Giant Islam Discussion>.>

[Hassan]

KnightofChrist asked me a bit ago if I was another poster who hung around named Reza. I checked out his profile (I am not, by the way) and saw he started a thread discussing Islam. I am not a Muslim Apologist, nor am I a Muslim. I find the religion very interesting for many reasons, mostly involving somewhat abstract philosophical concepts derived in some slightly more advanced scholarly aspects of the religion.

On this board as many “real life” settings I am constantly shocked at the stark difference I see between my numerous (very religious) Muslim friends and the portrayal of Muslims many have in mind. Because so many threads here are drifting into Islam good or bad debates I felt one central debate thread on Islam might be helpful. I would not be debating as one who claims Islam to be true, but simply an agnostic who is much more sympathetic to the religion than most (indeed so far as I can tell anyone) here (do any Muslims come shere?).

I am somewhat well read in Islamic Scholars. I am somewhat ignorant on early Islamic History, and my main area of knowledge is in contempory “Islamist” political movements and their larger sociological context.

I think this could be a very substantive discussion, but in order for that to happen ground rules need to be established.

No, “If the Muhammadeans are so peaceful how do you explain THESE FACTS!!!!!” accompanied with a link to Jihad Watch.

Specific questions. Links are fine for citing a source, the source needs to be something respectable. Something published in a venue where it underwent critical scholarly review and peer analysis. Please don’t just copy and past a bunch or articles into a question or charge.

Please five specific instances, “How do you explain Islam’s numerous unprovoked battles!?!?!?!?!?” is just not cutting it. “How about battle ‘X’ in which Muhammad ‘Y’ is just lovely.

I am not claiming I will defend every charge against Islam. Like Christianity it’s history is mixed. Islamic Scholars can debate weather Concubinage is allowed in “true Islam”. However the fact is Muslims Jurists allowed it during numerous periods of Islam’s history. I will not defend such a practice. It is wrong, and Muslim jurists were wrong (morally) for allowing it. Weather it should be allowed in “Orthodox” Islam is a murky issue, one I don’t think has been definitively decided.

I think this can be a very enlightening discussion. Please keep things simple. Do not give 50 battles and expect an answer to all of them in the near future. It is Summer break so I have free time, but I also have a life, and a job, and stuff to do.

I will try to be as honest and transparent as possible. If I am proven wrong I will admit it. Please return the favor.

[misereremi]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1603860' date='Jul 20 2008, 09:01 AM'](do any Muslims come shere?).[/quote]
Not that I know of. I have asked a few but when they browsed, they saw stuff about moon god and child molestation that they didn't relate to and were offended by. Shame. I used to diss online debates between faiths but now I think it can be a good way of doing apologetics in a safer environment than real life.

Anyhow, good luck with the thread, and God bless.

[Deb]

Okay. I have a question. In the Koran it 1699-100, it is said that Satan has no power over Allah's servant. ( muhammad) When Muhammad was distressed because his own people, the Arabs, deserted and abandoned him and did not believe he was a messenger of God, he decided to praise the gods of the pagan Arabs to win their support. In the beginning he exhorted the pagans to worship their three gods but, he still did not get any support from them.
Muslims know about this and they are taught to believe that the names of the three false gods were placed on his tongue because he was inspired by Satan to claim that the three gods could intercede and that Satan did this to discredit Muhammed. He was willing to compromise his claim that the Koran was divine revelation in return for winning over his pagan opponents in Mecca.

So, how do they reconcile that their "phrophet" would be deceived by Satan if he was God's messenger. There is not a single Jewish or Christian prophet or disciple who was able to be used by Satan or who would put the name of ANY one as God before God the father. In light of the Koran stating that Satan has no power over Muhammed, it looks like they are just overlooking the truth that Muhammed only wanted power and to be his own diety rather than a true prophet of God. The Koran says that if there are any questions that cannot be answered, they are to look to the books of the Jews and the Christians. Those books of course make it very clear that Jesus is the Messiah and there will be none to come after him.

Edited July 20, 2008 by Deb

[Deb]

This one baffles my mind. Prior to Muhammed fleeing for his life from Mecca, (martyrdom not considered like the other prophets of all ages) his claim was that the God instructing him was the same God as that the Jews and Christians worshiped. When the Muslims lost the war of Uhud, immediately Allah supposedly proclaimed to Muhammed that the God of the Jews and Christians IS NOT the same as Allah. This is when the; well, I guess if we can't use words to convert people, we will use violence. Which is easier to believe, that God changed his mind or that Muhammed did? God is immutable and all powerful. He does not change, he is eternal and he certainly does not lie.

When Muhammed was in Mecca, he reached out with a tone of reconcilliation and peace. He addressed Christians as if they shared the same God. Once he was driven out of Mecca in humilation and fear for his life to Medina and gained the upper hand with some people from their (including his family) he completely changed his behavior as a prophet of God. He became violent, he demanded submission and he waged wars. Does this sound like any prophet of our God in all of history? There is only one God.

How do Muslims explain this?

[mortify]

Hassan,

I too have many a Muslim friend and have delved into the religion myself. It is true that many Muslims are intelligent and polite human beings, however even the "moderates" have said some shocking things. I was told by a Jordanian American friend, and I want to emphasize that if you saw him you would not think he was Muslim (i.e. no beard, contemporary clothes, etc), told me quite frankly there are *many* ways to spread Islam, Jihad is just one of them. Simply overpopulating a native population is a means of its spread. Now, this guy was not a physical threat, by all means I'd call him a moderate, but even he had a desire to spread Islamic dominion. Any large portion of human beings that are set on taking over the world trouble me, otherwise I'd just take it as a wacko response. The reality is Islam teaches and has always taught Islam is the true religion that is to dominate over all others. Muslims are called to fight against christians and jews until they are subjugated (surah 9 aya 29) So this nonsense about Islam being a peaceful religion is simply ridiculous, imho, it's a carnal and worldly religion that seeks world control.

As for concubines, Muhammad himself had them, and they're referred to in the Quran when it says "women of your right hand."

Btw hassan, are you interested in sufism/tasawuf?


God bless

[Balthazor]

See my only question is in the Case of Islam is the prosyletysing done in the name of love or some other reason? And if love is the reason then you can no kill someone in the name of love, because it eliminates any chance of them learning about this love.

I share Catholicism because I love being Catholic. I want the best for my friends so I tell them about being Catholic and I pray that they live long enough to know the love and fulfillement that I get from a life lead in accordance to Christ's teachings.

[Hassan]

[quote name='Deb' post='1603914' date='Jul 20 2008, 09:09 AM']Okay. I have a question. In the Koran it 1699-100, it is said that Satan has no power over Allah's servant.[/quote]
not to nit pick however that verse isin't specific to Muhammad, it says satan haso power over any believers.

[quote]( muhammad) When Muhammad was distressed because his own people, the Arabs, deserted and abandoned him and did not believe he was a messenger of God, he decided to praise the gods of the pagan Arabs to win their support. In the beginning he exhorted the pagans to worship their three gods but, he still did not get any support from them.
Muslims know about this and they are taught to believe that the names of the three false gods were placed on his tongue because he was inspired by Satan to claim that the three gods could intercede and that Satan did this to discredit Muhammed. He was willing to compromise his claim that the Koran was divine revelation in return for winning over his pagan opponents in Mecca.[/quote]

With all due respect this is why I asked for citations/references. I'm not sure what you are asking about. The only thing I can think of are the "Satanic Verses". So far as I know this is derived from so early biographies of Muhammad. While Biographies are important in Islam they are not taken to be free of error, and I believe most modern Islamic Acadamics totally reject the notion. It's not something, however, that I know much about.

The only thing about any three goddesses I know of in the Qur'an is in Surah 53: 19-23
(19)"Have ye seen
Lat, and Uzza,

(20)and another
The Third(goddess), Manat?

(21)What! For you
the male sex,
and for Him, the female?

(22)Behold, such would be
Indeed a division
most unfair!

(23)These are nothing but names
which ye have devised
Ye and your fathers
For which Allah has sent down no authority(whatever).
They follow nothing but
Conjecture and what their own souls desire!
Even though there has already
Come to them Guidence
From their Lord!


[quote]So, how do they reconcile that their "phrophet" would be deceived by Satan if he was God's messenger. There is not a single Jewish or Christian prophet or disciple who was able to be used by Satan or who would put the name of ANY one as God before God the father. In light of the Koran stating that Satan has no power over Muhammed, it looks like they are just overlooking the truth that Muhammed only wanted power and to be his own diety rather than a true prophet of God. The Koran says that if there are any questions that cannot be answered, they are to look to the books of the Jews and the Christians. Those books of course make it very clear that Jesus is the Messiah and there will be none to come after him.[/quote]

Can we please have one Islamic thread that is not full of conjectured poelimics aghinst Muhammad/Islam/Muslims?

Honest criticism is fine but you have no hard evidence for Muhammad's mental state or what he wanted as far as the "Satanic Verses" are concerned. It is not even a staple of much Islamic Thought.

As for the Gospels. The one's we now have do indicate Jesus considered himself divine. The question of what these texts said before two centuries of highly sloppy transmission by untrained, barely literate scribes is another matter. That is not intended to support the Islamic thought. Just because the texts of the New Testaments have been corrupted dosen't make Islam's claims about the origionals true.

[Hassan]

[quote name='Deb' post='1603919' date='Jul 20 2008, 09:28 AM']This one baffles my mind. Prior to Muhammed fleeing for his life from Mecca, (martyrdom not considered like the other prophets of all ages)[/quote]

HE and the early Muslims endured quite a few years of oppression in Mecca. I really don't think that is a fair criticism. If we assume for a moment that their is some resone to believe the Exodos story has any basis in fact then I'd say Moses and the Jews high tailed it out of Egypt nice and quick.

[quote]his claim was that the God instructing him was the same God as that the Jews and Christians worshiped. When the Muslims lost the war of Uhud, immediately Allah supposedly proclaimed to Muhammed that the God of the Jews and Christians IS NOT the same as Allah. This is when the; well, I guess if we can't use words to convert people, we will use violence. Which is easier to believe, that God changed his mind or that Muhammed did? God is immutable and all powerful. He does not change, he is eternal and he certainly does not lie.[/quote]


You not giveing me any Qur'anic references.

[quote]When Muhammed was in Mecca, he reached out with a tone of reconcilliation and peace. He addressed Christians as if they shared the same God. Once he was driven out of Mecca in humilation and fear for his life to Medina and gained the upper hand with some people from their (including his family) he completely changed his behavior as a prophet of God. He became violent, he demanded submission and he waged wars. Does this sound like any prophet of our God in all of history? There is only one God.[/quote]

Again. Unless you cite specific verses in the Qur'an and line them up Chronologically with historical events this is your conjecture. If you give me something to go on I'd be happy to try and answer your question.

[Kirisutodo333]

[quote]As for the Gospels. The one's we now have do indicate Jesus considered himself divine. [b]The question of what these texts said before two centuries of highly sloppy transmission by untrained, barely literate scribes is another matter. That is not intended to support the Islamic thought. Just because the texts of the New Testaments have been corrupted dosen't make Islam's claims about the origionals true[/b].[/quote]

Ah...so the penny drops!

Figures.

[CatherineM]

The Church teaches us that the Holy Spirit will not allow the Church to fall into error on matters of theology. I therefore do not believe the New Testament has been corrupted.

[Hassan]

[quote name='Kirisutodo333' post='1604368' date='Jul 21 2008, 07:20 AM']Ah...so the penny drops!

Figures.[/quote]

I'm sorry?

[Hassan]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1604549' date='Jul 21 2008, 12:54 PM']The Church teaches us that the Holy Spirit will not allow the Church to fall into error on matters of theology. I therefore do not believe the New Testament has been corrupted.[/quote]

that's fine.

[mortify]

Hassan said,
[quote]As for the Gospels. The one's we now have do indicate Jesus considered himself divine. The question of what these texts said before two centuries of highly sloppy transmission by untrained, barely literate scribes is another matter. That is not intended to support the Islamic thought. Just because the texts of the New Testaments have been corrupted dosen't make Islam's claims about the origionals true.[/quote]

I heard a debate with Dr William Lane Craig were he said something like 92% of the bible has been verified to accurately represent the original text. I don't know how this number was established, but I assume it has to do with comparing manuscripts with older manuscripts and fragments. Overall I believe the Bible is a reliable and credible historical source on the life and ministry of Jesus Christ, even if you don't have faith in it's inspiration and inerrancy. The fact is when a secular scholar decides to write a book about Jesus they turn to the Bible, not the Qur'an which was written six centuries after Christ.

One of my biggest problems with the Islamic revelation is the fact that it rejects the Crucifixion. This event is so well established that even if LARGE portions of the gospels were forged, it would not cast doubt on the Crucifixion account. Muslims are so desperate to find some evidence for their position that they have to turn to gnostic literature that was written centuries after Jesus. They of course have no idea what the gnostics believed otherwise they would not rely on their writing! But it shows just how far they are willing to go in order to continue in their blind obedience to Muhammad.

Lastly, Muslims believe the Qur'an to be 100% preserved, even though their ancient manuscripts *differ* from contemporary Qurans!

[quote]HE and the early Muslims endured quite a few years of oppression in Mecca.[/quote]
I'm just going to comment on this specific statement. It has to be remembered that Muhammad preached to the Meccans for THIRTEEN years, he was incredibly unsuccessful. The Pagans showed incredible tolerance towards him, even though he attacked all their traditions. The persecutions we're talking about, amounts to mockery and ostracizing Muhammad and his group of followers, to the point where they had nothing to eat and had to journey out to Yathrib. It was in Yathrib, which is now called Medinah, that Muhammad gained a force of men that were capable of raiding caravans, and this ultimately led to the battle of Badr which Muhammad won. The point is, the victimization of Muhammad during those thirteen years is simply ridiculous, especially since a Christian wouldn't last THIRTEEN SECONDS if they started preaching against Islam in Mecca today.

[mortify]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1604549' date='Jul 21 2008, 12:54 PM']The Church teaches us that the Holy Spirit will not allow the Church to fall into error on matters of theology. I therefore do not believe the New Testament has been corrupted.[/quote]

The Muslim claim that the Bible is corrupted is ironic, since the Qur'an quotes the Bible. Compare the story of Zechariah and Mary in Surah Maryam and Luke's Gospel. Likewise, the Qur'an also quotes from many *apocryphal* sources, further undermining its claims.

[Galloglasses]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1604551' date='Jul 21 2008, 01:56 PM']I'm sorry?[/quote]
He was referring to the old, "How-do-we-know-the-Gospels-we-have-are-the-true-Gospels-of-Christ?", Debate thingy, which alot of Catholics get involved with in debating with Gnostics. (Not to be confused with Agnosticism), When he said that he was referring that he thinks he figured out why you are so inquisitive, questioning and challenging in your relation to other members of this Forum and your somewhat loaded Forum posts.

On the topic as a whole, i'm not touching this, I don't want to end up in Madam V's position in the Islam's Global War with Christianity Thread.

[Hassan]

[quote name='mortify' post='1603953' date='Jul 20 2008, 10:31 AM']Hassan,

I too have many a Muslim friend and have delved into the religion myself. It is true that many Muslims are intelligent and polite human beings, however even the "moderates" have said some shocking things. I was told by a Jordanian American friend, and I want to emphasize that if you saw him you would not think he was Muslim (i.e. no beard, contemporary clothes, etc), told me quite frankly there are *many* ways to spread Islam, Jihad is just one of them. Simply overpopulating a native population is a means of its spread. Now, this guy was not a physical threat, by all means I'd call him a moderate, but even he had a desire to spread Islamic dominion. Any large portion of human beings that are set on taking over the world trouble me, otherwise I'd just take it as a wacko response. The reality is Islam teaches and has always taught Islam is the true religion that is to dominate over all others. Muslims are called to fight against christians and jews until they are subjugated (surah 9 aya 29) So this nonsense about Islam being a peaceful religion is simply ridiculous, imho, it's a carnal and worldly religion that seeks world control.[/quote]

I really don't have a problem with the Muslims trying to spread Islam and have the entire globe turn Muslim so long as they do so in a non coercive manner. Just like I don't have a problem with your, I assume, desire that the world turn Catholic so long as you intend to do this peacefully. I think if this disturbs you then perhaps you can understand why non-religious people often get concerned when Christians speak of "Conquering the world through love".

You don’t think the Muslim migration is part of some unified conspiracy to conquer Europe do you?

As for Surah 9: 29 I have heard of three interpretations.

A Saudi Wahhabist I read said that it is indeed the duty of Muslims to spread Islam and fight (physically) in God's cause, which he felt included combating Jews and Muslims until they submit themselves to Islamic rule. This was written, as I said, in Saudi Arabia during the 60's and had seemed to have a political/ideological drive behind it besides Islamic Scholarship. His phrasings seemed to suggests he had in mind the Arab/Israeli conflicts and wanted to encourage support for them. I understand that other scholars have agreed with him however most Scholars I know of why do also had a distinct political agenda, like Qutb. That does not discount their view, and this view has existed in Islamic thought.

The second interpretation is that this is something like Christians "conquering the world through love". "Fighting" need not be physical, they are to strive to bring moral laws to the state and this can be through non-violent means. I find this response the weakest because firstly it just doesn’t fit the context of the Surah which is clearly speaking about physical conflict, and I have been told by a Muslim that the Arabic verb also indicates physical conflict.
The Third seems as reasonable as the first and I give it equal weight. That this was God giving the Muslims permission to fight the Roman Empire which was made up of Christians and the subjugated Jews living under Christian rule. It is then an injunction for a specific historical event, but also gives Muslims permission to fight Jews and Christians if they Jews and Christians are the aggressors or, as Muslims claim about the Roman Empire, they seem to be preparing for an attack, or supporting insurrection in the Muslim countries. I find this interpretation to fit much more with the context both of the larger Surah and other Islamic call to arms in the Qur'an.

Ultimately I think it merits more study. Like the verses pertaining to concubine I feel it is a somewhat murky issue.

Beyond the historical and textual evaluation so long as Muslims interpret this verse in either of the later two ways I see no problem (reguardless of Muhammad’s original intent, he’s long dead, he can’t pop up and scold Muslims for reinterpreting their scripture). Jesus said that he did not come to bring peace, but the sword. While this passage seems very literal Christians have, with few exceptions, taken this to be symbolic of God's Word (from what I understand). The fact that this verse has been interpreted as a physical call to arms against injustice at certain periods of Christian history (like some liberation theology movements in Latin America) does not demolish the other interpretations, which I feel fit much better with the context of the New Testament.


[quote]As for concubines, Muhammad himself had them, and they're referred to in the Quran when it says "women of your right hand."[/quote]

Here is one counter argument I know of(page 490 of the book)

[url="http://aaiil.org/text/books/mali/religionislam/religionofislam.pdf"]http://aaiil.org/text/books/mali/religioni...gionofislam.pdf[/url]

[quote]Btw hassan, are you interested in sufism/tasawuf?
God bless[/quote]

I like Dr. Akbar Ahmed. Most of his work involves anthropological studies of the Muslims world but he does interject his own beliefs and does have flirtations with Sufism. That and Rumi accounts for most of my experience with it. So I really can't say.

Do you have opinions on it?

[Hassan]

[quote name='mortify' post='1604564' date='Jul 21 2008, 01:22 PM']Hassan said,
I heard a debate with Dr William Lane Craig were he said something like 92% of the bible has been verified to accurately represent the original text. I don't know how this number was established, but I assume it has to do with comparing manuscripts with older manuscripts and fragments. Overall I believe the Bible is a reliable and credible historical source on the life and ministry of Jesus Christ, even if you don't have faith in it's inspiration and inerrancy. The fact is when a secular scholar decides to write a book about Jesus they turn to the Bible, not the Qur'an which was written six centuries after Christ.[/quote]

The earliest copies of New Testament texts (not complete texts so far as I know) come from about two centuries after Jesus(again, so far as I know). I would hope that no secular scholar rests their entire research one four Gospels chosen by the Church with numerous internal contradictions for their whole research.

Most textual discrepancies in the Gospel texts (anywhere from 30,000 to 400,000) are utterly insignificant. Slight spelling differences, slight change of word order. Some are important. The question of weather Hebrews says Christ dies by God's Grace or apart from God is, I would say, Important. I don't think this is a problem for Catholic. You all have Tradition. In fact when John Mill first published his work showing the discrepancies one French Catholic Theologian touted it triumphantly as proof of the folly of Protestantism and the necessity of the Church.

I don't know if I agree with his analysis, but whatever.

[quote]One of my biggest problems with the Islamic revelation is the fact that it rejects the Crucifixion. This event is so well established that even if LARGE portions of the gospels were forged, it would not cast doubt on the Crucifixion account. Muslims are so desperate to find some evidence for their position that they have to turn to gnostic literature that was written centuries after Jesus. They of course have no idea what the gnostics believed otherwise they would not rely on their writing! But it shows just how far they are willing to go in order to continue in their blind obedience to Muhammad.[/quote]

I really don't think that is true or fair. This has been corruption of the Gospels. The story of the woman caught in adultery, certain verses relating to the trinity, the question of weather Jesus felt compassion or anger for the leper in Mark's Gospels, the internal contradictions in the Gospel (was Jesus crucified before or after Passover), Mark's quoting Jesus incorrectly citing scripture, the issue of Hebrews I mentioned before, the last 12 lines of Mark, the Question of weather Paul went to Jerusalem after Damascus, how Judas died, certain references to the Trinity.

All things brought up by secular critics, it is not necessarily blind obedience to Muhammad to believe such things. That doesn’t mean that Christians don't have answer. Plenty of great textual critics I'm sure are Christians, and textual criticism was founded by Christians. However this is not a black and white issue. Even Origen admits there were problems with transcribing the Gospels. I'm not saying that the original Gospels didn't say what you all believe; I'm just saying a reasonable person can doubt it.

Furthermore the Muslim story claims God tricked the crowed into believing the cricified Jesus, even if there were strong historical evidence that Jesus was crucified that would not affect their beliefs to much.

[quote]Lastly, Muslims believe the Qur'an to be 100% preserved, even though their ancient manuscripts *differ* from contemporary Qurans![/quote]

I don't know about this. Even if the Qur'an were preserved that wouldn’t prove Muhammad's claims. I just don't know about Quranic textual criticism.

[quote]I'm just going to comment on this specific statement. It has to be remembered that Muhammad preached to the Meccans for THIRTEEN years, he was incredibly unsuccessful. The Pagans showed incredible tolerance towards him, even though he attacked all their traditions. The persecutions we're talking about, amounts to mockery and ostracizing Muhammad and his group of followers, to the point where they had nothing to eat and had to journey out to Yathrib. It was in Yathrib, which is now called Medinah, that Muhammad gained a force of men that were capable of raiding caravans, and this ultimately led to the battle of Badr which Muhammad won. The point is, the victimization of Muhammad during those thirteen years is simply ridiculous, especially since a Christian wouldn't last THIRTEEN SECONDS if they started preaching against Islam in Mecca today.[/quote]

Actually as you recall Ali switched places and Muhammad fled because the Quarish were going to kill him. The biographies recorded Abu Bakr being persecuted, several deat attempts on Muhammad, and numerous acts of violence against him and his followers. I have never heard the Quarish touted as great models of tolerance. Muhammad later as long as he did through tribal protections, after those were lost the Muslims had it fairly bad.

Perhaps those biographical reports are false. Certainly his biographers had reason to, and did, exaggerate events in his life. However I think "incredible tolerance" is an overstatement.

[Hassan]

[quote name='mortify' post='1604565' date='Jul 21 2008, 01:25 PM']The Muslim claim that the Bible is corrupted is ironic, since the Qur'an quotes the Bible. Compare the story of Zechariah and Mary in Surah Maryam and Luke's Gospel. Likewise, the Qur'an also quotes from many *apocryphal* sources, further undermining its claims.[/quote]

I don't know of any direct quotes in the Bible.

Beyond that they don't claim the Gospels are totally corrupt, just certain parts

[Hassan]

[quote name='Galloglasses' post='1604600' date='Jul 21 2008, 02:16 PM']He was referring to the old, "How-do-we-know-the-Gospels-we-have-are-the-true-Gospels-of-Christ?", Debate thingy, which alot of Catholics get involved with in debating with Gnostics. (Not to be confused with Agnosticism), When he said that he was referring that he thinks he figured out why you are so inquisitive, questioning and challenging in your relation to other members of this Forum and your somewhat loaded Forum posts.[/quote]

And what is the reason I do all those things (according to him). I don't know how my posts have been loaded (as in I don't know what you mean by the phrase)


[quote]On the topic as a whole, i'm not touching this, I don't want to end up in Madam V's position in the Islam's Global War with Christianity Thread.[/quote]


What position is that?

[mortify]

Peace,

Hassan said,
[quote]I really don't have a problem with the Muslims trying to spread Islam and have the entire globe turn Muslim so long as they do so in a non coercive manner. Just like I don't have a problem with your, I assume, desire that the world turn Catholic so long as you intend to do this peacefully. I think if this disturbs you then perhaps you can understand why non-religious people often get concerned when Christians speak of "Conquering the world through love".[/quote]

It obviously disturbs me because I view faith in Christ to be absolutely necessary, if not at least implicitly necessary, to assure someone's salvation. Islam is different from other religions in that it explicitly denies the Divine Sonship of Christ and His Crucifixion.

[quote]You don’t think the Muslim migration is part of some unified conspiracy to conquer Europe do you?[/quote]

No, I don't.

[quote]As for Surah 9: 29 I have heard of three interpretations.[/quote]

The word there is to "fight," and it's not a metaphorical fighting, how do we know? Because it does refer to a historical event where the Muslims of Muhammad's time fought Christians. Likewise, how did Islam get into Egypt and the Middle East, which was predominantly Christian? By conquer. Who lead the conquering armies? Muhammad's four "rightly guided" khalifs, and so I find it undeniable that an offensive war against non-Islamic countries for the sole reason of spreading Islamic dominion is contrary to the religion. Muhammad and his companions engaged in it, and its written in the Qur'an and hadith, dissenters can only offer weak interpretations that require looking at these ayat in a vacuum.

[quote]Beyond the historical and textual evaluation so long as Muslims interpret this verse in either of the later two ways I see no problem (reguardless of Muhammad’s original intent, he’s long dead, he can’t pop up and scold Muslims for reinterpreting their scripture). Jesus said that he did not come to bring peace, but the sword. While this passage seems very literal Christians have, with few exceptions, taken this to be symbolic of God's Word (from what I understand). The fact that this verse has been interpreted as a physical call to arms against injustice at certain periods of Christian history (like some liberation theology movements in Latin America) does not demolish the other interpretations, which I feel fit much better with the context of the New Testament.[/quote]

Friend, Jesus often used hyperboles like this to emphasize a point. The reality is His message did violently uproot traditions and separated family members, but not in the sense of Christians slaughtering their enemies, but by the fact that many rejected Truth. Many family members were ostracized for believing in Jesus, and were in fact executed and reviled by others, this is simply the nature of the world and the one who rules over it.

The same can't be said for Muhammad.

[quote]Here is one counter argument I know of(page 490 of the book)[/quote]

First of all are you aware that book is written by the Ahmadis? Ahmadis are not considered Muslim.

To me this issue is irrefutable for the simple fact that Muhammad had concubines as did his followers. Now, I looked into sunnipath.com to find an answer on this, but the closest I found was regarding how many wives a Muslim will have in paradise, the fact that they also will have concubines means it can't be wrong to have them on earth.

[quote]Do you have opinions on it?[/quote]

I associated with a Naksibendi dergah for about a year, so I have some insights into it. There is a real difference between genuine tasawuf and "American Sufism."

Edited July 21, 2008 by mortify