The reason you dislike Islam

'“Allah” is indeed the same God worshipped by Catholics and other Christians. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states: “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.” (CCC, 841)'


Modernist ambiguity from the modernist catechism. I don't remember reading anything like that in the catechism of Trent.
 

ilostabet

Pelican
Orthodox Inquirer
I find Ann Bernhardt to be distasteful and steeped up to her neck in Americanism (which includes support for American militarism, as well as being very masculine in personality).

Fair. But she's right more often than she's wrong (definitely about islam, and her 'diabolical narcissism' series is indispensable to understand what is going on, in my opinion). Still, her Americanism is not dissimilar to EMJs (and unlike the latter, I have seen her change her views, like for example, her support of republics, namely the American one - she now fully recognizes it as the masonic idiocy that it is).
 

Sitting Bull

Woodpecker
"“Allah” is indeed the same God worshipped by Catholics and other Christians. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states: “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.” (CCC, 841)"
Modernist ambiguity from the modernist catechism. I don't remember reading anything like that in the catechism of Trent.

Indeed. Or, to put it in a way that Serie A1 would understand :

1) This apparent friendship with Islam is very recent in "Christianity". It appears only after centuries of dilution of the dogma.

2) The quoted text itself is a textbook case of opportunistic political discourse, it talks a lot trying to please everyone without being specific on anything. Thus :

2a) The text states that the "plan of salvation" has something for Muslims, but this begs the question of what role exactly Islam plays in this regard - the text deliberately does not clarify.

2b) The text enumerates matters of agreement between Islam and Christianity while staying silent on matters of disagreement. This begs the question of what should be made of those - the text deliberately does not clarify.
 
Last edited:

Rob Banks

Pelican
Fair. But she's right more often than she's wrong (definitely about islam, and her 'diabolical narcissism' series is indispensable to understand what is going on, in my opinion). Still, her Americanism is not dissimilar to EMJs (and unlike the latter, I have seen her change her views, like for example, her support of republics, namely the American one - she now fully recognizes it as the masonic idiocy that it is).
I’m not sure I’ve heard EMJ blatantly support Americanism and American militarism/foreign interventions.
 
Indeed. Or, to put it in a way that Serie A2 would understand :

1) This apparent friendship with Islam is very recent in "Christianity". It appears only after centuries of dilution of the dogma.

Yeah, you're right. This is how Don Bosco viewed Islam:

Q. What is the difference between Christianity and Islam?

A.
The difference is great. Mohammed founded his religion with violence and weapons, Jesus founded his Way with words of Love and Peace, using his disciples. Mohammed fomented carnal passions, Jesus encouraged self-control. Muhammad did no miracle, Jesus Christ did countless miracles in the daytime, at the presence of great crowds. Mohammed’s doctrines are ridiculous, immoral and corrupt, those of Jesus are great, sublime and pure. In Muhammad no prophecy was accomplished, in Jesus the whole of Sacred Scripture was fulfilled. Christian religion makes the man happy in this world, preparing him to elevate himself for future enjoyments. Mohammed degrades and shakes human nature, placing every happiness in sexual and sensual pleasures, reducing his followers to unripe animals.


The modern Catholics went from that to kissing the Quran. It's obviously a political grift and completely against Catholic tradition.

I mean I understand if someone views Don Bosco as a bit harsh on Islam, but what you see now is a complete 180 on that.
 

Serie A1

Woodpecker
I'm not surprised, they're outnumbered twenty to one.
Dude, these Christians have Arabic as their native language. That's the reason they pray to God using the word 'Allah'.

'Contrary to widespread belief, “Allah” is not Islam’s personal name for God. Rather, “Allah” is a contraction of two Arabic words – al-ilah – which mean “the deity.” As such, “Allah” is not a “name” but an impersonal generic “term.” To put it another way, “Allah” is simply the Arabic equivalent of Theos in Greek, Deus in Latin, El in Hebrew, and God in English. These are all nouns, not names.'

 

ilostabet

Pelican
Orthodox Inquirer
Of course if we're speaking the same language we might use the same words, but that does not mean they are used in the same way and to mean the same thing. Like, for example, 'peace'. How a Christian understands peace and how a muslim does is very different. So a muslim might say that islam is a religion of peace, and believe it, but what he means is the peace that comes after slaughtering or subjugating into silence everyone and anyone who does not agree or bow down in submission. That's not the kind of peace Christ talked about.

Insofar as a muslim actually follows islamic morality and believes in it, we can use the same word all we want, but they do not worship the same God as a Christian does.
 

Hannibal

Ostrich
Gold Member
Dude, these Christians have Arabic as their native language. That's the reason they pray to God using the word 'Allah'.

'Contrary to widespread belief, “Allah” is not Islam’s personal name for God. Rather, “Allah” is a contraction of two Arabic words – al-ilah – which mean “the deity.” As such, “Allah” is not a “name” but an impersonal generic “term.” To put it another way, “Allah” is simply the Arabic equivalent of Theos in Greek, Deus in Latin, El in Hebrew, and God in English. These are all nouns, not names.'


Dude, ask any Christian of any language if their word for God is an impersonal, generic term to them.
 

Blade Runner

Pelican
Orthodox
As an interesting side, I wonder if anyone has read St. John of Damascus "An exact exposition of the Orthodox Faith" or is aware of what he called Islam ...

Of course, no Saint is infallible but it would be amazing if one could be that far off on pretty big topics, especially when he lived with and amongst particular peoples and ideas. Just something to consider.
 
I could add a wealth of information, I’ve made posts in other threads here regarding Islam (not too many though) and my connection to it over the years. You have the right to believe in what you want to, in the end it’s your soul and life, just don’t hurt people mentally and physically about it.

Islam is not a religion of peace, never has been and it never will. However it doesn’t claim to be peaceful and it is only peaceful when it has conquered. In Islam there are two outcomes, Dar al Islam and Dar al Harb, that is, lands that are completely Islamic and lands that are non Islamic. Can you get what the goal of Islam is regarding this? Yeah.

Bombings, beheadings, shootings, running trucks through Christmas markets the list goes on. There are one billion Muslims and counting one could make the argument that since their population is so high there’s more of a chance of black sheep but no. Hindus and Christians surpass the billion mark and Buddhism comes close to having at least half a billion adherents. When was the last time say any of the adherents of these religions carry out such acts of terrorism in countries in which they are minorities? Remember that time those pesky Hindus bombed Mecca? Or the time they tried blowing up Muhammad’s mosque in Medina? How about the time when the pesky Christians started beheading people on the Temple Mount by the Dome of the Rock? I’ve never seen a minority cause more trouble than Muslims, we need halal this, we need speakers blasting the Azan, we need prayer rooms at work when we take out break to pray five times a day, why aren’t we allowed to pray in the streets and block traffic and make a political statement?

The “west” has been hoodwinked into thinking Islam means “peace”. From Eastern Europe all the way through countries in Asia that aren’t a Muslims majority, they know what Islam really is, they don’t play games when it comes to Muslim numbers and influence increasing within their own borders. India, Israel, China, Russia, Japan, Philippines, South Korea, As their people how they feel about Islam and their perceived image about it. They don’t talk from a media perspective, but an historical and contemporary perspective through experience. Islam
Is so peaceful that in 1947 they took a land called Pakistan happily from the British but when then Brits gave the Jewish people Israel the Muslims became rabid animals foaming at the mouth because “oUr lAnD”. Right... I’m not a fan of Israel’s exploits and constant destabilization in the region but come on... You have Mecca and Medina to yourselves the Dome of the Rock is whatever, sure it’s the third most holiest site, but you still have rights to visit it while stepping all over the site on the Temple Mount, a place where Jews don’t even step on on fear of disrespecting the holy of the holies. That to Jordan takes care of the Temple Mount and are in charge of it... So it’s okay to desecrate Jewish religious sites by stepping all over it but screaming death to Jews WHILE living in their borders is okay? *honk honk*

What else? Reading the Quran back to from twice, visiting it constantly and being a Muslim for nine years while hiding it from my parents and family and friends have me great insight into the religion. I researched Sunni, Shia and Ibadi Islam in depth along with their Madhabs (schools of jurisprudence) and fiqs. I ultimately aligned with the Sunni school of thought and followed the Hanafi Madhab and I could have chose from the Maliki, Hanbali or Shafi schools of thought while under Sunni Islam. But I didn’t so there’s that. The Quran does have some good passages in it, but it is too wishy washy. It’s the old testament slapped in with the New Testament so contradictions are abound and it throws in its own twists.

Then we have Muhammad. Ah yes, the illiterate but not deaf, self proclaimed prophet. Never produced a miracle, was a hypocrite and died of being poisoned by Jewish woman whose family he slaughtered. He spread the message of Islam in Mecca for 13 years before he made Hijra to Medina. In those 13 years his tribe, the Quraysh, could have killed him they didn’t.... This is why I feel like Muslims over exaggerate in their Hadiths and stories in general about Islam. Even when Hijra was made, Muhammad went to Medina and left his cousin Ali as a decoy, when the Quraysh found Ali, they didn’t kill him... They let him go... If the Quraysh really wanted to wipe Islam out they could have they still had feelings for Muhammad and Ali because not only were they from the same tribe but Ali’s father who was also Muhammad’s uncle, was a leader in the tribe so out of respect they gave and showed mercy.

it’s funny, the Quraysh ran Mecca, it was a big time spot for pagans to come once a year and carry out rituals similar to the Hajj, circling the black cube (Kaaba) and so forth. Jews and Christians lived among the Quraysh, ha different ideologies and God(a) but they were never persecuted by the Quraysh. However when Muhammad came along with Islam it became a problem, why? Because he was directly insulting the beliefs of the Quraysh and their way of life. The Quraysh never had a issue with Jews and Christians and their monotheistic beliefs and yet Islam ruffled their feathers? Huh... Muslims, as a minority, causing trouble? No way, can’t be.

Muhammad also sent Muslims to Abyssinia present day Ethiopia to be protected from potential persecution, the Christian king took them in. How does Muhammad repay they favour? Well on his death bed per hadiths, he told Umab Ibn Al Khattab, the man who would go to become the second caliph (Part of the rightly guided Rashidun) to expel Jews and Christians from the Hijaz... Nice. Let’s not forget Muhammad in Medina. Once he gained influence, he turned on the Jews there saying they breached a treaty he brokered with them. He held the Jewish tribe of Banu Qurayza in their walls for a certain period until the siege fell. He beheaded all the adult males. The boys? Well if they had pubic hair they were beheaded too. As for the girls and women? They were taken to be slaves and sex slaves. Truly a merciful act from the merciful prophet of “Allah”.

Muhammad is a spec of dirt compared to Christ. Muhammad married a six year old and consummated the marriage at 9. Disgusting. As a prophet you’re supposed to rise above the archaic norms and laws of the people tou are sent to and instead he indulged in them. That to it was his best friends daughter (Abu Bakr al Siddiq, the man who would go on to become the first Caliph after Muhammad’s death, how convenient). He was married to a wealthy merchant woman named Khadijah. Fun fact Khadijah wasn’t a Muslim, so Muhammad married a non Muslim but this was before he received revelation, not after. Just something for you wanting to do more research to ponder on.

Muhammad waged countless wars. He had more than than the prescribed 4 wives, he had sex slaves, he had those who spoke against him assassinated. Hell, one of his followers stabbed a pregnant woman in her stomach, as per hadith sources l, because she said something bad about him. He had a poet wiped out too for speaking ill of him. He decimated an entire tribe and then took a woman as a sex concubine whose father and brother he murdered just minutes prior. Just let that sink in, what prophet of God displays such acts? Muhammad was waking by a woman who was about to be stoned abs he let her be stoned to death, Jesus on the other hand said his world famous phrase “let ye who is without sin cast the first stone”. Muhammad raided caravans and 1/5th of the booty went to Him and “Allah”. Jesus said you can’t serve two masters, you serve either God or money. Do you want see the stark difference? But to be fair that 1/5th went to relatives and orphans as well... I mean that justifies theft no? I’ll let you decide.

Jesus made it clear, if you live by the sword you’ll die by it. Only thing Jesus lifted was his finger and the souls abs spirits of those around him. After Muhammad’s death there was a squabble of who would have power, while his son in law Ali was burying him, Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman all decided to allocate power amongst themselves and left Ali out. Sure Ali became the fourth Caliphate but he was reluctant to acknowledge the rest before him and many didn’t acknowledge his reign as he was assassinated while praying. But that’s more research for some of you to do.

Jesus healed the sick, Muhammad didn’t. Jesus performed miracles in front of many eyes Muhammad didn’t. Jesus showed mercy to his “enemies” Muhammad didn’t. Muhammad claims to be a mercy sent from God but apparently he forgot that somewhere along they way. Jesus died for humanity and even asked God for forgiveness on their behalf. Muhammad? He had people die for him left right and centre. Jesus had to deal with the damn Roman Empire and the Pharisees, I mean come on... By Muhammad’s time the Persian and Roman Empires were so weak from fighting one another all he had to do was third party and pick them off one by one and that’s exactly what his caliphs did, hence the fall of Persia to the Arabs. The poor Zoroastrians, majority of them, were chased out of Persia due to religious persecution.

So here you are, a non Muslim living in a Muslim land. Your three choices are: Convert, pay a Jizya (poll tax) or die. I mean taxes are unavoidable but to pay one due to you being a different religion? Muslims pay Zakat but it doesn’t go to anything BUT MUSLIM causes. In a Muslim majority as a non Muslim you’ll always be a second class citizen. If a Muslims murdered your loved one or raped them they would get off free and you’d deserve such a thing for not being a Muslim to begin with.

I’ve said it once here already. If a Christian blew himself up in a mosque or beheaded people of other religions while screaming out the name of Jesus I’d be shocked. Why? Well Jesus never preached such garbage nor did he condone violence. However when a Muslim does it you don’t have to look that far, Muhammad championed violence, called for it and carried it out himself on all those that stood in his way, Ask the people from modern day Portugal all the way modern day Pakistan/parts of Northern India (Empire held by the Umayyads). But wait Milvian, not all Muslims are like that. No they aren’t, but the fact some are shouldn’t be surprising when all they’re doing is following the example their prophet to the “T” and even if it’s say 10% of their population that’s 100 million of them and that’s no small number. Not all Muslims are like that, sure but their prophet sure was. When people call ISIS terrorists I call them true Muslims because they’re following the Quran and hadiths by Bukhari and Muslim to the T. These “radical” Muslims groups are the pit bulls of Islam, the majority will deny them but quietly accept their behaviour because it pushes their west dream of Dar al Islam (see above). Muslims wouldn’t mind living under sharia because it’s a win win for them, there’s nothing to loose, it’s all non Muslims that are going to have one hell of a time.

As for the wold “Allah” well, Arabic was used by Pagans, Jews and Christians but it’s NOT a synonym. Allah to Pagans was a God who had three daughters, this was “the god” of the Pagans. “Allah” to the Jews was Yahweh and “Allah” to the Christians was God who had a son and could be portages through a Holy Spirit. They are all NOT the same “Allah”. When a Muslims says Allah, they mean the god who has no son who came and paid for the sins of humanity. So tell me how is it “all the same” when clearly, it is not. I tell everyone, specifics and details matter, it’s what clears ignorance and sets you on the right path. To add, here’s a link: https://www.ciu.edu/content/allah-islam-same-yahweh-christianity

To wrap it up, I don’t hate anything or anyone. Follow what you want to just don’t bother people physically or mentally about it. I don’t like Muhammad being championed as a prophet and infallible and I don’t like Islam because it’s a product being sold by said individual whom as a very questionable character compared to others that came before him.

When we die and are brought back whatever quarrels we have and the things we’ve done will be between us and God. God isn’t going to care what others have said and done, He’s going to care about you as an individual. From the hairs on your head, to the grains of sands on earth, to the galaxies that are and will come and have gone He knows all their numbers. Every breath you take is by His permission. Every wing flap that pushes and lifts a bird is by his permission. Nothing escapes His knowledge or transcends His wisdom. We are literally a spec of dust in this MASSIVE universe and yet He still considers us worth loving and attention. That’s what most want, to be loved respected and treated with kindness, God gives that to us all without hesitation we just have to ask for it.

Edit: Typed this on my phone. Excuse the grammatical and/or punctuational errors. We all know autocorrect is the direct work of Satan and his followers when conveying articulate information.
 

The Prime Minister

Sparrow
Orthodox
Excellent summary MilvianForce.

You forgot three things about early Islamic history; the Treaty of Hudaybiya, the Ridda Wars, and the Satanic Verses.

The Treaty of Hudaybiya was a ceasefire signed by Muhammad/Muslims and Pagan Quraysh tribe where they agreed to a 10 year truce of no war. Muhammad was forced to sign this because the Pagans were still too strong. About 2-3 years into the treaty, the Pagans became very weakened. When Muhammad saw that their guard was down and that they were weaker, he immediately broke the treaty and conquered all of Mecca from the Pagans. Funny enough he spared almost all of the Pagans in Mecca because they were from his tribe. Notice the irony? He genocided many (like the Banu Qurayza Jews) but spares his tribal own kinfolk from genocide.

As soon as Muhammad died a large portion of Muslims went back to their Pagan faith. Abu Bakr, the new caliph, carried out a civil war to kill or reconvert-by-force those Muslims who became Pagans. This was called the Ridda Wars. A bloody affair that saw the Muslims victorious. That's because Islam allows the killing of apostates (Muslims who leave their religion). They have to use force to keep people from leaving their religion, even back then in Muhammad's time. There is no free will or voluntary choice in Islam, only submission through fear/force.

The angel Gabriel that Muhammad saw was most likely the devil (even the devil can appear as an angel of light). This is further confirmed when Muhammad was given a revelation from the devil but couldn't differentiate it from "Gabriel"; this controversy is known in Islam as "The Satanic Verses". Muslims explain that away as a simple one-off event.

This man is nothing other than a false prophet with a false religion. Sadly this is misguiding billions away from Christ.

Again we see Jesus Christ warning us of such evil.

"Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit." Matthew 7:15-17
 

Sitting Bull

Woodpecker

This has already been commented by several people including me, but no one so far has answered to the alleged ecumenist "Letter of Pope S. Gregory VII to King Azir" quoted by a Father Kempner in the linked pdf. I'll deal with that now.

What Father Kempner forgets to tell us is that the context of the letter was very special, and that King Azir of Mauritania was a very unusual Muslim leader : instead of making war on Christians, and/or enslaving them as the other Muslim leaders did, he freed a lot of Christians, protected the Christian community in his kingdom, and he even asked the Pope to name a bishop over them ! This was the main reason that prompted the Pope's letter.

Needless to say, both the attitude of King Azir (and correspondingly, the tone of Gregory VII's letter) are very rare in the history of relationships between Christianity and Islam.
 

NoMoreTO

Ostrich
'“Allah” is indeed the same God worshipped by Catholics and other Christians. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states: “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.” (CCC, 841)'


PROFESS : "claim that one has (a quality or feeling), especially when this is not the case."

It does not say they worship the Creator. The same is true regarding the word "Allah". Just because you call out to God, it does not mean you are actually calling out to God.

At best Muslims are Aryan Heretics fermented for 1400 years. At worst they pray to a demon or the devil himself. I do not think we actually know.

Also, this is a new Catechism, which is a teaching tool. It is not Dogma, and to me clarification would be needed to fit it with the history of Church teaching. They went as far as they could in their outreach without being heretics, which seems par for the course Post Vatican 2.
 

Sitting Bull

Woodpecker
I am most surprised by what you just wrote. Hopefully I can make you understand why :
Also, this is a new Catechism, which is a teaching tool. It is not Dogma, and to me clarification would be needed to fit it with the history of Church teaching.


You say a "new Catechism" is a "teaching tool". To me, a "Catechism" is a teaching already, a finished product.

How can "catechism" not be "dogma" ? I thought the point of the catechism was precisely to put the dogma in a summarized, easily memorizable form.


They went as far as they could in their outreach without being heretics, which seems par for the course Post Vatican 2.

What's the point of this dubious exercise ? To me it sounds like doing a very risky thing just for the sake of it, like bending over a cliff as much as you can without actually falling.
 

stugatz

Pelican
I spent an academic year in the Middle East, and definitely admire Islam from a cultural standpoint (oddly, it's what brought me back to Christianity). I like Muslims far more than the SJWs that are stinking up our country and our culture, and see them as a possibly ally for the troubled times ahead - they tend to hate the same degeneracy Christians do.

However, I view them as cultural enemies that don't want to coexist with us unless we're subordinate. This needs to be acknowledged. I'd rather pay jizya tax as an infidel, though, than get my kids taken away from me or neutered under whatever authoritarian system the left wants.
 
Top