Benedict Xvi Visits Mosque

[Aloysius]

One must understand the difference of Mohammad's outlook pre-medina and post-medina. Islam was not spread by defensive wars, but by offensive ones. Mohammad was a military general who led an army. North Africa was not conquered by defence. Spain was not conquered by defence. The only historical 'jihad'-wars that could be construed somewhat defensive would be the crusades... which were themselves provoked by the Muslim persecution of Christians in the Holy Land and I would therefore place the Christians more on the defensive side on that war (though both sides saw a defensive aspect to some extent)

Basically, it is the way Islam has historically worked. It will exist in a pre-medina mindset for long periods of time, and then it will conquer. all the moderate muslims living in non-muslim western countries are basically in the pre-medina stage. pre-medina, Mohammad says stuff like "there in no coersion in religion" and "do not initiate wars". post-medina, when he gains the power to do all these things, he does them and says to do them.

[musturde]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1135915' date='Dec 5 2006, 07:58 PM']
One must understand the difference of Mohammad's outlook pre-medina and post-medina. Islam was not spread by defensive wars, but by offensive ones. Mohammad was a military general who led an army. North Africa was not conquered by defence. Spain was not conquered by defence. The only historical 'jihad'-wars that could be construed somewhat defensive would be the crusades... which were themselves provoked by the Muslim persecution of Christians in the Holy Land and I would therefore place the Christians more on the defensive side on that war (though both sides saw a defensive aspect to some extent)

Basically, it is the way Islam has historically worked. It will exist in a pre-medina mindset for long periods of time, and then it will conquer. all the moderate muslims living in non-muslim western countries are basically in the pre-medina stage. pre-medina, Mohammad says stuff like "there in no coersion in religion" and "do not initiate wars". post-medina, when he gains the power to do all these things, he does them and says to do them.
[/quote]
History or not, the Koran states otherwise. A true Muslim follows the teachings of the Koran the Hadith. Every religion has it's wrongs historically. Also, the people you speak of many times have political objectives that they support with Islam. In other words they use Islam as a way to justify their actions. This happens a lot.

Edited December 6, 2006 by musturde

[Aloysius]

Mohammad himself led an army to conquer. Mohammad was the author of the Koran. That alone proves that the Koran did not intend to forbid all forms of offensive wars.

Yes, there are many moderate muslims with beleifs about war more in line with our beliefs about war... probably even more in line with us than talmudic jews in many cases. Where I fault Islam for violence is in its historical inception and throughout its history; Islamdom instigated far more violence and conquering than Christiandom ever did (until modernity, when Christendom was secularized and disassembled and cannot be construed as being joined to Christianity in any way) right from its founder who led a conquering army.

Islam can say it is about peace all it wants... the peace it offers, however, is peace in submission to Islam. anything less of submission to Islam can justify, at least as Mohammad himself and the majority of Islamic history saw it, war to bring about that submission. I applaud the modern moderate muslims for being more sensible than their history; but you will not find non-westernized muslims who would condemn or apologize for their actions in history. They only hold the position, basically, that there should be no offensive wars by muslims nowadays. It looks, for all intensive purposes, that moderate muslims despite all their rhetoric have merely reverted into a pre-medina phase in their history. it happens all the time: when Islamdom is not strong enough to conquer, it always holds to flag of peace. May this pre-medina phase never progress into a post-medina phase, we can only hope.

But you can't be naive to muslim history; what westerners interpret as "moderate" islam has always showed up in pre-medina phases during muslim history. unless moderate islam condemns its errors of the past/apologizes for them, this latest trend in Islam can only be seen as a pre-medina phase.

[musturde]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1135995' date='Dec 5 2006, 09:51 PM']
Mohammad himself led an army to conquer. Mohammad was the author of the Koran. That alone proves that the Koran did not intend to forbid all forms of offensive wars.[/quote]
Technically Muhammad's wars can be argued to have been defensive. He only fought when he was threatened. Just because Muslims have done such things doesn't mean that Islam teaches such things. A lot of stuff in history was done for political reasons. It's the same today. Many things are easily mixed up with religion, when in reality, if one studies up a little, it is obvious that there is much more than just religion in play.

Edited December 6, 2006 by musturde

[Aloysius]

I really don't intend to say Islam directly teaches to incite violence by its holy book. I am not a muslim nor a muslim scholar; all I can say is that I observe those who are muslims and muslim scholars have differences of opinion as to what Islam teaches in this regard. I am not qualified one way or the other to say that some muslims are interpretting the Quran wrong. But I try to look at it within its historical context, and I view the pre-medina post-medina mentality of Mohammad and his wars. If Mohammad's wars actually were justified as defensive, then so would the current muslim extremists be justified. There is a threat in the involvement of Western Nations in the Middle East which far outweighs any threat the Arab Middle East and North Africa ever posed to Mohammad.

But like I said, I am not an interpreter of the Quran: I cite that there are scholars on both sides of the interpretation of the Quran and then I cite the history of Islamdom to say that traditional islam seems to believe in/accept the idea of conquest and that it goes is stages, shifting from what is similar to Mohammad's pre-medina mindset to what is similar to his post-medina mindset in its expansion.

Moderate muslims will only convince me of a lasting view of Islam being peaceful if they offer a 'mea culpa' for their past military conquests. As far as I understand it, no arab muslim would even dream of doing such a thing.

Anyway, like I said: I do not intend to say "the Quran teaches conquest" or "the Quran teaches against conquest"; I am merely surveying historical muslim beliefs and interpretations of the Quran and saying that is what Islam is. and because I see this moderate-islam as one of the phases they have gone into from time to time throughout history, I cannot accept the interpretation that Islam does not believe in conquest unless its conquests of the past are renounced by these moderate muslims.

[musturde]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1136158' date='Dec 6 2006, 12:02 AM']
I really don't intend to say Islam directly teaches to incite violence by its holy book. I am not a muslim nor a muslim scholar; all I can say is that I observe those who are muslims and muslim scholars have differences of opinion as to what Islam teaches in this regard. I am not qualified one way or the other to say that some muslims are interpretting the Quran wrong. But I try to look at it within its historical context, and I view the pre-medina post-medina mentality of Mohammad and his wars. If Mohammad's wars actually were justified as defensive, then so would the current muslim extremists be justified. There is a threat in the involvement of Western Nations in the Middle East which far outweighs any threat the Arab Middle East and North Africa ever posed to Mohammad.[/quote]
Did you read my previous post?

Muslims are allowed to fight under three conditions:
They are being oppressed and not allowed to practice their beliefs
efforts are being made to take Muslims of their property
An actual violent attack on Muslims is under way

[quote]
But like I said, I am not an interpreter of the Quran: I cite that there are scholars on both sides of the interpretation of the Quran and then I cite the history of Islamdom to say that traditional islam seems to believe in/accept the idea of conquest and that it goes is stages, shifting from what is similar to Mohammad's pre-medina mindset to what is similar to his post-medina mindset in its expansion.

Moderate muslims will only convince me of a lasting view of Islam being peaceful if they offer a 'mea culpa' for their past military conquests. As far as I understand it, no arab muslim would even dream of doing such a thing.[/quote]
Well, you could say they wouldn't need to. The difference with us apologizing for stuff and them is that many of their wars weren't headed by a head religious in charge, it was the governments of countries.

[quote]Anyway, like I said: I do not intend to say "the Quran teaches conquest" or "the Quran teaches against conquest"; I am merely surveying historical muslim beliefs and interpretations of the Quran and saying that is what Islam is. and because I see this moderate-islam as one of the phases they have gone into from time to time throughout history, I cannot accept the interpretation that Islam does not believe in conquest unless its conquests of the past are renounced by these moderate muslims.
[/quote]
Read above.

Edited December 6, 2006 by musturde

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='musturde' post='1136769' date='Dec 6 2006, 06:36 PM']Well, you could say they wouldn't need to. The difference with us apologizing for stuff and them is that many of their wars weren't headed by a head religious in charge, it was the governments of countries. [/quote]Who distinguishes between spiritual and temporal authority in an Islamic government? I don't think it's fair or appropriate to suggest a contrast here...at least a contrast favoring Islam.

Aside from fighting on the Italian peninsula between the Papal States and others, I don't think wars fought by Christians were led by the pope or other clerical leader. Most of the big European powers through history (whether monarchies or republican) acted on their own, with or without a papal nod.

[Aloysius]

I read your previous post. There are muslims and muslim scholars who disagree with your interpretation of those verses. I saw nothing in those verses that necessitates an anti-conquest mentality. I won't say Islam directly teaches a conquest mentality either: I will say that many muslims believe in a conquest mentality, and the non-conquest 'peace' mentality seems to only come up in islamic history during ages when muslim countries are not strong enough to go on the offensive.

I'm not saying they need some formal apology like the pope did. I'm saying that an individual arab muslim ought to admit that the victorious military conquests of the past were wrong. Even most moderate muslims I don't believe go that far. No matter how peaceful they say they should be now, they still believe that the victorious of the past were great things. And to me that proves they're just in another one of their "pre-medina" phases.

[Socrates]

Incidentally, on Monday I attended an absolutely amazing speach by a priest from Nigeria (now at a parish in VA) who has degrees in political science, on the topic of the Islamic threat. He knows what he's talking about, and he said the threat is more serious than most in the West realize. Global Islam has become widely radicalized, and seeks to rule the world, though westerners still do not take them seriously, even after 9/11. And their tactics include infiltrating the west and appearing to be more western than the westerners, and lying about Islam, saying Islam means "peace" (rather than its true meaning - "Submission") and saying Jihad means "spiritual struggle" rather than "holy war." He gave the Arabic words for these and other strategies employed by Islam. I wish I had a tape or something of that talk - very powerful stuff!

Those who think Islam can peacefully co-exist with us on its own terms have been duped. Most currently Islamic countries were formally Christian, and the Muslims at their peak came close to taking over Europe in the 8th century.
Only a strong and resurgent Christianity will be able to stand up to Muslim agression and expansion.

[musturde]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1137026' date='Dec 6 2006, 09:25 PM']
I read your previous post. There are muslims and muslim scholars who disagree with your interpretation of those verses. I saw nothing in those verses that necessitates an anti-conquest mentality. I won't say Islam directly teaches a conquest mentality either: I will say that many muslims believe in a conquest mentality, and the non-conquest 'peace' mentality seems to only come up in islamic history during ages when muslim countries are not strong enough to go on the offensive.[/quote]
Christian nations were in conquest mode too. I don't think either side was really that great. I'm only defending to the degree that the religion of Islam itself is being misinterpreted. Now, Muslims have done wrong in the past. I agree totally with that. I also agree that there are obviously Muslim scholars and Muslims who believe in conquest. However, not all are like this, and it is not right to generalize Islam in such a way. It is true that nowadays, a Muslim will use his religion as a justification for his actions but may not be a true follower of Islam. I mean think about it, If terrorists were true Muslims, they wouldn't do acts of terror, that is directly against Islam. They are not allowed to hurt innocent people. Even Shi'ites in Lebanon talk against Sunnis and say 9/11 was a horrible event and that they do not support such things. It's interesting that many people who used such an arguement try to defend Hezbollah saying that it's not like that. The thing is, from what i've seen, many of the members of Hezbollah aren't actually dedicated Muslims. This applies to many parties with weapons, Christian or Muslim. The Lebanese Forces was a Christian Militia that defended Christians. This did not mean that the Lebanese Forces didn't do bad things as well. I like to think it's just the general mentalities of the people. Although in Lebanon, you can actually define stereotypes for how people think by their religion, it is mostly the political aspect inside of it and the living conditions of the people as well. For instance, the Sunnis in Lebanon have about 2 kids and take them to the best schools in Lebanon. The Shi'ites have many kids and end up poor. Then they got angry because of this. This is just the people in general, it's not because of their religion. Also anyone in Lebanon (this applies to much or all of the Middle East) follows their political leader blindly (I see it a lot in America too . This explains why a large amount of Christians who before despised Hezbollah, now support them (this is recently actually). I hope i haven't explained too much useless information.

[quote]
I'm not saying they need some formal apology like the pope did. I'm saying that an individual arab muslim ought to admit that the victorious military conquests of the past were wrong. Even most moderate muslims I don't believe go that far. No matter how peaceful they say they should be now, they still believe that the victorious of the past were great things. And to me that proves they're just in another one of their "pre-medina" phases.
[/quote]

Really? I just talked to a Muslim and he admitted they were bad. haha... I guess it depends on exactly which Muslim you talk to? I mean you meet Catholics who believe the Crusades were great.

Edited December 8, 2006 by musturde