CIVIL RELIGIOUS DISCUSSION: All things Islam...

[jamil]

If reasoning and being reasonable is seen as being a dick, the biggest problem facing us today is the fear of being seen as a dick.

Aint skeered.

You never have to be afraid of being a dick if your proclivities are not towards being one. I'm not saying I'm not one; it takes one to know one. But there's no need to fear being one if you're not naturally one.

It is possible to reason without being dickly. I've witnessed it here on INGO even. And I've even see you accomplish it occasionally. At least a little.

 

[jamil]

Ok. i don't use purple either so I understand that and I admit when I read it, it didn't seem inline with your usual posting habits so I apologize for any offense. I was simply seeking clarity.

No worries. No offense taken. I understand that while not using purple people will misunderstand and further clarification is needed.

 

[ATM]

I'm a bit worried about you, in that regard, but I'm not the one you should worry about.

But, in an effort to bring this thread back on topic, I'll offer 2 thoughts. First to you, specifically, and second to the more general question of "which Islam."

First, while I believe you are perfectly capable of your own reasonable case, in an effort to give you a(nother) direct answer so as to avoid coming back to the issue, the rationale for Islam's treatment of Jesus' "status" is independent of Christianity's view of His "status." Whether Islam is wrong about prophethood or Christianity is wrong about Trinitarianism, it is not for the one to correct the other. Not any more than it is right for Christians to fix Judaism's view of Christ.

Mohammed knew of Christianity and legitimized it for Islam by recognizing the shared Abrahamic roots. Now, whether he properly understood or accepted early Christian beliefs (which, if you look at the timing, didn't really have a consensus around many of them anyway) isn't really the issue to be resolved. If he had accepted Christianity exactly (whichever version), then there would be no Islam. That's just not how it played out. But, he did accept Christianity and the Gospel as well as several parts of the Old Testament, as the foundation texts for his belief system.

For the TL;DR, it should be ok for Muslims to think Christians have it wrong and Christians to think Muslims have it wrong regarding Jesus' status. Doctrinal holy wars don't work.

Second, more generally, the historical record tends to show that Islam wasn't really a problem for at least a few hundred years. At least not outside the aforementioned internecine holy wars between sects. It seems to me that the dormancy (for lack of a better word) was more than a little bit responsible for the "go along, get along" evolution of the vast majority of Islam. After the rise of the petrodollar, really starting in Iran IMHO, Islam became a tool to divide Muslims from "the west" for purposes of obtaining and keeping power.

In that time, peace DID become an active part of Islam. It was good for business and good for individuals - especially those who did interact with the west. The more traditional elements tended to be in areas with little western contact.

You still do not understand what Islam is or what it was designed for. Your claims above are unsound, so I hope you were just speculating and don't actually consider them to be true.

Muslims aren't the only ones deceived by Islam. It really is a clever ruse. I understand it now, clearly. I'm here to help.

 

[T.Lex]

You still do not understand what Islam is or what it was designed for. Your claims above are unsound, so I hope you were just speculating and don't actually consider them to be true.

So, your response to a reasonable case is "you just don't understand."

Muslims aren't the only ones deceived by Islam. It really is a clever ruse. I understand it now, clearly. I'm here to help.

Oh one true prophet, set forth thy divine expositions that we might share thy clarity of knowledge.

 

[ATM]

You never have to be afraid of being a dick if your proclivities are not towards being one. I'm not saying I'm not one; it takes one to know one. But there's no need to fear being one if you're not naturally one.

It is possible to reason without being dickly. I've witnessed it here on INGO even. And I've even see you accomplish it occasionally. At least a little.

I tend to counter unreasonableness with reasonableness, dickliness with reversal. If you have a better method than that, demonstrate it for me.

 

[ATM]

So, your response to a reasonable case is "you just don't understand."

No, it was my response to your unsound claims. Take this claim of yours, for instance:

"Mohammed knew of Christianity and legitimized it for Islam by recognizing the shared Abrahamic roots."

Mohammed wrote down exactly what a clever "angel" told him, he didn't legitimize anything. He didn't recognize anything. He wrote what he was told.
There is no shared Abrahamic root in anything he was told or wrote, just hollow revisionist claims from a clever "angel", the same one who claimed Allah was a god.

Do your homework and quit speculating. I'll tear that nonsense down.

Oh one true prophet, set forth thy divine expositions that we might share thy clarity of knowledge.

Now that's a prayer I will join you in, brother.

 

[jamil]

You still do not understand what Islam is or what it was designed for. Your claims above are unsound, so I hope you were just speculating and don't actually consider them to be true.

Muslims aren't the only ones deceived by Islam. It really is a clever ruse. I understand it now, clearly. I'm here to help.

You're not helping. What you're doing now isn't reason. You're just claiming that what people say is unsound. You're not laying out a case for what is unsound about it.

So go through and detail for us what is unsound about it. To show us how much more you understand the issue than everyone else, you'll need more than blusterous statements. It's time to stop obfuscating and plainly lay out your evidence for what it was designed for and who the designer is.

 

[jamil]

I tend to counter unreasonableness with reasonableness, dickliness with reversal. If you have a better method than that, demonstrate it for me.

But you haven't reasoned that there is any unreasonableness. You've only declared it.

 

[ATM]

You're not helping. What you're doing now isn't reason. You're just claiming that what people say is unsound. You're not laying out a case for what is unsound about it.

So go through and detail for us what is unsound about it. To show us how much more you understand the issue than everyone else, you'll need more than blusterous statements. It's time to stop obfuscating and plainly lay out your evidence for what it was designed for and who the designer is.

How did I know you were going to ask something like that and beat you to the punchline?

 

[ATM]

But you haven't reasoned that there is any unreasonableness. You've only declared it.

You should re-read the thread. You skim and tend to miss quite a bit.

 

[T.Lex]

No, it was my response to your unsound claims. Take this claim of yours, for instance:

"Mohammed knew of Christianity and legitimized it for Islam by recognizing the shared Abrahamic roots."

Mohammed wrote down exactly what a clever "angel" told him, he didn't legitimize anything. He didn't recognize anything. He wrote what he was told.

Which included that Jesus was the Messiah. (4.171.) Now, that passage also contains things incompatible with Christianity. I am not advocating for Islam as the truth. I am textually rebutting your assessment.

 

[jamil]

How did I know you were going to ask something like that and beat you to the punchline?

Because I always ask you to back up bombastic statements.

You should re-read the thread. You skim and tend to miss quite a bit.

Re-read? Pfft. Dude, there were 100+ comments in this thread when I started with it. If you care to quote your reason, I'm happy to read it. But I'm not reading the whole thread.

 

[Lelliott8]

Second, more generally, the historical record tends to show that Islam wasn't really a problem for at least a few hundred years. At least not outside the aforementioned internecine holy wars between sects. It seems to me that the dormancy (for lack of a better word) was more than a little bit responsible for the "go along, get along" evolution of the vast majority of Islam. After the rise of the petrodollar, really starting in Iran IMHO, Islam became a tool to divide Muslims from "the west" for purposes of obtaining and keeping power.

In that time, peace DID become an active part of Islam. It was good for business and good for individuals - especially those who did interact with the west. The more traditional elements tended to be in areas with little western contact.

That's a strange thing to say... We probably owe all of modern Western civilization to a man named Charles Martel and his army. He'd probably tell you a different story about Islam. Then there's the whole Crusades thing, a reactionary war in response to violent Muslim conquest in the Middle East and Europe. Ever wonder why it's called Istanbul and not Constantinople? Sounds like you learned your history from the School of Muhammad.

 

[ATM]

Which included that Jesus was the Messiah. (4.171.) Now, that passage also contains things incompatible with Christianity. I am not advocating for Islam as the truth. I am textually rebutting your assessment.

Your rebuttal attempt fails to even address what you just quoted from me, "Mohammed wrote down exactly what a clever "angel" told him, he didn't legitimize anything. He didn't recognize anything. He wrote what he was told."


Neither did it address the remainder of my post. Do please try harder if you hope to accomplish anything in this particular discussion topic.

 

[ATM]

Because I always ask you to back up bombastic statements.

And it never impedes my progress, does it? You, sir, should develop a better strategy.

Re-read? Pfft. Dude, there were 100+ comments in this thread when I started with it. If you care to quote your reason, I'm happy to read it. But I'm not reading the whole thread.

I do not require you to be fully informed, to read everything, or even to contemplate the matter. I don't need anything from you to continue.

 

[T.Lex]

That's a strange thing to say... We probably owe all of modern Western civilization to a man named Charles Martel and his army. He'd probably tell you a different story about Islam. Then there's the whole Crusades thing, a reactionary war in response to violent Muslim conquest in the Middle East and Europe. Ever wonder why it's called Istanbul and not Constantinople? Sounds like you learned your history from the School of Muhammad.

Well. No.

I may have missed something, but what battles of the Crusades happened after 1700? LOL

I am more familiar with the Euro-focused history, with less reading on the more eastern-focused history. (I'm generally familiar with St. Thomas the Apostle's evangelization in India, but that's about it.)

Based on my study and readings after that, the Ottomans settled into something like bureaucratic Islam. Holy wars were bad for business. Sure, occasional border wars for resources were part of the international system. But, (again the Armenian issue being a modern outlier) for the most part it was peaceful. We have to gauge "peaceful" on the curve appropriate for the time. Peaceful "despite" being an Islamic empire.

If you have the position that Islam was generating radicals during that period, again, I am open to those examples.

 

[T.Lex]

Your rebuttal attempt fails to even address what you just quoted from me, "Mohammed wrote down exactly what a clever "angel" told him, he didn't legitimize anything. He didn't recognize anything. He wrote what he was told."

Neither did it address the remainder of my post. Do please try harder if you hope to accomplish anything in this particular discussion topic.

Try harder? Why? You aren't even reading or understanding what I'm writing now.

For purposes of this discussion, I'll accept your framework that he wrote what was told to him. That included writing that Jesus was the Messiah. Was Jesus not the Messiah, descended from David and Abraham?

 

[jamil]

No, it was my response to your unsound claims. Take this claim of yours, for instance:

"Mohammed knew of Christianity and legitimized it for Islam by recognizing the shared Abrahamic roots."

Mohammed wrote down exactly what a clever "angel" told him, he didn't legitimize anything. He didn't recognize anything. He wrote what he was told.
There is no shared Abrahamic root in anything he was told or wrote, just hollow revisionist claims from a clever "angel", the same one who claimed Allah was a god.

Do your homework and quit speculating. I'll tear that nonsense down.



Now that's a prayer I will join you in, brother.

I'd say what T.Lex said was objectively interpretative. Reasonable from a secular point of view. If you wish to dispute that, and add a spiritual interpretation, you can do that. But that isn't evidence that it happened the way you say it did. Were you there? Did you see this angel? Do you have any objective evidence of its existence other than your faith's interpretation that it happened that way?

 

[ATM]

Try harder? Why? You aren't even reading or understanding what I'm writing now.

For purposes of this discussion, I'll accept your framework that he wrote what was told to him. That included writing that Jesus was the Messiah. Was Jesus not the Messiah, descended from David and Abraham?

That clever "angel" knew very well Jesus is the Messiah when he told Mohammed exactly what to write down. I like where this is leading.

 

[Lelliott8]

Well. No.

I may have missed something, but what battles of the Crusades happened after 1700? LOL

I am more familiar with the Euro-focused history, with less reading on the more eastern-focused history. (I'm generally familiar with St. Thomas the Apostle's evangelization in India, but that's about it.)

Based on my study and readings after that, the Ottomans settled into something like bureaucratic Islam. Holy wars were bad for business. Sure, occasional border wars for resources were part of the international system. But, (again the Armenian issue being a modern outlier) for the most part it was peaceful. We have to gauge "peaceful" on the curve appropriate for the time. Peaceful "despite" being an Islamic empire.

If you have the position that Islam was generating radicals during that period, again, I am open to those examples.

My point was that Islam has been violently expanding since it's inception. That's what it does, what it was designed to do. There has never been a peaceful time in the Islamic world.