Angola bans Islam - becomes first country to do so.

[OakWood]

Any person who is a part of the people of the book who lived in Muslim countries, had slightly different laws, including the need to pay a special tax. It is a part of Jewish history that the Jewish people who lived in Muslim countries were treated well, (a relative statement as the treatment is in comparison to Jewish people who lived in so called Christian countries which could be very cruel and harsh). So, your history is not the same view at all of the Jewish history written by Jewish people who actually lived in Muslim lands).  

 

From wiki:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_under_Muslim_rule

 

After the expansion of Islam into the Middle East from the Arabian Peninsula, Jews, along with Christians and Zoroastrians, typically had the legal status of dhimmi.^[1] As such, they were accorded certain rights and generally not persecuted for their religious beliefs, unlike many other parts of Medieval Europe.^[2]

 

 

 

From the Jewish Virtual Library:

 

In 1945, roughly 1 million Jews lived peacefully in the various Arab states of the Middle East, many of them in communities that had existed for thousands of years

 

This changed in many Arab states after the re-forming of a Jewish homeland, Israel. But not all.

 

As far as the abrogated verses in the Quran, that is not so cut and dry. I found further information from a site which works to share the gospel with Muslims. Not all Muslims believe that any verses in the Quran are abrogated. The purpose of abrogation is to resolve conflicts in the Quran. Where there are conflicts, how are they handled. So, not all Muslims will dismiss the conflicting verses but see them all as valid. Other arguments concern which Muslim book can abrogate verse in which Muslim book. Can the Quran abrogate verses which are conflicting in the Quran. Again, this is a debate within Islam, with differing views. Also, of those who believe conflicting verses can be abrogated, there are differing numbers of verses which are considered to be abrogated.   Some will say as few as 12 or 20 and others will say as many as 200 and more. 

 

Clearly when speaking to Muslims in this area, one needs to be aware of a very large variation in opinion, from no abrogation to over 200. 

 

Since as Christians, our number one goal in relationship to Muslims, is the hope that Muslims will become born again believers in Jesus. What damages that effort is if Christians are seen as misrepresenting Islam. It is better to admit to knowing nothing, then misrepresenting what Islamics actually believe.

 

 

I'm sorry but you've just created some great dilemmas there.

 

If conflicting verses can't be abrogated then Islam is just nonsense. Once says black the other says white. You're trying to excuse Islam and it just doesn't work. You can't have a conflicting gospel. That's like saying "thou shalt not kill" in one verse and then saying "thou shalt kill" in another. You can't do both. You're resorting to complete nonsense to excuse Muslims. You're arguing with Islamic scholars who've been living and breathing Islam for years. Abrogation is abrogation - full stop. Please stop trying to excuse this hideous cult.

 

"It is better to admit knowing nothing rather than misrepresenting what Islamists believe"

 

Firstly, I'm not misrepresenting what Islamists believe, I know what they believe. Once again you try to mould Islam into your own interpretation. You're using the same argument that non-Christians use against Christianity when they claim that some Christians believe that homosexuality is okay, and others believe it is not. The Bible says only one thing - that homosexuality is abhorrent to the Lord. Any other interpretation is false.

The Koran clearly says that when two verses contradict, the later verse abrogates the earlier one. Any other interpretation is false.

 

I'm sorry, I thought that you would listen to reason, but you continue to make excuses for this Satanic cult. I now believe that when it comes to Islam, you are a lost cause.

[JustinM]

Despite how secular we have convinced ourselves our country is, we are no better off, when it comes to religion/ideology, than the world was hundreds of years ago. 

 

If you look at ideology and worldview, along with values and principles tied to those views, you will find there isn't a lot of room for freedom in the world.

 

The US tried the "academic" route, in which every opinion was valued and equal to every other opinion.  This works great in an open forum, but when that value becomes part of a nation's culture, it creates opportunities where certain values begin to dominate the others.

 

Secularists have been trying for decades to create a 100% secular society in the US.  Whatever problems they had with Christianity, seem inconsequential now, in comparison to what is beginning to replace it. 

 

I have no criticism for Angola, if the people have decided that's what is best for their country, why on Earth would we intervene?

 

Or, by trying to intervene in Angola's decision, are we unwittingly falling into the same domineering mindset (religious/cultural supremacy) that we are criticisizing islam for?

[Qnts2]

 

Any person who is a part of the people of the book who lived in Muslim countries, had slightly different laws, including the need to pay a special tax. It is a part of Jewish history that the Jewish people who lived in Muslim countries were treated well, (a relative statement as the treatment is in comparison to Jewish people who lived in so called Christian countries which could be very cruel and harsh). So, your history is not the same view at all of the Jewish history written by Jewish people who actually lived in Muslim lands).  

 

From wiki:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_under_Muslim_rule

 

After the expansion of Islam into the Middle East from the Arabian Peninsula, Jews, along with Christians and Zoroastrians, typically had the legal status of dhimmi.^[1] As such, they were accorded certain rights and generally not persecuted for their religious beliefs, unlike many other parts of Medieval Europe.^[2]

 

 

 

From the Jewish Virtual Library:

 

In 1945, roughly 1 million Jews lived peacefully in the various Arab states of the Middle East, many of them in communities that had existed for thousands of years

 

This changed in many Arab states after the re-forming of a Jewish homeland, Israel. But not all.

 

As far as the abrogated verses in the Quran, that is not so cut and dry. I found further information from a site which works to share the gospel with Muslims. Not all Muslims believe that any verses in the Quran are abrogated. The purpose of abrogation is to resolve conflicts in the Quran. Where there are conflicts, how are they handled. So, not all Muslims will dismiss the conflicting verses but see them all as valid. Other arguments concern which Muslim book can abrogate verse in which Muslim book. Can the Quran abrogate verses which are conflicting in the Quran. Again, this is a debate within Islam, with differing views. Also, of those who believe conflicting verses can be abrogated, there are differing numbers of verses which are considered to be abrogated.   Some will say as few as 12 or 20 and others will say as many as 200 and more. 

 

Clearly when speaking to Muslims in this area, one needs to be aware of a very large variation in opinion, from no abrogation to over 200. 

 

Since as Christians, our number one goal in relationship to Muslims, is the hope that Muslims will become born again believers in Jesus. What damages that effort is if Christians are seen as misrepresenting Islam. It is better to admit to knowing nothing, then misrepresenting what Islamics actually believe.

 

 

I'm sorry but you've just created some great dilemmas there.

 

If conflicting verses can't be abrogated then Islam is just nonsense. Once says black the other says white. You're trying to excuse Islam and it just doesn't work. You can't have a conflicting gospel. That's like saying "thou shalt not kill" in one verse and then saying "thou shalt kill" in another. You can't do both. You're resorting to complete nonsense to excuse Muslims. You're arguing with Islamic scholars who've been living and breathing Islam for years. Abrogation is abrogation - full stop. Please stop trying to excuse this hideous cult.

 

"It is better to admit knowing nothing rather than misrepresenting what Islamists believe"

 

Firstly, I'm not misrepresenting what Islamists believe, I know what they believe. Once again you try to mould Islam into your own interpretation. You're using the same argument that non-Christians use against Christianity when they claim that some Christians believe that homosexuality is okay, and others believe it is not. The Bible says only one thing - that homosexuality is abhorrent to the Lord. Any other interpretation is false.

The Koran clearly says that when two verses contradict, the later verse abrogates the earlier one. Any other interpretation is false.

 

I'm sorry, I thought that you would listen to reason, but you continue to make excuses for this Satanic cult. I now believe that when it comes to Islam, you are a lost cause.

 

 

I am not trying to excuse Islam. I am repeating information from what I would consider sites which attempt to give accurate information. What I find interesting is the idea that some Muslims think verses can be abrogated (whatever that really means to Muslims). That means that Muslims do not view the Quran the same way that Jews view the OT and Christians view the OT and NT. Some Muslims do not think the Quran is the inherrant words of God and that Mohammed's 'prophesy' or words are without error or in need of correction.

 

It appears that not all Muslims do not think the Quran clearly says that when two verses contradict, the later verse abrogates the earlier one.   

 

Remembering that not all Muslims believe in abrogating verses, the site says the following:

 

http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/abrogatedverses.html

 

According to some scholars the Qur’an abrogates only the Qur’an. They base their view on suras 2:106 and 16:101. According to them the Qur’an does not abrogate the sunna nor does the sunna abrogate the Qur’an. This is, in particular, the view held by Shafi’i.

Others are of the opinion that the Qur’an may abrogate the Qur’an as well as the sunna. They base their view on Sura 53:3-4.

There is also the view that there are four classes of naskh:

1 Qur’an abrogates Qur’an.

2 Qur’an abrogates sunna.

3 Sunna abrogates Qur’an.

4 Sunna abrogates sunna."

 

Remember, this paper is addressed to Christians who are sharing the gospel with Muslims and is meant to share information about Islam with these Christians. They have no reason to lie but are attempting for accuracy. They are not trying to excuse or argue in favor of Islam.

 

From the site:

We present here a list that highlights some of the many verses that have been abrogated. We are quite aware that not all Muslims believe that the Quran abrogates itself and would therefore reject the traditions presented here. Yet, the aim of our paper is to provide a handy list for Christians witnessing to or dialoguing with Muslims who do believe that the Quran abrogates itself.

[Qnts2]

Despite how secular we have convinced ourselves our country is, we are no better off, when it comes to religion/ideology, than the world was hundreds of years ago. 

 

If you look at ideology and worldview, along with values and principles tied to those views, you will find there isn't a lot of room for freedom in the world.

 

The US tried the "academic" route, in which every opinion was valued and equal to every other opinion.  This works great in an open forum, but when that value becomes part of a nation's culture, it creates opportunities where certain values begin to dominate the others.

 

Secularists have been trying for decades to create a 100% secular society in the US.  Whatever problems they had with Christianity, seem inconsequential now, in comparison to what is beginning to replace it. 

 

I have no criticism for Angola, if the people have decided that's what is best for their country, why on Earth would we intervene?

 

Or, by trying to intervene in Angola's decision, are we unwittingly falling into the same domineering mindset (religious/cultural supremacy) that we are criticisizing islam for?

 

I live in the U.S., and view the each person has a right to practice their religion within the bounds of the law, to be one of the greatest freedoms and great wisdom from the founding fathers. Ideally, one religious group can not seek to dominate the minority religious groups, based on the constitution. If that fails, then the U.S. could potentially fall into the same errors as other countries, including some Muslim countries.

 

I think the Angola law requires a wait and see attitude. If in the process of banning Islam, if they then begin to target and persecute a person based on their religion, that could become an issue. In history, those who persecuted others due to their religion, often committed some big attrocities. Hopefully Angola does not go that way.  

[OakWood]

Abrogation

 

If you don't believe in abrogating verses then you're left with verses that contradict. Clearly, you are left with oxymorons. This leads nowhere. It really does not matter whether the Qu'ran abrogates the Qu'ran or whether the Qu'ran abrogates the Sunna, or whether it doesn't. If verses contradict then there is clearly a problem with Muslim scripture, but what more can anyone expect from a pile of nonsense? The reasons that some Muslims don't believe in abrogating verses is because they know that abrogation leaves only the violent side of Islam and this worries them, so they disappear into unicorn land and try to make it all sound so nice and sweet. But of course, they can't do this without defying logic altogether.

 

Religious freedom and freedom of speech

 

Religious freedom only applies to religions. Islam is an all-embracing political ideology that should never have been given the status of a religion in the first place. It is not going against the U.S. constitution to outlaw it as it is treasonous by nature. It is a political system that runs parallel to the United States political system of government.

Freedom of speech does not apply to anyone conspiring to commit a crime. A person does not have to commit murder to be prosecuted – they can also be prosecuted for attempted murder or for conspiring to murder. Likewise, Islam itself, by its own nature  is conspiring against the U.S. constitution and against Western democracy. It is a threat to national security and the only way to stop it now is to criminalize it, because unfortunately its roots are too deep and it is now too late to stop it in any other way. This would not affect any other religious beliefs such as Judaism or Christianity as they don't have a treasonous element in them.

Of course, it would have to be proven in the law-courts that Islam is seditious and treasonous, but Muslim scriptures speak for themselves.

[Qnts2]

Abrogation

 

If you don't believe in abrogating verses then you're left with verses that contradict. Clearly, you are left with oxymorons. This leads nowhere. It really does not matter whether the Qu'ran abrogates the Qu'ran or whether the Qu'ran abrogates the Sunna, or whether it doesn't. If verses contradict then there is clearly a problem with Muslim scripture, but what more can anyone expect from a pile of nonsense? The reasons that some Muslims don't believe in abrogating verses is because they know that abrogation leaves only the violent side of Islam and this worries them, so they disappear into unicorn land and try to make it all sound so nice and sweet. But of course, they can't do this without defying logic altogether.

 

Religious freedom and freedom of speech

 

Religious freedom only applies to religions. Islam is an all-embracing political ideology that should never have been given the status of a religion in the first place. It is not going against the U.S. constitution to outlaw it as it is treasonous by nature. It is a political system that runs parallel to the United States political system of government.

Freedom of speech does not apply to anyone conspiring to commit a crime. A person does not have to commit murder to be prosecuted – they can also be prosecuted for attempted murder or for conspiring to murder. Likewise, Islam itself, by its own nature  is conspiring against the U.S. constitution and against Western democracy. It is a threat to national security and the only way to stop it now is to criminalize it, because unfortunately its roots are too deep and it is now too late to stop it in any other way. This would not affect any other religious beliefs such as Judaism or Christianity as they don't have a treasonous element in them.

Of course, it would have to be proven in the law-courts that Islam is seditious and treasonous, but Muslim scriptures speak for themselves.

 

In history, a group which goes radical would depend on the interpretation of their religious texts.  Dangerous groups usually have an abherant understanding of their religous texts, and a belief that their god has given them some elite status to act on their beliefs against others.  

 

These kinds of groups have come out of Christianity and Islam. As the NT does give a kind of elite status to those who adhere to the faith. They are right, chosen, and all others are wrong, and will be destroyed. It is the destruction of others who do not 'believe' which makes a group dangerous when that group takes that role on for themselves.     

[OakWood]

QUOTE: "In history, a group which goes radical would depend on the interpretation of their religious texts.  Dangerous groups usually have an abherant understanding of their religous texts, and a belief that their god has given them some elite status to act on their beliefs against others. "

 

When two art critics interpret a piece of art, one interprets it one way, and the other interprets it another. The only way to know the true meaning is to ask the artist.

I'm sure that Mohammed would know that the dangerous groups have interpreted his work correctly!

Islam was designed to be belligerent. The Muslim false god really has given them some elite status to act on their belief against others. Any other interpretation is naive.

[Fez]

International media reports that Angola has banned Islam have caught the headlines, but it is not what it seems. It highlights once again poor communication and clumsy policy by the Angolan authorities, and how ill thought through policies are distorted by Angolan social media, the opposition and the international press.

What we know for sure is that the Angolan Culture Minister Rosa Cruz e Silva said last week that her government wanted to reduce the number of 'sects' in Angola. According to the minister, this was to combat witchcraft and illegal migration - but was targeting mostly Brazil-style evangelical groups that have mushroomed across Angola in recent years and have particularly worried establishment churches that have seen their congregations dwindle.

The minister was quoted when she issued a list by the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights of 170 rejected faith groups that had requested to be recognized by the government - mostly evangelical churches, but including the Angolan Islamic Community, an umbrella organization of the Muslim community in Angola.

 

 

 

All is not what it seems.

[OakWood]

 

International media reports that Angola has banned Islam have caught the headlines, but it is not what it seems. It highlights once again poor communication and clumsy policy by the Angolan authorities, and how ill thought through policies are distorted by Angolan social media, the opposition and the international press.

What we know for sure is that the Angolan Culture Minister Rosa Cruz e Silva said last week that her government wanted to reduce the number of 'sects' in Angola. According to the minister, this was to combat witchcraft and illegal migration - but was targeting mostly Brazil-style evangelical groups that have mushroomed across Angola in recent years and have particularly worried establishment churches that have seen their congregations dwindle.

The minister was quoted when she issued a list by the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights of 170 rejected faith groups that had requested to be recognized by the government - mostly evangelical churches, but including the Angolan Islamic Community, an umbrella organization of the Muslim community in Angola.

 

 

 

All is not what it seems.

 

 

I heard that too but didn't comment on it. Apparently they've had a problem with Islam since 2006, but now seem to be back-peddling, possibly because of international pressure. Angola, apparently still refuses to recognise Islam as a religion.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_Angola

[Fez]

 

but was targeting mostly Brazil-style evangelical groups that have mushroomed across Angola in recent years and have particularly worried establishment churches that have seen their congregations dwindle.

 

 

I know this church model, they are all over Mozambique as well. They are evil things that need removing. They style themselves as christian, come in many names and yet some even charge a fee for prayer. They are insidious and in many ways worse than Islam.