Can A "good" Muslim be a good American?

Civilizations progress as history progresses.
Divine revelation is the same way. We call it progressive revelation.
Moses knew more than Abraham, And then David knew more than those previous to him. John the Baptist knew more than all of the OT prophets for he was the last of the OT prophets, and by that time the OT had been completed.
By the time of John's death the NT had been completed and NT believers had the advantage of the entire Bible to rely on for God's revelation. Today, we not only have the Bible, but the advantage of many who have studied it, scholars and others who have done much to give us insight into the Word of God. We know more about the Word of God today than at any time in history. And it is from God's Word that we learn about Christ.

But what you suggest is not progression in revelation, not progression in civilization, not progression in morality, but rather a retrogression in all of the above.
Your logic is: Because it was ok in Joshua's time (the slaughter of the Cannanites), it is okay for the Muslims.
Because it was ok for Mohammed to do it in his time, it is okay for the Muslims of today to do it.
Time doesn't have anything to do with it you say.
Did you ever read the cartoon of the cave man dragging his wife by the hair with his club over his shoulder? Time doesn't have anything to do with it you say?

 

Well! I thought we believed that the Bible was the only rule of faith of practice! Now you are telling me what we really live by is the studies of "scholars and others who have done much to give us insight into the Word of God."

And as I said no one is attempting to live according to how Muhammad did, not in that respect at least. They are attempting to live according to the Koran, just as we are attempting to live according to the Bible.

And by the way, civilizations do NOT progress. The Bible says that man waxes worse and worse, not better and better.

AND I never said anything was okay ... except that it is "okay" for Palestianians to attempt to defeat Israel.


Still, your point escapes me totally. Good night and God bless.

 

The point is that you can't take Joshua's conquest of the Canaanites, and use it to justify violence on the part of Christianity. That is what you did. To put it bluntly it is an asinine comparison. It so far removed from this day and age it makes no sense to even attempt the comparison, much less to note that they were Jews and not Christians.

Neither can you take that same conquest and say look at the similarity between the Jews and the Muslims, and thus try to put Islam in a good light. That again is absurd.
You have tried to do both. You have failed.

 

When did I attempt to justify violence on the part of Christianity? Using Joshua's example or anything else?

How am I trying to put Islam in a good light? Is a failure to totally hate their guts now considered partisanship?

Look frankly I know almost NOTHING about Buddhism. But if you tried to say Gautama was a 2nd century Chinese general, I would be correcting you about that, too. Facts is facts!

This has gotten so lame that unless one of the others who were posting earlier shows back up I doubt I will post again.

 

In addition read Bible Boy’s post to you (#210) and see how confused you are, and all the contradictory statements you have made on this very topic.

 

I see amity was banned. I hope it was because she was defending Islam, and anybody else that wants to defend a satanic, pagan religion suffers the same fate here.

 

Here is the response of one imam in Calgary to this question.

 

It would seem that we (amity and I) were both accurate in what we were saying about Arabic preservation of the ancient Greek works and how the actual Greek manuscripts ended up in medieval Europe. However, neither of us was accurately painting the entire historical picture because we were each talking about a different historical time period and set of events.

Upon further research I found the following:

Source: John L. Esposito, The Oxford Dictionary of Islam, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003, c.v. Aristotle, pg. 24.

Source: Earle E. Cairns, Christianity Through the Centuries: A History of the Christian Church, 3rd ed., Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996, pg. 228.

The time period referenced above was the beginning of the end of the “dark ages.” However, it should be noted just who was studying the ancient Greek philosophy obtained through these early Arabic and Hebrew sources. Those “Scholastics” were the European Nobility and the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church. So initially there was a very limited use of such philosophy in Western Europe. Now let’s jump forward a couple hundred years to the fall of Byzantine (Christian) Constantinople to the Ottoman Turks and see what happened.

Source: Earle E. Cairns, Christianity Through the Centuries: A History of the Christian Church, 3rd ed., Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996, pg. 254.

Likewise, according to Justo L. Gonzalez in his book, The Story of Christianity:

Source: Justo L. Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity Volume I: The Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation, New York: Harper Collins, 1984, pg. 366.

So while it would be accurate to say that Arabic scholars translated, studied, and wrote commentaries on the ancient Greek writings of Aristotle etc. and some medieval Europeans obtained copies of those Arabic translations. It is not accurate to say:

Clearly, the Byzantine Christians of Constantinople maintained, studied, copied, and brought copies of the original Greek texts into Western Europe when they fled the advancing Turkish Muslim armies. It was this infusion of the original Greek texts into Western Europe that brought about the Renaissance and an end to the “dark ages” of the medieval period.

 

Hi Bible-boy,

My only criticism of your thesis and that of Cahill, which you appear to be attempting to establish is that it neglects the role the Crusades had on Western Culture due, in large part, to the interaction with Arabic Culture. This whole thesis is 'novel' and I dare say a bit revisionist, in my humble opinion. I can appreciate the motive but I call into question the objectivity of the scholarship.

Be Well.

 

Nope. It does not negelect the role of the Crusades and the interaction between European Crusaders and Arabs. In fact the quote I gave from Christianity Through the Centuries and the one from the Oxford Dictionary of Islam both make it clear that some Western Europeans were influenced by Arabic translations of Aristotle (by Arabic philosophers) as early as A.D. 1200 through Spain. This is one of the causes of the rise of Scholasticism during that period of church history. However, the Renaissance exploded in Italy and then the rest of Western Europe as a direct impact of the infusion of original Greek manuscripts and the Greek speaking monks, clerics, and scholars who fled before the fall of Constantinople in 1453. Thus, amity's statement on this issue was not accurate. Likewise, none of the three sources I provided make any reference to Cahill's "theory" or Ireland with respect to the subject matter/time period.

 

University Professor as well as Professor of Religion and International Affairs and of Islamic Studies at Georgetown University, John L. Esposito is Founding Director of the Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding: History and International Affairs in the Walsh School of Foreign Service. Previously, he was Loyola Professor of Middle East Studies, Chair of the Department of Religious Studies, and Director of the Center for International Studies at the College of the Holy Cross.

Read more about his full career and published works here: http://www.onlineislamicstore.com/johnesposito.html

Earle E. Cairns (PhD, University of Nebraska) is professor emeritus at Wheaton College in Wheaton, Illinois. He is a member of the American Society of Church History, the American Historical Association, and the Conference on Faith and History.

Justo L. Gonzalez, author of the highly praised three-volume History of Christian Thought and other major works, attended United Seminary in Cuba, received his M.A. at Yale, and was the youngest person to be awarded a Ph.D. in historical theology at Yale. Dr. Gonzalez is now on the faculty of the Interdenominational Theological Center in Atlanta.

To attempt to call the scholarship of John L. Esposito and the other authors I referenced into question because you don’t like what their research reveals is simply outrageous.

 

Just be clear that, after the fall of Constantanople, the vast majority of trade entered into the ports of Venice and other centers of trade in Italy. Compared to the rest of the West this made Italy very metropolitan. It was in and around these centers of trade that the Renaissance emerged. I honestly believe that Cahill's theory is in error but at best hugely over emphasizes the role of Ireland and the Monks there of.

 

It was clear from your first post in response to my mentioning Cahill's work that you think much of the man's book. However, I am not trying to make the be all to end all argument that Ireland ought to get all the credit for the Renaissance movement in Western Europe. I mentioned Cahill's book because I beleive (if memory serves correctly) that he points out that the ancient Greek manuscripts did indeed come into medieval Europe along with the monks who fled before the fall of Constantinople in 1453.

Let me be sure to be clear. My main point was to confront the inaccurate information that amity was espousing regarding how classical Greek and Roman works became known in Western Europe. I did so by showing that the original manuscripts of classical Greek and Roman cultural arts, sciences, and philosophical works etc. actually came into medieval Europe along with the Christian monks who fled before the fall of Constantinople in 1453. I am not here to debate whether or not Ireland played a major role in the Renaissance, nor is that the topic of this thread.

 

Sure and honestly I don't really have a problem with a vast majority of what you have brought to the discussion. I must admit that Cahill's Book annoys me but I really don't want you to get the impression that you annoy me or the other references are considered suspect. Clearly the gentlemen's credentials are very impressive I only offered criticism because it gave the appearance that you are building support for Cahill's thesis, which I find distasteful. I don't believe his book, nor history, makes his case frankly and I prefer to reference 'older' historical evidence in which to establish my perspective.

Regardless of this I find you wonderfully knowledgeable and a true breath of fresh air.

Be Well.

 

I am not sure why the emphasis in previous posts has been on Greece. But here is what Josh McDowell summarizes in his book about the cultural expression that Islam has left to the world:

Here is an example of the architecture of Islam, and sometimes the violence that surrrounds it:

However there are still many Islamic structures that still exist from the famed Mogul empire of the 16th century, primarily in India and in Pakistan.

 

Hey DHK,

The emphasis is not on Greece. It has been on ancient Greek and Roman cultural material (the early writings found in the Great Books of the Western World). The subject arose because the poster amity made the following inaccurate statement when speaking about Medieval Europe:

She was attempting to paint the Golden Age of Islam in a more positive light, speaking of its advances in the arts, sciences, philosophey, etc. and at the same time making the point that during that period Western Europe was languishing in the "dark-ages." Her statement could have led readers to believe that the sole reason the west has a link to its great ancient cultural heritage is because Islamic philosophers and scholars preserved it for us. I sucessfully refuted her argument with the string of recent posts. Now I must go. I have a deadline to meet for a project that is due by 9:00 AM Monday morning.

 

Intellectually - no. Because he cannot accept the American Constitution since it is based on Biblical principles and he believes the Bible to be corrupt.

Spiritually - no. Because when we declare "one nation under God," the Christian’s God is loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as heavenly father, nor is he ever called love in The Quran’s 99 excellent names.

First, is the American Constitution really based on Biblical principles?

Second, though I agree with your portrayals of each religion's God, I don't really understand what you're saying. One nation under God really doesn't have anything to do with "heavenly father, or love, etc.". It is just one nation under God. And they worded it that way so everyone could place the God of their religious beliefs in there.

 

Good point. Before people castigate Muslims for their beliefs (whether they want to kill infidels or not), they need to remember that OUR God ordered the killing of many men, women and children too.

 

What lame excuse is that? Show me from the New Testament where that is so. Jesus taught the exact opposite--"turn the other cheek." He never ordered, for example, a revolt, revolution, extermination of the Romans or against the Roman government. You are way of base.

 

DHK, are you suggesting that Christians shouldn't defend their families in the face of attacks or Christians shouldn't join the Armed Forces to defend the country they live in?

The God of the Old Testament is the God of the New... are you suggesting that there are 'two' Gods?