The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Full ArchivesKevin Barrett Podcasts
Ex-BBC Journalist Tony Gosling Questions My Islamic Eschatology
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks


Former BBC journalist Tony Gosling hosts a Bristol UK based radio show “Politics This Week.” To my mind he is one of the most interesting voices out of the UK.

In this interview, recorded for Politics This Week, Tony asks me about Islam in general and my views on Islamic eschatology in particular, which have been heavily influenced by the brilliant work of Shaykh Imran Hosein.

(Republished from Truth Jihad by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Islam 
Hide 136 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Mr. Barrett, do you recommend Shaykh Hosein’s book for the “general reader”? I’m not Muslim, but I lived several years in Saudi Arabia, I have read the Koran, the Hadith, and many books about Islam, so, in other words, I am interested in this subject and sympathetic to Islam. My handle here, Fool’s Paradise, is a book I wrote, published by Random House in the U.S. and in England by Bloomsbury Press, in 1988, and shortlisted for the Pulitzer Prize that year. The title comes from Charles Doughty’s great Travels in Arabia Deserta. My name is Dale Walker.

  2. I think everybody should listen to Irman Hosien, he will surprise you with his knowledge of the Coran, and end time prophesy. I started watching him a few years ago and really found him to be the real deal. He gets upset during his speaking engagements and calls out the other teachers of the Coran for not interpreting the passages correctly. No matter what religion you follow or if you’re not religious it’s good to hear him, and you will see that Western Judeo Christian leaders lie about Islam.

  3. @Fool's Paradise

    Mr. Walker,

    He has quite a few videos on YouTube that are very informative. During his video he talks about his books. I think you will find the man very interesting and knowledgeable on Islamic Eschatology. You will also find Muslims that do not agree with his view of events in the Coran. It’s a good place to start and should answer your question whether to purchase his books. His videos will blow your mind about the Islamic religion. I sent a commenter on this site a link to Irman Hosein’s videos, and his response to me was one of total surprise.

    Have a nice day Sir.

  4. Thank you, J. Gutierrez, I will check out his videos.

  5. Very interesting. An important lesson that every religion has far more behind it than one might guess from watching the MSM, making superficial assessments unhelpful.

  6. Seraphim says:

    This Shaykh Imran Hosein is rather a jester playing the prophets. It is hard to comprehend why so many people take him seriously. His belief that Mahomed prophesied an alliance of the Orthodox (Russian) with Muslims is ridiculous. His ‘eschatology’ is the anti-Christian one of the Hadiths.

    • Replies: @Iris
  7. Talha says:

    Great interview, bro! Much appreciated. I liked your insights on the question of Sufism.

    Also, glad you were able to give insights on the views of Sh. Imran on these topics; I have heard a few clips here and there of his talks, but it was nice to have it all summarized in one place.

    Wa salaam.

  8. Kevin Barrett, once again, you and another cuck babbling about Islam.

    First, the Koran, is a farrago, a dog’s breakfast of passages from the Old Testament, Christian hearsay and Arab pagan beliefs. I’ve read it. I can tell it was “written” by an illiterate, low IQ pedophile.

    As to your Islamic eschatology, anything you say about Christianity and Old Testament Judaism (not present day “Judaism”) is wrong because Islam is a Christian heresy and you are a Christian heretic.

    As a Western, Christian woman (a Roman Catholic), everything you said about the end times is wrong.

    Modern day Jews are not related to the Jews of the Old Testament or when Jesus lived. Today’s Jews are a miscegenated race who practice the Kabbala, Talmudic practices and the Zohar. Christian Zionists are wrong about their Protestantism and the end times. They are deceived Christians. The temple will never be rebuilt. Read about what happened to Julian the Apostate. There will be an earthquake and the upside is there will be a lot of dead Jews and Muslims. It’s the Freemasons who are the ones behind the rebuilding project. They think they will rule the world when the temple is rebuilt. Christian Zionists, modern day Jews are just pawns.

    I read that you converted to Islam when you met a married a Moroccan woman. Your spiritual awakening started below the waist instead of in the head and heart. Stop calling other people Satanists, since Islam is a satanic, sex-crazed cult.

    I support Israel because that’s where all present day Jews belong. I give a rat’s tuchas about low IQ, mostly black, Muslim Palestinians.

    There is good news. China is exterminating its Muslims. Myanamar has dealt with its Muslim problem. India will be next in dealing with its Muslims.

    You are an example of what happens to a Western male when he walks down the wrong path and chooses a belief system like Islam. You said you can’t find employment in the USA. You need to move to Morocco with your family. Moroccans have an average IQ of 84. You have a couple of extra point so they need you.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
    , @dakaras
  9. Seraphim says:
    @attilathehen

    Islam is NOT a ‘Christian heresy’, i.e. a heresy devised by Christians. Listen to what Saint John of Damascus had to say about Islam in his dogmatic treatise “Fount of Knowledge, part two entitled Heresies in Epitome: How They Began and Whence They Drew Their Origin”:

    “There is also the superstition of the Ishmaelites which to this day prevails and keeps people in error, being a forerunner of the Antichrist. They are descended from Ishmael, [who] was born to Abraham of Agar, and for this reason they are called both Agarenes and Ishmaelites. They are also called Saracens, which is derived from Sarras kenoi, or destitute of Sara, because of what Agar said to the angel: ‘Sara hath sent me away destitute.’ These used to be idolaters and worshiped the morning star and Aphrodite, whom in their own language they called Khabár, which means great. And so down to the time of Heraclius they were very great idolaters. From that time to the present a false prophet named Mohammed has appeared in their midst. This man, after having chanced upon the Old and New Testaments and likewise, it seems, having conversed with an Arian monk, devised HIS OWN HERESY. Then, having insinuated himself into the good graces of the people by a show of seeming piety, he gave out that a certain book had been sent down to him from heaven. He had set down some ridiculous compositions in this book of his and he gave it to them as an object of veneration”.

    The term heresy, from Greek αἵρεσις, originally meant “choice” or “thing chosen”, but it came to mean the “party or school of a man’s choice”and also referred to that process whereby a young person would examine various philosophies to determine how to live.

  10. @Seraphim

    In Roman Catholicism it is a heresy. If you deny that Jesus is God and Man, you are in error.

    As to the Ishmaelites from Hagar, that doesn’t matter anymore. Today’s Arabs are not racially related to the Ishmaelites of the Old Testament. This is the same thing for today’s Jews. Today’s Middle Eastern Muslim populations are of black ancestry (from light to dark skin). The people of the Old Testament were Caucasians.

    Modern day Judaism has nothing to do with Old Testament Judaism, and Islam is an insane belief system made-up by the pedophile Mohammed.

  11. @Fool's Paradise

    Dale, yes I would recommend reading Imran Hosein. His use of scripture as a springboard to intuitively interpreting history and current events is far more sophisticated and fruitful than the usual Bible-thumping apocalypse talk.

  12. @attilathehen

    “Attila,” you are obviously so smart, spiritual, well-balanced, and reasonable (on top of all your scholarly achievements) that it would be pointless to argue with you.

  13. Iris says:
    @Seraphim

    This Shaykh Imran Hosein is rather a jester playing the prophets.

    You are greatly misinformed about Sheikh Imran Hosein.

    He has a very bright political mind, and is able to immediately and consistently connect the dots between seemingly incomprehensible political events.

    I was amazed how quickly he understood and infallibly explained the Saudi embargo against Qatar, and Qatar’s totally unexpected resistance.
    Less intelligent political analysts discovered much later than he did that the ME geopolitical dynamics had changed, driven by Russia and China in the background of the Syria war.

    No need to be interested in religions to like Sheikh Hosein: he is free-minded, has an alternative and refreshing view of history, and he bravely speaks his mind against the Zionist agenda. The eschatology part is a bonus. A video where he talks about President Trump:

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  14. Thanks, Kevin. I’ll take your word for it. Shall I start with Qur’an Dajjal and the Jasad?

  15. Anon[384] • Disclaimer says:

    Jewish-run US is a sick crazy nation. It destroys the Middle East on behalf of Israel and then blames Iran.

    Current US is as bad as Nazi Germany.

  16. Seraphim says:
    @attilathehen

    Islam is not a Christian heresy in the sense that it was not a ‘school’ (that is the original meaning of ‘heresy’) of Christians disaffected with the orthodoxy of the Church, who separate from the mainstream Church. Arianism, Nestorianism, Monophysitism, Roman-Catholicism, Protestantism are Christian heresies. Their ‘belief system’ is generally the same as the mainstream, differing in some points (which could be major – like Arianism, or less major, like Roman-Catholicism).
    Islam is indeed a ‘belief system’ (rather a ‘cult’) devised outside the Church by a cult leader. It is a different ‘religion’ altogether. It is actually a cult of Mahomed, and that’s the reason why his sectators have been commonly called in European literature until at least the mid-1960s, ‘Mahomedans/Mahometans’.
    ‘Judaism’ is a heresy of the religion of the ‘House of Israel’. It started developing when the Temple of Jerusalem claimed to be the sole representative of the ‘House of Israel’.

  17. ucdco2023 says:

    Imran Hosein is a liar. He says many ahadith in Sahih Bukhari are fabricated and considers Shias to be Muslim. Those who follow him are gullible non-muslims like you guys

  18. Seraphim says:
    @Iris

    Well, I am not. You are.

  19. Iris says:

    Eschatology may seem an esoteric subject, and one difficult to exchange about because it involves beliefs that are not necessarily shared.

    The average person in the West is influenced by science and facts, has no religious practice, and is likely to shrug off eschatology. However, we should be interested in what goes inside the head of madman Netanyahu, who clearly is driven by an entrenched eschatology, and indeed a carefully planned one that goes back centuries.

    The question of the day should be whether Netanyahu is going to cause WW3 if he does not get his “Great Israel”, for which we can obtain no convincing answer.

    Sheikh Imran Husein proposes a scenario which is based on his interpretation of Islamic eschatology. It is an researched opinion, based on a non-scientific value system, one of beliefs, but very educated nonetheless.

    His eschatological interpretation is powerful and highly interesting:
    – Jerusalem will become the centre stage of the world with the rise of a wicked globalist power. (We are already there; Zionists control the world because they control over the USA.)
    – A great war will take place, one in which he predicts nuclear weapons will be used.
    – After the great war, “Constantinople will be liberated”, which he interprets as the stranglehold applied upon Russia being lifted when she can freely use the Bosporus strait, because Turkey would have left NATO.
    – A “false messiah” will rule over Talmudic Israel, precipitating her final demise.
    The world will end up being ruled not by Muslims, but by God’s true Christians, which are the Orthodox Christians.

    Sheikh Husain does not reject the Jewish religion: he rejects its Talmudic version which he considers a wicked distortion of the faith preached by David and Solomon.

    This is an interview Sheikh Husein gave at the Greek Orthodox Church in Leeds, more accessible for those interested only in eschatology:

  20. Isa ibn Maryam is not the biblical Jesus Christ.
    Isa ibn Maryam of Islam will be the biblical “False Prophet”.
    He will come to serve and promote the Mahdi/Anti-christ.
    The False Prophet/Isa will claim to be Jesus, he will deny that he ever claimed to be Son of God, he will be a Moslem, and he will defer to the Mahdi/Anti-christ in prayer.
    He will lead many Christians away from God and entice them to follow Allah/Satan.
    This will be the biblical “Great Deception”.
    The Islamic Dajjal represents the true, biblical Jesus Christ who will defeat Allah/Satan.
    The final touches of Isaac Abravanel’s plan to destroy Christianity and Islam are being enacted today; mass immigration of Moslems into The West and Western hostility towards Christian Russia are two facets.
    Imam Mahdi will rise to power backed by the Zionists.
    He will likely be a crypto-jewish/false-Moslem (Donmeh).
    The Jews will trust him, because they believe he is theirs.
    But he will turn on them; thus the Israel will be destroyed – punished for trusting in Satan.

    Question Mr Barrett; if ISIS is not true Islam, then why were the so strongly supported by Turkey’s Islamist Prime Minister Erdogan (in addition to be being supported by US and Israel)?

    • Replies: @Ibn Issam
  21. @Seraphim

    The Roman Catholic Church is not a heresy. It was the first Christian Church founded by Jesus and St. Peter was its first pope. You are Orthodox. The Orthodox Church came into its own with the 1054 schism. Thus, the Orthodox Church is second. Then came the Protestant Reformation – they were protesting against the RCC. These are the three divisions in Christendom. Within Protestantism we have churches ranging from the Ango-Catholics to the Mormons. The C. S. Lewis Anglo-Catholics kept everything but the pope and so are the closest to the RCC. After this the Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Lutherans kept some of the RCC litury. When we come down to the Southern Baptists, Pentecostalists and such we are very far from the RCC. Many Protestant churches are considered heretical. I am studying Orthodoxy right now and learning about the theological differences that caused the 1054 schism.

    Old Testament Judaism does not exist anymore. When Jesus died and the temple was destroyed, the Jews of that time lost their covenant with God and the temple services were taken over by the RCC and subsequent Christian churches. Modern day Jews are LARPers. After the Jews were dispersed in 70 A.D., some Jews held on to their idea that they were still the chosen and created Talmudic Judaism with the rabbis in control. Through the centuries as they wandered through Europe and other parts of the world, they intermarried quite often so that present day Jews have almost no genetic claim to the Jews of Old Testament and when Jesus lived. They also incorporated the Kabbala, and Zohar into their Talmudic practices. The Kabbala is actually Babylonian and Egyptian in origin. All of these teachings boil down to the one thing, the Jew worshipping himself and believing that God asks him for advice. All nonsense. However, if these LARPing Jews want to believe these things, they must do it in Israel. There is no such thing as Judaeo-Christianity. It is Graeco-Roman Christianity that created the West.

    When Mohamed came along, he knew Jews and Monophysite priests. He listened to the arguments the Jews and Christians had. When he went to the cave and had his so-called vision, he merely came up with a blend of Judaism, Christian hearsay and pagan Arab beliefs. I’ve read the Koran. There is not holy or God inspired about it. It is an easy read with little substance. I do know that in European literature the Muslims were called Mahomets and Mohammedans. It is a belief system, but what the Koran says about Jesus and their eschatology about Him, makes the statements heretical. Kevin Barrett stated that Muslims believe Jesus will come at the end times and will break the cross. Heretical nonsense. Before Vatican II, such nonsense would not have been tolerated in the West. There were no “Abrahamic faiths.” However, the RCC has been infiltrated and it has collapsed. Not Christianity, just the physical church. Michael A. Hoffman II has written a book that this started with the Renaissance. Others believe it happened with Vatican II.

    • Replies: @Ibn Issam
    , @Seraphim
    , @dakaras
  22. @Fool's Paradise

    I have Charles Doughty’s Travels in Arabia Deserta (edited version) and admire him greatly. Amazing man, lived to a ripe old age and died at home in England.
    Some claim that he spent time traveling in the desert due to his meager funds which were insufficient for living at home . He suffered indignities and insults but gives a very graphic account of the Arabian way of life before crude oil changed the Arabian nomads and made oasis-es irrelevant.
    As far as Imran Husain and other “End Timers” go, I would advise you to take them with a pinch of salt.
    Anthony Burgess’s “Any Old Iron” is a much more rational take on this subject.
    I’m more a Buddhist/Hindu kind of guy and destined for the lakes of fire by the three Abrahamis religions.

  23. @Seraphim

    Whats a difference between a cult and a religion?
    It’s just the numbers of adherents and when that becomes large, it’s known as a religion.
    Refute me if you can.

    • Replies: @Anon
  24. Ibn Issam says:
    @Seraphim

    The description John of Damascus is based within his own religious confirmation bias, and superficial understandings of Islam. Many Christians of his age, and since have often preferred to view Islam as a “Christian heresy” rather than to view it as a distinct religious worldview in and of itself, as to do so would mean to simultaneously invalidate their own Christian orthodoxy. This also explains Christian animosity towards Muslims, as the exclusive nature of Christianity forces them to deny validity to Islam, regardless of the facts.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  25. Ibn Issam says:
    @attilathehen

    According the Nostra Aetate, your own Catholic Church views Muslims with much more esteem than you would like to admit. In addition, I am sure that my own Catholic friends would be ashamed of your racist and bigoted remarks toward black people having lower IQ’s etc.

    If you consider Prophet Mohammad (sws) a pedophile then what do you think about Jacob who gave his daughter 7 year old daughter Dinah in marriage to Shechem? According to Rabbis in medieval history, Rebecca was no older than three 3-years-old when married off to Isaac. Or Mary, who was 12 when married to 80-90 year old Joseph, and King David who married 12 year old Abishag? Does your definition of pedophilia include your own prophets and patriarchs, or just Muslims?

    https://discover-the-truth.com/2016/11/14/was-rebekah-3-10-years-old-when-married-off-to-isaac/

    https://discover-the-truth.com/2016/10/20/londons-child-marriages-1500-1800s/

    • Replies: @attilathehen
  26. Ibn Issam says:
    @Orthodox Christian

    Sounds like you have been reading too much from Pastor/Rabbi John Hagee.

    In order to properly understand Islamic Theology and Eschatology, one must invest the time and effort to understand Islam within its own context, not through the lens of fundamentalist Christianity.

    • Replies: @Talha
    , @Orthodox Christian
  27. Ibn Issam says:
    @attilathehen

    The Roman Catholic Church is not a heresy.

    The Proto-Orthodoxy that developed after the death of Jesus was actually based in Heretical Paulinian teachings that later became the accepted Orthodoxy of the RCC. Thus the original teachings of Jesus as accepted by the original Jewish (not Caucasian) Christians came to be considered heresy, and the actual heresy was accepted as RCC Orthodoxy, which was in turn, passed on to most Protestant Churches as well.

    I am always amused when a critic claims the Qur’an is an “easy read.” Clearly, you have not read the Qur’an in its original and much more profound language, Arabic.

    • Replies: @attilathehen
  28. @Rev. Spooner

    Isn’t Doughty great? I read both volumes, his quirky prose and all. On the first page of my Fool’s Paradise I quote and hope to emulate him:

    “The haps that befell me are narrated in these volumes, wherein I have set down, that which I saw with my eyes, and heard with my ears and thought in my heart; neither more or less.”
    —Charles M. Doughty, Travels in Arabia Deserta, 1888

    One hundred years later, my book was published by Random House and Bloomsbury Press, 1988.

    Thanks for your message, Rev. Spooner

  29. Talha says:
    @Ibn Issam

    Salaam Bro,

    I’ve learned not to waste much time with random people who simply throw out their opinion; everyone’s got one.

    Also, may you be granted many blessings this Ramadan.

    Wa salaam.

    • Replies: @attilathehen
    , @Ibn Issam
  30. @Ibn Issam

    I read a translation by a Koranic council that allowed it to be reviewed by an Arabic-speaking, non-Muslim. There’s little substance in the Koran – a shallow, heretical work.

    • Replies: @Ibn Issam
  31. @Ibn Issam

    I’m a biological materialist. I do believe in God. My starting point is biology. Biology first, then beliefs.

    I assume you are a Muslim of either Asian or black ancestry. Caucasoids are the smartest race, then the Mongoloids, blacks are last.

    I left the Catholic Church because I don’t accept black/Asian priests-popes. The Catholic Church has collapsed because of diversity. We need a new church for the West. I am a Western nationalist and the West is not black/Asian/Jewish/Muslim. I have no interest in Catholics who accept black/Asian priests-popes. The Orthodox Church with its racial/ethnic churches will be the future.

    Mary and Joseph never consummated their marriage. She is a perpetual virgin.

    I don’t know about Rebecca, but from I understand Old Testament Jews were assigned their spouses but the marriage could not be consummated until the bride had menses.

    Christian marriage did away with these degeneracies. Islam did not. Child brides are common in Muslim countries.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
    , @Ibn Issam
  32. Seraphim says:
    @attilathehen

    I cannot but encourage you to continue studying Orthodoxy without RC (or Greco-Catholic) and Protestant blinkers and only after you gain a sufficient knowledge of the historical facts pertaining to it to lecture the Orthodox on what to believe (there is nothing of what you try to teach me that I didn’t know).
    Rome was not the ‘first Christian Church’. Jerusalem was, followed by Antioch (“And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch”), Alexandria (founded by Saint Mark) and the Churches founded in the East and they were naturally Orthodox.
    Saint Peter was not the first bishop of Rome and it is doubtful that he founded the Church in Romerun it that he ever run it (no Apostle was a bishop, they just appointed bishops). Saint Paul would have told us. The first bishop of Rome was Linus, mentioned by Saint Paul (and who was ordained by Paul). All we know from a later tradition is that Peter came at a later time to Rome where he was martyred along with Paul. In any case the Christ did not ‘appoint’ Peter as the head of the Church and as his ‘vicar’. That claim is the first heresy from Orthodoxy into which the Church in Rome fell and led to the schism of 1054. It was Rome which parted with Orthodoxy and not the other way round.

    • Replies: @attilathehen
  33. Seraphim says:
    @Ibn Issam

    Saint John of Damascus knew well the Koran which he read in Arabic. His quotations are exact. Because of his intimate knowledge of the Koran did he conclude that it is a ‘distinct religious worldview’, which was a hodge-podge of disparate heretical Christian, Jewish and Arab pagan ‘traditions’ cobbled together into a ‘ridiculous book’ which had no other relevance for the Christian worldview than its aggressive anti-Christian bias against which he warned the Christians. The ‘animosity towards Muslims’ is not due to Christian ‘confirmation bias’, but to the too long murderous way by which Muslims sought to confirm the ‘validity’ of their ‘worldview’.

    • Replies: @attilathehen
  34. Seraphim says:
    @attilathehen

    You will be sorely disappointed when you will find out that the ‘racial/ethnic’ Orthodox Church has a lot of Black and Asian priests and has not the remotest connection with ‘White nationalism’. The ‘White nationalists’ will hate Orthodoxy.

    • Replies: @attilathehen
  35. @Talha

    Hey Talha, it’s been a while bro.

    “…random people who simply throw out their opinion; everyone’s got one.” No.

    I deal with facts. You’re not used to that.

    • Replies: @Talha
  36. @Seraphim

    Here is an interesting youtube about the Muslim invasion of India:

    • Replies: @Ibn Issam
  37. @Seraphim

    Thank you for these facts. I will keep them and compare them as my studies progress.

    Even though I am a cradle Catholic, I am an American and am grateful for the Protestants who founded the country. I have had many Protestant friends and when their theology was wrong, I would correct them. Sometimes it caused problems, but I had to explain to them why they were wrong. The most problems arose with Christian Zionists and their rapture theology. This is a new sect that is not connected to the older Protestant churches that do not believe in Christian Zionism. Fortunately, people are abandoning Christian Zionism so it will be easier to work towards a new church for the West.

  38. Talha says:
    @attilathehen

    If you say so. Please, keep on posting your various opinions on things, it’s a free forum – don’t let me get your way. Have a good one.

  39. Ibn Issam says:
    @Talha

    Salaamu Alaikum Ya Talha,

    Ramadan Mubarak aleyk, wa kul sana wa antum bikhayer!

    Salaam!

  40. Ibn Issam says:
    @attilathehen

    Is that supposed to convince me?

    • Replies: @attilathehen
  41. Anon[192] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rev. Spooner

    Refute me if you can.

    It’s just the numbers of adherents and when that becomes large

    Counterexample: Stalin’s cult of personality, rather than Stalin’s religion of personality.

  42. @Ibn Issam

    First; I have never read one single word written by Pastor Hagee, not one. I have watched a total of, perhaps, 10 minutes of him on TV. Because I have heard so little from him, I have probably misunderstood him – I was under the impression that Hagee is pro-Israel (Zionist), which I absolutely am not! No Christian should ever lend support to Babylon the Great (Jerusalem). I have listened to far more of Imran Hosein than I have of Hagee.

    Second; I am a life-long Orthodox Christian, not a fundamentalist, nor any other sort of Protestant (not that I have anything against Protestants, and have learned much from their excellent biblical scholarship). Early Fathers of Orthodoxy understood that Islam was from Satan, and some even speculated that it was the End Times heresy, but they could not speak out plainly for fear of Moslem violence.

    Third; It is precisely my study and understanding of Islamic eschatology that has informed my understanding of Christian Eschatology. To a Christian who knows his faith, Islamic eschatology is crystal clear, and only serves to support the biblical perspective. However, we need not even resort to complex theological exegeses; John asks us to “not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.” The test is simple; and 15 centuries of appalling slaughter, cruelty, ignorance and oppression leaves us in no doubt – Islam absolutely is not from God.

    Islam tells us that one of Allah’s 99 names is “The Greatest Deceiver”, and on that point at least, Islam is correct. Mr Bennett you have been deceived.

    • Replies: @Ibn Issam
  43. Ibn Issam says:
    @Seraphim

    Anyone interested in a more factual response to the fabrications of John of Damascus can check this link:

    Subjugating the fallacies of John of Damascus
    https://unveiling-christianity.net/2008/06/19/subjugating-the-fallacies-of-john-of-damascus/

    • Replies: @Talha
  44. @Ibn Issam

    If you’re black or Asian, it doesn’t matter what you say or think. I am first for the West and if you are not Western you don’t count or belong here.

    • Replies: @Ibn Issam
  45. Ibn Issam says:
    @Orthodox Christian

    Thanks for your clarification on your own beliefs. I have often found that as a Muslim, I have more in common with Christians of an Orthodox background than I do from western Protestant/Catholic branches. Although I have many friends who are from all denominations and sects of Christianity.

    I could also say that “my understanding of Islamic eschatology that has informed my understanding of Christian Eschatology” however, we have clearly come to different conclusions. I would say that you may like to look into different eschatological interpretations, as there is not a requirement to see Islam as the enemy. Despite our theological differences, both Christians and Muslims believe in Christ, therefore the antichrist cannot come from our groups. Allah warns us in the Qur’an that Satan is our open enemy. Muslims respect honor and revere Jesus. Therefore, you may want to direct your attentions to those who reject, vilify, denigrate and curse Christ.

    In regard to slaughter, I can list all the “centuries of appalling slaughter, cruelty, ignorance and oppression” perpetrated by Christians throughout history, would you accept that as proof that your religion is not from God? If not then why should I do so?

    There is no such name as The Greatest Deceiver, included in the Asma Al Husna, but there are the following names: Al-Haqqq (The Embodiment of Truth); Al-Wadud (The Loving One); Al-Hameed (The Praiseworthy); Al-Barr (The fountainhead of Truth); Al-Waali (The Supreme Authority)……..and many other beautiful names.

    • Replies: @Orthodox Christian
  46. Talha says:
    @Ibn Issam

    Thanks for the link, good stuff. I remember reading through that original tract myself and getting bored at about the fourth or fifth flagrant mistake. It’s real easy to set up a straw man and then kick it down.

    Wa salaam.

    • Replies: @Ibn Issam
  47. Ibn Issam says:
    @attilathehen

    I cannot claim descent from the honorable and proud Black or Asian family and heritage. I am from the West and from the East, and I belong wherever I stand in the creation of Allah.

    In contrast to your own warped understanding of Catholic theology and ideological belief, Islamic belief does not focus upon race, neither should you, as it just makes you look foolish.

  48. Ibn Issam says:

    Salaam and thanks to Kevin Barrett for posting the conversation about Islamic Eschatology. Although it should be noted that there are different interpretations on this subject, it was very interesting to hear Kevins’ thoughts and views on the subject.

    • Agree: Talha
  49. Ibn Issam says:
    @attilathehen

    Britain is responsible for deaths of 35 million Indians, says acclaimed author Shashi Tharoor
    The Congress MP also calls for the Victoria Memorial in Kolkata to be turned into a museum about colonial rule

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/india-35-million-deaths-britain-shashi-tharoor-british-empire-a7627041.html

    Though I am sure that you will not admit that a Christian nation perpetrated such ungodly violence on an indigenous population, and will instead hide behind the skirts of secularism.

    • Replies: @dakaras
  50. Ibn Issam says:
    @Talha

    Exactly. They really need some new material, this stuff is getting old and boring.

    • Replies: @Talha
  51. Ibn Issam says:
    @attilathehen

    Mary and Joseph never consummated their marriage. She is a perpetual virgin.

    That is only according to innovated Christian Doctrine. Here is what the Bible has to say about that:

    The Gospel of Mark 6:3 and the Gospel of Matthew 13:55–56 state that James, Joses (or Joseph), Jude and Simon were the brothers of Jesus, the son of Mary. The same verses also mention unnamed sisters of Jesus. Of course, this brings into question the doctrine of perpetual virginity.

    I don’t know about Rebecca, but from I understand Old Testament Jews were assigned their spouses but the marriage could not be consummated until the bride had menses.

    So you give a free pass to your patriarchs, but cast allegations at the Prophet of Islam on something which you have no knowledge? Sounds like double standards to me.

    Christian marriage did away with these degeneracies.

    Then you are admitting that Christian patriarchs and prophets engaged in degeneracies??!!

    The problem is that you are projecting your own modern morality and bias on people who lived in an ancient society, with a different moral standard on marriage which was also common throughout most of the world (when a woman reached menses marriage could be consummated).

    • Replies: @attilathehen
  52. Talha says:
    @Ibn Issam

    The whole premise is built upon the assumption that some non-Arab Christian dude in Damascus knew more about Islamic doctrine as to refute it than that which is transmitted by men like Imam Malik (ra) who was his contemporary and lived smack dab in Madinah. The notion is ridiculous on its face.

    I mean it’s fine if they take it seriously, but why would we?

    Wa salaam.

    • Replies: @Ibn Issam
    , @RSDB
  53. Ibn Issam says:
    @Talha

    Even Ibn Ishaq did not record the faulty details that John relates, which provides even more evidence that John of Damascus had faulty information, and also fabricated false evidence against Islam. In addition, as a supposed “Speaker of Arabic” he either mistranslated, misinterpreted, or flat out twisted and spinned Qur’anic verses in order to bolster his polemical argument. All of which points to an ill-intent aimed at attacking Islam using any and all dishonorable means. And in spite of all this incompetence….the Catholic Church calls this blatant liar a saint and great scholar???

    And say: “Truth has (now) arrived, and Falsehood perished: for Falsehood is (by its nature) bound to perish.” (Qur’an 17:81)

    • Replies: @Talha
  54. RSDB says:
    @Talha

    I wouldn’t say the Caliph’s right-hand man (yes, I know the story that brings to mind) would be likely to be some guy who just went around “fabricating” things about Islam or Muslims. If we respect Muslim scholars of that era (and in this conversation I admit such respect seems to be lacking) I see no reason why we should insult such a figure as St. John of Damascus with the charge of “fabrication”.

    If you want to disagree with him about specific things, fine; otherwise you wouldn’t be Muslim. As I recall, I myself would dispute his etymology (among other things), but I’m not accusing him of fabricating it.

    • Replies: @RSDB
    , @Talha
  55. Talha says:
    @Ibn Issam

    Even Ibn Ishaq did not record the faulty details that John relates

    Yeah, nor Tabari or anyone else, and those guys would record hearsay.

    In addition, as a supposed “Speaker of Arabic” he either mistranslated, misinterpreted, or flat out twisted and spinned Qur’anic verses in order to bolster his polemical argument.

    I don’t think there needs to be an assumption of being false because it is difficult to figure out the intent in someone’s heart. He may have just made huge mistakes on a subject he was unprepared to tackle. The major issue here is a simple one, Arabic grammar (as a serious discipline) doesn’t even come into play until the Persians bust open the hood, tinker around and figure it out and literally hand it back to the Arabs. Until major figures like Imam Sibawayh (ra) and others come onto the scene, understanding of Arabic for non-Arabs is in flux. As for Arabs, I don’t know why one would trust the understanding of Arabs in the periphery like the Levant or in Persia over the most pure Arabs in the Hijaz (and some of the Bedouin areas) and the peninsula when it comes to the linguistics, terms and meanings of the Qur’an.

    Again, others might, but why would we?

    Wa salaam.

    • Replies: @RSDB
    , @Talha
  56. RSDB says:
    @RSDB

    Actually on reading the chain of comments above I’m not even sure what the argument is about. Some commenter mentioned that St. John Damascene mentioned that Mohammed founded his own sect, and then said commenter argued that since Mohammed wasn’t originally a Christian this wasn’t a Christian sect.

    This is controversial how exactly?

  57. RSDB says:
    @Talha

    Thanks for this comment, which addresses the issues I raised previously.

    • Replies: @Talha
  58. Talha says:
    @RSDB

    some guy who just went around “fabricating” things about Islam or Muslims

    I never said he fabricated (though I do see what Ibn Issam as stating as such, which I felt I covered in comment #55), I specifically stated he made massive mistakes in building his case. Fabrication implies a disingenuous intent, that’s not what I’m stating – I’m claiming either lack of competency in the subject or misunderstanding.

    His claims about what Muslims themselves believe or have ever recorded are simply wrong. If you can find any Muslim scholar that can corroborate his claims about what we say or believe, I would be much obliged. It could simply be that he got that from some faulty source or misread the evidence.

    For instance, if I criticize Christians for believing that young Jesus (pbuh) cursed a kid he was annoyed with and caused him to die and then blinded his upset parents because it says so in apocrypha…
    http://gnosis.org/library/inftoma.htm

    My entire argument seems silly if Christians look around and say; which one of us actually believes that nonsense?

    Peace.

  59. Talha says:
    @RSDB

    No problem, sorry, I saw this after my initial reply to you. I try to steer clear of “peering into the hearts” of some historic figure and simply try to deal with the data on hand. Otherwise it just devolves into a waste of time where people are just throwing around “liar” back and forth and nobody gains anything substantive from the exchange other than high blood pressure.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Ibn Issam
  60. Talha says:
    @Talha

    Just as an illustration, these are mistakes even Arab speakers make:

    The earliest Qur’anic manuscripts at the time had no diacritical marks. You would literally have to engage with a person who knew one of the canonical recitations to be able to even figure out the correct wording, otherwise you could easily read into the Qur’an what is not there. You would have to also make sure that a specific term that one assumes to be the correct meaning is the correct meaning allowed by the speakers of the various accepted dialects.

  61. Ibn Issam says:
    @Talha

    I agree with you and you are right to take a cautious position.

    However, even if he was NOT intentionally fabricating lies, (which I am not entirely convinced on) it does not to detract from the clear fact that, at the very least, the guy was incompetent and unqualified to speak authoritatively on Islam. In such a case the “Saintly” thing for him to do would have been to withhold premature judgement and remain silent while seeking more accurate information.

    • Replies: @RSDB
  62. RSDB says:
    @Ibn Issam

    Well, I’m just a random guy on the ‘Net, so there’s no reason to take prudential advice on speech from me, but if you’re going to offer it to saints dead over a thousand years ago, why not…

    It doesn’t matter if you are convinced or not over whether a statement is issued out of malice or otherwise– the charitable thing to do is to treat it as not malicious, express your disagreement, and explain why you disagree.

    Second, why should one assume all Muslims in the eighth century believed the same things, or even, as Talha mentioned, had a perfect command of Hejazi Arabic? Your hadith collectors record all sorts of dubious and doubtful hadith from that early era along with those they regard as more trustworthy; evidence that all sorts of stories were being told among some Muslims in that day. It’s not our place as Christians to try to tell which Muslims have the more authentic Islam; when we engage in apologetic, we discuss the beliefs of those we talk to. And if you read St. John’s work on Islam in his book of sects ( orthodoxinfo.com/general/stjohn_islam.aspx
    ), much of it seems to be a record of conversation. Is that record accurate? I have no idea, but there’s no good reason to assume it’s not, so I don’t.

    And as Talha mentioned, the people St. John interacted with were not in Mecca or Medina, but in the Levant.

    Again, these are merely opinions on how one might express best oneself; there is no reason to take my opinion as fact. But I find one gets much farther in life by being polite than otherwise, whenever possible.

    • Replies: @Ibn Issam
  63. Ibn Issam says:
    @RSDB

    Thanks for your thoughts. As you can see in my previous comment (#61) I generally agree with Talha. In regard to being polite, I do my best. I notice that you did not directly address any of the Christian commenters above on how to “best express” their very impolite, filthy, vile denigrations, and accusations toward the Prophet of Islam (sws). Or do you only condescendingly lecture Muslims on politeness?

    • Replies: @RSDB
  64. RSDB says:
    @Ibn Issam

    You’re most welcome! I do hope you will continue to do your best, though I don’t think accusing me of condescension is a great start. 🙁

    I ignore most comments on this site, because it would be impossible to deal with all of them. I’ve had friendly interactions with Talha in the past, so I mentioned my disquiet with some of the thoughts he appeared to implicitly endorse. Note I didn’t reply to you either until you replied into a conversation between myself and him.

    But now that I am talking to you, I direct you to my comment #56 and ask: what exactly set you off here?

    • Replies: @Ibn Issam
  65. Talha says:

    the people St. John interacted with were not in Mecca or Medina, but in the Levant.

    Each area had its known scholars and imams. Madinah had Imam Malik (ra), Kufa had Imam Abu Hanifah (ra), Egypt had Imam Layth (ra), etc. The imam of the Levant was Imam Awza’i (ra) – lived in modern-day Lebanon – and he would have been a contemporary of John of Damascus. He had his own school, but it was superseded (or absorbed) by the remaining Sunni schools. Again, I have no clue whether he conversed with John.

    evidence that all sorts of stories were being told among some Muslims in that day.

    Yup and I don’t doubt there was a lot of religious illiteracy; possibly even heterodox syncretism from new converts or worse (this was of course a main impetus in having any unofficial Qur’an texts destroyed especially at the periphery of the empire, newly converted people were literally getting into fights about incorrect/correct recitation).

    But I find one gets much farther in life by being polite than otherwise, whenever possible.

    There is proper time for harshness, but your rule is the general principle to go by under normal circumstances.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @RSDB
  66. RSDB says:
    @Talha

    Thanks. With reference to the dialects, do you know if Arabic was as varied as it is today, considering it must have been closer to its original homes in Arabia?

    I tend to doubt St. John had much, if any, contact with Awza’i– there don’t seem to be any public debates or such associated with him, and he doesn’t seem to have discussed Islam much in general, most of his time arguing seems to have been spent against Nestorians and whatever bizarre ideas the court at Constantinople was coming up with (Iconoclasm, Monothelitism).

    • Replies: @Talha
  67. Talha says:
    @RSDB

    With reference to the dialects, do you know if Arabic was as varied as it is today, considering it must have been closer to its original homes in Arabia?

    Like all other languages, it has branched and evolved over the centuries. Local dialects are generally mutually intelligible to a greater or lesser degree, though I have heard from most Arabs that practically no one can understand the Moroccans. There are two levels of Arabic the standard form (also known as classical or “fus-Ha” [this is a great article on what it is and the contexts in which it is used https://qasidonline.com/is-fusha-dead/%5D) and the local dialect (ammiyyah). The closest local dialect that is preserved along the lines of classical is that spoken in Yemen. If a person is speaking classical Arabic, like the scholar in the video, I can understand a good amount of it. It is also why I can learn a classical text with my teachers from Transoxiana from the 12th century and then move onto a text from Egypt from the 15th century.

    The Arabic of that time was varied, many tribes and regions had their own dialects – which is why the Qur’an is recited and has been preserved in certain various forms that correlate to the regional flavor; for instance, the recitation of Imam Warsh (ra) is the closest to the way the Quraysh spoke.

    public debates

    Those really don’t start taking place until the Abbasid times who were fond of that kind of thing. Ummayads were too busy conquering everyone for “muh jizyah”.

    most of his time arguing seems to have been spent against Nestorians and whatever bizarre ideas the court at Constantinople was coming up with (Iconoclasm, Monothelitism).

    Agreed. In the large amount of writing he produced, his take on Islam seems to be a marginal footnote. I don’t know whether that was because of lack of knowledge, lack of interest because he had bigger fish to fry (I remember that Prof. Robert Hoyland mentioning that the non-Muslim writings of much of the early time didn’t seem overly concerned with the Muslims or Islam, they were still quite the majority and thought it was simply some desert invasion that would simply collapse in its own time or be overwhelmed by Christianity as previous nomadic invaders had been), or because going a little too far could potentially end one’s career (and life for that matter). I remember reading that one priest or bishop or something said something fairly caustic with regards to Islam directly in the presence of one of the Umayyad caliphs and had his tongue removed.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    , @RSDB
  68. Seraphim says:

    You cannot but be amused by the orgy of mutual ‘intellectual’ masturbation between Mahomed’s apologists who descend upon this site to ‘subjugate Christian fallacies’ and ‘unveil Christianity’!
    They convince only themselves, congratulate each other for their profundity, unaware of their ridicule. They naturally fail to convince any of us who know that Christianity is something altogether else than their imagined Christianity, and that fills them with rage. But that shows more convincingly than anything else that any ‘discussion’ with Muslims is impossible.

    • Replies: @RSDB
    , @Ibn Issam
  69. RSDB says:
    @Seraphim

    I’ve only noticed “Ibn Issam” seem particularly upset, and quickness to anger is a cross some of us have to bear. It’s true it has a very deleterious effect on argument. I’m not going to speculate on possible theological causes here; please feel free to, though.

    Is any discussion with Muslims impossible, really? Conversion from internet argument is not a thing I’ve ever heard of, certainly, so when aspects of the Muslim dogma are brought into question, on those points discussion breaks down. Sometimes it breaks down spectacularly or amusingly. But that discussion is impossible is not quite the same thing… there are Muslim mathematicians, for instance; when they present their work they have to discuss it; I haven’t heard of their having any particular challenge doing so.

    • Replies: @Ibn Issam
  70. @Seraphim

    I know that there are black/Asian Orthodox, but they have their own churches. Also, there is no pope, so this problem is solved.

  71. @Ibn Issam

    Once again, your mind has been perverted by Islam.

    In Orthodox Christianity, the RCC and Eastern Orthodox, Mary never consummated her marriage. St. Joseph was older than her because he could control himself and be celibate in the marriage. St. Joseph had a dream and God told him that he must not abandon her and gave St. Joseph his role. It is Protestants with their mis-reading of Scripture who believe Jesus had siblings. If Jesus had siblings, they were step-siblings from an earlier marriage St. Joseph had.

    The patriarchs and prophets in the Old Testament were not Christians. The Hebrews constantly broke the Law so that when Jesus came he gave the Covenant to new people, the Gentiles. What the patriarchs and prophets did in the Old Testament and what happened to them is a lesson for Christians – they must follow the Commandments.

    Mohammed knew something about Christianity, but invented a belief system to justify his lusts. If he had paid attention to any Catholics, he would known the true Christianity. But he was not interested in that.

    I am not judging ancient people through a modern lens. I am stating historical facts as to why people acted how they did.

    You have an opportunity to come back to Christianity. If you do not, then you are just like the degenerate Mohammed.

    • Replies: @Ibn Issam
  72. @Ibn Issam

    I too have occasionally experienced a greater commonality with certain Moslem people. I don’t feel this is based on shared religious views however, but rather on shared ethnic and cultural histories. As a Greek, I often feel greater affinity, in a personal way, for other people of the eastern Mediterranean region than I do for fellow Christians of western Europe. But this commonality does not lead me to greater appreciation of Islam, only to a greater (sincere) sympathy for Moslem people, who have been tragically misled. Their ancestors were, in most cases, Christians, who faced the terrifying choice of violent death, or conversion to Islam.

    As to the violence perpetrated by Christians; yes it has happened. And while the scale does not approach that of Islamic history, it is a stain on my faith none the less. No group of people is without sin. “The battleline between good and evil runs through the heart of every man.” -Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. There are two very important differences between Islamic and Christian violence:
    1) The Christian world is rightly ashamed of and repentant of, violence in its history, whereas the Islamic world celebrates it’s violent victories, subjugations, and genocides (ask a Turk what he feels for the Armenians, even today).
    2) When a Christian acts with violence, he is betraying his faith. Nothing in the teachings of our Christ can defend him. On the contrary, when a Moslem perpetrates violence, he is simply adhering to his faith, and is justified by his scriptures and the example of his “prophet”.

    I told a Moslem once that Allah is called the Great Liar. He corrected me, and told me the actual phrase in Arabic. He translated it as “The Greatest Trickster” but I believe “The Greatest Deceiver” is a common alternative translation.

  73. @Talha

    Was it right for the “caliph” to torture the man in that way because of his criticism?

    • Replies: @Talha
  74. Talha says:
    @RadicalCenter

    I’m not sure what exactly the man said. If it was blasphemous, then he committed a capital offense (depending on which school is being followed – and this was in flux at the time) within earshot of the ruling authority – a very stupid move. That being the case, I don’t know of any school that allows for people to have their tongues removed for any particular crimes, the punishment is a straightforward death (either beheading or hanging). Muslims didn’t get creative for executions for blasphemy like medieval Christians did.

    Certain Muslim ruling authorities were known to “go rogue” with the rules.

    So was it right? Well, depends on two things:
    1) Did the man technically commit blasphemy at a capital offense level or just piss off the caliph?
    2) If one has committed a crime that one should lose their life for; is it preferable to be killed or be spared one’s life, but lose one’s ability to speak?

    Peace.

    • Replies: @RSDB
  75. Ibn Issam says:

    Yes, I am sure we have a lot in common culturally. I have studied not only my own religion but also Christianity, and based on everything I have learned I feel that Christians have been tragically misled. I highly encourage you to investigate the origins of Christianity by reading scholarly works in the field of Biblical & NT Historical Criticism, as you will find eye opening information which not only affects western Christianity but also all other forms including Orthodox branches.

    Their ancestors were, in most cases, Christians, who faced the terrifying choice of violent death, or conversion to Islam.

    I will admit that this may have been the case at times, just as it was in Christianity. Although I would differ with you on the scale. The Christian majority west has done far greater damage to the world, they just hide it behind the veil of secularism. However, more often people accepted Islam willingly as they were relieved to be liberated from the oppressive rule of Byzantine or Persian Empires, and to pay a much lower tax rate 2.5% by converting to Islam or paying 5% without converting. Today Americans pay an average of 25% effective taxes. How many people do you think would accept Islam in order to pay only 2.5%??!

    Islam also spread quickly because many Christians rejected the Trinitarian Doctrine and were Unitarians who quickly understood the theological similarities between Islam and their own beliefs about Jesus and God. There were other theological similarities as well, and much more to say on this, but time limits.

    Therefore, sound theology, economic incentive and social justice spread Islam faster than anything. Although Christians prefer to hold on to the myth that Islam was “spread by the sword” in order to make themselves feel better about their own historical shortcomings, and to feel superior to Muslims, etc.

    No group of people is without sin. “The battleline between good and evil runs through the heart of every man.” -Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.

    Agreed. This is what Prophet Muhammad (sws) was speaking of (over 1300 years earlier) when he said the Greater Jihad is within the self, referring to the struggle between good and evil within ourselves.

    In regard to your two numbered points:
    1) It is easy to find many Christians on the web who are not ashamed of and repentant of, violence in Christian history and would like to repeat the crusades. Indeed many modern Christians (not all) joined the armed forces with the explicit intent to engage in violence against Muslim countries. Re: Armenians, we in the West have only been told one side of the story – that of the Armenians. There is another side to the story and I encourage you to research that information, which may change your understanding of that historical WWI period, in which the Armenians repeatedly betrayed the Ottoman Government, sided with the Triple Entente, and helped Russia invade Turkey. There was great suffering on all sides, almost a Million Muslims died, but the Armenians choose to exceptionalize their own suffering, while ignoring their own acts and the suffering of others.

    2) “Think not I came to bring peace to the earth! I came not to bring peace, but a sword” Matt 10:34. There are plenty of other verses that give religious sanction to engage in violence in Christian scriptures. Not all violence committed by Muslims is condoned. Physical Jihad can best be translated into todays modern parlance as officially sanctioned “National Defense.” It is often the case that when a Muslim engages in egregious violence he is not “adhering” to his faith, but actually departing, or acting against the true faith teachings. There are other issues here and it is a big subject, but part of the problem is that non-Muslims just make a false assumption, like you did, that all violence is religiously sanctioned, by the religion and by other Muslims – when it is not always the case.

    In regard to Allah being a deceiver, or trickster. This is really a mistranslation which has been spread by certain missionaries and anti-Islam websites etc. I encourage you to study the subject on following link:

    Response To Critics Claim ‘Allah Is A Deceiver’ – Quran 3:54
    https://discover-the-truth.com/2015/01/24/response-to-critics-claim-allah-is-a-deceiver-quran-354/

  76. Ibn Issam says:
    @attilathehen

    In Orthodox Christianity, the RCC and Eastern Orthodox, Mary never consummated her marriage.

    This is only according to Doctrine. Again, just read what the words say and do not read your Doctrine into the text. See Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55–56. It clearly says Jesus had full brothers and sisters (it says nothing of “step-siblings”). After the virgin birth, Mary must have given birth to other children – the brothers and sisters of Jesus.

    It doesn’t matter if the stories I referenced are Old Testament or New. If you are going to accuse Prophet Muhammad of doing something that Patriarchs in your own Bible did, then you must be fair and balanced in return. Otherwise it is hypocritical.

    Do you think that slandering my Prophet (sws) with insults, will convince me of anything? It only illustrates your own impoliteness and doesn’t bolster your argument.

    I invite you to put aside your extreme hatred, and open your mind and heart to look into Islam anew. As a Muslim I would prefer to be your friend and brother in faith whether you choose to remain Christian, or accept Islam.

    • Replies: @Talha
    , @attilathehen
  77. Ibn Issam says:
    @Ibn Issam

    Sorry, this was meant as a reply to “Orthodox Christian” see comment #72.

  78. Ibn Issam says:
    @RSDB

    It wasn’t me who initially replied to you, but the other way around. I simply replied to your comment #62.

    • Replies: @RSDB
  79. Ibn Issam says:
    @Seraphim

    They naturally fail to convince any of us who know that Christianity is something altogether else than their imagined Christianity

    What do you think Christianity is?

    I think that it is a cult of human sacrifice, and a collection of man made innovated doctrines centered around a mythologized Greco-Roman man God. Many Biblical Scholars would agree with me.

    What you “Imagine” Christianity to be, is really not based in the original Jewish/Christian Orthodoxy, but rather it is based in a heretical Proto-Orthodox evolutionary exaltation of the Historical mortal and fully human and Prophet Jesus, into the triune pre-existing God of modern Christianity. The fact is that the true historical Jesus never preached, the doctrines of faith based redemption, Atonement by the cross, Trinity, perpetual virginity, and many other false and innovated Christian doctrines. Again, many Biblical Scholars would agree.

    The knowledge that today’s Christianity is far different from what Historical research says it is, is what fills many Christians, possibly like yourself, with Rage. They then turn their rage and hatred towards Islam which is built on firm foundations, unlike the house of cards that is Christianity .

    So it seems that YOU have an “imagined” Christianity, while Muslims focus on historical Christianity.

    This is why I prefer Islam, to the mythology of Christianity.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  80. Talha says:
    @Ibn Issam

    Do you think that slandering my Prophet (sws) with insults

    If one looks at his name, it means the praised one – but it is the emphatic form. Anyone who uses the name, by default calls him the praised one, even when insulting him. If they use another name in reference to him, who cares, they’re talking about someone else. But it’s all part of the plan and part of the evolution of one’s own soul:
    “You will surely be tested in your possessions and in yourselves. And you will surely hear much abuse from those who were given the Scripture before you and from those who associate others with Allah. But if you are patient and fear Allah – indeed, that is of the matters [worthy] of determination.” (3:186)

    Wa salaam.

    • Agree: Ibn Issam
    • Replies: @attilathehen
  81. dakaras says:
    @attilathehen

    “There is good news. China is exterminating its Muslims.”

    -Did you seriously just write this? What the hell is wrong with you? I’m a practicing Catholic, where the hell is it written that this behavior is acceptable?

    “I support Israel because that’s where all present day Jews belong. I give a rat’s tuchas about low IQ, mostly black, Muslim Palestinians.”

    -As a Catholic, I’m sure you know that we are anti-zionist, by definition. Popes have rejected requests by past zionist leaders to approve of a zionist state, starting with Theodor Herzl being denied by Pope Pius X. The mosaic covenant was replaced by the new covenant through Christ which extended salvation to all nations. Modern “Israelis” are asking the world to play pretend and allow them to claim Israel is the same country mentioned in the Bible even though it was destroyed. I don’t know what the average IQ of a Palestinian is bc the data isn’t available (they are occupied by a foreign army and live in a concentration camp called Gaza). 25% of Palestinians are Christian so you better freaking care how they are being treated. We are duty bound!! My family is Polish and we were treated as harshly when these people lived with us in Poland and called themselves Bolsheviks!! You are not a Catholic, you casually dismissed the brutal suffering of others without a thought showing how cold hearted the secular west has become. Don’t ever speak for our religion again when spouting your trash views. I don’t want Muslim readers to think we are being taught by the church to think like you.

    • Replies: @Talha
  82. Talha says:
    @dakaras

    Did you seriously just write this?

    Yes she did. She also later wrote: “I left the Catholic Church because I don’t accept black/Asian priests-popes.”

    What the hell is wrong with you?

    See above.

    You are not a Catholic

    Correct, see above.

    I don’t want Muslim readers to think we are being taught by the church to think like you.

    Trust me, we don’t – in fact, in China, there is also a push by the secular-nationalist government against the spreading Christian faith. Traditional Muslims have found some of the best allies against secularism in the Catholic Church due to many shared values. Random anonymous online posters on the Internet do not define RCC doctrine or policy; that is in the hands of more erudite and reasonable people and institutions.

    I see this may be your first post; welcome and I hope you stick around.

    Peace.

  83. dakaras says:
    @attilathehen

    “The C. S. Lewis Anglo-Catholics kept everything but the pope and so are the closest to the RCC. After this the Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Lutherans kept some of the RCC litury. When we come down to the Southern Baptists, Pentecostalists and such we are very far from the RCC. Many Protestant churches are considered heretical.”

    -WRONG. This is a really discrediting comment which is unfortunate since you began with this as your response. The Anglicans did not keep everything, they stole millions of acres of land being used by Catholic monasteries to provide charitable services for the town. An entire war was started because the ‘reformers’ refused to allow anyone to worship the Tridentine Mass. The Anglicans permitted divorce, polygamy, declared that they are only required to learn the faith to be saved; Catholics of course know they must act out the Gospel in their actions by performing good works for others. These are major differences. Another error is the comment ‘Many Protestant churches are considered heretical.’ ALL Protestant sects are heretical, not most. A basic axiom is ‘there is no salvation outside the Church’ so we must reject all Protestant sects since they left the church. RCC is much closer (in our view) to Orthodox since they have apostolic succession, keep the sacraments, and preserve sacred tradition. Did you know there are major Protestant sects that don’t even believe everything in the Nicean Creed?

    “I’ve read the Koran.”

    -Liar, no you haven’t. You haven’t even read the Bible.

    “There is not holy or God inspired about it. It is an easy read with little substance. I do know that in European literature the Muslims were called Mahomets and Mohammedans.”

    -The Bible is ‘easy to read’, many stories are repeated by different authors but written for different audience (Matthew wrote for the Jews, Mark for the Romans, Luke for the Greeks). That is the entire point, it’s written for people to understand to convince as many as possible. The Evangelists were not trying to write the next great American novel. What an ignorant and unimportant point of contention to make. I enjoyed them last part where you proudly stated that you learned from medieval authors that they referenced the Muslim religion by its founder- like they also called Martin Luther’s religion Lutheranism? You needed to read several books to tell you this?

    “It is a belief system, but what the Koran says about Jesus and their eschatology about Him, makes the statements heretical. Kevin Barrett stated that Muslims believe Jesus will come at the end times and will break the cross. Heretical nonsense. Before Vatican II, such nonsense would not have been tolerated in the West.”

    -Of course the Catholic church clearly states all religions are false and Catholicism is the one true faith. We say this every mass during the Nicean Creed… You barely have a grasp of the religion you claim to practice while behaving disrespectfully towards Muslim readers. This really annoys me bc you make our religion look bad even though you aren’t actually practicing it. You did a brief Google search to remember a few talking points to give an appearance you are a serious person. You call their religious beliefs nonsense repeatedly…why?? We can disagree and tell them what we have issues with without insults. I would like readers to know this person does not know nor does he represent the Catholic religion. Please learn to behave yourself and treat others with the dignity we were all given.

  84. dakaras says:
    @Ibn Issam

    I would like to put some distance between the other rude commentators here pretending to be Christians. Many likely don’t go to mass and have forgotten what they learned in school but are uncomfortable admitting to themselves that they are atheists. Protestants are much closer to Jews than the Catholic or Orthodox Church. Only Protestant sects accept zionism. Protestants, specifically Lutherans/Evangelicals are just as rude and obnoxious towards Catholics as they are acting on this comment section towards Muslims. If you look through history, you will see a pattern of Catholics fighting back against the Jews and the monarchs they are controlling with the Protestants eventually siding with the Jews. If you look at the reasons they left the Catholic Church in 1517, most don’t believe or even know what Luther or Calvin believed.

    Imagine splitting Christianity bc of corruption by local priests (this is the reason they claim, they were actually about to steal valuable property given to priests with a religious dispute providing cover) that were raising money for a building project and starting a war over it where some countries lost 1/3 of its population. Luther claimed that Reason was the anti-christ, endorsed adultery, usury, and polygamy. Do any of his followers still believe this? They also like saying Catholicism made up interpretations to promote certain narratives although the early church fathers are usually referenced since their pastors oddly don’t mention the early leaders of the church (I am very curious why!). I find this claim particularly enjoyable now that they have adopted a jewish interpretation of their own holy book in the 1820s that isn’t found in any manuscript. This is going to completely blow up in their face very soon.

    • Replies: @Ibn Issam
  85. Ibn Issam says:
    @RSDB

    I am not quick to anger, and Prophet Muhammad (sws) teaches us to resist anger.

    However, can you blame me for getting slightly upset at flat out racist and bigoted comments as those in comment #8??

    “There is good news. China is exterminating its Muslims.”

    “I support Israel because that’s where all present day Jews belong. I give a rat’s tuchas about low IQ, mostly black, Muslim Palestinians.”

    Unlike yourself, Drakaras had the basic fortitude and content of character to strongly rebuke such comments made by his own coreligionist, (see #81) while you chose to focus instead on some minor comment I made while I was positively agreeing with Talha’s more fair & balanced statement.

    I’m not implying that you agree with the above quotes, but it does seem a little biased that you choose to lecture a Muslim on some minor courtesy infraction, and misportray me as “quick to anger” rather than to address a more grievous impoliteness coming from a Christian commenter. If the good cop bad cop approach is your way of engaging in discussion with Muslims, it will not prove successful.

    • Replies: @RSDB
  86. RSDB says:
    @Ibn Issam

    You replied to Talha talking to me; hence I figured you were interested in that conversation. I realize it’s a big world and we don’t all operate according to the same ideas of conversation; I think mine are pretty reasonable or I wouldn’t use them.

  87. Ibn Issam says:
    @dakaras

    Thanks for your honest and sincere comments.

    I agree with you that we can disagree without all the insults. As a Muslim of course I do not agree with Christian theology, but I do find easier to converse with those of RCC and Orthodox backgrounds, especially finding much common ground on political and social issues. When I have had conversations with friends from RCC and Orthodox Church I find that they are more open to people like myself who have different theological views. Even when I make criticisms, they are patient and do their best to answer, and engage in positive dialogue.

    While many (but indeed not all) protestants are more eager to blindly attack and lash out at Islam, spew hate and Islamophobic misunderstandings, lies, misportrayals, etc., and push their exclusivist interpretations of fundamentalist Zio-Christianity. All of which just makes me question their creed even more. Having said, that, I must admit that I have met many nice Protestants as well, but they are usually the ones that are more secular and not too religious.

    Also, nice to know you are Polish. There is a large Polski community in my city, and of those whom I have interacted with they are very nice and kind people.

    I am happy to call a Catholic like you a friend and brother in faith.

    Salaam!

    • Replies: @dakaras
  88. RSDB says:
    @Ibn Issam

    If the good cop bad cop approach

    I’m not a cop, I’m a normal person trying to have a conversation.

    it will not prove successful

    How do you define success? I’m not interested in internet conversion, because I don’t see this forum as a viable ground for that. If you’re implying that other approaches on the part of the people you’re talking to might change that fact, you should think deeply about your faith, since this is probably, assuming you’re an average person, literally the most important decision you can make in your life.

    If you define “success” as having a normal conversation, well, that’s half out of my power. I help the chances of it by not replying to nuts.

    However, can you blame me for getting slightly upset at flat out racist and bigoted comments as those in comment #8??

    It’s not my business to blame or not to blame you for your emotions; a more important judge than me is responsible for that. Getting angry on an internet forum is not generally the best way to present your views, or so I have found. Anyway, if you read any of my comments, you will see that I was referring to your discussion with Seraphim, not “Attila” (whom I ignore and advise you to do likewise if you value your cardiac health); I direct you yet again to my comment #56 where I explain what I thought was odd.

    Again, you like to blame me for giving advice, while giving plenty of your own to all and sundry, including me. I don’t mind that, but I think if you did not allow your emotions to distort your thoughts you might do so more cogently.

    I don’t know what’s going on in your life, but there are a lot of people very close to me who have very good reasons to be angry right now. They’re not, and their ability to carry on with real good is greatly improved thereby, and an example to me. (I’m not going to explain this paragraph but Talha can probably do so if you think it important enough to ask him.)

  89. RSDB says:
    @Talha

    Muslims didn’t get creative for executions for blasphemy like medieval Christians did.

    This one did, no? Was he issued any punishment or sanction himself by the ulema?

    If not:
    It’s true that Christian powers have used all sorts of punishments, but it is actually the same issue; these are laws made and enforced by the civil government, many actually inherited from Rome. Death is not a sanction that can be applied by the Church as such.

    If so:
    That does represent a difference between Islamic and Christian systems of governance; for instance, while a number of bishops, including St. Ambrose of Milan, protested against the execution of Priscillian for heresy, they recognized the civil power of the emperor to kill him.

    • Replies: @Talha
  90. Ibn Issam says:

    First, I am not trying to convert anyone. I leave the guidance to Allah.

    Second, by the sound of your comment, it seems that you are more emotional and angry, not I.

    There is nothing productive in this conversation. May Allah forgive us both if we made any mistakes between us.

    Salaam/Peace

    • Replies: @Ibn Issam
    , @RSDB
  91. RSDB says:
    @Talha

    Well, I don’t know about fear; he seems to have had good luck with divine restoration of body parts in the past 🙂

    Likely, I think, was some combination of your factors with the fact that the Saracens at court were his friends and people he had grown up with; that actually seems to have been one of the charges brought against him by the Iconoclasts (bizarrely enough considering their own position), and if you take the records of conversation preserved in his brief discussion of Islam as genuine, they seem to have been both short and fairly amicable.

    Interesting about dialects; I recall reading that Awza’i himself was from a Yemeni clan.

    practically no one can understand the Moroccans

    Yes, I think this may in fact be the real explanation for the Alhambra decree.

    • Replies: @Talha
  92. Ibn Issam says:
    @Ibn Issam

    Sorry again, that was responding to RSDB #88.

  93. @Talha

    Mohammed, piss be upon him.

    • Replies: @Talha
  94. RSDB says:
    @Ibn Issam

    Is this a reply to me?

    (If not, feel free to ignore the rest of this comment).

    Certainly, I wish you peace, and the forgiveness of God, as I wish the same for myself.

    With respect to the perpetual virginity of Mary, though, this seems to have been an accepted interpretation in Islam, if not the only accepted interpretation. (It would be pointless to discuss this on the lines of Biblical teaching or Christian tradition, as Muslims accept neither.)

    I’m not a Muslim scholar, obviously, but I have seen this topic discussed in Haddad, The Virgin Mary in Islamic Tradition ( https://www.academia.edu/25873429/The_Virgin_Mary_in_Islamic_Tradition_and_Commentary
    ).

    Academics aren’t always 100% correct, of course.

    I’d be interested especially in Talha’s opinion on this topic.

    • Replies: @Talha
    , @Ibn Issam
  95. @Ibn Issam

    Once again, Islam has perverted your thinking. I was stating historical facts about the Old Testament and Jesus came to make straight the path. Mohammed did not follow a straight path.

    You are not my brother or friend in faith. You are Caucasian and racially acceptable. However, Islam is a Christian heresy and as such you are an enemy. Again, you have an opportunity to come back to Christianity.

  96. Talha says:
    @RSDB

    Was he issued any punishment or sanction himself by the ulema?

    Not sure regarding this particular case. The Ummayads were known to exile, imprison or torture many ulema that spoke up against them. Their governor, Hajjaj ibn Yusuf, was well known for this; if I recall, correctly, the last one he killed, before he died, was one of Imam Abu Hanifah’s teachers Imam Ata ibn Abi Rabiah (ra) the imam/mufti of Makkah.

    Imam Malik (ra) came up earlier – he was imprisoned and tortured for his opinion that the populace could not be forced to give their allegiance to the caliph, but that it had to be voluntary.

    That does represent a difference between Islamic and Christian systems of governance

    That is the major difference. The scholars would often call out the rulers for going against the law. For instance, one of the scholars I have cited before is Imam Sarakhsi (ra), he was imprisoned for speaking up against a marriage of the sultan of his area that violated the Shariah, he ended up writing a good portion of his 30 volume magnum opus, al-Mabsut, from within prison and entirely from memory without access to his library.

    The caliph is not above the law, there is no “render unto Caesar” as a principle. He is committing a sin by going outside the bounds of the Shariah (meaning when there is no difference of opinion to back him) as is anyone obeying his orders, he has no right to do so. However, the caliph commands armies, so – from a practical sense – 1) the scholars take a risk whether or not to speak up and 2) he will decide whether to listen or not.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @RSDB
  97. Talha says:
    @RSDB

    I recall reading that Awza’i himself was from a Yemeni clan.

    Possibly. That wouldn’t surprise me; erudition and spirituality mattered most. The person I mentioned before (Imam Ata ibn Abi Rabah [ra], the imam/mufti of Makkah) was an Ethiopian freed-slave and I believe he had a disability.

    Imam Awza’i (ra) is an interesting fellow – he once got into a tiff with a Syrian governor that wanted to forcibly relocate some Christians from the Lebanese mountains since they were deemed a security threat.

    this may in fact be the real explanation for the Alhambra decree.

    LOL!

    Peace.

  98. Talha says:
    @attilathehen

    piss be upon him

    Well, you can try and do this yourself. His grave is well known, smack dab in the middle of Madinah. Go for it!

  99. RSDB says:
    @Talha

    Hi, a quick response, I might write more later.

    The scholars would often call out the rulers for going against the law. For instance, one of the scholars I have cited before is Imam Sarakhsi (ra), he was imprisoned for speaking up against a marriage of the sultan of his area that violated the Shariah, he ended up writing a good portion of his 30 volume magnum opus, al-Mabsut, from within prison and entirely from memory without access to his library.

    Yes, this happens a lot in Christianity too. There’s a famous instance of this which resulted in St. John Fisher losing his head.

    He is committing a sin by going outside the bounds of the Shariah (meaning when there is no difference of opinion to back him) as is anyone obeying his orders, he has no right to do so.

    Right, this I think is a distinction. There’s a wide scope in Christianity for rulers to make their own laws, so long as these do not require exceeding his right. Church guidance on civil law is mostly in a moral rather than a dogmatic spirit; for example, there’s a debate now whether capital punishment should ever be used under modern conditions. Clearly this is an issue of moral praxis rather than dogma, since dogma is timeless and “modern conditions” are by definition not so.

    • Replies: @Talha
  100. Talha says:
    @RSDB

    With respect to the perpetual virginity of Mary, though, this seems to have been an accepted interpretation in Islam, if not the only accepted interpretation.

    I haven’t looked into it, but I don’t see any reason why either opinion would not be acceptable. It’s simply not a big deal after the initial virgin birth.

    It’s a bit like why there is a difference of opinion on which one of the sons of Abraham (pbuh) was the one being sacrificed – it’s not all that relevant in the long run; for Jews, it is a huge deal.

    on the lines of Biblical teaching or Christian tradition, as Muslims accept neither

    Yup. The scholars would often cite some story in the exegesis or other commentaries, but they would say something like; “the Jews/People of the Book say/claim…” and these statements were called “Israiliyyat” and were simply presented as is without claims of whether they were true or false. See under the More tag for details.

    Peace.

    [MORE]

    • Replies: @RSDB
  101. Talha says:
    @RSDB

    There’s a wide scope in Christianity for rulers to make their own laws, so long as these do not require exceeding his right.

    Well there is some flexibility too. There is some leeway in the laws a ruler or the government has authority over; for instance – raising or lowering speed limits, deciding whether certain crime deserves a stronger or lesser punishment (more flogging, less or more time in prison, etc.), but he cannot go outside the bounds of the rules of Shariah – so he can’t have someone burned to death or eaten alive by animals because the guy was publicly drunk or stole something.

    for example, there’s a debate now whether capital punishment should ever be used under modern conditions.

    That is also up for (public) debate on items that do not already have a predefined penalty – those are not up for debate.

    Peace.

  102. RSDB says:
    @Talha

    Thanks, that’s largely what I thought, largely agree with #101 as well.

    Do you put video under the “More” tag for page-loading reasons?
    That’s probably a good idea— also helps with space.

    • Replies: @Talha
    , @Talha
  103. Talha says:
    @RSDB

    Do you put video under the “More” tag for page-loading reasons?

    Yes. Especially if I feel it is a “parenthetical” point I am making (using the video) that others need not be bothered with except the people that may be interested enough to click to get to it.

    Peace.

  104. Seraphim says:
    @Ibn Issam

    Your insolence is typical for brainwashed Muslims and is incurable.

  105. @Rev. Spooner

    Funny you mention Anthony Burgess but not his great apocalypse novel, End of the World News. His depiction of Earth’s destruction by Planet X echoes Qur’anic imagery (the Great Quaking, mountains being blasted into “carded wool,” etc.)

    • Replies: @Talha
  106. Talha says:
    @RSDB

    Incidentally, I believe this flexibility in allowances for minority opinions (even in issues of belief like the ones I cited) to be considered within the acceptable mainstream or normative discourse is one of the aspects that has kept Sunni Islam as united (seemingly paradoxically, united in our differences) as it has been over the ages and various spread out lands without need for ecumenical councils or state-officiated conferences on orthodoxy. If one is too rigid in this regard over details in beliefs or semantic expressions there of, it can easily lead to fracturing at the doctrinal level.

    There are even valid minority opinions that Hell will not last forever, but will be destroyed after a certain time and only Paradise will remain.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @RSDB
  107. Talha says:
    @Kevin Barrett

    Salaam Bro,

    Saw you did an interview with Daniel Haqiqatjou – very cool! Would you be able to do an interview with Sh. Imran Hossein? Also if you could do a joint interview with the Mad Mamluks (https://themadmamluks.com) that would be awesome!

    They have had Br. Daniel on before and recently did an episode with Shaykh Abdullah bin Hamid Ali which was extremely informative. I learned something new every other minute, like the possibility that Elijah Muhammad May have converted to true Islam on his deathbed:
    https://themadmamluks.com/ep-147-head-on-shaykh-abdullah-bin-hamid-ali/

    Wa salaam.

  108. Ibn Issam says:
    @RSDB

    Talha already provided a good answer re: Perpetual Virginity. My original point on this is that there are verses within the Bible that allow for a different understanding. I agree with Talha that after the initial virgin birth it is not a major theological issue for Muslims, and we are free to believe in the perpetual virginity, or to believe that Jesus had siblings. Either way is fine with us.

    What is important is that Muslims highly revere and honor Mary/Maryam (ra) as the mother of Jesus/Isa (as), and I think that is a great place from which to build bridges between Christians and Muslims.

    • Replies: @RSDB
  109. RSDB says:
    @Talha

    Yes, that’s true. On the other hand I think this also contributes in some degree to the extremism problem that you have relative to other religions. With us those sorts of people usually have to go through some sort of Protestantism first.

    On the other other hand the Orthodox are, as I understand it, in a similar position, since they don’t have doctrinal development after the schism. So some of them (probably the majority) maintain that, say, our using the filioque in the Creed is heretical, and others maintain that we are merely schismatic. The inter-Orthodox splits seem to be largely over liturgical matters, like the calendar and the proper way one crosses oneself; as far as I know this is the closest they get to extremism.

    • Replies: @Talha
    , @Seraphim
  110. RSDB says:
    @Ibn Issam

    My original point on this is

    irrelevant to a Catholic*. Sorry, but you’re in the same boat relative to us as we are relative to you.

    What is important is that Muslims highly revere and honor Mary/Maryam (ra) as the mother of Jesus/Isa (as), and I think that is a great place from which to build bridges between Christians and Muslims.

    Sure, I don’t disagree here. Bp. Fulton Sheen had an interesting article on this: http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2009/fsheen_maryandislam__jun09.asp

    *Yes, I recognize “Attila” isn’t a Catholic, or much of anything really, so I guess that was fair enough.

    • Replies: @attilathehen
    , @Seraphim
  111. Talha says:
    @RSDB

    I think this also contributes in some degree to the extremism problem that you have relative to other religions.

    Yup. I believe to be the case as well.

    With us those sorts of people usually have to go through some sort of Protestantism first.

    All of the Salafi-Wahhabi extremists have committed a “protestant” error, there is no question about this. And as Protestant break brought quite a bit of bloodshed in its wake, so has ours. Again, see the videos below the More tag.

    our using the filioque in the Creed is heretical

    Yeah, that’s what I was getting at – that would likely go under allowable “difference of opinion” in our book.

    The inter-Orthodox splits seem to be largely over liturgical matters, like the calendar and the proper way one crosses oneself

    These seem to be differences in praxis. We have those differences as well, but we don’t let that get in the way of unity. So for instance, the way one holds one’s hands during the prayer or whether one recites the Faitha after the imam or stays silent, etc. Basically we follow our own unique rules (as per school or set of scholars we follow) while praying behind the imam who is leading the congregation. So, I’ll know fairly quickly if I enter a mosque I’ve never attended if the crowd is mostly Hanafi, Shafi’i or even Salafi.

    Do those differences in praxis that you pointed out lead to separate congregations or break-off churches or do people still attend a church where the different opinion predominates?

    this is the closest they get to extremism

    Yes, from a rules perspective, it seems so. However, I’ve seen some Orthodox get fairly extreme once it gets tied into nationalism (what doesn’t?); case in point, the relationship of the Orthodox church to Serbian war crimes during the break up of Yugoslavia. You can completely ignore the Muslims in the mix and just concentrate on what they did to Croats (not that Croats were completely innocent either). It was a bit reminiscent of the Thirty Years War on a smaller scale.

    Peace.

    [MORE]

    Also this is a great talk by Prof. David Cook, listen especially from 38:35 for a bout 5 mins (that sums up my point):

    • Replies: @RSDB
    , @RSDB
  112. RSDB says:
    @Talha

    Do those differences in praxis that you pointed out lead to separate congregations or break-off churches or do people still attend a church where the different opinion predominates?

    This is really more an Orthodox thing, so take what I say with a grain of salt, but there are a few points when this caused major problems, the biggest being the split of the Old Believers in Russia. As I understand it a fair number of Russians who didn’t split sympathized with the Old Believers, so I guess this is a case of both.

    For us the nearest example is the SSPX, who have a bizarre relationship with the Church because they have, generally speaking, no jurisdictional faculties anywhere. In general matters of praxis come under the bishops, but they are subject to the Holy See; the strange thing about the SSPX is that they don’t even have differences in praxis with the rest of the Church anymore as all priests (assuming they have properly learned it, of course) can licitly celebrate the old Mass.

    • Replies: @Talha
    , @RSDB
    , @Talha
    , @Seraphim
  113. RSDB says:
    @Talha

    Yes, from a rules perspective, it seems so. However, I’ve seen some Orthodox get fairly extreme once it gets tied into nationalism (what doesn’t?); case in point, the relationship of the Orthodox church to Serbian war crimes during the break up of Yugoslavia.

    Yeah…

    Sometimes rules just go out the window.

    The Church has measures it can take in those situations (like excommunicating the people involved in the Fourth Crusade), but they’re not very effective on people who are operating in hot blood.

  114. Talha says:
    @RSDB

    Interesting – thanks for the info.

    Peace.

  115. RSDB says:
    @RSDB

    Sorry to spam the thread but I feel I should expand on things a little. You will find a lot of variation in praxis just among Catholic churches in America. Most masses are in the new Roman rite, where a lot of minor things just aren’t laid down, and in all rites many people have private devotional practices that are perfectly fine so long as they don’t interfere with the regular ceremonies. But besides that, the old rite is also celebrated, plus the various rites of the Eastern Catholics and the Anglican rite in their ordinariate.

    As an example, in one church I go to regularly they have an annoying habit of switching between Latin and English at various points which tends to throw me off a bit; this is perfectly acceptable if a bit strange.

    And if you go to mass in Sri Lanka, for instance, while the structure of the Mass (generally the new rite is used) is the same, the details vary; they have kept many of the practices from the old rite like kneeling at the rail instead of queueing to receive Communion, etc.

    Since in the Mass we handle the Body of Christ details can be very important sometimes, which is why we have the Congregation for Divine Worship (headed by someone “Attila” wouldn’t like), which regulates abuses.

    • Replies: @Talha
  116. Talha says:
    @RSDB

    Also, good read on some things we are talking about; extremism, Protestanism (notice this guys’ church split with the liberal one), who has authority to interpret, etc.
    “The alleged synagogue shooter was a churchgoer who talked Christian theology, raising tough questions for evangelical pastors…Before he allegedly walked into a synagogue in Poway, Calif., and opened fire, John Earnest appears to have written a seven-page letter spelling out his core beliefs: that Jewish people, guilty in his view of faults ranging from killing Jesus to controlling the media, deserved to die. That his intention to kill Jews would glorify God.”
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/religion/2019/05/01/alleged-synagogue-shooter-was-churchgoer-who-articulated-christian-theology-prompting-tough-questions-evangelical-pastors/?utm_term=.652808a347cd

    Peace.

    • Replies: @RSDB
  117. Talha says:
    @RSDB

    Again, thanks for the info – much appreciated. It helps to flesh things out better.

    Peace.

  118. RSDB says:
    @Talha

    Yes, thanks.

    Well, this certainly helps explain the public disownment, which seemed somewhat odd even for a murderer like this.

    On the (not very) bright side, with both this and the NC attack it seems people are learning to fight back.

  119. @RSDB

    Here is what Muslims think of Mary:

    http://www.wnd.com/2017/11/islams-sexual-harassment-of-the-biblical-mary/?cat_orig=faith

    Bishop Sheen was a fool. He lived in the pre-Vatican II past. If he were to come back today, he would not be able to accept what happened to the RCC.

    • Replies: @Iris
  120. Seraphim says:
    @RSDB

    You should understand that the Mahomedan ‘Maryam mother of Issa’ is not the same with Mary, Mother of God, The Ever Virgin Mary, of the Christians.
    They believe (the ‘inerrant’ Koran tells them) that she is the sister of Moses and Aaron, the children of Amran. Issa is not the Jesus of the Christians, but a minor prophet who wrote or dictated (Koran-like) a book called Injil in which he announced Mahomed, that the Christians falsified and then suppressed.
    It can hardly be a ‘bridge’ between Christians and Mahomedans.

    • Replies: @attilathehen
    , @RSDB
  121. Seraphim says:
    @RSDB

    In Christian parlance ‘doctrinal development’ is an euphemism for heresy. The ‘doctrine’ (doctrina, teachings, including commandments) of the Church was given complete by the Christ to the Apostles. It was ‘revealed’ (unveiled) by the Christ Himself and is ‘universal’ (this is what ‘catholic’), what is true everywhere and at all times, therefore unchanging (and unchangeable).
    ” If ye love me, keep my commandments. 16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; 17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. 18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you. 19 Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also. 20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you. 21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him 22 Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world? 23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. 24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father’s which sent me. 25 These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you. 26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you”(John 14:15-26).
    “The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach, 2 Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen: 3 To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God… ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth” (Acts 1:1,8).

    Filioque was a ‘doctrinal development’, an ‘opinion’ which in itself wouldn’t have been so harmful. The ‘heresy’ consisted in its imposition as an article of faith by the Pope who arrogated to himself the power to formulate ‘doctrine’, even if at variance with the words given by the Christ to the Apostles (“But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me: 27 And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning” – John 15:26-27). That would imply that the Pope was privy of a ‘secret’ doctrine imparted only to him.
    In actual fact what was truly offensive to the Orthodox was not the ‘filioque’ but the change of the liturgy by substituting the bread with the Jewish azymes and banning the people from ‘drinking Christ’s blood’, in direct defiance of the clear commandment of Christ at the Last Supper (‘Drink from it ye ALL, For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins’ – DO THIS IN MEMORY OF ME).

    • Replies: @RSDB
  122. Iris says:
    @attilathehen

    Here is what Muslims think of Mary:

    Here is a list:
    – The Virgin Marie (Sayidatuna Maryam) is the only woman ever mentioned by her name in the Quran.
    – She is mentioned 34 times in Islam’s holy book, more times than in the New Testament.
    – She is so important that the Quran dedicates an entire chapter (19) to her: Surat Maryam.

    ” The Quran says of her that her mother, the wife of ‘Imran, has dedicated her to God from birth (3, 35-36), that Zachariah took care of her education” in the sanctuary “(3). 37), that she received “good news” from a “word” coming from God (3, 45), that she thus became pregnant without human concurrence “under the action of the spirit of God “(3, 47; 19, 20-21), that she gave birth to her son at the foot of a palm tree, in the desert, a palm tree that gave her fresh dates and refreshing water (19 , 25-26), that she presented her baby to “her tribe ” responding by a “fast of silence” to their accusations (19).”

    Mary remained virgin before and after the birth. This, the Quran formally certifies twice.
    And she who remained virgin … We breathed Our Spirit in her. We made her and her son a sign to the worlds “(21, 91);
    “And Mary, daughter of Imran, who kept her virginity” (61:12).
    And it vehemently attacks the Jews who slandered the mother of Jesus in this respect (4,156; 19,27-32).

    It looks like your slander still goes on after 2000 years, Hasbara.

    • Replies: @attilathehen
  123. @Iris

    First, read Seraphim’s comment no. 120.

    Again, everything a Muslim says about Christianity is wrong. Muslims have no idea about true Christianity.

    As a Christian, not Hasbara, I know my religion. You do not.

  124. @Seraphim

    Do you know about the Fatima apparitions and prophecies? Does the Orthodox Church teach them formally or are they looked upon as false RCC teachings?

    Here are some interesting takes on the Fatima prophecies from 2 Catholics who converted to the Orthodox Church:

    https://jaysanalysis.com/2019/04/02/fatima-psychological-warfare-the-great-game/
    https://www.radioaryan.com/2018/10/the-orthodox-nationalist-orthodox-view.html
    Fatima Matt Raphael Johnson

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  125. Seraphim says:
    @attilathehen

    No, it does not ‘teach them formally’. On the contrary, it takes a dim view of the apparitions and ‘prophecies’, varying between demonic apparitions and a gigantic hoax of Papal propaganda (as with the ‘Marian apparitions’ of Lourdes and more recently Medjugorje) intended at the conversion of the Orthodox (“consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of the Virgin”) to Papism. How could Russians view this when Russia is under the ‘Protective Veil of the Mother of God’- Pokrov – and when not a few Russian (and Orthodox) saints have been blessed with Visitations of the Mother of God?
    Marian ‘apparitions’ have been used as a ‘tool’ for the conversion of Jews and Moslems earlier. So, the conversion of the Jew Alphonse Ratisbonne in 1842 following an ‘apparition’ in the Rome’s Church of Sant’Andrea delle Fratte, provoked by the ‘Miraculous Medal’ of Catherine Labouré he was wearing. His brother Theodore converted also and both went to found the ‘Congregation of Our Lady of Sion’, dedicated to the conversion of the Jews, “to witness in the Church and in the world that God continues to be faithful in his love for the Jewish people and to hasten the fulfillment of the promises concerning the Jews and the Gentiles”, with the head quarters in Jerusalem. Nowadays we are informed that “After the re-direction of the official teachings [of RC] regarding Judaism, the Fathers changed from an emphasis on the conversion of Jews to working to foster understanding and the development of deeper ties between Christians and Jews” (which was the real intention) and a mental fixation with ‘Sion’.
    One thing must be noticed in the devotions to these modern ‘Virgin’, she is seldom called Mother of God, attracting the reproach that it detracts from Christ’s centrality in the history of salvation.
    That’s why the hope that the Fatima apparitions would bring the ‘conversion’ of the Muslims (because Fatima is in the view of Muslims “the most blessed of all the women in Paradise, after Mary”) is as delusional as the hope to ‘convert’ Russia.

    • Replies: @attilathehen
  126. RSDB says:
    @Seraphim

    Well, that’s fine, if you take “Christian parlance” to mean “Orthodox parlance”, or at least the interpretation of it to which you subscribe.

    Of course both Catholics and Orthodox believe that innovation cannot be made on the original deposit of faith, but we all recognize the existence of formal mechanisms of defining doctrine, which is what Catholics mean by doctrinal development.

    In actual fact what was truly offensive to the Orthodox was not the ‘filioque’ but the change of the liturgy by substituting the bread with the Jewish azymes

    Well, okay. Azyme bread is certainly one of the things, probably the thing, that was most offensive to Michael Caerularius. Is it one of the things most offensive to Orthodox today?

    banning the people from ‘drinking Christ’s blood’,

    We didn’t do this at the time of the schism and we don’t do it now, but I can see how our doctrinal acceptance of the sufficiency of communion under one kind can be problematic in Orthodox eyes.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  127. RSDB says:
    @Seraphim

    I’ll let the Mohammedans on here answer about their doctrine because it’s not my territory.

    Of course the Koranic accounts of Jesus, Mary, the Gospel, etc. are greatly flawed, and likely in my opinion Mohammed simply did not know very much about them.

    As far as I know most Muslims still call the Gospels the Injil even though the “Injil” that Jesus is supposed to have “received” can be nothing like it.

    In general what Muslims say the Koran and their tradition mean, rather than whatever Mohammed actually thought, which is known to nobody anymore, or some “pure” interpretation of Koran and hadith, is the only thing one can rely on when talking to Muslims in the real world*. And modern Muslims (and, frankly, most historical Muslims after the time of Mohammed) are pretty well aware that the Miriam who was the sister of Moses is a different person than the Blessed Virgin. How they explain the discrepancy is their own business. The “explanations” I’ve heard strike me as a bit far-fetched, but, again, it’s not my problem.

    About “bridge-building” … well, I think this can be useful to an extent in the real world, as it is with Protestants who also often have bizarre ideas. With Muslims one must be careful because like with Protestants there is a real disunity at the heart of their apparent unity. But some measure of cooperation on social affairs, etc. can be desirable.

    *This is what St. John of Damascus did, he talked to Muslims in the real world and described what they thought. Hence the accusation from modern Muslims that he was merely lying.

  128. Seraphim says:
    @RSDB

    A current and tenacious misconception is that the ‘split’ of the Old Believers is due only to minor liturgical differences as the proper way of crossing oneself.
    That is due to the ‘sympathetic’ attitude that some Orthodox retained for the Old Believers, either out of ignorance about the real amplitude of the heresy, or out of the confusion of the heresy with its external aspects of ‘struggle against an intolerable oppression by the clergy in alliance with the hated Tsar’ (a theme much ventilated by the Narodniks and Boshevists). A contribution was made by the Slavophiles who saw in the manifestations of the Old Believers an expression of the ‘true Russian’ spirituality as opposed to its ‘corruption’ by the foreigners (Greeks).
    The reality is that the ‘minor differences’ were not that minor, reflecting a Protestant tendency affecting dogmas and they exploded in ‘Raskol’ and full-blown heresy when a Synod of representatives of nearly all Orthodox Churches corrected them.

    • Replies: @RSDB
  129. RSDB says:
    @Seraphim

    Thanks for the information, which is interesting and helpful.

  130. @Seraphim

    Thank you for this excellent information. I’ve noticed how in the RCC, Mary is becoming an obsession among Catholics. When I was Catholic, I respected Her, but noticed how She was becoming too much of a focus. Catholics don’t worship Her as Protestants mistakenly believe, but it was beginning to be hard not to notice that something strange was going on with these 20th century apparitions. Also, there have been calls to make Her a co-Redemptrix with Jesus the Redeemer. This is nonsense.

    I remember an athesist pointing out that what is very strange about these apparations is that Mary always appears to children or teenagers – youths without life experiences and limited education.

  131. Seraphim says:
    @RSDB

    Of course the Azymes remain for the Orthodox of today as offensive as it was for the Orthodox in the time of Cerularius. Not ‘for Cerularius’, to be sure, but for the Church, because the problem is crucial for the ‘economy of Salvation’.
    The use of azymes was one of the Judaizing innovations (the first one being the replacement of the Septuagint by a Hebrew version), a ‘new doctrine’ without traditional support, introduced by the Popes and justified with the ‘new doctrine’ of Papal supremacy. The use of unleavened bread was strictly forbidden by the canons (“Let no one in the priestly order nor any layman eat the unleavened bread of the Jews, nor have any familiar intercourse with them, nor summon them in illness, nor receive medicines from them, nor bathe with them; but if anyone shall take in hand to do so, if he is a cleric, let him be deposed, but if a layman let him be cut off” – Canon XI of the Council in Trullo confirming LXX Apostolic Canon: “If any bishop, presbyter, or deacon, or any one of the list of clergy, keeps fast or festival with the Jews, or receives from them any of the gifts of their feasts, as unleavened bread, any such things, let him be deposed. If he be a layman, let him be excommunicated”). Azymes were never used for Eucharist until their anti-canonic introduction in the Latin Church. RC arguments to the contrary are false. It is not a matter of ‘doctrinal development’ but a wrong opinion, a ‘kakodoxy’.
    The Orthodox cannot possibly admit their use as they cannot subscribe to the relativism of the Papal position that either way is valid, that truth is equivalent with falsehood. You cannot compromise.

    • Replies: @RSDB
  132. RSDB says:
    @Seraphim

    RC arguments to the contrary are false.

    Well, okay, if you thought RC arguments were true you would be Catholic (not necessarily RC), so you’re welcome to your opinion.

    The use of unleavened bread is not due to Papal supremacy, but to the practice of the Latin church (and the Armenian and –currently– the Maronite churches), predating the schism by several hundred years, at least.

    It is not a matter of ‘doctrinal development’

    Since you’re quoting me, I will clarify on terms that, using that terminology, this is not a matter of doctrine, that is, dogma, per se, but of discipline, and hence unrelated to the concept expressed by the term doctrinal development. Do the Orthodox make a distinction between those? Theologian Metropolitan Kallistos Ware seems to, as does Rev. John Erickson, but I’m not sure how representative this is of the Orthodox in general.

    Cheers,
    RSDB

  133. Seraphim says:

    The fact that some churches introduced the practice of unleavened bread hundreds of years before the schism does not make it valid. An error does not become truth if it is repeated enough times to become an entrenched custom or if it is embraced by more people and cherished because it is ‘your own opinion’ – ‘My Way or the highway’. It means only that the Latins and Armenians fell into the error at an early date (Armenians fell into heresy in the the 5th Century and they dug their heels in ever since with remarkable ethnophyletistic stubbornness).
    Innovations in rites and ecclesiastical discipline have always been explained as contained, insufficiently clarified, in the initial revelation.

  134. dakaras says:
    @Ibn Issam

    Thanks for the kind words! Nice meeting you!!

  135. @Ibn Issam

    That was a dishonest slight of hand there Mr Issam; “The Christian majority west has done far greater damage to the world, they just hide it behind the veil of secularism.” Christian majority west? So now as a Christian I am forced to answer for the crimes of Anti-Christians (Bolshevik Jewish Communists, Nazis, French Enlightenment Atheists/Deists, Zionists, etc.)? Are you aware of Moslem collaboration with the Nazis during WW2? Bosniacs, Amin al-Husseini?
    You did not answer my main point; –When a Christian acts with violence, he is betraying his faith. Nothing in the teachings of our Christ can defend him. On the contrary, when a Moslem perpetrates violence, he is simply adhering to his faith, and is justified by his scriptures and the example of his “prophet”. Matt 10:34 is not a scriptural incitement to violence, it describes God’s righteous judgment of sinners. God may grant and take life at his discretion. Nothing in this passage justifies a Christian taking vengeance into his own hands. The countless examples of incitement to violence Islamic scriptures and world history are too numerous for this comment block.
    As the following passage makes clear we can see the hand of Satan right at the birth of Islam, and its been there with every severed human head for 15 centuries:
    ‘Read’ I said, what shall I read? He pressed me with it so tightly that I thought it was death; then he let me go and said,
    ‘Read!’ I said what I shall read?’ he pressed me with it so that I thought it was death; then he let me go and said,
    ‘Read!’ I said what I shall read?’ he pressed me with it for the third time so that I thought it was death and said,
    ‘Read’ l Said, what then shall l read and this l said only to deliver myself from him, lest he should do, the same to me again. He said; read in the name of lord who create, who created man of blood coagulated. Read ‘thy lord is the most beneficent, who taught by the pen, taught that which they knew not unto men’. So l read it, and he departed from me. And awoke from my sleep, and it was as though these words were written on my heart,”
    (Ibn Ishaq. The Life of Muhammad. (translated by A. Guillame) New York, OUP, 1980. p.81)

  136. Seraphim says:

    The (willing) ignorance of Muslims of all things Christian is glaring when they incessantly ‘encourage’ us Christians ‘to investigate the origins of Christianity by reading scholarly works in the field of Biblical & NT Historical Criticism’, unaware or oblivious that these ‘scholarly works’ of ‘Biblical Criticism’ have been roundly discredited and proven wrong since their inception (the modern ‘historical criticism’ is nothing else than the repetition in a more abstruse language of the accusations of the anti-Christians of ‘falsification’ of the Scriptures). They do that not for us, but because they believe that it is a confirmation of their own beliefs (confirmation bias). The dishonesty consist in never acknowledging that this ‘criticism’ has been found wanting by no less knowledgeable Biblical and NT scholars than the self-appointed scholars of the Bart Ehrman or the ‘Jesus Seminar’ type. No to mention the implicit insult that Christians do not know what they are talking about and have to be taught to think correctly by the sole possessors of the truth, the Muslims.
    That’s to say nothing about their constant justification of Muslim massacres of Christians by presenting themselves as the victims of Christian aggression. See precisely the case of the Armenians, where the Muslims jumped the bandwagon of ‘Russophobia’. Russia attacked the Muslims=> Armenians sided with the Russians=>Turks have been therefore obliged to ‘solve once and for all’ the ‘Armenian Question’ by exterminating the Armenians. The inconvenient fact they always skip, is that the Ottoman Empire attacked Russia in the first place and that it cruelly persecuted its own Christian populations long before the war.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Kevin Barrett Comments via RSS