Can A "good" Muslim be a good American?

[gekko]

"Domestically - no. Because he is instructed to marry four women and beat and scourge his wife when she disobeys him (Quran 4:34)."

YUSUFALI: Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all).
PICKTHAL: Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.
SHAKIR: Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.

of three translations - none say to marry four women.

" Religiously - no. Because no other religion is accepted by his Allah except Islam (Quran, 2:256)"

YUSUFALI: Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things.
PICKTHAL: There is no compulsion in religion. The right direction is henceforth distinct from error. And he who rejecteth false deities and believeth in Allah hath grasped a firm handhold which will never break. Allah is Hearer, Knower.
SHAKIR: There is no compulsion in religion; truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error; therefore, whoever disbelieves in the Shaitan and believes in Allah he indeed has laid hold on the firmest handle, which shall not break off, and Allah is Hearing, Knowing.

[translations taken from: http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/ ]

now that religiously one... same goes for christianity.

no other religion is accepted. no one can come to the Father except through Christ. One Way.

those are the two scriptures from the Quran listen in the OP.

 

[gekko]

Uh-oh gekko, your in for it now. There's no such thing as a stereotypical American just as there is no such thing as a hypocritical "good" Christian.

hahahahaha.

 

[bound]

[translations taken from: http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/ ]

I prefer the English Translation and Commentary of Maulana Muhammad Ali. Although the translation is older Maulana's Commentary express the Allegorical Traditions of Islamic Interpretation which is so often missing in more modern translations and commentary which emphasize a kind of Historic-Critical Methodology void of Classic Arabic Interpretations.

 

[DHK]

It is utterly ridiculous to make such broad assertions about Muslims without an ounce of evident knowledge of the subject. Those verses supposedly out of the Koran do not exist, I don't doubt. The citations are not right. They need to include a sura as well as as verse.

Shall we call your bluffs Amity?
1. Who are you accusing of not "havng an ounce of evident knowledge of the subject" of Islam? Are you inferring that all that are posting here are ignorant and that you are the only one knowledgeable in this subject? A littel arrogant aren't you?

2. You say those verse from the Koran don't exist. You just said they are from the Koran so obviously they exist from your own words. (a lesson in logic).
Since the references were given prove that they don't exist. Don't give us the lame excuse that you can't find them in your translation. You will have to do better than that.

Hatred is never edifying to the body of Christ,and with no substance to it that is all this thread amounts to. It should be closed.

It seems that there is more hatred coming from your posts against fellow believers than there is from other believers posting the truth about Islam. So where is the hatred that you speak of? Do I detect some hypocrisy here?
Furthermore, why should this thread be closed if there is honest debate about the OP: "Can a good Muslim be a good American?" Is the answer yes or no? Why or why not? In your opinion should no discussion be permitted on this topic because it is offensive, or because you are afraid that in your defense of Islam you will very quickly be defeated?

I could make much stronger argument that Christians cannot be good Americans.

You are welcome to take up your gauntlet and do so. But be prepared to be defeated. I don't know of many (if any) Christians that would slam an airliner into the WTC towers.

 

[amity]

How about if the subject was "Can a good Christian be a good American?" or "Can a good Jew be a good American?" Most people hopefully would at least have better taste, as well as better motivation.

If you want to quote the Koran then quote excerpts, not isolated mistranslations strung together out of context. That is not sound scholarship. Your high school social studies teacher would not let you get away with that unchallenged. Neither am I. :laugh:

And truly it should at least be moved. This is "General Baptist discussions." This thread shouldn't be anywhere, but if it is kept it should be in Politics shouldn't it? Not a bit of it has been about religion, and the subject matter is not even consistent with anything in the New Testament that I can find.

 

[DHK]

How about if the subject was "Can a good Christian be a good American?" or "Can a good Jew be a good American?" Most people hopefully would at least have better taste, as well as better motivation.

If you want to quote the Koran then quote excerpts, not isolated mistranslations strung together out of context. That is not sound scholarship. Your high school social studies teacher would not let you get away with that unchallenged. Neither am I. :laugh:

And truly it should at least be moved. This is "General Baptist discussions." This thread shouldn't be anywhere, but if it is kept it should be in Politics shouldn't it? Not a bit of it has been about religion, and the subject matter is not even consistent with anything in the New Testament that I can find.

Your posts shows that you are not interested in debate but only in falsely accusing the brethren. If you had any interest in debate you would have defended your statements, but you can't. Go on and post like this Amity, and you will find yourself in consideration for a suspension.

 

[amity]

Let's both follow good rules of sound academic debate, citing credible sources, avoiding inflammatory language, and refraining from ad hominem attacks, etc.

next debate.

 

[reformedbeliever]

I think by "good" muslim, "loyal" to the religion is what is meant.

A loyal, true muslim wants all of us dead. That's fact whether they tell that to you or not. If they are loyal, the Q'ran teaches either conversion or death to infidels...Christians.

Would you mind providing the text for this from the Quran? Thanks.

 

[reformedbeliever]

Your posts shows that you are not interested in debate but only in falsely accusing the brethren. If you had any interest in debate you would have defended your statements, but you can't. Go on and post like this Amity, and you will find yourself in consideration for a suspension.

I quite agree with Amity, so why not put me on the list of those being considered for a suspension? I think this thread stinks.

 

[reformedbeliever]

Let's both follow good rules of sound academic debate, citing credible sources, avoiding inflammatory language, and refraining from ad hominem attacks, etc.

next debate.

.......................... :applause:

 

[DHK]

.......................... :applause:

Originally Posted by amity

Let's both follow good rules of sound academic debate, citing credible sources, avoiding inflammatory language, and refraining from ad hominem attacks, etc.

Read through the thread. If Amity had followed her own advice the thread would not have degenerated to where it is right now. She falsely accused people of quoting wrong references, asserting that she alone had the right ones. She said that the references from MacArthur's book was wrong, another false accusation.
If Amity is going to make such accusations she must be able to back it up.
Acting like an authority is not good enough. One must provide the evidence.

Here are some facts to consider when quoting the Koran.
Unlike the Bible which has fairly standard chapter and verse divisions throughout various translations, the Koran does not.
Given any reference I can go from English to another language and find that I will be off by as many as two or three verses. The verse division is not consistent between various translations and editions of Korans. So to make fruitless charges of "I am right, and you are wrong," is petty and unbecoming, simply because one is ignorant of the facts. I personally own three copies of the Koran, all in different langauges, and find this to be the case. So in this on-going squabble throughout this thread no one has been wrong. The references have been right depending on the Koran being used.

Amity has made other statements that are not defensible. But she has left them and not tried to defend them. They are left hanging in the air with concluding statements such as: "This is hateful." If it is, then show how. Accusatory speech is not debate. This is a debate forum.

For those that are here to debate, then let's get on with it.
For those that are here to to accuse, and throw around personal attacks please refrain from posting.

 

[amity]

I take it as axiomatic that we do not start threads titled "should all Italians be sent back to Italy?" for example, or "do all Catholics beat their wives?" or "can Jews be loyal to the U.S?" This thread is exactly in that category. We are all nice people here, and hopefully Christians, too, and I shouldn't have to explain why.

Not much debate is needed to to defend my point, I HOPE.

 

[DHK]

I take it as axiomatic that we do not start threads titled "should all Italians be sent back to Italy?" for example, or "do all Catholics beat their wives?" or "can Jews be loyal to the U.S?" This thread is exactly in that category. We are all nice people here, and hopefully Christians, too, and I shouldn't have to explain why.

Not much debate is needed to to defend my point, I HOPE.

To rephrase the question:
Will a Muslim be loyal to his nation first or to his religion first? Please answer the question? It is a legitimate question.

 

[amity]

I don't know in a given case (as no one possibly can unless it comes up, which it never does), but I hope everyone would be loyal to their religion. In fact most people I have ever known (of any faith) are loyal to their families first! And there are literally 100s of other loyalties we each maintain simultaneously, too, and without much gut-wrenching conflict. And just like any other group, Muslims do not all think with the same brain and can be expected to come up with different personal answers!

And when does this choice ever arise, anyway?

Have you actually read this thread?

And why do you ask, anyway? I cannot see this as a legitimate question. I don't even know for sure what I would do in a case of such conflict, nor you, nor anyone else.

 

[Filmproducer]

To rephrase the question:
Will a Muslim be loyal to his nation first or to his religion first? Please answer the question? It is a legitimate question.

Ummm, I'm going to jump in here. There are many Christians who are loyal to their religion first and their nation second. That is the way it should be. Who are you to cry foul when a muslim does the same? In this country there is freedom of religion, (oh and religion is not defined as anything other than islamic).

Amity is right about this thread. It's ridiculous. I know plenty of loyal muslims who are also loyal Americans. The problem is that many on this board define loyal as radical fanatic. The two are not now, and will never be, the same. In contrast there are some radical fanatics of the Christian persuasion who are just as bad as the radical fanatic muslims.

 

[webdog]

http://www.freedomsring.org/New_Index/Questionable Loyalty of Muslims.htm

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32341

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53241


Rep.-elect Keith (Hakim-Mohammed) Ellison, D-Minn., has drawn fire for asking to take the constitutional oath on the Quran rather than the Bible at a swearing-in ceremony next month.
The Constitution specifies that members of Congress shall be bound by an oath to support the constitutional law of the land. In the oath, Ellison will be required to swear to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic ... without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion."
Critics argue he has conflicting loyalties, while Ellison insists he's a patriot. But within days of being elected, Ellison held a workshop on politics for a group closely affiliated with a radical Islamic school that preaches no Muslim can pledge loyalty to the Constitution or make laws outside the laws of the Quran, which the school's leaders assert is the "supreme law" of the land, trumping all man-made laws including the U.S. Constitution.

 

[DHK]

To rephrase the question:
Will a Muslim be loyal to his nation first or to his religion first? Please answer the question? It is a legitimate question.

Do you want me to answer it first?
If called upon, I as a Baptist would gladly serve my nation. My son was thinking of joining the air force.
My father, as a Catholic, fought in WWII.
Italians, most of whom were Catholic, were very much involved in war.
The Jews are not ashamed to fight for this nation. Does Kissinger fight for this nation. Or does he put his religion first, his loyalty to Judaism and Israel?
The question is what will a "good Muslim" do? That is, one who is very devout to Islam? Will he fight for America in this fight on terrorism? Or will he betray America and fight for Iraq, or Islam in general? Will he be loyal to his nation first or to his religion first? Which is it?

 

[DHK]

Ummm, I'm going to jump in here. There are many Christians who are loyal to their religion first and their nation second. That is the way it should be. Who are you to cry foul when a muslim does the same? In this country there is freedom of religion, (oh and religion is not defined as anything other than islamic).

Do Christians who are loyal to their faith first betray their nation at the same time?
That is not what the Bible teaches. Can a good Muslim also be a good American?

 

[amity]

Do you want me to answer it first?
If called upon, I as a Baptist would gladly serve my nation. My son was thinking of joining the air force.
My father, as a Catholic, fought in WWII.
Italians, most of whom were Catholic, were very much involved in war.
The Jews are not ashamed to fight for this nation. Does Kissinger fight for this nation. Or does he put his religion first, his loyalty to Judaism and Israel?
The question is what will a "good Muslim" do? That is, one who is very devout to Islam? Will he fight for America in this fight on terrorism? Or will he betray America and fight for Iraq, or Islam in general? Will he be loyal to his nation first or to his religion first? Which is it?

Aha! You are daydreaming. The same question was asked of Japanese-Americans in World War II. Of course we put them in concentration camps for the duration just to be sure of their loyalties, even though it later developed that the overwhelming majority of them were totally supportive of the war effort. So now we are all ashamed. So is that what we should do with Muslims? Put them in concentration camps?

In fact, NNE is ever asked to serve against their own people, or in war fronts that are likely to put them in greater jeopardy than the average soldier. Italian-Americans were not asked to serve in Italy in WWII. Ditto German-Americans. Jews were not asked to serve in the European front at all, and if we ever get crosswise with Israel you can bet they won't be asked to serve in that capacity either. Same for every other ethnic group. So Muslim Americans are extremely unlikely to be asked to serve against a Muslim nation. We just don't do that.

Now are you satisfied?

 

[DHK]

You are daydreaming. The same question was asked of Japanese-Americans in World War II. Of course we put them in concentration camps for the duration just to be sure of their loyalties, even though it later developed that the overwhelming majority of them were totally supportive of the war effort. So now we are all ashamed. So is that what we should do with Muslims? Put them in concentration camps?

In fact, NNE is ever asked to serve against their own people, or in war fronts that are likely to put them in greater jeopardy than the average soldier. Italian-Americans were not asked to serve in Italy in WWII. Ditto German-Americans. Jews were not asked to serve in the European front at all, and if we ever get crosswise with Israel you can bet they won't be asked to serve in that capacity either. Same for every other ethnic group. So Muslim Americans are extremely unlikely to be asked to serve against a Muslim nation. We just don't do that.

Now are you satisfied?

In fact we do, do that. Your quote shows your naivety toward Islam.
Islam is not a nation, not an ethnic group, but rather a religion. It is the largest religion in the world and the fastest growing religion in the world. There are over one billion Muslims in the world. Pakistan is the second largest Islamic nation in the world, 97% Muslim, and yet ironically in the Hindu nation of India there are more Muslims than there are in Pakistan. The Islamic faith has permeated into every part of the world. Therefore you are in effect saying that Muslims should be excused from all military service because somewhere in some nation they will be fighting their own people. One in every five are Muslims. Your argument makes no sense.