This is the Muslim Caliphate?

And the electronic Catholic Church Bells at the local papist church, that sometimes belt out
Deutchland Uber Alles; are different from minarets calling the faithful to prayer ?
How so ?

Moi

r > g

No ​

 

Cristo has already devised an acoustic fabric to wrap Catholic cathedral bell towers which will reduce sound transmission to only within the areas of the Nave, Choir, South and North transcepts, the Presbytery, and the Anbulatory.

 

Wonderful.
Our Lady Queen of Angels' passive aggressive Priest loves to keep the volume up.
Lucky me.

It was a nicer place when there were sisters there. Now they have aged on and only a really nasty boys club remains. Their people reflect it too.

Point: Minarets = Church Bells or Not ?


Moi

r > g

No ​

 

Revealing the reaction to my posting of quotes from the Koran. Says everything about your view of the content and nothing about me.

 

The Sharif of Mecca declared himself Caliph about 1924 and was chased off the Arabian Peninsula two weeks later.

 

Meanwhile Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is still the leader of the Caliphate. More successful than even the Sharif of Mecca .

 

He took it easy: he invented his own Caliphate [!]

 

... good questions,...
But your Jesus said that you were to love your enemies and hate their crimes against you,... not kill them.

Which of the things which jesus said do muslims agree with and support except that he was a prophet of some sort???

 

The battle of Armageddon ended in 1919 with the fall of the ottoman Empire and the end of these world size caliphs.
Revelation predicted this was coming.
No muslim entity will successfully rise up again.

Truth reigns as the mediator between man and the absolute Reality he must learn to live within.
Truth = Christ and has a father called Reality.
Allah is one which has a son, Truth.


Theistic Evolution Bible

Rev. 16:12 And the sixth angel, (an insight within John's mind), poured upon the great river (of Islamic peoples), Euphrates; and the waters (of that people's theology) thereof was dried up (and ready for the fire of Christian baptism), that the way (for the salvation) of the (Islamic) kings of the (Middle) East might be prepared.


Rev. 16:13 And I saw three unclean spirits, like frogs, (i.e.; frogs: the Egyptian symbol for resurrection, hence these same ideologies are to be found again and again), come out of the mouth of the dragon (which is the secular, Western cultural Libidinal lust, called Satan, and the intuitive pagan feminism, or the sexual manipulation of society called the Devil: [Rev 20:1-2]), and out of the mouth of the beast (which is the economic misappropriation of labor, the Mode of Production), and out of the mouth of the false prophet (which is Mohammed).

Rev. 16:14 For they (3) are the (collective psychic-sociological) spirits of (dominance manifesting in the Global Village), devils (of cultural psycho-sociological fixations), working (modern) miracles, which go forth (in a secular, academic, and theological opposition to Scripture) unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle (in order to oppose Scripture and the Christ), of that great day (of Truth: [Rev 5:5]) of God (of the living), Almighty, (who is the force behind the Reality of man's existence).

Rev. 16:15 Behold, I, (The Elijah, who open the sealed book: [Rev 5:5]), come as a thief, (stealing away the membership of your congregations). Blessed is he that watcheth (for the Truth that is to come: [Matthew 25:1-4]), and keepeth (informed in the scriptures which are) his garments (of understanding: [Rev 3:17]), lest he walk naked (in his own interpretive conceit: [Rev 3:18]), and they see his shame, (defenselessness: [Rev 10:7], for the son of God is Truth: [Rev 3:12], as is clearly revealed from the Word, itself: [John 14]).

Rev. 16:16 And he, (who opens the sealed book: [Rev 5:5]), gathered them, (Jews, denominational Christians, and Muslims), together into a (triangular) place, (the place of these three views of the Bible: Jewish, Christian, and Muslim) called in the Hebrew tongue (the triangular valley of) Armageddon.

 

I suppose I made a mistake saying liberalism. Reason is the absolute for Western societies, and liberalism is just a byproduct of it.

Yes, but where is the problem in that? Can you provide us with a relevant example?

 

You cannot love your enemies when they are attempting to wipe out your society. Obviously Jesus was speaking in general. Did Jesus not turn over the tables in the temple and kick out the money-changers?

 

The US has helped this monster to rear its ugly head, and it will help justify lots of future military expenditure, which is essential to our joke of a financial system.

 

The point is intriguing.

May be the best relevant example is about social evolution, in particular with reference to the condition of the women.

It's quite evident that in Western societies [no more religious yet, pay attention that to say that Western countries are Christian is wrong, Western countries are lay] the emancipation of women is well more advanced than in Islamic countries.

If this is positive or negative is not that relevant, what's relevant is that here there is a wider possibility of change than in other cultures.

The point is that a Holy Text had been the result of the thought of one man or some men [of course here I keep a rational approach, leaving a part the hypothesis of the divine revelation] of a long time ago. In democracies, representatives think about laws today in this context and they are "many" and they are "judged" by contemporary electors [no one has voted for Muhammad to be the author of Koran, like no one has voted for the evangelists to be the authors of the Gospels ...].

 

I think ISIS provides us a prety good example of the problem with this.

 

All Caliphates were invention of men.

 

or women ... in history there has been at least one "Calipha" [female Caliph], Sitt Al-Mulk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sitt_al-Mulk

This was for historical accuracy.

Then, the entire human social organization is an invention of human superior thought [in nature we don't see municipalities growing on the trees like fruits ...], from Kings to Presidents ...

But when I say that he "invented" his own caliphate I intend that he hasn't joined something shared by a population [an existing caliphate or an existing government ready to become a caliphate], he has simply declared to have created a new caliphate. Easy ...

It's like I'd find a group of rude guys, I begin to make terror attacks somewhere in Italy and I say that I'm the knew King of Italy [welcome His Majesty!].

 

Just Like Muhammad. Just like many of the Caliphates of the past.

 

Thanks, we can go deeper in the concept:

Muhammad "built" [not to use the word "invented" in such a context] the social base of the first Caliphate ... a new religion.

In other words he built the context in which to create the Caliphate [so he did well more than our beloved new Caliph].

And that context had shared by the society in which he lived [this "shared" could sound like "endorsed with the force", anyway ....].

In poor words : context before of object; if the object is out of context is "invented" [in the cultural sense, as I sad, all human creations are "invented" ...].

 

Much like ISIS has built such a base in Iraq and Syria.

 

There is a fine line between Islam and Muslim societies.

Nevertheless, I don't see how this "social evolution" is a good thing. Women are not equal men, and vice versa. Both groups are different, but the West insists that they are, and have to be equal.

It has come to the point though where women are superior to man. Just take a look at the divorce laws- the women gets everything. Makes sense why American do not want to get into a "committed relationship," and end up marrying Asians.

But what are some of these radical social changes you are talking about?

Cultures are always changing. Islam and the ideas that the West is founded on do not. The status of women in Muslim societies is very different than what is was decades ago, for example.

And I'd rather have no change than negative change.

And the ideas of the Enlightenment (which Western countries base their societies on) are the ideas of men of a long time ago.

Islamic scholars also make "laws" depending on the societal context. Consider the Muslim debate surrounding coffee some centuries ago. People may not vote, but they can still have their say.

 

Ever read about Nasr Abu Zayd, branded an Apostate by Egyptian courts back in the 90s. Based upon the societal context of the modern world of Egypt in the 1990s, he stated that owning slave girls and a special tax imposed upon Jews and Christians, was no longer acceptable. He was branded an apostate because those two issues are settled Islamic law. I mentioned earlier that the gates of ijtihad have been closed.
Abū Ḥāmid Muḥammad ibn Muḥammad al-Ghazālī back in the 11th century ruled that all matters of interpretation of Islamic text, agreed to by the major schools of Islamic thought are closed to further interpretation. Essentially cementing in place 10th century Islamic law. Matters such as the legitimacy of slave girls and taxing the people of the book were all settled matters among the different Islamic schools of thought in the 10th century so any different interpretation in the 1990s Egypt is forbidden. Ijtihad, interpreting Islamic doctrine and how it is to be applied in the context of current society is limited to only matters that were not settled.

 

Muhammed did not have a Caliphate.

- - - Updated - - -

That's nuts.. There was no Jizya nor Dhimmi status in the 1990s.. making a statement about what died out before the demise of the Ottoman Empire makes Abu Zayd a blooming idiot.

 

ISIS doesn't presents the Islam, most of the acts of ISIS described as big sin in Quran.

After ''democracy'' operations at the Middle East there is an authority problem and ISIS used this. However their dreams finish at the border of the Kurdish zone, Turkey and Israel.
Nowadays whoever collects thousands of people trying to rule Iraq and Syria.

On the other hand last Caliphate was II. Abdülmecit 1922 - 1924 however functionally after II. Abdülhamit 1876 - 1909 it lost its meaning. He was the last Caliphate who has influence on Muslims. After this date Arap world believed the lies of the west to have free country. Not maybe all of them but the leaders cooperate with colonial westerns against to Ottoman Empire.

Ottoman Empire model was a good model and during this era there were peace at the region countries. However it includes problems and couldn't work equally. It was blocking the development of the Islam countries except from Anatolia. As inverse of the known, Ottomans always made investment to west instead of East. Just have a look Balkans, Greece. Even there was attack aganist to Ottoman history at these regions in last century, still there are several buildings cities came from Ottomans. On the other hand there is nothing in Middle East Ottomans gave except from some mosques, railway to Mekke and Mustafa Pasha's work in Egypt. Anyway also these few mosques and some castles are not protected by Wahhabis.

Another problem for an Islam union the differences, Islam union includes more differences than Christian union. For example the way of comment on Islam is much more different in Iran, Turkey or Saudi Arabia. Iran is Shia and presenting another view, Saudis, Emirates e.g. are puppet of USA. Turkey accepts itself as a part of Europe. Afghanistan, Pakistan are suffering from Radical Islamists.

As a result according to me an idea based on religion is not a healthy idea in this era. If Arabs can be Union (which I don't believe it can be a free Arap Union) other Muslim countries could give support and it could be nice. But this is also a kind of dream.

 

LOL... Islam is a mockery in of itself.

 

No one claimed otherwise

No one claimed otherwise. Ill wait here while you dash after, one strawman after another.