- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: The Mongols knew how to deal with Islam
Posted on 11/24/15 at 2:23 pm to Barf
Posted on 11/24/15 at 2:23 pm to Barf
I was talking about the Christian scriptures. I agree with you that it was natural for early Christians in power to look to the Hebrew scripture for guidance, and that modern Christians conveniently forget this.
0
Posted on 11/24/15 at 2:27 pm to Napoleon
quote:
When the sacred months are passed, kill the kafirs wherever you find them. Take them as captives, besiege them, and lie in wait for them with every kind of ambush. If they submit to Islam, observe prayer, and pay the poor tax, then let them go their way. Allah is gracious and merciful.
Posted on 11/24/15 at 2:30 pm to terd ferguson
quote:
The New Testament teaches "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's" (the separation of faith and law).
The Islamic holy books do not allow for separation of faith and law. They are one and the same. Islam is more than just a religion... it's a cultural, religious, and political system.
The first quotation does not imply the separation of faith and law. It merely says that if you live under a non-Christian Caesar, you should follow his laws. It may imply, further, that Christians should not handle money, because money has Caesar's face stamped on it (they should rely on charity, which the early Christians did).
But what happens when Caesar is a Christian? The Christian scriptures give no guidance here, nor do they say that laws shouldn't be "Christian laws".
Again, this scripture was written during a time when Christians were a minority in the empire, and viewed--like the Jews, since they were a sect of Judaism--with suspicion and occasionally outright hostility.
Certainly, the first generation of Church fathers who lived under the empire didn't interpret that scripture as asserting a "separation of faith and law," and neither did anyone else until--surprise--the rise of calls for the separation of religion and politics during the Enlightenment.
I agree with the second part, though. And we can again make sense of why if we understand the context in which the Muslim holy books were written.
Posted on 11/24/15 at 2:30 pm to terd ferguson
Who are the kafirs?
Posted on 11/24/15 at 2:35 pm to terd ferguson
quote:
[Quran 9:5] And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.
Again, depends on translation and on how it's taken in.
I could bring up bloody parts of the OT, but again the Ot isn't part of the Bible, yet it is part of the Bible.
This post was edited on 11/24/15 at 2:37 pm
Posted on 11/24/15 at 2:36 pm to Bayou Sam
quote:
Who are the kafirs?
quote:
Kafir (Arabic: ????? kafir; plural ????? kuffar; feminine ????? kafirah) is an Arabic term (from the root K-F-R "to cover") used in an Islamic doctrinal sense, usually translated as "unbeliever," "disbeliever," or "infidel".
Posted on 11/24/15 at 2:36 pm to Bayou Sam
quote:
es. And protect the Christian populations who were already there.
Source?
Source? Are you saying you're unaware that much of the Middle East (including the Holy Land) and north Africa were originally Christian under the Byzantine Empire until Muslim Arabs began attacking the Byzantines in the 7th century?
Posted on 11/24/15 at 2:38 pm to Bayou Sam
quote:
The first quotation does not imply the separation of faith and law. It merely says that if you live under a non-Christian Caesar, you should follow his laws. It may imply, further, that Christians should not handle money, because money has Caesar's face stamped on it (they should rely on charity, which the early Christians did).
But what happens when Caesar is a Christian?
I think you're over-analyzing. I think opinion holds that Caesar was merely a representation of the Earthly/humanly realm while God represents the spiritual.
I believe the gist of it is that there is a distinct separation between the two.
Posted on 11/24/15 at 2:39 pm to Darth_Vader
No, I'm saying that their (secondary) aim was not to "protect the Christians", but to give aid to the Byzantime Empire. These are very different things.
Posted on 11/24/15 at 2:40 pm to Napoleon
quote:
What boggle my mind is how xenophobic people can be. They take the bad and use that to overshadow everything else.Atheist use the bad in the bible against Christians and Christians the same with the Koran to Muslims.
Don't you think that is a little disingenuous? The bible is full of horrible shite. You can't just dismiss the terrible things the christian god has done because they added a few new chapters. You can't believe in genesis but not in deuteronomy.
quote:
Atheist use the bad in the bible against Christians
Well, yeah. I don't get how that is of any surprise. I would never follow a god who's done the horrible and grotesque things the christian god has done to innocent people. Look at the binding of Issac for example.
For me, it's not about whether or not your god exists. It's about the example he set and that is not an example I would ever follow. He can take his streets of gold and shove it.
Posted on 11/24/15 at 2:41 pm to terd ferguson
quote:
I think you're over-analyzing. I think opinion holds that Caesar was merely a representation of the Earthly/humanly realm while God represents the spiritual.
You are interpreting the scripture allegorically, giving it a meaning that it did not have in the time period, and it did not have for later generations of Christians who read it.
I'm interpreting the scripture historically, in line with how early Christians from Nero to Constantine understood it.
Posted on 11/24/15 at 2:42 pm to Bayou Sam
quote:
It's transliterated here, where you see that "kafirs" are not mentioned: LINK . The word is mush'rikina, which means "idolater".
Nitpick much? Do not the words mean the exact same thing?
quote:
The distinction between those who believe in Islam and those who do not is an essential one in the Qur'an, the holy book of Islam. Kafir, and its plural kafirun, is used directly 134 times in Qur'an, its verbal noun "kufr" is used 37 times, and the verbal cognates of kafir are used about 250 times.
Posted on 11/24/15 at 2:43 pm to Darth_Vader
Yes the Coptics and Ertitian and Ethiopian Tewahedo Orthodoxy is all that's really left of Christianity in Northern Africa.
Caliph Hassan went out of his way to destroy the Christian Capitals in Northern Africa in the 7th century and that really turned the tide in the Berber states.
Caliph Hassan went out of his way to destroy the Christian Capitals in Northern Africa in the 7th century and that really turned the tide in the Berber states.
Posted on 11/24/15 at 2:45 pm to Barf
I was taught that only the parts of the bible that were in Red were of any real value, everything else is the word of man and is not as important.
Posted on 11/24/15 at 2:45 pm to terd ferguson
Who are you quoting? Is it Bill Warner, the guy who I've just shown you is a hack?
You'd think a guy dedicated to exposing the "truth" about Islam wouldn't be a liar about what the Koran actually says.
Anyways, there's a big difference between the two. One means "deceiver" or "hypocrite" and the other means "idolater" or "polytheist". It's true that in Islam, as in Judaism, and as in Christianity as it was practiced politically, war against polytheists was encouraged.
You'd think a guy dedicated to exposing the "truth" about Islam wouldn't be a liar about what the Koran actually says.
Anyways, there's a big difference between the two. One means "deceiver" or "hypocrite" and the other means "idolater" or "polytheist". It's true that in Islam, as in Judaism, and as in Christianity as it was practiced politically, war against polytheists was encouraged.
Posted on 11/24/15 at 2:46 pm to Bayou Sam
quote:
No, I'm saying that their (secondary) aim was not to "protect the Christians", but to give aid to the Byzantime Empire. These are very different things.
Byzantine control over Jerusalem fell to the Arab Muslims in 637 AD. If the Crusades were intended to "give aid" to the Byzantines, they were about 450 years too late.
Posted on 11/24/15 at 2:47 pm to terd ferguson
quote:
Nitpick much? Do not the words mean the exact same thing?
No, I pointed out the same thing.
One means someone who believes in more than one god, or idols the other mean an infidel.
They are saying to kill the pagans. Christians killed Pagans by the thousands too, until Pagans like the Vandals became Christian and then they too killed pagans under the name of Christianity. Again it's how you interpret it.
Posted on 11/24/15 at 2:47 pm to Bayou Sam
quote:
in line with how early Christians from Nero to Constantine understood it.
How would you even begin to know that?
Posted on 11/24/15 at 2:48 pm to Bayou Sam
I wasn't suggesting the Mongols were role models. Simply saying that sometimes the only counter to a brutal threat is another brutal threat.
Scorched earth policy.
And it isn't like a wealth of the world's knowledge would be destroyed this time around.
Scorched earth policy.
And it isn't like a wealth of the world's knowledge would be destroyed this time around.
Page 5 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News