Can A "good" Muslim be a good American?

Are we having the same conversation? I'm talking about 'the modern notion of consent'... What does the foundation of Islam have to do with what I said?

Where does Paul teach about 'consent' and what does Egypt have to do with anything. Muhammad ibn Abdullah grew up in Mecca in Arabia not Egypt. Are we having the same conversation? What does any of this have to do with consensual sex?

I'm still not following your post... Where are you establishing 'the notion of consensual sex'?

I'm confused...

 

For this cause shall a man cleave to his wife (woman--not child), and they twain shall be one flesh. It can't be done consenually with a child.

Matthew 25:1 Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom.
--Read the story. They weren't six year olds.

When Isaac was forty he took a wife for himself. But how old was Rebekkah?

When Jacob was 75 he married. But how long did he wait for Rachel. He worked 14 years for her, and she was very beautiful before that time. This was no six year old.

Where in the Bible do you find young children being married with God's consent. It is not there. Children do not enter into a marriage relationship of their own consent. Marrying at the age of six is more akin to slavery than to marriage. There is no consent on the child's part. And it is doubtful that three years later at the age of nine there would be any consent either. In fact, by the records in the Hadith there wasn't. She wanted to play with her friends instead. If you read the link in its entirety the Hadiths are quite conclusive in this matter. It is only natural that a Muslim would want to deny any such allegation.

 

Agreed.

Yes. I have a Master of Arts in Intercultural Studies (a Missions Degree) and a BA in Biblical Studies and the History of Ideas (double major). Both degrees are from Southeastern College at Wake Forest (shares the campus with Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary). I have taken classes in World Religions, Christian Perspectives and the Modern Middle East, Cross Cultural Learning and Teaching, Cross Cultural Communication, World Missions, Practicum in International Evangelism: Nigeria (a primarily Muslim nation), Current Topics in International Missions: Nigeria, etc., etc., etc. Additionally, I have served as a missionary in the heavily Muslim area of coastal Kenya. I would not really call myself an "expert" on Islam, but I have done countless hours of research and reading on the topic.

I can't speak for anyone else on the thread but I have led and helped to lead Muslims to Christ. I have taught many African Christians how to share their faith with their Muslim neighbors, friends and family members. I pray for the salvation of Muslims on a regular and on-going basis. However, all of that says nothing about the reality of Islamic violence and oppression that goes on everyday around the world. Are we wrong to point out such things when someone comes here and tries to paint Islam as this beautiful, kind, loving, peaceful religion that is equal or nearly equal to Christianity?

 

For the record here is a link to a list at Amazon.com with all the books written by Emir and/or Ergun Caner:

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_g...=aps&field-keywords=Emir+Caner&Go.x=12&Go.y=8

 

And with that education, I would and do respect what you would have to say. My point was there are others, many others with opinions out the wazoo and it's not even their opinions. It's something they read or heard and they are banging the war drums... constantly and when I first joined this board, there were rules and in my opinion, the rules are lax when it comes to this type of thread. Just look over the last few and the personal attacks.

I'm glad you are fighting the good fight. You are saving souls and not throwing away the baby in the bath water. Do you realize that in all the threads, you are one of the first that have wanted to save them and have actually done just that! I am sure the others will say that they do and it "should go without saying" but thank you for pointing out that you know these people are not evil but they are in trouble and you want to help save them.

I also agree I was wrong if I lead anyone to believe that I thought Islam was a peaceful religion. It's not. But that doesn't make it ok to bash it and the muslims every chance we get. My point was, as Christians we should be better than that and this style of thread(s) shows otherwise in my opinion.

Thank you for your post.

Jamie

 

Webdoggie, I am not going to break this whole thread down poster by poster, but statements have been made that Muslims would as soon kill Christians as look at them and the like. That is very hateful. The more that sort of thing is posted the less I can blame Muslims for being misled to believe that American is the "Great Satan." There has been quite a bit of this in this thread. A lot of this stuff can become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

 

Me, too. I haven't seen Bible-Boy as a big prolem in this thread.

That is also agreeable to me. I said Islam was about as peaceful as Judaism, and I will stand by that. Christianity SHOULD have been different, but sadly it has not been much different.

 

I meant it. It was a mistake on my part.

Now, instead of getting on a kick like this over a mistake, want to answer some of the questions of my OP?

Jamie

 

I never said that either. It is profoundly monotheistic, and does teach an extreme anti-idolatry position. It is also predestinarian, very legalistic (though not all), and very political. It is not particularly violent. Please do study Muslim history. In its early years it produced a flowering of arts and sciences and a peaceful prosperous society that was unmatched by any in the world. Arab Jews and Arab Christians were thriving and contributed quite a bit to this. Europe was in the so-called dark ages. We would have totally forgotten our own arts and sciences if it was not for Muslim culture preserving them and developing them during that time:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Age_of_Islam

So let's please not paint a bleak picture of Islamic civilization. We are just burying our heads in the sand if we do.

 

If they are loyal muslims...this statement is true. No hate whatsoever with stating that.

 

I can't speak for other but I have been in countries where the threat/danger of being killed by a mob (entire communities) of radical Muslims is very real. Northern Nigeria is just such a place. It is not hard to see open hatred of Christians by entire Muslim communities if you spend any time at all out on the mission field. However, I don't let that stop me from carrying the gospel to them. If I die I know I'll be with Jesus!:jesus:


Likewise, I do not want to appear to be painting all Muslims with the same brush. Even in northern Nigeria I met peaceful Muslims that want to hear the gospel. They were/are the "sons of peace" that Luke 10:5-6 is talking about and they are the ones that will accept the truth of the gospel and carry it to the rest of their people groups.

 

That is NOT true. They have had their chance for 1400 years. Why have they not done so?

 

What questions? I didn't realize you made a mistake. I keep seeing the words "hate" thrown around in regards to those who follow Islam and not the religion itself.

 

Surely you realize that evangelism does not help this picture. But I don't blame you if that is what you feel called to do. In fact, I applaud you for sticking it out. Thankfully when I lived in Muslim countries I had a very peaceful time (except in Lebanon). Things were more peaceful then generally and radical Islam was not much in evidence at all anywhere. I was also not proselytizing, which could have made my situation very different. I lived in Lebanon for awhile during the civil war, and even though there was obviously violence and the threat of violence absolutely everywhere, it was NOT over religion.

 

I have to say that you are stretching to some awfully great lengths to establish your position but it's not my point to attempt to argue the legitimacy of elder men marrying children but only say that betrothals and marriages of very young children is well-known even in European Culture. This wasn't unique for Semitic Culture nor was it unique for Muhammad ibn Abdullah.

The fact that they were not six, or nine or thirty is beside the point. This story isn't attempting to establish an age of marriage... You are trying to read into Scripture our own modern notion of an age of marriage. History will tell you what the norm of practice was throughout every Culture.

When Isaac was forty he took a wife for himself. But how old was Rebekkah?

Be aware that there isn't an overt established age of marriage found in Scripture. I don't know how you moved the topic to 'God's consent' but we are talking about the 'modern notion of consensual sex' which is not actually found in Scripture at all.

Marriages 'by and large' have historically been 'planned'. It is actually a very recent practice for individuals to decide that they 'of their own accord' are 'getting married'. In fact, you may note that only a generation ago suitors seeking a daughter's hand in marriage always asked the father for his consent. Consent was given by the father not by the child, historically speaking. This allow for betrothals very early in a child's life and allowed for very early marriages as well.

As I have said, there is no consensus among Islamic Scholars concerning the actual age of consummation. Maulana Muhammad Ali makes a detailed historical argument that Aisha was betrothed at nine or ten, but was fifteen at marriage, while Moiz Amjad agrees with Hafiz Niaz Ahmad and Habib ur Rahman Kandhalwi and argues on the authenticity of hadith regarding Aisha's age and shows that it contradicts with other Islamic literature and puts her age at marriage as late as twenty.

You, and many Christian apologists who attempt to discredit Muhammad ibn Abdullah, draw your argument from a handful of Hadith which all draw their references to Aisha's age from one source "Burkhari". Now I'm not suggesting that we should throw out Burkhari but I am saying that the evidence as well as traditional Islamic Scholarship does not hold to a particular position because there is no certainty.

Now you are entitled to hold to the ages mentioned by Burkhari and from our modern sense of decency label Muhammad whatever we wish but you should be aware of the questionable foundation in which we launch our criticism. Muslims are not going to find your argument persuasive because they are aware of the historical doubts concerning this matter. If we are honestly attempting to create valid arguments which are going to convert Muslim to Christianity then I would say that we need to find a firmer ground in which to offer criticism. If all we desire to do is badmouth their Prophet then have at it.

 

you have been given sources that say otherwise. If you choose to ignore that, so be it.

 

Find some credible sources, then! There is lots of objective history to resort to.

 

The questions in this post.

That is why I stated I made a mistake. Now you know.

The 'hate' I am talking about is when we as Christians post such thread that have to have the word good in quotes. The title wasn't in any of the articles on the web that talked about this. It was put in quotes by the author of this thread for a reason.

During this whole thread, and also in another thread found here you will see all kinds of hate. If you don't see it, fine. It's your choice, but all I see in these types of threads are fear and hate.

I am done trying to explain what I see. Either you see it, or you don't. It doesn't matter. My first post in this thread was to a specific user letting him know that now all the users on this board disagree with him and the reason I felt that I did agree with him.

I will have nothing more to do with this thread unless you care to discuss the questions I asked.

Jamie

 

I agree with those points.

I strongly disagree with that statement. I will agree that not all Muslims are violent people. However, there are foundational principles and doctrinal teachings of Islam, found in the Quran, that advocate/proscribe violence.

I have.

I agree that some good things are associated with the golden age of Islam. Art, math, science, and medicine come to mind. These things may well be true of the cultural centers in the Islamic world of old. However, on the frontiers, where Islamic leaders were expanding their territory it was not always as peaceful as you appear to trying to make it sound. New territory came into the Islamic empire either by 1) submission to Allah (read that Islam) in some cases willingly; 2) in other cases submission/confession came about due to fear of the huge Muslim army camped over in the next valley; 3), by the sword if the local leaders refused to submit and make the confession. Recorded world history and the history of world religions gives ample testimony to these facts.

Likewise, sometimes both groups suffered massacre at that hands of their Muslim Overlords.

Not quite true. It is correct that most everyone in Western Europe had lost the historic teachings of the ancient Greeks and Romans etc. during the dark ages. Likewise, the Roman Catholic Church only allowed certain nobles and church hierarchy to be well educated. The Mass was only in Latin and no common people knew Latin etc. Church tradition ruled in the place of educated scholarly understanding and preaching of the Bible. However, what brought about a resurgence of culture, science, and philosophy in Western Europe during that time was the fact that the Islamic Empire took Constantinople. When that city was about to fall to the Muslim invaders the leaders of the Eastern Church (known as the Greek Orthodox today) fled to Western Europe and brought their libraries full of the writings of Plato, Aristotle, Homer, etc. with them. Most of the material ended up in Monasteries in Ireland (read the book How the Irish Saved Civilization).

I'm trying to paint a totally bleak picture of Islamic civilization. However, I will not accept an overly rosy picture of it either. It seems that the later is what you are espousing when you make statements like the ones I have disagreed with above.

 

There are plenty of places in the Bible that do, too. If you note, the Koran is very specific that warfare is only justified in cases of oppression. Warfare is "the lesser jihad." What jihad really means is the warfare of the spirit.

Bible-boy, I don't think you have quite got that right. "Massacres" did not take place because of Islam, but in spite of it. The Koran itself is quite specific, no noncombatants are to be harmed. Conversion "by the sword" was not done by and large. Every civilization has its lunatics, though. If you have any stories of this I would appreciate hearing them.
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_history

I have never heard that before and would appreciate a source. Note, I am not doubitng you and had already heard independently that Aristotle was probably a little less "lost" than historians had at one time assumed. The Muslims kept and studied Aristotle and other ancient writers extensively, while the Europeans scraped off and re-used scrolls with his works on them (palimpsests) and lost most of what had been written. Obviously we got our number system, including the concept and symbol for zero, algebra, optics, surgery, and many other sciences from and through Islamic civilization. These are Arabic words. Please check out this article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Age_of_Islam

Can I ask you to please not change the font color, or at least to something besides gray? It virtually disappears against the blue background on my monitor and I have to paste it to be able to read it.