Posted on 03/05/2015 10:22:56 AM PST by NYer
Some time ago I posted on Facebook this criticism of that ubiquitous “Coexist” bumper sticker with the comment, “I need this in magnet form for my car.”
A friend (who, I believe, identifies as atheist/agnostic) replied, “I don’t agree that Muslims are out to get everyone else. I find that suggestion pretty offensive actually.” Upon deeper reflection, my response would be as follows:
I don’t believe that all Muslims “are out to get everyone else.” I would not presume to speak for every single person on the planet who identifies as a Muslim. I do believe, however, that some Muslims are out to get everyone else (if “everyone else” is defined as “everyone who doesn’t follow the ways they consider to be correct”).
The response I most often hear when I express my concern is either that (a) Islam is a religion of peace and does not promote violence, and/or (b) only extremist Muslims believe that non-believers should be killed.
However, the problem with this viewpoint is that Islam is only a religion of peace depending on who is doing the interpreting. Unlike Catholicism, there is no pope in Islam. There is no one person a Muslim can point to and say, “This is the definitive teaching of Islam. Anyone who does not hold to this teaching is not in conformity with the Islamic faith; they are practicing something different.”
A few years ago, President Obama spoke at St. Xavier’s College in Mumbai, and was asked for his take on jihad. Obama replied that jihad “has different meanings in Islam and is subject to different interpretations.”
The President is absolutely correct. In fact, there’s no shortage of differing opinions and interpretations on this subject. The page on the Islamic concept of tattarrus – the killing of non-combatants – at ReligiousTolerance.org acknowledges that “Opinion appears to be divided among Muslim commentators and theologians. Fatwas (religious rulings by qualified Muslim clerics) differ.”
The site recognizes that a similar difference of opinion exists regarding jihad. While it’s quick to list the passages of the Qur’an that promote peace and forgiveness, it fails to address more problematic passages, such as ones discussed in the Catholic Answers article Endless Jihad: The Truth about Islam and Violence:
The attitude of Islam toward using violence against non-Muslims is clear. Regarding pagans, the Quran says, “Slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them. If they repent and take to prayer and render the alms levy, allow them to go their way. God is forgiving and merciful” (Surah 9:5). This amounts to giving pagans a convert-or-die choice.
Regarding violence against Jews and Christians, the Quran says, “Fight against those to whom the Scriptures were given as believe in neither God nor the last day, who do not forbid what God and his messenger have forbidden, and who do not embrace the true faith, until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued” (Surah 9:29). In other words, violence is to be used against Jews and Christians unless they are willing to pay a special tax and live in subjection to Muslims as second-class citizens. For them the choice is convert, die, or live in subjection.
The Quran also has stern words for Muslims who would be slow and reluctant to attack unbelievers: “Believers, why is it that when you are told: ‘March in the cause of God,’ you linger slothfully in the land? Are you content with this life in preference to the life to come? . . . If you do not go to war, he [God] will punish you sternly, and will replace you by other men” (Surah 9:38-39).
And, of course, there is the promise of reward in the afterlife for waging jihad in this one: “Believers! Shall I point out to you a profitable course that will save you from a woeful scourge? Have faith in God and his messenger, and fight for God’s cause with your wealth and with your persons. . . . He will forgive you your sins and admit you to gardens watered by running streams; he will lodge you in pleasant mansions in the gardens of Eden. This is the supreme triumph” (Surah 61:10-12).
David French, in an article at Patheos.com, writes that there is no “true Islam.” So how can anyone, myself included, definitively say that “Muslims think so-and-so,” or “Islam teaches X and not Y” when it’s all open to individual interpretation? A Muslim can interpret the Qur’an to say that it’s acceptable to kill non-Muslims, or that it’s unacceptable to kill non-Muslims, and there’s no ultimate authority to tell that person, “No, your interpretation is wrong and is not a reflection of true Islamic teaching.”
Going back to the “Coexist” refutation, I don’t believe that the author’s intent was to say that every single Muslim on the planet would eradicate all non-Muslims if given the chance. The difficulty lies in that enough of them do (e.g., ISIS, Al Qaeda) to make peaceful “coexistence” a pipe dream.
Ping!
We can worry about the morality later.
The Ayatollah’s of Shiia Islam is as close to a Pope as you can ever get.
You need to visit the FR Sandbox to learn how to shrink images. Oooohhhh .. my eyes!
Absolutely correct. There is no over-riding “authority” in Islam to declare what is valid and what is not.
Also, interpretations of the Koran basically ended in the 10th century. There has been no debate or new “schools of thought” since then (viewed as legitimate anyway) as to Islamic dogma and epistemology.
Moreover, Islam is, and has been fully entwined with governance and politics of the mid-east since its founding. Therefore, it is highly biased politically - in sum, it means whatever the leadership of the country from which an Imam speaks wants it to mean.
Catholics will need to answer that for themselves. From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
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."
LOL, Weaponised Barry! :)
??
(1) "Peace", as defined by secular persons is an absence of mass violence in a region with a high degree of personal freedom.
(2) "Peace", as defined by a Christian, is a knowledge that Christ died for our sins and through God's love for mankind we can possibly achieve eternal life in heaven.
(3) "Peace", as defined by a Muslim, is a world where everyone is in a state of submission to Allah. "Islam" means "submission to Allah". The Quran provides both voluntary and non-voluntary means to obtain this submission. Non-voluntary means include violence.
There is only one use of the word “jihad” in the Koran. It is what we moderns might term violent jihad.
“Weaponized” Obama. I know how to shrink images... there’s a reason he fits nicely into your browser window. Never confuse evil with stupid, NYer. It makes us do mean things, like this:
...
OK, funny note. I was going to post a picture of Helen Thomas in a bathing suit. But my OS won’t paste the very long URL. I’m taking that as a reminder from God that I’m not supposed to be evil.
His mug is almost life size on this display, not a pretty sight. :)
Weaponized. That’s what he did to the post of President.
Sorry, Alex: Muslims adore a horrendously distorted notion and tragically incomplete vision of the one, true God. But contrary to claims that “Allah” is some sort of a moon God, it is a semitic word that has meant “god/God” since long before Mohammed came along. Yes, one can use “allah” to refer to a pagan god, just like I just used the word “god” to refer to a pagan god. But the Moon god of Mecca was Sin/Suen, and those pagans of Mecca were not monotheistic, so using “allah” to refer to Sin/Suen outside of Ur or Harran would be contextually improper.
“Why did Mohammed presume that the Arabs already knew who Allah was?”
Had Allah meant Sin/Suen, Mohammed would’ve had to suggest to those outside the Cult of Sin that Allah meant Sin, specifically, especially given that Allah is described in so many ways that contradict the depiction of Sin. But since “Allah” meant “the God,” all Mohammed needed to do was to assert the nature of God. OF COURSE, MOHAMMED’S DESCRIPTION OF GOD IS CONTRARY TO CHRISTIANITY. The same catechism from which paragraph 841 is taken contains many condemnations and descriptions of what it labels “indifferentism,” the notion that it doesn’t matter what doctrine one holds or what sect one belongs to.
Contrary to the common assertion that the Koran doesn’t explain who Allah is, he is repeatedly referred to as “the god of Abraham,” “the god of Mose,” “the god of the Christians,” and so forth.
Names of Allah in the Koran:
“Lord of Heaven and of Earth, God of Mercy”
“God of Mercy” (more than 50 times)
“God of Moses”
“God of the entire universe”
“God of all in Heaven on on Earth”
“God, Lord of the Heavens of Lord of the Earth”
Refutations of Sin from within the Koran:
“There is no God but me.”
“Your God is the one god.”
“Abraham was a leader in religion, obedient only to Allah”
“Thou follow the religion of Abraham, the sound in faith”
(Obviously Muslims believe incorrectly in what the religion of Abraham was, but plainly it was not that of the Moon God.)
“To you he has commanded the faith, which he gave to Noah, which we (the angels) have revealed to thee, and given commands to Abraham, and Moses, and Jesus.”
(Again, there heresy here is obvious; the point is that it is ridiculous to suggest that the Arabs believed Jesus worshipped the moon god.)
Your argument isn't with me - it's with the Catholic Church. Take it up with them.
Are you incapable of reading more than one sentence at a time? It’s one thing to take the Catechism out of context; you can at least mislead your sheeple on FR who would never look beyond out-of-context quotes. But you’re laughable when you take a single sentence of mine out of context when the greater context is on the same page!
Are you yourself capable of posting without insults?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.