A Christian Looks at Islam

[Muwahid]

So I take it you are in favor of returning the Hagia Sophia?
Or perhaps something as simple as finally relinquishing the keys to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre?
Maybe you're for reform in Saudi Arabia, and improvement of the treatment of Christians there? Or Iran?

From a broad perspective, going all the way back to Mohammed, the exact polar opposite of what you stated is abundantly clear.

Muslims hold the keys to the Seuplchre because of infighting between Christian denominations. It's actually a sign of unity among the Muslims and Christians that they could come to such an agreement, that the Muslims would take the responsibility, and that they would be trusted with it by the Christians.

As for the Hagia Sophia, Constantinople was conquered, and as I said before if Muslims fought wars, in general, they were fought with legitimate casus belli. I could say the same about the mosques in Al-Andalus, and you may retort with the Church of Damascus that the Muslims bought from the Christians after [peacefully] sharing it with their Christian neighbors.

And if you think boogymanning Iran and Saudi Arabia is a smart tactic, I'll have you know it's basic sophistry. You're not convincing any objective person here. It's foolish on many accounts because (1) I can name many, many Muslim majority nations in which Christians are treated well (2) The historical trend of Christian treatment in Muslim lands (3) the fact that you're not actually citing examples of Christian mistreatment in those two nations, you're simply trying to use the perception of those nations to bolster your claims fallaciously, hint, Iran reserves in their parliament seats for religious minorities (4) You're talking about Muslims rather than the tenets of Islam, hint, I do not consider either Iran or Saudi Arabia bastions of Islam thought and expression (5) etc. etc.

[fisharmor]

Hmmmmmm......


Pakistani Muslims Form Human Chain To Protect Christians During ...
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/.../m...stan_n_4057381....
Oct 8, 2013 - Hand in hand as many as 200-300 people formed a human chain outside the St Anthony's Church adjacent to the District Police Lines at the Empress Road, in a show of solidarity with the victims of the Peshawar church attack two weeks back, which resulted in over a 100 deaths. The twin suicide attack on ...

Muslims protect Christians under attack from Isis-linked group as they ...
www.independent.co.uk › News › World › Asia
Jun 3, 2017 - More than 160 civilians walked out of the besieged Philippines city of Marawi just after dawn on Saturday, deceiving Islamist fighters they encountered by hiding the identity of the many Christians among them. The audacious exodus came after text message warnings that a major assault by Philippines ...


Thousands of Egyptian Muslims Serve as Human Shields to Protect ...
https://parliamentofreligions.org/.....human-shields-...
from Ahram Online. Muslims turned up in droves for the Coptic Christmas mass Thursday night, offering their bodies, and lives, as “shields” to Egypt's threatened Christian community. Egypt's majority Muslim population stuck to its word last Thursday night. What had been a promise of solidarity to the weary Coptic community ...


Christians Are Given Hijabs by Muslims in Marawi to Help Them ...
www.newsweek.com/christians-fleeing-isis-are-given-hijabs-muslims-marawi-help-the...
Jun 15, 2017 - "Some of the stories that stuck were Muslims helping protect Christian workers by letting them borrow a hijab," said Dr. Gioia Ancheta, head of the psychosocial therapy team. The conflict began after dozens of gunmen swarmed across the Muslim-majority city of Marawi after the Philippine security forces ...

I'm honestly quite happy that a minority of muslims stand up to the ones perpetrating these acts of violence.
After another 1300 years of this sort of behavior, I might consider the matter settled.

[fisharmor]

Muslims hold the keys to the Seuplchre because of infighting between Christian denominations. It's actually a sign of unity among the Muslims and Christians that they could come to such an agreement, that the Muslims would take the responsibility, and that they would be trusted with it by the Christians.

So Christians in largely Christian countries should feel free, then, to find mosques where there is a property dispute and take control of the property?
This story sounds like a real touchy-feely love fest until you stop to recognize that one of the most holy sites in all Christendom is not under control of Christians.
If Christians took the keys away from even the smallest mosque, I don't think anyone honestly believes there wouldn't be blood spilled over it.

As for the Hagia Sophia, Constantinople was conquered, and as I said before if Muslims fought wars, in general, they were fought with legitimate casus belli. I could say the same about the mosques in Al-Andalus, and you may retort with the Church of Damascus that the Muslims bought from the Christians after [peacefully] sharing it with their Christian neighbors.

And what you need to fess up to, is that the spread of Islam has always been considered a legitimate casus belli. I'm surprised you have the temerity to actually mention Iberia here - the mosques you mention are all from a period after a forcible conquest of the area by Muslims, and the subsequent subjugation of non-Muslims.
I don't have to offer specific examples as long as you continue to. I can appreciate you're also sticking to standard Muslim talking points - "Stop paying attention to the fact that we spread our religion by the sword, stop paying attention to the fact that dhimmitude and kharaj and jizya are all actual things that happened, stop paying attention to the documented persecutions: we're all totally cool because we let you continue to be Christians as long as you pay up, and if that doesn't convince you, here are cases where we actually stopped our people slaughtering you".
I mean, I'm really not trying to chuck rocks here. I'm just saying this line of reasoning doesn't pass a basic smell test.

And if you think boogymanning Iran and Saudi Arabia is a smart tactic, I'll have you know it's basic sophistry....You're talking about Muslims rather than the tenets of Islam, hint, I do not consider either Iran or Saudi Arabia bastions of Islam thought and expression (5) etc. etc.

Ok, but the problem you have is, you can no-true-Scotsman every example I bring up, but even in the worst cases of Christians mistreating Muslims, all I have to do is say "Ok you have a point that they acted shamefully, but let's rewind and figure out how we got into that situation to begin with".

Every time I have this conversation, I remember these words:
"“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit."

[Muwahid]

So Christians in largely Christian countries should feel free, then, to find mosques where there is a property dispute and take control of the property?
This story sounds like a real touchy-feely love fest until you stop to recognize that one of the most holy sites in all Christendom is not under control of Christians.
If Christians took the keys away from even the smallest mosque, I don't think anyone honestly believes there wouldn't be blood spilled over it.

So you're simply going to ignore the historical context and significance of Muslims holding the keys. Maybe I should then ask, have Muslims in any way barred Christians from accessing this holy site in the centuries it was under Muslim administration?

Of course not. The Church of the Holy Sepulchre since the time of Umar ibn al Khattab has been a shining example of Muslim-Christian relations.

And what you need to fess up to, is that the spread of Islam has always been considered a legitimate casus belli. I'm surprised you have the temerity to actually mention Iberia here - the mosques you mention are all from a period after a forcible conquest of the area by Muslims, and the subsequent subjugation of non-Muslims.
I don't have to offer specific examples as long as you continue to. I can appreciate you're also sticking to standard Muslim talking points - "Stop paying attention to the fact that we spread our religion by the sword, stop paying attention to the fact that dhimmitude and kharaj and jizya are all actual things that happened, stop paying attention to the documented persecutions: we're all totally cool because we let you continue to be Christians as long as you pay up, and if that doesn't convince you, here are cases where we actually stopped our people slaughtering you".
I mean, I'm really not trying to chuck rocks here. I'm just saying this line of reasoning doesn't pass a basic smell test.

Interesting to note that it was the Jews who were oppressed by the visigoths who offered to aid in overthrowing that regime. The Muslims game and overthrew a tyrannical regime which is of course under Islamic law anyway, legitimate casus belli, to war with people oppressive to Muslims. Lands with friendly relations with Muslims wouldn't have been legitimate targets of war and I would ask you if you could name examples where Muslims invaded such nations (not that I'm suggesting no Muslims committed injustices, I'm merely pointing out the trend).

Ok, but the problem you have is, you can no-true-Scotsman every example I bring up, but even in the worst cases of Christians mistreating Muslims, all I have to do is say "Ok you have a point that they acted shamefully, but let's rewind and figure out how we got into that situation to begin with".

Every time I have this conversation, I remember these words:
"“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit."

I also listed many other points on why your point was wrong. It's also not a no-true-scotsman argument because your premise itself was a strawman which I countered by saying these nations are not representative of Islamic shariah, I can prove that actually theologically, but it's not necessary because your premise itself was fallacious.

Essentially I said Islam promotes peace and equality between others, and you retort with OHHH, I'M SURE CHRISTIANS IN SAUDI ARABIA REALLY FEEL THAT WAY!

Again this type of argumentation would get you laughed out of intellectual circles, try forming a cogent argument.

[juhimehra]

could you please support from the hadith