are the recordings of Sunnah. (http://scanislam.com/articles/what-are-hadeeth-and-sunnah)

As for Sunnis holding to sola Scriptura and trying to draw a parallel between Islam and Evangelicals via sola Scriptura, that is an overreach (especially with SS as often described by Catholics). We both do eat food, but the Hadith are regarded by traditional Islamic schools of jurisprudence as important tools for understanding the Quran and in matters of jurisprudence, although the two largest denominations of Islam, Shiʻa and Sunni, rely upon different sets of hadith collections.

“There are certain Hadith considered by most Sunnis to be trustworthy and these are commonly known as the Authentic Six. Only two of them are actually labeled as authentic (sahih), and they are Bukhari and Muslim. These collections are second only to the Qur'an in authority. The others are from Abu Dawud, Tirmidhi, Nasa'i, and Ibn Majah. In strength, Malik's Muwatta' is placed just below the two Sahihs, but is not generally included among the six.”

“In Shi'ite Islam (approx 10-20% of the world's Muslim population) they have their own collections and are more particular in regards to the Hadith narrations they will accept. If a narrator was not a member of the Ahl al-Bayt (Muhammad's household) or one of their supporters, then the narration is typically rejected. For example, they reject narrations from Abu Huraira. Al-Kafi is the most reliable Shi'ite hadith.” (http://www.wikiislam.net/wiki/Hadith_%28definition%29)

"The two fundamental sources of Islam are the Qur'an (the word of God) and the Sunnah (the example) of the Prophet..." “Here, we are concerned with Sunnah in the sense of the recorded sayings (Hadiths) of Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him). In this sense, Hadith is considered to be second to the Qur'an. It is impossible to understand the Qur'an without reference to the Hadith; and it is impossible to explain a hadith without relating it to the Qur'an. The Qur'an is the message, while the Hadith is the verbal translation of the message into pragmatic terms.. (Professor Shahul Hameed, a consultant for IslamOnline.net, previously the Head of the Department of English, Farook College, Calicut University; http://www.onislam.net/english/shariah/hadith/hadith-studies/441273.html cf. http://scanislam.com/articles/importance-of-sunnah-hadiths)

Thus if you are desperate for a parallel, then it is with Catholics, as most of Islam holds to an oral tradition as well as to their scripture, if not fully in the same way as Catholics. And yet Rome has also affirmed, if not consistently, that “the Mohammedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind.” (LUMEN GENTIUM, 16; http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html)

He likely received some beliefs from illiterate Catholic traders. How else could he have the idea that the Trinity was composed of God, Jesus and Mary?

Finally, "illiterate Catholic traders"? your posts are error bound always -- the region of Mecca was nearly conquered by Ethiopians and the regions to the south were Jewish kingdoms like the Himyarite kingdom -- while our Ethiopian brethren are part of the One Holy Apostolic and Catholic Church, they are and were not "Catholic" in the sense you want to make of Roman Catholic and they were not traders

You are misrepresenting what i said by restricting “Catholic” to Roman Catholic, which i carefully did not use, while i also said “likely,” and asserting that none of these were traders is unlikely, and disallowing that Muhammad had no interaction with illiterate, poorly catechized Catholic traders is extremely unlikely and another overreach on your part. If it is true that in 615 a group of Muslims were counseled by Muhammad to escape persecution in Mecca and travel to Ethiopia via modern day Eritrea, then there would have been travel between the two then, while Muhammad had contact with other Catholics as well, and my hypothesis does not depend on them being traders. However, Muhammad's aberrations might also be blamed in part (besides his demonic visions) on the influence of the Arian heretic Bahira whom Muhammad is said to have met while traveling as part of a caravan (and in which he certainly could have interacted with Catholic traders).

[daniel1212]

D12: However, this would entail far more than a few changes (and if the Catholic changed the Bible to support doctrine then I can think of many more things they could have easily changed in that interest), but essentially requires rewriting of the NT and substantial changes to the Old.

Cronos: Islam holds to strict monotheism and, just like Daniel, the Moslems too say that the Catholic changed the Bible to support doctrine of the Trinity). Lots of similarities around the name Daneel/

As this refers to me, just where did Daniel say that the "Catholic changed the Bible to support doctrine of the Trinity?" I said just the opposite, as the point being made is that Islam's theory is absurd.

If you want to even be considered a compliment to your faith then you need to apologize (not spin what you said) for this - besides your other examples of baseless personal slanderous-type charges ("your posts are error bound always," etc.) which you often seem driven to resort in your overreaction to anything that seems to impugn your church. Go read .

[muawiyah]

There's a strong thesis that's been around for a couple of centuries that Mohammad wasn't the man the writers of the Koran in Damascus made him out to be ~ possibly a minor reformer out to get the snake god out of the kabbah or something.

The idea is simple ~ the Arabs who found themselves owning ancient cities filled with scholars of all sorts decided to make themselves look to be at least their equal by inventing Islam.

That's why the Koran appears in Arabic (?) a full 150 years before the next literary work in Arabic ~ BTW, the Koran appeared mostly in Aramaic ~ see the work on pre-dot Arabic, and the earliest Korans. That lends credence to the idea the Arabs pieced it together out of materials they encountered in Damascus, not Mecca.

The claims of Mohammad meeting Ethiopian Christians are simply to throw doubters off the track regarding the true origins of the Christian writings incorporated into the body of the Koran.

[metmom]

How else could he have the idea that the Trinity was composed of God, Jesus and Mary?

I understand from missionaries in muslim lands today, that that is still the case.

[metmom]

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P29.HTM

841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."330

[metmom]

besides your other examples of baseless personal slanderous-type charges ("your posts are error bound always," etc.) which you often seem driven to resort in your overreaction to anything that seems to impugn your church.

But this isn't posted in the RF so there's no one to keep them in line. So much for Catholics taking the high moral ground.

Luke 6:43-45 43 “For no good tree bears bad fruit, nor again does a bad tree bear good fruit, 44 for each tree is known by its own fruit. For figs are not gathered from thornbushes, nor are grapes picked from a bramble bush. 45 The good person out of the good treasure of his heart produces good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure produces evil, for out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks.

Matthew 12:33-37 33 “Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or make the tree bad and its fruit bad, for the tree is known by its fruit. 34 You brood of vipers! How can you speak good, when you are evil? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. 35 The good person out of his good treasure brings forth good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure brings forth evil. 36 I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak, 37 for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”

[Elsie]

Sorry, your post's utter ignorance about Islam is incredible

LOTs of things are incredible these days...

[Elsie]

"The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."

OH?

John 3:18

Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.