OrthodoxChristianity.net
April 17, 2014, 06:02:23 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: The Rules page has been updated.  Please familiarize yourself with its contents!
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags CHAT Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Essential Islamic knowledge  (Read 4315 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Mekki
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Muslim
Jurisdiction: Maliki
Posts: 174



« on: July 10, 2010, 02:08:22 PM »

I hope this won't be seen as proselytizing, as it hardly is.

What follows is famous forty by Imam Nawawi, which is regarded as containing the essense of the Religion in the 42 hadiths. The link also provides a nice commentary.

http://fortyhadith.iiu.edu.my/

Any discussion about the Hadiths and how they relate to Orthodoxy would be very welcome.
« Last Edit: July 10, 2010, 02:18:33 PM by Mekki » Logged

إن تنصرو الله ينصركم
An ye support God, He will support thee.
Jetavan
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,069


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #1 on: July 10, 2010, 10:33:22 PM »

Why only 42 hadith?
« Last Edit: July 10, 2010, 10:35:05 PM by Jetavan » Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,605



« Reply #2 on: July 10, 2010, 11:12:54 PM »

Odd. A number are not from the Sahiihaan (Bukhari, Muslim) of the Sunnis. Shi'ites for the most part would reject them.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Mekki
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Muslim
Jurisdiction: Maliki
Posts: 174



« Reply #3 on: July 11, 2010, 02:18:17 AM »

Why only 42 hadith?

I don't think the number has any specific meaning. I think the intention was to keep to a small number that make it easy for people to memorize the hadiths, while being enough to contain the basic of the Religion.

The compiler, Imam Nawawi, also has made an excellent collection that contains, I think, two thousand hadiths called Riyadh as-Saliheen (the garden of the righteous).

Odd. A number are not from the Sahiihaan (Bukhari, Muslim) of the Sunnis. Shi'ites for the most part would reject them.

Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim are not the only books containing Authetic hadtihs, they are just considered the most authentic. All of the hadiths in the collection are considered authentic.

As for shi'is, they hardly accept anyting from what we consider to be authentic as they rject hadiths by such people as Abu Huraira, Umar and Aisha (radiya llahu 'anhum), who have narrated the majority of authentic hadiths.
 
Logged

إن تنصرو الله ينصركم
An ye support God, He will support thee.
Sloga
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Serbian Orthodox Church
Posts: 830



« Reply #4 on: July 11, 2010, 02:32:10 AM »

Hadith number 8 definitely requires a thread on its own. Neither does giving three entirely different interpretations of the hadith in any way explain it nor can it in any way be related to Orthodoxy.

is there not a verse in the Quran (possibly by Muhammed, but I may be mistaken) where it is quoted saying something along the lines of "now that we have returned from a lesser Jihad [battle], it is time to focus on the greater Jihad [spiritual]"? No one denies that jihad is of a personal struggle between one who submits to God and God himself, but from what I understand, there is also a physical, destructive element to jihad also.
Logged

Христе Боже, Распети и Свети!

"In the history of the human race there have been three principal falls: that of Adam, that of Judas, and that of the pope." Saint Justin Popovic
Mekki
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Muslim
Jurisdiction: Maliki
Posts: 174



« Reply #5 on: July 11, 2010, 03:14:15 AM »

Hadith number 8 definitely requires a thread on its own. Neither does giving three entirely different interpretations of the hadith in any way explain it nor can it in any way be related to Orthodoxy.

is there not a verse in the Quran (possibly by Muhammed, but I may be mistaken) where it is quoted saying something along the lines of "now that we have returned from a lesser Jihad [battle], it is time to focus on the greater Jihad [spiritual]"? No one denies that jihad is of a personal struggle between one who submits to God and God himself, but from what I understand, there is also a physical, destructive element to jihad also.

No matter how you'd interpret the hadith, you can't suggest that it requires individuals to be fought until they convert as the Quranic verses, the hadiths and historical evidence are clear that organized religious minorities are to be given the freedom of worship, as long as their any effective temporal power is taken away from them and they submit to the Islamic state (which what the Hadith probably means).

As you may know, Jerusalem and the rest of the Levant, which were predominantly Christian, were conquered by Mar (RA), the Prophet's companion and the third Caliph, and Christians there were granted the freedom to worship and their churches were protected.

The internal struggle (internal jihad), is the most essential concept in Islam, but struggle against physical enemy is necessary nevertheless.
Logged

إن تنصرو الله ينصركم
An ye support God, He will support thee.
Sloga
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Serbian Orthodox Church
Posts: 830



« Reply #6 on: July 11, 2010, 03:40:10 AM »

but struggle against physical enemy is necessary nevertheless.

I'm assuming you meant physical struggle against an enemy?

Is it correct that the expansion and spreading of Islam is deemed appropriate through physical means, other than peaceful? For ex. the lesser jihad?
Logged

Христе Боже, Распети и Свети!

"In the history of the human race there have been three principal falls: that of Adam, that of Judas, and that of the pope." Saint Justin Popovic
Mekki
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Muslim
Jurisdiction: Maliki
Posts: 174



« Reply #7 on: July 11, 2010, 03:51:46 AM »

but struggle against physical enemy is necessary nevertheless.

I'm assuming you meant physical struggle against an enemy?

Is it correct that the expansion and spreading of Islam is deemed appropriate through physical means, other than peaceful? For ex. the lesser jihad?

Yes, that's what I meant.

Islam was spread both martially and peacefully. Both are accepted. But remember that we're talking about fighting armies, not individuals. Armies and states are forced to submit to the Islamic governance, but individuals are not forced to embrace Islam, especially those who adhere to organized religions, mainly Judaism and Christianity.

Logged

إن تنصرو الله ينصركم
An ye support God, He will support thee.
Sloga
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Serbian Orthodox Church
Posts: 830



« Reply #8 on: July 11, 2010, 04:01:19 AM »

but struggle against physical enemy is necessary nevertheless.

I'm assuming you meant physical struggle against an enemy?

Is it correct that the expansion and spreading of Islam is deemed appropriate through physical means, other than peaceful? For ex. the lesser jihad?

Yes, that's what I meant.

Islam was spread both martially and peacefully. Both are accepted

And going back to your original post, there is one discrepancy so far between Islam and Orthodoxy  Wink
Logged

Христе Боже, Распети и Свети!

"In the history of the human race there have been three principal falls: that of Adam, that of Judas, and that of the pope." Saint Justin Popovic
Mekki
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Muslim
Jurisdiction: Maliki
Posts: 174



« Reply #9 on: July 11, 2010, 04:16:12 AM »

but struggle against physical enemy is necessary nevertheless.

I'm assuming you meant physical struggle against an enemy?

Is it correct that the expansion and spreading of Islam is deemed appropriate through physical means, other than peaceful? For ex. the lesser jihad?

Yes, that's what I meant.

Islam was spread both martially and peacefully. Both are accepted

And going back to your original post, there is one discrepancy so far between Islam and Orthodoxy  Wink

Well, there's not a consensus that pacifism is the Orthodox stance on warfare. Like I said, in the other thread, if it was not for war and armies to both protect Christianity and to propagate it, it would've practically disappeared.
Logged

إن تنصرو الله ينصركم
An ye support God, He will support thee.
Jetavan
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,069


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #10 on: July 11, 2010, 07:00:55 AM »

but struggle against physical enemy is necessary nevertheless.

I'm assuming you meant physical struggle against an enemy?

Is it correct that the expansion and spreading of Islam is deemed appropriate through physical means, other than peaceful? For ex. the lesser jihad?

Yes, that's what I meant.

Islam was spread both martially and peacefully. Both are accepted. But remember that we're talking about fighting armies, not individuals. Armies and states are forced to submit to the Islamic governance, but individuals are not forced to embrace Islam, especially those who adhere to organized religions, mainly Judaism and Christianity.


So an Islamic nation could be justified in attacking another nation, in order to convert that nation to Islam?
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
Mekki
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Muslim
Jurisdiction: Maliki
Posts: 174



« Reply #11 on: July 11, 2010, 07:20:37 AM »

but struggle against physical enemy is necessary nevertheless.

I'm assuming you meant physical struggle against an enemy?

Is it correct that the expansion and spreading of Islam is deemed appropriate through physical means, other than peaceful? For ex. the lesser jihad?

Yes, that's what I meant.

Islam was spread both martially and peacefully. Both are accepted. But remember that we're talking about fighting armies, not individuals. Armies and states are forced to submit to the Islamic governance, but individuals are not forced to embrace Islam, especially those who adhere to organized religions, mainly Judaism and Christianity.


So an Islamic nation could be justified in attacking another nation, in order to convert that nation to Islam?

Not to convert it, but to eliminate its threat as a military force, which also makes it more likely for the population to convert, if they wish to of course.
Logged

إن تنصرو الله ينصركم
An ye support God, He will support thee.
Theophilos78
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Yahwist-Apostolic Christian
Jurisdiction: Adonai Yeshua
Posts: 1,999



« Reply #12 on: July 11, 2010, 07:32:09 AM »


As you may know, Jerusalem and the rest of the Levant, which were predominantly Christian, were conquered by Mar (RA), the Prophet's companion and the third Caliph, and Christians there were granted the freedom to worship and their churches were protected.


You say "conquered", but I say "invaded" although we are talking about the same incident.

I see that you tend to interpret invasions as nice incidents if the invaders let the original owners of a land practice their former religion (with restrictions though). Would you like the USA "conquer" Mecca and then grant Muslims the freedom to worship there in their preserved mosques? Not in the Cube though. That would be turned into a Christian shrine in accordance with the Islamic policy turning the biggest place of worship into a mosque after the "conquest". (Hagia Sophia is an example).  Wink

Logged

Longing for Heavenly Jerusalem
Mekki
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Muslim
Jurisdiction: Maliki
Posts: 174



« Reply #13 on: July 11, 2010, 07:38:03 AM »


As you may know, Jerusalem and the rest of the Levant, which were predominantly Christian, were conquered by Mar (RA), the Prophet's companion and the third Caliph, and Christians there were granted the freedom to worship and their churches were protected.


You say "conquered", but I say "invaded" although we are talking about the same incident.

I see that you tend to interpret invasions as nice incidents if the invaders let the original owners of a land practice their former religion (with restrictions though). Would you like the USA "conquer" Mecca and then grant Muslims the freedom to worship there in their preserved mosques? Not in the Cube though. That would be turned into a Christian shrine in accordance with the Islamic policy turning the biggest place of worship into a mosque after the "conquest". (Hagia Sophia is an example).  Wink

No, I wouldn't like it, and because we don't expect you to like it and because we know that you would take any chance you can get to dectroy the Islamic rule or to just screw it over is why we put those limitation and keep the various religious minorities under check.

That's why I said in the "Jesus descends" thread that the Dhimma system is more than fair.

 The crux of the matter is that there is no objective right for a culture to exist in acertain space just because it existed there for a while, so there's nothing objectively wrong with conquering any place by any one.

« Last Edit: July 11, 2010, 07:44:01 AM by Mekki » Logged

إن تنصرو الله ينصركم
An ye support God, He will support thee.
Theophilos78
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Yahwist-Apostolic Christian
Jurisdiction: Adonai Yeshua
Posts: 1,999



« Reply #14 on: July 11, 2010, 07:45:32 AM »


No, I wouldn't like it, and because we don't expect you to like it and because we know that you would take any chance you can get to dectroy the Islamic rule or to just screw it over is why we put those limitation and keep the various religious minorities under check.


Islamic prejudice and hostility at work! You reveal your true face so easily! Thanks  Cheesy

You put those limitations not because your governments are clever, but because you follow your prophet, who wanted Islam to be the only dominant religion in the world. This is the real motive for the subjugation of the nations of other faiths.

The most important thing is that no matter what you do (even getting the aid of demons in your war against Christ and His Church), Christ will prevail against your false prophet. Bad news for you.


 The crux of the matter is that there is no objective right for a culture to exist in acertain space just because it existed there for a while, so there's nothing objectively wrong with conquering any place by any one.


I did not say that. Last time you were talking about religion, but now you have suddenly started to talk about "culture".
Logged

Longing for Heavenly Jerusalem
Mekki
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Muslim
Jurisdiction: Maliki
Posts: 174



« Reply #15 on: July 11, 2010, 07:56:36 AM »

Quote from: Theophilos78 link=topic=28658.msg452230#msg452230

Islamic prejudice and hostility at work! You reveal your true face so easily! Thanks  Cheesy

You put those limitations not because your governments are clever, but because you follow your prophet, who wanted Islam to be the only dominant religion in the world. This is the real motive for the subjugation of the nations of other faiths.

The most important thing is that no matter what you do (even getting the aid of demons in your war against Christ and His Church), Christ will prevail against your false prophet. Bad news for you.

Of course we follow the best of Creation, Mohammed, may the Almighty resurrect us by His side. The blessed Sunna is the second source of legislation after the Quran, so every Muslim is obliged to follow the best of man kind. You should understand that, you follow Christ, his disciples and the saints. As a Christian, you can't have an objective objection against dogma.

But even from a purely political point of view, both attack and defence are necessary, which is something I would gladly elaborate on if your excellence wills it.

Quote
I did not say that. Last time you were talking about religion, but now you have suddenly started to talk about "culture".

Call it culture, religion or world-view, the argument stands firm.
« Last Edit: July 11, 2010, 07:57:21 AM by Mekki » Logged

إن تنصرو الله ينصركم
An ye support God, He will support thee.
Theophilos78
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Yahwist-Apostolic Christian
Jurisdiction: Adonai Yeshua
Posts: 1,999



« Reply #16 on: July 11, 2010, 08:04:56 AM »


Of course we follow the best of Creation, Mohammed, may the Almighty resurrect us by His side. The blessed Sunna is the second source of legislation after the Quran, so every Muslim is obliged to follow the best of man kind. You should understand that, you follow Christ, his disciples and the saints. As a Christian, you can't have an objective objection against dogma.

I fail to understand your point here. Could you please clarify yourself?

We follow Christ. So did the Apostles and the saints.

Can you have an objection against the dogma? For instance, can you say you will remain a Muslim even if you deny faith in the existence of angels?  Roll Eyes


But even from a purely political point of view, both attack and defence are necessary, which is something I would gladly elaborate on if your excellence wills it.

Why the need to talk about politics now? You seem to like changing the topic quite often.

Call it culture, religion or world-view, the argument stands firm.


If so, why did you deem it necessary to replace the word "religion" with "culture"?
Logged

Longing for Heavenly Jerusalem
Mekki
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Muslim
Jurisdiction: Maliki
Posts: 174



« Reply #17 on: July 11, 2010, 08:21:35 AM »

I fail to understand your point here. Could you please clarify yourself?

Well, I sense that you were criticizing the fact that We offer nonbelievers the dhimmi status because we stick to the Law and we imitate the Prophet

Quote
We follow Christ. So did the Apostles and the saints.

Of course you do, at least you try to, that's why I said you can't have an objective objection on the above.


Quote
Can you have an objection against the dogma? For instance, can you say you will remain a Muslim even if you deny faith in the existence of angels?  Roll Eyes

I don't have any objection against the concept of dogma whatsoever, but I like I said, I sense that you do have such thing.

And by the way, the example you gave is not what I meant by dogma.

Quote
Why the need to talk about politics now? You seem to like changing the topic quite often.

Warfare is an intergal part of politics, one can not speak of it without involving himself in political rhetoric.

Quote
If so, why did you deem it necessary to replace the word "religion" with "culture"?

Because one might object on the word "religion", for example the West, and most of the modern world, is by large irreligious, but the same thing applies.

For example, One can not claim that democracy ought to remain in France forever because it reigned there for more than a couple of centuries. Democracy is not a religious concept.
« Last Edit: July 11, 2010, 08:21:55 AM by Mekki » Logged

إن تنصرو الله ينصركم
An ye support God, He will support thee.
Jetavan
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,069


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #18 on: July 11, 2010, 08:32:32 AM »

but struggle against physical enemy is necessary nevertheless.

I'm assuming you meant physical struggle against an enemy?

Is it correct that the expansion and spreading of Islam is deemed appropriate through physical means, other than peaceful? For ex. the lesser jihad?

Yes, that's what I meant.

Islam was spread both martially and peacefully. Both are accepted. But remember that we're talking about fighting armies, not individuals. Armies and states are forced to submit to the Islamic governance, but individuals are not forced to embrace Islam, especially those who adhere to organized religions, mainly Judaism and Christianity.


So an Islamic nation could be justified in attacking another nation, in order to convert that nation to Islam?

Not to convert it, but to eliminate its threat as a military force, which also makes it more likely for the population to convert, if they wish to of course.
What if a non-Islamic nation that had a large military force, existed next door to an Islamic nation, but there was peace between the two nations. Would the Islamic nation be required to build up its military and eventually eliminate the potential threat of the other nation, even though the two nations are currently at peace?
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
Mekki
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Muslim
Jurisdiction: Maliki
Posts: 174



« Reply #19 on: July 11, 2010, 08:39:00 AM »

but struggle against physical enemy is necessary nevertheless.

I'm assuming you meant physical struggle against an enemy?

Is it correct that the expansion and spreading of Islam is deemed appropriate through physical means, other than peaceful? For ex. the lesser jihad?

Yes, that's what I meant.

Islam was spread both martially and peacefully. Both are accepted. But remember that we're talking about fighting armies, not individuals. Armies and states are forced to submit to the Islamic governance, but individuals are not forced to embrace Islam, especially those who adhere to organized religions, mainly Judaism and Christianity.


So an Islamic nation could be justified in attacking another nation, in order to convert that nation to Islam?

Not to convert it, but to eliminate its threat as a military force, which also makes it more likely for the population to convert, if they wish to of course.
What if a non-Islamic nation that had a large military force, existed next door to an Islamic nation, but there was peace between the two nations. Would the Islamic nation be required to build up its military and eventually eliminate the potential threat of the other nation, even though the two nations are currently at peace?

Yes, a pace treaty can be signed, but Muslims must always be ready for any change of events.
Logged

إن تنصرو الله ينصركم
An ye support God, He will support thee.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,605



« Reply #20 on: July 11, 2010, 10:05:08 AM »

Hadith number 8 definitely requires a thread on its own. Neither does giving three entirely different interpretations of the hadith in any way explain it nor can it in any way be related to Orthodoxy.

is there not a verse in the Quran (possibly by Muhammed, but I may be mistaken) where it is quoted saying something along the lines of "now that we have returned from a lesser Jihad [battle], it is time to focus on the greater Jihad [spiritual]"? No one denies that jihad is of a personal struggle between one who submits to God and God himself, but from what I understand, there is also a physical, destructive element to jihad also.

No matter how you'd interpret the hadith, you can't suggest that it requires individuals to be fought until they convert as the Quranic verses, the hadiths and historical evidence are clear that organized religious minorities are to be given the freedom of worship

Besides the plain language issue, hadith historical evidence are clear that organized religious minorities are denied the freedom of worship.


Quote
, as long as their any effective temporal power is taken away from them and they submit to the Islamic state (which what the Hadith probably means).

As you may know, Jerusalem and the rest of the Levant, which were predominantly Christian, were conquered by Mar (RA), the Prophet's companion and the third Caliph, and Christians there were granted the freedom to worship and their churches were protected.

'Umar also persecuted the Arab Christians and when Arab Christian tribes went into exile into the Roman Empire, he demanded their extradition.

Quote
The internal struggle (internal jihad), is the most essential concept in Islam, but struggle against physical enemy is necessary nevertheless.

Because as mufti and president Izzetbegovich taught, the first duty of a Muslim in a non-Muslim state is to work for the implimentation of shari'ah.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,605



« Reply #21 on: July 11, 2010, 10:09:27 AM »

but struggle against physical enemy is necessary nevertheless.

I'm assuming you meant physical struggle against an enemy?

Is it correct that the expansion and spreading of Islam is deemed appropriate through physical means, other than peaceful? For ex. the lesser jihad?

Yes, that's what I meant.

Islam was spread both martially and peacefully. Both are accepted

And going back to your original post, there is one discrepancy so far between Islam and Orthodoxy  Wink

Well, there's not a consensus that pacifism is the Orthodox stance on warfare. Like I said, in the other thread, if it was not for war and armies to both protect Christianity and to propagate it, it would've practically disappeared.

LOL. And how, pray tell, did we survive the first three centuries when it was a capital offense the world over to confess Christ? And for Orthodoxy, that it spread in Alaska AFTER the Czar's army left and it rebounded during communism.  In communist China, Christianity has continued to grow despite the repression of it.  Then there is that issue of the Muslims in Africa and Indonesia coming to the church, all without benefit of an army.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,605



« Reply #22 on: July 11, 2010, 10:15:51 AM »

Quote from: Theophilos78 link=topic=28658.msg452230#msg452230

Islamic prejudice and hostility at work! You reveal your true face so easily! Thanks  Cheesy

You put those limitations not because your governments are clever, but because you follow your prophet, who wanted Islam to be the only dominant religion in the world. This is the real motive for the subjugation of the nations of other faiths.

The most important thing is that no matter what you do (even getting the aid of demons in your war against Christ and His Church), Christ will prevail against your false prophet. Bad news for you.

Of course we follow the best of Creation, Mohammed, may the Almighty resurrect us by His side. The blessed Sunna is the second source of legislation after the Quran, so every Muslim is obliged to follow the best of man kind. You should understand that, you follow Christ, his disciples and the saints. As a Christian, you can't have an objective objection against dogma.

We don't. Just against false dogma.

Take for instance, the claim that Muhammad makes that he is the prophet the Christians are waiting for.  The problem is, we are not waiting for any "Prophet."  Nor have we for two thousand years.  We know that Jesus Christ is the Messiah.  The Jews deny that, but you see in their services, their Talmud, their rituals, prayers, creeds etc. that they are still waiting for the Messiah. If Muhammad were some prophet "Ahmad" that Christ predicted, we would still be waiting and say so, because we cannot accept Muhammad's claims.



« Last Edit: July 11, 2010, 10:16:46 AM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,605



« Reply #23 on: July 11, 2010, 10:18:19 AM »

but struggle against physical enemy is necessary nevertheless.

I'm assuming you meant physical struggle against an enemy?

Is it correct that the expansion and spreading of Islam is deemed appropriate through physical means, other than peaceful? For ex. the lesser jihad?

Yes, that's what I meant.

Islam was spread both martially and peacefully. Both are accepted. But remember that we're talking about fighting armies, not individuals. Armies and states are forced to submit to the Islamic governance, but individuals are not forced to embrace Islam, especially those who adhere to organized religions, mainly Judaism and Christianity.


So an Islamic nation could be justified in attacking another nation, in order to convert that nation to Islam?

Not to convert it, but to eliminate its threat as a military force, which also makes it more likely for the population to convert, if they wish to of course.
What if a non-Islamic nation that had a large military force, existed next door to an Islamic nation, but there was peace between the two nations. Would the Islamic nation be required to build up its military and eventually eliminate the potential threat of the other nation, even though the two nations are currently at peace?
Yes, because Islam is the religion of peace, or rather pacification. LOL.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Mekki
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Muslim
Jurisdiction: Maliki
Posts: 174



« Reply #24 on: July 11, 2010, 10:20:04 AM »

Besides the plain language issue, Eadith historical evidence are clear that organized religious minorities are denied the freedom of worship.

So if Islam doesn't give the freedom of worship, and Muslims historically didn't give this freedom, then it's safe for me to assume that you don't exist, since you are an Arab Christian, neither do Christians exist in the Balkans (including Greece).

Quote
'Mar also persecuted the Arab Christians and when Arab Christian tribes went into exile into the Roman Empire, he demanded their extradition.

Define what you mean by prosecution, because, judging from the "also", it seems that you recognize the fact that Sardinia Mar (RA) granted the Christians the freedom of Worship, even though you denied that in the first paragraph. And concerning the Romans, didn't the Orthodox used to say "Better the Sultan's turban than the pope's cap?

Quote
Because as mufti and president  Izzetbegovich, the first duty of a Muslim in a non-Muslim state is to work for the implimentation of shari'ah.

That's because of what?

Anyway, Muslims ought to implement Sharia in Islamic countries before trying to do so in other places.
Logged

إن تنصرو الله ينصركم
An ye support God, He will support thee.
Mekki
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Muslim
Jurisdiction: Maliki
Posts: 174



« Reply #25 on: July 11, 2010, 10:25:42 AM »

LOL. And how, pray tell, did we survive the first three centuries when it was a capital offense the world over to confess Christ? And for Orthodoxy, that it spread in Alaska AFTER the Czar's army left and it rebounded during communism.  In communist China, Christianity has continued to grow despite the repression of it.  Then there is that issue of the Muslims in Africa and Indonesia coming to the church, all without benefit of an army.

If it wasn't for Christians' non pacifism, Aeven if Christianity could've survived until the arrival of Islam, all of the Christian countries would've been Islamized, and as a result Christianity wouldn't have reached America, sub-saharian Africa or Eastern Asia.
Logged

إن تنصرو الله ينصركم
An ye support God, He will support thee.
Mekki
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Muslim
Jurisdiction: Maliki
Posts: 174



« Reply #26 on: July 11, 2010, 10:27:50 AM »

We don't. Just against false dogma.

Take for instance, the claim that Muhammad makes that he is the prophet the Christians are waiting for.  The problem is, we are not waiting for any "Prophet."  Nor have we for two thousand years.  We know that Jesus Christ is the Messiah.  The Jews deny that, but you see in their services, their Talmud, their rituals, prayers, creeds etc. that they are still waiting for the Messiah. If Muhammad were some prophet "Ahmad" that Christ predicted, we would still be waiting and say so, because we cannot accept Muhammad's claims.

Does that have anything to do with discussion, because I fail to see any. Perhaps you can clear things up.
Logged

إن تنصرو الله ينصركم
An ye support God, He will support thee.
Mekki
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Muslim
Jurisdiction: Maliki
Posts: 174



« Reply #27 on: July 11, 2010, 10:30:39 AM »

Yes, because Islam is the religion of peace, or rather pacification. LOL.

No one is claiming that Islam is the religion of peace, or a pacifist religion or anything to that effect, at least no one whose opinion is considerable. Islam is the religion of justice, and justice requires violence (i.e. war and corporal punishment) in certain times as it requires peace in other times.
Logged

إن تنصرو الله ينصركم
An ye support God, He will support thee.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,605



« Reply #28 on: July 11, 2010, 10:41:28 AM »

Yes, because Islam is the religion of peace, or rather pacification. LOL.

No one is claiming that Islam is the religion of peace, or a pacifist religion or anything to that effect, at least no one whose opinion is considerable. Islam is the religion of justice, and justice requires violence (i.e. war and corporal punishment) in certain times as it requires peace in other times.
And if someone disagrees with your sense of "justice," apply violence liberally.

Is lying justice?  Yet the Quran accuses the Jews of saying that Ezra is the Son of God, the way Christians (it calls us "Nazarenes") Jesus is the Son of God.  We all do that, always have for the last 2 millenia, always the Lord willing, always will.  The Jews never have said the same about Ezra, and are puzzzled when you ask them about this.  So much about "that book in which there is no doubt" (The Cow).
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,605



« Reply #29 on: July 11, 2010, 10:42:24 AM »

We don't. Just against false dogma.

Take for instance, the claim that Muhammad makes that he is the prophet the Christians are waiting for.  The problem is, we are not waiting for any "Prophet."  Nor have we for two thousand years.  We know that Jesus Christ is the Messiah.  The Jews deny that, but you see in their services, their Talmud, their rituals, prayers, creeds etc. that they are still waiting for the Messiah. If Muhammad were some prophet "Ahmad" that Christ predicted, we would still be waiting and say so, because we cannot accept Muhammad's claims.

Does that have anything to do with discussion, because I fail to see any. Perhaps you can clear things up.
Brining Truth and imposing falsehood are not the same thing.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,605



« Reply #30 on: July 11, 2010, 10:50:20 AM »

LOL. And how, pray tell, did we survive the first three centuries when it was a capital offense the world over to confess Christ? And for Orthodoxy, that it spread in Alaska AFTER the Czar's army left and it rebounded during communism.  In communist China, Christianity has continued to grow despite the repression of it.  Then there is that issue of the Muslims in Africa and Indonesia coming to the church, all without benefit of an army.

If it wasn't for Christians' non pacifism, Aeven if Christianity could've survived until the arrival of Islam, all of the Christian countries would've been Islamized, and as a result Christianity wouldn't have reached America, sub-saharian Africa or Eastern Asia.
LOL. Wrong on all counts. The Church had spread to India, where it had no army, and spread to Ethiopia  without an army (where it later got an army) and among the Rus', where it also had no army at that point.  The Prince of All Rus, St. Vladimir, accepted baptism from the patriarch of Constantinople AFTER defeating the Emperor.  The Chinese Orthodox Church started when the Chinese Emeperor defeated the Czar's soliders and brought them back to Peking.  Orthodoxy came to America by a Virginian converted by translating out services, and the Church came from trade, and spread AFTER the Czar recalled his army and the US army set up a military regime which tried to stamp out the Orthodox Church there.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Mekki
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Muslim
Jurisdiction: Maliki
Posts: 174



« Reply #31 on: July 11, 2010, 10:52:18 AM »

And if someone disagrees with your sense of "justice," apply violence liberally.

Yes, because if were to apply a law on someone only if he agrees with it, then we will be living in the very definition of anarchy.

Quote
Is lying justice?  Yet the Quran accuses the Jews of saying that Ezra is the Son of God, the way Christians (it calls us "Nazarenes") Jesus is the Son of God.  We all do that, always have for the last 2 millenia, always the Lord willing, always will.  The Jews never have said the same about Ezra, and are puzzzled when you ask them about this.  So much about "that book in which there is no doubt" (The Cow).

And you say Christ is Jesus, yet Jews say nope. You also say that the trinity is Biblical and they say nope again and they call you heatens and they wouldn't eat from a plate you ate from.
Logged

إن تنصرو الله ينصركم
An ye support God, He will support thee.
Mekki
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Muslim
Jurisdiction: Maliki
Posts: 174



« Reply #32 on: July 11, 2010, 10:58:28 AM »

LOL. Wrong on all counts. The Church had spread to India, where it had no army, and spread to Ethiopia  without an army (where it later got an army) and among the Rus', where it also had no army at that point.  The Prince of All Rus, St. Vladimir, accepted baptism from the patriarch of Constantinople AFTER defeating the Emperor.  The Chinese Orthodox Church started when the Chinese Emeperor defeated the Czar's soliders and brought them back to Peking.  Orthodoxy came to America by a Virginian converted by translating out services, and the Church came from trade, and spread AFTER the Czar recalled his army and the US army set up a military regime which tried to stamp out the Orthodox Church there.

That's far, far from what I was talking about. The fact that Christianity was spread to certain places without forces wouldn't have stopped it from being reduced to the the religious of few communities scattered around the near East and Europe by the hand of Muslim.

Likewise, the fact that the early Meccan and Medinian Muslims converted with no martial intervention whatsoever, as it was the case with the Turkic people (who would be came later the source of our pride and the crown over our heads), Indonesians, a lot of Africans and many other peoples, this fact wouldn't be a good argument for us if we were to claim that Islam would've survived has it held a pacifist stance.
Logged

إن تنصرو الله ينصركم
An ye support God, He will support thee.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,605



« Reply #33 on: July 11, 2010, 11:10:07 AM »

Besides the plain language issue, Eadith historical evidence are clear that organized religious minorities are denied the freedom of worship.

So if Islam doesn't give the freedom of worship, and Muslims historically didn't give this freedom, then it's safe for me to assume that you don't exist, since you are an Arab Christian, neither do Christians exist in the Balkans (including Greece).

I have a Cross tattooed on my wrist (a common Coptic custom, but I'm not Copt but Syro-Egyptian) but I've bragged about someone's else's who is Copt.

Wow! Very impressive & Beautiful pictures. Is it common for Coptic Christians in the U.S to have tatoos?

Not so much, but some do.  In the 80s and 90s there was a revival of sorts of it in Egypt.

The Copts had their hands branded with a cross when they paid their jizya poll tax when the Muslims came and set up their governance of Egypt, they extracted the jizya, and used to brand your hand to show you paid (it also marked you for lynching). When the muslims stopped doing it, the Copts started, of their own volition, tattoo themselves on the hand with a cross, usually at a pilgrimage (I got mine at Zaytoun, after going to Jerusalem).  I remember once buying a kufiyah.  While I was looking at it, the shop owner saw my tattoo and asked me if I was Christian.  When I replied yes, it told me "half price."


A Copt showing me his Cross pointed out "the muslims here, some are from Saudi Arabia. They are a foreigner here. Some their grandfather was Copt but converted. They belong here, but they are weak. My grandfather and his grandfather [pointing to the Cross on his own hand] were strong. This is the proof that they were strong. Ever since the time of the Apostles, every generation until today, my ancestors were willing to die for this. I am willing to die for this."  Not an empty fear in Egypt nowadays.

+

Ἐν τούτῳ νίκα
In hoc signo vinces
IN THIS SIGN CONQUER

We exist because the Lord had promised us "the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against My Church."

Quote
Quote
'Mar also persecuted the Arab Christians and when Arab Christian tribes went into exile into the Roman Empire, he demanded their extradition.

Define what you mean by prosecution, because, judging from the "also", it seems that you recognize the fact that Sardinia Mar (RA) granted the Christians the freedom of Worship, even though you denied that in the first paragraph. And concerning the Romans, didn't the Orthodox used to say "Better the Sultan's turban than the pope's cap?

The phrase "a pox on both your houses" "the lesser of two evils" or better "the evil of two lessers" fits there.

Btw, it's 'Umar or Omar.  Otherwise, people won't know who you are talking about.

Yes, 'Umar did practice divide and conquer, giving all competing Christian sects and Jewish sects rights to squabble.  He didn't give that same freedom to Muslim sects, though.

Quote
Quote
Because as mufti and president  Izzetbegovich, the first duty of a Muslim in a non-Muslim state is to work for the implimentation of shari'ah.

That's because of what?

Thirst for control.

Quote
Anyway, Muslims ought to implement Sharia in Islamic countries before trying to do so in other places.

The Islamists say "Islam is the solution." Our Lord says "Physician, heal thyself."  A Muslim atheist I knew (yes, they exist) said "what is true Islam?  What Muslims do not do, because when you point out what is going on in Muslim countries, Muslim governments, Muslim movements....they say "that's not true Islam."
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Mekki
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Muslim
Jurisdiction: Maliki
Posts: 174



« Reply #34 on: July 11, 2010, 11:23:43 AM »

We exist because the Lord had promised us "the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against My Church."
So you do exist! But that goes against your claim that Christians don't have the freedom to worship under Islamic rule.

Quote
The phrase "a pox on both your houses" "the lesser of two evils" or better "the evil of two lessers" fits there.

Btw, it's 'Umar or Omar.  Otherwise, people won't know who you are talking about.

Yes, 'Umar did practice divide and conquer, giving all competing Christian sects and Jewish sects rights to squabble.  He didn't give that same freedom to Muslim sects, though.

So the fragmentation of the Chruch into thousands of pieces is because of the Prophet's companion! I find that rather hard to believe.

Quote
The Islamists say "Islam is the solution." Our Lord says "Physician, heal thyself."  A Muslim atheist I knew (yes, they exist) said "what is true Islam?  What Muslims do not do, because when you point out what is going on in Muslim countries, Muslim governments, Muslim movements....they say "that's not true Islam."

You do realize that secularism is a herecy, don't you? You can't just claim a doctrine to be Christian just because it's in and it's popular. Take an example from the few of us; No matter how democracy will remain predominant in the world, we will always reject it as an anti-Islamic, anti-Traditional and throughoutly absurd governing system.

Anyway, Islam is the Quran, the Hadith and the consensus of the Nations' scholars, all of which were abondoned by Muslims. The glrorious Ottoman state, may the Almighty resurrect us beside its founders and sustainers, is an Islamic state as it was governed by the sources of juridiction that I've named above,, any modern 'Muslim' government is not. I don't think this is a very hard concept to grasp.

« Last Edit: July 11, 2010, 11:26:48 AM by Mekki » Logged

إن تنصرو الله ينصركم
An ye support God, He will support thee.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,605



« Reply #35 on: July 11, 2010, 11:34:43 AM »

LOL. Wrong on all counts. The Church had spread to India, where it had no army, and spread to Ethiopia  without an army (where it later got an army) and among the Rus', where it also had no army at that point.  The Prince of All Rus, St. Vladimir, accepted baptism from the patriarch of Constantinople AFTER defeating the Emperor.  The Chinese Orthodox Church started when the Chinese Emeperor defeated the Czar's soliders and brought them back to Peking.  Orthodoxy came to America by a Virginian converted by translating out services, and the Church came from trade, and spread AFTER the Czar recalled his army and the US army set up a military regime which tried to stamp out the Orthodox Church there.

That's far, far from what I was talking about. The fact that Christianity was spread to certain places without forces wouldn't have stopped it from being reduced to the the religious of few communities scattered around the near East and Europe by the hand of Muslim.

You didn't read correctly: I cited examples that it did just that. I'll add, the Visigoth Kings adopted the Orthodox Catholic Faith of their subjects in Spain.

During the first fitnah, many civil wars, even your own Muslim armies switched and sought baptism, to the tens of thousands. It wasn't the last time that happened.

Quote
Likewise, the fact that the early Meccan and Medinian Muslims converted with no martial intervention whatsoever,

You skip over the elimination of the opposition in Medina and then the conquest of Mecca.  Even if the entire career of your prophet were peaceful, the Church endured over 10 times that length of time under a capital sentence imposed by the world. The Church not only survived, but prospered and emerged victorious.

Quote
as it was the case with the Turkic people (who would be came later the source of our pride and the crown over our heads),

Turks were imported by the caliphs as slaves.  Hardly a free choice. One such, Mahmud of Gaznah, imposed Islam on his ethnic cohorts, including the Seljuks (who may have been Jewish prior).

Quote
Indonesians,

A misfortunate side affect of the Dutch policy of having local Muslim chiefs act as protectorates for the colony as a whole, and giving them a free hand as long as the taxes were paid to the Dutch. Btw, when I was in Egypt in the 90's, they were all worried about a milliion Indonesian Muslims converting to Christianity.

Quote
a lot of Africans


Many who converted so that, according to shari'ah, they couldn't be enslaved.  But even here, the sword (e.g. Murabitah) was the main means of "persuasion."

Quote
and many other peoples, this fact wouldn't be a good argument for us if we were to claim that Islam would've survived has it held a pacifist stance.

Give it a shot to make that argument.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Mekki
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Muslim
Jurisdiction: Maliki
Posts: 174



« Reply #36 on: July 11, 2010, 11:51:13 AM »

LOL. Wrong on all counts. The Church had spread to India, where it had no army, and spread to Ethiopia  without an army (where it later got an army) and among the Rus', where it also had no army at that point.  The Prince of All Rus, St. Vladimir, accepted baptism from the patriarch of Constantinople AFTER defeating the Emperor.  The Chinese Orthodox Church started when the Chinese Emeperor defeated the Czar's soliders and brought them back to Peking.  Orthodoxy came to America by a Virginian converted by translating out services, and the Church came from trade, and spread AFTER the Czar recalled his army and the US army set up a military regime which tried to stamp out the Orthodox Church there.

That's far, far from what I was talking about. The fact that Christianity was spread to certain places without forces wouldn't have stopped it from being reduced to the the religious of few communities scattered around the near East and Europe by the hand of Muslim.

You didn't read correctly: I cited examples that it did just that. I'll add, the Visigoth Kings adopted the Orthodox Catholic Faith of their subjects in Spain.

During the first fitnah, many civil wars, even your own Muslim armies switched and sought baptism, to the tens of thousands. It wasn't the last time that happened.

Quote
Likewise, the fact that the early Meccan and Medinian Muslims converted with no martial intervention whatsoever,

You skip over the elimination of the opposition in Medina and then the conquest of Mecca.  Even if the entire career of your prophet were peaceful, the Church endured over 10 times that length of time under a capital sentence imposed by the world. The Church not only survived, but prospered and emerged victorious.

Quote
as it was the case with the Turkic people (who would be came later the source of our pride and the crown over our heads),

Turks were imported by the caliphs as slaves.  Hardly a free choice. One such, Mahmud of Gaznah, imposed Islam on his ethnic cohorts, including the Seljuks (who may have been Jewish prior).

Quote
Indonesians,

A misfortunate side affect of the Dutch policy of having local Muslim chiefs act as protectorates for the colony as a whole, and giving them a free hand as long as the taxes were paid to the Dutch. Btw, when I was in Egypt in the 90's, they were all worried about a milliion Indonesian Muslims converting to Christianity.

Quote
a lot of Africans


Many who converted so that, according to shari'ah, they couldn't be enslaved.  But even here, the sword (e.g. Murabitah) was the main means of "persuasion."

Well, let's just say that everyone who ahs ever embraced God's Religion did so through force, inluding  Abu Bakr, Omar, Othman and Ali if that pleases you. That far, far, far from my point and for some reason you keep talkinga abount conversion from Islamic to Christianism even though absolutely nothing calls for it. My point is that Christians never hesitated to use iron when they could, and if they didn't Christianity would've been reduced to scattered pockets here and there like it is in the near eats (manly the Levant and Egypt).

Quote
Quote
and many other peoples, this fact wouldn't be a good argument for us if we were to claim that Islam would've survived has it held a pacifist stance.

Give it a shot to make that argument.


Oh believe me, I would've LOVED it if you gave it a shot, alas, you didn't. Among many other thing's we wouldn't have to live in the modern filth that was puked by the "Enlightenment" which toke place in the nominally Christian Europe.

Logged

إن تنصرو الله ينصركم
An ye support God, He will support thee.
Theophilos78
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Yahwist-Apostolic Christian
Jurisdiction: Adonai Yeshua
Posts: 1,999



« Reply #37 on: July 11, 2010, 03:20:24 PM »


Well, I sense that you were criticizing the fact that We offer nonbelievers the dhimmi status because we stick to the Law and we imitate the Prophet

I criticize your straw man arguments.

You offer that status to the People of the Book, not to other non-Muslims. You should read the Qur'an more carefully.  laugh

Of course you do, at least you try to, that's why I said you can't have an objective objection on the above.

How can I have an objection to a so-called dogma that my faith never formulates or endorses? This is ridiculous and similar to saying that Muslims object to the concept of dogma because they deny the Nicene Creed.


I don't have any objection against the concept of dogma whatsoever, but I like I said, I sense that you do have such thing.

And by the way, the example you gave is not what I meant by dogma.

Why don't you enlighten me by giving a true example of dogma?

Warfare is an intergal part of politics, one can not speak of it without involving himself in political rhetoric.

Warfare is not an integral part of religion since politics and religion may stand apart.

Because one might object on the word "religion", for example the West, and most of the modern world, is by large irreligious, but the same thing applies.

For example, One can not claim that democracy ought to remain in France forever because it reigned there for more than a couple of centuries. Democracy is not a religious concept.

Invading a land because of religious differences is not the same as invading a land because of political interests.
Logged

Longing for Heavenly Jerusalem
Theophilos78
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Yahwist-Apostolic Christian
Jurisdiction: Adonai Yeshua
Posts: 1,999



« Reply #38 on: July 11, 2010, 03:23:37 PM »


Oh believe me, I would've LOVED it if you gave it a shot, alas, you didn't. Among many other thing's we wouldn't have to live in the modern filth that was puked by the "Enlightenment" which toke place in the nominally Christian Europe.

Days are coming when people will miss that "modern filth puked by the Enlightenment" because of Islam, puked by Satan into the ear of your pagan prophet.
Logged

Longing for Heavenly Jerusalem
Mekki
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Muslim
Jurisdiction: Maliki
Posts: 174



« Reply #39 on: July 11, 2010, 03:43:47 PM »

I criticize your straw man arguments.

Which straw man?

Quote
You offer that status to the People of the Book, not to other non-Muslims. You should read the Qur'an more carefully.  laugh

The dhimmi status was also offered to other groups, I don't think you are more able to interpret the Quran and Sunna better than the scholars who saw that to be legal.

Quote
How can I have an objection to a so-called dogma that my faith never formulates or endorses? This is ridiculous and similar to saying that Muslims object to the concept of dogma because they deny the Nicene Creed.

I'm talking about the concept of dogma in general, not a specific dogma.

Quote
Why don't you enlighten me by giving a true example of dogma?

A dogma is simply an idea that a group of people ought to accept regardless of their own opinion concerning it. Like wearing a helmet for motorists.

Quote
Warfare is not an integral part of religion since politics and religion may stand apart.

Nothing can be separated from one's religion. If  the Law tells you that you can't work in sundays but you helped making a law that, somehow, forces people to work that day, it means that you are convinced that the working in sunday is better than not, which means that you have instated yourself in a higher stature than the instater of the Law.

Likewise, if you believe that God says that the acceptable stance on warfare is pacifism, but you supported the formation or sustenance of an army in any how, this means that you have proclaimed yourself as a better law maker than God.

Quote
Invading a land because of religious differences is not the same as invading a land because of political interests.

How about invading land for intellectual differences? This covers all cases.

Days are coming when people will miss that "modern filth puked by the Enlightenment" because of Islam, puked by Satan into the ear of your pagan prophet.

Is this even an Orthodox thing to say?

May the almighty guide us all.
Logged

إن تنصرو الله ينصركم
An ye support God, He will support thee.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,605



« Reply #40 on: July 11, 2010, 03:53:37 PM »

We exist because the Lord had promised us "the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against My Church."
So you do exist!

No thanks to Islam: my personal existence has been threatened by Muslims many a time.

Quote
But that goes against your claim that Christians don't have the freedom to worship under Islamic rule.

No, just goes to prove what the Lord said "In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world" (John 16:33)
Quote
Quote
The phrase "a pox on both your houses" "the lesser of two evils" or better "the evil of two lessers" fits there.

Btw, it's 'Umar or Omar.  Otherwise, people won't know who you are talking about.

Yes, 'Umar did practice divide and conquer, giving all competing Christian sects and Jewish sects rights to squabble.  He didn't give that same freedom to Muslim sects, though.

So the fragmentation of the Chruch into thousands of pieces is because of the Prophet's companion! I find that rather hard to believe.

The Church is One.

The fragments which flaked off didn't reach a thousand until the appearance of the Protestants, the ones who denies the Church's existence over a thousand years even after your appearance.

So no, that would be given Umar credit than what is due.  He did help to fragment the Muslims though.

Quote
Quote
The Islamists say "Islam is the solution." Our Lord says "Physician, heal thyself."  A Muslim atheist I knew (yes, they exist) said "what is true Islam?  What Muslims do not do, because when you point out what is going on in Muslim countries, Muslim governments, Muslim movements....they say "that's not true Islam."

You do realize that secularism is a herecy, don't you?

Not in Islam, which for the most part is imbued with the love of the world.

Quote
You can't just claim a doctrine to be Christian just because it's in and it's popular. Take an example from the few of us; No matter how democracy will remain predominant in the world, we will always reject it as an anti-Islamic, anti-Traditional and throughoutly absurd governing system.

That's nice.

Quote
Anyway, Islam is the Quran, the Hadith and the consensus of the Nations' scholars, all of which were abondoned by Muslims. The glrorious Ottoman state, may the Almighty resurrect us beside its founders and sustainers, is an Islamic state as it was governed by the sources of juridiction that I've named above,, any modern 'Muslim' government is not. I don't think this is a very hard concept to grasp.

Your prophet's kingdom is very much of the world: if it has to wait to next for fulfillment, it's rather useless.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,605



« Reply #41 on: July 11, 2010, 04:03:55 PM »

LOL. Wrong on all counts. The Church had spread to India, where it had no army, and spread to Ethiopia  without an army (where it later got an army) and among the Rus', where it also had no army at that point.  The Prince of All Rus, St. Vladimir, accepted baptism from the patriarch of Constantinople AFTER defeating the Emperor.  The Chinese Orthodox Church started when the Chinese Emeperor defeated the Czar's soliders and brought them back to Peking.  Orthodoxy came to America by a Virginian converted by translating out services, and the Church came from trade, and spread AFTER the Czar recalled his army and the US army set up a military regime which tried to stamp out the Orthodox Church there.

That's far, far from what I was talking about. The fact that Christianity was spread to certain places without forces wouldn't have stopped it from being reduced to the the religious of few communities scattered around the near East and Europe by the hand of Muslim.

You didn't read correctly: I cited examples that it did just that. I'll add, the Visigoth Kings adopted the Orthodox Catholic Faith of their subjects in Spain.

During the first fitnah, many civil wars, even your own Muslim armies switched and sought baptism, to the tens of thousands. It wasn't the last time that happened.

Quote
Likewise, the fact that the early Meccan and Medinian Muslims converted with no martial intervention whatsoever,

You skip over the elimination of the opposition in Medina and then the conquest of Mecca.  Even if the entire career of your prophet were peaceful, the Church endured over 10 times that length of time under a capital sentence imposed by the world. The Church not only survived, but prospered and emerged victorious.

Quote
as it was the case with the Turkic people (who would be came later the source of our pride and the crown over our heads),

Turks were imported by the caliphs as slaves.  Hardly a free choice. One such, Mahmud of Gaznah, imposed Islam on his ethnic cohorts, including the Seljuks (who may have been Jewish prior).

Quote
Indonesians,

A misfortunate side affect of the Dutch policy of having local Muslim chiefs act as protectorates for the colony as a whole, and giving them a free hand as long as the taxes were paid to the Dutch. Btw, when I was in Egypt in the 90's, they were all worried about a milliion Indonesian Muslims converting to Christianity.

Quote
a lot of Africans


Many who converted so that, according to shari'ah, they couldn't be enslaved.  But even here, the sword (e.g. Murabitah) was the main means of "persuasion."

Well, let's just say that everyone who ahs ever embraced God's Religion did so through force, inluding  Abu Bakr, Omar, Othman and Ali if that pleases you. That far, far, far from my point and for some reason you keep talkinga abount conversion from Islamic to Christianism even though absolutely nothing calls for it.

You called for it:
Hadith number 8 definitely requires a thread on its own. Neither does giving three entirely different interpretations of the hadith in any way explain it nor can it in any way be related to Orthodoxy.

is there not a verse in the Quran (possibly by Muhammed, but I may be mistaken) where it is quoted saying something along the lines of "now that we have returned from a lesser Jihad [battle], it is time to focus on the greater Jihad [spiritual]"? No one denies that jihad is of a personal struggle between one who submits to God and God himself, but from what I understand, there is also a physical, destructive element to jihad also.

No matter how you'd interpret the hadith, you can't suggest that it requires individuals to be fought until they convert as the Quranic verses, the hadiths and historical evidence are clear that organized religious minorities are to be given the freedom of worship, as long as their any effective temporal power is taken away from them and they submit to the Islamic state (which what the Hadith probably means).

Quote
My point is that Christians never hesitated to use iron when they could,

You haven't made this baseless assertion before, but if you say that is your point.

Quote
and if they didn't Christianity would've been reduced to scattered pockets here and there like it is in the near eats (manly the Levant and Egypt).

Spread here without "iron"


Spread here without "iron"


Spread here without "iron"


Spread by iron:


Quote
Quote
and many other peoples, this fact wouldn't be a good argument for us if we were to claim that Islam would've survived has it held a pacifist stance.

Give it a shot to make that argument.


Oh believe me, I would've LOVED it if you gave it a shot, alas, you didn't. Among many other thing's we wouldn't have to live in the modern filth that was puked by the "Enlightenment" which toke place in the nominally Christian Europe.
[/quote]
No one can make the argument that Islam would have survived without the sword.
« Last Edit: July 11, 2010, 04:06:55 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Theophilos78
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Yahwist-Apostolic Christian
Jurisdiction: Adonai Yeshua
Posts: 1,999



« Reply #42 on: July 11, 2010, 04:13:22 PM »



The dhimmi status was also offered to other groups, I don't think you are more able to interpret the Quran and Sunna better than the scholars who saw that to be legal.

I am not interested in how some Muslim leaders interpret the Qur'an. The verse regulating dhimmi targets the People of the Book rather than all non-Muslims.

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)

If Muslims offered that status to all non-Muslims, they believed that even idolaters and atheists belonged to the group of the People of the Book, which is quite ridiculous.


I'm talking about the concept of dogma in general, not a specific dogma.

You cannot impose your Islamic dogma on people who are not Muslims. This goes against your "There is no compulsion in Islam" rule.

A dogma is simply an idea that a group of people ought to accept regardless of their own opinion concerning it. Like wearing a helmet for motorists.

This is not a dogma, but a rule. Rules are subject to change whereas dogmas never change.

Nothing can be separated from one's religion. If  the Law tells you that you can't work in sundays but you helped making a law that, somehow, forces people to work that day, it means that you are convinced that the working in sunday is better than not, which means that you have instated yourself in a higher stature than the instater of the Law.

Which Law are you talking about? The Law of state or the Law of God? According to Christ, whom I follow, these were separate. How can you say nothing can be separated from religion when Christ made that separation?

Likewise, if you believe that God says that the acceptable stance on warfare is pacifism, but you supported the formation or sustenance of an army in any how, this means that you have proclaimed yourself as a better law maker than God.

Give to Ceasar what belongs to Ceasar, and to God what belongs to God. The earthly kingdoms form armies to survive. You cannot say the same about God.

How about invading land for intellectual differences? This covers all cases.

Intellectual differences? What does this mean? Do academicians and scientists join forces to invade the land of the ignorants?

Is this even an Orthodox thing to say?

May the almighty guide us all.


In terms of faith, Islam is not different than Enlightenment as both want to destroy Christianity by replacing it with another philosophy.

In terms of freedom, Enlightenment is much better than Islam as it does not turn Christians into "legal slaves" in their own land.
« Last Edit: July 11, 2010, 04:14:05 PM by Theophilos78 » Logged

Longing for Heavenly Jerusalem
Mekki
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Muslim
Jurisdiction: Maliki
Posts: 174



« Reply #43 on: July 11, 2010, 04:57:32 PM »


Not in Islam, which for the most part is imbued with the love of the world.

Indeed, gabstaining from fornication for life, going out to the mosque five times a day (one of which at dawn), sometimes the mosque being far away, fasting a month and jeopardizing one's life for the sake of the Almighty, all this among other things can only be cause by the love of the physical world.

You urgently need to read some Islamic literature, I would advise you to read Imam Ghazali's Ihya, especially the two books about the sicknesses of the heart and their treatment, you will find it in any library in Egypt or Syria.

May God forgive you.

Quote
Spread here without "iron"

You still don't get my point, even if we were to assume that every Christian in the world converted to Christianity through his own individual conviction without any pressure whatsoever, and  that every one who has ever converted to Islam did it through physical force, that wouldn't change the fact that if Christians were truly pacifist they would have been swallowed by Islamic states, and gradually converted to God's Religion like it happened in the Levant and Egypt.

Logged

إن تنصرو الله ينصركم
An ye support God, He will support thee.
Mekki
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Muslim
Jurisdiction: Maliki
Posts: 174



« Reply #44 on: July 11, 2010, 05:36:25 PM »

I think we've talked enough about the subject of Christianity and warfare, especially since the same discussion is open in two thread. I would like it very much if people read the suggested collection and bring up other subjects.
Logged

إن تنصرو الله ينصركم
An ye support God, He will support thee.
Tags: Islam ecumenism 
Pages: 1 2 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.19 seconds with 73 queries.