Can A "good" Muslim be a good American?

Hello Bible-boy,

Are you honestly suggesting that How the Irish Saved Civilization is objective historical scholarship?

There was an Arab library at Toledo with over 400,000 books why on God's Green Earth did the Greeks have to bring theirs all the way from war-torn Constantinople and how did they ever get their library past the Sultan?!

In addition, I would have to remind you that the Courts of Europe were filled with Arab Scholars for many years after the fall of Toledo and I don't recall a single Irish Scholar of renown among them....

Come now friend. I have an awfully hard time buying Cahill's little tale.

Be Well.

 

If so, please quote a few and give reference to the Book, chapter, and verses.

If I quote passages directly from the Quran (with references) that would contradict what you are saying will you acknowledge their existence?

If I can cite an example of a massacre of a Jewish group ordered by Mohammad himself will you acknowledge that the above statement is incorrect?

I already acknowledged that those types of things came about during the “Islamic Golden Age.” Those points are not in dispute. I gave you a great source in the book I suggested How the Irish Saved Civilization. If you have never heard the brief history that I mentioned I must ask what history sources you are using? Are they solely by Islamic scholars?

I'd be happy to do so if I knew how. I just hit the quote post button and type my reply. The color that comes out is the color that comes out???

 

I'm not suggesting it is the only source. It was just the first that came to mind. Likewise, I am not arguing that Irish Scholars were active all over Europe, only that material that the Orthodox monks fled Constantinople with ended up in Christian strongholds in Ireland.

Let me check my church history books at home and see what else I can suggest for ya...

 

Sorry yall I have to go for now. It may be hard for me to post for the next week or so. However, I hope we can continue to talk through these issues.

 

All those places where God said to kill every last person and leave not a man, woman, child, or even a beast alive? You actually want chapter and verse? Hoo-boy! That is a lot of places, actually.

Let me put it this way, I will investigate them to see if they are a specific instance that overrides the general proclamation against killing civilians, or in what other way the conflict between the two needs to be reconciled. In many places, as I already pointed out, the orders to kill are against idolators specifically and really should not be generalized.

Yes, I know about that massacre, but it had nothing to do with their religion. They betrayed the Muslims to the Meccans, did they not?

No, general histories, mainly by mainstream American historians, I suppose. I never read that book on Irish history, and I would love to and will. I'll get it on interlibrary loan over the summer. Sounds fascinating, even if it is NOT mainstream history! I would never hold that against it. Some of my favorite history books have been pretty off the wall. It helps to think outside the box sometimes. Lately I have been reading a little about the Dogons! I am interested in Celtic history, too.

Okay, well I forgive you! Don't worry about it at all.

 

Since you mentioned earlier that you liked and trusted wikipedia I’ll quote from there:

The Fall of Constantinople refers to the capture of the Byzantine capital by the Ottoman Empire on Tuesday, May 29, 1453. The event marked the end of the political independence of the millennium-old Byzantine Empire, which was by then already fragmented into several Greek monarchies.[7] Most importantly, the fall of Constantinople accelerated the scholarly exodus of Byzantine Greeks which had caused the influx of Classical Greek Studies into the European Renaissance.[8]

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

How’s that for a source?

 

I just got to come back into my office for a while. However, when I leave here at 11:00 PM EST I likely will not be around much for the next week or so.

 

That'll do for now, Bible-boy! It is something I would like to know more about.

By the way, I would caution against Wikipedia for many subjects. The articles on Christian topics I think are great. They are well written and don't get vandalized by people who don't know much about the subject, thankfully! The history articles are generally pretty good, too, though not of the caliber of most of the religion articles. So-called "popular subjects" are not reliably good, though,and often fall victim to those with an ax of some sort to grind.

Thanks for your contribution, Bible-boy and I hope to hear more from you when you get back.

 

This was a command given to the Jews of the OT. What has that got to do with present day Christianity, or Christianity of any age? Care to be a bit more relevant.

 

I point out a massacre ordered by Mohammad himself and you respond with:

You are making two different arguments here. In the first statement you say that:

However, we are now talking about a massacre, ordered by Mohammad, where all the men, including noncombatants, were killed. When an enemy has put down his weapons and surrendered he is no longer a combatant—he is a noncombatant.

In your second statement you say that:

So now you are trying to make it sound like the argument here is about Islam vs. other religions. However, that is not what I am saying. I am saying the Quran does in fact advocate/proscribe violence and in your first statement you maintain that the Quran prohibits violence (except for violence toward idolators).

So either your interpretation of the Quran regarding warfare is incorrect, or it is correct and Mohammad violated the teaching of the Quran.

Here is a brief account for those that do not know what we are talking about:

You can read the rest of the story here: http://www.hirhome.com/islam/art.htm

More from wikipedia:

Read the full story here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qurayzah
As best as I can tell the two sources do not conflict with or contradict each other.

 

No, I certainly never said that Islam prohibits violence! Even Christianity does not prohibit violence. I will read your sources, and that is not terribly different from what I had understood previously, actually.

And would not be too surprised if Mohammad violated the teachings of the Koran. He had something like 11 or 13 wives, you know! Muslims are only allowed four. So i would say yes, his own practices were sometimes quite different from those he enjoined on his followers.

 

I am not so sure of that. Who is the false god?

 

What does the Old Testament have to do with Christianity ... well, let me see now ....

hmmmmm ....

You are joking, surely.

 

Yes, I am quite serious. Please don't be naive. Judaism and Christianity are not the same religion. The Jews rejected Christ as their Messiah. Whether Jew or Gentile anyone who rejects Christ as Saviour remains unsaved.

OT Judaism was a theocracy under God; Christianity will never be a theocracy until Christ comes and the Millennial Kingdom is set up. God commanded the Israelites to slaughter the Canaanites to rid idolatry from the land. That was a different time and a different dispensation.
God has also sent a world wide flood to destroy the world.
God has also sent fire and brimstone to destroy Sodom and Gomorroh and all the cities surrounding it.
Will you fault God as well?

 

No, but analogy of Islam and Judaism holds up pretty well, doesn't it?

 

No, it doesn't.
The Exodus took place in 1440 B.C. The events you are referring to took place shortly after that. You are trying to compare events that took place one and a half millennia before the birth of Christ to events that transpired more than half a millenia after the birth of Christ. That is more that a two thousand year time difference. You are comparing apples to oranges.

 

What does that time frame have to do with anything?

 

Think about it. Muslims today are making excuses that they would never do the things that Mohammed did in the early days of Islam. You do the same thing.
Would you (if a man) take a six year old child as a bride and have sex when she is nine in this society?
Would you exterminate the inhabitants today of one city so that you can set up your headquarters there. Would you do that today? Mohammed did.
Would you marry (if a man) multiple wives, like Mohammed?
And so on. Violence, polygamy, immorality is justified because of what Mohammed did.
It is defended by people like you because they did it in another century.

But the beginnings of Islam was only about 1400 years ago.
The beginnings of Christianity was 2,000 years ago.
The beginnings of Judaism was over 4,000 years ago. Abraham lived 2100 B.C.
However the conquest was about 3,300 years ago.

At that time Israel was still not much more than nomadic tribes. God had given them land, and they were to go and conquer the land that was given them by divine right. Ever since that time the enemies of Israel have been at war trying to keep Israel from occupying that land, especially in more recent times the Muslims.
Today Muslims have no divine right to go and conquer any nation. They have no given right to utter a jihad against anyone. And yet they do. They still conquor by the sword, or try to.
Do you think they still have the divine mandate that God gave to Joshua?
Do you?
Don't you think our civilizations have changed a little in the past 4,000 years?
If you don't, I think something is wrong.

 

DHK, I am really in awe to put in mildly. How were people of 1400 or 3600 years ago supposed to accomodate the standards of today? And what makes you think I am defending anything? Both groups are "nothing more than nomadic tribes." Very similar social structures and cultures, etc. I absolutely fail to see your point. And no one claims any right to "do what Muhammad did." They are attempting (hopefully) to live by the standards of the Koran.

And war against Israel is hardly conquering "someone else's land." The Palestinians have a perfect right to attempt to do so, whether Muslim or Christian.