Christian-Muslim Relations In the Middle-East

Rafidi

Rafidi

Legendary Member
It was a rhetorical question. If truth means anything of value to you, you would already be assuming such roles yourself on your own. Indeed, as a supposedly genuine truth seeker and proclaimer, you ought easily, readily and constantly assume what you'd perceive to be the devil's advocate position against your own claims, putting them up for test, while resting on the fact that in so doing you'll always end up winning either way. For even with the inherent possibly, in this process, of losing your religion, your adopted way of life, your worldly rooted interests, your conceived notions that you harbor and comfortably live by, or even literally your own life, you will have gained the Truth in return, or at least (in your case esp, as a start) the realization and the peacefulness of being Truth's faithful disciple no matter how much you know of It. Is there anything more valuable than Truth? What good will it be for you to preserve and gain more of whatever appeals to you in exchange for Truth? If within yourself you see some benefit in this diabolically oriented exchange, and confidently so, then sadly I tell you you already have one foot in Hell with the other one following it.

-------

"Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached"

For the first three centuries and many more after Muhammad’s death in 632 AD, Islam spread only with an army either lurking in the background or standing in the foreground. Military armies stormed out of Arabia and conquered cities along the Tigris and Euphrates, as well as cities towards the Mediterranean Sea, like Jerusalem in 638 AD. Then Islam continued its militarily spread even beyond those regions, reaching all the way to Spain and France. Do you claim that that happened in contradiction with Muhammad and the Quran?

---
You disappear for some pages, and then reemerge like a ghost and try to take us back pages. If you had followed the discussions thus far, you wont be asking silly questions based on a silly and offensive quote on the Prophet by a silly pope from the past. One of the same popes of the past your friend liking your post @Dark Angel was absolving Christianity of their atrocities.

To repeat for the millionth times:

When is a Muslim permitted to resort to the use of force and who are those permitted to resort to the use of force:

The Glorious Quran 22:39-41
"Permission [to fight] has been given to those who are being fought, because they were wronged. And indeed, Allah is competent to give them victory. [They are] those who have been evicted from their homes without right - only because they say, "Our Lord is Allah." And were it not that Allah checks the people, some by means of others, there would have been demolished monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques in which the name of Allah is much mentioned. And Allah will surely support those who support Him. Indeed, Allah is Powerful and Exalted in Might. [And they are] those who, if We give them authority in the land, establish prayer and give zakah and enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong. And to Allah belongs the outcome of [all] matters"

1. those who are being fought,
2. those who were oppressed
3. those evicted from their homes or land.

The above is a general verse. It is not subject to place and time. It is universal. General rule.

Same with the below. Are Muslims to fight others because they choose not to be Muslims:

The Glorious Quran 60:8
"Allah does not forbid you (as regards) the ones who have not fought you on account of the religion and have not driven you out of your residences that you should be benign to them and be equitable towards them; surely Allah loves the equitable."

So based on the above, we are to treat people who haven't fought us and haven't driven us out of our homes kindly and justly.


Are there Muslims who acted contrary to the above? Yes, it is possible and we see examples in the pages of history. Are or were they contradicting the above verses? Yes. Do I support or approve of the conquests by the Caliphate, who the criteria to fight as per the above were not met? I do not.
 
  • Advertisement
  • Steven Gerrard

    Steven Gerrard

    New Member
    So, Christians are 50% of the population? Maybe endangered species is too harsh for Lebanon, I would rephrase it to say significantly dwindling.
    Not necessarily living in Lebanon, but it's half half. It is also a very tricky subject due to the different sects. You can lump Shia and Sunni in one basket but they are different in beliefs.

    Troubled history – agreed. However, I think you’re making an assumption not based in the reality of the subjective experiences of those individual Christians and their families. They might say something different to you than they would to me which might confirm each of our existing beliefs. From my part, I would never claim to fully represent or understand the beliefs and views of southern Shia, for example, because I know that I do not have access to the group the way you might have. I think those Christians tell me something different than they might tell you, tbh. And we can’t deny that they had a lot of trouble after the Israeli withdrawal in 2000 by being labeled as collaborators just for their association with their religion and village - a sentiment that still exists among some today.
    No assumptions, I'm from a mixed family of shia, christian orthodox and maronite. I understand Christian views on occupation, especially Syrian occupation that's why I sympathize with them about it. No, collaborators who sympathized with Saad Haddad and were part of the South Lebanon Army. Bad sentiments will always exist among the extremists, this applies to every sect.

    Pan-Arabism is a code word. It’s very much alive, it’s just transformed. As long as there’s a dominant religious group and a hegemony-hungry regional power, the sentiment will always exist.
    It's dead. It hasn't transformed. Pan Arabism isn't associated with Muslims. Kamal Jumblatt was a Pan Arabist, so were most secular far left parties like the Lebanese Communist Party or the SSNP. Muslims today can't even decide on their identity. Some wants to be Persian, the other wants to be part of the GCC.


    I think you might’ve misunderstood this point. I don’t think a post-sectarian view of Lebanon is a healthy way to engage our people. It’s important to see each group relative to their subjective experiences, not as how they should be acting given a secular utopia. I believe that is another fault of the sawra types that only exist in their narrow Beirut bubble.
    I agree, this is why I think decentralizing decision making would solve a lot of issues. the sawra types also started in Tripoli, Saida and Nabatieh not just Beirut.

    Sure, but I’ve read enough from Nassim Taleb and others to I know that this concept of localism is not as novel as he might think it is. It makes for good twitter chatter, but it’s yet to be seen how it plays out in practical application when you have homogenous regions that result in sectarian cantons, among other issues. Localism isn’t a panacea for our broader reckoning with our sectarian and economic problems.
    He never said it's new. He cites Ancient Roman Republic and the Ottoman Empire as examples of localism. on the practical level it will work and it will make regions in Lebanon friendlier with one another. Not only that, municipalities will compete with one another as well to improve the regions' standards.
     
    T

    Thoma

    New Member
    You disappear for some pages, and then reemerge like a ghost and try to take us back pages. If you had followed the discussions thus far, you wont be asking silly questions based on a silly and offensive quote on the Prophet by a silly pope from the past. One of the same popes of the past your friend liking your post @Dark Angel was absolving Christianity of their atrocities.

    To repeat for the millionth times:

    When is a Muslim permitted to resort to the use of force and who are those permitted to resort to the use of force:

    The Glorious Quran 22:39-41
    "Permission [to fight] has been given to those who are being fought, because they were wronged. And indeed, Allah is competent to give them victory. [They are] those who have been evicted from their homes without right - only because they say, "Our Lord is Allah." And were it not that Allah checks the people, some by means of others, there would have been demolished monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques in which the name of Allah is much mentioned. And Allah will surely support those who support Him. Indeed, Allah is Powerful and Exalted in Might. [And they are] those who, if We give them authority in the land, establish prayer and give zakah and enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong. And to Allah belongs the outcome of [all] matters"

    1. those who are being fought,
    2. those who were oppressed
    3. those evicted from their homes or land.

    The above is a general verse. It is not subject to place and time. It is universal. General rule.

    Same with the below. Are Muslims to fight others because they choose not to be Muslims:

    The Glorious Quran 60:8
    "Allah does not forbid you (as regards) the ones who have not fought you on account of the religion and have not driven you out of your residences that you should be benign to them and be equitable towards them; surely Allah loves the equitable."

    So based on the above, we are to treat people who haven't fought us and haven't driven us out of our homes kindly and justly.


    Are there Muslims who acted contrary to the above? Yes, it is possible and we see examples in the pages of history. Are or were they contradicting the above verses? Yes. Do I support or approve of the conquests by the Caliphate, who the criteria to fight as per the above were not met? I do not.
    Muhammad's foundational goal was to lay claim to Mecca (particularly the Kaaba) and from there on to the rest of the world. He failed to do so peacefully and got himself exiled afterwards. He started killing and raiding Meccan caravans while growing stronger as such, up to a point where he thought he had become strong enough to achieve his goal, and so he did. He successfully conquered and subjugated Mecca and converted the Kaaba to Islam, and from there on proceeded to do much of the same throughout Arabia. This is Muhammad establishing his religion.

    But let us put that aside for a moment and focus only on the few years following Mohammad's death. Within only 6 years after his death in 632, military armies carrying his name and the banner of Islam stormed out of Arabia and conquered cities along the Tigris and Euphrates as well as cities towards the Mediterranean Sea, like Jerusalem, in 638 AD. If this expansion was in contradiction with Muhammad and the Quran, we should at least expect to see it condemned, at least in principle, by at least one of his companions or family members. Not only there were none, but all of them without exception were actively participating in it. Thus it is much more likely that Muhammad and the Quran conforms with (rather than contradicts) this violent/military expansion (and its continued subsequent growth).

    ---

    It's not just some random Muslims acting contrary to those few non-violence verses you keep quoting, but it is Muhammad himself, the founder, along with his companions, discarding them and going by the genocidal ones that were later revealed towards the end of the Quran, sealing thereby the genetic code of the religion. They were most likely acting faithfully in accordance with the Quranic revelation of verse abrogation (e.g. Sura 87 verses 6-7, among others) that was revealed to Muhammad when Muslims were starting to face conflicting commands. As per said revelation, Muslims, then and now, in this situation, aren't supposed to pick the verses they like best, rather they are to go to history and see which verse was revealed last; whichever verse came last is said to abrogate or cancel earlier (opposing) one. This is basically Allah telling Mohammad (and effectively all Muslims) that 'now, that you are no longer persecuted and have gathered sufficient force, you may forget/abrogate previous (non-violence) verses that are standing in your way of spreading Islam'.

    ---
     
    Last edited:
    NewLeb

    NewLeb

    New Member
    Muhammad's foundational goal was to lay claim to Mecca (particularly the Kaaba) and from there on to the rest of the world. He failed to do so peacefully and got himself exiled from there afterwards. He started killing and raiding Meccan caravans while growing stronger as such, up to a point where he thought he had become strong enough to achieve his goal, and so he did. He successfully conquered and subjugated Mecca and converted the Kaaba to Islam, and from there on proceeded to do much of the same throughout Arabia. This is Muhammad establishing his religion.

    But let us put that aside for a moment and focus only on the few years following Mohammad's death. Within only 6 years after his death in 632, military armies carrying his name and the banner of Islam stormed out of Arabia and conquered cities along the Tigris and Euphrates as well as cities towards the Mediterranean Sea, like Jerusalem, in 638 AD. If this expansion was in contradiction with Muhammad and the Quran, we should at least expect to see it condemned, at least in principle, by at least one of his companions or family members. Not only were there none, but all of those without exception were actively participating in it. Thus it is much more likely that Muhammad and the Quran conforms with (rather than contradicts) this violent/military expansion (and its continued subsequent growth).

    ---

    It's not just some random Muslims acting contrary to those few non-violence verses you keep quoting, but it is Muhammad himself, the founder, along with his companions, discarding them and going by the genocidal ones that were later revealed towards the end of the Quran, sealing thereby the genetic code of the religion. They were most likely acting faithfully in accordance with the Quranic revelation of verse abrogation (e.g. Sura 87 verses 6-7, among others) that was revealed to Muhammad when Muslims were starting to face conflicting commands. As per said revelation, Muslims, then and now, in this situation, aren't supposed to pick the verses they like best, rather they are to go to history and see which verse was revealed last; whichever verse came last is said to abrogate or cancel earlier (opposing) one. This is basically Allah telling Mohammad (and effectively all Muslims) that now, that he is no longer persecuted and has gathered sufficient force, he may forget/abrogate previous (non-violence) verses that are standing in his way of spreading Islam.

    ---
    Was this copy/pasted form some Christian Zionist blog?
     
    Rafidi

    Rafidi

    Legendary Member
    Muhammad's foundational goal was to lay claim to Mecca (particularly the Kaaba) and from there on to the rest of the world. He failed to do so peacefully and got himself exiled afterwards. He started killing and raiding Meccan caravans while growing stronger as such, up to a point where he thought he had become strong enough to achieve his goal, and so he did. He successfully conquered and subjugated Mecca and converted the Kaaba to Islam, and from there on proceeded to do much of the same throughout Arabia. This is Muhammad establishing his religion.
    This is a manifestation of the devil and the evil brainwashing you have been taught fighting back. But I trust you will be strong enough to break that bandage that is trying to cripple your thinking faculty. And it is lovely to see you win this battle. This is basically an interpretation you have been fed and a conclusion you have drawn not based on history but based on finding a way to tarnish the other in order to feel good about your own beliefs, however paganistic and violent they may be.

    Amazingly, it is in the Bible we find convert or die verses. The OT is littered with such verses. But we dont find such in the Quran. We find these verses in the Quran:

    1. "Let there be no compulsion in religion".

    2. "Let him who wills believe and let him who wills disbelive".

    3. "To you your religion and to me mine own religion".

    When you speak of Muhammad's (s) goal, where did you read about his goal somewhere or is that your pre judging his intentions in retrospect? Where did you read Muhammad (s) said his goal was conquest? Bring one verse from the Quran.

    Rather this is what we find:

    "Invite to the way of your Lord with wisdom and good instruction, and argue with them in a way that is best. Indeed, your Lord is most knowing of who has strayed from His way, and He is most knowing of who is [rightly] guided." (Glorious Quran 16:125)

    Someone who speaks of wisdom, good instruction, and debating in the best possible manner doesnt sound to me to be someone with an evil goal. So when you speak of Muhammad's (s) goal that is a pre judgement on your part of his intentions in hindsight.

    Secondly, when you want to pretend to be speaking in the name of history, bring out the facts. The events. The dates. The verses. The scripture. Dont pass a judgment and then type a narrative that make you sound as if you are screaming in frustration from the top of your head and pulling your hair in front of a screen. It is a nonsensical approach!

    For someone who spent 23 years of his last part of his life preaching, 13 of the 23 were spent in Makkah under humiliating treatment, oppression, persecution and assaults. His crime? He preached against idolatry, which was the tradition of his people. So he should be silenced. He was accused of so many things including being mad, being a sorcerer, being possessed by a demonic power and copying scripture, but they could not find any evidence so say for sure, it was this or that that really happened. They were perplexed by the phenomenon called Muhammad (s). Yet, they offered to bribe him literally. They wanted to entice him with money, power, and women. They even told him that if he was mentally sick, they would bring for him the best physicians to treat his ailment. They only wanted him to stop preaching belief in the One God. His response was popular and striking into the hearts of his enemies: "if you bring the sun and the moon and place them to my right and left, I will not give up on this divine mission".

    13 years, he endured persecution and his numbers grew and grew and grew. This doesnt sound like violent conversion like the other religion that conquered an entire empire and continent and rose to the status of a world majority religion through the sword while pretending to be the "turn they other cheek" scammers!!!. Chrsitianity is a scam, my friend. You say one thing and do the other. You preach love and yet you say it was love when those who become your saints "compelled" others to adopt your faith. If you cant come to that conclusion, your conscience will kill you!!!

    Anyways, off to Yathrib the Prophet migrated after his uncle, who was the head of the clan of Hashem passed away and there was no one to protect him in Makkah. His life was threatened and the clans of Quraysh decided it was time to kill him. This attempted assassination, if I were in the shoe of the Prophet, was enough to extinguish my enemies. Enough justification not to leave an ant crawling. But he didnt do that. Instead, he migrated. He chose the peaceful option, and did not choose confrontation in Makkah. Instead, after defeating his enemies and God promised to strengthen and protect him and grant him victory, he still found the kindness and mercy in his heart to forgive his enemies and even granted them protection. Do you really believe this man was bad? Do you really believe this man is the man you have been brainwashed to believe he was? Or dont you think your entire problem with him is religious rivalry even at the price of forging history and painting the wrong picture of him? Your only problem is because his religion grew to importance and you feel your faith in Christianity is at stake. But your faith in Christianity is at stake because there is certainly something better that can win you over!!! That is what makes you guys to go frantic and not leave a stone unturned in falsifying history and dreaming the Prophet. Even centuries after his death, he keeps winning hearts.

    Anyways, the Prophet arrived Yathrib and an entire city became Muslim, with exception of some Jews (who later proved treacherous and broke the pact) and Christians whom he offered protection and safety. The name of the city was changed from Yathrib to Medina. I can understand the fact that Jesus was not this successful. And the Bible provides the answer: "he (Jesus) came unto his own and his own people rejected him". All the preaching, parables and miracles did not make Jesus as successful as Muhammad (s) I'm winning over his own nation. It is understandable therefore why you are brainwashed to imagine Muhamamad (s) was forcing people to his faith. You can't provide any other convincing explanation when you read of the successes of Muhammad (s) in winning over his people and the failure of Jesus who the Bible says his own people rejected him (John 1:11).

    In frustration, look at how Jesus addressed his people:

    "A wicked and adulterous generation" (Matthew 12:39)

    "You brood of vipers" (Matthew 12:34)

    "Ye are of [your] father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it." (John 8:44)

    "You serpents , you generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell"? (Matthew 23:33)

    "You blind fools! Which is greater: the gold, or the temple that makes the gold sacred"? (Matthew 23:17)

    Now compare:

    "So by mercy from Allah, [O Muhammad], you were lenient with them. And if you had been rude [in speech] and harsh in heart, they would have disbanded from about you. So pardon them and ask forgiveness for them and consult them in the matter. And when you have decided, then rely upon Allah . Indeed, Allah loves those who rely [upon Him]." (Glorious Quran 3:159)

    "And We did not send any messenger except to be obeyed by permission of Allah. And if, when they wronged themselves, they had come to you, [O Muhammad], and asked forgiveness of Allah and the Messenger had asked forgiveness for them, they would have found Allah Accepting of repentance and Merciful." (Glorious Quran 4:64)

    "We have only sent you as a mercy to the creations" (Gloruous Quran 21:107)

    Now tell me, would you naturally, notwithstanding other considerations, follow a man who would call you snake, fool, and adulterous generation, or another man who seeks forgiveness for you, consult with you, speak gently or leniently and is merciful?

    But be assured that the success of Muhammad (s), who said La Ilaha Il-lal-lah" is the success of Jesus (as), who said "hear oh Israel, the Lord Our God is but One God". Not two, not three in one or fifty in four. One God! "Our God", including the God of Jesus himself! The choice of whether to follow Jesus through Muhammad and whether to follow church doctrines which were the inventions of converted pagan nations into Christianity and their bishops in 2,3 or 4 centuries after Jesus is yours to make. I am by no means supporting the enemies of Jesus (as) or going against him. I am showing you that it was a miracle in the way Arabians embraced Muhammad (s) while the Jews rejected Jesus (as) after all. Also, Jesus (as) was not all gentle and kind and a lamb. He was militant and when he needed to be form, he was firm.

    Back to the story of the Prophet's migration. And Yathrib became known as "Madinatun Nabi", or "the city of the Prophet". A beautiful name which every saint and every evil doer would be envious of. It speaks of sheer love. After settling in Medina, the people of Makkah that remained were still trooping to Medina to join the faith of Muhammad (s). A faith based on purity of mind and body and an escape from from blemish of idolatry. The chieftains of Makkah, whose commercial trade centred on pilgrims visiting the idols in the Kaabah were threatened by a firm belief in monotheism or Tawhid. So they felt they couldn't tolerate the rising power in Medina. And you dare speak of violence and you dare link it to the Prophet? You are being unfair. The pagans tried to first strike a deal with the clans of Medina and failed. Later on, they succeeded in getting the Jews on their side (and both were defeated). This was a historical and decisive decision that will frame the relations of Jews with Muslims forever. And the pagans chose to resort to war. And then the Verse of Permission to Fight was revealed to the new Muslims with conditionalities of why/when you can fight and a promise based on certainty from the start that the Prophet would be victorious. In the end, we only have envious haters crying over spilled milk. The rest is history. Keep whining! :)

    But let us put that aside for a moment and focus only on the few years following Mohammad's death. Within only 6 years after his death in 632, military armies carrying his name and the banner of Islam stormed out of Arabia and conquered cities along the Tigris and Euphrates as well as cities towards the Mediterranean Sea, like Jerusalem, in 638 AD. If this expansion was in contradiction with Muhammad and the Quran, we should at least expect to see it condemned, at least in principle, by at least one of his companions or family members. Not only there were none, but all of them without exception were actively participating in it. Thus it is much more likely that Muhammad and the Quran conforms with (rather than contradicts) this violent/military expansion (and its continued subsequent growth).
    That is where you are wrong. For example, after the Prophet's demise, Imam Ali (as) did not fight in ANY conquest of foreign lands outside Arabia. He didnt take part in the conquest of Persia under Umar, the second caliph. Because you dont know these details does not mean they dont exist and you are not right in rushing to conclude that there was no opposition at all, or at least refusal in joining these campaigns or conquests of places outside Arabia. We could have still conquered these places by preaching, and through the truthful word like Islam later on spread in southeast Asia. Today, the largest Muslim country is Indonesia. And not one Muslim soldier stepped foot in southeast Asia to convert anyone at sword point. The Shia of Lebanon are not a story of forceful conversion, even though Shiism was the antithesis of the version of Islam the caliphate followed, Shia Islam was still embraced peacefully in the Levant under the noses of bloody Umayyad caliphate.

    You cant look at these conquests outside Arabia after the Prophet, without taking into consideration that there was already a split among Muslims. Islam was almost hijacked, if not for the split that occurred. Sadly, the majority were every day, day to day Muslims who only cared about their day to day survival. They submitted to the caliphate and abandoned imamate.

    Nonetheless, when you speak of these conquests (and I dont support them), aside from the Persian campaign which was led by Umar and that involved a nation falling, the other campaigns were not staged against nations or their monarchs. Take Jerusalem for example. It was the case of substituting one foreign ruler with another, even though I am not defending the Arabian conquests. The Byzantines left and the Arabian Muslims took over. That is the reason I was, earlier in this thread asking you guys to provide me with an example of the caliphate fighting a single battle against a Christian army in the Lebanon or a single example of the caliphate army conquering a "Christian city" in Lebanon. We really couldn't find any because there was no such battle and there were nothing such as a Christian city in Lebanon. There were scattered settlements with sparse populations in Lebanon but nothing of a major Christian presence. It was even under Muslim rule that Christian migrations and conversions peaked in Lebanon. The Maornites first gained prominence after the Mamluks, not before.

    It's not just some random Muslims acting contrary to those few non-violence verses you keep quoting, but it is Muhammad himself, the founder, along with his companions, discarding them and going by the genocidal ones that were later revealed towards the end of the Quran, sealing thereby the genetic code of the religion. They were most likely acting faithfully in accordance with the Quranic revelation of verse abrogation (e.g. Sura 87 verses 6-7, among others) that was revealed to Muhammad when Muslims were starting to face conflicting commands. As per said revelation, Muslims, then and now, in this situation, aren't supposed to pick the verses they like best, rather they are to go to history and see which verse was revealed last; whichever verse came last is said to abrogate or cancel earlier (opposing) one. This is basically Allah telling Mohammad (and effectively all Muslims) that 'now, that you are no longer persecuted and have gathered sufficient force, you may forget/abrogate previous (non-violence) verses that are standing in your way of spreading Islam'.

    ---
    I think you are referring to Surah 8, not Surah 87. Surah 8 was revealed after the Verse of Permission to Fight (Suran 22 verses 39 to 41) and after the migration and the attempted assassination on the Prophet's life and after the pagan chieftains and their pagan army went to Medinah to forment trouble and declare war. The Prophet didnt fight in Makkah. It was the pagans who came from Makkah to Medina to fight. They came to seek war. Surah 8 has a context. There is time and place involved and against a certain group of aggressors. You cant look at it in isolation.

    My message to you is to be zealous for the truth. To put hatred and prejudices aside. To open your heart to truth based on facts. To love based on truth. To forgive based on mercy. Not based on pretense. Open your heart. You may lose friends, power and money. You will gain your conscience and you will gain eternal life, even if you lose this world. Embrace the truth. That is strength.
     
    T

    Thoma

    New Member
    Firstly, I did not ascribe any characteristics to your argument. I merely asked questions of clarification.

    You, on the other hand, accuse me of being politically correct and of aligning with "multiculturalists", both baseless accusations and meaningless terms if I've heard any, yet I’m unsure as to how your “rational framework” allowed you to make those inferences from my posts. Your language ("minus yourself apparently") is dismissive and indicates to me that I am somehow a pariah when discussing a topic that has a direct affect on my life - go figure.

    In fact, your desire to engage Muslims exclusively as terrorists informed by the letter of their text represents a fear, possibly an inability, of further engaging on more substantive matters. This is not only a one-dimenensional form of argumentation, it is only the very basic baby step toward understanding the subjective real-life human experiences of minority Christian populations. It removes the conundrum presented by the imbalance of power between the two groups and takes them as morally diverging entities in a decontextualized Manichean universe. Fine if you choose to engage in that manner, I might agree with you. However, I choose to not see things through the ****ensian dichotomy of black and white, foregoing a more complex discussion of matters, as reality is more complex than simple black and white, as well as derailing the topic of this thread. Nevertheless, through your baseless accusations of me, you’ve twisted part of the discussion to make me sound like I’m defending terrorists and not defending the earthly concerns of our Christian brothers and sisters. I applaud you for this.



    Please remind me of the parts of the Qur’an the Romans used to persecute the early Christians. The dichotomy is not as simple as you seem to think.



    We are naming things as they are, just in different ways. You continue circlejerking about doctrine and how that causes terrorism (I agree that terrorism can be informed by doctrine) and how I, a Christian, cannot possibly discuss Christian persecution outside of the realm of the metaphysical and/or without being steeped directly in belief itself, I will continue with my discussion of the real life effects of power, the actual cause of terrorism. I distinguish myself from others by using multiple sources of information to build my arguments. I especially like Leviathan by Hobbes and The Prince by Machiavelli. Although they weren't part of it, the Enlightenment was a beautiful thing, no?



    This is a reductive statement, stripping my posts to their bare elements. Essentialism is only the first part of such an analysis. I'm not going to write screeds that noone will read. You have to keep the posts within a reasonable length. Take a look at the parts where I talked about Ottoman persecution of Christians, you might find something with which you agree.



    Sure. However, once again, essentialism is only but a introduction to a much wider argument that I think you conveniently ignore. I'm following the logic of the post to which I replied, which decontextualizes Christian experiences, seeing them only as 'People of the Book' and not also as social beings with diverse traditions and backgrounds. Would you agree that this is the case or not? Do we, as social beings, not have experiences outside of the realm of Christianity? Do humans not exist in conjunction with, or even in spite of, their religious affiliations and not because of them?

    Furthermore, you focus on the point of essentialism so much that you exclude my points on the direct persecution of Christians by the Ottoman Empire (just as one example). Your engagement on this point, therefore, is purely semantic. Please re-read my posts in that regard, I think you will find that there is agreement between us.



    OK. I understand that that cannot exist outside of the realm of belief for you, but morality is subjective.
    Yes, you are indirectly if not directly supporting, enabling, nurturing and perpetuating all criminals and all crimes. The (fatally defective metaphysical) framework or perspective via which you work out and advance your claims certainly does.

    Different peoples may carry out their persecution and killing of others for different reasons in accordance with respectively different texts/ideologies/justifications, but this can only mean different texts/ideologies/justifications can similarly justify or enable in principle said act, and not that all texts/ideologies/justifications are similar in respect of justifying or enabling it. The terrorists, their victims, and the whole world, are all in agreement on this, because it is simply something that is so trivially true, and something that cannot be validly negated or denied, except for you apparently (and those dangerously clueless/wicked multiculturalists). No cloak of civility or conceited ignorance can hide much anymore in this day and age. You can respond to that by calling me racist, Islamophobic, and one dimensional being, and by brandishing that useless 'reality is complex' card, but that doesn't amount to a counter-argument nor change reality.

    No, you are not naming things as they are, because you, as with and per the framework you rely on, are set to just NOT do that. And you pretty much conceded it in your revealing declaration of there being no objective morality. Behold, to deny there are any formal or final causes in the natural world (as per your framework) is implicitly to deny there is any objective standard of goodness in that world either (as you summarily declared in accordance with your framework). If there is no such thing as a form or essence by reference to which a thing/person/act can be judged a better or worse specimen of its type (as per your framework), then there is no sense to be made of its being objectively good or bad (as you declared in accordance with your framework). If there is no natural end or point to a thing/person/act (as per your framework) then there is nothing by reference to which it can be judged objectively right or wrong (as you declared in accordance with your framework)'.

    Description yields prescription. And the denial of that is self-refuting. Whenever you start giving your description of the nature of nature (or of the reality of reality), you engage in prescription as soon as you start building your argument/conclusion; you are necessarily deriving an 'ought' from an 'is' (otherwise why should yourself or others embrace your claim, view or conclusion?).

    See, morality is no less objective than science. As McInerny charitably explained to a newly emerging dumb generation decades ago "The very nature of things have ends/goals within them. A clock is a device used to keep time. When one understands the function of a clock, then a standard of evaluation is implicit in the very description of the clock. If one cannot pick a good clock from a bad clock, then one does not really know what a clock is. In like manner, if one cannot determine good human action from bad, then one does not really know what the human person is"


    "The Enlightenment was a beautiful thing", yes sure until you get to look behind its beautiful facade:

    Three-Stooges-765x400.jpg
     
    Last edited:
    NewLeb

    NewLeb

    New Member
    All that one has to do is point out that European Christians killed hundreds of millions of people throughout the centuries. WWI and II alone dwarfs all the non-Muslims that Muslims (supposedly) killed since Islam’s inception.

    Until Muslims stop taking these weirdos seriously, they’ll never go back to their former global glory....
     
    Nevermore

    Nevermore

    New Member
    Yes, you are indirectly if not directly supporting, enabling, nurturing and perpetuating all criminals and all crimes. The (fatally defective metaphysical) framework or perspective via which you work out and advance your claims certainly does.

    Different peoples may carry out their persecution and killing of others for different reasons in accordance with respectively different texts/ideologies/justifications, but this can only mean different texts/ideologies/justifications can similarly justify or enable in principle said act, and not that all texts/ideologies/justifications are similar in respect of justifying or enabling it. The terrorists, their victims, and the whole world, are all in agreement on this, because it is simply something that is so trivially true, and something that cannot be validly negated or denied, except for you apparently (and those dangerously clueless/wicked multiculturalists). No cloak of civility or conceited ignorance can hide much anymore in this day and age. You can respond to that by calling me racist, Islamophobic, and one dimensional being, and by brandishing that useless 'reality is complex' card, but that doesn't amount to a counter-argument nor change reality.

    No, you are not naming things as they are, because you, as with and per the framework you rely on, are set to just NOT do that. And you pretty much conceded it in your revealing declaration of there being no objective morality. Behold, to deny there are any formal or final causes in the natural world (as per your framework) is implicitly to deny there is any objective standard of goodness in that world either (as you summarily declared in accordance with your framework). If there is no such thing as a form or essence by reference to which a thing/person/act can be judged a better or worse specimen of its type (as per your framework), then there is no sense to be made of its being objectively good or bad (as you declared in accordance with your framework). If there is no natural end or point to a thing/person/act (as per your framework) then there is nothing by reference to which it can be judged objectively right or wrong (as you declared in accordance with your framework)'.

    Description yields prescription. And the denial of that is self-refuting. Whenever you start giving your description of the nature of nature (or of the reality of reality), you engage in prescription as soon as you start building your argument/conclusion; you are necessarily deriving an 'ought' from an 'is' (otherwise why should yourself or others embrace your claim, view or conclusion?).

    See, morality is no less objective than science. As McInerny charitably explained to a newly emerging dumb generation decades ago "The very nature of things have ends/goals within them. A clock is a device used to keep time. When one understands the function of a clock, then a standard of evaluation is implicit in the very description of the clock. If one cannot pick a good clock from a bad clock, then one does not really know what a clock is. In like manner, if one cannot determine good human action from bad, then one does not really know what the human person is"


    "The Enlightenment was a beautiful thing", yes sure until you get to look behind its beautiful facade:

    View attachment 19494
    LOL. This reply is the very embodiment of 1) childishness, 2) an infantile understanding of power, 3) a framework steeped in doctrine and nothing more, despite its pseudo-philosophical cloak, which is set up only to narrowly explain how one doctrine works better than the other - a prerequisite action for someone involved in the institutional aspect of things (for questioning their belief system might mean cracks in the edifice - this applies to all who ascribe to the same line of thinking). Therefore, pitting doctrine against doctrine, as you've done, is inherently tautological, foregoing logical conclusions for pre-determined, doctrinal ones, mirroring that of the opposing argument in this case. This method of understanding persecution fundamentally cannot explain the experience of persecution among MENA Christians, nor many other cases where good and evil act on a tangible, experienced level. Discerning readers can see past your sophistry, especially when some aspects of crime, in real life, are indeed more complex.

    Either I explicitly accept your framework and mimic your language (even though a discerning reader would know what’s implied in my posts) or I am an enabler of evil and crime, circumventing a discussion of how, in reality, Muslims persecute MENA Christians (my people, but I now doubt that they are yours in any meaningful or practical way). Logic is dead, truly. Subtlety is an art form, it cannot often be learned, nor, apparently, can insight and a proper reading of history. I will reiterate, my framework comes from an analysis of worldly power that (usually, dominant) groups possess, per the topic of this thread, using state authority to kill and persecute.

    Once again, you've ignored substantive parts of my posts that, had you read and discerned further, use examples that highlight how the letter of the Qur'an informs persecution. Since you've derailed the topic of this thread enough, open another one and please address the fact that your framework is not set up to address the inherent political nature of the topic at hand and I promise I will address your didactic critiques one by one. And if you choose to resort to insults and name-calling as you've repeatedly done, let it be, I did not use the terms racist or islamophobic or any of the other nonsense you've lobbed on me, nor would I care to use them, but your clear insecurities made you infer as much. Address power or cease.
     
    Nevermore

    Nevermore

    New Member
    Not necessarily living in Lebanon, but it's half half. It is also a very tricky subject due to the different sects. You can lump Shia and Sunni in one basket but they are different in beliefs.
    It's not an issue of belief, or numbers, really. It's an issue of who holds more material sources of power. Hizbullah has their weapons and foreign support while FM has(d?) a strong hold on state institutions, foreign support, and a large stake in the financial sector. Maronites have neither except for a few positions, sometimes ineffective ones, in government.

    No assumptions, I'm from a mixed family of shia, christian orthodox and maronite. I understand Christian views on occupation, especially Syrian occupation that's why I sympathize with them about it. No, collaborators who sympathized with Saad Haddad and were part of the South Lebanon Army. Bad sentiments will always exist among the extremists, this applies to every sect.
    Great, that doesn't change the fact that for a period after the war, Christians, in the south in particular, carried the stigma of the SLA and its implications of collaboration, which was particularly espoused by followers of the resistance political alliance and even those in power who didn't always see eye to eye with the resistance line for political reasons. The FPM-HA alliance has eased this significantly.

    It's dead. It hasn't transformed. Pan Arabism isn't associated with Muslims. Kamal Jumblatt was a Pan Arabist, so were most secular far left parties like the Lebanese Communist Party or the SSNP. Muslims today can't even decide on their identity. Some wants to be Persian, the other wants to be part of the GCC.
    It is undeniable that there is a binding ideology among the majority of the majority in the region. Those Christians who follow it, though their choice, are misguided by that false sense of identity and haven't seen its deleterious effects on their survival as an independent entities worthy of equal citizenship instead of "separate but equal status". That ideology shapes how we think about our identity, helps shape regional politics, and is often a precursor for conflict.

    I agree, this is why I think decentralizing decision making would solve a lot of issues. the sawra types also started in Tripoli, Saida and Nabatieh not just Beirut.
    I know, I'm just picking on the posh Beiruti ones who think every other part of Lebanon is a wasteland.

    He never said it's new. He cites Ancient Roman Republic and the Ottoman Empire as examples of localism. on the practical level it will work and it will make regions in Lebanon friendlier with one another. Not only that, municipalities will compete with one another as well to improve the regions' standards.
    I have many reservations about this, namely that Lebanon doesn't operate in a world with a guarantor like the Roman Republic or the Ottoman Empire, but operates in an anarchic international system. But that discussion would make for an interesting new thread since it seems a bit off topic here.
     
    LEBANESE-CIA

    LEBANESE-CIA

    Legendary Member
    You disappear for some pages, and then reemerge like a ghost and try to take us back pages. If you had followed the discussions thus far, you wont be asking silly questions based on a silly and offensive quote on the Prophet by a silly pope from the past. One of the same popes of the past your friend liking your post @Dark Angel was absolving Christianity of their atrocities.

    To repeat for the millionth times:

    When is a Muslim permitted to resort to the use of force and who are those permitted to resort to the use of force:

    The Glorious Quran 22:39-41
    "Permission [to fight] has been given to those who are being fought, because they were wronged. And indeed, Allah is competent to give them victory. [They are] those who have been evicted from their homes without right - only because they say, "Our Lord is Allah." And were it not that Allah checks the people, some by means of others, there would have been demolished monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques in which the name of Allah is much mentioned. And Allah will surely support those who support Him. Indeed, Allah is Powerful and Exalted in Might. [And they are] those who, if We give them authority in the land, establish prayer and give zakah and enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong. And to Allah belongs the outcome of [all] matters"

    1. those who are being fought,
    2. those who were oppressed
    3. those evicted from their homes or land.

    The above is a general verse. It is not subject to place and time. It is universal. General rule.

    Same with the below. Are Muslims to fight others because they choose not to be Muslims:

    The Glorious Quran 60:8
    "Allah does not forbid you (as regards) the ones who have not fought you on account of the religion and have not driven you out of your residences that you should be benign to them and be equitable towards them; surely Allah loves the equitable."

    So based on the above, we are to treat people who haven't fought us and haven't driven us out of our homes kindly and justly.


    Are there Muslims who acted contrary to the above? Yes, it is possible and we see examples in the pages of history. Are or were they contradicting the above verses? Yes. Do I support or approve of the conquests by the Caliphate, who the criteria to fight as per the above were not met? I do not.
    How to put it nicely, wether to laugh at the glorious satanic teaching or the contradcitory practice of text and facts.
    There is a juicy thread about that.

    May GOD enlighten your third eye from calcification maybe you can see the light out of your darkness.

    Can you mix oil with water? this is the case of islam and the rest, it will never happen no matter how you try, you know why?
    the essence is from a totally opposing source.
     
    Rafidi

    Rafidi

    Legendary Member
    How to put it nicely, wether to laugh at the glorious satanic teaching or the contradcitory practice of text and facts.
    There is a juicy thread about that.
    When you want to sound reasonable, it isnt done by throwing personal attacks and insults. You can sound reasonable by touching on facts like I have been trying to do.

    You should point out what is satanic and let us see your point. But of course it isnt about pointing out the facts. It is about generalizations because you want to take us back. I have already pointed out the facts. If there is anything you object to, point it out. Speaking in parables through generalised insults shows you are morally bankrupt. You are resorting to a cheap way of imposing your views or point on others.

    May GOD enlighten your third eye from calcification maybe you can see the light out of your darkness.
    I would say ameen to that. I accept every good prayer, even if it is ill intended.

    Can you mix oil with water? this is the case of islam and the rest, it will never happen no matter how you try, you know why?
    the essence is from a totally opposing source.
    Of course you cant mix Tawhid with paganism. Islam is submission to the Creator. And often times, the creatures do not only reject that submission, but they even take up arms to fight against it. When Muslims maintain their grounds, the same aggressive pagans would resort to character assassination, insults and acting as if they are the victims. If Jesus submitted (aslam), you too should.

    Luke 22:42
    ...nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.
     
    Steven Gerrard

    Steven Gerrard

    New Member
    It is undeniable that there is a binding ideology among the majority of the majority in the region. Those Christians who follow it, though their choice, are misguided by that false sense of identity and haven't seen its deleterious effects on their survival as an independent entities worthy of equal citizenship instead of "separate but equal status". That ideology shapes how we think about our identity, helps shape regional politics, and is often a precursor for conflict.
    I don't believe so. For example Saudi Arabia was always Pan-Islamist, so are most of the GCC countries. King Faisal always dreamed of an Islamic union not an Arab one. There is a difference between the two. It was only among academics/left who floated the idea of Pan-Arab. We can't agree on an identity in Lebanon, that's why we have so many issues and it is one of the reasons why the civil war happened.
     
    Rafidi

    Rafidi

    Legendary Member
    How to put it nicely, wether to laugh at the glorious satanic teaching or the contradcitory practice of text and facts.
    There is a juicy thread about that.
    The discrepancy between what a religion says and what it's followers do is a reality in every religion. Christianity cant be left out of that criticism, except if you want to claim Christians always turn the other cheek. Otherwise how do you explain the wars Christians have fought throughout their history, from the violent conversion of pagan Europe into Christianity to the crusades, inquisition, inter sectarian wars in Europe between Catholics and protestants, world wars, colonialism, slave trade, countless invasions by Christian led or Christian majority nations etc. By far, Christians, as a religious identity, even though often times they maybe nominal Christians, have been the deadliest religion or religious group in the history of humanity.
     
    Rafidi

    Rafidi

    Legendary Member
    @Lebanese-Nationalist

    "No religion was ever more fertile in crimes than Christianity. From Abel’s murder to the torture of [Jean] Calas [1762], there is not any line of its history that is not bloody."

    — Diderot, Salon de 1762, §42

    "We should always limit ourselves to the following historical truth: The Muslims’ lawgiver was a powerful and terrifying man, who established his dogmas by his courage and by his weapons; yet his religion became merciful and tolerant. Christianity’s divine founder lived in humility and peace, and preached forgiveness of offenses; but owing to our furious madness, his holy and sweet religion became the most intolerant and most barbarous of all."

    — Voltaire, Essai sur les mœurs, chap. vii
     
    Dark Angel

    Dark Angel

    Legendary Member
    @Lebanese-Nationalist

    "No religion was ever more fertile in crimes than Christianity. From Abel’s murder to the torture of [Jean] Calas [1762], there is not any line of its history that is not bloody."

    — Diderot, Salon de 1762, §42

    "We should always limit ourselves to the following historical truth: The Muslims’ lawgiver was a powerful and terrifying man, who established his dogmas by his courage and by his weapons; yet his religion became merciful and tolerant. Christianity’s divine founder lived in humility and peace, and preached forgiveness of offenses; but owing to our furious madness, his holy and sweet religion became the most intolerant and most barbarous of all."

    — Voltaire, Essai sur les mœurs, chap. vii
    i am curious, what purpose do these quotes serve?
     
    Top