• Before posting an article from a specific source, check this list here to see how much the Orange Room trust it. You can also vote/change your vote based on the source track record.

Christian-Muslim Relations In the Middle-East

  • Advertisement
  • Dark Angel

    Dark Angel

    Legendary Member
    I think your problem is English. There is a comma in there. I don't know if you know what that means. Anyways, check the below and tender an apology, if you have an atom of honor left in you for accusing me of lying:



    The below post was liked by @Indie :




    And this is from our friend, @Thoma your fellow forumer who also seem not to have heard of the use of comma in the English language:




    So it seems you guys throw claims and then deny your very own claims and then ask where was those claims made.

    Presently, in a page or two, someone said jesus of the NT did not beat people with his whip. That he only "scared" or intimidated them. When I cited that the use of violence to intimidate others for certain objective is terrorism, @Indie then popped in and said a man could not have intimidated a crowd. So did he intimidate, did he beat up anyone? What exactly was a whip for? The "lamb of god" was beating others with a whip? Or was he terrorizing others? That's tremendous!!!! You guys should stick to one thing and make up your minds. It is very shameful to be this out of touch with your own claims.
    all of what is said is very true. and none of it means what you have translated it into. Christianity was the majority religion in many places before the Constantine, we do not know exactly to which extent, and still none of it translates into what you have claimed others have said and quoting you again.

    ......
    @Dark Angel and others, who were claiming that Christianity claimed "majority status" in the Levant or in the Middle East in the first 2 or 3 centuries of Christianity or before the conversion of Constantine and his imposition by force of his new faith on the rest, the above serves as testimony to the fact that up till the 5th, 6th, and 7th centuries, paganism thrived in the Middle East. To what extent is subject to debate. But nonetheless, had it not being for Constantine the First, at least, Christianity wont have become "in the world" what it is today. At least, pagan Europe would have been spared the bloodbath of forceful conversion into Christianity.
    ------
    first you chose to reference me, when i did not mention anything about the subject of majorities except to tell you they are meaningless in Christianity. second, even from your perspective, taking the Divine out of the equation, Constantine did not convert to Christianity because Christians were weak or a negligible minority in the empire. third the only reason the subject is approached is because you are claiming unsubstantiated facts that go against documented history. fourth even in the areas where Christianity was not well spread in the population prior to 300AD, there was established monastic communities. Fifth the presence of Christianity was already dominant in most major roman cities prior to 300AD. Sixth and more importantly, Christianity continued to spread very peacefully to many places despite the occasional political and warring, as was the case with Armenia and other places.

    1590820376660.png


    even more importantly, you see how the centers and seeds of Christianity are spread on the above map? this an indication of how the faith was preached, going from one town to the next, establishing communities of believers, growing peacefully. contrast that to the maps below, depicting the spread of islam. see where it says "conquests of flen"?

    1590820976697.png



    case closed.
     
    Rafidi

    Rafidi

    Legendary Member
    all of what is said is very true. and none of it means what you have translated it into. Christianity was the majority religion in many places before the Constantine, we do not know exactly to which extent, and still none of it translates into what you have claimed others have said and quoting you again.
    This case is far from closed! Monastic presence and spread doesnt necessitate majority status anywhere. But I do not even have to argue anything you typed. Your posts will argue with themselves. First let's not forget that an entire pagan continent of Europe mostly fell into Christianity through the sword after the 4th century. If there were some or many places with Christian majority, cite them. And how did you ascertain those places were majority Christian before Constantine and how do those places translate to "many" or "some". Its now confusing because you've made contradictory claims.

    Secondly, as I said, there is no need for me to argue anything. All you have to do is look at the contradictions in two posts of yours. See highlighted words in your above post of yours and the below post of yours:

    i didn't say that, and chances are that neither @Ice Tea nor others have said it either, and you are just making it up, given your history. why don't you reference these claims like i am doing yours right now, to see what was actually said? and keep in mind i am not saying that Christians could not have been a majority in some places prior to 300AD. i am simply pointing out that you making things up on the go, even attributing some of what you are making up to me and others to fake "credibility"?

    MANY vs SOME PLACES? Make up your mind @Dark Angel

    Did you not say that vs you have said that!!! :p :lol:
     
    Dark Angel

    Dark Angel

    Legendary Member
    This case is far from closed! Monastic presence and spread doesnt necessitate majority status anywhere. But I do not even have to argue anything you typed. Your posts will argue with themselves. First let's not forget that an entire pagan continent of Europe mostly fell into Christianity through the sword after the 4th century. If there were some or many places with Christian majority, cite them. And how did you ascertain those places were majority Christian before Constantine and how do those places translate to "many" or "some". Its now confusing because you've made contradictory claims.

    Secondly, as I said, there is no need for me to argue anything. All you have to do is look at the contradictions in two posts of yours. See highlighted words in your above post of yours and the below post of yours:

    MANY vs SOME PLACES? Make up your mind @Dark Angel

    Did you not say that vs you have said that!!! :p :lol:
    i really want to indulge you and keep this discussion going, however you are not making it easy. you have to realize we have hit an impasse when you insist on rejecting evidenced facts. it is normal that beyond that we will be entering uncharted territories where the discussion goes from being informative to being rather delirious. history speaks for itself, and the maps are very clear. you are free to maintain your denial for as along as you want.
     
    T

    Thoma

    New Member
    You are still trying to discard the clause of exception, which indicates the pagans would not cease fighting. There was NO offensive fighting commanded in the sacred months, and there was NO violation against any rule, which commands to halt fighting during the sacred months (in the then prevailing situation, whereby both sides honoured the tradition). You are still persistenting in your DISHONESTY. You will die one day in guilt for being a wonderful lying. You already presented a verse with an omitted clause. You are still typing BS and offering options that ignore the very same clause. That clause is the most important explanation for everything in this your silly discussion of a loser.

    As for the order of the verses, the Quran is not arranged in chronological order. But from the wording of the verses, you can use common sense. But common sense is not common. Verse 217 states by stating "they ask thee concerning the sacred months"...that indicates they did not know something. Had verse 194 being revealed then and they have heard it, they wont have asked. And if they hadn't heard of the verse, they would have been directed to V194, if it was already revealed. Verse 194 is already explanative enough that they should not fight but that if they are attacked, they should attack the way they were attacked. If you apply common sense you will get it clear enough.

    If you lack common sense, then get a tafseer and check the commentary on those verses and search for when they were revealed and in what occasions. Quite simple, right? No need to be charitable here. You cant give what you do not have.
    How many times does it have be repeated? What you consider an exception clause to Allah's statement in that verse is not an exception whereby the statement is nullified under the exception condition, but a qualifier whereby the statement gets qualified or expanded upon (which means also affirmed) rather than denied or nullified or contradicted. What you consider an exception clause in that verse is [part] of a { qualification (affirmation) } of Allah stating (his statement) that 'fighting in sacred months is a violation'. Now, whether by 'fighting' Allah meant defensive fighting or offensive fighting (with both possibilities being equally problematic as demonstrated in my previous post), it is still, according to Allah, a violation albeit qualified as { less grave than some other violation because [fill in here what you consider to be the exception clause in that verse] }.

    And this is by basing ourselves entirely on the Quran, and then also entirely on the Quran but while also detaching it from its Islamically historically established component to charitably go by your assumption to the end with regards to that last desperate and hopeless attempt of yours. Now, if you'll excuse us, we have lots of unfolding to do.
     
    Rafidi

    Rafidi

    Legendary Member
    How many times does it have be repeated? What you consider an exception clause to Allah's statement in that verse is not an exception whereby the statement is nullified under the exception condition, but a qualifier whereby the statement gets qualified or expanded upon (which means also affirmed) rather than denied or nullified or contradicted. What you consider an exception clause in that verse is [part] of a { qualification (affirmation) } of Allah stating (his statement) that 'fighting in sacred months is a violation'. Now, whether by 'fighting' Allah meant defensive fighting or offensive fighting (with both possibilities being equally problematic as demonstrated in my previous post), it is still, according to Allah, a violation albeit qualified as { less grave than some other violation because [fill in here what you consider to be the exception clause in that verse] }.

    And this is by basing ourselves entirely on the Quran, and then also entirely on the Quran but while also detaching it from its Islamically historically established component to charitably go by your assumption to the end with regards to that last desperate and hopeless attempt of yours. Now, if you'll excuse us, we have lots of unfolding to do.
    First, you use of English words is very poor. You may want to type in Arabic.

    Secondly, there is no contradiction with the first part of the verse affirming there shouldn't be fighting and the other part exempting self defense when attacked.

    Thirdly, there is nothing like "offensive fighting" in the Quran.

    Fourthly, if you just want to escape like our friend above did, I'd allow you to escape. But dont ramble and make new baseless claims. When you do, I'd have to respond. Yallah za77et.
     
    T

    Thoma

    New Member
    First, you use of English words is very poor. You may want to type in Arabic.

    Secondly, there is no contradiction with the first part of the verse affirming there shouldn't be fighting and the other part exempting self defense when attacked.

    Thirdly, there is nothing like "offensive fighting" in the Quran.

    Fourthly, if you just want to escape like our friend above did, I'd allow you to escape. But dont ramble and make new baseless claims. When you do, I'd have to respond. Yallah za77et.

    i won't leave you there alone stuck and lost without at least putting you back where you started (my original post). I will do it while relying solely on the Quran, particularly on that verse alone, with no hadiths, and in the process i may have the Quran itself ascertain the corresponding hadith / historical component of the verse in question.

    ---

    Unfortunately for you, 'Fighting in sacred months is a violation except in self-defense' was not Allah's statement in that verse. Rather, it was "fighting in sacred months is a violation, but a violation that is less grave than some other violation because xyz". This means whatever type we ascribe to the fighting in the opening part of Allah's statement (defensive or non-defensive), it will remain a violation to Allah all the same.

    In other words, If it is defensive, it is still a violation to Allah, but less grave than another violation. And likewise, if it's non-defensive, it is still a violation to Allah, but less grave than another violation.

    With the former case we'll be indicting Allah of positively commanding violations against himself anytime Allah commands defensive fighting during sacred months. And with the latter case we'll be indicting Allah of justifying/absolving, rather than condemning, a violation against himself provided a certain condition (if it were to serve against a severer violation or if it were less severe than some other violation).

    While both of these cases are equally absurd/problematic, it is still more reasonable to opt for the second one, with the 'fighting' in Allah's statement meaning 'offensive fighting' and with that being, as per the statement, a violation, a justified and condoned one too provided a certain condition (like serving against some graver violation). Here Allah isn't the direct violator of his own command, but rather someone else is, for whom Allah is the enabler or justifier, someone the verse is addressing as though they were the instrument of such a fighting (violation) performed against Islam's enemies, and were then being questioned to explain and justify said violation. Who might that 'someone else' be other than Muhammad and his companions, and as recounted in the corresponding hadith?
     
    Rafidi

    Rafidi

    Legendary Member
    i won't leave you there alone stuck and lost without at least putting you back where you started (my original post). I will do it while relying solely on the Quran, particularly on that verse alone, with no hadiths, and in the process i may have the Quran itself ascertain the corresponding hadith / historical component of the verse in question.

    ---

    Unfortunately for you, 'Fighting in sacred months is a violation except in self-defense' was not Allah's statement in that verse. Rather, it was "fighting in sacred months is a violation, but a violation that is less grave than some other violation because xyz". This means whatever type we ascribe to the fighting in the opening part of Allah's statement (defensive or non-defensive), it will remain a violation to Allah all the same.
    The word you interpret as "violation", what is it the word in Arabic in the verse?

    In other words, If it is defensive, it is still a violation to Allah, but less grave than another violation. And likewise, if it's non-defensive, it is still a violation to Allah, but less grave than another violation.

    With the former case we'll be indicting Allah of positively commanding violations against himself anytime Allah commands defensive fighting during sacred months. And with the latter case we'll be indicting Allah of justifying/absolving, rather than condemning, a violation against himself provided a certain condition (if it were to serve against a severer violation or if it were less severe than some other violation).

    While both of these cases are equally absurd/problematic, it is still more reasonable to opt for the second one, with the 'fighting' in Allah's statement meaning 'offensive fighting' and with that being, as per the statement, a violation, a justified and condoned one too provided a certain condition (like serving against some graver violation). Here Allah isn't the direct violator of his own command, but rather someone else is, for whom Allah is the enabler or justifier, someone the verse is addressing as though they were the instrument of such a fighting (violation) performed against Islam's enemies, and were then being questioned to explain and justify said violation. Who might that 'someone else' be other than Muhammad and his companions, and as recounted in the corresponding hadith?
    Fighting is forbidden. What does verse 194 you cited says? "If they attack you, attack them the way they attack you". Are you saying in order not to "violate" the holiness of the sacred months, Muslims should not respond even when attacked? So that you wont "indict" Allah ya habileh? That means in the holy months Muslims are vulnerable to being attacked and the enemies will know there shall be no response. Is that what you understand by "cessation of fighting"?

    Just FYI, in many cases where there is war or conflict, the purpose of declaring the four months sacred is to offer a truce or a ceasefire. In the military context, it is called a cease fire. But what if the ceasefire is violated? In order not to break the ceasefire both sides must cease fighting, right? What if the other side persists? So you expect the Muslims to "stubbornly" cling to not fighting even when they are under attack.

    Jews insisted that the Sabbath is holy and a day of rest, whereby all works must cease, and that holiness should be upheld by all means. Jesus went ahead to perform a miracle work and harvest grains with his hungry disciples on Sabbath and violated a law. So I am indicating Jesus of violating his "father's" commandment. That gave reasons for the Jews to further reject him. Why would Jesus violate the Sabbath that was made holy by his "father"?

    Attack me in the holy month, even as an individual, and you'd see what will befall your face. I will draw the map of Lebanon on your face if you attack me even when I'm fasting in the month of Ramadan. 😄
     
    Last edited:
    Dark Angel

    Dark Angel

    Legendary Member
    The word you interpret as "violation", what is it the word in Arabic in the verse?

    Fighting is forbidden. What does verse 194 you cited says? "If they attack you, attack them the way they attack you". Are you saying in order not to "violate" the holiness of the sacred months, Muslims should not respond even when attacked? So that you wont "indict" Allah ya habileh? That means in the holy months Muslims are vulnerable to being attacked and the enemies will know there shall be no response. Is that what you understand by "cessation of fighting"?

    Just FYI, in many cases where there is war or conflict, the purpose of declaring the four months sacred is to offer a truce or a ceasefire. In the military context, it is called a cease fire. But what if the ceasefire is violated? In order not to break the ceasefire both sides must cease fighting, right? What if the other side persists? So you expect the Muslims to "stubbornly" cling to not fighting even when they are under attack.

    Jews insisted that the Sabbath is holy and a day of rest, whereby all works must cease, and that holiness should be upheld by all means. Jesus went ahead to perform a miracle work and harvest grains with his hungry disciples on Sabbath and violated a law. So I am indicating Jesus of violating his "father's" commandment. That gave reasons for the Jews to further reject him. Why would Jesus violate the Sabbath that was made holy by his "father"?

    Attack me in the holy month, even as an individual, and you'd see what will befall your face. I will draw the map of Lebanon on your face if you attack me even when I'm fasting in the month of Ramadan. 😄
    were you in attack or defense mode during ramadan on this forum?
    i rest my case.

    you may also want to observe this:
    1590928396913.png
     
    NewLeb

    NewLeb

    Member
    The word you interpret as "violation", what is it the word in Arabic in the verse?



    Fighting is forbidden. What does verse 194 you cited says? "If they attack you, attack them the way they attack you". Are you saying in order not to "violate" the holiness of the sacred months, Muslims should not respond even when attacked? So that you wont "indict" Allah ya habileh? That means in the holy months Muslims are vulnerable to being attacked and the enemies will know there shall be no response. Is that what you understand by "cessation of fighting"?

    Just FYI, in many cases where there is war or conflict, the purpose of declaring the four months sacred is to offer a truce or a ceasefire. In the military context, it is called a cease fire. But what if the ceasefire is violated? In order not to break the ceasefire both sides must cease fighting, right? What if the other side persists? So you expect the Muslims to "stubbornly" cling to not fighting even when they are under attack.

    Jews insisted that the Sabbath is holy and a day of rest, whereby all works must cease, and that holiness should be upheld by all means. Jesus went ahead to perform a miracle work and harvest grains with his hungry disciples on Sabbath and violated a law. So I am indicating Jesus of violating his "father's" commandment. That gave reasons for the Jews to further reject him. Why would Jesus violate the Sabbath that was made holy by his "father"?

    Attack me in the holy month, even as an individual, and you'd see what will befall your face. I will draw the map of Lebanon on your face if you attack me even when I'm fasting in the month of Ramadan. 😄
    I’m just amazed that the only verses (out of thousands) that these Christians keep bringing up are always the same 2-3 ones that are related violence.:lol:
     
    Top