They see gender pay gap as a problem but ...

[godelian]

Are your imams happy to know that you think Mohammed was merely a messenger, and worse, that in telling us that Jesus Christ was a true prophet, he got the message wrong?

Muhammad is a messenger of Allah, i.e. Rasul Allah, (رَسُول).
This is standard Islamic doctrine.
Christ is a prophet of Allah, i.e. Nabi Allah, (نَبِيّ)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophet ... s_in_Islam

Prophets in Islam (Arabic: ٱلْأَنْبِيَاء فِي ٱلْإِسْلَام, romanized: al-anbiyāʾ fī al-islām) are individuals in Islam who are believed to spread God's message on Earth and serve as models of ideal human behaviour. Some prophets are categorized as messengers (Arabic: رُسُل, romanized: rusul; sing. رَسُول, rasūl), those who transmit divine revelation, most of them through the interaction of an angel.

[Immanuel Can]

Are your imams happy to know that you think Mohammed was merely a messenger, and worse, that in telling us that Jesus Christ was a true prophet, he got the message wrong?

Muhammad is a messenger of Allah, i.e. Rasul Allah, (رَسُول).

And...when two of them do not agree, as when Jesus Christ prophesies that it's the will of God for us to love enemies, and Mohammed says it's Allah's will to kill them...what do you do?

[godelian]

And...when two of them do not agree

That is not how it works.

You take a copy of the law, be it the Mosaic or the Quranic version; doesn't matter which one.

You verify what Christ says with the law. If there is no violation, then fine. You verify what Muhammad says with the law. If there is no violation, then fine.

As far as I know, Christ has never said anything that was in violation of Mosaic (or Quranic) law. Neither has Muhammad.

as when Jesus Christ prophesies that it's the will of God for us to love enemies

We must show respect for the humanity of our enemies, such as treating prisoners of war with dignity. The Islamic version of the laws of war concur with this. There are large fragments of the Islamic laws of war bi-interpretable with the La Hague and Geneva conventions.

This is pretty much always how both Christian and Islamic belligerents have interpreted the matter.

Mohammed says it's Allah's will to kill them...what do you do?

The prophet insisted that war with especially the pagans was inevitable. Of course, I can see that too. As I have said previously, war is an integral part of human nature and, in fact, of life itself.

Moses fought wars. Muhammad fought wars. Christ could not fight any war because he was not the leader of his society, as his native Palestine was a Roman province.

Christ was effectively under Roman control and was not in a position to speak his mind nor make sovereign decisions.

Giving enemy combatants the opportunity to surrender, whenever possible, is common practice in war. Muslim armies do that too.

In my opinion, Christ was a prophet , i.e. exemplary person, but by no means a messenger of God. Moses was. Muhammad was. Christ was not. What Christ said, does not constitute law. It was not in violation of Mosaic law either. On the contrary, Christ was a person who was exemplary at keeping the law.

[Immanuel Can]

And...when two of them do not agree

That is not how it works.

You can see that's how it works. You can verify the facts for yourself. I've quoted the passages involved from both the Koran and the Gospels in earlier messages; so if you can't find them for yourself, there they are.

[godelian]

I've quoted the passages involved from both the Koran and the Gospels in earlier messages; so if you can't find them for yourself, there they are.

The Torah is law. The Quran is law. The Gospels are not law.

You are trying to overrule the law with mere commentary on the law.

[promethean75]

IC and his cohort Jesus are hereby charged with the crime of metaphysical sedition i.e., seditious metaphysical acts against the divine government.

[Immanuel Can]

The Torah is law. The Quran is law. The Gospels are not law.

You are trying to overrule the law with mere commentary on the law.

I'm actually not trying anything. I'm just showing what Jesus Christ Himself taught, and asking why Mohammed, who called him a true prophet, failed to act the way that prophet taught, and love his enemies.

But we've perhaps gone as far as we can with that. Let me ask you a different question, if I may. I sincerely want to understand your position on this, so I'm not loading it with any kind of trap or back-door meaning. I'm just trying to find out what you think Islam would say about this situation. Let me lay it out for you; I don't think you'll find it at all unlikely or implausible.

Let us think that there are two men. Both of them are equally highly obedient to the Islamic Law. Both are continually practicing all five "pillars" of Islam. Both live in communities in which Islam is the dominant religion.

Person one loves it. He delights to hear "the call to prayer." He is always first into the mosque. He gladly obeys the imams. In his heart, he loves Islam, loves every chance he gets for submission (or compliance). You get the idea: this is somebody who, in his heart, is all-in.

Person two is different. He hates to have to pray, but he does it. He despises imams, but follows them out of fear. He was raised in one culture, but then forcibly "submitted" to Islam, and knows that unless he wants to end up as some kind of dhimmi, a second-class citizen with significantly reduced rights, he'd better play along with Islam, and play along well. In his actions, he's as devout and obedient as the first man; but in the depths of his heart, he wishes every minute that Islam and all its adherents would go away.

Now, it would not be hard to imagine how, given Islamic conquests of the past, and given that not all cultures under Islam were originally Islamic, both men could exist. They very probably DO exist. It's probably not even hard to find some such cases today, although the second man would be unlikely to be willing to admit it, of course. But whether they exist or not, it's a thought experiment to test what we might say about such a situation.

So the question is this: if Islam is just a bunch of Laws, and Allah has no concern for the condition of the human heart, it would follow that these two men are exactly equally good Muslims. They are both fully "submitted" in their actions. What goes on in their heads is different, but you seem to say that none of that matters...

So would you say that is right? Would you say that a man who loves Islam and obeys is not importantly different from a man who hates it and obeys?

Sincere question. I don't know the answer you'll give.

[godelian]

Person two is different. He hates to have to pray, but he does it. He despises imams, but follows them out of fear.

You don't need to follow any particular imam/alim. It is recommended, however, to accept moral advice from the general consensus of independently advising imams/ulema.
However, nobody is going to check that you do. So, it is exclusively a matter of self-discipline.

He was raised in one culture, but then forcibly "submitted" to Islam

The only serious obligation that rests on a Muslim is that he doesn't talk shit about Islam ("sabh"). Besides that, a Muslim can commit all the sins in the world. It won't expel him from Islam. If you disturb public order while breaking rules in Islam, such as by public drunkenness, it will be the secular ruler's law enforcement that may give you a fine.

knows that unless he wants to end up as some kind of dhimmi, a second-class citizen with significantly reduced rights, he'd better play along with Islam, and play along well.

Muslims do military service while non-Muslims pay the exemption fee for not doing it. However, the non-Muslim can also choose to do military service in lieu of paying the exemption fee. Muslims cannot pay the exemption fee to escape the draft but they can pay corruption money to that effect, which is more expensive than the exemption fee. So, I don't know who is privileged here, the Muslim or the non-Muslim.

Would you say that a man who loves Islam and obeys is not importantly different from a man who hates it and obeys?[/b]

The man who hates it, clearly puts in more effort, and may therefore even be more commendable.

But then again, what effort? It's all a matter of self-discipline. For heaven's sake, who is ever going to check if you spent effort on doing the five pillars?

Do what you can, and don't what you can't.

You see too much in it, seriously

[Immanuel Can]

Would you say that a man who loves Islam and obeys is not importantly different from a man who hates it and obeys?

The man who hates it, clearly puts in more effort, and may therefore even be more commendable.

Interesting.

So the heart really doesn't matter at all? A hater of Islam may even be more virtuous than a lover of it, provided they both knuckle-under to it in equal measure? In fact, if I accept what you seem to say, as above, to love Islam might be a liability, as the one who hates it has to "put in more effort" because he hates it, and is thus behaving more virtuously, Islamically speaking, than the person who finds it easy to do?

Am I hearing that right?

[godelian]

Yes. If you have to spend more effort to keep the law, you may actually be more virtuous than someone for whom it is easy.

[Immanuel Can]

es. If you have to spend more effort to keep the law, you may actually be more virtuous than someone for whom it is easy.

So...yes?

To hate Islam and submit is potentially better, therefore, than to love Islam and submit? I just have to be sure I'm getting this right. I'm feeling quite shocked at the idea. I'm doubting I'm hearing it right.

[godelian]

es. If you have to spend more effort to keep the law, you may actually be more virtuous than someone for whom it is easy.

So...yes?

To hate Islam and submit is potentially better, therefore, than to love Islam and submit? I just have to be sure I'm getting this right. I'm feeling quite shocked at the idea. I'm doubting I'm hearing it right.

Yes, because you put in more effort. But then again, you (and Allah) are the only one who knows about it. You are trying to turn a largely private matter into a public one.

[Immanuel Can]

es. If you have to spend more effort to keep the law, you may actually be more virtuous than someone for whom it is easy.

So...yes?

To hate Islam and submit is potentially better, therefore, than to love Islam and submit? I just have to be sure I'm getting this right. I'm feeling quite shocked at the idea. I'm doubting I'm hearing it right.

Yes, because you put in more effort. But then again, you (and Allah) are the only one who knows about it. You are trying to turn a largely private matter into a public one.

No, the public is irrelevant to me here. What they know is not important. What's important is what is actually the case: and you're saying that a person who hates Allah is potentially more virtuous than one who loves Allah, if I've got you right.

And presumably, one person who knows that is Allah -- I assume you think of him as all-knowing, no? And so Allah must know that he's being hated by this person, but he makes that person more virtuous than the one who loves him...

Do you see why I'm having difficulty processing your answer? It's more than a little counter-intuitive...if it's what Muslims actually believe.

[godelian]

and you're saying that a person who hates Allah is potentially more virtuous than one who loves Allah, if I've got you right.

The requirement is to keep God's law.

If you do that, there is no specific requirement to love God.

You can certainly love God but why would that be an obligation? What kind of love would that be anyway? If the love does not come naturally, then let it be. You are not doing anyone a favor by forcing the matter.

[Immanuel Can]

and you're saying that a person who hates Allah is potentially more virtuous than one who loves Allah, if I've got you right.

The requirement is to keep God's law.

If you do that, there is no specific requirement to love God.

You can certainly love God but why would that be an obligation? What kind of love would that be anyway? If the love does not come naturally, then let it be. You are not doing anyone a favor by forcing the matter.

Well, love certainly cannot be forced, I agree. But what you're suggesting is that the person who is forced to submit to Allah is at least as virtuous -- and you've even said he's more virtuous, potentially -- than somebody who submits to Allah out of love.

This is so different from anything Christianity thinks, that I'm really struggling to process it. We believe that love for God is the highest good a human being can know; and that forced compliance by a hard heart is known by God and not acceptable as a substitute for love. We're not against obeying commandments, but we believe that commandments should be obeyed out of love. (For example: 1 John 5:2) We believe, furthermore, that God loves us, and even loves those who do not yet love Him (John 3:16), and that our own ability to love is purely a product of God's much greater love for us (1 John 4:19). Love is central to everything we believe is truly valuable, and is at the core of who God is (1 John 4:16).

So you'll understand that when we see somebody who thinks submission or compliance is the whole story, we can't help but feel there's something very seriously missing from that sort of a relationship. And that's the understatement of the year!

However, if you say that's how Allah thinks about these things, then I'll take your word for it. I have to confess, though, it looks very unattractive. It makes Allah look like a cold tyrant, devoid of interest in anything more than breaking people's wills, and utterly unconcerned about where their hearts really are.