| February 2012 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |||
| 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 |
| 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 |
| 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 |
| 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | |||
As I've noted in the post The Memento Syndrome: Humanity's Short-Term Memory, we tend to think that anything that's relatively new in our lifetime, has never happened before. So this quote from John Quincy Adams on Islam, is revealing. From The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) by Robert Spencer, page 83:
John Quincy Adams on Islam:
"In the seventh century of the Christian era, a wandering Arab of the lineage of Hagar [i.e., Muhammad], the Egyptian, [.....] Adopting from the new Revelation of Jesus, the faith and hope of immortal life, and of future retribution, he humbled it to the dust by adapting all the rewards and sanctions of his religion to the gratification of the sexual passion. He poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind. THE ESSENCE OF HIS DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST.- TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE.... Between these two religions, thus contrasted in their characters, a war of twelve hundred years has already raged. The war is yet flagrant ... While the merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false prophet shall furnish motives to human action, there can never be peace upon earth, and good will towards men."
(Capitals are in the original -- the boldfacing has been added for this blog post.)
The behavior of radical Islamist terrorists has nothing to do with Iraq or Israel. It's been going on since the seventh century.
Update 8-23-06: Commenter A.M. Whittaker posts the following quote about Islam:
Winston Churchill on Islam:
How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.
A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.
Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyzes the social development of those who follow it.
No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.
-- Sir Winston Spencer Churchill (The River War, first edition, Vol. II, pages 248-50 (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1899).
Page 3 of 3 pages of comments for this article.
#401
#402The last post said: "If it were the case that all infidels were to be killed then the islamic empire upto the fall of grenada in Spain would not have existed where Muslims, Christians and Jews lived side by side until the crusaders came and destroyed that harmony."
Muslim invaders could only sustain themselves by plundering the belongings of the conquered subjects that were not slaughtered. They either became slaves, or they were dhimmis, meaning second class citizens who had to pay the poll tax (jizya) and the land tax (kharaj).
There are innumerable examples since the 7th century; here is one from p272 of Bat Ye'or's The Decline of Eastern Christianity under Islam: "Letter from Umar Ibn al-Khattab (633--643) to Sa'd b. abi Wakkas after the Conquest of Sawad (Iraq): I have received thy letter in which thou statest that thy men have asked thee to divide amoung them whatever spoils Allah has assigned them. At the receipt of thy letter, find out what possessions and horses the troops have acquired and divide that among that, after taking away one - fifth. As for the land and the camels, leave them in the hands of those men who work them, so that they may be included in the stipends of the Moslems. If thou dividest them among those present nothing will be left for those who come after them."
p456 of Andrew Bostum's The Legacy of Jihad: "Jihad under the Turks: The chroniclers of early Turkish rulers take pride in affirming that Qutbuddin Aibak was a killer of laks (i.e., one hundred thousand) of infidels. Leave aside the enthusiastic killers like Auauddin Khalji and Muhammad bin Tughlaq, even the 'kind-hearted' Firoz Tughlaq killed more than a lakh of Bengalis when he invaded their county. Timur Lang says he killed a hundred thousand infidel prisoners of war in Delhi. He built victory pillars from severed heads at many places. These were acts of sultans. ... One Dhaikh Daud Kambu is said to have 20,000 with his dagger. The Bahmani sultans of Gulbarga and Bidar considered it meritoriuous to kill a hundred thousand Hindu men, women, and children every year. These wars were fought in the true spirit of Jihad-- the total annihilation or conversion of the non-Muslims."
These are tiny and by no means most horrific excerpts from these two books. Read them if you want to know what really happened. You won't find God, but you will know who Satan is and who does his work.
#403I know muslims are serious business, but sometimes a little levity is in order...
Burn 'em baby...
MUSLIMS BAN BRAS
Muslims in Somalia now demand that women shake their breasts when they appear in public, so that inspectors may determine if they are wearing “un-Islamic” bras.
The orders have been carried out at gunpoint by a group called Al Shabaab, who control of the streets of Mogadishu.
If the women display an un-natural firmness, the inspectors feel their breasts (interesting job, eh?) to determine if the uplift is produced with the assistance of a bra. Often younger women must reveal their mammary glands to prove that they have not been corrupted by Western culture.
The Daily Mail (London) reports that women have been publicly whipped for wearing hidden undergarments, with Islamists claiming that it is a “deceptive” act before Allah to wear supportive devices.
Al Shabaab is attempting to impose a strict interpretation of Shariah (Islamic law) throughout the country.
The radical Muslim group has also been known to whip men caught without a beard.....(now wait just a damned minute, this harrassment and violence was supposed to be for the women only!!)
In Mogadishu and other Somali cities, dancing at wedding ceremonies is forbidden, along with soccer playing, musical events, alcohol, and movies...(islamic party poopers)
#404in response to vikr's comments.
so women must shake their breasts and be felt up to make sure they dont wear american undergarments.. i like it. their men are happier than i am whenever i use explicit words in my commentaries those imbecile editors always asterisk my most exciting and profane language. american self righteous hypocrisy versus keeping islamic men happy. at this point as a journalist i am seriously thinking of converting to become a happy horny islamic male instead of a frustrated journalist. i really loathe all those americaaaan tv blips. mine eyes and ears always hurt so badly after the american editors mutilate my articles.
#405Torah/Talmud, Vedas, Shinto, Buddhism, Gospels, Qu'ran, Book of Morman, etc. may or may not be inspired by God, but were they all written by men. And men have always sought to subjugate women for reasons of secured bloodlines, procreation, political and family alliances, daycare, and general housekeeping.
You arrogantly point to Christianity and Islam and forget Talmudic teachings concerning the permissibility of having sex with children and control of women. Most Jews in the US are Reformed Jews or Modern Orthodox and are therefore unaware of much of the horrific fundamentalist laws, teachings, and history.
Protestant Christianity historically, has created an atmosphere that allowed women to break conventional and cultural stereotypes and advance because of their God-given free-will; Catholicism, the Jewish Reform movement, and Islam in the US is a direct result of this.
Western culture condems the subjugation and abuse of women and children; there are protective laws in place.
I would imagine that the members of NAMBLA are not religious.
#406There was no Islamic "Golden Age," and those Jews who held positions with titles were people who sold their people out. The rank and file lived as dhimmis. From my post #18 in the forum "Egypt and Syria Were Once Christian Nations" is this excerpt from p37 of Serge Trifkovic's Defeating Jihad is:
"The Islamic 'Golden Age' myth perpetrated by the Western elite clsss is belied by history. After the brief period of flourishing, first in Baghdad, then in Spain, and finally ( and very briefly) on the Bosphorus under Suleiman, the history of Islam has been that of a long decline without fall. What started as a violent creed of the invaders from the desert soon ran out of steam, but the collective memory of earlier successes lingered on."
Islam was spread over 3 continents by genocidal murder, destruction, rape, looting, forced conversions, and slavery on a scale dwarfing the ballyhooed stuff you hear liberals talk about in the American South in the last century. Christianity did nothing comparable, and the Bible does not command Christians to destroy other people to spread the religion. The Qur'an, on the other hand, commands this as a religious duty to spread Islam (Jihad).
We continue this little dance of "20-30 % of Muslims are evil, but most are good." And then "but the supposedly good ones are silent, but I have known peaceful nice Muslims." So what really gives? One way to answer this is to study those that Muslims name minarets, mosques, statues, squares, etc. for. This tells you what values they really worship. So go to the forum on this blog in the forum about Islamic protests at UC Irvin, and read my posts #52 and #53 about the history of Mahmud of Ghazni, after whom a minaret in Switzerland is named (which I saw a picture of in an article about how the Swiss have banned the construction of minarets - this prompted my curosity so my research of Mahmud is posted there. Be sure to read it, as it is quite revealing as to what Islam really is).
So as another example, consider Tamerlane, or Amir Timur. Go to http://www.orexca.com/p_tamerlane.shtml and read the glowing accounts about how friendly he was and what a great politician he was. Look at the noble picture of him, and look at the valient statue of him on a horse, and all the buildings and squares named after him and on and on about him. This guy is obviously one of Islam's heroes. So who was he? You will not find this history taught anywhere in the US, but you will get the revisionist stuff like on that website above about what a hero he was. Now go to p75 of Andrew Bostom's Legacy of Jihad for who he really was:
"Rene Groussett on the nature of Timur's conquests: 'Tamerlane's conquering activities were carried on from the Volga to Damascus, from Smyrna to the Ganges... It is true that he slaughtered all his enemies as thoroughly and conscientiously as the great Mongol, and the pyramids of human heads left behind him as a warning example tell their own tale.'...."Timur's campaigns are infamous for their extensive massacres and emblematic 'pyramids of heads.' E.G. Brown cites 'only a few' prominent examples:
#407'As specimens of those acts mention may be made of his massacre of the people of Sistan, 1383-4, when he caused some two thousand prisoners to be built up into a wall; his cold blooded slaughter of a hundred thousand captive Indians (Delhi, December 1398); his burying alive of four thousand Armenians in 1400-1; and the twenty towers of skulls erected by him at Aleppo and Damascus in the same year; and his massacre of 70,000 of the inhabitants of Isfahan (November 1387).'
"Grousset emphasizes the important Islamic motivation for Timur's campaigns: 'It is the Qur'an to which he continually appeals, the imams and the dervishes who prophesy his success. The Turkish chronicle Malfuzat-i-Timur, a putative autobiographical memoir of Timur quotes him:
"About this time there arose in my heart the desire to lead an expedition against the infidels, and to become a ghazi....In this matter I sought an omen from the Qur'an and the verse I opened [Q66:9] was this: 'O Prophet, make war on infidels and unbelievers, and treat them with severity.' My great officers told me that the inhabitants of Hindustan were infidels and unbelievers."
"Timur's Jihad campaigns against non-Muslims, whether Christians in Asia Minor and Georgia or Hindus, seemed to intensity in brutality.
#408Again the words of Timur from Malfuzat-i-Timur: "..I marched into the jungles and wild, and slew 2,000 demon-like Jats. I made their wives and children captives, and plundered their cattle and property.....a town and a fort, called Loni...I determined to take that fort at once....many of the Rajputs placed their wives and children in their houses and burned them, then they rushed to battle and were killed.....I gave orders that the the infidels should all be dispatched to hell with the proselyting sword. I ordered that the houses of the Musulmen should be preserved but that all the other houses should be plundered and the fort destroyed. It was done as I directed and a great booty was obtained. On the 16th of the month some incidents occured which led to the sack of the city of Delhi, and to the slaughter of many of the infidel inhabitants...On that day, Thursday, and all the night of Friday, nearly 15,000 Turks were engaged in slaying, plundering, and destroying...The following day all passed the same way, and the spoil was so great that each man secured from fifty to a hundred prisoners--men, women, and children. The other booty was immense in rubies, diamonds, pearls.....Gold and silver ornaments of the Hindu women were obtained in such quantities as to exceed all account....the whole city was sacked......(Timur on the storming of Meerut) They slaughtered many of the infidels... so many were were killed that their blood ran down the mountains and plain, and thus nearly all were sent to hell. Their property and goods, which exceeded all computation, and their countless cows and buffaloes, fell as spoil into the hands of my victorious soldiers."
"Groussett states: 'Timur added a taste for religious murder. He killed from Qur'anic piety. He represents a synthesis, probably unprecedented in history, of Mongol barbarity and Muslim fanaticism, and symbolizes that advanced of primitive slaughter which is murder committed for the sake of an abstract ideology, as a duty, and as a sacred mission."
That is the real history. Now remind yourself, this is one of Islam's heroes. If you want to know what Islam is and what Muslim values really are, note who they name buildings.... after, and look up the real history of that person. Then remind yourself of that hackneyed warning: Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it.
#409Wow.. still at it, eh? So many words, so much information and research, and yet your point is what? That Islam is evil? Thanks for the history lesson...combined with what we already know about atrocities committed by every other religion, nation, and culture in the world, I think we can conclude that all of mankind is pure evil.
Hats off to you Der Alleswisser...you are indeed the most informed person here when it comes to the sins of Muslim culture. I certainly wouldn't dare to question your facts, but to join in your condemnation of an entire religion as I sit typing on my computer in my home built on land stolen by my Christian ancestors from a native population that no longer exists because they were run off or killed is a little too hypocritical for my taste.
Let no one misunderstand me, Der Alleswisser is correct to point out that Islam has a dark history. But I am here to remind you...judge not, lest ye be judged. We are taught to live by the Golden Rule...treat others the way you wish to be treated. What would you say to those who only see the misdeeds of your culture, with no attention paid to the good your people have shared with the world?
We have a right to defend ourselves against those who mean us harm. But what purpose do verbal attacks against the history of a religion serve when we tell only part of the story? I'm not convinced that the majority of muslims have a desire to march an Islamic army down Main Street Amercia. But, then again, I've been wrong before...I didn't think America would abandon the fight against Al Qaeda to go plant our flag in downtown Baghdad.
#410It all comes down to what I said in an earlier blog, man has killed more of his own species than any other animal on earth, animals kill for survival,man kills for the sake of it,animals mate in season, man mates when he feels like it.
Man has been killing since time began, for greed, & using religion as an excuse for his greed, why, as the old saying goes YOU CANT TAKE IT WITH YOU when you leave this earth.
On another note, the recent earthquake in HAITI!,how much aid was donated by rich arab countries,& by which ones.?
#411Joe, you're confusing the real natural world with Disney documentaries and cartoons.
Armies of insects invade other colonies and destroy them; certainly more insects have been killed than humans. The male of the species will mate whenever he can; it's the female of the species that generally doesn't unless she is ovulating. Mostly there is a great deal of promiscuity amongst animals. There's also homosexuality, and bisexuality. There are instances of rape in the animal kingdom when gangs of birds (especially pigeons) and dolphins surround a helpless female. Animals do not kill just for survival, but also for territorial dominance, and bloodlines. Dominant primates murder young males who might threaten their position. There is also cannibalism.
Insects, animals and fish have no religius beliefs; I don't imagine they even have a concept of God.
And as for your other comment on the rich Arab countries' donations to Haiti, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and other nations did send planeloads of supplies, medicine, doctors and other workers to Haiti as well as generous donations. This from ABC News. This from the Red Crescent in Qatar. This from the Malaysian Red Crescent. Even the Islamic Medical Association of North America has sent medical personnel and supplies.
You have no idea how shielded we are by the MSM. You need to seek out better sources for your news and the animal kingdom.
#412
#413a m whittaker, although I respect your reply,may I suggest you read "MAN IS THE PREY by JAMES CLARKE, a very interesting read.
Also, regarding my question on donations by rich arab countries,forgive me on this point, as there was nothing in the british press regarding this, why? your guess is as good as mine, so please accept my apologies.
By the way I am 73yrs old & have not seen disney cartoons since I was a child, & apart from DAVID ATTENBOROUGH wildlife films, I dont watch many documentaries,as we all know most scenes are set up for the cameras.
#414Regarding the Islamic response to Haiti......yes it came....after some worldwide shaming....here was a quote I read on one website from a young muslim man that did have some qualms of conscience about the issue on 21 January:
Yeah, I can… as a Muslim I am hurt and upset. I’ve recently been informed that Islamic Relief Worldwide has recently added its organization to the list of donors. I’ve never felt as though so-called “islamic countries” have ever represented me, or Islam for that matter, however, to see that such rich nations such as Saudi Arabia, Dubai, and UAE have not offered donations saddens me. Donating in the name of “good public relations” such as Israel has done is not the answer, though. These countries should be making zakat on behalf of the Muslim citizens in their countries. This is the whole purpose of zakat. Compassion should not be limited to Muslim alone. This wasn’t the purpose of charity, to be selective. If you care for one then you must care for them all. This is our mandate.
Islam does not teach the adherent to love his neighbor as himself...that concept would only apply is that person is a muslim so giving to the suffering of Haiti, unfortunately, was not a high priority. I wish I were wrong on this but such is reality.
#415From #414 above we have :
"We have a right to defend ourselves against those who mean us harm. But what purpose do verbal attacks against the history of a religion serve when we tell only part of the story? I'm not convinced that the majority of muslims have a desire to march an Islamic army down Main Street Amercia. But, then again, I've been wrong before...I didn't think America would abandon the fight against Al Qaeda to go plant our flag in downtown Baghdad."
Read this from Vikr on a different forum on this blog: http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=34330 This is an interview by Frontpage Magazine with a spokesperson for the Center of the Study of Political Islam (CSPI). There is a discussion about "Critical Thought," of which one component is looking at both sides of an issue, as was suggested in #414.
The main problem, also discussed in that interview, is that in our Western society, there is an aversion to speaking the truth about Islam. Why is this, why can anything be said about any other religion but we refuse an exegesis on the truth about Islam? There is reference to an estimated 270 million non-Muslims murdered by Muslims since the time of Muhammod, but this is never discussed in the media, and our liberal educational system will not discuss it.
Muslims marching down mainstream America? No no, their roadmap is to exploit Democrat Liberals and the mainstream media, the rot from within scenario. This is farther along in Socialized Europe.
Lastly, rent "The Third Jihad," on dvd. It is by Zutha Jasser, who is a Muslim and has devoted his life to exposing radical Islam. Focus on his comment about how after 9/11 he was astounded that Muslims were not marching in the streets protesting using Allah as an excuse for this act of murdering civilians. And then watch and see how Muslim Imams here refused to support him and instead opposed him. Then think about Muslims name their mosques, buildings, squares .... after genocidal murderers like Tamerlane, Mahmud, ... Now go to this site: http://www.politicalislam.com/tears/pages/tears-of-jihad/ for a breakdown of those 270 million non-Muslims murdered by Muslims to spread the religion. And then ask yourself: Is saying that Islam is a religion of peace the biggest lie ever told?
#416Der Alleswisser...You decry Muslims, then tell me to rent a DVD by a Muslim exposing radical Islam. Did he renounce Islam? I don't believe he has. My belief remains the same...denounce radical Islamic terrorist and don't engage in bashing the entire religion. If you want to attack their history, you leave yourself open to questions regarding the history of other cultures. Christianity has a bloody history...the exact numbers killed? Not sure..but it's not a very strong case for either religion to attempt to claim itself as less evil than the other.
The call for Muslims to be more vocal in their opposition to terrorism is reasonable. But it is also reasonable to expect that their own grievances be heard. Again...judge not, lest ye be judged, and treat others as you would expect to be treated.
#417Jamie, are you aware of a) the historical facts, b) the statements in the Koran, and c) the actions of Mohammed as described in the holy books of Islam, that demonstrate that a key underlying tenet of Islam, is to violently attack those of other religions?
For some of the historical facts, see this link.
For some of the statements in the Koran, see this link.
For some of the actions from the life of Mohammed, see these Hadith:
Allah's Apostle was asked, "What is the best deed?" He replied, "To believe in Allah and His Apostle (Muhammad). The questioner then asked, "What is the next (in goodness)? He replied, "To participate in Jihad (religious fighting) in Allah's Cause." Bukhari 1.2.25
Allah 's Apostle said, " I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,' and whoever says, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,' his life and property will be saved by me except for Islamic law, and his accounts will be with Allah, (either to punish him or to forgive him.)" Bukhari 4.52.196
This notion that Islam is peaceful toward non-Muslims, when its holy books plainly state the reverse, and when Imams preach hatred daily, is ridiculous.
#418Vik Rubenfeld,
Are you aware that Christianity has it's own dark, violent history? Have you read the passages in the Bible that call for violence against nonbelievers? Is there not adequate evidence of the damage done by western civilization to other cultures around the world? I know you know about all that...so I won't bother with links and quotes.
As for the argument that Islamic history is more violent than our own, I consider that point 1) debatable and 2)moot. Why is it a moot point? Because sin is sin...you don't get into heaven by being less evil than the other guy. Also consider that we're not supposed to be in the business of judging others (lest we ourselves be judged). My view...there are good Christians and bad Christians...good Muslims and bad Muslims. I'd like to see the good work together against the bad.
So you don't agree...all I can say is thank you once again for letting me voice my opinion.
#419Have you read the passages in the Bible that call for violence against nonbelievers?
Please do quote passages from the Bible that call for Christians and/or Jews to kill all those of all other faiths until they either die, convert, or submit to be oppressed second-class citizens.
#420If you insist...looking at these verses, you may have some loopholes. It's not like the Jews were instructed to go kill Muslims....of course, they weren't even a religion yet when this was written.
Exodus 22:18 - "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" Does the Bible mean an actual sorceror, or simple followers of old time pagan religion as well? Either way, I'm thinking anyone claiming to be a wiccan better run.
Exodus 22:20 - "20 "Whoever sacrifices to any god other than the LORD must be destroyed." New International translation...King James says shall be destroyed? By who? I guess that's debatable. Doesn't sound friendly though.
Exodus 35:2 - "Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the LORD: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death." Does this apply to Jews only?
Deuteronomy 13:6-9 6"If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend who is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, `Let us go and serve other gods,' which thou hast not known, thou nor thy fathers 7(namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth), 8thou shalt not consent unto him nor hearken unto him, neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him; 9but thou shalt surely kill him. Thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people." Again, maybe this applies to Jews only. But it makes it pretty clear that converting isn't an option, which sounds like something out of the Koran to me.
Leviticus 25:44 - "As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you." Most of my friends have Mexican slaves, but I prefer Canadians.
So...that's some scripture...maybe not as brutal or explicit as instructions in the Koran, but what makes it all even trickier is that both religous texts are subject to translations and interpretations. As for the comparison of Christian and Islamic history, we have the various Islamic atrocities shared with us by Der Alleswisser, and we have the colonization of the entire world by Western Civilization that carried the banner of Christianity across the globe, nearly annihilating every native inhabitant of this hemisphere in the process (although disease was responsible for most of that, I think the evidence is particularly damning that we were less than civil to the "savages").
So again...the good and the bad...you find it where you seek it...in my humble opinion.
#421Jamie,
You listed scriptures only from the Old Testament (Torah) and not the Gospels.
While we are all aware of the excesses in the name of 'Christianity', they were clearly not following the teachings of Jesus. and therefore were blasphemous and heretical. The big thrust for Christians to conquer the world was a knee-jerk reaction to the Muslim Invasions.
The big difference is that Chrsitians acknowledge this and have been trying to make amends. Christians and Jews, can and do, refuse to kill others if it is contrary to what they believe. Christian and Jewish leaders who promote hate and violence are not tolerated; look what happened to Reverend Wright. Muslims, on the other hand, don't seem to have the free-will or ability not to follow the dictates of an Iman; they live in constant fear.
#422Jamie,
I asked you, "Please do quote passages from the Bible that call for Christians and/or Jews to kill all those of all other faiths until they either die, convert, or submit to be oppressed second-class citizens." You found nothing calling for Christians and/or Jews to do so. This is because it is not a tenet of Judeo-Christian faith to do so. It is only the Islamic faith that has this as a key tenet.
Let's address the quotes you did find.
The Leviticus quote has to do with slavery, which is an important subject, and one well worth discussing, but it is not the subject I asked about.
The Deuteronomy quote forbids conversion. This again is an important subject, and one well worth discussing, but it is not the subject I asked about.
The Exodus quote 22:18 forbids witchcraft. This again is not the subject I asked about.
This leaves your other two Exodus quotes, 22:20 and 35:2, about which you ask, "Does this apply to Jews only?"
If you had quoted one more verse past 22:20, specifically 22:21, you would have found the answer. Exodus 22:21:
You shall neither mistreat a stranger nor oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.
"You shall neither mistreat a stranger nor oppress him." That's your answer. Jews are not to mistreat or oppress strangers, because Jews were once the strangers. The verses you quoted apply to Jews. Now contrast that to the many Koranic verses I cited in #423. Contrast it to the history of Islam, as cited in #423. Contrast it to sayings of Mohammed, as cited in #423. The Judeo-Christian faith does not contain the key tenet of Islam which is, as shown by all this evidence, to kill those of other faiths until they either die, convert, or submit to be oppressed second-class citizens.
#423Vik,
I apologize for my inability to communicate my thoughts in a more efficient manner. Please allow me to make another attempt. And please understand that my goal is not to denounce Christianity.
Exodus 22:19-21 (New International Version)
19 "Anyone who has sexual relations with an animal must be put to death." 20 "Whoever sacrifices to any God other than the LORD must be destroyed." 21 "Do not mistreat an alien or oppress him, for you were aliens in Egypt."
This reads as a series of instructions from God to the Jews. Verse 19 has nothing to do with 20, and 20 has nothing to do with 21. Verse 20 states that those of other religions must be destroyed. Verse 21 refers to where you're from, not who you worship. However, this is just one translation. There are countless translations...and to me, they sound different. In the King James version, it reads "shall be destroyed", which sounds more like God is doing the destroying, and not necessarily his followers. But it's all open to interpretation.
In the 19th century, religous leaders in the American South, where I live, used religous text to justify slavery. Who now wants to stand up and defend the practice? Interpretations have changed. The very words change with each translation. It's like that with Christianity, why should I believe the same thing doesn't happen in the Islamic faith? The fact is, it does. Muslims vary in the interpretation of their faith no less widely than Christians. Denounce the whole religion, and you close the door on Muslims who reject the violent interpretation of jihad. You may not believe any other inerpretation is possible...but even if you think those Muslims are misinterpreting their own faith, why not let them be?
A.M. Whittaker's comment "The big thrust for Christians to conquer the world was a knee-jerk reaction to the Muslim Invasions" reveals a lot to me. Does it say anything to you Vik? Is this something you believe to be true as well? I'm sorry...I find it hard to connect such events as "the Trail of Tears" with Muslim invasions. In any case, it's a very poor excuse. But when all of your energy is focused on judging "them" as the bad guys, and "us" as the good guys, then such conclusions are easy to come by.
Anyway, I included the withcraft quote for good reason. For one thing, you change "kill" to "forbid"...most versions I have seen say those who practice witchcraft are to be killed. And while witchcraft itself is not a religion, it is often associated, either correctly or incorrectly, with individuals of other faiths. So I must disagree with you on this...I feel my response there was relevant.
I see this as a complicated issue, and I come here knowing that my position is not popular. I thank you again for allowing me the opportunity to work on my communication skills...it is a worthy lifelong task for all of us, no?
#424I'm still not satisfied with the quality of my response Vik, so humor me to try again...and just for clarity, my views are not an endorsement of the Koran.
Since I quoted the Bible, I should quote the Koran....
[8:60] You shall prepare for them all the power you can muster, and all the equipment you can mobilize, that you may frighten the enemies of GOD, your enemies, as well as others who are not known to you; GOD knows them. Whatever you spend in the cause of GOD will be repaid to you generously, without the least injustice.
[8:61] If they resort to peace, so shall you, and put your trust in GOD. He is the Hearer, the Omniscient.
8:60 sounds like a call to war, but 8:61 says if the enemy resorts to peace, so should you.
So should we just resort to peace? Should we pull out of Afghanistan, and then Al Qaeda would leave us alone? No. They would not. Because they have their own interpretation of the Koran...and they follow that which suits their purposes, and explain away that which does not. Christians do the same thing...it seems to be an unfortunate part of human nature. We all seem to do this...I'm sure I myself am guilty...as are you.
The Koran has contradictions. The Bible has contradictions. Does the Koran have explicit instructions to attack other faiths? Sounds like it to me. But it also includes specific instructions to the contrary. So why should I excuse contradictions in the Bible, but hold the Koran to the fire?
I don't believe the Bible calls for violence against other faiths. But the quotes I listed above are ones that I believe other people could use to justify violence for their own purposes. I see the same kind of struggle within the faith of Islam...so although I don't embrace Islam as a religion, I do not feel it is in my place to condemn or judge people who do. I reserve my condemnation for those who attack my people. That was Al Qaeda...not all of Islam.
I do not expect readers to say, ohhh, I see...and agree with me. I feel attempting to express what I feel is a good way to check my own thinking, and see the error of my own ways. No one here will cut me any slack and I appreciate that. I do my best to return the favor.
#425
Some have asked how Adolf Hitler took control of Germany, a civilized, cultured nation. Adolf Hitler did not have to brainwash an entire nation. Germany was a nation predominately Lutheran in the middle and the north and Catholic in the south and their religious leaders had thouroughly convinced them that in addition to nailing Jesus to a cross that Jews were responsible for all sorts of nefarious deeds and were secretly plotting to turn their sons & daughters into Jews. Hitler was an enabler. Hitler gave Germany an excuse to unleash their hatred. Hitler spewed invective against the Jews and the German people were entertained. Hitler gave Germans the okay to abuse beat & eventually kill Jews and the Germans responded with alaricity. Even in the 1940s, the Germans had started to lose the vitality of their faith.
In America, we had similar sins in our treatment of African Americans. Unlike America where thousands of whites stood up and said it was wrong to enslave, torture & kill Blacks, in Germany no one stood up for the Jews. This is important to keep in mind. Americans stopped the wrong. Yes, it took time. Yes it even took a war and then decades of marches, street fighting and more but Americans, stopped the wrong that was being wrought upon their fellow man (and I am not saying that Blacks did not participate in their own freedom march by any sense here). Long before Hitler actually seized power. when Hitler was merely making loud angry speeches denouncing the Jews for both starting & prolonging World War I and then stabbing Germany in the back ending the war, no one - absolutey no one, made speeches against Hitler and his fellow Nazis in defense of the Jews. There was no mass movement to help the Jews in Germany and those few who had the courage to help the Jews did so secretly. Once again it must be stressed that the Lutheran and Catholic leaders felt that even if they did not quite like Hitler they at least approved of Hitler's message that a Jew-free Germany was in everyone's best interests (there were a few exceptions here like Dietrich Bonhoeffer).
The bottom line of all this? When we fail to recognize evil and all of its manifestations, we are destined to suffer the ugly fate that that evil will bring to Western society. The Muslims that do not AGGRESSIVELY work against Usama and his now thousands of henchmen work AGGRESSIVELY FOR him. And I tell you my friends, from what I see, that is, by current tally, approximately 99.99% of the non-Taliban/non-al Qaeda muslim world. Like the common German citizens of WWII, they are the facilitators. And those of the world that defend the so-called "non radical muslim" facilitators are also facilitators. And that, Jamie, is why you are wrong - you are facilitating.
#42699.99%, eh? That's a pretty strong number. Did you do a survey, or is that from your years of experience talking and working side by side next to Muslims? Fine...let your number stand. What do you propose we do? How many Muslim men, women, and children will need to be killed to eliminate the threat? If Islam is the threat, can we allow any to live that don't renounce their religion? Must 100% die? Should we be throwing American muslims into concentration camps? Please enlighten me.
As for Germany, I think we can all agree that they did some pretty bad things. To be fair though, the Japanese were really brutal too. And yet neither of these nations had large muslim populations...at least not at that time. So what would you say was the source of their evil?
I don't really see myself as a facilitator. I'm in favor of war...fighting Al Qaeda. If being opposed to those who attack the faith of our muslim allies who are fighting, and dying in the war against terror makes me a facilitator...then I wear the title with pride.
As for the history of slavery in America...it took about a couple hundred years before it was done away with. The soldiers of the North were, for the most part, not abolitinists. After the war, it took another 100 years for blacks to acheive equal rights. So while I think we're a great nation, and we have come a long way, I don't think we need to go patting ourselves on the back about how less evil we were than Germany. White abolitionists were a small minority of the population...they were considered liberal left wings kooks by the majority of white America...pretty much how you probably see me now Mr. Watchman.
#427Yes, you are a facilitator. Just as the Germans putting cotton in their ears to avoid hearing the screams from the trains were. You know that this is a growing evil and you defend it day in and day out. There is no excuse for defending these murderers. As the al Qaeda and the Taliban tumor grow at the heart of Islam, the rest of the body cannot do anything but obey their commands. The whole body is now cancerous, there is nothing good here. You must recognize evil but you refuse.
Even when Vik shows you line and verse where this "religion" continuously girds its adherents to kill, you refuse to accept the truth. You argue that other religions do the same when you KNOW in your heart that no other religions are out there doing what these people are doing. Everywhere they go, whether it is the Philippines, India, Pakistan, Israel, Africa, France, America and on and on and on...they fight and kill. They get along with NO ONE....NOWHERE....
So go ahead and refuse to accept the truth. Keep your blinders on. You are in good company. Western governments now want to treat the vipers of mass destruction when caught as if they had just stolen a loaf of bread - with Miranda rights, 3 squares, TVs, 71 virgins. We haven't interrogated a terrorist in over a year now because of BHO.
You say you are a leftist....I just hope that you and the other leftists do not get us all killed when the Muslims finally succeed with their grand schemes of mass destruction because your PC blinders refuse to allow you and those in the White House to believe that an entire religion...is unable to change its violent, evil nature due to its inherent theology and history. And, the direction provided by its warrior founder.
#428I don't defend murderers. I never said I was a leftist..you need to read that bit more closely. But as I did say, if your definition of facilitator means "person who doesn't reject allies of a different faith"...then yes, I'm a facilitator.
Vik's central theme...that the Koran calls for war against non Muslims and that no other religion has such an expicit call for attacks against other cultures is duly noted. I have made my argument that other parts of the Koran contradict the violent interpretation of jihad. I have also suggested that certain Bible verses can be translated or manipulated in similar ways, providing justification for wars against "pagans" and the institution of slavery. I don't agree with those who make such interpretations...but it has been done many times. And though I have no true fondness for Islam as a religion, I don't see the point of waging a crusade against those muslims that reject violence...and how they deal with the apparent contradictions in their own religous text is there business. My arguments have proven insufficient for Vik...and that's ok...I respect the fact that he makes no attempt to block my comments from this site.
People like to bring up history here to attack Islam. Let me confirm what has been made abundantly clear...Islam has a violent history. But so does Christianity, Western Civilization in general, and every other culture in the world for that matter. So I consider that a wash. As long as there are Muslims that demonstrate good will by their actions...and they exist whether you choose to see that or not...I see no harm in extending a hand back in friendship...and I'll let God do the judging.
Night Watchman...you didn't answer a critical question for me....what do you propose we do?
#429
Jamie,
First, to answer your questions about specific references in the Bible and Koran.
If you argue that Exodus 22:20 has nothing to do with Exodus 22:21, you make my point. Exodus 22:20 addresses how Jews are to be treated; 22:21 addresses how strangers are to be treated.
Koran 8:60 and 8:61. Koran Sura 8 is yet another chapter describing how Muslims are to be at war with non-Muslims. It just goes on and on. You can practically throw a dart at it and hit a call to war.
Koran 8:65:
O Prophet! urge the believers to war; if there are twenty patient ones of you they shall overcome two hundred, and if there are a hundred of you they shall overcome a thousand of those who disbelieve, because they are a people who do not understand.
Koran 8:67:
It is not for any prophet to have captives until he hath made slaughter in the land. Ye desire the lure of this world and Allah desireth (for you) the Hereafter, and Allah is Mighty, Wise.
Koran 8:69
But (now) enjoy what ye took in war, lawful and good: but fear Allah: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
And this is the sura that you found for a random verse that sounds like it might conceivably have some peaceful interpretation.
Koran 8 is not an anomalous chapter. The entire Koran is filled with this kind of hatred of non-Muslims, and call to Muslims to violently attack them.
All you have to do to see the truth, Jamie, is to read some of the Koran and compare it side-by-side with the Bible. There is no way to avoid seeing that the Koran insists that Muslims attack and kill non-Muslims until they are either dead, converted, or forced to be oppressed second-class citizens in an Islamic state. Similarly, reading the Bible, there is no way to avoid seeing that the foundation of it is, love thy neighbor: to have a life filled with the joy and beauty of doing good to all those around you.
(Continued)
#430
(Continued from previous post)
Second, in order to see what the correct interpretation is of the Koran and of the Bible, you just have to look at the lives of their prophets and patriarchs.
The biography of Mohammed, called the Sira, is one of Islam's holy books. It is full of so much murderous behavior on the part of Mohammed that there are few online translations of it, because Muslims don't want non-Muslims to see it. The most authoritative translation of it is the one by A. Guillaume. There is another translation available online at http://www.faithfreedom.org. Here, for example, is one passage from the life of Mohammed:
The apostle offered a sword to his followers, saying, ‘Who will take this sword for a worthy price?’ Many coveted it, but he would not give it up until Abu Dujana asked, ‘What is its price? He replied, ‘That thou strike the enemy with it until it bends’, and Abu Dujana took the sword; he was a brave man, anxious to distinguish himself in war, and he was best known by his red head‑dress which he wore when he was ready to fight. He took the sword, put on his red turban, and strutted about the ranks; seeing this, the apostle said, ‘Such a gait pleases Allah only on occasions like this!’
...Soon the enemy even approached the apostle himself. He was struck down by stones and one of his front teeth was lost.
‘His face being wounded, blood trickled down it; and wiping it, he exclaimed: “How can a nation prosper which dyes the face of its prophet with blood, though he invites them to the worship of Allah?” ‘ Ali took the apostle by the hand, and Talha lifted him up until he stood upright; Malik licked the blood from the face of the apostle and swallowed it, and the apostle said, ‘He whose blood has touched mine will be exempted from the threat of hell‑fire.’ When the foe pressed close on the apostle, he asked, ‘Who will save my life?’ and six men of his followers arose and fought by his side. One by one they were martyred until a single defender remained, and he, too, was wounded; but a company of Muslims arrived and put the infidels to flight. Then the apostle said ‘Bring him near to me 1’ and they brought the wounded man to him and he made his foot a pillow under the man’s head; and thus he expired, with his cheek on the foot of the apostle of Allah.
This shows that Mohammed, considered in Islam to be the perfect man, interpreted the Koran in such a way that he himself lived a life of violence against non-Muslims.
Compare that to the life of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Compare it to the life of Jesus. This will show you the correct interpretations of the holy books of these religions.
#431Vik,
"If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination." (Leviticus 20:13)
Would you argue that this verse only applies to Jewish men?
The laws and commandments in books such as Exodus and Leviticus are directed towards the Jewish people. But does it define "whoever" as being Jewish only?
20 "Whoever sacrifices to any God other than the LORD must be destroyed."
I could, if I wanted, make the argument that the next verse is meant for foreigners who don't worship any God. My point is not that I agree with that translation, or feel it to be in any way correct. My point is not that it's not the writer we need to worry about...but the reader. People can read identical statements and take them in two different directions. It's how you're able to read the Bible and see only the good, and the Koran and see only the bad...meanwhile the Muslim version of yourself is doing the same thing, only reversed. And as for me, I don't consider myself to be the one in charge of judging which one of you is right and which is wrong. I can only judge you by your actions. And even then, the final judgment is not for me to make.
You seem very specific in your argument, Vik. I'm curious, what are your thoughts about a larger issue that I've raised? We have Muslim allies in the fight against Al Qaeda...why distance ourselves from them by attacking their religion? What purpose does it serve?
When you read comments like those by Night Watchman, suggesting that 99.99% of Muslims aggresively support Al Qaeda, what do you think? You offer him no comment of correction....do you actually believe that number as well? That seems ludicrous to me...you're too intelligent a person for that. I think it a shame that your talents and energy are spent attacking others, and building what? What positive results could possible come out of convincing people that Islam is a threat? Is the logical conclusion not to destroy that threat? Is the destruction of Islam the goal?
#432Correction...A Muslim version of yourself wouldn't criticize the Bible...I forgot that they consider Abraham and Jesus prophets. However, I can guarantee that there are many Muslim versions of Der Alleswisser...far more concerned about the wrongs of Christian society than the sins of their own.
#433Jamie,
Do you deny that devout Muslims consider the life of Mohammed, to represent the correct way of following the Koran?
#434Vik,
No, I don't deny it. And I don't deny that Mohammed was a military leader, and Jesus was not. I don't deny that the non-violent message of Jesus makes Chrisitianity seem hypocritical to me at times, when considering the violent nature of it's history as a religion. Do you deny that people of faith can read the same religious text and come to different conclusions? Do you deny that most Muslims reject the interpretation of Jihad as a justification for offensive warfare? Do you deny that we have Muslim allies in the war against Al Qaeda? Do you have a reason for not addressing my concern that your attacks against Islam as a religion drives a wedge between us and those allies? Do you deny that those allies have value to our cause? Do you not answer these questions because they irritate you, or because you don't have a good answer? Is our goal to better understand each other, or to prove each other wrong? Is our conversation headed to an inevitable stalemate? Should we save ourselves time, and end it now?
#435Jamie, no one can spell it out for doubters as to the true nature of Islam as defined than reformed Muslims. And in the following article from faithfreedom.org , you will read that hatred of Muslims just because they are Muslims is counterproductive and actually supports the jihadists. The Qur'an prescribes evil, and it needs to be banned. Suggest you read this in detail, at:
#436"hatred of Muslims just because they are Muslims is counterproductive and actually supports the jihadists. The Qur'an prescribes evil, and it needs to be banned." ...these statements seem contradictory to me. And if the Koran is banned, who will be doing the banning, and where?
Reformed Muslims? Do you mean converted Muslims? Or Muslims who were violent but now renounce violence? Are they Christian now, or maybe just atheists? Do you think Christians never convert to Islam? Did you ask their opinion?
In post #436, Vik Rubenfeld offers a passage from the life of Mohammed. It is full of violence. But who is the violence against? Why are they fighting? Who attacked first? Should I be appalled with the blood licking? Why? Christians drink the blood of Jesus. Are blood brothers so shocking? Are you above the violence? Do you consider our soldiers in Afghanistan evil, as they kill the enemy? Do you think they do so gently? Does the Bible not describe battles? Do people not die in those battles?
If the passage Vik posted was supposed to prove Mohammed was evil, it misses the mark. Violence and evil are not synonyms. If that were the case, allied soldiers in WWII were as evil as their Nazi foes. So let's not cut and paste violent passages without the whole story. My research says the battles in question were retaliatory in nature.
You judge Islam evil...fine, then don't be a muslim. If someone else embraces Islam, but rejects the idea that it's ok to attack others, then why should I argue with them that their interpretation is wrong? If they say it's ok to attack innocent people, then we have a problem. But if they are fighting beside us against a common foe, why tell them they're just as evil as the terrorists?
I don't personally find Islam appealing. But I can appreciate that it at least seems less hypocritical than Christianity at times. People talk about the love of Jesus, but what guidance does Jesus give on how to wage war? Not much that I'm aware of...he wasn't a warrior (at least not in the physical sense). Mohammed was, among other things, a military leader...and so yes, he talked about battles. And battles are violent. But there are definite passages that direct followers to only engage in defensive battles. Are there some verses that appear to contradict that? I'm sure. The Bible has verses that are contradictory also. As I've said before, it's not for me to judge how others come to terms with the contradictions in their religion. It only effects me when they start coming after me....as Al Qaeda does. That is our enemy.
All of Al Qaeda embraces Islam. But not all of Islam embraces As Qaeda. Are we going to fight the enemy, or will we become just like them?
#437You seem to think that there are just a few Muslims who have become poisoned with evil from the Quran, so please read this from FaithFreedom.org. It lays out for you as to 111 letters were sent to prominent Muslims in the US asking them to denounce execution of Muslims who have converted from Islam for "apostasy." Now it is true that the Quran condems those who leave Islam, so how do you explain how only 2 of those 111 replied (one of which was Zudi Jasser from the film The Third Jihad) that it is wrong to kill Muslims for leaving the religion? Do you see Baptists, Moravians, or anyone but Islamics who do this? Who do you see destroying churches or converting them to mosques?
The article that follows tells of 6000 mosques in the US but no churches allowed in Saudi Arabia but mosques??? Because of Cowboys and Indians, this is ok? And somehow the US in WWII justifies this? Indeed every mosque here needs to be closed until other religions are tolerated equally in Muslim countries (which is never) and indeed the Quran needs to be either banned or reformed. By who? Not Obama or any liberal.
Please read the following carefully, at http://www.faithfreedom.org/islam/former-muslims-united-leaders-say-us-needs-wake-about-tolerance-sharia-america
Now ask yourself, is this what you want for your children, grandchildren,.... And the biggest question is: "Is Liberalism terminal?" It seems that Europe is within maybe 5 to 10 years away from becoming taken over by Islam. How happy do you think that will be? You happy French, Italians, Spainiards,... can forget about that wine, because that offends Islamics.
Now juxtapose the contributions to mankind from Europe throughout history with that of Islam? (And no phoney stuff like Arabic numbers which really came from Summarians who were conquered peoples). What does this tell you about socialism, political correctness, and the Liberal Mindset viz. the future of mankind? How well has this worked for Europe?
#438Jamie, I'm glad to see you agree that devout Muslims consider the life of Mohammed, to represent the correct way of following the Koran. Let's look at additional passages from the life of Mohammed as described in the Sirat, Mohammed's official biography, which is one of the holy works of Islam. This passage describes one of Mohammed's murderous slaughters of people who were doing nothing to him:
At noon of the same day Gabriel came to the apostle, wearing a silken turban and riding on a mule saddled with brocade. He said, 'Hast thou put away thy arms, apostle of Allah?' He replied, 'Yes', and Gabriel said, 'But the angels have not yet put away theirs. I have come here to call the people to follow the command of Allah and march against the Banu Qurayza. I go myself to make them tremble.' Therefore the apostle of Allah ordered it to be proclaimed that none should hold afternoon prayers until they reached the Jewish stronghold.
The apostle sent Ali ahead with his standard and the people hastened to join it. When Ali reached the fort he heard language offensive to Islam and returned to meet the apostle, whom he warned not to approach the Qurayza. 'Why?' asked the apostle. 'Didst thou hear them insult me? Had they seen me there, they would not have spoken thus.' When he arrived in the territory of Qurayza he alighted near the Well of Ana and the people assembled around him. Many arrived after the last evening prayers without having held their afternoon prayers, so they held their afternoon prayers after the last evening prayers; but Allah did not punish them for that nor did the apostle of Allah reproach them.
The apostle of Allah besieged the Qurayza for twenty‑five days until they were distressed, and Allah struck fear into their hearts.
...
The apostle of Allah imprisoned the Qurayza in Medina while trenches were dug in the market‑place. Then he sent for the men and had their heads struck off so that they fell in the trenches. They were brought out in groups, and among them was Kab, the chief of the tribe. In number, they amounted to six or seven hundred, although some state it to have been eight or nine hundred. All were executed. One man turned to his people and said, 'It matters not! By God's will, the children of Israel were destined for this massacre!’ Then he seated himself and his head was struck off.
Aisha, the wife of the apostle, said, 'Only one of their women was killed. By Allah! She was with me, talking and laughing, while the apostle slaughtered her countrymen in the market place; and when her name was called, I asked, "What is this for?" and she replied, "I am going to be slain!" I asked why and she answered, "For something I have done!" Then she was taken away, and her head was struck off. But I shall never cease to marvel at her good humour and laughter, although she knew that she was to die." She was the woman who threw a millstone down from the Qurayza fort and killed a Believer.
Now the apostle distributed the property of the Banu Qurayza, as well as their women and children, to the Muslims, reserving one‑fifth for himself.
As shown in the first paragraph quoted, this attack was against people who were doing nothing to Mohammed. Mohammed had the heads of all the men cut off. Then he seized all their property, and distributed it to himself and his men.
This demonstrates what Mohammed, considered in Islam to be the perfect man, shows devout Muslims to be the correct way of interpreting the Koran.
It is not a religion of peace and love, like the Judeo-Christian religion.
It is a religion of attacking those of other religions until they are dead, converted, or submit to live as oppressed second-class citizens in an Islamic state.
Jamie, as someone who has lived your entire life in a Judeo-Christian society, it is going to be mind-blowing to you that such a thing could be a religion on earth. But the facts cannot be denied.
#439Vik,
The link you offer is to a website no less biased than your own. For balance, here is a link to a biased website from the other viewpoint.
http://forum.bismikaallahuma.org/responses-ffi/79-article-myths-facts-about-banu-qurayza.html
Either way, the point is moot. Both the Koran and the Bible are full of contradictions. It is not for me to judge how people come to terms with the contradictions of their faith. All that matters is their conduct towards me.
That said, the only thing that blows my mind is your stubborn resistance to answering my simple questions.
#440Der Alleswisser...If Vik's interpretation of Exodus 22:20 is correct, then anyone born Jewish who sacrifices to another God is to be destroyed...and you aren't calling for that verse to be erased from the Bible, are you? Why should a Muslim bother replying to FaithFreedom.org about anything anyway, when their anti-Islamic bias is as obvious as they can make it?
Saudi Arabia is only one Muslim country. So your beef on that subject needs to be with their government, not Islam. By the way, you contradict yourself by condemning a Muslim nation for banning churches when you just suggested the Koran should be banned.
I never suggested the US in WWII justified anything. The point, if you didn't understand it, was that violence is not always committed by evil. If history looked at Hiroshema and condemned our killing innocent civilians, would that be fair without also considering the attack at Pearl Harbor? So there is violence in the Koran. Yes. You can't just focus on those parts and be trusted to make an unbiased assessment of the entire religion.
Now this, above all else, just kills me....Cowboys and Indians. What the hell is that supposed to mean? You make the sins committed by Europeans against the native population of two continents sound like a bad joke. My love for this country is unconditional...I don't need to deny our history so I can feel justified in attacking the sins of others.
The number of Muslims who we can call allies is most likely unknown. What is known is that saying the Koran is evil will keep none of them by our side for long. We can defeat Al Qaeda. We are not in the business of destorying religions. That is not who we are. The enemy may determine how I die...they will not determine how I live.
#441come of it vikr. there is no humor in you. your comments are obsessively idealistic and so so well balanced. you are an academic nerd not a realist. of course the evil inclination and good inclination is part of all human beings and their genetic nature. i choose to go where my passions lead me. your commentaries should be a little more human and less absolutely perfectly balanced. in other words where do you sit personally in the big picture. what do you say in your intimate communications with your best friends. i say a pox on all religions in this almighty fucked kindergarden called planet earth. go see avatar at least 4 times and get yourself reprogrammed 4 and one half light years away. earth is a dying planet and has murdered its own mother. the blue squaw has it right when she screamed at the american empty cupped brain washed MARINE you are a baby a moron go away you sky people cant learn anything. i lived it when her mother exclaimed after she pulled a feather from his new blue body. daughter go cure his insanity.
#442the tragedy of human beings is that they are all born as brain WASHABLE BABIES who love and hate idolatrously everything that their mummies and daddies and their culture teaches them. all pavlovian slavering conditioned dogs. all this garbage and #### in peoples heads has to be dissolved and replaced with mature adult ways of thinking and being. abraham did it in action by being the first man on planet earth to refuse human sacrifice and smash all the idols of his multi-millionaire father teruach. buddha did it by exclaiming on his death bed all is change transformation and death and be mindful in all action. he well understood that the lotus lives but one or 2 days and dies and is reborn again out of the #### and garbage of the human mind and condition. the five headed cobra(the right hand of man) dots the landscape of cambodia as does the statues of the buddha but the world today has not as yet learned the lessons of these great outstanding men in spite of your balanced multiworded commentaries vik. they make no difference just like a bible spouting clergyman covers up his own evil inclination be he rabi or christian or buddhist monk. all this meditation ######## and new age stuff is just jerking off and has little to do with deep inner change into mature humanistic adulthood. transcendence is not a simple matter as adolph hitler was totally transcended in the black arts of mass killing a black witch indeed just like martin luther his hated adversary. it takes much much more than commentaries in the big picture to transform your readers. perhaps the advent of avatar may help in this direction. .
#443vik you will in reality show some maturity when you sdtop asterisking the good words in my commentaries. grow up you electronic arseholes in america.
#444
>Night Watchman...you didn't answer a critical question for me....what do >you propose we do?
You ask the question but I think that you ask it with insincerity in your heart. For you know that whatever I tell you will not be accepted because you are a facilitator. You hold the coats. Nevertheless, I will try.
As a writer far above noted, this plague is manifested by a growing Caliphate. And it is getting larger every day. It is now said that every province in Afghanistan has a shadow government. Soon, as the Great Depression 2 sets in, the Europeans will give up in Afghanistan. How long Obama will last is open to question. He is a weak man with few convictions other than those of socialist origin. And those are of little value to the human spirit when to defeat a committed, evil opponent that is driven by religious (albeit wicked) zeal.
We, in the West, are all at great risk. Your PC sensitivities, and those of your comrades, towards a threat that you do not even begin to comprehend, endanger our country and our entire way of life. If a larger number of Americans and Westerners think as you do, we shall all perish because we will not recognize our own enemy.
What can you do? Listen to what Vik says when he tells you that there is a difference in these religions. Stop defending the perpetrators. Work against the mother body from which the plague grows and is spreading. Get on the right side of this war. It is that simple.
#445Night Watchman,
The question is not insincere, but the answer you offer is vague. I'm quite aware of your stance in opposition to Islam. I'm asking your opinion on what our military and political strategy should be for fighting the enemy. I'd also like clarification on who you consider the enemy to be...Al Qaeda, or all of Islam? How do you suggest we deal with the "growing Caliphate"? Where exactly is it growing? Which Muslim governments appear ready to abdicate their authority in deference to one united Muslim nation?
I want specifics...or are you suggesting we lay down our weapons and talk Al Qaeda to death? As a Christian, what instruction does Jesus give on how we should defend ourselves from terrorism?
#446Jamie,
One debate at a time per customer. I am interested in discussing your question of what actions are proper to take. However, we are not yet done discussing the subject of what the religion of Islam is.
At this point it looks like we agree on some of the major points. In #440 you agree with my statement "that devout Muslims consider the life of Mohammed, to represent the correct way of following the Koran", and you do not deny that the passages cited from the Islamic holy book, the Sira, the official Islamic biography of Mohammed, show Mohammed attacking and killing non-Muslims.
This really leaves as the only point of difference between us your argument in #445 that "Both the Koran and the Bible are full of contradictions. It is not for me to judge how people come to terms with the contradictions of their faith. All that matters is their conduct towards me."
You have not documented that either religion is "full of contradictions". You have found exactly two passages (see your post #426) from the Bible that sound like they may possibly (you admit it is "debatable") be interpreted as encouraging violence against those of other religions.
You have found exactly one passage from the Koran (see your post #430) that may possibly be interpreted as being peaceful toward those of other religions.
Your statement that "Both the Koran and the Bible are full of contradictions" is not backed up by evidence you have cited.
#447Vik,
Muslims disagree with each other about their faith as much as Christians do...it is all debatable, and has been for ages. For a list of contradictions...google it...you'll get close to a million hits to choose from.
What is religion? Is it "God is love"? That certainly seems to be the message Jesus gave us. Jesus was nonviolent. Jesus was "love thy enemy". Jesus "turned the other cheek". The God of our Old Testament gave us "an eye for an eye". His love was jealous, vengeful, and structured by law. Are these contradictions...or simply part of a bigger picture?
So who was Mohammed? What was his message? Mohammed was a military leader. He was not like Jesus. You offer the Qurayza incident as an example of his injustice. I offered a link to someone who countered your argument. You see violence. Others see justice. Chapter 2, Verse 190: "Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loves not transgressors." Mohammed here gives guidance on proper conduct when waging war. Jesus never advocated war of any kind, but the other side of that is he offers no "rules of engagement".
You said in post #444..."It is not a religion of peace and love, like the Judeo-Christian religion." The God of our Old Testament seems to have more in common with Mohammed than Jesus in my opinion. Just today I heard Sarah Palin exclaim, "we proudly cling to our guns and religion". C'mon...can you really hear Jesus saying something like that?
How I wish it were true that a Caliphate were forming, bent on our destruction. Let them form an army, and we will meet them in the field. War as it is now is not that clean...innocent civilians die by our own hands even as we try to help them. Al Qaeda are not true Muslims. They are bullies and cowards. Missiles will not cure the problem. We must root them out like rats, and it will be at great risk to our own soldiers. Meanwhile, I wonder, do Americans at home have the stomach for it? Mention a "war tax" or a draft and all you hear is no! no! no! If we lose this war, it will not be because of George Bush or Barack Obama...and it will certainly not be the fault of American soldiers. It will be the lack of will to sacrifice that our nation has demonstrated over the last decade. And the time and energy spent worrying about the evils of Islam is the greatest irony to me...condemning others while we ourselves can't even decide if it's wrong to torture...a fact I thought we had established long ago.
#448Vik,
Please allow me to change "full of contradictions" to "full of apparent contradictions". People of each faith will argue that those contradictions can be explained. It is not my wish to appear arrogant that my opinion is the right one. Quite the contrary...I am acknowledging that others, Christian and Muslim, are free to see what I do not.
Your argument is that terrorism is driven by the religious text. My argument is that terrorism is driven by the dark side of human nature that will pick and choose parts of religious text to justify their actions as they pursue their own agenda. Both Christians and Muslims have been guilty of this...and I feel the arguments by each religion against the other are done by the same pick and choose method. We must not only take the Koran and the Bible in their entirety, by we must recognize the right of religious freedom to form our own opinions. It is when people use that freedom to attack others that they have crossed the line.
Again...apologies for leaving out the word apparent...I sometimes expect people to understand what I mean without the extra words included. Improving my communication skills is one of the benefits I hope to derive from this debate.
#449As a Christian, what instruction does Jesus give on how we should defend ourselves from terrorism?
Luke 22:35-38
Then Jesus asked them, "When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?" "Nothing," they answered. He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. It is written: `And he was numbered with the transgressors' ; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment." The disciples said, "See, Lord, here are two swords." "That is enough," he replied. (Luke 22:35-38, NIV)
This is acepted by Christians that the sword is to be used only in self defense. As Jesus also preached that we should love our enemies, so the sword should be used as a last resort in strict self-defense. The fact that he thought two swords amongst all his apostles rather than instructing each of them them to carry a sword suggests that he did not advocate violence.
Luke 22:49-51
Demonstrates that Jesus did not like the use of the sword, healed the severed ear of the servant that had been cut off, and was led away peacefully to his eventual death.
Matthew 26:52
"Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.
Which is interpreted that Christians should not be the agressor and if they do draw a sword they should expect to die. Jesus did not instigate violence.
Here are some other verses as to Jesus' philosophy:
1 Thess. 5:15
Luke 9:55
Matt. 5:44
So how would Jesus fight terrorism abroad?
1. Recognize that there is a situation looming
2. Find ways to resolve the situation before it gets out of hand
3. Make the people aware of the consequences of violence vis a vis human rights, socio-economic development, and disruption of their daily lives
4. Enlist the consent of the government and people not to aid and abet the terrorists
5. Pressure the government leaders and communities to seek out, capture, discredit, and publicly punish the terrorists who advocate, incite, and practice violence
6. Advocate non-violent direct action within the society
7. Police and military action with a multi-national force
8. Occupying forces need to behave in a moral manner
How would Jesus fight terrorism at home?
1. Recognize that there is a situation looming
2. Find ways to resolve the situation before it gets out of hand
3. Make the people aware of the consequences of terrorism vis a vis human rights, socio-economic development, and disruption of their daily lives
4. Wage a campaign to discredit the terrorists using their own arguments against them
5. Enlist the consent of the government and people not to aid and abet the terrorists
6. Seek out, capture, and publicly punish the terrorists who advocate, incite, and practice violence
These all can be accomplished with proper intelligence (CIA/NSA/State Department), economic sanctions, coercion, bribes, boycotts, and propaganda campaigns.
#450"These all can be accomplished with proper intelligence (CIA/NSA/State Department), economic sanctions, coercion, bribes, boycotts, and propaganda campaigns."
Are you kidding me? You actually believe Jesus would advocate bribes and coercion?
There is a debate within Christianity about the intrepretation of these verses in relation to self defense. I agree that Jesus would not deny us the right of self defense, even by violent means. But other Christians, such as Quakers, would oppose this. If Jesus had been more specific about the rules of combat, perhaps we wouldn't have this confusion within our own religion.
As to your opinion concering how Jesus would handle terrorism, answer me this...would he focus more on his own message, or on attacking the message of Mohammed?
If Jesus were to call for aid from the civilians of Afghanistan, I feel he would get a response I recently heard given to an American soldier attempting to persuade rural villagers to resist Taliban control...they said, "you have tanks and missiles...we have no weapons at all...if you can't stop them, what do you think we can do?"
#451Jamie,
You're absolutely correct in saying that Jesus would not advocate coercion and bribes. I didn't make myself sufficiently clear because I was having difficulties posting; a paragraph is missing. Sorry.
Jesus certainly would focus on his message of love as well as decry/discredit religious terrorism. He did attack the Roman gods, idol worshippers. and hippocrites. Most people forget that Jesus did have a temper as demonstrated with the moneychangers and dove sellers at The Temple. (Matthew 21:12)
However, what about economic sanctions, boycotts, and propaganda (not the Goebbles sort, but informational leaflets and broadcasts with bona fide facts)?
Non-violent direct action: Think Gandhi.
Boycotts: Think Lech Walesa and Rosa Parks.
It is not always necessary to use tanks and weapons to fight an enemy. Resistance can be in many forms.
My favorite story is about the Danish government, who would not allow the yellow stars, indicating one was a Jew, to be worn by their citizens and the Danish people who manged to get over 7000 of the country's Jews safely to Sweden when the country was occupied by the Nazi's and there was an order to round them all up for deportation. That's where good intelligence (Georg Ferdinand Duckwitz, a German diplomat who had a conscience) came in calong with the goodness, decency, determination, organization, and teamwork of the people.
Being a Christian or pacifist doesn't automatically mean that one can only accept, 'the inevitable' and stand by and do nothing while one's family, community, country, or anyone else is victimized.
People need to be reminded that they have far more power than they believe. It just takes resolve, courage, faith, and some organization.
#452A.M.Whittaker,
What absolutely kills me, is that time after time I have called for the fight to be taken to Al Qaeda, but people here accuse me of being a leftist, a socialist, a facilitator, politically correct, ...they even think I'm muslim sometimes....All just because I say fight Al Qaeda, not all of Islam. With all due respect to Gandhi and MLK, I don't see any way to defeat the terrorists without a certain degree of violence. But that violence must indeed be controlled...civilian deaths must be limited by all means possible, even though it means putting our own soldiers at greater risk. Torture must be vehemently opposed...lest we become no better than the enemy we fight. And we must work together with our Muslim allies to acheive ultimate victory.
I appreciate your points, but when I asked the question of how Jesus would handle terrorism, it was in the context of my ongoing debate with Vik, Der Alleswisser, and Night Watchman...you've taken my question to them and headed off on a different tangent. Let me say this...what I hear over and over from various people here is that Islam is evil. I'm not suggesting that Vik would call for violence against innocent civilian Muslims...but he lays down the sticks, someone else like Night Watchman comes by and sprays gasoline all over them, and then's it's only a matter of time before someone lights a spark...either on purpose or by accident, and all of a sudden, words turn into action, and we have become the evil we claim to fight against. Your thoughts on how Jesus would handle the subject of terrorism are well taken...but overall, I'm quite sure Jesus would never condonce torture, and Jesus would be intolerant of innocent people being killed...and that's the message missing here at the "Big Picture".
I'm glad you corrected the coercion and bribe bit...you had me worried there for a minute.
#453Jamie,
From your #458:
Please allow me to change "full of contradictions" to "full of apparent contradictions".
As I noted in #454:
You have found exactly one passage from the Koran (see your post #430) that may possibly be interpreted as being peaceful toward those of other religions.
Please cite some additional passages from the Koran that you believe may possibly be interpreted as being peaceful toward those of other religions - "apparent" ones are acceptable.
#454From #460 above:
"What absolutely kills me, is that time after time I have called for the fight to be taken to Al Qaeda, but people here accuse me of being a leftist, a socialist, a facilitator, politically correct, ...they even think I'm muslim sometimes....All just because I say fight Al Qaeda, not all of Islam. ....Torture must be vehemently opposed...lest we become no better than the enemy we fight. And we must work together with our Muslim allies to acheive ultimate victory."
What about Hammas? Hezbollah (which means "Party of God")? These are enemies, pure evil, and they get their guidance from the Qur'an.
On the one hand, one can point at Mubarrak of Egypt, and the leadership of Pakistan, which is helping in the fight against Al Qaeda. And Faith Freedom International (www.faithfreedom.org ), Muslims who speak out against the evil committed in the name of Islam. But how to explain that 109 of 111 Muslim clerics in the US failing to respond in condeming the Qur'an's call for killing Muslims for leaving Islam (see #443 above)? How to explain the "Honor Killings" of Muslim girls? How to explain why Muslims name mosques, minarets, streets, squares, etc. after monsters like Amir Timur (Tamerlane), Mahmud of Ghazni, ... who have distinguished themselves in the eyes of Muslims by being the biggest killers of Non-believers and forced conversions, the most rapacious people in the history of Islam?? These people admire murderers who are inspired by the Qur'an? How is this a religion? What, do we name stuff after Ted Bundy, John Gacy, the BTK guy, the cannibal guy up in Milwaukee....? We call Ted Bundy a mass murderer, but these Muslim killers celebrated killing a "lekt" (100,000) of un-believers each year. Bundy killed what, 12 or so? And not because of religion. And the stealing, rape, and pillage authorized by the Quran of un-believers. I see none of this in any other religion.
Did you notice that the Islamic rulers of Turkey recently arrested several military officers who were accused of trying to overthrow the government? Do you understand that it has been the Turkish army that has kept the government from being an Islamic theoracy in the image of Iran since the time of Attaturk? If Turkey, a supposed "ally", goes the way of Iran, watch out. And just today there is a report in the news about unrest and change in Egypt against the US supportative government of Mubarak, who has ruled for 30 years. Mubarak came to power after Anwar Sadat was assassinated by Al Qaeda, whose hope was to create an Egyptian Islamic theocracy. One of them was the "Blind Sheik", and another was Al Qaeda #2 Zawaheri. What if they succeed this time? Don't forget what I think Dick Cheney said: "Weakness (Obama) is a provocation."
So all this talk about our Muslim allies and how the religion is really peaceful. If so, how does one explain the points mentioned above? All the mouthing about being a religion of peace which is absurd in view of the history of Islam. Why are these 109 imams not deported and their mosques searched? Because of political correctness, and many will die because of the Democrats and their lawyer mindset; their inability or refusal to see evil. Are all Muslims evil? Certainly not. But the ones that are, and these 109 are top candidates, need to be dealt with, at a minimum, deported. Should Muslims be profiled? Absolutely, they are 10,000 times more likely to be terrorists than others. You have to be in denial to not notice that the last three dozen terrorist acts were committed by young Muslim males. In the words of Walter Williams on page 117 of Liberty versus the Tyranny of Socialism is: "There are potential terrorist targets in many areas, such as ports, railroads, and infrastructure, but roughly 90% of TSA's funding is spent on airports operating under the assumption that every passenger and every bag have an equal likelihood of being a security threat. That is stupid."
It is also the reason you want the government to not control health care, and should control as little as possible. And it is the reason that the Lawyer Party, aka the Democrat Party, needs every one of its members voted out of office.
#455Vik,
I already have in post #455
Chapter 2, Verse 190: "Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loves not transgressors." Would you disagree that there are Muslim scholars who in interpreting this verse claim Mohammed would not approve of violence against other faiths unless first attacked?
But you want more...so I offer this link....
http://www.islam101.com/terror/verse8_12.htm
Then there is this verse...
Chapter 5, Verse 32: "[I]f anyone slew a person—unless it be for murder or spreading mischief in the land—it would be as if he slew the whole people. And if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people."
I found answers to your question posted here as well...
http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?36693-Verses-of-Peace-in-the-Holy-Q-uran
Once again...I offer these verses not to advocate Islam. I am not a Muslim, and so I'm certainly not an adequate defendant for their religion. My biggest concern is the war in terror, and the fact that your anti-Islamic campaign is counterproductive to our cause. I don't have to believe in their religion to believe in the freedom of religion. I don't have to like Mohammed to have respect for muslim allies who have risked their lives to help us. If they say Islam is a religion of peace, and they reflect that in their conduct, then that's good enough for me.
#456Der Alleswisser,
"So all this talk about our Muslim allies and how the religion is really peaceful. If so, how does one explain the points mentioned above?"
The KKK receives guidance from the Bible. Is that the Bible's fault? Many a Christian has fallen short of living up to the standards set by Jesus. Would you blame Jesus?
Would you cast out Muslims who moved to this country after helping our cause in Iraq? Would you deny them freedom of religion? They're lives were threatened by other Muslims...why don't you ask them who the true followers of Mohammed are?
What are you suggesting anyway? Should we not be training soldiers and police in Iraq and Afghanistan? Should we wage war on all of Islam?
As for Obama...he inherited two wars and a tax cut that hadn't been paid for, an economy in need of a stimulus (according to both conservative and liberal economists), and rising health care costs that will drive our deficit higher with each passing year. He has a plan to get the job done and get out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Will it work? I don't know...but unless this country is willing to truly sacrifice by digging into it's pocket and paying a war tax, and by installing a draft so that all families must carry the burden, I don't see an open ended committment as being feasible. As far as health care...mandated insurance was a Republican idea, but now they don't like it. There are plenty of spineless and shady democrats that make me sick, but the Republican party offers little alternative. The Tea Party is a joke. We need a true independent party that appeals to voters stuck in the "middle of the road" category. Obama is doing fine...look at what Reagan faced his first year. The American people are fickle...spoiled rotten even...they want it all, and they want it now. Our situation sucks, but one person in one year fixes nothing. We don't need all democrats voted out...we need people to stop worrying about elections and popularity polls and make the hard choices.
But all of that is off topic....the question remains, should we abandon our muslim allies and engage a Holy Crusade to destroy their religion?
#457Vik,
I came across this website...it has examples to add to the list that you requested. It was apparently written by a Christian minister.
http://www.loveallpeople.org/quranforbidsterrorism.html
Der Alleswisser,
The writer also makes an excellent point that I think you should consider. Terrorists who claim we are a threat to Islam have little ground for that claim, as the United States, by our own laws, is neutral in regard to religion. If you had your way, and the Koran and Islam were banned, you would shatter that argument, and give credence to the message of Al Qaeda.
#458
>The question is not insincere, but the answer you offer is vague. I'm quite >aware of your stance in opposition to Islam. I'm asking your opinion on what our military and political strategy should be for fighting the enemy. I'd also like clarification on who you consider the enemy to be...Al Qaeda, or all of Islam? How do you suggest we deal with the "growing Caliphate"? Where exactly is it growing? Which Muslim governments appear ready to abdicate their authority in deference to one united Muslim nation?
IMO, Al Qaeda is the brain of the Caliphate. The Taliban is a key component or organ of the structure, perhaps the heart. The organism is morphing, however, and now there are important large organs in many locations such as the Philippines, Gaza, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, the Sudan, Morocco, various Western countries and so on. All of islam is the rest of the body structure which supports, feeds and hides these internal organs. Without the rest of islam, al Qaeda and its affiliates would not last very long.
The Caliphate is growing from the Phillipines to Australia to Africa to Europe and even in the Americas. The core area of strength where the initial governments are threatened with toppling are areas such as the Sudan, Yemen, Pakisan, and Afghanistan. Yemen is holding on by a thread. Afghanistan is only in play due to the presence of almost 200,000 foreign troops. See what happens when they leave due to the looming depression and loss of the will to fight. I do not believe ANY existing governments will willing abdicate their governments to the Caliphate. As we will see when the first one falls, however, they will not have much choice when push comes to shove.
I want specifics...or are you suggesting we lay down our weapons and talk Al Qaeda to death? As a Christian, what instruction does Jesus give on how we should defend ourselves from terrorism?
Who said anything about being a Christian? Nevertheless, I would suggest, given the above discussion, you read up on the subject of Just War.
How do you fight al Qaeda? My suggestion is that you fight this war more like WWII or you get out until the rest of the world gets serious. One has to ask Mr. Obama....the great diplomat, and Ms. Clinton, the smartest woman in the world...and the greatest Sec. of State we were told before the election...Why is the U.S. still providing the lion's share of the troops? Where are the Brazilians? Where are the Argentinians? Where are the Spaniards? Where are the Italians? and on and on and on.... We are losing the current Jamie/Obama-inspired PC effort.......We need better presidential leadership. The current effort sucks.
#459Here is the speech of Geert Wilders, Chairman, Party for Freedom, the Netherlands , at the Four Seasons, New York , introducing an Alliance of Patriots and announcing the Facing Jihad Conference in Jerusalem.
Dear friends,
Thank you very much for inviting me.
I come to America with a mission. All is not well in the old world. There is a tremendous danger looming, and it is very difficult to be optimistic. We might be in the final stages of the Islamization of Europe. This not only is a clear and present danger to the future of Europe itself, it is a threat to America and the sheer survival of the West. The United States is the last bastion of Western civilization, facing an Islamic Europe.
First I will describe the situation on the ground in Europe. Then, I will say a few things about Islam. To close I will tell you about a meeting in Jerusalem .
The Europe you know is changing.
You have probably seen the landmarks. But in all of these cities, sometimes a few blocks away from your tourist destination, there is another world. It is the world of the parallel society created by Muslim mass-migration.
All throughout Europe a new reality is rising: entire Muslim neighborhoods where very few indigenous people reside or are even seen. And if they are, they might regret it. This goes for the police as well. It's the world of head scarves, where women walk around in figureless tents, with baby strollers and a group of children. Their husbands, or slaveholders if you prefer, walk three steps ahead. With mosques on many street corners. The shops have signs you and I cannot read. You will be hard-pressed to find any economic activity. These are Muslim ghettos controlled by religious fanatics. These are Muslim neighborhoods, and they are mushrooming in every city across Europe . These are the building-blocks for territorial control of increasingly larger portions of Europe , street by street, neighborhood by neighborhood, city by city.
There are now thousands of mosques throughout Europe . With larger congregations than there are in churches. And in every European city there are plans to build super-mosques that will dwarf every church in the region. Clearly, the signal is: we rule.
Many European cities are already one-quarter Muslim: just take Amsterdam , Marseille and Malmo in Sweden . In many cities the majority of the under-18 population is Muslim. Paris is now surrounded by a ring of Muslim neighborhoods. Mohammed is the most popular name among boys in many cities.
In some elementary schools in Amsterdam the farm can no longer be mentioned, because that would also mean mentioning the pig, and that would be an insult to Muslims.
#460Many state schools in Belgium and Denmark only serve halal food to all pupils. In once-tolerant Amsterdam gays are beaten up almost exclusively by Muslims. Non-Muslim women routinely hear 'whore, whore'. Satellite dishes are not pointed to local TV stations, but to stations in the country of origin.
In France school teachers are advised to avoid authors deemed offensive to Muslims, including Voltaire and Diderot; the same is increasingly true of Darwin . The history of the Holocaust can no longer be taught because of Muslim sensitivity.
In England sharia courts are now officially part of the British legal system. Many neighborhoods in France are no-go areas for women without head scarves. Last week a man almost died after being beaten up by Muslims in Brussels , because he was drinking during the Ramadan.
Jews are fleeing France in record numbers, on the run for the worst wave of anti-Semitism since World War II. French is now commonly spoken on the streets of Tel Aviv and Netanya , Israel . I could go on forever with stories like this. Stories about Islamization.
A total of fifty-four million Muslims now live in Europe . San Diego University recently calculated that a staggering 25 percent of the population in Europe will be Muslim just 12 years from now. Bernhard Lewis has predicted a Muslim majority by the end of this century.
Now these are just numbers. And the numbers would not be threatening if the Muslim-immigrants had a strong desire to assimilate. But there are few signs of that. The Pew Research Center reported that half of French Muslims see their loyalty to Islam as greater than their loyalty to France . One-third of French Muslims do not object to suicide attacks. The British Centre for Social Cohesion reported that one-third of British Muslim students are in favor of a worldwide caliphate. Muslims demand what they call 'respect'. And this is how we give them respect. We have Muslim official state holidays.
The Christian-Democratic attorney general is willing to accept sharia in the Netherlands if there is a Muslim majority. We have cabinet members with passports from Morocco and Turkey .
Muslim demands are supported by unlawful behavior, ranging from petty crimes and random violence, for example against ambulance workers and bus drivers, to small-scale riots. Paris has seen its uprising in the low-income suburbs, the banlieus. I call the perpetrators 'settlers'. Because that is what they are. They do not come to integrate into our societies; they come to integrate our society into their Dar-al-Islam. Therefore, they are settlers.
#461Much of this street violence I mentioned is directed exclusively against non-Muslims, forcing many native people to leave their neighborhoods, their cities, their countries. Moreover, Muslims are now a swing vote not to be ignored.
The second thing you need to know is the importance of Mohammed the prophet. His behavior is an example to all Muslims and cannot be criticized.. Now, if Mohammed had been a man of peace, let us say like Ghandi and Mother Theresa wrapped in one, there would be no problem. But Mohammed was a warlord, a mass murderer, a pedophile, and had several marriages - at the same time. Islamic tradition tells us how he fought in battles, how he had his enemies murdered and even had prisoners of war executed. Mohammed himself slaughtered the Jewish tribe of Banu Qurayza. If it is good for Islam, it is good. If it is bad for Islam, it is bad.
Let no one fool you about Islam being a religion. Sure, it has a god, and a here-after, and 72 virgins. But in its essence Islam is a political ideology. It is a system that lays down detailed rules for society and the life of every person. Islam wants to dictate every aspect of life.. Islam means 'submission'. Islam is not compatible with freedom and democracy, because what it strives for is sharia. If you want to compare Islam to anything, compare it to communism or national-socialism, these are all totalitarian ideologies.
Now you know why Winston Churchill called Islam 'the most retrograde force in the world', and why he compared Mein Kampf to the Quran. The public has wholeheartedly accepted the Palestinian narrative, and sees Israel as the aggressor. I have lived in this country and visited it dozens of times. I support Israel . First, because it is the Jewish homeland after two thousand years of exile up to and including Auschwitz, second because it is a democracy, and third because Israel is our first line of defense.
This tiny country is situated on the fault line of jihad, frustrating Islam's territorial advance. Israel is facing the front lines of jihad, like Kashmir, Kosovo, the Philippines , Southern Thailand, Darfur in Sudan , Lebanon , and Aceh in Indonesia . Israel is simply in the way. The same way West-Berlin was during the Cold War.
The war against Israel is not a war against Israel . It is a war against the West. It is jihad. Israel is simply receiving the blows that are meant for all of us. If there would have been no Israel , Islamic imperialism would have found other venues to release its energy and its desire for conquest. Thanks to Israeli parents who send their children to the army and lay awake at night, parents in Europe and America can sleep well and dream, unaware of the dangers looming.
Many in Europe argue in favor of abandoning Israel in order to address the grievances of our Muslim minorities. But if Israel were, God forbid, to go down, it would not bring any solace to the West It would not mean our Muslim minorities would all of a sudden change their behavior, and accept our values. On the contrary, the end of Israel would give enormous encouragement to the forces of Islam. They would, and rightly so, see the demise of Israel as proof that the West is weak, and doomed. The end of Israel would not mean the end of our problems with Islam, but only the beginning. It would mean the start of the final battle for world domination. If they can get Israel, they can get everything. So-called journalists volunteer to label any and all critics of Islamization as a 'right-wing extremists' or 'racists'. In my country, the Netherlands, 60 percent of the population now sees the mass immigration of Muslims as the number one policy mistake since World War II. And another 60 percent sees Islam as the biggest threat. Yet there is a danger greater danger than terrorist attacks, the scenario of America as the last man standing. The lights may go out in Europe faster than you can imagine. An Islamic Europe means a Europe without freedom and democracy, an economic wasteland, an intellectual nightmare, and a loss of military might for America - as its allies will turn into enemies, enemies with atomic bombs. With an Islamic Europe, it would be up to America alone to preserve the heritage of Rome, Athens and Jerusalem .
#462Sorry this has run into 4 posts, but the 5000 character limitation needs to be 6000.
Dear friends, liberty is the most precious of gifts. My generation never had to fight for this freedom, it was offered to us on a silver platter, by people who fought for it with their lives. All throughout Europe , American cemeteries remind us of the young boys who never made it home, and whose memory we cherish. My generation does not own this freedom; we are merely its custodians. We can only hand over this hard won liberty to Europe 's children in the same state in which it was offered to us. We cannot strike a deal with mullahs and imams. Future generations would never forgive us. We cannot squander our liberties. We simply do not have the right to do so.
We have to take the necessary action now to stop this Islamic stupidity from destroying the free world that we know.
So you ask, Jamie, "Where is The Caliphate?" I suggest you ask Geert Wilders and other Europeans that are not blind.
And one final personal word to those who would abandon Israel thinking it would stop Muslim aggression as Geert notes above. The "Israeli Issue" was not even present in the early 8th Century when Muslim armies invaded Europe the first time in a vicious campaign that killed and slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Spaniards, French and Italians.....do not think it would make ANY difference this time to engage in such a dastardly strategy.
#463Night Watchman,
We had worldwide support. We lost it by 1)our attitude towards our allies, and 2)by turning focus away from Al Qaeda and attacking Iraq. Obama didn't do that, but he has the task of helping fix the damage done. As I've said before, he inherited two wars and a tax cut that the previous administration had made little attempt to pay for. He is dealing with the effects of a severe recession. The rising costs of health care is a crisis that will come if we don't act soon to make changes. Considering the options on his table, I don't see an open ended committment in Iraq and Afghanistan being viable without a draft and a war tax. Since Americans obviously don't have the stomach for that, the current strategy is the best I think we can do. Will it succeed? I don't know. I think it has a chance.
For you, Vik, and Mr. Wilders, the enemy may be Islam. But if we were to throw out freedom of religion, we may as well throw out the rest of our principles. Banning Islam would be the greatest marketing tool Al Qaeda could ask for. It's not about being PC...I'm not above having muslims kicked out who show contempt for our laws. But I see no reason to write off all Muslims just because I don't share their faith.
As for history and Muslims invading Europe a thousand years ago...here's something else to consider...how many predominantly Muslim nations were former European colonies during the last 200 years? How many predominantly Christian nations have military troops and bases in Muslim nations? Compare US military aid to Israel with our aid to the Palestinians, and tell me Muslims should see us as an impartial mediator. My point is this...you're worried about Muslim influence on the Christian world...doesn't that argument work both ways? Should the Muslims accept the influence of America and Europe in their nations without question?
#464Look, these people will never be happy. They fight amongst themselves and don't seem to mind being kept ignorant and living in squalor. They simply don't like outsiders butting into their affairs, despite the good intentions and a real opportunities for education, economic prosperity, and democracy.
I think we did an unwise thing going into Iraq, even though Saddam Hussein was a despot. We support other despotic regimes, so what was the difference?
The difference, as I see it, is that we created a political vacuum and a playground for the devil. Iraq was controllable and Iran was kept in check because they perceived that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction (a big lie/bluff that we and others were drawn into). Now Iraq knows better, which has emboldened them.
The balance has been upset, very much like Yugoslavia after Tito's death, and I fear that there will be so much bloodshed amongst the Islamic factions.
Saudi Arabia is very much the puppetmaser talking through all sides of their mouth. They are suppose to be our friend and yet, still supports Wahhabism throughout the Middle East and the World.
Afghanistan has always been a troublsome area. The British couldn't contain it and the ruthless Russians failed, why do we think we can succeed?
Expect China to start to play a larger role in all of this. While we are concentrating on Islam, the Chinese are working with Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, and are starting to have a great presence in Africa.
It pains me that so many of our troops have been killed or severly wounded because of these miscreants.
#465If the British hadn't colonized Afghanistan, maybe they wouldn't have had so much trouble there. If we hadn't armed the Mujahideen, Afghanistan might not have fallen to the Taliban. Saddam Hussein may have been a dictator, but Iraq was not a nation of ignorant people living in squalor...at least not before we got there. There was even a small Christian population that was allowed to live in peace. Of course, it's gone now after the chaos that followed our invasion.
As for your analysis that Iraq was a player that held Iran in check, and that Saddam's fictional WMD's were his version of the ultimate bluff...you're dead on. Unfortunately, too many Americans were overcome by the egotistical thinking that it was "all about us". If our educational system paid a little more attention to the world outside of western civilization, perhaps people here would have had a better understanding of the dynamics at work.
Adam Rosenblatt....there were children in Avatar. They didn't have speaking parts, but I did see them. No infants...but definitely some children, nowhere near the size of their 9' tall parents.
#466I wasn't specifying Iraq with my comments about ignorance and squalor, but a generalization of the Middle East. But you must concede there is a great deal of poverty due to the fact that there are still tribes throughout the Middle East and Iran. Despite the prosperity and education of those in the urban centers in Iran and Iraq, Nomads still roam the respective countries.
The slums are awful in many of these countries. Even the Christians in Cairo live literally in and on garbage, tolerated only because they perform 'dirty work like sifting through garbage for recycling purposes.
On another note:
The strength of our nation can also be one of its greatest failures. The philosophical direction and staff of our Department of State changes with each administration and Secretary of State. Trained specialists, with practical expertise in their respective areas, who follow trends and looming 'situations' are shuffled around or downsized while incompetent political appointees/hacks are put in ambassadorial and secretarial positions beyond their cognizance and competancy. Bona fide intelligence sources have been dismissed, misused, put on the back burner or thwarted. There is no continuity, cohesiveness, or historic contect in our foreign affairs; it is entirely at the whim of each administration. Four or eight years is not enough for strategic planning and frequently the considerately laid plans, by past administrations, are summarily abandoned with the result of leaving our allies left hanging out to dry.
How can other nations and intelligence sources work with us, or trust us, when they cannot predict or rely on the next President or Secretary of State? Our enemies simply play the waiting game and take advantage of opportunities and gaps.
The Middle East is one of our greatest failures.
We need to concentrate on stabilizing Pakistan and India as they both have weapons of mass destruction.
#467I don't really get the connection between poverty and tribal life...there are certainly worse lives than that of the nomads. As for poverty, we have it here also...what would you attribute that to? Poverty is rarely caused by just one thing. Factors can range from political, social, and economic history to environmental factors such as famines. Most nations in the middle east aren't blessed with the mild climate we have here. Their greatest natural resource is the oil we buy from them. If America was 90% desert, it wouldn't have become the largest economy in the world. Cities like Dubai rise up out of the sand...without black gold, those cities would have a difficult time surviving. They have virtually no poverty. Kuwait doesn't have poverty. The Palestianians though, are the epitome of poverty. The Palestinians don't have oil. The Palestinians often can't get to work without going thru a 2 hour checkpoint.
Problems in the middle east have been brewing for decades...the problem was we weren't paying attention. All of our focus was on the Soviet Union and communism, and the middle east was just another pawn in the game back then.
Pakistan and India are indeed an area of grave concern...couldn't agree more on that.
#468Jamie,
Thanks for responding to my request for verses from the Koran which might be considered peaceful.
Almost all the verses cited by the pages you reference say that Muslims are only to preach, but are never to use violence:
2:256 “Let there be no compulsion in religion. Truth has been made clear from error. Whoever rejects false worship and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy handhold that never breaks. And Allah hears and knows all things.”
17:53, 54 And tell my servants that they should speak in a most kindly manner (unto those who do not share their beliefs). Verily, Satan is always ready to stir up discord between men; for verily; Satan is mans foe .... Hence, We have not sent you (Unto men O Prophet) with power to determine their Faith.
88:21, 22; also see 24:54 And so, (O Prophet!) exhort them your task is only to exhort; you cannot compel them to believe
42:6, 48 And whoso takes for patrons others besides God, over them does God keep a watch. Mark, you are not a keeper over them. But if they turn aside from you (do not get disheartened), for We have not sent you to be a keeper over them; your task is but to preach ...
67:25, 26 And they ask, "When shall the promise be fulfilled if you speak the Truth?" Say, "The knowledge of it is verily with God alone, and verily I am but a plain warner."
In #440, you agreed that "devout Muslims consider the life of Mohammed, to represent the correct way of following the Koran." In light of the Sira, which is the official biography of Mohammed and is considered one of the holy books of Islam, it is absurd to quote such passages. Here's one more to add to the passages from the Sira already quoted in this thread.
The apostle reached Marr al‑Zahran with an army of ten thousand; the Bedouin tribes ‑ the Sulaym and the Muzayna ‑each contributed a thousand men, and many of them Believers. Not an Emigrant nor a Helper remained in Medina . The Quraysh knew nothing of the apostle's approach, although Abu Sufyan and Budayl constantly sent out in search of news. But the apostle's uncle, al‑Abbas, came out from Mecca and joined the apostle.
When the apostle of Allah was encamped at Marr al‑Zahran his uncle al‑Abbas said to himself, ' "It will be the end of the Quraysh if the apostle enters Mecca by force without their having come to implore mercy from him." So I mounted the white mule of the apostle and rode out, thinking, "Perhaps I may meet some wood‑gatherer who will tell the Meccans where the apostle is encamped, so that they may come out to him and ask for mercy before he has to take the town by force." After I had gone some way, I heard two voices and they were the voices of Abu Sufyan and Budayl. Abu Sufyan said, "I have never seen as many fires as there are this night, nor so great an army!" and Budayl replied, "These are the Khuzaa, aroused by war." But Abu Sufyan interrupted, "The Khuzaa are too mean and few for these to be their fires and troops." .
'Then I appeared and greeted him and he asked, "What is afoot?" I said, "Woe betide thee, Abu Sufyan! That is the apostle of Allah with his people! All is over with the Quraysh! " He asked, "What is to be done?" and I told him, "If he conquers you, he will strike off your head. Mount behind me on this mule and I will take you to the apostle to ask for mercy." So he mounted behind me, but his companion returned to Mecca .
'I rode back and whenever I passed near a fire of the Muslims, they said, "This is the uncle of the apostle" and let me pass. Then I passed the fire of Umar and, seeing Abu Sufyan, he ex claimed, "This is the enemy of Allah! Praise be to Allah who has delivered him into our hands." Then he ran to the apostle, but I spurred the mule and overtook him, and hastened in to the apostle with Umar following. Umar cried, "Allow me to strike off the head of Abu Sufyan!" but I said "No. I have granted him protection." Then we argued the case and the apostle told me to guard Abu Sufyan and bring him to the apostle in the morning.
(Continued in next post.)
#469(Continued from previous post.)
'At dawn we went to the apostle, who said to Abu Sufyan, "Is it not yet clear to thee that there is no other god save Allah!" He replied, "Had there been another god he should have proved himself by now and aided me!" The apostle continued, "Is it not yet clear to thee that I am the apostle of Allah?" Abu Sufyan replied, "I still have doubts in my mind as to that." Then I said to him, "Woe betide thee! Make profession of Islam and say, ‘I testify that there is no God but Allah and that Muhammad is the apostle of Allah,' before he strikes off thy head!" So Abu Sufyan testified to the truth, and made profession of Islam.
This shows Mohammed using the threat of death to force a man to convert to Islam. It shows that the verses you cited were not followed by Mohammed, who in Islam is considered the perfect man, and whose behavior, as we have agreed, is what devout Muslims consider to represent the correct way of following the Koran.
There's one more thing you should know about the Quraysh: they were the tribe of Mohammed's own family.
#470Vik,
Rewind to post #435 where you wrote...
"If you argue that Exodus 22:20 has nothing to do with Exodus 22:21, you make my point. Exodus 22:20 addresses how Jews are to be treated; 22:21 addresses how strangers are to be treated."
If it's ok for Jews to destroy other Jews who stray from the faith, why shouldn't Mohammed be able to kill his own people too? Not that it's a good thing to do in either case... my point is only that the arguments and finger pointing can continue ad in infinitum.
There's always someone somewhere who has an explanation for every possible apparent contradiction that either of us might find. The issue continues to be tied to where facts end and faith begins. By limiting my judgements of other people to their actions, and not to their beliefs, I can agree with you that Mohammed is not a true prophet, while simultaneously maintaining the right of others to see what I do not. I feel religious freedom is a fundamental right critical to the success of our nation, and should not be discarded as an inconvenience in the war against terror.
In post #454 you wrote...
"I am interested in discussing your question of what actions are proper to take. However, we are not yet done discussing the subject of what the religion of Islam is".
For expediency, let's assume I agree with your assertion of the evil influence of Islam. What actions should we then pursue? Should we start over in Iraq and Afghanistan, dismantle their governments, set up military rule, send in thousands of missionaries to convert the populations to Christianity? If Islam is the evil you claim it to be, should we not declare war against all Islamic nations, send missiles into every mosque we can find, and place all muslims in America and Europe under lockdown? Do you think they might love us then?
#471Exodus 31:15 (New International Version)
15 For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day must be put to death.
Leviticus 26:7-8 (New International Version)7 You will pursue your enemies, and they will fall by the sword before you. 8 Five of you will chase a hundred, and a hundred of you will chase ten thousand, and your enemies will fall by the sword before you.
Leviticus 26:29-30 (New International Version)29 You will eat the flesh of your sons and the flesh of your daughters. 30 I will destroy your high places, cut down your incense altars and pile your dead bodies on the lifeless forms of your idols, and I will abhor you.
Leviticus 27:29 (New International Version)
29 " 'No person devoted to destruction [a] may be ransomed; he must be put to death.
Footnotes: Leviticus 27:29 The Hebrew term refers to the irrevocable giving over of things or persons to the LORD, often by totally destroying them.
#472Deuteronomy 7
Driving Out the Nations 1 When the LORD your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations—the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations larger and stronger than you- 2 and when the LORD your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally. [a] Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy. 3 Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, 4 for they will turn your sons away from following me to serve other gods, and the LORD's anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy you. 5 This is what you are to do to them: Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones, cut down their Asherah poles [b] and burn their idols in the fire.
Footnotes: Deuteronomy 7:2 The Hebrew term refers to the irrevocable giving over of things or persons to the LORD, often by totally destroying them; also in verse 26. Deuteronomy 7:5 That is, symbols of the goddess Asherah; here and elsewhere in Deuteronomy Deuteronomy 13:1-5 (New International Version)
Deuteronomy 13 Worshiping Other Gods 1 If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a miraculous sign or wonder, 2 and if the sign or wonder of which he has spoken takes place, and he says, "Let us follow other gods" (gods you have not known) "and let us worship them," 3 you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The LORD your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul. 4 It is the LORD your God you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him; serve him and hold fast to him. 5 That prophet or dreamer must be put to death, because he preached rebellion against the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt and redeemed you from the land of slavery; he has tried to turn you from the way the LORD your God commanded you to follow. You must purge the evil from among you.
#473
6 If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" (gods that neither you nor your fathers have known, 7 gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), 8 do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. 9 You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people.
Deuteronomy 13:12-15 (New International Version)
12 If you hear it said about one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you to live in 13 that wicked men have arisen among you and have led the people of their town astray, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" (gods you have not known), 14 then you must inquire, probe and investigate it thoroughly. And if it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done among you, 15 you must certainly put to the sword all who live in that town. Destroy it completely, [a] both its people and its livestock.
Footnotes: Deuteronomy 13:15 The Hebrew term refers to the irrevocable giving over of things or persons to the LORD, often by totally destroying them.
#474
10 When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. 11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. 12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13 When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies. 15 This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.
16 However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. 17 Completely destroy [a] them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the LORD your God has commanded you. 18 Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the LORD your God.
Footnotes: Deuteronomy 20:17 The Hebrew term refers to the irrevocable giving over of things or persons to the LORD, often by totally destroying them.
#475
21 Surely God will crush the heads of his enemies,
the hairy crowns of those who go on in their sins.
22 The Lord says, "I will bring them from Bashan;
I will bring them from the depths of the sea,
23 that you may plunge your feet in the blood of your foes,
while the tongues of your dogs have their share."
15 Whoever is captured will be thrust through;
all who are caught will fall by the sword.
16 Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes;
their houses will be looted and their wives ravished.
#476Vik,
In post #454 you wrote..
You have not documented that either religion is "full of contradictions". You have found exactly two passages (see your post #426) from the Bible that sound like they may possibly (you admit it is "debatable") be interpreted as encouraging violence against those of other religions.
Posts #480-#484 represent passages from the Old Testament that seem, in my opinion, contrary to the nonviolent message of Jesus in the New Testament. In fact, I find the Old Testament reads a lot like the Koran. One difference is that the Old Testament never mentions violence against Muslims...because, of course, Muslims didn't exist at that time. But if they had been around, why should I expect that their treatment by God and His chosen people would have been any different?
For Christians who claim the Bible, both New and Old Testaments, as the inerrant word of God, I think they put themselves into a difficult corner. How do they reconcile Paul's description of love in I Corinthians 13 with the brutality demonstrated by the jealous and wrathful God represented in the passages listed above?
Again, how people choose to interpret such things is a matter of personal faith. For me, the Devil is in the details. People who nickpick of religious text fall prey to a line of thinking that leads them away from the true message. Keep it simple. Live by the Golden Rule. Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you.
If you're going to hold the Koran under a microscope, then be prepared for the Bible to be put under similar scrutiny.
#477
Jamie, no one is arguing that the Bible doesn't have any violence in it. The subject we are debating is whether Islam demands that Muslims must kill all non-Muslims until they are dead, converted, or submit to be oppressed second-class citizens in an Islamic state, whereas the Bible does not demand that people of Judeo-Christian faith do any such thing to all those who are not Judeo-Christian. If we are in agreement on this point, I am ready to move on to other subjects.
#478Vik,
We do not agree. Deuteronomy 13:1-5 is in no way vague about calling for the religious leaders of other faiths to be put to death. That is the instruction God gave to his chosen people. In Psalms 79:6, the words come from the people directed to God, but the message is the same.
Psalms 79:6: "Pour out thy wrath upon the heathen that have not known thee, and upon the kingdoms that have not called upon thy name."
#479By the way Vik, it seems a bit hypocritical to condemn Muhammed for using threats of death against family members when by your own assertion Exodus 22:20 gives the ok for Jewish people to kill their own..."Whoever sacrifices to any god other than the LORD must be destroyed."
#480"The subject we are debating is whether Islam demands that Muslims must kill all non-Muslims until they are dead, converted, or submit to be oppressed second-class citizens in an Islamic state."
Vik, these are your words. Is there a specific quote from any Islamic religious text that defines "religious fighting" as being ok without provocation of any kind?
As for subjugation of conquered peoples...was this not God's instruction to the Jews in Deuteronomy Chapter 20?
10 When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. 11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you.
#481From Jamie in #489 above:
"The subject we are debating is whether Islam demands that Muslims must kill all non-Muslims until they are dead, converted, or submit to be oppressed second-class citizens in an Islamic state."
"Vik, these are your words. Is there a specific quote from any Islamic religious text that defines "religious fighting" as being ok without provocation of any kind?"
Actually, the Qur'an does mention Jihad as a supposedly "defensive" struggle, at least at first. It mentions any incursion of Unbelievers into dar al Islam , and it is this pretext that bin Laden used for 9/11 (Gulf War I).
But you must realize that Islam has been on the attack for 1400 years, and it is commanded to be an eternal struggle by the Qur'an & the hadiths:
Qur'an 8:39: "And fight then on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah althogether and everywhere; but if they cease, verily Allah doth see all that they do."
From p289 of Andrew Bostom's Legacy of Jihad:
"The Qur'an demands perserverance, endurance, and steadfastness...... these words refer only to endurance and steadfastness in submitting to God, in the way of God.....If holy war is to be waged with endurance and perseverance, then when is it over? If it is to be conducted with unflagging energy, ever against protracted resistance, for the believer must never turn his back on the enemy, as long as he has any strength remaining, then when does it stop:
The war can end in four ways: by the conversion of the enemy to Islam, but the total conquest of the enemy country, by a peace agreement, or by a truce. the first of these solutions is unquestionably the most favorable . Having become Muslims, the enemies remain in possession of their lands and their goods; the Islamic laws can be applied to them, they have become the brethren of their conquerors and are treated as such by them. But if the enemies refuse to join the victorious religion, then their women and children are to be led off into slavery, their belongings are taken as booty, and the men who are not kept as prisioners (destined to be sold as slaves) are put to death, unless they are set free in return for the payment of a ransom, or exchanged for other prisioners, or else set free pure and simple.....If a peace agreement is made stipulating a tribute, then it is no more that a truce, the duration of which shall not exceed ten years, this derogates from the principle of eternal struggle against the infidel, but is can be allowed in cases of necessity; otherwise there can only be an armistice, a delay of not more than four months."
#482This is where liberal Democrats are so clueless, they fail to understand that all that Carter stuff, trying to buy the peace, Camp David and all that rubbish, and then Clinton does it, all that Oslo rubbish, that ends nothing, it is part of an eternal struggle and Democrats simply do not understand the fundamental evil of Islam, and that even though all Muslims do not adhere to this evil, those who are in charge of the religion do, tacitly and with great duplicity, do subscribe to this evil.
They understand that the Democrat party is the Lawyer party, that the single largest constituents and contributors to the Democrat party is Trial Lawyers. Eric Holder types, all these big law firms who have been representing Gitmo terrorists. CAIR is nothing but a bunch of lawyers, in the image of their Democrat counterparts, who understand that lawyers are the soft underbelly of America, the road to rot from within, their long range plan to advance this creeping evil from within, just like they have done in socialist, worn-down, liberal Europe.
So Biden goes to Israel, spouting all this stuff about a a Palestinian state, nevermind the huge amount of real estate held by Islamic counties viz. tiny Israel. So the Israelis show Obama and Biden what they think about appeasement by announcing new settlements while Biden is there spouting this pablum. Good for them, they have made enormous concessions for Carter and Clinton, all for naught, and know that this is just lying and temporizing to spread this evil religion and destroy Israel.
Liberalism and lawyers are the enemy.
#483Der Alleswisser
Matthew 28:19 directs Christians to go and make disciples of all nations. Though the verse does not instruct this to be done by the sword, there can be no doubting that many times it was.
As for Qu'ran 83:9, why put "altogether and everywhere" in italics, but not "but if they cease", which seems to be in reference to battling "tumult and oppression"?
I'm not saying anyone has to "love" Islam...I certainly don't. But I don't have to share their faith to make allies with those Muslims who consider the terrorists our common enemy.
You can say what you want to about Obama and Biden...but I haven't yet heard about military aid being cut off from the Israelis or provided to the Palestinians. From their view, America is biased towards Israel, no matter if the president is republican or democrat.
And last but not least, I notice that you make no mention of the Old Testament verses I listed which have an aggressive tone towards other religions. If we compare Jesus and Mohammed, my personal view is that Jesus was the peacemaker. Unfortuntely, when you look at the history of each religion, it's hard to see either one as actually being "peaceful". But if we are to judge by text alone without regard to history, the words of the Old Testament to me sound similar to those of the Koran. So if we ban the Koran (as you have suggested), should we not also ban the Old Testament?
#484Jamie,
Vik, these are your words. Is there a specific quote from any Islamic religious text that defines "religious fighting" as being ok without provocation of any kind?
A few pertinent quotes from the Koran, the Hadith, and the Sira have already been provided. Please see my posts #423 (including verses it links to from the Koran), #435, #436, #439, #444, #477, and #478.
Deuteronomy 13:1-5 is in no way vague about calling for the religious leaders of other faiths to be put to death.
This has also already been replied to, in #428. The passage you quote specifically refers to a "prophet ... [who] appears among you", and so does not at all call for for an attack on all people in the world who are of other faiths.
Psalms 79:6: "Pour out thy wrath upon the heathen that have not known thee, and upon the kingdoms that have not called upon thy name."
As you yourself point out, these words are "directed to God", not to the people.
At this point you are just repeating arguments you have previously made that have already been addressed, in prior posts in this thread.
#485Vik,
At this point you are just repeating arguments you have previously made that have already been addressed, in prior posts in this thread.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. I have consistently maintained that the quotes and stories listed can work within the interpretation of violence being authorized as a reaction to the provocation of others. I have also attempted to be specific, such as my comment in post #492.
As for Qu'ran 83:9, why put "altogether and everywhere" in italics, but not "but if they cease", which seems to be in reference to battling "tumult and oppression"?
This was actually a reply to Der Alleswisser, so I'm assuming you read it. Perhaps I should not assume that you have read all the posts? To be fair, I'm outnumbered here, and sometimes it's hard for me to keep straight what I've replied to who. I know it's all recorded above, but the volume of material is a lot to go thru, and we all have limited time. That's why I asked, and ask again, for you to give me your best example, and we'll examine if it holds up to your wording that suggests that Muslims are permitted by their religion to attack other religions or nations without provocation.
Of course, even if you should succeed and prove me wrong in that regard, you're a long way from proving that the Old Testament doesn't condone attacking others(for example..Deuteronomy 20;10-18). Psalms 79:6 was just the icing on the cake...I certainly find that people calling for God to "pour out his wrath upon the heathen" in His Holy Book without Him offering a rebuke of any kind quite chilling.
One interesting thing I can tell by your reply is that killing prophets of other religions who come into your community is quite all right by you...so if Muslims are the kind of people you claim them to be, it appears you have at least one thing in common.
#486Jamie, for all the talk about what is in the old testament, do you really think that Christianity poses the same threat as Islam? Chilling???? Where do you see this? Timothy McVeigh explains all the Muslim terrorists? Balloon Boy? The KKK???
You need to think about the danger of liberalism and Democrats protecting something that is evil in the name of tolerance, multiculturalism, and political correctness. You need to critically examine Islam and reach your own conclusions, rather than try to juxtapose anything negative about Islam with something from the Old Testament and say that it is all the same thing. What if the Boogeyman is really under the bed? Should you try to protect it? How do you know that Islam is not the Boogeyman?
Listen to this Muslim lady at http://formermuslimsunited.americancommunityexchange.org/2010/03/13/exposing-the-myth-of-moderate-islam/ find the video at the top right, about 10 minutes, and listen carefully to what the lady has to say. She is the author of Now They Call Me Infidel.
Then read the rest of the page. How that truth is "the new hate speech." Can't talk about Islam's history, can't teach the holocaust in Europe b/c they are "offended." Can't have a moment of silence in Brussells on 9/11 because they are offended. Cartoons, they are offended, name a Teddy Bear Muhammud, they are offended? Does the fact that this religion tries to deceive and hide as to its history not arouse your suspicion? Why do you think our education system avoids the subject? If there is nothing to hide, why be offended? How much do you see on TV about Islam that is not revisionist? Do you see specials about Muhammod and the Bani Quraysh? Do you see anything about Smyrna? The Armenian Genocide? Do you see anything about Muslims stoning couples to death for infidelity? Why is Turkey's government offended by the mention of the Armenians? What is this "Oversees Contingency" stuff from Obama, as he is afraid to say even "Terrorist," much less "Islamic Terrorist?" He says that the Christmas Bomber was "an isolated extremist" ? Really?
Don't you realize that the next attack in America, as well as Fort Hood, are due to the Willful Blindness of Liberals? Liberals feel good about grandmothers in wheelchairs and uniformed soldiers being searched at airports, but do they not realize that they are responsible for resulting deaths due to terrorists? Did you see any liberals apologizing for the Christmas Day bomber, to the families of the 300 people who are now alive due to pure luck? Handcuffing the CIA, NSA, FBI, not interrogating the Christmas Bomber, Mirandizing him, don't you realize that Liberals have blood on their hands, and that the next 9/11 is the fault of liberals?
"Tolerance of Intolerance Is Not Tolerance."
~~~~~Mark Steyn, America Alone
#487Der Alleswisser,
Liberals didn't fund the Mujahadeen with money and weapons. When they served our purpose, our nation was blind to the monster we were helping to create. Conservatives have made their fair share of mistakes, and I'm happy to ridicule them at times...but at the end of the day my conservative friends are fellow Americans, and I would never accuse them of having "blood on their hands". You don't have to be PC, but if you want to have any chance at a reasonable discourse, I think you will find such inflammatory comments counterproductive.
Next point...if you're going to hop into my conversation with Vik, can you try to stay within the framework of the discussion? Your focus has been on the history of Islam vs. that of Christianity...and I think we've covered that ground pretty thoroughly. Currently, most Muslim nations do indeed deal with more violence than we do...but to blame that on Islam and not the other social, political, and economic factors at work is where I believe you are in error. Nevertheless, if Islam itself is the problem, then we must turn to the text...and this is where Vik has placed his point of emphasis.
I didn't say it before...but let me score one victory for Vik. If you ask me who the greater peacemaker was, it's hard, at least for me, to make a case for Muhammed being equal to Jesus. However, an unintentional consequence of this was that I now have more respect for Islam than I did before. Why? Because we, as Christians and Americans, have not lived as Jesus lived...and I'm not sure that we can. This is a violent world, and Muhammed takes that into account, and makes it very clear that defending yourself against violence with violence is a necessary evil. I'm not saying I agree with his teachings...but I can respect where he's coming from. If you compare our history with Islamic history with the text of each religion taken into account...we look like hypocrites. Christianity was spread as much by the sword as it was by the Word...it is an ugly stain that must be acknowledged if it is ever to be cleansed.
So here is where we stand...the current challenge for Vik is to unequivocally prove that the Koran gives instruction to kill and/or subjugate people of other religions without provocation of any kind (I feel the quotes he provided can be considered acceptable within the framework of a defensive interpretation). At the same time, there are verses from the Old Testament that set a precedent for aggresive action against others that need to be further explored (for example, Deuteronomy 20:10-18). All in all, the violence of the Old Testament, in my opinion, is similar to the violence found in the Koran. So why would you want to ban one and not the other?
Even assuming I'm wrong, and Vik can prove that unprovoked aggression is specifically permitted under Islamic law...we still have a problem. Debating the morality of Islam is one thing...winning the war against terrorism is another. How you do that without having allies in the muslim community is beyond my comprehension. And the idea of an impending united Caliphate bent on our destruction is, I believe, complete paranoia. I'm sure there are many Muslims who would love to see a Caliphate formed, but the political realities of the day make that impossible. Not virtually impossible. Impossible.
Last point....liberals are not the enemy. Al Qaeda is.
#488That's why I asked, and ask again, for you to give me your best example, and we'll examine if it holds up to your wording that suggests that Muslims are permitted by their religion to attack other religions or nations without provocation.
You've asked it and I've answered it.
From verses linked in #423:
[3.151] We will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve, because they set up with Allah that for which He has sent down no authority, and their abode is the fire, and evil is the abode of the unjust.
[4.89] They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.
[8.12] When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.
[9.5] So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
[9.29] Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.
#489Jamie in #496 above: "Liberals didn't fund the Mujahadeen with money and weapons."
Uh, no. From page 199 of Serge Trifkovic's Defeating Jihad is:
"In 1979 Jimmy Carter presided over the first American administration in history to proclaim that 'human rights' are its guiding light and main objective. It decided to support hard-core Islamists in the insurgency against the Soviets in Afghanistan. As we now know that decision was a strategic mistake of the highest order: it prompted the release of the Jihadist genie from a bottle that had remaind sealed for almost three centruries after the siege of Vienna.
"Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski's 'brilliant idea' -- as he called the Afghan covert action almost two decades after the event--violated Carter's stated ahborrence of Realpolitik and his reverence for human rights. Hundreds of millions, and eventually billions of dollars were poured into the coffers and arsenals of people who openly stated their intention to rebuild an early-medieval theocracy in Afghanistan in which the women would remain downtrodden , the Kufr killed or enslaved, the remaining non-Islamic works of art wontonly destroyed, and the Khalifates's shining model to the rest of the Muslim world.
"The fruits went beyond the jihadists' wildest dreams. Brzezinski will go down in history as the man who did for bin Laden what the Kaiser did for Lenin by providing him with that sealed train from Switzerland the the Baltic, back in 1917."
Islam is "defensive." Really?? Look at the map of Islamic nations, and considering this started with Muhammad in Medina, does that really make any sense to anyone?? And do you see violence being perpetrated in the name of the Old Testament TODAY as you see prompted by quotes from the Qur'an? What does the term "historical progression" with regard to Christianity but not so for Islam, mean to you?
#490From the preface, page vii, of Andrew Bostom's Legacy of Jihad is: "When the Ottoman Muslim armies were stopped at the gates of Vienna in 1683, more than a millennium of jihad had transpired.....Muslim historians recorded in detail the number of infidels slaughtered, or enslaved and deported; the cities, villages, and infidel religious sites that were sacked and pillaged; and the lands, treasure, and movable goods seized......And this classical formulation of jihad is very much a living doctrine today. For example, read the openly espoused views and sound Islamic arguments that conclude the contemporary work 'Islam and Modernism," written by respected modern Muslim scholar Justice Muhammad Taqi Usmani. Usmani, age 64, sat for twenty years as a Shari' judge in Pakistan's Supreme Court. (His father was the Grand Mufti of Pakistan). Currently Usmani is deputy of the Islamic Fiqh (Jurisprudence) Council of the Organization of the Islamic Conference -- the major international body of Islamic nations of the world -- and serves as an adviser to several global Sharia-based Islamic financial institutions. Thus he is a leading contemporary figure in the world of mainstream Islamic jurispridence. He is a frequent visitor to Britain. During a recent visit there, he was interviewed by the Times, which published extracts from Usmani's writings on jihad, Saturday, Spetember 8, 2007. The concluding chapter of Usmani's 'Islam and Modernism' was cited, and it rebuts those who believe that only defensive jihad (i.e., fighting to defend a Muslim land deemed under attack or occupation) is permissible in Islam. He also refutes the suggestion that jihad is unlawful against a non-Muslim state that freely permits the preaching of Islam (which, not surprisingly, was of some concert to the Times!).
"For Usmani, 'the question is whether aggressive battle is by itself commendable....If it is, why should the Muslims stop simply because territorial expansion is bad? And if it is not commendable, but deplorable, why did Islam not stop it in the past?' He answers his own question as follows: 'Even in those days...aggressive jihads were waged...because it was truely commendable for establishing the grandeur of the religion of Allah.' Usmani argues that Muslims should live peacefully in countries such as Britain, where they have the freedom to practice Islam, only until they gain enough power to engage in battle. Usmani explodes the myths that the creed of offensive, expansionist jihad represents a distortion of traditional Islamic thinking, or that this living institution is somehow irrelevant to our era."
Could he make it any plainer? Yet somehow Liberal Democrats refuse to see it, equivocate with the Bible to explain it all, indeed a "Willful Blindness" as Andrew McCarthey titled his book on his prosecution of the Blind Sheik for the first WTC attack. And is the election of Obama a harbinger indicating that not only Europe but now America will be swallowed by this evil due to a proliferation of Liberals? Is Liberalism the new Dodo, symbolic of a doomed people without the vision or will for survival, and as such deserves to perish? Liberalism, the Trojan Horse of Islam.
#491Der Alleswisser,
You are correct about Carter backing the Mujahideen...but my poor choice of words doesn't erase the fact that the majority of funding came during the Reagan administration. My point was not to say liberals have never made mistakes...my point is that conservatives have made just as many. Don't you think Dick Cheney regrets shaking hands with Saddam Hussein back in the 1980's? These are lapses in our nation's judgement, and their is plenty of blame and shame for each party to bear. As for our current administration's policies, we travel a long and winding road...but in my opinion it feels like we're heading in the right direction now.
You are incorrect about me claiming Islam is "defensive", or even peaceful. I don't have to agree with them to accept that they have their own interpretation built upon their own life experiences, and that I can't judge their beliefs based upon my personal prejudices. Having struggled with the contradictions in the Bible all of my life, it doesn't seem unreasonable that someone raised in a Muslim environment likely goes through the same process. My arguments are not to agree with them...I am attempting to see the issue from their perspective.
As for your historical references...I have no use for them. All a non-violent Muslim would have to say is the same thing Christians say...those guilty of violence are not true believers. It's hypocritical to sit in judgment of the use of violence in the expansion of Islam, when Christians did the same thing. I don't agree with Vik, but I respect his tactic of sticking to the text...and I'll offer my reply to his last post soon.
#492Vik,
My first thought about the verses you listed was to establish the context from which they came. I needed outside help for this, and came across an Islamic website that provided the perspective that I lack.
http://classicalislamgroup.com/index.php?view=tafseer/s3-v151to152
http://classicalislamgroup.com/index.php?view=tafseer/s4-v88to91
http://classicalislamgroup.com/index.php?view=tafseer/s8-v11to14
http://classicalislamgroup.com/index.php?view=tafseer/s8-v11to14
http://classicalislamgroup.com/index.php?view=tafseer/s9-v29to30
Obviously, this is a lot of material, and the cultural and historical references are intricate and complex. Nothing I read makes me want to be a Muslim, but to think we can cut and paste verses out of the Koran and think we understand them doesn't seem reasonable.
Are these verses not pulled from chapters in reference to specific battles? Right or wrong, do the Muslims make no case for provocation in those battles?
#493Jamie, I notice you don't put forth any argument that the verses I quoted don't say what I described. Don't expect me to try to put together an argument for you.
#494Vik,
Are these verses not pulled from chapters in reference to specific battles? Right or wrong, do the Muslims make no case for provocation in those battles?
That was my argument. If the quotes were made in reference to specific battles, and you've taken them out of their context, then I think there is a case to be made that you've altered their meaning by doing so. Therefore, no...these verse do not instruct Muslims to kill and/or subjugate all non-muslims.
Let's look at one more closely...
[9.5] So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
Out of context, what sense does this make? Why wait until the "sacred months" have passed away? What does that refer to? If this is a verse instructing Muslims to pursue violent jihad against all non-muslims, then are they only to do so at certain times? Oh wait...it can't be all non-muslims that they're refering to, because they say idolaters, which is not a reference to Christians or Jews. Most of Mohammed's battles were fought against pagans.
If you take Biblical verses out of context, is the meaning not changed? For example, I listed Exodus 22:20 which says "Whoever sacrifices to any god other than the LORD must be destroyed", and you asserted that this applies to Jews within the Jewish community only. To make that case, the book of Exodus must be read, not just the verse...wouldn't you agree? And by the way, I notice that no one here has stated that they have any problem at all with the concept of people "destroying" members of their own faith, except in the case of Muslims destorying other Muslims. Of course, one could make the case that Jews don't destroy other Jews...but then that argument is in discord with the concept of religious text creating homicidal tendencies amongst the masses...as you assert the Koran does in regard to Muslims.
So anyway...let me repeat my position...the quotes you list do not instruct Muslims to kill/and or subjugate all non-muslims, because they are only in reference to specific events in the early history of Islam. As for those who they Mohammed did kill and/or subjugate...the case of the Muslim scholars seems to be that this violence was a reaction to oppression or aggression brought against Muslims.
#495"Are these verses not pulled from chapters in reference to specific battles? Right or wrong, do the Muslims make no case for provocation in those battles?
That was my argument..."
That's not an argument. That's a question. If you wish to argue that the answer backs up a particular point of view, you have to document whatever you think the answer is.
So anyway...let me repeat my position...the quotes you list do not instruct Muslims to kill/and or subjugate all non-muslims, because they are only in reference to specific events in the early history of Islam.
You're stating this position, but you're providing no documentation to back it up. The reason for this is that your statement is wishful thinking.
#496Vik,
Not being a muslim, I needed an outside source capable of providing the background and insight necessary for me to understand from which the verses you listed came. The links I included on post #501 are to a website that meets that criteria. You'll notice the term taspheer (tasfir?) on the website...I understand this concept to be a legitimate part of Islamic tradition. However, you have chosen not to address any of their points, and instead attack that I framed my answer in the form of a question....well sorry, I guess I was watching Jeopardy that day.
As I stated, I'm not a Muslim...and by no means an expert on the Koran. Realizing that, I'm hesitant to make judgments about quotes that are removed from their proper context. Not only are they isolated from neighboring verses, but they are removed from the time and place in which they are written. Complicating things further still, Muslims disagree amongst themselves over the meanings...so how can any answer I provide be definitive, final proof of anything? Nevertheless, let's proceed...
9.1] (This is a declaration of) immunity by Allah and His Apostle towards those of the idolaters with whom you made an agreement.
The idolaters in question, I believe, were from Makkah. The violence against them seems to have been in reaction towards their violation of a treaty, as outlined in other verses.
For further perspective regarding verse 9:5, I take this quote from Wikipedia...
(Muhammad Asad and Maulana Muhammad Ali) explain that the permission to fight and kill is being given regarding specific tribes already at war with the Muslims who have breached their peace agreements and have attacked the Muslims first.
This statement and the commentary offered by the website I provided links to in post #501 along with verse 9:1 all seem to be in alignment with the assertion that the violence referred to in verse 9:5 is directed toward a specific group of people...not all Muslims.
As we both know, terrorists use verse 9:5 to justify their actions. But taken in full context, it seems to me that an interpretation within the framework of "battle only when provoked" remains viable.
#497Correction...
You probably knew what I meant...but just to avoid confusion...
"is directed toward a specific group of people...not all non-Muslims."
#498
9.1] (This is a declaration of) immunity by Allah and His Apostle towards those of the idolaters with whom you made an agreement.
The idolaters in question, I believe, were from Makkah. The violence against them seems to have been in reaction towards their violation of a treaty, as outlined in other verses.
Those are statements, not arguments. Please provide facts, evidence, and documentation to back up your statements.
(Muhammad Asad and Maulana Muhammad Ali) explain that the permission to fight and kill is being given regarding specific tribes already at war with the Muslims who have breached their peace agreements and have attacked the Muslims first.
Again, that's a statement, not an argument. It's easy to cite some web page and ask me to read it and see if there are any arguments there that make your point. But that's your job, not mine. If there were any strong arguments there that made your point, I think you would have cited them. You are welcome to do so.
In #494 you asked for verses from Islamic holy books, saying "we'll examine if it holds up to your wording that suggests that Muslims are permitted by their religion to attack other religions or nations without provocation. " I provided a number of such verses in #497 that are quite unequivocal in their intention.
As you point out, you are "by no means an expert on the Koran". Precisely so. Yet you have been making all kinds of declarative statements about Islam in this thread for weeks. All the statements you have been making about Islam have been based on wishful thinking, rather than on knowledge about Islam. As someone raised in our beautiful Judeo-Christian culture, you want to speak no ill of anyone and believe the best of everyone. When the whole culture is Judeo-Christian, this is very powerful, and makes the culture as a whole strong and successful. But when you are dealing with another culture, a foreign culture, in this case, an Islamic culture, that has as its key tenet that members of your nation must be killed until everyone in the nation is dead, converted, or has submitted to second-class status as oppressed citizens, it doesn't work. That's what we're facing and as soon as enough of us are aware of it, it will be easy for us to deal with.
#499Vik,
You want evidence...it has been provided. I have limited time, which is why I requested we focus on one verse. Let's put the verse in it's proper context and see what's going on. Don't just read 9.5...read the surrounding verses. When it starts off with "towards those of the idolaters with whom you made an agreement"...tell me how you connect the dots between that and concluding the disbelievers referred to in 9.5 include all non-Muslims.
Look at [9.4]...Except those of the idolaters with whom you made an agreement, then they have not failed you in anything and have not backed up any one against you, so fulfill their agreement to the end of their term; surely Allah loves those who are careful (of their duty). What is the agreement they are talking about.
You have taken these quotes out of their context and expect them to make sense? I may not be an expert on Islam, but I know that you can't take words written in a different time, place, language, and culture than our own, cut and paste them on a website, and then claim to understand what you've read. The links I posted in #501 in answer to your post of #497 were written by actual Muslims who at least sound like they've spent most of their life studying the material...why should I believe your interpretation over their's?
you want to speak no ill of anyone and believe the best of everyone ...I've spoken very ill of Al Qaeda, so why do you say such things? I've even pointed out several times that as far as religions go, I'm really not fond of Islam at all. So I'm not here to convert anybody...I'm simply pointing out that a peaceful interpretation of the Koran is plausible, and that there are many Muslims out there who want the same thing we do...peace. If members of each faith keep cutting and pasting violent passages out of the other's religious text without regard for the context from which they came, what chance does true understanding really have?
So if you have all the facts...then connect those dots between verse 9.1 and 9.5 and tell me what agreement was made with who and what it has to do with muslims wanting to kill or subjugate me.
#500[4.89] They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.
[4.90] Except those who reach a people between whom and you there is an alliance, or who come to you, their hearts shrinking from fighting you or fighting their own people; and if Allah had pleased, He would have given them power over you, so that they should have certainly fought you; therefore if they withdraw from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not given you a way against them.
How would a muslim kill or subjugate non-violent non-muslims without going against the teachings of 4.90?
The more I study the Koran, the more I catch that the verses seem very wrapped up in the current events of seventh century Arabia. There were certainly those who sought to destroy Islam in it's infancy...and the sword verses come across like a battle cry to inspire Muslim soldiers. It's also worth noting that the opponents more often than not were the local polytheistic pagans. Jews killed pagans by God's command all through the Old Testament...so what's the difference?
#501Again, that's a statement, not an argument. It's easy to cite some web page and ask me to read it and see if there are any arguments there that make your point. But that's your job, not mine. If there were any strong arguments there that made your point, I think you would have cited them. You are welcome to do so.
You didn't read the links? There is no specific argument made there to refute your claims because they weren't written as a reaction to accusations. However, the commentaries do provide a lot of background on the context and history of the verses, as interpreted by Muslim scholars who have spent many years studying the Koran. They not only provide commentary for these specific verses...they've gone through and offered an interpretation on every verse in the Koran. Can you claim to have done that? Can you connect the dots between 9.1 that is directed toward those with which an agreement was established, and 9.5 which you claim is directed towards all non-muslims?
Let me put it this way...I haven't cited evidence to defend against your accusations. I've cited people who seem to be qualified experts who offer an entirely different intpretation than you do. Why should I consider you the expert, and not them?
#502Jamie, in #509 you post:
[4.89] They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.
[4.90] Except those who reach a people between whom and you there is an alliance, or who come to you, their hearts shrinking from fighting you or fighting their own people; and if Allah had pleased, He would have given them power over you, so that they should have certainly fought you; therefore if they withdraw from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not given you a way against them.
How would a muslim kill or subjugate non-violent non-muslims without going against the teachings of 4.90?
This is evidence for my argument, not for yours. As I have stated many times in this thread, "the key tenet of Islam is, to kill those of other faiths until they either die, convert, or submit to be oppressed second-class citizens. "Their hearts shrinking from fighting you" equals oppressed and subjugated, particularly given the verse immediately before it, which you quote, 4.89, which commands Muslims unequivocally to kill non-Muslims. Again, your point of view is based on wishful thinking, and a lack of knowledge about Islam, which you appear to maintain by not reading the verses you are quoting.
#503Vik,
There is an "or" before hearts shrinking from fighting you or fighting. Can you offer an explanation of Except those who reach a people between whom and you there is an alliance? What kind of alliance exempts us from attack? For that matter, where in 4.89 or 4.90 are we told who "they" are?
The Koran makes reference to many battles that were fought while Mohammed was alive and Islam was in it's infancy. A verse may say terrible things about "disbelievers" and "infidels", but when I read such "sword verses" next to adjacent verses, it always seems to be in reference to a specific incident or enemy from within that historical context. If you are the expert on Islam that you claim to be, then surely you can explain what the "agreement" in 9.1 and 9.4 is, and you should also have no problem with the "alliance" question I had in the previous paragraph. As for wishful thinking, I'm just wishing you'll address these issues.
As for your assertion about the "key tenet of Islam"...There is violence in the Koran (as there is in the Bible), but there are also strict rules regarding the conduct of warfare. What you consider Islam's key tenet is at worst a contradiction. The key tenet of Islam is the first of the Five Pillars...the "shahadah"...which states "I testify that there is none worthy of worship except God and I testify that Muhammad is the Messenger of God." The greatest source of theological friction between Christianity is the claim that Jesus is the Son of God. Muslims consider Jesus a prophet, but I believe they consider it blasphemous to claim that God can have children. In the grand scheme of things, it's not worth fighting over...but that's just my personal opinion.
#504A verse may say terrible things about "disbelievers" and "infidels", but when I read such "sword verses" next to adjacent verses, it always seems to be in reference to a specific incident or enemy from within that historical context
Please provide evidence to justify your statement that 4.89 and 4.90 refer to "a specific incident or enemy from within that historical context."
What you consider Islam's key tenet is at worst a contradiction. The key tenet of Islam is the first of the Five Pillars...the "shahadah"...which states "I testify that there is none worthy of worship except God and I testify that Muhammad is the Messenger of God."
Please provide evidence to justify your contention that this statement from Islam contradicts the demands of the Koran for Muslims to kill non-Muslims until they are dead, converted, or oppressed second-class citizens in an Islamic state.
#505Vik,
[4.88] What is the matter with you, then, that you have become two parties about the hypocrites, while Allah has made them return (to unbelief) for what they have earned? Do you wish to guide him whom Allah has caused to err? And whomsoever Allah causes to err, you shall by no means find a way for him.
[4.89] They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.
[4.90] Except those who reach a people between whom and you there is an alliance, or who come to you, their hearts shrinking from fighting you or fighting their own people; and if Allah had pleased, He would have given them power over you, so that they should have certainly fought you; therefore if they withdraw from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not given you a way against them.
The taspheer I provided a link to claims that a group of people falsely claimed themselves to be muslims...these would be the hypocrites. The two parties would be the faithful who saw thru the deceit and those who didn't. These "hypocrites" are not killed or subjugated...they are kicked out of town with the warning that if they return, they will be killed or subjugated. However, if they return, and then somehow escape and reach a people with whom there is an alliance (nothing specified as to the religion of those people), then nothing can be done. Bottom line...if they ("they" being the false muslims) withdraw and do not fight...then Allah gives the true muslims no authority to kill or subjugate the false ones. Of course, if this happened in an Old Testament Jewish community, they could have just been destroyed...as you yourself have already said.
But hey, you're the expert...what are your thoughts? Who are the two parties? Who are the hypocrites? If the key tenet of Islam is to convert, kill, or subjugate...why weigh themselves down with so many stipulations?
[2.190] And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits.
[2.191] And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.
[2.192] But if they desist, then surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
[2.193] And fight with them until there is no persecution, and religion should be only for Allah, but if they desist, then there should be no hostility except against the oppressors
If the #1 goal is conquering the world, why include these verses, which create a moral obstacle to unrestrained warfare?
#506The taspheer I provided a link to claims that a group of people falsely claimed themselves to be muslims...these would be the hypocrites.
They can claim it all day long. What evidence do they provide to back up this view?
If the #1 goal is conquering the world, why include these verses, which create a moral obstacle to unrestrained warfare?
There's nothing in the verses you quote that is not consistent with the key tenet of Islam, which is as I have noted many times, that Muslims must kill non-Muslims until they are dead, converted, or oppressed second-class citizens living in an Islamic state.
Again, the verses you provide are evidence for my argument, not for yours. You actually quoted verses that include the text:
And kill them wherever you find them...
...And fight with them until there is no persecution, and religion should be only for Allah...
Again, you appear to be maintaining your view of Islam, by not reading the verses you are quoting.
#507Vik,
You're avoiding my question...if unrestrained warfare is what the Koran calls for, then why include such instructions as "if they desist, then there should be no hostility except against the oppressors"? 2.190-193 is certainly a call to fight against persecution...that doesn't make it a manifesto for unrestrained warfare. There can be mistaking the call for Islam to spread across the globe...but that, in itself, is not the problem (as Christianity also seeks to be universally accepted). The question regards conversion by force. If such conversion is the key tenet, why put up walls and restraints against action. You don't deny these restraints are listed...you simply ignore them and claim I'm not reading the verse.
My argument regarding 4.89 certainly comes from reading the taspheer I read...I try to be careful to list sources. When I read their interpretation of the verses, it simply makes more sense. you have become two parties about the hypocrites ...this part of 4.88 sounds like random babble...they have an explanation for it...you do not. In fact, much of the Koran sounds like random babble to me...so when a violent passage pops up, should I conclude that it suddenly makes sense? The taspheer includes detailed interpretation of every single verse in the Koran. Without such commentary provided by an informed source, how can I expect to understand words written from a different period and culture? There are allusions in there that are meaningless to us, that would make perfect sense to an Arab living in the seventh century. If I told that 7th century Arab, "cat got your tongue?", would he comprehend my implication that he was "speechless", or would he not just think I'm insane.
I don't claim to be the expert...you do...are my questions so unreasonable? If you don't know what these references are about, then can you truly to know what you're reading about? Who are the two parties? Who are the hypocrites? What was the agreement about in 9.1 & 9.4? Was it broken? Is a broken agreement not a transgression? You want evidence...what evidence do you offer? [4.89] They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved ..who are "they"? Are "they" false muslims or non-muslims? Why are they allowed to leave? Why are they allowed sanctuary if they return but escape to a people between whom and you there is an alliance? How is this any more bloodthirsty or aggressive than what we find in the Old Testament?
Is it wishful thinking to hope you might help me to better understand where you're coming from by answering these questions? If you're not going to answer the questions, can you tell me your justification for ignoring them?
#508From Jamie above in #508: "You have taken these quotes out of their context and expect them to make sense? I may not be an expert on Islam, but I know that you can't take words written in a different time, place, language, and culture than our own, cut and paste them on a website, and then claim to understand what you've read...If members of each faith keep cutting and pasting violent passages out of the other's religious text without regard for the context from which they came, what chance does true understanding really have?."
From The Sword of the Prophet, by Serge Trifkovic, page 127, there is:
"As late as 1955, Istanbul's Christians suffered what William Dalrymple called the 'Worst race riot in Europe since Kristallnacht.' Following the last pogrom, the Christians have retained only nominal presence in Turkey.....their numbers are a pale shadow of what they were only two centries ago......What has hapened to the Christian majorities in the Middle East, North Africa, Bosnia, and Kosovo, has happened to the Hindus in the Subcontinent. In 1941, in what would become Pakistan, there were approximately 25% Hindus, and 30% in what would become Bangladesh/ in 1991, a bare 1.5% remained in Pakistan and less than 10% in Pakistan.
"It is remarkable that in this age of rampant victimology, the persecution of Christians by Muslims has become a taboo subject in the Western academy. A complex web of myths, outright lies, and deliberately imposed silence dominates it. Thirteen centuries of religious discrimination, causing suffering and death of countless millions, have been covered by the myth of 'Islamic tolerance' that is as hurtful to the few descendants of the victims as it is useless as a means of appeasing latter-day jihadists. The silence and lies, perpetrated by the Western academy and the media class, facilitates the perpetuation fo religious discrimination and persecution even today.
#509"We are, nevertheless, often told by contemporaty apologists for Islam that the modus operandi of the early Muslims---attacking other people's lands, pillaging, raping, robbing, and extorting--should be JUDGED IN ITS 'CONTEXT,' that was normal behavior at the time. The same understanding, however, is not extended towards those Europeans--often coarse and decidely unpleasant characters that joined the Crusades and attempted to turn the tables and take the battle back into the enemy camp, and whose actions those same Western friends of Islam so sternly condemn. The emerging sense from the language is that the militant expansion of the Muslims was appropriate and understandable, but defeats that were inflicted by their rivals were not, and the truth about the life of non-Muslims remains censored....The story of the non-Muslims' experiences under Islamic rule is as politially incorrect to tell, and therefore as little known in today's America, as the remarkable life of Muhammad himself."
We have discussed the horrible, inhumane history of Islam andthe fact that Muslims name mosques, streets, squares, .... after extremely evil people who committed this evil in the name of Allah to spread the religion. Liberals can talk about the "peaceful" Muslims all they want, but the fact is that very few speak out, there is deafening silence about 9/11 from them, or murders are committed about teddy bears and cartoons, the evil ones run the society and the religion. Liberals promote lies by the commission of propagating half-truths, as in Mr. Trifkovic's discussion above. Liberals have trouble with the truth, and are somehow blind to evil. They just cannot imagine that the Boogeyman might just be in that dark closet, or under that bed. Just how do you explain the decline of Christianity in Muslim lands as described above if it is not Islam and its evil?? Look at NBC, CBS, ABC, what is taught in our public schools and universities that passes for "history." How much true history of Islam do you see? Look at who is in the White House, does anyone think he is even patriotic? Thank liberals in the media everywhere except Fox. Now ask yourself, should and can such a society that embraces or ignores evil and blames everything on Western society survive? You can quote and defend the Qur'an all you want, but the only thing that matters is how Muslims conduct themselves going forward, and a critical examination of this viz. their horrible but covered up history. I would not want to be here 100 years from now. The meek, the blind, the morally anointed, those who suppress the true history and instead promote a false history which reads the way they think it SHOULD have happened, no, the meek will not inherit the Earth. And yes, liberalism is rot from within.
#510Der Alleswisser...your view of history is distorted and biased...but who's isn't? I don't consider either Islam or Christianity as shining examples of God's love. I suppose I could side with the atheists, and just say religion brings out the worst in humanity, but I'm not an atheist, and I believe each religion has been a positive influence on the personal lives of many people.
Yes, Muslims raped, pillaged, killed, and persecuted Christians. Do you want to try to make the case that Christians never did the same things? Get real. When they weren't doing it to others, they were doing it to each other. You know this...why do you even go there?
I don't have time to cover every bloody massacre committed by this group or that group over the last two thousand years...for now, can we stick to to the subject at hand? Vik has claimed the "sword verses" from the Koran are a specific instruction to Muslims to kill and/or subjugate all non-muslims. I'm simply attempting to study each verse by placing it in proper context, studying the relevant historical references from the time in which the text was written, and dissecting the subject matter in order to better comprehend what I'm reading. If that is unacceptable to you...then you'll just have to get over it or die mad. Not that I wouldn't love to discuss your accusations against liberals...two wars and a tax cut go unpaid for, while the rich people who were supposed to create jobs for the rest of us with those "tax cuts" either paid immigrants to to do the work cheaper or shipped the jobs overseas (bipartisan blame to go around on that one)...as if corporate America and health insurance companies can be trusted and the government, the non profit organization full of people that we voted for, is just supposed to step aside and do nothing....oh yeah, we can go round on that if you want...on another thread. It ain't got nothin' to do with this discussion.
#511If you have the courage of your convictions, please raise this issue on the thread where we have been discussing it.
Vik,
Consider the issue raised. Although I have to say, it really didn't require any courage. Prove the courage of your own convictions by taking the time to offer your explanation regarding the "hypocrites" and the "agreement" issues I've been asking about.
#512Jamie, I don't have any responsibility to answer every random question you can come up with. I believe we have discussed this issue sufficiently so that many readers, looking over this thread, can tell which of us they agree with.
#513Vik, the question is in no way random. If you can't answer these questions, then you can't claim the verses you refer to are aimed at all non-muslims. You say I can't prove the verses have a specific historical reference...that I have no evidence...the verses read in full and proper context is evidence enough. Since you can't answer these questions, then you can't claim to understand what you're reading, and it's just easier to say I'm "being random" and "let others decide". Let others decide indeed...but if you truly care at all, then the answer to such questions as "who the hypocrites are" and "what the agreement was about" should be important to you. What kind of expert just tosses these parts of the text aside and says they don't matter? Right now you're looking less like an expert on Islam and more like a professional "hater".
It's time to put the courage of your own convictions on the line, step out of your comfort zone, and let's start having a real discussion about these issues. The clock is ticking...hanging over our heads is the very real and ominous threat that one day, the terrorists will get hold of a nuclear weapon...and we all know they will not hesitate to use it. If we are going to turn this thing around, we are going to need the support of Muslim allies. People like Paul Armstrong come here, and you reject what they offer...no one said you had to convert...just live and let live and let's work together against our common enemy. If the struggle is Islam vs. Christianity, we all lose...but a Judeo Christian Muslim alliance...that's a force to be reckoned with.
#514Jamie, it's up to you to prove what, in your view, the word "hypocrites" in 4.88 refers to. You're the one trying to make some sort of an argument out of it. So far you've only linked to some web page that in your words, "claims" something about it. That's not proof. Go ahead. Prove what you believe it refers to. Provide some documentation. And then when you're done, try being as good as your own word in #494.
In #494 you proposed a test:
That's why I asked, and ask again, for you to give me your best example, and we'll examine if it holds up to your wording that suggests that Muslims are permitted by their religion to attack other religions or nations without provocation.
I replied in #497 with these verses:
[3.151] We will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve, because they set up with Allah that for which He has sent down no authority, and their abode is the fire, and evil is the abode of the unjust.
[4.89] They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.
[8.12] When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.
[9.5] So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
[9.29] Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.
You said "we'll examine if it holds up to your wording that suggests that Muslims are permitted by their religion to attack other religions or nations without provocation." But you haven't yet been as good as your word. You didn't examine the five verses I provided as you said you would. So far you have failed your own test.
#515Vik,
I haven't covered all five in depth, but I've most certainly been attempting to examine the verses as I said I would. I have looked at the neighboring verses, and brought out critical points that are worthy of discussion. You have evaded questions such as the nature of the "agreement" in 9.1, precisely for the reason that it conflicts with your assertion that 9.5 is directed toward all non-muslims. This is not failure...at least not on my part.
[4.88] What is the matter with you, then, that you have become two parties about the hypocrites. Simply put, the gist of the story is that there were those who faked conversion to Islam, and that they betrayed those who were faithful. These faithful were split into two parties on how to deal with the "hypocrites"...those who favored punishment and those who favored mercy. Critics with views similar to your own quote these verses to argue that Muslims aren't allowed to leave the religion(an issue I know you want to avoid, since killing jews who leave the faith is ok per the Old Testament). Any way you look at it, I don't see how you can conclude that 4.88-4.89 are directed towards all non-muslims, so these verses don't meet the criteria you set of "killing and/or subjugating non-muslims". Unless you have an alternate interpretation of who the "two parties" and "hypocrites" are, you're expecting me to believe that 4.88 is random babble but 4.89 is completely coherent...which is a fairly ridiculous thing to assume.
As for undeniable documentation and proof...why is that even necessary? If we are to put these verses on trial, I only need to raise a "reasonable doubt". Why? Because you are suggesting that the text offers specific instruction to kill and/or subjugate without provocation all non-muslims. My research has shown that there exist an interpretation of the text which is perfectly logical and reasonable that contradicts your assertions about the verses that you quote out of context. Personally, I need all doubts to be removed before I compromise my faith in the American principle of freedom of religion and join your efforts to have Islam banned.
You've been shown this before...by Paul from Post #55 in the "Wife Beatings" thread. You didn't listen to him then, and I'm sure you won't now...but I have limited time and can't give adequate attention to all of these verses at this particular moment. If you wish to raise the white flag on 4.89 and 9.5 because you haven't been able to separate the identity of the nonbelievers from the "hypocrites" or those who signed the "agreement", then I'll be happy to give a different verse close examination. For now, Paul's explanations will do...
Verse [3.151] is between God and the disbelievers, God is saying He will put terror in the hearts of those who disbelieve. This is up to God to do, and this verse doesn't teach us, that this is something that us Muslims should do.
Verse [8.12] is referring to how to fight when, and only when war is inevitable. Verse [8.39] actually clarifies the reason for the fighting - persecution. The Muslims had been persecuted, victimised and killed for many years during the lifetime of Muhammad. Actually, Muslims should fight against persecution, but in the 21st Century, this can be done by joining and supporting a Human Rights organisation, rather than going to war.
Chapter 9 of the Qur'an begins, by referring to the treaties, Muslims had made with their enemies, to try to keep the peace. But, while the Muslims had kept their side of these treaties, their enemies had repeatedly broken them. Verse 5 is in this context, and doesn't apply in any other.
#516Your view of 4.89, that it is directed against "those who faked conversion to Islam," makes my point, that "the Koran insists that Muslims attack and kill non-Muslims until they are either dead, converted, or forced to be oppressed second-class citizens in an Islamic state." Those who faked conversion are of course included in non-Muslims.
Your view of 3.15, that it "is between God and the disbelievers, God is saying He will put terror in the hearts of those who disbelieve. This is up to God to do, and this verse doesn't teach us, that this is something that us Muslims should do" - is contradicted by the text of 3.15:
[3.151] We will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve, because they set up with Allah that for which He has sent down no authority, and their abode is the fire, and evil is the abode of the unjust.
It doesn't say "Allah will", it says "We will."
Your view of 8.12 is contradicted by the text of that verse, which plainly states, "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them." It doesn't say anything about only fighting when war is inevitable. You state that "The Muslims had been persecuted, victimised and killed for many years during the lifetime of Muhammad." Please provide documentation for this statement.
And you make no comment at all about 9.29. So you are not yet as good as your word.
#517Vik,
The view of 4.89 that I offer does not prove your point, because their "conversion" was an act of subterfuge, not of forced conversion. Can I prove it? No (which isn't to say it can't be proved) Can you prove they were converted by force? I doubt it. The bottom line is that "hypocrites" identifies who is being talked about....without documentation, we have speculation and interpretation. What makes your interpretation more legitmate than a muslim who has devoted his life to studying the Koran, and not just selected verses?
3.151...I have seen translations that use the word "awe" instead of "terror". This has more to do with making an impression on people than killing or sujbugating them. "Their abode is the fire"...sounds like a suggestion that non-Muslims will burn in hell...not so different from Christians suggesting people, including our jewish friends, will burn in hell for not accepting Jesus.
8.12...carry on to 8.13 This is because they acted adversely to Allah and His Apostle; and whoever acts adversely to Allah and His Apostle-- then surely Allah is severe in requiting (evil). Again..this sounds like a response to something specific, rather than a grand generalization of giving the "A-ok" to killing and subjugating all non-muslims.
9.29 appears to be part of a continuing rant about the broken treaty in 9.1.
Let's look at 60:08 Allah does not forbid you respecting those who have not made war against you on account of (your) religion, and have not driven you forth from your homes, that you show them kindness and deal with them justly; surely Allah loves the doers of justice. The Koran seems pretty clear to me...a muslim who is persecuted has an obligation to fight that persecution. This verse indicates there is no rule against a muslim living peacefully with non-believers.
I doubt there is much non-Islamic documentation of the life of Mohammed to go by, either for or against. I doubt you want to make documentation the cornerstone of your argument though, as secular documentation regarding the life of Jesus is pretty scarce too. Beyond the evidence that both Jesus and Mohammed were real people, what we believe about them is a matter of faith...and interpretation.
How anyone can read the Koran, Bible, or any other religious document and believe only one interpretation of the text is possible is beyond me...yet people do it all the time. What use is such blind devotion to God?
#518Vik,
All else aside for a moment, the message you seem to be sending is that we should subjugate them before they subjugate us. You make no allowance for interpretations that conflict with your view of Islam, and therefore put yourself in a position where consideration of working in cooperation with Muslim allies is not a viable option.
You may think of me as someone who is "nitpicking details"...but there's a lot at stake. The suggestion that we should in any way ban Islam is contrary to our core American principles of freedom of religion and separation of church and state. On top of that, you're mindset is placing a wedge between us and the entire Muslim world. So not only do you wish to make us look hypocritical by compromising our own values, your making more enemies than allies...how does this help? How is this serving our own interests?
#519The view of 4.89 that I offer does not prove your point, because their "conversion" was an act of subterfuge, not of forced conversion.
Either way, they're still non-Muslims, and 4.89 still says to kill them. So your point is not relevant.
3.151...I have seen translations that use the word "awe" instead of "terror".
A) document it. B) There are spurious translations done specifically to fool people such as yourself who are unwilling to face the historical facts about how Muslims have killed Christians and Jews in countries all over the world following the interpretation of the Koran which they proclaim to be accurate, which I have documented here for you in tremendous detail, and which you, with no experience or learning whatsoever in the topic, persist in claiming cannot possibly be a correct interpretation. The principal of Muslims fooling non-Muslims about Islam is part of Islam and is officially called "taqiyah" and "dawa." C) All three translations of 3.151 presented by the Muslim Students' Association USC website use the word "terror."
8.12 ... this sounds like a response to something specific
It says quite plainly:
[8.12] When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.
In Islam this is considered the direct word of Allah. It doesn't make any difference what you think it "sounds like."
9.29 appears to be part of a continuing rant about the broken treaty in 9.1
To you, the religion of Islam appears to be nothing more than a rant, e.g. a late-night comic's rant, or some random article in the paper. That is probably why you don't know what you're talking about. You've been taught that all religion is fairy tales. That's fine. You are welcome to believe that. That's not what's at issue here. What's at issue here is A) what the Koran, the Hadith, and the Sira actually say, as opposed to what you would like them to say or what you would like to imagine that they say, and B) that many people raised in that religion are raised as fundamentalists who believe it is the direct word of Allah, and that they must follow it, and in fact do follow it, as you can see by the murders committed all over the world in the name of Islam, and the numerous formerly Christian nations that have become Islamic after the Muslims killed and/or drove out a majority of the Christians and Jews - nations such as Turkey and Lebanon, which, according to your view, could never possibly have had such history.
#520Vik,
Either way, they're still non-Muslims, and 4.89 still says to kill them. So your point is not relevant.
1) the issue is with the subterfuge 2)how do you reconcile your view that God's command to kill Jews who leave the faith is acceptable, but the supposed same scenario in Islam is not ok?
A) document it. B) There are spurious translations
The true source would be considered the original language it was written in, which I can't read and you probably can't either. As there are multiple translations of the Bible, why should there not be multiple translations of the Koran? As for the word "terror", it isn't made clear where the source of that terror comes from...there is nothing to indicate that the terror isn't simply aroused within the hearts of the non-believers by seeing the "shining example" of the life led by a good muslim.
In Islam this is considered the direct word of Allah.
The direct word from Allah regarding an issue within the lifetime of Mohammed that those early Muslims were dealing with. The Koran is written with the 7th century AD and the Arab world at that time.."when the lord revealed to the ages"...past tense...nothing here indicates a general instruction of behaviour towards all non-muslims.
That is probably why you don't know what you're talking about.
I'm trying to learn...but you don't seem to have much expertise on the subject either. Much of the Koran is difficult for me to understand...the only verses which you claim to understand are the ones that seem violent. We are both ignorant of this subject...the only difference is that I realize it.
#521As for the word "terror", it isn't made clear where the source of that terror comes from...there is nothing to indicate that the terror isn't simply aroused within the hearts of the non-believers by seeing the "shining example" of the life led by a good muslim.
Correction on this part...very bad wording..closer to what I mean is that the source of the fear could be from Allah...just as God at times put fear (or strength if he was mad) in the hearts of the enemies of the Jews.
Both the Old Testament and Koran have lots of battle references, and violence throughout. You cherry pick one and ignore the other in my opinion.
#522You've been taught that all religion is fairy tales.
Really? You know what I've been taught? You think they taught that all religion is fairy tales in the Southern Baptist Church I grew up attending? Two lessons I learned... 1) respect the American principle of separation of church and state, and 2) to think for myself. Unfortunately, the Southern Baptist convention abandoned these principles, and adopted a "fundamentalist" ideology...my parents switched to a Methodist Church some years ago. In the end, we're not discussing what I believe...we're discussing the beliefs of Muslims...and I am not a Muslim. If you want to talk about what I believe, you're free to ask.
A) what the Koran, the Hadith, and the Sira actually say, as opposed to what you would like them to say
Right back at ya'....you only give consideration to the parts of the Koran that support your interpretation...which is ironically the same method used by terrorists to brainwash recruits.
nations such as Turkey and Lebanon, which, according to your view, could never possibly have had such history.
Such a statement is ridiculous...if our Christian ancestors actually followed the teachings of Christ, then I would have Native American neighbors. If conquering others is your criteria for defining a violent religion, then Christianity isn't so different than Islam.
It seems to me that if Muslims were motivated primarily by the text of the Koran to become terrorists, then wouldn't there be as many terrorist from places like Indonesia, Bangladesh, Kuwait, Morocco, and Albania as there are from Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan? You bring up Lebanon...how do you explain so many Christians still left in Lebanon?
You seem to have the perception that Muslims are violent people...how many Muslims do you personally know? How many Muslim nations have you visited? What personal experience do you have with Muslims, other than what you read filtered by the media of your choice?
#523What does this "sound like"...
Exodus 23:27-30 (New International Version)
27 "I will send my terror ahead of you and throw into confusion every nation you encounter. I will make all your enemies turn their backs and run. 28 I will send the hornet ahead of you to drive the Hivites, Canaanites and Hittites out of your way. 29 But I will not drive them out in a single year, because the land would become desolate and the wild animals too numerous for you. 30 Little by little I will drive them out before you, until you have increased enough to take possession of the land.
#524It's interesting that you bring up "da'wa" and "taqiyah", yet I mention "tasphir" and you cry that it's inadmissable...simply someone's "opinion". As I go about trying to research info for this discussion, I run across the term "tasphir" all the time, yet "da'wa" and "al Taqiyah" I haven't seen before. Let's look at these terms and what they mean...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tafsir
It states here the sources relied on for information, and that simply using one's own opinion is forbidden. Also from Wikipedia...The science of Qur'anic commentary and exegesis is known as tasfir. The translation I saw that used the word "awe" instead of "terror" came from here... http://classicalislamgroup.com/index.php?view=tafseer/s3-v151to152
What is wrong with use of the word "awe" anyway? It's a synonym. You simply prefer to use "terror" because you're attempting to link it with acts of terrorism.
I looked up the definition of da'wa and taqiyah and found this....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqiyya
Taqiyya...which I now realize you, the "expert", misspelled...does indeed involve trickery...it allows a muslim to conceal their faith when in danger. Da'wa is simply proselytizing.
#525you, with no experience or learning whatsoever in the topic
Let me point out the arrogance of this statement one more time...my admission of limited knowledge regarding Islam is not equivalent to "no experience or learning whatsoever on the topic". I was raised in a Christian family, in a predominantly Christian nation, and so it's easier for me to discuss that religion than it is Islam. I have not been to a Muslim nation, and I haven't hung out with many Muslims...how about you? I've asked this before out of curiousity, and have gotten no reply. Why should I trust your opinion? I'm studying this stuff now, and I know a lot more than when I started...what you don't appear to appreciate is that I don't take verses taken out of context at face value. I ask pertinent questions, and you evade them...saying it's my job to answer them. What kind of "expert" gives that kind of reply? In the end, we are two non-experts having this discussion...I would never claim you know nothing...but what you choose to know and choose to ignore is disturbing.
Why is it disturbing?...because you have chosen to become what you claim to hate. You would have us subjugate Muslims before they subjugate us. If we are headed towards a new Dark Age, we will be led by Christians and Muslims who cling to their distrust of each other.
#526From Jamie above:
"You seem to have the perception that Muslims are violent people...how many Muslims do you personally know? How many Muslim nations have you visited? What personal experience do you have with Muslims, other than what you read filtered by the media of your choice?"
Really? What sane American would go to any Muslim nation? I have been to Tunesia, Egypt, Kenya, Turkey... in the past but I won't ever go back. I was unaware of the evil there. This fact alone is testimony as to the danger of the religion. Now consider that Muslims can and do come to the US, with no fear. Walk the streets of Jacksonville, Dayton, San Diego, Richmond, .... any American city, and compare that with the cities of the Muslim world. This in spite of being at the crossroads of the world, having invaded and occupied the cradle of civilization, and all that oil. So why is this, is it not due to the teachings of the Qur'an? Is this not due to the Muslim world being a tectonic plate with the rest of the world? Ask the Greeks, Slavs, Africans, ... how wonderful it is and has been to have them as neighbors. Research the terms "Dar al Harb" and "Dar al Islam" from the Qur'an, and see what is similar to that in the Bible.
#527Der Alleswisser...the fact that you were unaware of any evil in the middle east is "testimony to the danger of the religion"? I just have to say that statement doesn't make any sense whatsoever, but I'll be happy to give you the opportunity to clarify. What were your expericences in the Middle East? Were you treated badly? Were you in the military when you you were there, or just visiting (not that it's my business...I would think that might alter how the locals looked at you though)?
If anybody reading this has been to the middle east and would like to share their experiences, I think it would be very interesting to hear about. How about you Vik...what can you tell us about the lives of everyday Muslims?
Here's two interesting stories of westerners (women on top of that) that I found randomly searching on the internet...interesting stuff and I'd love to hear anyone's thoughts after reading them...
#528too much intellectual onanism for me allewisser. the pragmatic realities of todays battles between good and evil are more than one can bear as the world self destructs. my goodness enough of germanic intellectual jerking off. go see avatar and get james cameron's message of what it all about baby. unobtainium at 20 million dollars per kilogram. wow baby.
#529the world governments including china have advised their citizens to avoid thailand. the new baby which has been born on the streets of bangkok is a post modern hi-tech moneyed revolution called "red". karl marx created this utopian concept called communism over 150 years ago to each according to his needs and from each according to their ability. amazingly paradoxically and even miraculousy for the first time on planet earth this is just what is happening in thailand under the leadership of the billionaire ex pm thaksin shinawatra and is causing fear in all the governments of the world. even han sen the pm of cambodia and former khmer rouge commander has turned tail against thaksin shinawatra whom he was kissing on all 4 cheeks just a few months back. it appears that he now realises that if the phony pseudo democratic government of pm abhisit vejjajiva falls that all governments which kiss the arses of the rich and powerful elites and military industrial moguls will be destabilised which of course also includes all the islamic fundamentalist nations on planet earth. amazingly class warfare has become an international fact of life and now crosses all national borders. its psychotic baby is of cause suicidal terrorism which is almost impossible to control although the united states is making enormous profits from its obsessive anti-terrorist money minting games since 911. the supreme latest example of this money minting idiocy and imbecility is obamas multi-million dollar support for the nuclear power industry and the new york forum to reduce nuclear armaments which is a total hypocritical farce as it is the united states which created nagasaki and hiroshima gattling guns and repeater rifles and machmoud amadinijad and kim yung il have the united states by the short hairs comparing their small cocks to the american super large cocksmanship which includes obama and hillary clinton. its all big money and big busines and the worship of gold and islamics have it right this time threatening to close the straights of hormuz and sending a nuclear missile into the yankee stadium..of course as usual little ein breira israel is the meat in the sandwitch as the whole world is tipping into a mass psychosis of obsessive consumerism while america spends hundreds of millions updating its nuclear stock piles. . its very funny that james cameron's avatar says it all with unobtainium at 20 million dollars per kilogram and that clone of general wa(e)stemoreland of nam body count fame who gets 2 well aimed toxin tipped arrows into the heart courtesy of the blue squaw. another case in point is californias schwartzeneggars about turn on offshore oil drilling which could destroy louisianna with the recent blow out. this terrible oil slick is another example of man's stupidity and greed for uncontrolled wealth and profits. black oil and nuclear weaponry and of course world wide pollution of mind and planet are part of this scenario which now endangers the very survival of future generations. ..
#530Yes, I was in the military, and I was not treated badly at all. The people were very friendly. The problem is not the people in general, who are not evil, but it is the fanatics that control the religion that are the problem. The first victims of Islam are the Muslims, especially the women.
#531Der Alleswisser...Out of curiousity, do you know of any military personnel from Tunisia, Egypt, Kenya, or Turkey that are allowed to visit America the way you were able to tour their home country? How would you feel about Muslim nations having military bases on American soil?
I'm glad to hear you were treated well during your stay there....but it doesn't sound like you really got to know anybody that well. Yes, there are plenty of fanatics to be found, but there are also plenty of Muslims who reject the radical ideologies of such fanatics. And I won't say that women's rights isn't an issue, but it's not an issue unique to the Islamic world.
Did you read the story from abroadview.org that I posted? If the story about people running to take the camera away from the child because they were afraid an Israeli soldier might think he had a weapon doesn't bother you, then nothing will. I'm not saying the Israeli's are the bad guys, the bit about having to learn how to put on a gas mask was troubling as well...I'm just pointing out that each side has a story to tell. If people take the time to listen, maybe we can get beyond who's wrong and who's right and make this world a better place.
#532
#533"Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, "Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children. But do not touch anyone with the mark. Begin your task right here at the Temple." So they began by killing the seventy leaders. "Defile the Temple!" the LORD commanded. "Fill its courtyards with the bodies of those you kill! Go!" So they went throughout the city and did as they were told." (Ezekiel 9:5-7 NLT)
The God of the Old Testament seems nothing like the God of the New Testament. Of course, He returns to form by Revelations, with visions of an ultimate argmageddon full of abstract images that allow TV evangelists room to characterize Muslims, Communists, or whatever group they want to blame for the troubles of the world as "evil" and America and Israel as "good"(while humbly asking for monetary donations). So much for we're all God's children. For the record, there are verses in the New Testament which can be argued as condoning violence...personally I feel Jesus embraced a more pacifistic approach than Mohammed, but show me what kind of influence that had on Europe as it colonized the world.
The Koran does instruct that those who die in "jihad" will be rewarded in the afterlife...but the interpretation of "jihad" is the crux of the debate. There are many verses that make it quite clear that violence is reserved for use as self defense against aggression or oppresion. Of course, when you look at the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, you enter yet another debate...who started it? As misguided as they may be, terrorists believe they are fighting the only way they can against an aggressive enemy...and when comparing the number of innocent Palestinians killed with Jewish vicitms in Israel, it becomes easier to see where that impression might come from.
#534From the movie "the Outlaw Josey Wales"....
Ten Bears: These things you say we will have, we already have.
Josey Wales: That's true. I ain't promising you nothing extra. I'm just giving you life and you're giving me life. And I'm saying that men can live together without butchering one another.
Ten Bears: It's sad that governments are chiefed by the double tongues. There is iron in your words of death for all Comanche to see, and so there is iron in your words of life. No signed paper can hold the iron. It must come from men. The words of Ten Bears carries the same iron of life and death. It is good that warriors such as we meet in the struggle of life... or death. It shall be life.
#535Not for shrinking violet fields of moral relativism and equivalency: as long as Islam sanctifies violence- and for whatever reason - it compromises the moral standing of the Islamic conception of deity and makes morally unequal to the Christian conception. Two religions, two distinct Gods. Not only that, but bi-Christian, secular liberalism could not have flourished without the borrowed inspiration.
Celebrations of 'virtuous violence' are best left to civic society. But of course, Islam does not render unto Caesar but seeks to become it from within the fold of democratic lands.
#536
34"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn
" 'a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law -
36a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.'[a]
37"Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; 38and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.
Christians differ amongst themselves about the meaning of these verses...just as Muslims disagree on interpretations of similar verses in the Koran. The claim that all Muslims glorify violence and Christians abhor it is an absurdity produced by faith that us vs. them = good vs. evil. When Christianity rejects violence, then we will have the moral right to ask it of Islam...but I don't see us ever giving up the right to defend ourselves or our faith...and why should we?
As for "Two religions, two distinct Gods"...this also a ridiculous assertion. Perhaps you meant to say that Mohammed was a false prophet and the Koran was not inspired by God...I recommend you phrase it that way in the future, as you make it sound like you believe in two deities, not one. Even if that's what you meant to say, it's still a ridiculous statement. It's well known that Muslims consider Allah as the same God of Abraham and Jesus...your disagreement is with how they choose to worship...not who they worship. If you're going to claim they worship a different God just because you disagree with them, then I guess you could say Jews worship a different God than Christians...or that Protestants and Catholics worship separate dieties...such statements wouldn't make any sense. Like it or not, Muslims worship the same God we do...and if God disapproves of how they worship, I'm sure he'll let them know on judgment day. Apparently a lot of folks here feel qualified to make that judgment here and now themselves.
#537Even if that's what you meant to say, it's still a ridiculous statement. It's well known that Muslims consider Allah as the same God of Abraham and Jesus...your disagreement is with how they choose to worship.
#53834"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn
" 'a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law -
36a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.'[a]
37"Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; 38and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. Christians differ amongst themselves about the meaning of these verses...
That's an off-the-wall statement. You would be hard pressed to find a Christian scholar taking a literal application of violence from these verses. You might find other references to support your case, but not this.
It is not ridiculous in any manner at all to refer to the God of the Bible and Allah as two separate deities. The attributes of these gods, as described by the two texts, are generally quite different. For example, the New Testament says that Christ, the Son of God, was God and Man. Now look at all of the problems for the god of Islam in that sentence. It just is not the same person. Ah, and there is another problem. The God of the Bible has personality and in fact, is the first source of same. In the end, your argument is like saying it is ridiculous to say that Barack Obama and George Bush are two distinct presidents.
#539Islam consecrates kiilling as a holy act-in certain circumstances, a worshipful submission that is expected to gain special favor from an honored Alllah. Although of course, any 'enemy' of Islam can't be any genuine enemy of Allah worth the name. That is, unless 'Islam' conflated itself with 'Allah' - which of course, would the hellish Shirk. Furthermore, it can be argued that since the human sacrificing of involuntary others has long been a historical feature of Islam, that its idea of deity is closer in moral essence to that of the Aztecs, among others, than it ever could be to the Christian devotional conception of the 'One God'. Otherwise, a Muslim would need to be a 'child' instead of a functiional 'slave' of Allah; which would of course, make him into a 'Father'. And since fathers don't kill their children, violence could no longer be consecrated - what then for Islam?
#540Ancient of Days...Here's some thoughts from Pat Robertson on the verse in question..."Christ does bring peace, not as the world gives, but it is not the force of compromise with evil, but of conquest over wrong, over Satan, the triumph of the cross. Meanwhile there will be inevitably division in families, in communities, in states. It is no namby-pamby sentimentalism that Christ preaches, no peace at any price. The Cross is Christ's answer to the devil's offer of compromise in world dominion. For Christ the kingdom of God is virile righteousness, not mere emotionalism." I think that's a fair interpretation of the verse. But here's what happens...people start seeing themselves as the sword itself, and that they are merely the instrument God uses to carry out His will, when in fact they are acting purely out of their own desires. When Christians start seeing Islam as evil, they stop caring as much as they should about the plight of Muslims who get in the way of our fight against that evil. Vice versa is also true...some Muslims get caught in the same line of thinking when they read their own text. The trouble is...not everyone is a scholar, and thinks these things through...I'm not blaming the verse as the cause of trouble, I'm just stating the fact that people use such verses for their own purposes.
If you want to say Muslims are misguided and tricked by Mohammed into worshipping a "false" version of God, then fine, that's your right to believe that...but to say they are worhsipping a different God is simply illogical. Cut out Mohammed, and Muslims share all the same prophets that Christians do...cut out Jesus, and we're pretty much all Jewish. As for the difference in personalities...could the personality of God in the Old Testament and Christ in the New possibly be any more different? If they are one and the same, what sense does this make? The biggest difference between Islam and Christianity is that Christianity says Jesus is the Son of God, and Islam says it is blasphemous to even suggest that God has children....meanwhile, I'm totally confused because no one ever has explained to me who the Sons of God were who procreated with human females in the early part of Genesis....what was that about?
Again...I don't understand classifying Allah and God as separate deities...both religions are monotheistic, and don't accept the possibility of the existance of other deities. Here's a question for you...how many Christians believe in the Holy Trinity? Do you consider those who believe God, Christ, and the Holy Ghost are separate enitities to be bad Christians...or perhaps not Christian at all?
#541Jamie, It appears you believe that it is logical to believe that an illusion of a reality and the reality itself are one and the same. However, I would rather drink from the oasis than from the mirage. To believe that Christians believe in the Allah of the Qur'an while at the same time repudiating it as the words of Allah is as intellctually incredible as believing that although Muslims repudiate Jesus as the metaphorical Son of God, nevertheless, they believe he is divine.
#542Jac...Christians don't have to believe anything in the Koran for Allah to be the same God of the Bible. Muslims consider Jesus a prophet, and they embrace the God of Judaism as their own...their claim is that the true meaning of the teachings of those prophets were lost over time, and that the revelations to Mohammed were God's way of setting the record straight. A Christian can say that's hogwash...and that's fine...it doesn't change the fact that the roots of Islam sprang out of the Judaism and Christianity (just as Christianity has roots in Judaism, yet they are quite separate religions).
Nothing I'm writing here is an endorsement of one over the other...so your comment about illusions and reality is irrelevant to my point. If we stick with logic such as your's, then we would say Mormans worship a different God, because they believe in the book of Morman, which all other Christians reject...just as they reject the teachings of the Koran.
#543Personally, I would not consider Pat Robertson a worthy theologian. But perhaps that is an improper bias. Nevertheless, since you went there, fine. What he said in no way condones violence. He simply states that if you TRULY adhere to Christianity, you will, potentially and for example, lose your friends and your family. That is a fairly radical and that is a heavy price to pay for membership in this particular faith.
As for you not understanding someone classifying Allah and the God of Abraham as separate deities.....I cannot help you there. If you cannot discern what is happening in our world...right before your eyes.... and the difference of effect that the two religions have on their adherents......you are blind, IMO.
This website might help you, however: www.thereligionofpeace.com
Of special interest on this site is the ongoing daily, current list of murders, bombings, killings, massacres, etc. committed by adherents of Islam. If you can find a similar website that lists such lovely events committed by Christians or Jews at a magnitude within even 10% of this horrible list committed by muslims......please provide same. This list provides the reason that there is strife in the world...the muslims are causing it. WORLDWIDE. They get along with NO ONE.
#544The incantation 'allah akbar' uttered at the point of killing the supposed 'enemies of Islam' should be unequivocal proof enough to the rational that although homocide can be an act of worship in Islam, its allah is more a kindred spirit of the war god(s) of the Aztecs than it is of God of Christianity.
As for historical derivation, a crocodile and me ultimately share the same origin, but does that make me a crocodile?
As a matter of strategy one can understand why Islam misappropriated pre-existing traditions as well as how the liberally unschooled could have been prevailed upon to believe that the Deity they predominantly do not believe is Allah, but if they do not abandon the fiction in the face of common sense, one has to ask Jamie what are their scurrilous motives for their willful denial.
#545How you take two monotheistic religions that have historical roots in the same third monotheistic religion and say they are worshipping two separate deities remains illogical to me. Why don't you just say they're following the lead of a false prophet and leave it at that? In the end, this isn't the big issue...the suggestion that Muslims are the primary cause of strife in the world is a far more serious topic.
It's amazing to me that people complain about the growing population of Muslims in Europe and here in the US. When was the last time a Muslim army marched on Christian land? How many Muslim nations have warships patroling the waters off the coasts of American ports? How many Christian nations were colonies of Muslim empires during the last couple of centuries? The average Muslim isn't in favor of terrorism, but how fierce do you expect their rejection of such evil to be when western civilization has a hand in every pot in the Middle East? Let's be honest...if it weren't for all the oil there, would we have any use for nations like Saudi Arabia or Iraq?
I'm not saying we're the bad guys...I'm just suggesting people walk in someone esle's shoes for a while before they start casting stones.
#546See http://www.redstate.com/mailloux/2010/06/23/amerabia/ The idea is not some Muslim army, it is oil money to buy lawyers and to use the liberal left, Democrats, to destroy America from within. Read The Grand Jihad by Andrew McCarthy. Read how Barack Obama, as an American senator, campaigned for Obdinga in Kenya, who was running against the pro-Western democrat leader, and how Obama's candidate was running on a platform to bring Sharia law to Kenya.
The Islamic plan is to conquer the world by immigration and then overbreeding and using Democrats and other liberals as useful idiots. Why should Europe, and soon Canada and the US have such a large Muslim diasopra? Islam is not compatible with other religions, it is a deep dard creeping evil. Not into conspiracy theories, but the Boogeyman is in the closet, and it is Islam; they know that Japan made a huge error by attacking Pearl Harbor, and won't repeat that. They actually want Osama reigned in. Incremental creeping evil.
#547If you were a Muslim, would you appreciate the armies and navies of predominantly Christian nations patroling all around you...would you be accepting of collateral damage and civilian deaths on the battlefield (even at the expense of your own family)...would you be trusting of your government if it bent to the will of foreign powers? I'm pretty sure the average American would not stand for such things...why we expect others to accept them without complaint is a mystery to me. I'm not suggesting Muslims are innocent victims...but I am adamantly opposed to this obsession with charachterizing fellow human beings as evil without consideration of world events form their point of view.
Reading is great...but reading only that which caters to your own preconceived notions is irresponsible. Not that you're guilty of such a thing, Der Alleswisser...out of curiousity, what books have you read lately that represent a view point contrary to your own?
#548Much of it was prompted by 9/11, but the first was hearing that Muslims were the victims of the Crusades one too many times. Knew that something was wrong with that story, and so reading revealed that the Crusades were the result of four centuries of Muslim aggression, and that the religion was spread by Convert/Die/Dhimmi. Religion of peace? No, another big lie. Read The Legacy of Jihad, by Andrew Bostom, and The Decline of Eastern Christianity, by Bat Ye'or for the story of Muhammod, and all these other prolific Muslim murderers like Tamerlane, Khilja, Mahmod,.... and note all the mosques, minarets, streets,... that are named for them. Everyone has heard about the American cowboys, and indians, Viet Nam, .... but how much do they know about these biggest-in-history murderers?? Are we in the West not living a big lie, and thus susceptible to all this Religion of Peace stuff?? Is it not hypocrisy to blame everything on America in view of not even have colonized Puerto Rico, viz. the vast lands that are now Muslim that were Christian? Page 117, Slavery, Terrorism, & Islam, The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat, by Peter Hammond:
"The crusaders were reacting to four centuries of relentless Islamic jihad, which had wiped out over 50% of all the Christians in the world, and conquered over 60% of all the Christian lands on earth - before the crusades even began." Page 118: "Muslim armies sacked and slaughtered their way across some of the greatest Christian cities in the world, including Alexandria, Carthage, Antioch, and Constantinople. These Muslim invaders destroyed over 3,200 Christian churches just in the first 100 years of Islam." Your history teachings, and everything in the media ignores this, or even denys it happened. America and the west are living a false reality, unaware of the creeping evil of this religion, susceptible to all the liberal liberal revisionist history and al Taqiyya lies spouted by Islam's apologists. Read the books, don't live a lie.
The Armenian genocide, covered up by the Western media, culminating in the burning of Smyrna (now Ismir, just like Constaniople, another great Muslim slaughter, is now Istanbul), Turkey and the slaughter of its 300,000 inhabitants in 1922. Today's Americans know nothing of this, the history they are taught are all lies, so as to not offend Muslims. And Muslims know they did this evil, they are protecting a faith that they know to be evil, they are not made innocent by denying it happened. Read Smyrna, The Destruction of a City, by Marjorie Houspian Dobkin.
#549We are told by the media and taught in schools that slavery was some kind of American birth defect, and that no one else had slaves. It was an American thing. But read Slavery, Terrorism, & Islam, The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat, by Peter Hammond, and find out that only 4.4 % of slaves that came across the Atlantic, over a period of 300 years, came to America (less than a half million), the rest going to South America.
Page 44: "It is extraordinary that, considering that less than 5% of all the Trans-Atlantic slaves ended up in North America, the vast majority of films, books and articles concerning hte slave trade concentrate only on the American involvement in the slave trade, as though slavery was a uniquely American abberation. However, the vastly greater involvement of Portugal, Spain, and France seems to be largely ignored. Even more so the far greater and longer-running Islamic slave trade into the Middle East has been so ignored as to make it one of history's best - kept secrets."
What hypocrisy. The American slaves became citizens, and now are a prominent part of the American mileu and ethos. And read how Muslims raided Africa for slaves for the last 14 centuries, a HUGE factor in inhibiting that continent's growth, much worse than the tsetse fly and all the other stuff. Read about how about 80% died while being marched across Africa to Muslim lands, about how nearly all males were castrated to become enuchs or homosexuals for the sultans, read about how about how about 90 % of those castrated did not survive. Read about how most slaves who crossed the Atlantic were males, but two-thirds of Islamic slaves were females to become concubines. Now realize that while blacks are prominent and successful in America, that the offspring of concubine slaves were largely killed at birth, and so are not nearly so prominent in Muslim nations. Eunuchs, of course, cannot procreate. These Africans were exploited and destroyed, as if they never existed. But what do you hear about this and what are you taught about it? What hypocrisy.
What about the Left, the Liberals, today's Democrats? Have they sold their souls to the Devil to get their hands on American taxpayer money to throw it at all victims to buy their votes? Faustian Democrats? You see how the Democrats have been letting terrorists go from GITMO, of which 20% returned to terrorism. You see how Democrats went after the CIA and NSA to stop them from monitoring Muslims, giving them citizenship rights even though they are not citizens, and are America's enemies. Of course, the Democrats will deny any of this, just call it a conspriacy theory, but read The Grand Jihad, by Andrew McCarthy, and verify the previously - posted statement about Obama supporting the Sharia law candidate in Kenya. You do know that establishment of Sharia law (totalitarian, not multicultural at all, but unicultural) world wide is the whole purpose of jihad? Did you know that there are about 90 Sharia courts now in Britain. Do you notice that you are starting to hear about Sharia law in America? Do you think this is an exaggeration to call Islam a creeping evil?? Do you think it is just all made up? If your only source of information is the CBS Evening news and what you are taught in school, you just might.
#550Read about how the left is being exploited by Muslims like CAIR, the Muslim Brotherhood, and all their offshoots. They are just fronts for Hamas and Hezbollah (Party of God?? Party of Satan). You know that Christian churches are forbidden by law in Saudi Arabia, but that all these mosques in Europe and America are funded by Saudi oil? What hypocrisy. While most Muslims are not ACTIVELY evil, those who speak for the religion are. The mosques that are in Europe and America are funded by Saudi oil, and that is the totalitarian Wahhabist Salafist Islam. It is not like any other religion, it is not compatible. It uses stealth and deceit. One estimate has 85% of all mosque imams in Canada and 80% of those in the US as jihadist. Liberals love to talk about how the majority of Muslims do not subscribe to the evil verses of the Qur'an. That is not the reality.
Page 89 of The Grand Jihad: "....it becomes ever more specious to pretend that Islamists are a fringe. Islamist terrorists are a fringe. By contrast, Islamists - Muslims who reject individual liberty, freedom of conscience, secular democracym and equality of opportunity - are preponderant among believers who regard themselves are religious (as opposed to lapsed or merely cultural Muslims). They count among their number both profoundly influential, globally - renowned Muslim scholars and Islamic regimes, such as the Saudi royal family, which command millions of believers. Even believers who do not walk the walk revere Islamist prescriptions in theory." Go back and read that again, it is dangerous to not understand this. Growing a large Islamic diaspora in Europe and America is a means to conquest.
#551There is no need to read books by liberals. Just like CBS, NBC, ABC, they are merely promoting ideology, investigative journalism is dead in the mainstream media. That is why Obama got elected, the media gave him a pass, just blind cheerleading. That is why no one knows about these Obama and the left's Islamic connections, that is how the Democrats got away with wasting millions of taxpayer money on corruption like ACORN, that is why Americans did not realize that it was Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Maxine Waters, Bill Clinton, .... and the Democrat party in general that thought they would let taxpayer's pay for homes that their minority voters could not afford, via Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae, bringing down the world financial market in the process. The American people voted for the villians of the housing meltdown (Read The Housing Boom and Bust, by Thomas Sowell, if you want to know the truth).
Remember what Karl Marx said: "First, you must rewrite history."
The next time you go to McDonalds, order an Obama Value Meal (the guy behind you pays for it.)
#552Der Aleswisser,
Your last 4-5 posts were simply magnificient. I just wish all Americans and Westerners in general could read them and gain a small part of the knowledge you have tried to impart. In 10 minutes they would receive more education than they will ever receive from the controlled media of the worldwide PC coalition to supress freedom.
I have long complained about the one way bias presented about the Crusades. As you note, these wars were a result of 4 centuries of brutal incursions into Europe by Muslims bent on killing, torture, and world domination. The Crusades DID NOT happen in a vacuum.
And as you also state, the West is ignorantly allowing these same people to come back into our communities, set up shop and grow their poisonous presence until some future day they will be too powerful to oppose. We all witnessed the horrible site a week ago when British soldiers, coming home from the battlefield and fighting the Taliban and terrorists, were harrassed, shouted out and demonstrated against by the muslim citizens of the U.K. These people have NO allegiance to the UK. They only have allegiance to Islam and as you note, Sharia law. Just as Germany outlaws Nazis, we in America should outlaw Islam. It is not a religion, it is a political ideology bent on world domination by very violent means...just like Nazism.
Keep up the good work my friend.
#553Is it not hypocrisy to blame everything on America ...yep, that would be hypocrisy, which is why I have never done that. The game of blaming everything on one side and giving the other a free pass is the exact problem I have with this entire website. Nations, religions, and cultures of all kinds have conquered, abused, enslaved, and mistreated their fellow man in countless ways, across the globe, for all of written history (and before that even).
There is no need to read books by liberals. How can you oppose what you don't read?
The trend in news reporting is towards catering to bias. Being run by humans, I recognize that total impartiality in the media is unrealistic, but what happened to the days it was at least held as the ideal to strive for? With an increasingly diverse media, money is made by giving the people what they want...which seems to be only the facts that reinforce their preconceived notions about events. The danger to our nation is real...we have always held diverse opinions...but now we we're not even working off the same data.
order an Obama Value Meal (the guy behind you pays for it.) that's pretty much what the Bush administration did...two wars and a tax cut for the wealthy, then let the next president figure out how to pay for it. It's time people started worrying less about the size of government, and more about the quality.
Yep...Muslims have invaded Europe before. Muslims have also conquered other Muslims...and Europeans have conquered other Europeans...and the Japanese tortured Americans in WWII....Germans tried to exterminate the jews....Native Americans were nearly wiped off the face of the earth (not just cowboys and indians...why trivialize it?)...the spanish inquisition subjected people to torture...and so yeah, Muslims have done these things too. But compare the list of nations conquered by Muslims with this list of nations conquered by the Christian nations of Europe... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_former_European_colonies
#554There is not one kind of Muslim, anymore than their is one kind of Christian. Al Qaeda is a ruthless enemy that must be dealt with...and everytime you say Islam is the enemy, you simply add fuel to their fire. Al Qaeda is a threat to our Muslim allies...people who have died for our shared cause, and who deserve our respect. Worse than that, this website dishonors our own soldiers...if you believe that Islam is the enemy, then you are implying that our efforts to improve the lives of Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq is a complete waste of time. If Islam is the enemy, and not just Al Qaeda, then those allied soldiers who have died have done so in vain. I, for one, do not believe that....and though the outcome is not certain, I feel much better about our efforts today than I did during the quixotic quest our heroes were sent on when the decision to invade Iraq was made.
#555>The game of blaming everything on one side and giving the other a free pass is the exact problem I have with this entire website. ....Worse than that, this website dishonors our own soldiers...
Really?......I looked back and you have written quite a few posts on this site. If you dislike the site so much, why do you keep posting here?
>our efforts to improve the lives of Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq is a complete waste of time. .......
We would never have been there except that these people aided and supported terrorists that have traveled here to kill us. We do not typically go to countries on the other side of the world and start spending hundreds of billions of dollars. We have, over time, spent hundreds of billions of dollars in foreign aid to scores of countries because we are a compassionate country founded on Judeo-Christian ethics.....we even give this to countries that hate us.......many countries with large bank accounts will NOT do this...because THEIR faith is based on Islamic theology. Interesting, huh?
But in conclusion, Muslims have an agenda for world hegemony -- and that is not good for the West, needless to say. That is obvious to anyone that has read the posts on this site and/or the newspapers. You either cannot see it or will not see it. From reading the past posts on this site, it is obvious that your passion is arguing nonsense....just for the sake of arguing.
#556American charity to the world is a strong argument for our own character, but is by no means an indication that Muslim nations do not share Judeo-Christian ethics. As an example, here is a list of nations that sent aid after Katrina hit....contrary to your implication, it includes Muslim nations...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_response_to_Hurricane_Katrina
Iraq was not responsible for the attack on 9/11, nor has it been shown that any meaningful assistance was provided to the terrorists involved. Afghanistan should have been our focus from the get go...and even in that case, we are attempting to aid the local Muslim population. If you don't trust them, and feel that that Islam is our enemy and not merely the terrorists, then what is your logic for helping Muslims take back control of their country from the Taliban and Al Qaeda? Or do you support that effort? What would do you think our strategy should be exactly?
If you dislike the site so much, why do you keep posting here?
What value is it to write back and forth with people you already agree with? For every point laid against my arguments, I have offered a response...you are free to think it nonsense if you like. The people who's opinion I actually care about are the undecided who might stumble upon this website...I've committed myself to offering an alternate view, and then they can judge for themselves. In the end, I'm sure most people will write us both off as rambling idiots.
#557I took a quick look at your link that you used to bolster your argument.
It was not a good idea.
Picking the largest muslim country, Malaysia, with more than 200 million persons, and we see an offer of $1 million. Looking at the home base of this political organization, Saudia Arabia (Mecca, Medina, etc.)....a country with vast oil wealth....we see a grand total of ZERO. Of course, someone felt they had to mention that a subsidiary of the Saudi Aramco would give something (Americans trying to protect their benefactors).
But c'mon................ZERO???? From the wealthy Saudis? From the home of Islam? And that is what I am talking about.
There is something very empty there. There is something very COLD there.
Like the muslim girl in the press this week that had her nose and ears cut off....Bibi Aisha. Google her and LOOK AT HER.
THESE ARE FACES OF ISLAM.
#558I never implied that Saudi Arabia as a nation is a true friend to America. As for Malaysia...it doesn't have 200 million people...that would be Indonesia. Hungary sent $5,000...Denmark only offered water purification units...are those muslim nations? You totally ignored several of the muslim nations that made generous contributions to the relief effort....
Qatar - $100 million, Oman - $15 million, Bahrain - $5 million, Azerbaijan(not the most devout, but still predominantly muslim) - $500,000, Yemen -$100,000.
So Mauritania, a muslim nation, but not a wealthy one, gave $200,000...and Albania gave $308,000....meanwhile Greece, a Christian nation (not yet bankrupt at the time...they were busy living the good life), couldn't even match Afghanistan's contribution.
I'm by no means saying that Christians are less charitable than Muslims...I simply feel, as I've consistantly indicated here, that many here who visit this website misrepresent the religion of Islam as being "evil". It accomplishes nothing...it is detrimental to our struggle against terrorism, and goes against the Christian principle of not judging...lest we be judged.
#559Religion is poison
Page 3 of 3 pages of comments for this article.
Welll the article states what Churchill stated of extremist Islam. Well Churchill loathed Ghandi who philopshy was non violence resistance and here is what he said about him:
"It is alarming and also nauseating to see Mr. Gandhi, a seditious Middle Temple lawyer...this malignant subversive fanatic...striding half-naked up to the steps of the Viceregal palace, while he is still organising and conducting a defiant campaign of civil disobedience, to parley on equal terms with the representative of the King-Emperor...The truth is that Gandhiism and all it stands for will, sooner or later, have to be grappled with and finally crushed. It is no use trying to satisfy a tiger by feeding him cats meat...it must be made plain that the British nation has no intention of reliquishing its mission in India...we have no intention of casting away the most truly bright and precious jewel in the Crown of the King, which more than all our other Dominions and Dependencies constitutes the glory and strength of the British Empire" - Winston Churchill, 1932. [See Eric Williams, British historians and the West Indies, p. 150-1]
Fifteen years after this racist Churchillian vitriol, in 1947, India won its independence.