Why is it that Almost all terrorists are Muslims?

[Jude3b]

Not all Muslims are terrorists. I have known Muslim people and I continue to know Muslim people that seem to be wonderful, nice people and they are not terrorists.

Nevertheless, it appears that throughout the world today, that nearly all terrorists are Muslims. I do not state this - just from my own opinion. Recently, Mundir Badr Haloum, lecturer at a Syrian university, penned a column in the Lebanese newspaper Al-Safir (Sept 13), similarly acknowledging that Muslims are behind virtually ALL worldwide terrorism.

I read in today's newspaper that thousands of people have signed up to be suicide bombers in Iran. The targets of these suicide bombers are to be Israel and/or US interests (people).

HOW CAN ISLAM CALL ITSELF A RELIGION OF PEACE? When it is behind taday's worldwide wave of Terrorism?

[JamesD]

More than 3,000 people have been killed in Northern Ireland, and none of them were killed by followers of Islam. Over the last two decades, Peru fought a bloody and brutal war against the Shining Path guerilla terrorists, with 30,000 Peruvians killed by one side or the other. Narco-terrorists in South America aren't Muslims. Would you consider the Khmer Rouge to be a terrorist group? 2 million Cambodians died at their hands. Pol Pot wasn't Islamic either. Terrorism is practiced by persons of every faith.

[jason]

Nevertheless, it appears that throughout the world today, that nearly all terrorists are Muslims. I do not state this - just from my own opinion. Recently, Mundir Badr Haloum, lecturer at a Syrian university, penned a column in the Lebanese newspaper Al-Safir (Sept 13), similarly acknowledging that Muslims are behind virtually ALL worldwide terrorism.
Actually there are still a few marxist terror groups left in Europe, and Animals Rights wackos are getting into the terrorism market as well.

It is not simply the perogative of the jihadists to employ terrorism.

Jason

[keith]

Not all Muslims are terrorists. I have known Muslim people and I continue to know Muslim people that seem to be wonderful, nice people and they are not terrorists.

Nevertheless, it appears that throughout the world today, that nearly all terrorists are Muslims. I do not state this - just from my own opinion. Recently, Mundir Badr Haloum, lecturer at a Syrian university, penned a column in the Lebanese newspaper Al-Safir (Sept 13), similarly acknowledging that Muslims are behind virtually ALL worldwide terrorism.

I read in today's newspaper that thousands of people have signed up to be suicide bombers in Iran. The targets of these suicide bombers are to be Israel and/or US interests (people).

HOW CAN ISLAM CALL ITSELF A RELIGION OF PEACE? When it is behind taday's worldwide wave of Terrorism?
If there was a simple answer to this one then somebody would already have come out with it. Having said that, I do think it is not a coincidence that much of this new confrontation between militant Islam and the West has come around since the disappearance of the previous challenger to the West, communism. A lot of Islamist groups are recruiting in Third World countries where there are plenty of disaffected young men (and women) who want to change the order of things.

This political Islam reacts against globalisation, secularism and international capitalism as well as the obvious religious rivalry. On 9/11 it is interesting to note the targets of those terrorists - World Trade, Pentagon, White House. None of these are religious symbols in a way we would recognise in the West. They are symbols of power though.

Powerless people can sometimes end up doing desperate acts (like suicide bombing) and there is a long history of this in the Islamic world. The first assassins (derived from the word hashish - which they smoked) were Muslims who would send out followers on suicide missions to kill the powerful but unrighteous leaders. These assassins lived in mountain strongholds in places like northern Iran and would strike fear into the rulers of the day. Sounds familiar huh?

Rightly or wrongly the people who stir up this kind of behaviour now see themselves as the oppressed but righteous ones who have a God given right to fight back. It is a simplistic message but pushes a lot of buttons in its hearers.

If more Muslims lived in countries with some kind of democracy maybe they could improve things like social justice without feeling they have to resort to violence. Corrupt governments, lack of civil rights and lack of economic prospects are just pushing along this tide of violence.

From a religious angle it is also worth remembering that the idea of turning the other cheek is not an Islamic idea but a Christian one (not that Christians have consistently lived by it). The Prophet did engage in warfare himself which has often been used by Islamists as a justification for their actions. I am not a Muslim so I think it inappropriate to comment on how a faith community interprets its own texts.

Again, this upsurge of violence/warfare has flared up in previous periods of history too (conquest of India by the Moghuls, Genghis Khan, etc) it justs takes a different form today because there is no single ruler or nation that could take on America in a head to head conventional war. There is little reason to doubt that people like Saddam Hussein would have loved to do just that if they had the capability.

Is Islam a religion of peace? Well it is if you embrace it and follow that path. The world of Islam divides the world into two parts - that which is inside (the Ummaa or community)and the place of warfare (the outside non-Muslim world). Jihad has a double meaning on this issue a bit like the word crusade does in the West. It can be a struggle for peace and justice or it can be interpreted as a war with unbelief (and by implication with non believers). It seems one particular interpretation of the word jihad is grabbing all the attention. Milllions of Muslims are going about their daily lives raising their kids, getting on with their jobs and so on but the tiny minority who commit violence are trying to stir up mass conflict. There is an Islamic view of a Day of the Lord/Armageddon and a small minority seem to want to fast forward the rest of us to that kind of scenario. Are there any Muslims out there who have a take on this? It would be good if we could talk about this kind of subject without resorting to conflict.

[jason]

I am not a Muslim so I think it inappropriate to comment on how a faith community interprets its own texts.
It is not an unreasonable interpretation given Islams history.

Inspite of what is said today about islam being about peace, its earliest followers tell a very different story.

After Muhammed died in 632 AD, his followers, the peace lovers that they were, and incidentally those who had direct contact with the "prophet" then proceeded in peaceful and loving fashion to go on a 100 year conquering spree, taking over Arabia, the Holy Land, North Africa and Spain, until they were stomped by Charles Martel at the Battle of Tours in 732 AD.

For a religion of peace the earliest followers had a funny way of showing it.

Jason

[jason]

More than 3,000 people have been killed in Northern Ireland, and none of them were killed by followers of Islam. Over the last two decades, Peru fought a bloody and brutal war against the Shining Path guerilla terrorists, with 30,000 Peruvians killed by one side or the other. Narco-terrorists in South America aren't Muslims. Would you consider the Khmer Rouge to be a terrorist group? 2 million Cambodians died at their hands. Pol Pot wasn't Islamic either. Terrorism is practiced by persons of every faith.
You'll get in trouble if you call atheism and the mongrel ideologies it spawned a faith.

Though I do agree with you.

Jason

[Sparko]

Just for balance, we have large terrorist groups in the USA that are non-muslim: the KKK for one. They claim to be Christian, but any true Christian can see that they are instead the spawn of Satan. And the US Nazi party is another such terrorist group. These groups were ultimately responsible for the Oklahoma Federal Building bombing by Tim McVeigh - and they terrorize the population all the time.

[JamesD]

My point was that all peoples have used terrorism. Catholic, Protestant, Islam, Buddhists, and people with no faith use it. To say followers of the Nation of Islam are the only terrorists in the world smacks of bigotry. You can't name followers of any one faith that's not guilty of terrorism.
I'd never call Atheism a faith. The very definition of the word means no-religion.

[CatholicSage]

It is correct that there are terrorists of all kinds throughout the world, but Islamic terrorists are certainly the most prolific.

[Krusader]

I believe that the core teachings of Islam do not contain a shred of Christian love - merely compulsion: you will worship Allah or roast in the pit! you will give to the poor, or roast in the pit! you will, you will, you will.

Muslims don't worship Allah out of love, but out of fear.

Islam does not generate the qualities of mercy and love you see in Christianity....in fact, the Quran calls for revenge and hate.

This is why you see Muslims flying planes into America's buildings and not Baptists.

[Pilgrim]

I believe that the core teachings of Islam do not contain a shred of Christian love - merely compulsion: you will worship Allah or roast in the pit! you will give to the poor, or roast in the pit! you will, you will, you will.

Muslims don't worship Allah out of love, but out of fear.

Islam does not generate the qualities of mercy and love you see in Christianity....in fact, the Quran calls for revenge and hate.

This is why you see Muslims flying planes into America's buildings and not Baptists.
The same can be said of much of Christianity. Seriously people, use your minds here. What we are talking about has less to do with Islam and religion in general and more to do with simple human nature.

[CatholicSage]

The same can be said of much of Christianity. Seriously people, use your minds here. What we are talking about has less to do with Islam and religion in general and more to do with simple human nature.

Somewhat true, but it also wouldn't be right to let Islam off the hook.

[Sparko]

I think the problem with Islam is the Quran and the way it is written. It is not a clearcut book of morals and examples like the bible, with stories and explanations, but rather a book of sayings, like Proverbs. And I believe they are ordered according to length instead of any specific context. Can you imagine trying to build a comprehensive religion based just on the book of Proverbs?

So, what does that mean? It means that it is much easier to read Quaran verses and twist them to whatever meaning the person wants to, since there is no real context to them. So one person will read a verse and say it means live in peace with everyone. Another person will read the same verse and say it means live in peace with muslims but kill nonmuslims.

Sure, there are people who do the same thing with the Bible, but in my opinion, it is harder to do. The bible has a built in context to it that helps the reader to understand what is being said.

[Krusader]

The same can be said of much of Christianity. Seriously people, use your minds here. What we are talking about has less to do with Islam and religion in general and more to do with simple human nature.
Thje same cannot be said for Christianity. Obviously you have not read the Bible. Do so, and then compare it to the Quran. You'll note the difference.

[jason]

I'd never call Atheism a faith. The very definition of the word means no-religion.
The mongrel ideologies it spawn certianly are, and it is a faith, the word means a denial of the existence of God, not "no religion".

Marxism is every bit as much a religion as Christianity, it just denies the obvious.

Jason

[Jude3b]

More than 3,000 people have been killed in Northern Ireland, and none of them were killed by followers of Islam. Over the last two decades, Peru fought a bloody and brutal war against the Shining Path guerilla terrorists, with 30,000 Peruvians killed by one side or the other. Narco-terrorists in South America aren't Muslims. Would you consider the Khmer Rouge to be a terrorist group? 2 million Cambodians died at their hands. Pol Pot wasn't Islamic either. Terrorism is practiced by persons of every faith.

Dear JamesD:

You do make a valid point about there being some other terrorists in the world. I would not consider most of the groups you mentioned - to be people of "faith" though!

[Jude3b]

If there was a simple answer to this one then somebody would already have come out with it. Having said that, I do think it is not a coincidence that much of this new confrontation between militant Islam and the West has come around since the disappearance of the previous challenger to the West, communism. A lot of Islamist groups are recruiting in Third World countries where there are plenty of disaffected young men (and women) who want to change the order of things.

This political Islam reacts against globalisation, secularism and international capitalism as well as the obvious religious rivalry. On 9/11 it is interesting to note the targets of those terrorists - World Trade, Pentagon, White House. None of these are religious symbols in a way we would recognise in the West. They are symbols of power though.

Powerless people can sometimes end up doing desperate acts (like suicide bombing) and there is a long history of this in the Islamic world. The first assassins (derived from the word hashish - which they smoked) were Muslims who would send out followers on suicide missions to kill the powerful but unrighteous leaders. These assassins lived in mountain strongholds in places like northern Iran and would strike fear into the rulers of the day. Sounds familiar huh?

Rightly or wrongly the people who stir up this kind of behaviour now see themselves as the oppressed but righteous ones who have a God given right to fight back. It is a simplistic message but pushes a lot of buttons in its hearers.

If more Muslims lived in countries with some kind of democracy maybe they could improve things like social justice without feeling they have to resort to violence. Corrupt governments, lack of civil rights and lack of economic prospects are just pushing along this tide of violence.

From a religious angle it is also worth remembering that the idea of turning the other cheek is not an Islamic idea but a Christian one (not that Christians have consistently lived by it). The Prophet did engage in warfare himself which has often been used by Islamists as a justification for their actions. I am not a Muslim so I think it inappropriate to comment on how a faith community interprets its own texts.

Again, this upsurge of violence/warfare has flared up in previous periods of history too (conquest of India by the Moghuls, Genghis Khan, etc) it justs takes a different form today because there is no single ruler or nation that could take on America in a head to head conventional war. There is little reason to doubt that people like Saddam Hussein would have loved to do just that if they had the capability.

Is Islam a religion of peace? Well it is if you embrace it and follow that path. The world of Islam divides the world into two parts - that which is inside (the Ummaa or community)and the place of warfare (the outside non-Muslim world). Jihad has a double meaning on this issue a bit like the word crusade does in the West. It can be a struggle for peace and justice or it can be interpreted as a war with unbelief (and by implication with non believers). It seems one particular interpretation of the word jihad is grabbing all the attention. Milllions of Muslims are going about their daily lives raising their kids, getting on with their jobs and so on but the tiny minority who commit violence are trying to stir up mass conflict. There is an Islamic view of a Day of the Lord/Armageddon and a small minority seem to want to fast forward the rest of us to that kind of scenario. Are there any Muslims out there who have a take on this? It would be good if we could talk about this kind of subject without resorting to conflict.

Dear Keith:

Thank you for you interesting post.

I am not a Muslim and I would really like the input of some Muslims on the points and questions your raise.

I have one comment about the term "tiny minority" - I have read from several sources that the numbers of those involved in "Militant Islam" is about 10% of the total Muslim population. That is a minority to be sure, compared to Islam's one billion member count. However, one million Militant Islamic Fundamentalists set on spreading "Holy War" throughout the World, is not an insignificant number.

Another question I have is this; If 90% of Muslims are truly "peace loving" members of "a religion of peace" - why do we not hear them speaking out from their Pulpits, Rooftops and through the Media and condemning the Militant terrorists?

[grubbcm]

I think a lot of this comes down to labels and definitions.

The term "terrorist" seems to have become overused since 9/11 in my opinion. I mean you don't hear about "extremists" or "religious fanatics" or various other labels you used to hear not so long ago any more, they all get lumped under the "terrorist" label because it has so much more attention-grabbing value for the media.

What makes someone a terrorist as opposed to a "freedom fighter", mostly its how much you agree with their goals. Greenpeace and other environmentalist groups are ones that are more likely to split a western audience.

If a group of people are trying to depose a dictator in their own country using guerilla tactics are they terrorists? What about in another country?

I think the western media is pretty quick label anyone from a predominantly muslim country who is involved in just about any conflict a terrorist.

Its also a pretty big jump to assume that just because someone is from a muslim country they actually are a practicing muslim. Just as its a pretty big assumption that any given person from a "christian" country is a practicing christian. When you look at who is making the calls on what a terrorist is, its no big surprise that it seems most terrorists are muslims.

[Sheepdog]

actually grubbcm, if anything the opposite is true. without importing the whole political contraversy into this discussion (i don't want this thread hijacked, as it is an interesting subject), but i thought the media was pretty kind on labelling the fighters in Iraq as "insurgents." these people detonate roadside bombs from a safe distance, they send suicide bombers into heavily populated areas to get a few Coalition soldiers, they even booby-trap dead bodies. these aren't traditional geurilla tactics, and i can't think of any other word that better describes them than "terrorists."

we certainly need to be careful not to devalue the term "terrorist" by misusing it, but all the same let's not let the real terrorists off the hook over a simple semantic issue.

[BlackOpal12]

Thje same cannot be said for Christianity. Obviously you have not read the Bible. Do so, and then compare it to the Quran. You'll note the difference.

Which part, Crusader?
The part where God has the Amelikites slaughtered, and their children's heads smashed against rocks?
How about the destruction of various cities by a single tribe, who's ideas didn't agree with the rest of the societies? (Sound familiar?)
The purely non-violent history of Christianity? Oh, wait... no. I guess you're at least conscious of that, what with your sn.

Have you read the Qur'an, Crusader?
It's really a very beautiful text, with an amazing amount of insight into the beauty of God and Creation. Just like your beloved Bible, there are parts that aren't nice; however, that's life - Get a helmet. I imagine that you haven't read it, and are simply running off at the mouth with more regurgitated Christian right-wing drivel.

Either use your brain, or lose it.

[keith]

Dear Keith:

Thank you for you interesting post.

I am not a Muslim and I would really like the input of some Muslims on the points and questions your raise.

I have one comment about the term "tiny minority" - I have read from several sources that the numbers of those involved in "Militant Islam" is about 10% of the total Muslim population. That is a minority to be sure, compared to Islam's one billion member count. However, one million Militant Islamic Fundamentalists set on spreading "Holy War" throughout the World, is not an insignificant number.

Another question I have is this; If 90% of Muslims are truly "peace loving" members of "a religion of peace" - why do we not hear them speaking out from their Pulpits, Rooftops and through the Media and condemning the Militant terrorists?
Hmm

Now you have got me thinking. There are several strands of thought here and I shall endeavour to tease them out, though I am sure I will not have answers to them all.

Firstly, many wars involving Islamists have historical roots that go way back in time (e.g. the Balkans conflicts, dispute over Kashmir, Israel/Palestine) and would probably be a problem regardless of the religion of the people involved. Not that I am condoning violence as a way of settling disputes. You can find similar disputes in so called Christian Europe e.g. 100 years war between England and France, ongoing conflict in Ireland and so on.

Secondly, some Islamists are fighting against their own governments (eg Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, bombings in Saudi Arabia) who they see as corrupt (probably true) and not in line with their version of Islam.

Thirdly, there are some Islamists who are using terror as a way of 'religious cleansing' e.g. Southern Sudan, or attacks on Christians in Iraq as a way of creating a purely Islamic state. This is a new and unpleasant development which is different from earlier conquests e.g. of Middle East where Christians and Jews were tolerated (albeit as second class citizens).

Fourthly, you ask why more mainstream Muslim leaders do not publicly condemn terrorist violence. In some cases (eg beheading hostages in Iraq) they do but at other times there is silence. I can only think at this time that there is some ambivalence about some of these actions. A lot of Muslims would like to see Israel disappear or Kashmir become a Muslim state and so although they do not openly approve the methods there may be wider sympathy with the underlying cause. The nearest equivalent in the West is the role of the Catholic church in the Irish conflict. At times priests have referred to IRA terrorists as 'our boys'. It is hard to play honest broker when there is obvious sympathy with the political aims behind the terror acts.

Fifthly, and I will stop here, if many of these conflicts do in fact have very old roots, why have so many areas of the world seen terror over the past decade? I have no ready answer to that one.

I hope this does not sound like a piece of Muslim bashing, it is not meant that way. Like you, I hope some Muslims will join the discussion and make some more sense of what is going on.

[Amazing Rando]

Not all Muslims are terrorists. I have known Muslim people and I continue to know Muslim people that seem to be wonderful, nice people and they are not terrorists.

Nevertheless, it appears that throughout the world today, that nearly all terrorists are Muslims. I do not state this - just from my own opinion. Recently, Mundir Badr Haloum, lecturer at a Syrian university, penned a column in the Lebanese newspaper Al-Safir (Sept 13), similarly acknowledging that Muslims are behind virtually ALL worldwide terrorism.

I read in today's newspaper that thousands of people have signed up to be suicide bombers in Iran. The targets of these suicide bombers are to be Israel and/or US interests (people).

HOW CAN ISLAM CALL ITSELF A RELIGION OF PEACE? When it is behind taday's worldwide wave of Terrorism?

Jude, that's not a good assumption. The USA has had its fair share of home grown terrorists- and surprise surprise- they're Christians.

Tim McVeigh- blows up OK City building- a Christian. Paul Hill- shoots an abortionist and a clinic escort to death because he thinks he's doing God's will and protecting the unborn babies. Abortion especially tends to produce violent reactions in some people who bomb clinics and shoot abortion doctors- most of them are Christians.

[Sheepdog]

I don't think he is denying that Rando. The issue here was never about why the only terrorists are Muslims (obviously a loaded question, e.g. IRA, the examples you cite), but why do they seem to have a disproportional amount of terrorism coming from the Islamic Middle East?

[Sparko]

I don't think he is denying that Rando. The issue here was never about why the only terrorists are Muslims (obviously a loaded question, e.g. IRA, the examples you cite), but why do they seem to have a disproportional amount of terrorism coming from the Islamic Middle East?
The simple answer? Media coverage. The media covers the "sore spots."

When the Oklahoma building blew up and they caught McVeigh, all you heard about was militia groups, KKK, Nazis, etc.

We heard about terrorism in Israel, but other than when our military bases and ships were targets, we tended to not pay much attention.

Then 911 and it became a major wound and the middle east became a center of focus for us (actually kinda started with desert storm) and we hear all about islamic terrorists.

[Sheepdog]

could be.

it is note worthy that most of the people in this thread are probably in the US.

[CatholicSage]

could be.

it is note worthy that most of the people in this thread are probably in the US.

Well, that's somewhat unavoidable since TWeb is based in the US. Still, I think the perception that Islamic terrorists are the most prolific and numerous of any terror group is correct.

[Sparko]

Well, that's somewhat unavoidable since TWeb is based in the US. Still, I think the perception that Islamic terrorists are the most prolific and numerous of any terror group is correct.
That could be. also a media problem. Terrorists thrive on media coverage. The more coverage the more terrorism. It's like fuel on the fire.

[Jude3b]

Hmm

Now you have got me thinking. There are several strands of thought here and I shall endeavour to tease them out, though I am sure I will not have answers to them all.

Firstly, many wars involving Islamists have historical roots that go way back in time (e.g. the Balkans conflicts, dispute over Kashmir, Israel/Palestine) and would probably be a problem regardless of the religion of the people involved. Not that I am condoning violence as a way of settling disputes. You can find similar disputes in so called Christian Europe e.g. 100 years war between England and France, ongoing conflict in Ireland and so on.

Secondly, some Islamists are fighting against their own governments (eg Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, bombings in Saudi Arabia) who they see as corrupt (probably true) and not in line with their version of Islam.

Thirdly, there are some Islamists who are using terror as a way of 'religious cleansing' e.g. Southern Sudan, or attacks on Christians in Iraq as a way of creating a purely Islamic state. This is a new and unpleasant development which is different from earlier conquests e.g. of Middle East where Christians and Jews were tolerated (albeit as second class citizens).

Fourthly, you ask why more mainstream Muslim leaders do not publicly condemn terrorist violence. In some cases (eg beheading hostages in Iraq) they do but at other times there is silence. I can only think at this time that there is some ambivalence about some of these actions. A lot of Muslims would like to see Israel disappear or Kashmir become a Muslim state and so although they do not openly approve the methods there may be wider sympathy with the underlying cause. The nearest equivalent in the West is the role of the Catholic church in the Irish conflict. At times priests have referred to IRA terrorists as 'our boys'. It is hard to play honest broker when there is obvious sympathy with the political aims behind the terror acts.

Fifthly, and I will stop here, if many of these conflicts do in fact have very old roots, why have so many areas of the world seen terror over the past decade? I have no ready answer to that one.

I hope this does not sound like a piece of Muslim bashing, it is not meant that way. Like you, I hope some Muslims will join the discussion and make some more sense of what is going on.

Dear Keith:

I also hope that your statements will not be taken as Muslim bashing.

CAN WE PLEASE HAVE SOME MUSLIMS ENTER INTO THIS DISCUSSION???

Keith, you have listed several different types and reasons for the terrorism that is taking place throughout the world. Yet, you have mentioned only a small amount of the attacks and gruesome murders that have horrified the world in recent years. As you have correctly stated - there appear to be different reasons for the murderous acts of terrorism, but what do all these events have in common? Answer- All these brutal acts of murder are being carried out in the name of the religion of Islam. Even children are being killed by these murderers! Look what happened in Russia with the assault that led to the deaths of 400 people, many of them children, in Beslan, Russia on Sept. 3, 2004.

People say that Islam is "a religion of peace" - but almost every day I read in the newspaper about an Islamic religion that has become a religion of murder and hate and other heinous crimes. Certainly there is something terribly wrong here.

We cannot tolerate a world in which people in the name of religion murder innocent children, abduct and behead journalists, murder civilians, explode buses. If that is the true nature of this religion - it will ultimately have to be eliminated, or at least isolated.

If Islam is truly a peaceful religion - when will those in Islam who believe that, stand up to those murdering monsters, who are bringing such shame on them and put a stop to it? When will they at least start to speak out against the murderous crimes that are taking place?

[Zeluvia]

Isn't burning the churches of black people in the southern United States and bombing Abortion clinics considered terrorism?

[Jude3b]

Isn't burning the churches of black people in the southern United States and bombing Abortion clinics considered terrorism?

Dear Zeluvia:

I suppose one could say that the burning of churches - whether they be that of a black congregation in the Sourthern United States or that of a white congregation in Northwestern Canada could be considered an act of terrorism. Some might even say that bombing an Abortion clinic could be considered an act of terrorism. These for the most part seem to be isolated cases of a sinful few.

Islamic fundamentalists on the otherhand seem to be operating Worldwide and in numerous, numerous places. I read the daily newspaper and it is a rare day when a terrorist bombing, murder, beheading, etc. is not taking place some where in the world and it is being done by Muslims in the name of Allah and the Islamic religion.

[SilverRain]

Greetings to all my fellow Christian and Non-Christian brethren here.

I greet you all with the Muslim Greeting of Assalamu Alaikum. Peace be Upon You All.

I see that I am the first Muslim poster coming across this board, and I will do my best to answer most of the points brought up thus far.

First and foremost, I would like to share my own knowledge and studies that I have done on this topic and then I will offer a "Khutbah" or Friday Sermon given at the Islamic Center of Irvine in Southern California this past summer which addresses this topic in detail as well.

Allow me to begin with my thoughts on the matter. I want to start off by making it very clear that in Islam, as in any religion, we must separate the Religion itself (i.e. doctrines, morals, traditions, etc.) from the followers of that religion. The reason, as believed in Islam, is that the faith of Islam is perfect in all ways, but the followers (being human) are not perfect. The followers are subject to corruption, immorality, and inequity. This goes across the board for all religions. A cursory glance at Christian history and all the horrors that have been done in the name of Christianity, does not in any way mean that the Christian faith itself justifies or calls for such atrocities. In fact any layman that is familiar with the Christian faith would agree that Jesus (Peace be Upon Him) taught love, peace, and a high regard for ethics.

Now moving on the events in recent history regarded as barbarism and terrorism that is done by Muslims and claimed to be justified by the Islamic faith. I would be the first to point out that the vast majority of the current acts are seemingly done by "Muslims" across the world. And there is a very interesting reason for this which has absolutely little to do with the faith of Islam itself. If one studies Islamic history and traces it to the state in which it is today, one may find the answer. As the Ottoman Empire declined and with it the Islamic civilizations, the Muslims of the world became oppressed under tyrannical regimes and the decline economically, socially, and intellectually inevitably followed. Interestingly enough, the West itself has had a large part to play in this phenomenon. The West, particularly the US, has had a long history of sponsoring autocratic and oppressive regimes in the Muslim World. Many Americans and citizens of the World today do not recall or have knowledge of the fact that the US sponsored the oppressive and tyrannical regime of Saddam Hussein into power. And ofcourse we can see the result of that today. This is but one example of immoral US policies in the Muslim World. The morally bankrupt Shahs of Iran, the financial support of the oppressive regime in Jordan, and the hypocrisy of US and the Algerian hypocrites in destorying the democractic process in Algeria, are all other fine examples.

Now, one may ask, what relevance this has to the issue at hand. Its very simple. Whenever there is an injustice perpetrated against a people, Muslims in this example, and this injustice and oppression is not redressed and corrected, than these oppressed people seek other means of seeking justice. Thats where terrorism comes into play. The reason why the majority of terrorist attacks are done by Muslims today is because the Muslim World has been subjected to oppression and injustice since the better part of this past 20th century. This is all politically motivated. It realistically has little to do with Islam. It is simply the Muslim's way of attempting to seek peace and justice on their own which inevitably leads to chaos and other consequences not intended (i.e. blowback). In which most of these actions, if not all, taken by Muslims have actually been contradictory to the Islamic faith. In Islam, the ends must justify the means. The ideas of Muslims forcing conversions on Non-Muslims and the killing of innocents are simply not permitted. Allow me to quote from the Qur'an that make this explicitly clear:


“…Whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind.” [Qur'an 5:32]

"Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things." [Qur'an 2:256]


Now, I hope I have made myself clear in the paragraphs above. The terrorism currently spawned in the Muslim World, which has largely been an attack on US interests is simply a response to twisted, injust US foreign policies. Take 9/11 for example. Bin Laden has stated very clearly this is in response to the unilateral support for Israel the US has held too long at the cost of the well being of the Palestinian people. If Bin Laden had the means to launch an offensive all out war on Israel, I am certain he would not have hesitated to do it. But terrorism is used by people as a tool to attempt to influence political action by way of inflicting terror on the nations interests, citizens, etc. Although there is widespread injustice going on in Israel against the Palestinians and the US is holding on to a double standard here, in Islam these acts are not justified. Namely the killing of innocents, and the end not justifying the means. So in Islam these attacks were simply not an option and should be abhorred entirely.

To the Muslim, Islam is a complete way of life, and it is stated very clearly that a Muslim must not bow down to oppression, but terrorism is not to be the method used to fight oppression.

Moving on, I would like to make a quick response to a few of the comments mentioned ealier in this topic.

Mentioned earlier about Muslims only worshipping Allah out of fear and not love... this is grossly incorrect. In Islam it is believed that the worship of God is a balance of hope and fear. This is essentialy what keeps us in balance, hope for His mercy, and fear of His punishment... this keeps a Muslim enjoining in the Good, and forbidding what is Evil. The essence of Islamic Law and ideology is Mercy, not fear.

Quoting what was said earlier:

"After Muhammed died in 632 AD, his followers, the peace lovers that they were, and incidentally those who had direct contact with the "prophet" then proceeded in peaceful and loving fashion to go on a 100 year conquering spree, taking over Arabia, the Holy Land, North Africa and Spain, until they were stomped by Charles Martel at the Battle of Tours in 732 AD."

My friend, you need to read your Islamic history. The early Caliphs, namely Caliph Umar Ibn Al-Khattab (may God be pleased with him) was one of the most just men and conquerors in the history of mankind. It was under him in which Jerusalem, North Africa, and the Persian empire were conquered. He was a man of principle and morality. He would never take a favor in which his people lacked, including the Non-Muslims. There are many sound stories to support this. One in which there once was a poor, old Jewish man in Jerusalem going around begging. Umar immediately went to him to ask why why he was begging, and ended up taking him to his house providing him with money and paying him a pension for his retirement. The Jews and Christians in Jersualem living under Umar were given full rights. They had their own court systems and were allowed to practice their religions freely. The justice of Umar Ibn Al-Khattab and his leadership is unmatched, and brought in an era of tolerance never before seen by a non-secular government, and you would even be hard-pressed to find it in a secular government (i.e. US). I urge you to read up on this subject to educate yourself.


"I think the problem with Islam is the Quran and the way it is written. It is not a clearcut book of morals and examples like the bible, with stories and explanations... It means that it is much easier to read Quaran verses and twist them to whatever meaning the person wants to, since there is no real context to them. So one person will read a verse and say it means live in peace with everyone. Another person will read the same verse and say it means live in peace with muslims but kill nonmuslims."

Clear ignorance here... the Qur'an mentions plenty of similitudes, analogies, and stories for man to comprehend and apply. Above all, Islam has direct reference and interpretation. This is done by the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). He was described in a Hadith as a "walking Qur'an". He followed the Qur'an in every aspect of his life. His speech, actions, morals were all done in perfect correlation with the Qur'an. To the contrary, the reason why there is so much room for interpretation in the Bible, and over 100 denominations in the Christian faith is because of the practical matter that there really is no reference. We do not really have a direct reference and example for the Bible as we do with the Qur'an as demonstrated by the Prophet.


About the claim that scholars in the Muslim World are not condemning the terrorism and barbarism that is done by Muslims, this is absolutely incorrect. There has been widespread condemnation by the Scholars in Al-Azhar University in Egypt, considered among the greatest scholars in Islam, and also the Scholars in Saudi Arabia, namely Mekkah and Medinah. Also, locally CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) has repeatedly condemned every terrorist attack done by Muslims on a regular basis. They even ran a campaign labled "Not In Our Name" that ran in all major newspapers nationwide (NY Times, Washington Post, etc.) and can be seen at their website www.CAIR.org (http://www.cair.org/).

Also a small list of local Muslims condeming terrorism:

CAIR-KY: TRUE MUSLIMS REJECT VIOLENCE AND TERROR
Adbdul Quayym, Lexington Herald-Ledger, 6/20/04

http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/news/...ers/8965695.htm (http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/news/editorial/letters/8965695.htm)



KORAN DOESN'T CALL FOR BEHEADINGS
Peronet Despeignes, USA Today, 6/20/04

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-06...eheadings_x.htm (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-06-20-koran-beheadings_x.htm)



ISLAMIC SOCIETY CONDEMNS KILLING
Meesum Ashraf, Toronto Star, 6/21/04

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentSe...d=1087769408372 (http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&call_pageid=971358637177&c=Article&cid=1087769408372)



TX MUSLIMS DENOUNCE AL-QAIDA'S KILLING OF AMERICAN
Tyler Morning Telegraph, 6/18/04

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=...id=341384&rfi=6 (http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=12014681&BRD=1994&PAG=461&dept_id=341384&rfi=6)



MUSLIMS IN W.VA. CONDEMN SLAYING
Jamie Henline, Charleston Gazette, 6/21/04

http://www.wvgazette.com/section/News/2004062024



MUSLIMS HERE EXPRESS OUTRAGE
Rhea Davis and Joe Stinebaker, Houston Chronicle, 6/19/04

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/world/2635696



N.J. MUSLIMS, ARABS CONDEMN BEHEADING
Catherine Jun, Star-Ledger, 6/20/04

http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/jersey/index...47808194053.xml



I do agree that we do not hear these condemnation on the mainstream media very much, and that is very unfortunate. This could be do to the fact that most of the mainstream media is Pro-Zionist, but that is another topic all together. I do not agree with the media's equation of Islam and terrorism. "Islam" or "Islamic" has almost become a prefix to "terrorism" and "fanaticism" inappropriately, which is very disconcerting.

And with that, I would like to close. I hope I have answered some questions here, and will try to keep up and be active on this board as time allows. I will provide the Friday Sermon under this post for those interested in reading it.

Thank You for your Time.

Salam. Peace.

[SilverRain]

Islamic Center Of Irvine KHUTBAH 106 - June 18, 2004
Copyright © Islamic Center Of Irvine

Killing of the Innocent


"Take not life - which Allah has made sacred - except for just cause. Thus, does Allah advise you that you may understand."[Al-Qur'an 6:151]


Dastardly News:

It is with deep sadness and utter disgust that we, as people of Faith and of conscience, receive the news of the diabolical beheading of 49-year-old American aeronautics engineer Paul Marshal Johnson, who was held hostage in Saudi Arabia. His desperate family pleaded for his life as a deadline set by his kidnappers (Al-Qaeda Organization in the Arabian Peninsula) loomed.
"Please release my father. He is an innocent man. He loves Muslims. Saudi Arabia was his home", Johnson's son Paul told Dubai-based Al-Arabiya television from the United States. He said his father has lived in Saudi Arabia for a decade and values Islamic culture. Once, he said, his father sent family members a Quran, with passages highlighted from the Islamic holy text that he felt were important.

Attack on Foreigners:

The cowardly abduction and horrendous execution of Johnson is the latest chain in a series of anti-foreigners attacks in the Kingdom, drew outrage among religious scholars, with the Imam of Al-Masjid Al-Haram in Makkah ascertaining during his Friday sermon that attacking innocent non-Muslims is strictly forbidden in Islam. Addressing worshippers in Al-Haram mosque in the holy Islamic city of Makkah today, the prominent scholar condemned killing of the non-Muslim civilians as religiously forbidden. "There are a few who want to shed blood of people of faiths (Christians and Jews); such pay no heed to the injunctions of the Qur’an or Sunnah." Sheikh Saleh Bin Abdullah said.


No Islamic basis:

Based on the verses:

"Whoever takes one single life without justification, is as if he has killed the entire humanity" [Quran 5:32]

"Take not life - which Allah has made sacred - except for just cause." [Al-Qur'an, 6:151] ...

it is Islamically unlawful to take the life of anyone who is innocent. It is well to remember at this point the distinction made above between Qur'an and Sunnah, and the Muslims: only the Qur'an and Sunnah are guaranteed to be in accordance with what the Creator desires, whereas some Muslims may deviate. Hence, if any Muslim kills an innocent person, that Muslim has committed a grave sin, and certainly the action cannot be claimed to have been done ‘in the name of Islam’.
Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is reported to have said, a believer remains within the scope of his religion as long as he doesn't kill another person without justification.

It should be clear, then, that ‘Muslim terrorist’ is almost an oxymoron: by killing innocent people, a ‘Muslim’ is committing an awesome sin, and in fact stepping out of the bounds of Islam. Such acts are tantamount to spreading ‘corruption on earth’, against which the Qur’an warns [Qur'an 2:11-12] [Qur'an 18:103-104]. The perpetrators of such shameful deeds assume that they are doing good, while in fact they are spreaders of chaos and corruption.

Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) warned thrice, "Beware of extremism in your religion." Islam is the middle way between excess and neglect. Zealots are a plague upon religion. Muslim scholars have observed that these extremists come basically in two types:

Reactionary extremists do not want any pluralism; they view the world in black and white, good and evil terms. They are good, and anyone who opposes them is evil. From among the Muslims these are people who ‘excommunicate’ any Muslim who fails to share their interpretations of the Quran and their understanding of Faith. They use takfir (denouncing a Muslim as an unbeliever) and character assassination as a tool for marginalizing any criticism directed at them.
The radical extremists differ only in that they will use violence to further their cause and that the end justifies the means. They see any act as acceptable if it will further their ‘cause.’ This is blatantly anti-Islamic. In Islam the means must reflect its noble ends. Any means that does not embody the core truths and ethics of Islam is not from Islam and thus denounced as aberration. Islam is not a secret society of conspirators who no one knows what they are planning. Islam declares openly its aims and objectives and these are recognized by good people everywhere as pure and congruent with their own wisdom and traditions. Islam never allows a Muslim to kill the innocent and the helpless.

Many among Muslims seem to have lost sound understanding of the teachings of our Faith. Islam has been hijacked by a discourse of anger and the rhetoric of rage. Some have allowed the mimbar/pulpit of some mosques to become bully pulpits in which people use anger to rile Muslims up, only to leave them feeling bitter and spiteful towards people who in the most part are completely unaware of the conditions in the Muslim world, or the oppressive assaults of some foreign interests on Muslim peoples.


Islamic Prohibitions Pertaining to Prisoners :

Though Mr. Johnson was abducted and taken hostage, both unacceptable in Islam; our Faith demands just treatment of even prisoners of war, what to speak of hostages/abductees. The following are Islamic prohibitions pertaining to treatment of prisoners as agreed upon by the consensus of Muslim scholarship ...

Mutilation: It is not permitted to punish a prisoner by cutting off any part of his body or breaking any of his bones. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) forbade mutilation of prisoners of war and said, "Do not mutilate." (Narrated in the collection of Imam Muslim).

Hitting the face is prohibited because of the humiliation involved. By the same token, it is not permitted to put chains on prisoners’ necks or to lay them on the ground to whip them, because this involves humiliation and harms their health and bodies.

Punishment by fire, strangulation or holding a prisoner’s head under water. Starving prisoners or exposing them to cold, or feeding them harmful things or food not permitted according to the prisoner’s religion, or preventing them from wearing clothes. If a prisoner dies because of such things, his jailer may be executed in retribution (qisaas) or be required to pay diyah (blood money).

Removing prisoners’ clothing. This is prohibited because it uncovers their `awrah (private parts) and exposes them to physical and psychological illness.

Preventing them from relieving themselves, doing ablution and praying. It is obvious that this is harmful to the prisoners’ health.

Moreover, one of my teachers in Cairo, Sheikh `Atiya Saqr (former head of Al-Azhar Fatwa Committee) reminds us that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) urged Muslims to show good treatment to war captives; he said to his Companions: "Treat the prisoners of war kindly." Relating how the Companions complied strictly with this order given by the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, one of the prisoners of Badr, a non-Muslim named Huzayr ibn Humayr, states: "I was with one of Madinan Ansari families, after being taken as captive. Whenever they had lunch or dinner, they used to give me preference by providing me with bread while they’d eat only dates, in showing compliance with the Prophet’s order of treating prisoners well."


Our Unreserved Condemnation:

We assert unequivocal condemnation based on our religious and ethical values and as Muslims living in America as part of the ummah / global community of faith.
We realize that we do not have to react to every maniacal incident emanating from the Muslim world or the Muslim community, just as other religious groups need not defend their extremists;
Notwithstanding the disbelief that anyone following the faith of Islam could commit such a heinous crime, we condemn the act regardless of the identity of the perpetrators; but more so that they claim to be Muslim and committing this crime in the name of Islam.

We should not diminish our resolve to be active in protecting the civil liberties of all people and struggling for justice both locally and globally;
We fear that reciprocal attacks on Muslims could occur.
We firmly believe that no political/religious cause could ever be assisted by such immoral acts.

May Allah protect the innocent from the injustices of the self-righteous.


www.islamiccenterofirvine.com/read.php?khutbah/Khutbah_106

[Pilgrim]

Silver, greetings and welcome to our forums. Your words are well written and thought out and I appreciate your contribution here.

Please remember that in general we discourage back to back posts and have a word limit for each post to encourage active dialogue and conversation. In this case don't worry about it, just be aware of it in the future.

I look forward to hearing more from you as this thread continues.

Peace,
Pilgrim
Administrative Assistant

[OneFollowingHim]

Are drive-by shootings acts of terrorism? :huh:

[Jude3b]

Are drive-by shootings acts of terrorism? :huh:

Well, I would certainly feel terrorised if I was driving in my car and someone shot at me.

Probably most drive by shootings, in the USA, are done by doped up lunatic gang bangers - instead of a true Islamic Fundamentalist terrorist.

[Timothy Leary]

Another question I have is this; If 90% of Muslims are truly "peace loving" members of "a religion of peace" - why do we not hear them speaking out from their Pulpits, Rooftops and through the Media and condemning the Militant terrorists?

Selective hearing on your part.

[Timothy Leary]

I don't think he is denying that Rando. The issue here was never about why the only terrorists are Muslims (obviously a loaded question, e.g. IRA, the examples you cite), but why do they seem to have a disproportional amount of terrorism coming from the Islamic Middle East?

1) Media
2) Virtual non-existence of non-muslims

[Pilgrim]

Selective hearing on your part.
Exactly. I've heard plenty of denounciations from Islamic congregations.

[Krusader]

Well, I would certainly feel terrorised if I was driving in my car and someone shot at me.

Probably most drive by shootings, in the USA, are done by doped up lunatic gang bangers - instead of a true Islamic Fundamentalist terrorist.
Drive by shootings are domestic acts of terrorism. The jihadists commit religio-political acts of terrorism. Drive bys are random acts - jihadist's are planned acts of murder intended to subvert western civilization.

[Pilgrim]

Drive by shootings are domestic acts of terrorism. The jihadists commit religio-political acts of terrorism. Drive bys are random acts - jihadist's are planned acts of murder intended to subvert western civilization.

You really think that drive bys are random? You are naive. Gang bangers have selected targets. It's far from random and given that it is domestic is far more of a threat.

[Krusader]

You really think that drive bys are random? You are naive. Gang bangers have selected targets. It's far from random and given that it is domestic is far more of a threat.
I would say I have some knowledge in this area. The "planning" of drive-by shootings is usually spontaneous among gang members, without a great deal of planning. Since I have worked extensively with gang members now, and in the past, I'd say this is a fair description. Perhaps, however, "random" is not the correct word.

In any case, you cannot compare drive-by shootings to the planned murders of 9/11, etc. Usually gang members don't go out and murder civilians - they murder their own. Would that the Muslims would do likewise!

[Jude3b]

Drive by shootings are domestic acts of terrorism. The jihadists commit religio-political acts of terrorism. Drive bys are random acts - jihadist's are planned acts of murder intended to subvert western civilization.

Yeah, I'd agree with your statement, except I would also include the doped up gang bangers into the domestic (USA) drive by shootings - as a lot of them are probably just that.

[keith]

Back again, I cannot comment on drive by shooting because I am living in England where (so far) that is very rare. But picking up on Crusader's point I would agree about Islamists who use violence commiting 'religio-political acts'. The idea of the separation of Church and State is one that has developed in the West over the last few centuries (USA being the outstanding example) but this idea is alien to many Muslims. Religion and politics are intertwined and have been since the example of the prophet Mohammed himself. If some Islamists emphasise the politics rather than the personal or mystical (such as Sufis might) they are still points on the same spectrum.

Many Muslims seem to blame the West in general and America in particular for their own domestic political situations. In reply I would say why is it that from Morocco in the West to Pakistan in the East there is not one recognisable democracy? Yes, those feeling oppressed and without voice may be more tempted to turn to violence but perhaps a little more self criticism might be in order.

As for the romanticised idea that all was better in the Middle East under the Ottomans all I can say is wake up and face the facts. Life was better in the Middle East before the Ottomans. Under the Ottomans the development of science and learning in general fell behind the West. Printing presses were banned by the Caliphs for example. The Islamic world is playing catch up and there is a lot of resentment and hurt pride. OK, so is turning to terrorism going to make things better? No. Bin Laden has no blueprint for how to make the Islamic world a better place just a whole lot of grievances and hatred. In the Israel/Palestine conflict at least both sides can see what the dispute is about ie territory and sovreignty but with Bin Laden there is no end in sight to his campaign of terror.

It is easy to forget that Bin Laden did not invent this situation but has been the most successful at stirring up an international movement. As to why people are willing to die for the cause it only makes sense if you see that the religious idea (I will go to Paradise as a martyr) and the political (the advancement of Islam and defeat of the unbelievers) are two sides of the same coin. Back in 1982, long before Bin Laden came on the scene, a suicide bomber drove a truck full of explosives into the US military base in Beirut killing over 100 people. One of the survivors said all they could recall afterwards is seeing the face of the guy driving the truck ...he was smiling.

[Snarf]

Dear Silver Rain

I too thank you for your well-written posts.

I too believe that Islam is an inherently peaceful religion.
A couple of questions for you:
Several Christians have posted that they love Muslims. These same Christians have written many posts describing Islam to be the source of most if not all terrorism, and quote the Koran in support of their claims that Islam is inherently violent.

My questions
1) Do you feel loved by Christians when they claim that Islam is false and is the source of much violence?

2) Do you feel loved if Christians try to convince you that you should also be a Christian, and give up your belief in Allah? Without your belief in Allah,
would you still be a Muslim? I ask this because it seems to me that belief in Allah is wht makes one Muslim, and without such belief then one ceases to be Muslim. Hence, I think that claiming to love a Muslim while wanting to change that which is central to a Muslim's life is a contradiction

3) What type of communication would cause you to feel loved by Christians
(e.g. tolerance of your faith, respect for Allah, etc.)?

Thank you

[Sparko]

Wow Snarf,

talk about loaded and leading questions! :lmbo:

When did you stop beating your wife?

[Krusader]

Dear Silver Rain

I too thank you for your well-written posts.

I too believe that Islam is an inherently peaceful religion.
A couple of questions for you:
Several Christians have posted that they love Muslims. These same Christians have written many posts describing Islam to be the source of most if not all terrorism, and quote the Koran in support of their claims that Islam is inherently violent.

My questions
1) Do you feel loved by Christians when they claim that Islam is false and is the source of much violence?

2) Do you feel loved if Christians try to convince you that you should also be a Christian, and give up your belief in Allah? Without your belief in Allah,
would you still be a Muslim? I ask this because it seems to me that belief in Allah is wht makes one Muslim, and without such belief then one ceases to be Muslim. Hence, I think that claiming to love a Muslim while wanting to change that which is central to a Muslim's life is a contradiction

3) What type of communication would cause you to feel loved by Christians
(e.g. tolerance of your faith, respect for Allah, etc.)?

Thank you
The Lord Jesus Christ loved Muslims and gave His life that they might turn to Him as their Savior (not as a prophet secondary to Mohammed). The Quran offers no basis for justification and forgiveness of sins, other than the mercy of a capricious Allah. Not even Mohammed knew for sure that he was destined for "paradise" or for the roasting pit.

The true way to show love to Muslims, or those of any other non-Christian faith, is to share with them the Gospel of Jesus Christ. He never ordered anyone killed (as did Mohammed). He never was a polygamist (as was Mohammed). He gave His life freely upon the cross (as Mohammed did not). And, in the end, He overcame death and was victorious over Satan (while Mohammed's body was entombed in Medina).

Some say that Christians are "unloving" for saying that Jesus is the Only Way to the Father..........but if that is unloving, then I suppose we must be content with that designation.

In my thinking, it is far more loving to tell the truth, than to hide it for the sake of political correctness.

[Snarf]

The Lord Jesus Christ loved Muslims and gave His life that they might turn to Him as their Savior (not as a prophet secondary to Mohammed). The Quran offers no basis for justification and forgiveness of sins, other than the mercy of a capricious Allah. Not even Mohammed knew for sure that he was destined for "paradise" or for the roasting pit.

The true way to show love to Muslims, or those of any other non-Christian faith, is to share with them the Gospel of Jesus Christ. He never ordered anyone killed (as did Mohammed). He never was a polygamist (as was Mohammed). He gave His life freely upon the cross (as Mohammed did not). And, in the end, He overcame death and was victorious over Satan (while Mohammed's body was entombed in Medina).

Some say that Christians are "unloving" for saying that Jesus is the Only Way to the Father..........but if that is unloving, then I suppose we must be content with that designation.

In my thinking, it is far more loving to tell the truth, than to hide it for the sake of political correctness.

Beg your pardon, but Jesus did command His followers to kill (all those OT laws and wars). If Jesus is God, then orders to kill from God come from Jesus, or do you deny that Jesus and the God of the OT are one?

Regarding the truth, you are not telling the truth because you falsely attribute most of the world's terrorism to Muslims, and claim that their religion is inherently violent. That is a lie, plain and simple.

[Krusader]

Beg your pardon, but Jesus did command His followers to kill (all those OT laws and wars). If Jesus is God, then orders to kill from God come from Jesus, or do you deny that Jesus and the God of the OT are one?

Regarding the truth, you are not telling the truth because you falsely attribute most of the world's terrorism to Muslims, and claim that their religion is inherently violent. That is a lie, plain and simple.
As I recall, YHWH directed the Jews to enter Canaan and to destroy the civilization there. This was primarily due to the fact that that civilization practiced infanticide by throwing their babies into the fire to appease the god Molech.

Often it is necessary to cut out the root (such as in the case of cancer) to rid oneself of death. The Canannite civilization would have integrated with the Jews and caused their ultimate spiritual destruction had they not been removed.

But, I suppose you would consider killing those who practice infanticide as being inferior to Muslim terrorist murders of innocent men, women and children on 9/11.

Therefore, I really don't feel we have anything further to discuss.

[Snarf]

As I recall, YHWH directed the Jews to enter Canaan and to destroy the civilization there. This was primarily due to the fact that that civilization practiced infanticide by throwing their babies into the fire to appease the god Molech.

Often it is necessary to cut out the root (such as in the case of cancer) to rid oneself of death. The Canannite civilization would have integrated with the Jews and caused their ultimate spiritual destruction had they not been removed.

But, I suppose you would consider killing those who practice infanticide as being inferior to Muslim terrorist murders of innocent men, women and children on 9/11.

Therefore, I really don't feel we have anything further to discuss.

So now you are changing your story by admitting that YHWH (aka Jesus) did order His followers to kill, only now you say that He had reason to do so.

Since clearly, you think that killing people is OK as long as Jesus (aka YHWH) says so (and you'll find a reason to justify it I'm sure), then one can say that you have a belief that is very violent.

Look at the pot calling the kettle black!

[Krusader]

So now you are changing your story by admitting that YHWH (aka Jesus) did order His followers to kill, only now you say that He had reason to do so.

Since clearly, you think that killing people is OK as long as Jesus (aka YHWH) says so (and you'll find a reason to justify it I'm sure), then one can say that you have a belief that is very violent.

Look at the pot calling the kettle black!
I think you need to remember that I was comparing the incarnate (in the flesh) God, Jesus Christ, and his earthly life with that of the war-mongering, whoring, Mohammed.

If you have a problem with the destruction of the Cananites by the Jews, go to the Jewish website and ask them about it.

I assume, however, that you would have much preferred the destruction of newborns by fire in the furnaces of Molech than for that practice to have been wiped out by God Almighty.

After all, it would be politically incorrect to say that Molech worshippers were inferior to Jews.

[Snarf]

I think you need to remember that I was comparing the incarnate (in the flesh) God, Jesus Christ, and his earthly life with that of the war-mongering, whoring, Mohammed.

If you have a problem with the destruction of the Cananites by the Jews, go to the Jewish website and ask them about it.

I assume, however, that you would have much preferred the destruction of newborns by fire in the furnaces of Molech than for that practice to have been wiped out by God Almighty.

After all, it would be politically incorrect to say that Molech worshippers were inferior to Jews.

The comparison doesn't matter, Jesus in the form of YHWH ordered the Jews to slaughter the Canaanites (remember, Jesus and YHWH are one!)

So, your 'peaceful' Christian answer is that it's OK to slaughter people in response to violence, or if God says so?

(Remember that Jesus-YHWH also said that adulterers and homosexuals should be stoned)

Regarding other religions, I am in no way advocating that all ways are acceptable forms of behavior. As a Christian, I do not condone any violence, although sometimes it is necessary. There is a difference between accepting the inevitability of violence, and justifying it by the words of an anonymous person who wrote a document thousands of years ago saying that God said to do it.

In addition, there is your constant, dishonest, demonization of a religion whose followers are by and large peaceful, and your hypocrisy of condemning the violence by a minority of Muslims while excusing the violence of the worshippers of your God. I find it curious that you have yet to respond intelligently to the only one (it seems) who can give an honest description of Islam. Neither can you explain why milllions of Muslims all over the world lead perfectly peaceful lives, when by your version they should be roaming the earth like Alexander's army, killing wherever they go because their so-called (by you) religion of violence demands it.

Instead, you just want to incite hatred of that which you disagree with, thus contributing to the unending cycle of violence which you advocate, but probably can't bear the thought of meeting. Many in America crave war, but are too gutless to meet that which they desire others to fight.

[Krusader]

The comparison doesn't matter, Jesus in the form of YHWH ordered the Jews to slaughter the Canaanites (remember, Jesus and YHWH are one!)

So, your 'peaceful' Christian answer is that it's OK to slaughter people in response to violence, or if God says so?

(Remember that Jesus-YHWH also said that adulterers and homosexuals should be stoned)

Regarding other religions, I am in no way advocating that all ways are acceptable forms of behavior. As a Christian, I do not condone any violence, although sometimes it is necessary. There is a difference between accepting the inevitability of violence, and justifying it by the words of an anonymous person who wrote a document thousands of years ago saying that God said to do it.

In addition, there is your constant, dishonest, demonization of a religion whose followers are by and large peaceful, and your hypocrisy of condemning the violence by a minority of Muslims while excusing the violence of the worshippers of your God. I find it curious that you have yet to respond intelligently to the only one (it seems) who can give an honest description of Islam. Neither can you explain why milllions of Muslims all over the world lead perfectly peaceful lives, when by your version they should be roaming the earth like Alexander's army, killing wherever they go because their so-called (by you) religion of violence demands it.

Instead, you just want to incite hatred of that which you disagree with, thus contributing to the unending cycle of violence which you advocate, but probably can't bear the thought of meeting. Many in America crave war, but are too gutless to meet that which they desire others to fight.
Yes, you are right, many are too gutless. However, that would not apply to my family. My son was a Marine. I had a daughter stationed overseas by the Air Force during the Gulf War, and another also served in the Air Force. My husband was a officer in Viet Nam and saw plenty of action. So, I'd agree, that if you believe in something, you should be willing to fight for it.

Also, if you believe that exposing the false belief system of Islam is "inciting" hatred, too bad. Doesn't that Bible you read in the American Baptist Church say to expose the wicked works of darkness - and to have nothing to do with them?

Perhaps you wish to believe that Mohammed was a true prophet and his god, Allah, the same one you worship. However, if you applied yourself to studying the issue as much as you apply yourself to attacking Christians, perhaps you'd learn that the Allah said it was an "abomination" to believe that God would have a Son, and that Jesus never died on the cross for your sins.

If you wish to enforce that type of thinking, than I would have to question your faith.

Furthermore, tell it to the 3,000 plus people who were innocently going about their business on 9/11 at the World Trade Center, that Islam is such a peaceful religion.

Again, don't listen to all the pro-Muslim propaganda in the media and elsewhere. Think for yourself. Perhaps a good way to start would be to read the Berean Call. It's free!

[Jude3b]

You really think that drive bys are random? You are naive. Gang bangers have selected targets. It's far from random and given that it is domestic is far more of a threat.

And who are the selected targets?

[OneFollowingHim]

And who are the selected targets?
I'd say they are most likely from a rival gang, but I am far from an expert. I think someone here said they sometimes target thier own members.

[Pilgrim]

And who are the selected targets?
It's obvious you have little experience with such things but there are established gang rivalries in most large urban centers as well as established turf bounderies. That being said the specific targets could be as vague as any person standing on a corner they don't belong on to as specific as leaders of rival gangs.

[Timothy Leary]

You really think that drive bys are random? You are naive. Gang bangers have selected targets. It's far from random and given that it is domestic is far more of a threat.

Yes and No. I've lost friends due to conflicts between the "Bloods" and the "Cryps" (sp?) in the past, so here's how I understand it: While most of them may be planned spontaneously, they are not at spontaneous targets. They hit areas that they know will hurt rival gang members and/or the families of rival gang members.

The cycle of violence is a sad one, one that takes far too many lives each year. Kids who start while they're pre-teen aren't likely to make it past 16.

[Krusader]

Yes and No. I've lost friends due to conflicts between the "Bloods" and the "Cryps" (sp?) in the past, so here's how I understand it: While most of them may be planned spontaneously, they are not at spontaneous targets. They hit areas that they know will hurt rival gang members and/or the families of rival gang members.

The cycle of violence is a sad one, one that takes far too many lives each year. Kids who start while they're pre-teen aren't likely to make it past 16.
I'd agree with this. Most acts of gang violence, at least in this area, are somehow related to "disrespect," or drug deals gone bad. The preceived "disrespect" engenders spontaneous anger, the deed is planned, and then carried out. I would say that most gang violence is against other gangs or related individuals. For instance, we recently had a "drive-by," where a gang from another town shot into the mobile home of another gang's member, killing the gang member's relative.

However, we should also remember that larceny, break-ins, and random acts of violence are often committed by gang members or wannabees.

[Timothy Leary]

The Quran offers no basis for justification and forgiveness of sins, other than the mercy of a capricious Allah.

The NT offers no basis for justification and forgiveness of sins, other than the mercy of a capricious Jesus.

He never ordered anyone killed (as did Mohammed).

He never was a polygamist (as was Mohammed).

What's wrong with that?

He gave His life freely upon the cross (as Mohammed did not).

1) In your tradition, should all prophets do so?
2) If he had, would your opinion be affected?

And, in the end, He overcame death and was victorious over Satan (while Mohammed's body was entombed in Medina).

You mean, just like a normal human?

Some say that Christians are "unloving" for saying that Jesus is the Only Way to the Father..........but if that is unloving, then I suppose we must be content with that designation.

I agree (though I do not agree with Jesus' claims)

[Krusader]

The NT offers no basis for justification and forgiveness of sins, other than the mercy of a capricious Jesus.





What's wrong with that?



1) In your tradition, should all prophets do so?
2) If he had, would your opinion be affected?



You mean, just like a normal human?



I agree (though I do not agree with Jesus' claims)
Where do you come off saying "capricious Jesus." If you would turn to John, Chapter 10, and read, you will note that, for the Christian, salvation is an assurance and not the result of anything other than God's grace. Whether or not you believe in the Lord Jesus is irrelevant. However, please get our theology straight.

[Snarf]

Yes, you are right, many are too gutless. However, that would not apply to my family. My son was a Marine. I had a daughter stationed overseas by the Air Force during the Gulf War, and another also served in the Air Force. My husband was a officer in Viet Nam and saw plenty of action. So, I'd agree, that if you believe in something, you should be willing to fight for it.

Also, if you believe that exposing the false belief system of Islam is "inciting" hatred, too bad. Doesn't that Bible you read in the American Baptist Church say to expose the wicked works of darkness - and to have nothing to do with them?

Perhaps you wish to believe that Mohammed was a true prophet and his god, Allah, the same one you worship. However, if you applied yourself to studying the issue as much as you apply yourself to attacking Christians, perhaps you'd learn that the Allah said it was an "abomination" to believe that God would have a Son, and that Jesus never died on the cross for your sins.

If you wish to enforce that type of thinking, than I would have to question your faith.

Furthermore, tell it to the 3,000 plus people who were innocently going about their business on 9/11 at the World Trade Center, that Islam is such a peaceful religion.

Again, don't listen to all the pro-Muslim propaganda in the media and elsewhere. Think for yourself. Perhaps a good way to start would be to read the Berean Call. It's free!

Or you could tell the descendents of all of the Native Americans who were slaughtered about the peaceful religion of their conquerors, or the Vietnamese whose villages were destroyed by 'peaceful' Christians.

America has not experienced war since the 1860's. Yes, individual American soldiers have experienced war since then, but the US as a whole has not. by experiencing war I mean watching foreign troops marching on your soil, destroying your towns and cities, bombing people into smithereens. Yet this is what America does to other countries, and then wonders why our country is so disliked. We give Israelis weapons so that they can occupy Palestinian territory, and are shocked that Palestinians fight back. Why, how dare they object to being ruled over by cronies of the US! Ah, but let an American resist occupation by the tactics of terrorism and they are called "heroes" and "Founding Fathers!"

One doesn't have to be a soldier to fight for one's beliefs. However, there is a difference between fighting for one's beliefs and attacking falsely those who should not be attacked, and calling it "for one's beliefs."

I salute the heroism of Vietnamese who fought for their homes and beat an arrogant superpower, the US. Every superpower should be humbled occasionally. As an American, I am tired of our soldiers being killed in wars to prop up evil dictators, fatten the profits of Halliburton, and making sure that people with SUVs aren't paying $5/gallon.

[Timothy Leary]

Where do you come off saying "capricious Jesus." If you would turn to John, Chapter 10, and read, you will note that, for the Christian, salvation is an assurance and not the result of anything other than God's grace. Whether or not you believe in the Lord Jesus is irrelevant. However, please get our theology straight.

Ok, I'm going to pretend to be a Muslim in my response. Key word: Pretend.

Where do you come off saying "capricious Allah." If you would turn to Sura 57, verse 28, and read, you will note that, for the Muslim, salvation is an assurance and not the result of anything other than God's grace. Whether or not you believe in Allah is irrelevant. However, please get our theology straight.

O ye that believe! Fear Allah, and believe in His Messenger, and He will bestow on you a double portion of His Mercy: He will provide for you a Light by which ye shall walk (straight in your path), and He will forgive you (your past): for Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

[revivalfire]

I believe that the core teachings of Islam do not contain a shred of Christian love - merely compulsion: you will worship Allah or roast in the pit! you will give to the poor, or roast in the pit! you will, you will, you will.

Muslims don't worship Allah out of love, but out of fear.

Islam does not generate the qualities of mercy and love you see in Christianity....in fact, the Quran calls for revenge and hate.

This is why you see Muslims flying planes into America's buildings and not Baptists.
Baptists? Sweeeet!! That would be like...John flying a plane..."How do I stooooooppppp!!!!!" BOOSH!!! Hehehehe...that would be interesting..
LOLOLOLOLOLOL....:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Snarf]

Where do you come off saying "capricious Jesus." If you would turn to John, Chapter 10, and read, you will note that, for the Christian, salvation is an assurance and not the result of anything other than God's grace. Whether or not you believe in the Lord Jesus is irrelevant. However, please get our theology straight.

What? You mean that for a Christian belief in Lord Jesus is irrelevant?

Man, you sure don't know Christian theology!

[Jude3b]

Where do you come off saying "capricious Jesus." If you would turn to John, Chapter 10, and read, you will note that, for the Christian, salvation is an assurance and not the result of anything other than God's grace. Whether or not you believe in the Lord Jesus is irrelevant. However, please get our theology straight.

Dear Crusader:

Let us not give up on those who participate in the thread - let us pray that they do come to believe On the Lord Jesus Christ and that He becomes very relevant to them. Otherwise they will be lost for all eternity, in a Hell created for Satan and his demons. We don't want anyone to go there. As you know, I am sure, God desires that "all men come to repentance."

[Krusader]

Dear Crusader:

Let us not give up on those who participate in the thread - let us pray that they do come to believe On the Lord Jesus Christ and that He becomes very relevant to them. Otherwise they will be lost for all eternity, in a Hell created for Satan and his demons. We don't want anyone to go there. As you know, I am sure, God desires that "all men come to repentance."Yes, Jude3b, you are right. God does desire all men to come to repentance. However, Scripture states that all will not. And, of course we know that none can come to repentance unless they are drawn there by the Holy Spirit, and that they must be saved by grace from first to last.

You will note many who post here with a little cross as a symbol. It appears, however, that there are very, very few evangelicals/fundamentalists. The liberals, evidently, delight in ganging up on the conservatives - for liberals will generally tolerate any view but a conservative view. All their broadmindedness is down the tubes the minute a true evangelical or fundamentalist asserts a view based on Scripture.

As for me, I would much rather discuss things with a Jewish or Muslim believer, than with one who calls him/herself a brother or sister, but has no grasp of doctrine or has a "care less" attitude. It is these unfaithful believers who have brought us to a post-Christian era.

I do believe, of course, that there are many Christians willing to stand up and defend the faith once delivered to the sainsts - however, as you can see, they are becoming fewer and fewer. "Even so, when the Son of Man returns, will He find faith on the earth?" I hope this website is not an indicator of things to come.

[revivalfire]

Liberals? Where? No seriously...I know where you're coming from.... As of right now...I'm fundamentalist....I make Rush Limbaugh and Billy Graham look like this years democratic nominee for president(I wonder who that is?:ahem: :wink: ) Anyway..I'm not that bad...but I see more and more Christians leaving what the Bible says and going different ways..... The Bible said it would happen....I'm just sad that I have to witness it...but I promise you all....I will continue the fight...as I'm sure you will to Crusader...in love of course..hehehe

[Jude3b]

Yes, Jude3b, you are right. God does desire all men to come to repentance. However, Scripture states that all will not. And, of course we know that none can come to repentance unless they are drawn there by the Holy Spirit, and that they must be saved by grace from first to last.

You will note many who post here with a little cross as a symbol. It appears, however, that there are very, very few evangelicals/fundamentalists. The liberals, evidently, delight in ganging up on the conservatives - for liberals will generally tolerate any view but a conservative view. All their broadmindedness is down the tubes the minute a true evangelical or fundamentalist asserts a view based on Scripture.

As for me, I would much rather discuss things with a Jewish or Muslim believer, than with one who calls him/herself a brother or sister, but has no grasp of doctrine or has a "care less" attitude. It is these unfaithful believers who have brought us to a post-Christian era.

I do believe, of course, that there are many Christians willing to stand up and defend the faith once delivered to the sainsts - however, as you can see, they are becoming fewer and fewer. "Even so, when the Son of Man returns, will He find faith on the earth?" I hope this website is not an indicator of things to come.

Dear Crusader:

I couldn't agree with you more. What is with all the so-called Christians (obviously very confused and for the most part not Bible believing) wanting to gang up on Conservatives on the Islam threads? Their input for the most part is blah, blah, blah - without saying anything.

It seems very rare that actual Muslim people post, which is a shame - because I would actually like to see their input and learn how and why they believe what they believe. Otherwise I must conclude that the Koran does form at least a partial basis for the reason that Islamic terrorists do what they do in the name of Islam and its god Allah.

[Snarf]

Dear Crusader:

I couldn't agree with you more. What is with all the so-called Christians (obviously very confused and for the most part not Bible believing) wanting to gang up on Conservatives on the Islam threads? Their input for the most part is blah, blah, blah - without saying anything.

It seems very rare that actual Muslim people post, which is a shame - because I would actually like to see their input and learn how and why they believe what they believe. Otherwise I must conclude that the Koran does form at least a partial basis for the reason that Islamic terrorists do what they do in the name of Islam and its god Allah.

For these reasons:
1) You tell lies
2) You don't believe that belief in Jesus is enough for salvation
3) You deify yourself by pronouncing judgement on who is and who isn't a christian
4) You demonize Muslims, which is very similar to Nazis demonizing Jews (and we know why they did it, we can only speculate on your motives).

I am very proud to be a liberal, especially given the alternative that others conservatives are as dishonest as you.

[Snarf]

Yes, Jude3b, you are right. God does desire all men to come to repentance. However, Scripture states that all will not. And, of course we know that none can come to repentance unless they are drawn there by the Holy Spirit, and that they must be saved by grace from first to last.

You will note many who post here with a little cross as a symbol. It appears, however, that there are very, very few evangelicals/fundamentalists. The liberals, evidently, delight in ganging up on the conservatives - for liberals will generally tolerate any view but a conservative view. All their broadmindedness is down the tubes the minute a true evangelical or fundamentalist asserts a view based on Scripture.

As for me, I would much rather discuss things with a Jewish or Muslim believer, than with one who calls him/herself a brother or sister, but has no grasp of doctrine or has a "care less" attitude. It is these unfaithful believers who have brought us to a post-Christian era.

I do believe, of course, that there are many Christians willing to stand up and defend the faith once delivered to the sainsts - however, as you can see, they are becoming fewer and fewer. "Even so, when the Son of Man returns, will He find faith on the earth?" I hope this website is not an indicator of things to come.

I am defending the faith, which why I am attacking your errors.

[Snarf]

Liberals? Where? No seriously...I know where you're coming from.... As of right now...I'm fundamentalist....I make Rush Limbaugh and Billy Graham look like this years democratic nominee for president(I wonder who that is?:ahem: :wink: ) Anyway..I'm not that bad...but I see more and more Christians leaving what the Bible says and going different ways..... The Bible said it would happen....I'm just sad that I have to witness it...but I promise you all....I will continue the fight...as I'm sure you will to Crusader...in love of course..hehehe

Yes, Christians who are not accepting what the Bible says, like attacking the Koran for verses which have been used to justify violence while ignoring Biblical commands to kill certain people, and Christians today who justify war to fill the pockets of the fat and rich (like Halliburton and Iraq).
Before you say that it was to free the Iraqi people from Saddam, answer this question:
Why did the conservative Christian President Reagan give help to this same Saddam?

[Krusader]

Yes, Christians who are not accepting what the Bible says, like attacking the Koran for verses which have been used to justify violence while ignoring Biblical commands to kill certain people, and Christians today who justify war to fill the pockets of the fat and rich (like Halliburton and Iraq).
Before you say that it was to free the Iraqi people from Saddam, answer this question:
Why did the conservative Christian President Reagan give help to this same Saddam?You know, it really makes me sick to think supposed Americans are blaming the war on Halliburton (which has filed Chapter 13) and greed for oil. Do you see any oil glut around, buddy?

Remember our brave troops - of whom about 14 were killed yesterday in the name of Allah.

Join the army and get a backbone.

[Krusader]

For these reasons:
1) You tell lies
2) You don't believe that belief in Jesus is enough for salvation
3) You deify yourself by pronouncing judgement on who is and who isn't a christian
4) You demonize Muslims, which is very similar to Nazis demonizing Jews (and we know why they did it, we can only speculate on your motives).

I am very proud to be a liberal, especially given the alternative that others conservatives are as dishonest as you.
And you, Snarf, are a good example of one working for the enemy.

[Snarf]

You know, it really makes me sick to think supposed Americans are blaming the war on Halliburton (which has filed Chapter 13) and greed for oil. Do you see any oil glut around, buddy?

Remember our brave troops - of whom about 14 were killed yesterday in the name of Allah.

Join the army and get a backbone.
Since you never mentioned that you ever joined the army, I guess that you are as spineless as I am, if you think that only soldiers have guts. Curious how many of the leaders responsible for the war (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, etc.) all managed to avoid war service, and the one who had seen real combat, Powell, was reticent about the war. Also curious is how many conservatives don't want Israel to give up their occupation for peace with the Palestinians, even though 80% of Israelis want it, even Sharon. It's easy to want war when one doesn't have to live it.

I am thinking about our brave soldiers, for whom I have a great deal of respect. If they weren't in Iraq, then they wouldn't be getting killed, would they? Yes, Halliburton carries much of the blame.

If Reagan hadn't given Saddam help, maybe Saddam wouldn't have become so powerful.

[Krusader]

Since you never mentioned that you ever joined the army, I guess that you are as spineless as I am, if you think that only soldiers have guts. Curious how many of the leaders responsible for the war (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, etc.) all managed to avoid war service, and the one who had seen real combat, Powell, was reticent about the war. Also curious is how many conservatives don't want Israel to give up their occupation for peace with the Palestinians, even though 80% of Israelis want it, even Sharon. It's easy to want war when one doesn't have to live it.

I am thinking about our brave soldiers, for whom I have a great deal of respect. If they weren't in Iraq, then they wouldn't be getting killed, would they? Yes, Halliburton carries much of the blame.

If Reagan hadn't given Saddam help, maybe Saddam wouldn't have become so powerful.Back when I was young enough to have done so, WOMEN didn't ususally join the army. However, two of my daughters have been the Airforce, one in the Gulf War. My son was a Marine. We are a patriotic family - obviously something you know nothing about.

So please, tell me you're posting from a cave somewhere along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border.

[Pilgrim]

Back when I was young enough to have done so, WOMEN didn't ususally join the army. However, two of my daughters have been the Airforce, one in the Gulf War. My son was a Marine. We are a patriotic family - obviously something you know nothing about.

So please, tell me you're posting from a cave somewhere along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border.
Crusader you are out of line. Calling a fellow believer's commitment to faith into question with an accusation of working for the devil is unnacceptable here. And then to define patriotism so narrowly that it's only requirement is to have picked up a gun is naive and childish and I'm sure Ben Franklin, a Quaker pacifist and a patriot if there ever was one, would disagree with you.

You have a huge beam sticking out of your eye my sister and it needs your attention.

[Krusader]

Crusader you are out of line. Calling a fellow believer's commitment to faith into question with an accusation of working for the devil is unnacceptable here. And then to define patriotism so narrowly that it's only requirement is to have picked up a gun is naive and childish and I'm sure Ben Franklin, a Quaker pacifist and a patriot if there ever was one, would disagree with you.

You have a huge beam sticking out of your eye my sister and it needs your attention.
Oh Gosh, I didn't know I was talking to a fellow believer, based on some of the stuff this person has posted.

Although, I didn't question his salvation, but his Anti-American attitude.

As far as Ben Franklin goes - he was Anglican, and not a Quaker. (Are you studying revisionist history?)

[Pilgrim]

Oh Gosh, I didn't know I was talking to a fellow believer, based on some of the stuff this person has posted.

Although, I didn't question his salvation, but his Anti-American attitude.

As far as Ben Franklin goes - he was Anglican, and not a Quaker. (Are you studying revisionist history?)
Look at the symbol in the upper left hand corner of a person's post to find if they are a believer or not.

I must apologize though, when you said to snarf "you are one working for the enemy" I thought you mean Satan. I mis undersood you. Sorry about that.

Ben Franklin was not an Anglican he was in fact, a Quaker: During the years 1757-62 and 1764-75, Franklin resided in England, originally in the capacity of agent for Pennsylvania and later for Georgia, New Jersey, and Massachusetts. During the latter period, which coincided with the growth of colonial unrest, he underwent a political metamorphosis. Until then a contented Englishman in outlook, primarily concerned with Pennsylvania provincial politics, he distrusted popular movements and saw little purpose to be served in carrying principle to extremes. Until the issue of parliamentary taxation undermined the old alliances, he led the Quaker party attack on the Anglican proprietary party and its Presbyterian frontier allies. His purpose throughout the years at London in fact had been displacement of the Penn family administration by royal authority-the conversion of the province from a proprietary to a royal colony.
(http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/B/bfranklin/franklin.htm)

[Krusader]

Look at the symbol in the upper left hand corner of a person's post to find if they are a believer or not.

I must apologize though, when you said to snarf "you are one working for the enemy" I thought you mean Satan. I mis undersood you. Sorry about that.

Ben Franklin was not an Anglican he was in fact, a Quaker: During the years 1757-62 and 1764-75, Franklin resided in England, originally in the capacity of agent for Pennsylvania and later for Georgia, New Jersey, and Massachusetts. During the latter period, which coincided with the growth of colonial unrest, he underwent a political metamorphosis. Until then a contented Englishman in outlook, primarily concerned with Pennsylvania provincial politics, he distrusted popular movements and saw little purpose to be served in carrying principle to extremes. Until the issue of parliamentary taxation undermined the old alliances, he led the Quaker party attack on the Anglican proprietary party and its Presbyterian frontier allies. His purpose throughout the years at London in fact had been displacement of the Penn family administration by royal authority-the conversion of the province from a proprietary to a royal colony.
(http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/B/bfranklin/franklin.htm)
Are you aware, my friend, that Ben Franklin contributed to the writing of the Book of Common Prayer of the fledgling ECUSA? The above reference does nothing to prove your point - this refers to politics, not belief.

[Snarf]

Oh Gosh, I didn't know I was talking to a fellow believer, based on some of the stuff this person has posted.

Although, I didn't question his salvation, but his Anti-American attitude.

As far as Ben Franklin goes - he was Anglican, and not a Quaker. (Are you studying revisionist history?)

Please explain how being against war is anti-American, and why it is unpatriotic to be against the US invading other countries, when US soldiers die as a result.

War is hell, war kills people, soldiers and civilians alike. That's what makes it a thing to be avoided. If you want war, then don't be surprised when US soldiers die, they are fighting the war that you want even if they might not have wanted it. This is why I respect them, but not civilians who want war and who find excuses to avoid it. Since I don't know you, this does not mean I am speaking about you, only about those who support war but who won't fight. I thank your family for serving our country. I have relatives who were in the army too (WWII).

Regarding Christianity, I think that you believe that Christians are saved because of the acceptance of Jesus's sacrifice, yes? If that is the case, then political or personal convictions have nothing to do with salvation. I accept your christianity fully, even though I disagree with you on many issues.

[Pilgrim]

Are you aware, my friend, that Ben Franklin contributed to the writing of the Book of Common Prayer of the fledgling ECUSA? The above reference does nothing to prove your point - this refers to politics, not belief.

I'll have to check this out. Is it possible that he was both at some point in his life?

[Krusader]

Please explain how being against war is anti-American, and why it is unpatriotic to be against the US invading other countries, when US soldiers die as a result.

War is hell, war kills people, soldiers and civilians alike. That's what makes it a thing to be avoided. If you want war, then don't be surprised when US soldiers die, they are fighting the war that you want even if they might not have wanted it. This is why I respect them, but not civilians who want war and who find excuses to avoid it. Since I don't know you, this does not mean I am speaking about you, only about those who support war but who won't fight. I thank your family for serving our country. I have relatives who were in the army too (WWII).

Regarding Christianity, I think that you believe that Christians are saved because of the acceptance of Jesus's sacrifice, yes? If that is the case, then political or personal convictions have nothing to do with salvation. I accept your christianity fully, even though I disagree with you on many issues.Look, I'm just tired of lefties always putting America down. Don't you think it was a noble act to free the Iraqis from that maniac that used commercial meat grinders to dispose of his enemies?

And what about the vs. in Romans urging us to respect the "higher authorities?" Seems that a lot of Christians disrespect our President and have nothing but condemnation for the government. In fact, it's sometimes hard to tell the Christians apart from the Michael Moores of this world.

If you would put as much energy into defending the Gospel as you do in defending the false religion of Islam (which, by the wayl, denies Jesus ever went to the cross for you), maybe we could get along better.

[Snarf]

Look, I'm just tired of lefties always putting America down. Don't you think it was a noble act to free the Iraqis from that maniac that used commercial meat grinders to dispose of his enemies?

And what about the vs. in Romans urging us to respect the "higher authorities?" Seems that a lot of Christians disrespect our President and have nothing but condemnation for the government. In fact, it's sometimes hard to tell the Christians apart from the Michael Moores of this world.

If you would put as much energy into defending the Gospel as you do in defending the false religion of Islam (which, by the wayl, denies Jesus ever went to the cross for you), maybe we could get along better.

I'm not putting America down, only saying that our country has pursued a number of morally questionable policies over the decades. It is a fact that we have supported a number of cruel dictators, and continue to support repressive regimes (like the Saudis).

Regarding the war in Iraq, it's hard for me to say if it was right or wrong because I do not have information as to the alternatives. Yes, Saddam is a monster and his ilk should not be allowed to torture people, yet we helped this monster because of political expediency (Iraq vs. Iran). However, it seems to me that the world's superpower can find a means of controlling such people that does not necessarily require invasion. No, I am not suggesting that the oil for food program was a good thing, but the containment policy was working and indicated one path to success. Another possibility was to establish a presence in iraq after the Gulf War, when it was clear that Saddam represented an imminent threat to his neighbors. If war is required to protect the weak from the strong, then so be it. I am not a complete pacifist, I do recognize that war is sometimes essential (like Afghanistan).

I am no fool, and I do not believe that the Bush policymakers wanted war because of how sorry they felt for the Iraqis, particularly since many of these same people were associated with Reagan when we helped Saddam. Further there was no evidence that Saddam was linked to al Quaeda. There's a lot more evidence against Iran and other Arab countries, why not invade them?
Most likely expediency-it was thought we could beat Iraq easily, the people would love us and kick out anti-US forces. this didn't happen and policymakers like Perle are admitting their mistakes in planning.

regarding our government, while I disagree with Bush's policies I do respect him as a leader, he is an effective President. However, we live in a democracy and are not required to submit to everything that the government urges-unlike Biblical times we can criticize the government and disagree with its actions. We are also free to disagree with a war if we think it wrong, we are not servants of the President.

Regarding Islam, clearly I do not agree with its teachings and I really hate Islamic terrorists and those who use religious teachings as a means of abusing people. However, I do not believe that implying that the faith is inherently violent is accurate, nor do I think that it is respectful of the millions of peaceful Muslims. I have a number of Muslim friends, they are are kind and loving people, and they do not seem to view violence the way that people like Jude insist that they must.

I am proud to be a Christian, but that does not mean that I must hate faiths that I disagree with. Why? Love is treating others as you would want yourself to be treated. Insulting others and calling their basic beliefs evil is not what I would want others to do to me, further it results only in hurt feelings and dislike, and the world has enough of that.

If a Muslim does not want to believe in Jesus, that's fine, we'll see what happens after death (does anyone really know?) We can at least be nice to each other, and that means not insulting others' cherished beliefs.'

[Krusader]

I'm not putting America down, only saying that our country has pursued a number of morally questionable policies over the decades. It is a fact that we have supported a number of cruel dictators, and continue to support repressive regimes (like the Saudis).

Regarding the war in Iraq, it's hard for me to say if it was right or wrong because I do not have information as to the alternatives. Yes, Saddam is a monster and his ilk should not be allowed to torture people, yet we helped this monster because of political expediency (Iraq vs. Iran). However, it seems to me that the world's superpower can find a means of controlling such people that does not necessarily require invasion. No, I am not suggesting that the oil for food program was a good thing, but the containment policy was working and indicated one path to success. Another possibility was to establish a presence in iraq after the Gulf War, when it was clear that Saddam represented an imminent threat to his neighbors. If war is required to protect the weak from the strong, then so be it. I am not a complete pacifist, I do recognize that war is sometimes essential (like Afghanistan).

I am no fool, and I do not believe that the Bush policymakers wanted war because of how sorry they felt for the Iraqis, particularly since many of these same people were associated with Reagan when we helped Saddam. Further there was no evidence that Saddam was linked to al Quaeda. There's a lot more evidence against Iran and other Arab countries, why not invade them?
Most likely expediency-it was thought we could beat Iraq easily, the people would love us and kick out anti-US forces. this didn't happen and policymakers like Perle are admitting their mistakes in planning.

regarding our government, while I disagree with Bush's policies I do respect him as a leader, he is an effective President. However, we live in a democracy and are not required to submit to everything that the government urges-unlike Biblical times we can criticize the government and disagree with its actions. We are also free to disagree with a war if we think it wrong, we are not servants of the President.

Regarding Islam, clearly I do not agree with its teachings and I really hate Islamic terrorists and those who use religious teachings as a means of abusing people. However, I do not believe that implying that the faith is inherently violent is accurate, nor do I think that it is respectful of the millions of peaceful Muslims. I have a number of Muslim friends, they are are kind and loving people, and they do not seem to view violence the way that people like Jude insist that they must.

I am proud to be a Christian, but that does not mean that I must hate faiths that I disagree with. Why? Love is treating others as you would want yourself to be treated. Insulting others and calling their basic beliefs evil is not what I would want others to do to me, further it results only in hurt feelings and dislike, and the world has enough of that.

If a Muslim does not want to believe in Jesus, that's fine, we'll see what happens after death (does anyone really know?) We can at least be nice to each other, and that means not insulting others' cherished beliefs.'
Well, of course you can know what happens after death - as a Christian, you will be present with the Lord and absent from the body - do you believe that?

As far a my political leanings go, I'm more conservative than Bush, and believe he is in error when he claims Islam is a religion of peace and justice.

Moreover, of course we have the right to criticize the government, but we must also respect our leaders (even while not agreeing with them). Some of the worst garbage seems to come out of the mouths of Christians (I'm not saying that includes you), especially on other sites. It gets old after a while. Sorry if I jumped on you.

As far a Islam goes, I've made my position fairly clear. The Quran does teach destruction of the enemies of Allah (and that's America, according to the fundie Islamic sects). You can make a good case, if you're a Muslim terrorists, for decapitating heads, blowing up shopping malls and buses - and now mess halls, all in the name of Allah, from the Quran. Why do you think this stuff is going on?

While there are peaceful Muslims, I'd really like to see them out marching in the streets against the terrorist activities of their fellow believers rather than just always claiming Islam is "peaceful." I have a hard time forgetting the dancing in the streets of Palestine when the Twin Towers fell, don't you?

Let us judge Islam by its book. The Quran is, I believe, far more violent than the Bible, and especially the N.T.. I would ask that you go to some Christian websites, especially those of missionaries, to see what's going on with your fellow Christians in Islamic countries....especially Indonesia and Nigeria, where churches are burned daily, and the heads of Christians stuck on the ends pole and paraded through the streets.

Or, if you can get a copy of "Their Blood Cries Out," by Paul Marshall, it would be worthwhile reading.

While we sit here posting, our fellow Christians are being murdered daily for their faith - often (most often, in fact) by Muslims.

I don't hate Muslims at all - but they are different from the belief system. We should examine the belief system closely to see why it has spawned terrorism across the globe. Something is wrong........and you'll find it in the Quran.

Have a merry Christmas.

[Jude3b]

You know, it really makes me sick to think supposed Americans are blaming the war on Halliburton (which has filed Chapter 13) and greed for oil. Do you see any oil glut around, buddy?

Remember our brave troops - of whom about 14 were killed yesterday in the name of Allah.

Join the army and get a backbone.

I don't know how you feel about it Crusader, but it makes me sick to my stomach, to be reading posts from so-called Christian Americans who make post after post - putting down our President, our Great Country and even the Christian faith. It makes me say "come quickly Lord Jesus" - how much more of this backslidden liberalism can we stand!

[revivalfire]

It's all Ted Kennedy's fault...I think..or is he too old, fat, and water-logged to do anything?

[Timothy Leary]

Join the army and get a backbone.

With all due respect for all the branches of the Military, if a person needs a backbone, I say join the Marines.

[Snarf]

Well, of course you can know what happens after death - as a Christian, you will be present with the Lord and absent from the body - do you believe that?

Believing in something to be true is not the same as objective evidence which demonstrates it.



I don't hate Muslims at all - but they are different from the belief system. We should examine the belief system closely to see why it has spawned terrorism across the globe. Something is wrong........and you'll find it in the Quran.

Have a merry Christmas.

Let me ask you an honest question. The Bible is your Holy Book, and it is the inerrant Word of God. In Leviticus, God issues a command to kill homosexuals. Why aren't you following this command?

My guess is, that you do not because there are other verses which you give weight to, and which have convinced that you should not be following God's command to kill homosexuals and adulterers. Also, you might not engage in such acts because one could go to jail.
Whatever the reason, you are not following God's commands to kill because you have ultimately decided that the act of murder is not the best way to interpret those verses.

Apply the same logic to Muslims. Yes, there are violent verses in the Koran. Why should a Muslim be any more compelled to kill based on a violent interpretation of those verses than you? Do you not consider that Muslims also have an independent will, and might actually consider life to be something beautiful?

According to your view, all Muslims all over the world should be out killing, according to Jude's point of view, they should all be suicide bombers because that is the only way that they are assured of salvation, according to him. That few suicide bombers occur outside of Palestine and Iraq leads one to one of two ideas
1) No Muslims outside of Palestine want to be in Paradise
2) Jude's interpretation is wrong.

Since the vast majority of Muslims live peaceful lives, and they know their holy book better than you, than there is clearly something wrong with your view that they are all commanded to be terrorists. How do you explain their peaceful lives? Or do you think that all Muslims go all the day long attacking people right and left?

Do you not consider that there might be other reasons for violence? Like poverty, unemployment, and repression?

Finally, if your view is correct, and all muslims are uncontrollably violent because of the koran, how do you propose to solve what you view as the problem? Exterminate them? Send US troops into every country with Muslims, root them out of the US and eliminate them? After all, according to your view they are all killers waiting for their chance!

[revivalfire]

For the Christians here...we are faced with a most serious dillema.....what do we do when we come to militant religious forces? We can't defeat them..there will always be more..on the other hand....we could be killed if we don't act....as was evidenced during September the Eleventh............Only the return of Christ to set up His kingdom on earth will deliver this world from this dillema..and prove who was right..

[Krusader]

Believing in something to be true is not the same as objective evidence which demonstrates it.





Let me ask you an honest question. The Bible is your Holy Book, and it is the inerrant Word of God. In Leviticus, God issues a command to kill homosexuals. Why aren't you following this command?

My guess is, that you do not because there are other verses which you give weight to, and which have convinced that you should not be following God's command to kill homosexuals and adulterers. Also, you might not engage in such acts because one could go to jail.
Whatever the reason, you are not following God's commands to kill because you have ultimately decided that the act of murder is not the best way to interpret those verses.

Apply the same logic to Muslims. Yes, there are violent verses in the Koran. Why should a Muslim be any more compelled to kill based on a violent interpretation of those verses than you? Do you not consider that Muslims also have an independent will, and might actually consider life to be something beautiful?

According to your view, all Muslims all over the world should be out killing, according to Jude's point of view, they should all be suicide bombers because that is the only way that they are assured of salvation, according to him. That few suicide bombers occur outside of Palestine and Iraq leads one to one of two ideas
1) No Muslims outside of Palestine want to be in Paradise
2) Jude's interpretation is wrong.

Since the vast majority of Muslims live peaceful lives, and they know their holy book better than you, than there is clearly something wrong with your view that they are all commanded to be terrorists. How do you explain their peaceful lives? Or do you think that all Muslims go all the day long attacking people right and left?

Do you not consider that there might be other reasons for violence? Like poverty, unemployment, and repression?

Finally, if your view is correct, and all muslims are uncontrollably violent because of the koran, how do you propose to solve what you view as the problem? Exterminate them? Send US troops into every country with Muslims, root them out of the US and eliminate them? After all, according to your view they are all killers waiting for their chance!
As a Christian, you should know that the Mosaic Law has been replaced by the New Covenant sealed by the Blood of Christ. The laws governing the Jews still governs the Jews, however, so it would seem that they are still under the Mosaic constraints.

As far as Muslims go, it would appear that those that believe the "peaceful" Meccan surahs (and the early Medinan surahs) are abrogated by the later surahs calling for jihad by war and the imposition of Islam by force, are the ones who are our main source of concern.

Also, not all calling themselves Muslims are Muslim by a long shot. It's the same with nominal Christians who have possibly been baptized as infants but that's as far as their "Christianity" goes.

The "true believers" among the Muslims may be a minority, but they base their actions on what they believe the Quran to be saying. This is why a young Muslim man, married only a week, could go into the US Army mess tent last week and blow himself up, killing not only Americans but fellow-Muslims as well, and believe that he is doing Allah's will.

As far as I can see, there is no parallel in the New Testament for this type of activity.

[yougotstachill]

You are such a moron. You have been listening to bias American media too much.

Most terrorists that have attacked the US in the last years have claimed to be Muslims (although they're not truly following the Koran).

You need to learn and lose some ignorance, because you are so stupid.

[Jude3b]

You are such a moron. You have been listening to bias American media too much.

Most terrorists that have attacked the US in the last years have claimed to be Muslims (although they're not truly following the Koran).

You need to learn and lose some ignorance, because you are so stupid.

If you are going to put up a post like this, could you at least provide so facts and information to back up your position please?

[yougotstachill]

If you are going to put up a post like this, could you at least provide so facts and information to back up your position please? Some facts? Such as what?

If you don't know the facts behind my statement you shouldn't be debating this in the first place.

[Timothy Leary]

Some facts? Such as what?

If you don't know the facts behind my statement you shouldn't be debating this in the first place.

Jude's question is warranted.

[Sparko]

You are such a moron. You have been listening to bias American media too much.

Most terrorists that have attacked the US in the last years have claimed to be Muslims (although they're not truly following the Koran).

You need to learn and lose some ignorance, because you are so stupid.

Yougotstachill, you gotsta chill, dude. If you wish to name call and insult someone like you do above, please take it to the Locker Room. Keep it civil please or go elsewhere.

[Krusader]

With all due respect for all the branches of the Military, if a person needs a backbone, I say join the Marines.
Yes, we have a Marine in the family, too. I'd say that all service members are as equally brave.

[revivalfire]

Look at the symbol in the upper left hand corner of a person's post to find if they are a believer or not.

I must apologize though, when you said to snarf "you are one working for the enemy" I thought you mean Satan. I mis undersood you. Sorry about that.

Ben Franklin was not an Anglican he was in fact, a Quaker: During the years 1757-62 and 1764-75, Franklin resided in England, originally in the capacity of agent for Pennsylvania and later for Georgia, New Jersey, and Massachusetts. During the latter period, which coincided with the growth of colonial unrest, he underwent a political metamorphosis. Until then a contented Englishman in outlook, primarily concerned with Pennsylvania provincial politics, he distrusted popular movements and saw little purpose to be served in carrying principle to extremes. Until the issue of parliamentary taxation undermined the old alliances, he led the Quaker party attack on the Anglican proprietary party and its Presbyterian frontier allies. His purpose throughout the years at London in fact had been displacement of the Penn family administration by royal authority-the conversion of the province from a proprietary to a royal colony.
(http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/B/bfranklin/franklin.htm)
That little symbol means nothing...i was tempted to not even put it there... Just because you say you are a Christian doesn't necessarily mean that you are... We probably won't even see each other face to face... I don't believe a liberal viewpoint is correct...I won't condone it..but I won't affront it directly without due cause.... the reasons behind by belief is that the walk of a Christian is straight and narrow...not wide and crooked...I'm sorry if that offends...

[Krusader]

Some facts? Such as what?

If you don't know the facts behind my statement you shouldn't be debating this in the first place.The facts you need to present are self-evident. Obviously, you are better able to engage in name calling than to write anything intelligible.

[wanboredlatino]

Terrorists are a universal phenomenom. All terrorists are born by oppression. All terrorists fight against literal and symbolic manifestations of their oppression. All oppressors notice only the terrorists that they are oppressing, mainly because those are the terrorists who are bothering them.

That is why it appears to Americans that most terrorists are Muslims. Most else on this subject I am unqualified to comment on.

[Krusader]

Terrorists are a universal phenomenom. All terrorists are born by oppression. All terrorists fight against literal and symbolic manifestations of their oppression. All oppressors notice only the terrorists that they are oppressing, mainly because those are the terrorists who are bothering them.

That is why it appears to Americans that most terrorists are Muslims. Most else on this subject I am unqualified to comment on.
Please back up this statement with facts, i.e., "Buddhists run amuck and murder innocent Christians in Cambodia!"

[mikey123]

"It appears.....that all terrorists are muslims????, give me a break!! May i suggest two things Take a opposite view of just who is threathened by these people--and ask yourself why ??, do they pose such a threat. Second,i challange you to spend 6 months with a muslem family, and then after both of these things are accomplished go and spend 6 months in the country of Lebanon, then come back and see if your world view has expanded itself to allow such comments as "most terrorists are muslem". --mikey123--

Not all Muslims are terrorists. I have known Muslim people and I continue to know Muslim people that seem to be wonderful, nice people and they are not terrorists.

Nevertheless, it appears that throughout the world today, that nearly all terrorists are Muslims. I do not state this - just from my own opinion. Recently, Mundir Badr Haloum, lecturer at a Syrian university, penned a column in the Lebanese newspaper Al-Safir (Sept 13), similarly acknowledging that Muslims are behind virtually ALL worldwide terrorism.

I read in today's newspaper that thousands of people have signed up to be suicide bombers in Iran. The targets of these suicide bombers are to be Israel and/or US interests (people).

HOW CAN ISLAM CALL ITSELF A RELIGION OF PEACE? When it is behind taday's worldwide wave of Terrorism?

[Pilgrim]

I appreciate the sentiment Mikeyl, but time spent with one family, or even one community of Muslims would not do anythign to disprove the assertion that by appearances most terrorists are muslims. At the most it might prove that the given family or neighbor hood is not comprised of terrorists.

[wanboredlatino]

Please back up this statement with facts, i.e., "Buddhists run amuck and murder innocent Christians in Cambodia!"
Is that a fact, or a demonstration of a statement that needs backing up with facts?

I'm betting you disagree with the statement, "All terrorists are born by oppression." Well, I bet that I could give a reasonable example of oppression for any example of terrorism you give me. Remember, though, that this oppression must be thought of as oppression by the terrorists, it may appear quite wholesome or innocuous to us.

I.e., perhaps the Sudanese slaughtering all the Christians could possibly have been because the Sudanese saw the Christians as a threat, rather like certain Christians that I know that think that the Muslims in France (and Muslims as a whole) constitute a threat.

[Krusader]

Is that a fact, or a demonstration of a statement that needs backing up with facts?

I'm betting you disagree with the statement, "All terrorists are born by oppression." Well, I bet that I could give a reasonable example of oppression for any example of terrorism you give me. Remember, though, that this oppression must be thought of as oppression by the terrorists, it may appear quite wholesome or innocuous to us.

I.e., perhaps the Sudanese slaughtering all the Christians could possibly have been because the Sudanese saw the Christians as a threat, rather like certain Christians that I know that think that the Muslims in France (and Muslims as a whole) constitute a threat.
Christians in the Sudan are primarily black. The Muslims are of Arabian origin. The Muslims are eliminating the blacks from the Sudan (it's secondary that they are either Christian or animists).

[keith]

Is that a fact, or a demonstration of a statement that needs backing up with facts?

I'm betting you disagree with the statement, "All terrorists are born by oppression." Well, I bet that I could give a reasonable example of oppression for any example of terrorism you give me. Remember, though, that this oppression must be thought of as oppression by the terrorists, it may appear quite wholesome or innocuous to us.

I.e., perhaps the Sudanese slaughtering all the Christians could possibly have been because the Sudanese saw the Christians as a threat, rather like certain Christians that I know that think that the Muslims in France (and Muslims as a whole) constitute a threat.
Hmmm. There's something funny going on here. So if a Muslim majority terrorise a Christian minority (e.g. Sudan or Iraq) it is because they are perceived as a threat. Wait a minute, if a Muslim minority wage war with the non-Muslim majority (e.g. Phillipines, Thailand) that is because they feel oppressed. Then again if there is a country with fairly even numbers of Muslims and non-Muslims terror is still OK (e.g. Lebanon, Nigeria) and the reason this time is...?

Seriously though. Without a definition of what is meant by oppression this idea is just too slippery to be really useful. For sure, desperate people may resort to desperate acts (a good example would be suicide bombers in Palestine) but it does not cover every situation. Why the massive bombings in Madrid last year? or the bombings in Bali before that? Are Muslims being oppressed by surfers? I think not.

Some terrorists have very specific goals e.g. national independence while others including Bin Laden have a generalised hatred towards those who are not thinking and living like them. If someone feels 'oppressed' by having to share planet earth with others who live and behave differently then the future for all of us looks pretty bleak.

[Snarf]

Hmmm. There's something funny going on here. So if a Muslim majority terrorise a Christian minority (e.g. Sudan or Iraq) it is because they are perceived as a threat. Wait a minute, if a Muslim minority wage war with the non-Muslim majority (e.g. Phillipines, Thailand) that is because they feel oppressed. Then again if there is a country with fairly even numbers of Muslims and non-Muslims terror is still OK (e.g. Lebanon, Nigeria) and the reason this time is...?

Seriously though. Without a definition of what is meant by oppression this idea is just too slippery to be really useful. For sure, desperate people may resort to desperate acts (a good example would be suicide bombers in Palestine) but it does not cover every situation. Why the massive bombings in Madrid last year? or the bombings in Bali before that? Are Muslims being oppressed by surfers? I think not.

Some terrorists have very specific goals e.g. national independence while others including Bin Laden have a generalised hatred towards those who are not thinking and living like them. If someone feels 'oppressed' by having to share planet earth with others who live and behave differently then the future for all of us looks pretty bleak.

Then what is the US excuse for supporting cruel dictators like Saddam and those in South America? What is the the Israeli excuse for occupying Palestinian land, humiliating the Palestinians, and destroying their homes?
Yes, the future looks pretty bleak when big, rich countries invade and abuse poor countries for the profits of the rich and fat.

[keith]

Then what is the US excuse for supporting cruel dictators like Saddam and those in South America? What is the the Israeli excuse for occupying Palestinian land, humiliating the Palestinians, and destroying their homes?
Yes, the future looks pretty bleak when big, rich countries invade and abuse poor countries for the profits of the rich and fat.
Big, rich countries have big opportunities to act out of self interest and of course that means that sometimes the US or other powerful countries act out of economic self interest first and put human rights etc. further down the list. OK, point taken, there is some hypocrisy in that, but are you equating the US or Israel with terrorists or states that sponsor terrorism? IMHO that is pushing the comparison too far. But maybe you see things differently?

[wanboredlatino]

Keith, you're right - Oppression is a very vague, slippery term. Perhaps not very useful, but more comprehensive than other reasonings I've seen elsewhere.

Crusader also has a point - ethnicity and race may be more of a factor in Sudan as religion.

I don't have the psychological credentials to prove that all acts of violence are motivated wholly or in part out of fear, but I think that it's a reasonable thing to say. And fear oppresses people...

[Snarf]

Big, rich countries have big opportunities to act out of self interest and of course that means that sometimes the US or other powerful countries act out of economic self interest first and put human rights etc. further down the list. OK, point taken, there is some hypocrisy in that, but are you equating the US or Israel with terrorists or states that sponsor terrorism? IMHO that is pushing the comparison too far. But maybe you see things differently?

The US has sponsored terrorist groups before (like the contras), and before there was an Israel there were Zionist terrorist groups like the Stern gang and Haganah. Some of these former terrorists became important leaders (Menachem Begin was part of a Zionist terrorist group). One of the reasons why the US is hated is because of the hypocrisy of condemning terrorism by one group and at the same time supporting one, or supporting a cruel dictator (like Saddam). Remember, we also helped Osama.

The hypocrisy is a major obstacle, because we say that we want to help people, yet turn a blind eye to repressive regimes that we support, like the Saudis. If we want to be seen as a country supporting freedom, then in conflicts that we get into we must treat with both sides fairly. A beautiful example is Israel-Palestine. We do nothing that addresses what the Palestinians want, namely the occupation fo their land by Israeli settlers. Instead we call Palestinian attacks terrorism, and Israeli retaliation as justified. What do we expect, that Palestinians should love watching Israeli soldiers marching through their cities, and tanks in their land? We cry and moan about 9/11, yet expect to be loved when our planes drop bombs and soldiers march into every corner of the globe.

It's not that I support terrorism or think that it is justifiable. I think that it is evil. However, there are real reasons why people sign up to be suicide bombers, and it's not because Muslims are born terrorists like certain people here at Tweb believe. It is for cultural, economic, political reasons which cannot be addressed by US invasion, and which have been exacerbated by US policies which sacrifice human rights for oil profits.

[Krusader]

The US has sponsored terrorist groups before (like the contras), and before there was an Israel there were Zionist terrorist groups like the Stern gang and Haganah. Some of these former terrorists became important leaders (Menachem Begin was part of a Zionist terrorist group). One of the reasons why the US is hated is because of the hypocrisy of condemning terrorism by one group and at the same time supporting one, or supporting a cruel dictator (like Saddam). Remember, we also helped Osama.

The hypocrisy is a major obstacle, because we say that we want to help people, yet turn a blind eye to repressive regimes that we support, like the Saudis. If we want to be seen as a country supporting freedom, then in conflicts that we get into we must treat with both sides fairly. A beautiful example is Israel-Palestine. We do nothing that addresses what the Palestinians want, namely the occupation fo their land by Israeli settlers. Instead we call Palestinian attacks terrorism, and Israeli retaliation as justified. What do we expect, that Palestinians should love watching Israeli soldiers marching through their cities, and tanks in their land? We cry and moan about 9/11, yet expect to be loved when our planes drop bombs and soldiers march into every corner of the globe.

It's not that I support terrorism or think that it is justifiable. I think that it is evil. However, there are real reasons why people sign up to be suicide bombers, and it's not because Muslims are born terrorists like certain people here at Tweb believe. It is for cultural, economic, political reasons which cannot be addressed by US invasion, and which have been exacerbated by US policies which sacrifice human rights for oil profits.

Just a little history lesson. When the State of Israel was created, it was only a very small part of the entire Mandate. Most of the land went to the Arabs. In fact, the Arabs now occupy one of the largest land areas in the world. The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan was originally set aside for the Palestinians - however, they were later kicked out of there by the royal family due to their constant agitation.

The Israelies have made Palestinians in their country full citizens, with the power to vote. Given their great birth rate, this will probably cause problems in the long-run for Jewish sovereignty.

It was fanatical anti-Jewish Arabs who encouraged the Palestinians to leave Israel, promising that they were all doomed. The refugee camps were thus flooded, and no Arab states would take the "refugees" in. Nevertheless, some have returned to Israel and become productive citizens.

The Lord, Our God, gave the loan of his land to Israel - and He still owns it, and it is holy unto Him. No Jewish leader has any right to give it away.

[Snarf]

Just a little history lesson. When the State of Israel was created, it was only a very small part of the entire Mandate. Most of the land went to the Arabs. In fact, the Arabs now occupy one of the largest land areas in the world. The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan was originally set aside for the Palestinians - however, they were later kicked out of there by the royal family due to their constant agitation.

The Israelies have made Palestinians in their country full citizens, with the power to vote. Given their great birth rate, this will probably cause problems in the long-run for Jewish sovereignty.

It was fanatical anti-Jewish Arabs who encouraged the Palestinians to leave Israel, promising that they were all doomed. The refugee camps were thus flooded, and no Arab states would take the "refugees" in. Nevertheless, some have returned to Israel and become productive citizens.

The Lord, Our God, gave the loan of his land to Israel - and He still owns it, and it is holy unto Him. No Jewish leader has any right to give it away.
A history lesson
Stern Gang (Encyclopedia Britannica
"also called Stern Group , or Lehi , formally Lohame Herut Yisra'el (Hebrew: “Fighters for the Freedom of Israel”) Zionist terrorist organization in Palestine, founded in 1940 by Avraham Stern (1907–42) after a split in the right-wing underground movement, Irgun Zvai Leumi.

Fanatically anti-British, the group repeatedly attacked British personnel in Palestine and even invited aid from the Axis powers. The British police retaliated by killing Stern in his apartment in February 1942; many of the…"

Let's hear it for Jewish terrorists!

You mean, Israel treats it's citizens by putting them under military occupation, destroying their houses, killing their children for throwing rocks?
HAHAHA!!!!!!

Israelis did not settle the land peacefully, they took it by force of arms with a lot of help from the US. The land originally belonged to the Arabs, and no, we're not going to decide who should live where based on who thought God said what 4000 years ago.

What I find very funny is that the majority of Israelis favor removing the settlers, because they have to live with Palestinian rebellion and they know what they are doing is wrong (as said by Sharon). It is only Americans who live the soft life thousands of miles away, like you, who want others to die for your religious principles.

I'm not even sure why you are so supportive of Jews, since by your theology they are all going to hell, where you believe that Muslims will go.

[Krusader]

A history lesson
Stern Gang (Encyclopedia Britannica
"also called Stern Group , or Lehi , formally Lohame Herut Yisra'el (Hebrew: “Fighters for the Freedom of Israel”) Zionist terrorist organization in Palestine, founded in 1940 by Avraham Stern (1907–42) after a split in the right-wing underground movement, Irgun Zvai Leumi.

Fanatically anti-British, the group repeatedly attacked British personnel in Palestine and even invited aid from the Axis powers. The British police retaliated by killing Stern in his apartment in February 1942; many of the…"

Let's hear it for Jewish terrorists!

You mean, Israel treats it's citizens by putting them under military occupation, destroying their houses, killing their children for throwing rocks?
HAHAHA!!!!!!

Israelis did not settle the land peacefully, they took it by force of arms with a lot of help from the US. The land originally belonged to the Arabs, and no, we're not going to decide who should live where based on who thought God said what 4000 years ago.

What I find very funny is that the majority of Israelis favor removing the settlers, because they have to live with Palestinian rebellion and they know what they are doing is wrong (as said by Sharon). It is only Americans who live the soft life thousands of miles away, like you, who want others to die for your religious principles.

I'm not even sure why you are so supportive of Jews, since by your theology they are all going to hell, where you believe that Muslims will go.
Israel was forced for fight in order to establish the country - there was much military resistance. Today, Arab citizens of Israel enjoy full rights and priviledges - unlike non-Muslims in Muslim nations. Where would you rather live - Israel or Saudi Arabia?

[Snarf]

Israel was forced for fight in order to establish the country - there was much military resistance. Today, Arab citizens of Israel enjoy full rights and priviledges - unlike non-Muslims in Muslim nations. Where would you rather live - Israel or Saudi Arabia?

So, that justifies conquest?

[Krusader]

So, that justifies conquest?

Oyveh! The mandate divided the former British protectorate between Arab and Jewish interests. Are you saying, therefore, that the Jews weren't entitled to the little bit of land given to them out of the giant land mass given to and occupied by Arabs? Anyway, God gave the land to the Jews, and who are you to ignore that?

[Snarf]

Oyveh! The mandate divided the former British protectorate between Arab and Jewish interests. Are you saying, therefore, that the Jews weren't entitled to the little bit of land given to them out of the giant land mass given to and occupied by Arabs? Anyway, God gave the land to the Jews, and who are you to ignore that?

1) There is no evidence for the existence of the alleged God who gave the land to an alleged Abraham, for whose existence there is also no proof. Thus, there is no proof of an agreement.

2) The alleged God later took the land from the Jews for punishment of their sins. Where does it say that they would get it back in 1948?

3) Jews were entitled to land, but not to land which belonged to someone else. That is called conquest. The Arabs who lived there owned that land, and the violence from such decisions are what we have to deal with today, not whether or not some guy had an illusion that God would give all the land (whose boundaries are not even described in modern terms) to his descendents in some private deal.

[Krusader]

1) There is no evidence for the existence of the alleged God who gave the land to an alleged Abraham, for whose existence there is also no proof. Thus, there is no proof of an agreement.

2) The alleged God later took the land from the Jews for punishment of their sins. Where does it say that they would get it back in 1948?

3) Jews were entitled to land, but not to land which belonged to someone else. That is called conquest. The Arabs who lived there owned that land, and the violence from such decisions are what we have to deal with today, not whether or not some guy had an illusion that God would give all the land (whose boundaries are not even described in modern terms) to his descendents in some private deal.
You state the Lord God is simply "alleged." Please remove the cross from you name.

[Snarf]

You state the Lord God is simply "alleged." Please remove the cross from you name.

Sorry, the cross stays. I allege that there is a God, though I acknowledge that I cannot prove His existence (faith is being sure that something exists without being able to see it).

You still haven't answered the part about God kicking the Jews out of the Holy Land for their sins, and where it says that they would be allowed to reclaim it later.

[Sparko]

The prophesy of the field of dry bones coming back to life is thought by Christians and Jews alike to represent the future regathering of Israel into a nation after being scattered. This was fulfulled in 1948.

[Krusader]

The prophesy of the field of dry bones coming back to life is thought by Christians and Jews alike to represent the future regathering of Israel into a nation after being scattered. This was fulfulled in 1948.
Also, the creation of the State of Israel, bringing the Jews from all over the world, scattered in the diaspora, back to Israel, was a fulfillment of many OT prophecies.

[Krusader]

Sorry, the cross stays. I allege that there is a God, though I acknowledge that I cannot prove His existence (faith is being sure that something exists without being able to see it).

You still haven't answered the part about God kicking the Jews out of the Holy Land for their sins, and where it says that they would be allowed to reclaim it later.

See Is. 11:11

[Snarf]

The prophesy of the field of dry bones coming back to life is thought by Christians and Jews alike to represent the future regathering of Israel into a nation after being scattered. This was fulfulled in 1948.

Again I ask, does this justify conquest and military occupation?

My point is this: nowhere in the OT is an area described that can be defined to be borders in modern terms, no witnesses were there to verify that God said it to the prophets, and the people who have been living there had no say in whatever deal was made. And please give some specific evidence that the prophecy refers to the state of Israel being formed in 1948, since for all we know the prophecy could be referring to events in 2525, and the Jews are right now conquering away without God's approval.

So, I suppose that the collective evangelical point of view is this: a few Jews (the Zionists) decide that they will make their homeland in some general area that roughly equals old Palestine. Unfortunately, there are people who live their already. So, the Jews just have to say "this is our land based on a Holy Book that onlly we and christians accept to be the Word of God," and all the Palestinians happily leave their land, their fields, their orchards, etc. If some Palestinians happen to not want to leave, then it's OK to kill them, after all it was OK to kill Canaanites in the OT.

HAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!


Gee, if the Native Americans came and said that they want their properties in the US promised to them by their Great Spirit, how happily would you leave?

[Snarf]

See Is. 11:11

11 In that day the Lord will reach out his hand a second time to reclaim the remnant that is left of his people from Assyria, from Lower Egypt, from Upper Egypt, [a] from Cush, [b] from Elam, from Babylonia, [c] from Hamath and from the islands of the sea.

Sorry, most of those places don't exist anymore, and since many of the Jews in Israel came from Europe they are not even included. Nor does it even mention a country named "state of Israel." Sorry, the creation of Israel in 1948 is not referred to in this verse. "reclaim" is not synonymous with "formation of the nation of Israel."

[Krusader]

11 In that day the Lord will reach out his hand a second time to reclaim the remnant that is left of his people from Assyria, from Lower Egypt, from Upper Egypt, [a] from Cush, [b] from Elam, from Babylonia, [c] from Hamath and from the islands of the sea.

Sorry, most of those places don't exist anymore, and since many of the Jews in Israel came from Europe they are not even included. Nor does it even mention a country named "state of Israel." Sorry, the creation of Israel in 1948 is not referred to in this verse. "reclaim" is not synonymous with "formation of the nation of Israel."
May I ask you somjething SNARF? Do you go to Church at all? Are you at all familiar with the Scripture?

If you are very intersted in this subject, I suggest you get a Strong's Concordance and look up such words as "gather" remnant, etc. I am not a Concordance, and I have a little time. Is. 11:11 was one I thought of right away, but there's a lot more. However, if you will study the Abrahamic Covenant, you will note that the land of Israel was given to Abraham and his descendents forever and ever.

This is basic Christianity, and something most Christians are familiar with.

[Snarf]

May I ask you somjething SNARF? Do you go to Church at all? Are you at all familiar with the Scripture?

If you are very intersted in this subject, I suggest you get a Strong's Concordance and look up such words as "gather" remnant, etc. I am not a Concordance, and I have a little time. Is. 11:11 was one I thought of right away, but there's a lot more. However, if you will study the Abrahamic Covenant, you will note that the land of Israel was given to Abraham and his descendents forever and ever.

This is basic Christianity, and something most Christians are familiar with.

Also basic Christianity is that God let others have the land and carry the Jews off because they were so evil. Apparantly, God's promise was not "forever and ever," since God specifically punished the Jews by having them carried off the land. If the promise was forever and ever, then why did God kick them out?

Even so, let's say that the land was to be given to the Jews, even if they got kicked out every so often for being so bad. Precisely what land was to be given to the Jews, in modern terms? Based on what geographical references? On what basis do you extend the Abrahamic covenant to modern Israel, when God had the Jews removed before the 4th century BC by the Babylonians?

[Krusader]

Also basic Christianity is that God let others have the land and carry the Jews off because they were so evil. Apparantly, God's promise was not "forever and ever," since God specifically punished the Jews by having them carried off the land. If the promise was forever and ever, then why did God kick them out?

Even so, let's say that the land was to be given to the Jews, even if they got kicked out every so often for being so bad. Precisely what land was to be given to the Jews, in modern terms? Based on what geographical references? On what basis do you extend the Abrahamic covenant to modern Israel, when God had the Jews removed before the 4th century BC by the Babylonians?

If you look in your Bible you will note the boundaries of the Holy Land given to the Jews - much larger than they presently occupy. See, Gen. 15:18-21; Exek. 47; Ex. 23:30-31. Look for any cross-references.

[Krusader]

Again I ask, does this justify conquest and military occupation?

My point is this: nowhere in the OT is an area described that can be defined to be borders in modern terms, no witnesses were there to verify that God said it to the prophets, and the people who have been living there had no say in whatever deal was made. And please give some specific evidence that the prophecy refers to the state of Israel being formed in 1948, since for all we know the prophecy could be referring to events in 2525, and the Jews are right now conquering away without God's approval.

So, I suppose that the collective evangelical point of view is this: a few Jews (the Zionists) decide that they will make their homeland in some general area that roughly equals old Palestine. Unfortunately, there are people who live their already. So, the Jews just have to say "this is our land based on a Holy Book that onlly we and christians accept to be the Word of God," and all the Palestinians happily leave their land, their fields, their orchards, etc. If some Palestinians happen to not want to leave, then it's OK to kill them, after all it was OK to kill Canaanites in the OT.

HAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!


Gee, if the Native Americans came and said that they want their properties in the US promised to them by their Great Spirit, how happily would you leave?
Response:

Probably it would make me very happy since having Ogalala Sioux in the family we'd have a portion of them there Black Hills!!!!!!!

[Sparko]

Again I ask, does this justify conquest and military occupation? Snarf, go read some history.

The area was once the Ottoman empire (the whole middle east). There was no Israel, there was no Jordan, there was no Syria, nor any Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc. None of those countries existed.

In world war 1, the Ottoman empire was defeated by Britain and the allies. They conquered the area and disbanded the Ottoman empire. France and Britain divided up the spoils. They owned the land by virtue of conquest. They, very graciously, divided the land up into the countries that exist today, including preserving an area around current Jerusalem called Palistine. They OWNED THE COUNTRIES. They were part of the British Empire. After WW2 They gave all these Arabs their own countries and independence. And they gave the Jews their own homeland as payment for the suffering they went through from Hitler.

But the Arabs were not happy with their own land Britain gave them, they wanted the land Britain gave the Jews too. They got together and attacked Israel and Israel kicked their hineys in the 6 day war. Israel kicked their hineys so bad they took much of the territory that used to belong to the attackers. But being generous, they gave much of it back but kept a portion as a border land to prevent another sneak attack. This is the disputed land that still exists today. Israel conquered it fair and square after the Arabs attacked them.

So, your whole argument is moot.

[Snarf]

Snarf, go read some history.

The area was once the Ottoman empire (the whole middle east). There was no Israel, there was no Jordan, there was no Syria, nor any Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc. None of those countries existed.

In world war 1, the Ottoman empire was defeated by Britain and the allies. They conquered the area and disbanded the Ottoman empire. France and Britain divided up the spoils. They owned the land by virtue of conquest. They, very graciously, divided the land up into the countries that exist today, including preserving an area around current Jerusalem called Palistine. They OWNED THE COUNTRIES. They were part of the British Empire. After WW2 They gave all these Arabs their own countries and independence. And they gave the Jews their own homeland as payment for the suffering they went through from Hitler.

But the Arabs were not happy with their own land Britain gave them, they wanted the land Britain gave the Jews too. They got together and attacked Israel and Israel kicked their hineys in the 6 day war. Israel kicked their hineys so bad they took much of the territory that used to belong to the attackers. But being generous, they gave much of it back but kept a portion as a border land to prevent another sneak attack. This is the disputed land that still exists today. Israel conquered it fair and square after the Arabs attacked them.

So, your whole argument is moot.

I am well aware of the history of the region, now here is some history for you:

"We must use terror, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation, and the cutting of all social services to rid the Galilee of its Arab population." David Ben-Gurion, May 1948, to the General Staff. From Ben-Gurion, A Biography, by Michael Ben-Zohar, Delacorte, New York 1978.

Moot, is it? (you do know who Ben Gurion was?)

[Krusader]

I am well aware of the history of the region, now here is some history for you:

"We must use terror, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation, and the cutting of all social services to rid the Galilee of its Arab population." David Ben-Gurion, May 1948, to the General Staff. From Ben-Gurion, A Biography, by Michael Ben-Zohar, Delacorte, New York 1978.

Moot, is it? (you do know who Ben Gurion was?)

Why do you have to be so hostile and condescending? Nobody has ever said that Christians approve of everything the Jews have done. You should, however, bone up on the devastation Muslims did to Christians and Jews during the Muslim conquest of Europe and Central Asia. Especially during their conquest of India, as well.

[Krusader]

Snarf, go read some history.

The area was once the Ottoman empire (the whole middle east). There was no Israel, there was no Jordan, there was no Syria, nor any Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc. None of those countries existed.

In world war 1, the Ottoman empire was defeated by Britain and the allies. They conquered the area and disbanded the Ottoman empire. France and Britain divided up the spoils. They owned the land by virtue of conquest. They, very graciously, divided the land up into the countries that exist today, including preserving an area around current Jerusalem called Palistine. They OWNED THE COUNTRIES. They were part of the British Empire. After WW2 They gave all these Arabs their own countries and independence. And they gave the Jews their own homeland as payment for the suffering they went through from Hitler.

But the Arabs were not happy with their own land Britain gave them, they wanted the land Britain gave the Jews too. They got together and attacked Israel and Israel kicked their hineys in the 6 day war. Israel kicked their hineys so bad they took much of the territory that used to belong to the attackers. But being generous, they gave much of it back but kept a portion as a border land to prevent another sneak attack. This is the disputed land that still exists today. Israel conquered it fair and square after the Arabs attacked them.

So, your whole argument is moot.

John, it's also interesting to note how often the Arab countries, vastly larger and richer than Israel taken as a whole, have attacked tiny Israel. However, the Lord God has continued to give them victory over their enemies - not one Arab soldier has set foot during these wars on the land given to the Jews by God.

[Sparko]

I am well aware of the history of the region, now here is some history for you:

"We must use terror, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation, and the cutting of all social services to rid the Galilee of its Arab population." David Ben-Gurion, May 1948, to the General Staff. From Ben-Gurion, A Biography, by Michael Ben-Zohar, Delacorte, New York 1978.

Moot, is it? (you do know who Ben Gurion was?)
Ben Guirion, wasn't he named after the airport? :rofl:

But seriously, nice try at deflection, but I never said all the Jews were innocent and perfect - but how would you react to a group that tried to destroy you first? Wouldn't you want to rid your land of them?

Back on track: I was replying to your accusations that the Jews did not deserve Israel, by showing you that neither did the Jordanians, Syrians, et al cuz they did not exist as countries either. All the land belonged legally to Britain and France cuz they conquered it fair and square (they were not the agressors in the conflict either) - When some country attacks YOU and you defeat them, you set the terms of surrender, and you are justified in dismantling their government since they were the aggressor. We did it with Japan, Germany and so on.

When Britain divided up the land and gave part of it to the Jews, the rest of the people in the area had no say so in the matter, and no right to claim the Jews did not belong there. They were given their own lands, and until the Arabs attacked the Jews, the jews were perfectly willing to share their country with them (and still are if they would behave).

[Snarf]

John, it's also interesting to note how often the Arab countries, vastly larger and richer than Israel taken as a whole, have attacked tiny Israel. However, the Lord God has continued to give them victory over their enemies - not one Arab soldier has set foot during these wars on the land given to the Jews by God.

Like the 1973 war, which Egypt won? You forgot to mention that it was, and continues to be, lots of money and weapons flowing from the US, as opposed to miracles from God.And it was fun to watch Israel slink out of Lebanon, and the mighty Israel can't even stop the Palestinian revolt.

[Krusader]

Like the 1973 war, which Egypt won? You forgot to mention that it was, and continues to be, lots of money and weapons flowing from the US, as opposed to miracles from God.And it was fun to watch Israel slink out of Lebanon, and the mighty Israel can't even stop the Palestinian revolt.




I think if you check your non-Muslim history books, you'll find that Israel, attacked on the highest holy day for Jews, was victorious on the battle field.

Also, Lebanon is not part of the land given by God to the Jews; as far as the Palestinian infatada goes - this may go on until the Lord returns.

[Snarf]

I think if you check your non-Muslim history books, you'll find that Israel, attacked on the highest holy day for Jews, was victorious on the battle field.

Also, Lebanon is not part of the land given by God to the Jews; as far as the Palestinian infatada goes - this may go on until the Lord returns.

Result of 1973 war, from a Jewish website:
Despite the Israel Defense Forces' ultimate success on the battlefield, the war was considered a diplomatic and military failure. A total of 2,688 soldiers were killed.

(http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/73_War.html)

Which explains why Israel INVADED Lebanon, apparantly land not allegedly promised to them must be taken by force (fortunately Hizbollah drove them out eventually).

The 1967 war was also started by Israel, as a war of conquest:
"The former Commander of the Air Force, General Ezer Weitzman, regarded as a hawk, stated that there was 'no threat of destruction' but that the attack on Egypt, Jordan and Syria was nevertheless justified so that Israel could 'exist according the scale, spirit, and quality she now embodies.'...Menahem Begin had the following remarks to make: 'In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.' "Noam Chomsky, "The Fateful Triangle."

(http://www.cactus48.com/1967war.html )

These are peace-loving Israelites, conquering their way through the middle east. One would think that they would have learned a lesson from Nazi Germany's attempts at empire-building.

[Snarf]

Why do you have to be so hostile and condescending? Nobody has ever said that Christians approve of everything the Jews have done. You should, however, bone up on the devastation Muslims did to Christians and Jews during the Muslim conquest of Europe and Central Asia. Especially during their conquest of India, as well.

Oh yes, I do admit it, the Muslim Empires didn't get big by being peaceful, they were ferocious and did cruel things. My point is not that they are saints, only that Christians and Jews are no less bloodthirsty than muslims in similar situations. There is nothing inherently violent in Islam that makes them violent; Jews and Christians have similar tendencies to attack and destroy.

P.S, I enjoyed the note about the Sioux!

[Snarf]

Ben Guirion, wasn't he named after the airport? :rofl:

But seriously, nice try at deflection, but I never said all the Jews were innocent and perfect - but how would you react to a group that tried to destroy you first? Wouldn't you want to rid your land of them?

Back on track: I was replying to your accusations that the Jews did not deserve Israel, by showing you that neither did the Jordanians, Syrians, et al cuz they did not exist as countries either. All the land belonged legally to Britain and France cuz they conquered it fair and square (they were not the agressors in the conflict either) - When some country attacks YOU and you defeat them, you set the terms of surrender, and you are justified in dismantling their government since they were the aggressor. We did it with Japan, Germany and so on.

When Britain divided up the land and gave part of it to the Jews, the rest of the people in the area had no say so in the matter, and no right to claim the Jews did not belong there. They were given their own lands, and until the Arabs attacked the Jews, the jews were perfectly willing to share their country with them (and still are if they would behave).

Lesse, if a lot more Israelis had Ben Gurion's attitude, maybe it's no wonder the Arabs were fearful. The Arabs didn't try to destroy the Jews first, Jews lived in the middle East for centuries alongside Arabs. The problem didn't come until Zionism came along, when certain Jews decided that the Middle East wasn't big enough for them and the Arabs. My beef isn't even with jews, only those who seem to think that they have license to take whatever land they want and kill whoever they want (like the late Baruch Goldstein, who machine-gunned peaceful worshipers in a mosque), and any criticism is met with "never again," apparantly followers of Rabbi Meir Kahane (who came to my college several times) seem to feel that the Holocaust gives them license to kill anyone who even says anything anti-Semitic (so said an officer of the Jewish Defense Organization).

Curious idea you have, that "All the land belonged legally to Britain and France cuz they conquered it fair and square ." By this reasoning, then Nazi Germany was entitled to the land it conquered in Europe, Iraq is entitled to Kuwait, didn't Hitler and saddam have a right to rule their land as they saw fit? After all it was legally theirs by conquest!

As noted above, Israel was the aggressor in 1967, that makes that a war of Israeli conquest, just like the later invasion of Lebanon. Do you think wherever Israeli tanks rumble, everyone should just say "have it all, you're God's children! Go ahead, turn the Great Wall into an addition to the wailing wall!"

Yeah right, the Arabs had no say in the division of their land by the imperialist British conquerors. Gee I guess that all those burned in the gas chambers had no right to have a say, hey they were conquered weren't they?

[Sparko]

Curious idea you have, that "All the land belonged legally to Britain and France cuz they conquered it fair and square ." By this reasoning, then Nazi Germany was entitled to the land it conquered in Europe, Iraq is entitled to Kuwait, didn't Hitler and saddam have a right to rule their land as they saw fit? After all it was legally theirs by conquest!
Sheesh.

Britain did not start the war. They were the ones attacked by the Ottoman empire along with Germany. The Ottoman empire tried to wipe out the British empire and FAILED. they LOST. They surrendered and Britain dismantled the empire and took the land as part of their empire.

Repeat, they did not attack the ottoman empire and steal their land. They were attacked first and defeated the Ottoman empire.

Just like when Germany was defeated by the allies in WWII, its government was dismantled and it was split up into east and west germany. Just like the Japanese empire was dismantled when they lost WW2.

Your strawman arguments are getting pretty tiresome.


About the 6 day war in 1967. Israel was completely surrounded by the syrians, egyptians and jordanians. They had been shelled for years. the arab attack was immenant. The jews chose to take preemptive action and destroy the troops massing against them. They did not just attack a peaceful country out of the blue in a war of conquest.

Here is a complete breakdown of the 6 day war...

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/67_War.html

[klodena19]

i have the answer for your question
iam amoslem
and i know how to give you the main feeling that we feel toward us or israel
we as moslems
see the american adminestration responsibel for losing our land in palestine
and iraq
us say that they come to librate iraq
while we see americans soliders rape women and torture iraqi presoners as in abu greeb jail
that all the world saw this
and
when the marins enterd lebnon under the pretext of that muslems treat the cristians in abad way the marins themselves comitted amassacers this the in lebenise
civil war
here syria interfered and the syrian army intered lebnon to stop blood shed
while now us say that the foreign troops shout withdraw from lebnon
us make it self blind that it is her who is the forien forces in iraq!

the israels commited about 30 masecer at least in palestine
during the 2nd world war
and americans journalists were the ones who brought that into the world
eyes
itd adeep deep conflict inwhich israel underthe patronage of us
steel and destroy our life
and we are developing countries
very weak
we have no weopons
to defend ourselves
they only way against this unjustice of the world that we will resist to the lost drop of our blood
land means alot to moslems
it is more dear than even our sons
and famelies
what we can do when ppl attack us
except resist
and when we resist they cald us terrorists
ian not against any one here
i have not the right to acuse ann american that for example lost his doughter
in awar
and he know the killer
it is not normal if he did not revenge
this is the piont that the western world cannot understand
sorry if my english is broken
and iam not attacking any one here
GOD bless you all
klodena agirl from the other side of the world:eek:

[klodena19]

[ 1st have you red elQura'an to judge on it that way?

[klodena19]

it was BELFORE
the prime minister of britian in 1917 who peomised the jews that they will take palestine
i think you did not read about the history of your own country
so talk about facts
and the folowers and companions of mohamed did not kill nor hurt any one
look at you british empire
you occupied many countries and my grand grand father was among the ines who resist
so i think you are the last ones to talk about peace

[Snarf]

Sheesh.

Britain did not start the war. They were the ones attacked by the Ottoman empire along with Germany. The Ottoman empire tried to wipe out the British empire and FAILED. they LOST. They surrendered and Britain dismantled the empire and took the land as part of their empire.

Repeat, they did not attack the ottoman empire and steal their land. They were attacked first and defeated the Ottoman empire. ]

False. Great Britain declared war on Germany and Austria, not the other way around. Since grat Britain declared war on the allies of the Ottoman empire, the Ottomans came to their allies' aid.
from http://www.historymole.com/cgi-bin/main/results.pl?type=theme&theme=WW1

2 Aug 1914 Germany invades Luxembourg. More:

3 Aug 1914 Germany declares war on France. More:

4 Aug 1914 Germany invades neutral Belgium, violating a treaty signed by Prussia to respect Belgian neutrality. More:

4 Aug 1914 Britain declares war on Germany and Austria-Hungary, after Germany invades Belgium.

Where do you see "Britain attacked" before Britain entered the war?

You were the one who said that those who conquer own the land. By your reasoning Nazi Germany owned Europe and was free to do what it wished. Don't you like where your reasoning leads?

About the 6 day war in 1967. Israel was completely surrounded by the syrians, egyptians and jordanians. They had been shelled for years. the arab attack was immenant. The jews chose to take preemptive action and destroy the troops massing against them. They did not just attack a peaceful country out of the blue in a war of conquest.

Here is a complete breakdown of the 6 day war...

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/67_War.html

The fact is that the Israelis attacked when they didn't have to, even their leaders like Begin admitted it. Do you know more than they did? Thus, 1967 was a war of conquest, and I approve of Palestinian resistance to invaders and occupiers, just like the Vietnamese had a right to beat back the US.

[Sparko]

Snarf, when you are being in danger of immenant invasion, and surrounded by hostile forces, and you decide to take a preemptive strike, that is completely within the bounds of logically defending yourself. To claim they attacked when it was not necessary is really stretching things.

Germany was the aggressor in WW1. When they started conquest of the world, britain had treaty treaty obligations to help the invaded countries. Just like when Iraq invaded Kuwait. We attacked Iraq on the behalf of Kuwait and other treaty countries. We were legal to do so. And if we were smart we should have completely destroyed Saddam's government at the time instead of just putting up sanctions.

I am getting tired of this argument. You will beleive what you want to believe and you will do anything to rationalize your claims so nothing I can say or show you will convince you otherwise. Let's drop it, oK?

[Krusader]

Result of 1973 war, from a Jewish website:
Despite the Israel Defense Forces' ultimate success on the battlefield, the war was considered a diplomatic and military failure. A total of 2,688 soldiers were killed.

(http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/73_War.html)

Which explains why Israel INVADED Lebanon, apparantly land not allegedly promised to them must be taken by force (fortunately Hizbollah drove them out eventually).

The 1967 war was also started by Israel, as a war of conquest:
"The former Commander of the Air Force, General Ezer Weitzman, regarded as a hawk, stated that there was 'no threat of destruction' but that the attack on Egypt, Jordan and Syria was nevertheless justified so that Israel could 'exist according the scale, spirit, and quality she now embodies.'...Menahem Begin had the following remarks to make: 'In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.' "Noam Chomsky, "The Fateful Triangle."

(http://www.cactus48.com/1967war.html )

These are peace-loving Israelites, conquering their way through the middle east. One would think that they would have learned a lesson from Nazi Germany's attempts at empire-building.

Note: You are describing the war in 1967, and not the Yom Kippor war of 1973 (in which you said the Egyptians were victorious). Please make up your mind. As far as I know, no modern Arab state has ever been victorious in a war against Israel, as I have stated before.

[Krusader]

Lesse, if a lot more Israelis had Ben Gurion's attitude, maybe it's no wonder the Arabs were fearful. The Arabs didn't try to destroy the Jews first, Jews lived in the middle East for centuries alongside Arabs. The problem didn't come until Zionism came along, when certain Jews decided that the Middle East wasn't big enough for them and the Arabs. My beef isn't even with jews, only those who seem to think that they have license to take whatever land they want and kill whoever they want (like the late Baruch Goldstein, who machine-gunned peaceful worshipers in a mosque), and any criticism is met with "never again," apparantly followers of Rabbi Meir Kahane (who came to my college several times) seem to feel that the Holocaust gives them license to kill anyone who even says anything anti-Semitic (so said an officer of the Jewish Defense Organization).

Curious idea you have, that "All the land belonged legally to Britain and France cuz they conquered it fair and square ." By this reasoning, then Nazi Germany was entitled to the land it conquered in Europe, Iraq is entitled to Kuwait, didn't Hitler and saddam have a right to rule their land as they saw fit? After all it was legally theirs by conquest!

As noted above, Israel was the aggressor in 1967, that makes that a war of Israeli conquest, just like the later invasion of Lebanon. Do you think wherever Israeli tanks rumble, everyone should just say "have it all, you're God's children! Go ahead, turn the Great Wall into an addition to the wailing wall!"

Yeah right, the Arabs had no say in the division of their land by the imperialist British conquerors. Gee I guess that all those burned in the gas chambers had no right to have a say, hey they were conquered weren't they?
Lebanon was invaded by the Israelies since it was being used as a base of operation for attacks on Israel by her enemies. Also, you might note that Christians were being persecuted by Muslims in that country, and still are. Also, how do you justify the current occupation of that country by Syrians?

[piggy]

Hi there good people.

Re: The thread topic.
The "prophet" of Islam promoted, condoned and practiced terrorism and this continued after his death, led by the first caliphe Abu Bakr who took the reins after Mohammed, seeking to ensure the compulsory taxes kept rolling-in and that control was maintained Bakr attacked and terrorized fellow Muslims.

Abu Bakr was a devotee to Mohammed, so much so that he gave his child daughter Aisha in marriage to the narcissist, mysogynist "prophet" when she was only 6 years old and further gave her over to Mohammed's care at 8 -9 years old at which time the "holy apostle of Allah" had sex with his little-girl "wife" when she was less than 9 years old.

This criminal Mohammed's invented "religion" (actually a cult) was founded on fear and terror, in fact Quran has verses where Mohammed's "most merciful and benevolent" Allah commands and promotes terrorism against "un-believers" and proposes that the un-believers may be punished by Muslim hands as if it was Allah actually doing so through the proxy-hands of the faithful followers of Mohammed's Islam.

There is a site on the internet that has been developed by ex-muslims and offers quite alot of information and testimonies.

Here is the link......

http://www.faithfreedom.org

The forum there is at........

http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum

Regards to one and all,
piggy.

Piggy, please don't advertise other webboards or personal sites on theologyweb.com. If you wish to do so, you may do it in your signature, not in the message body.

[InChristAlways]

This criminal Mohammed's invented "religion" (actually a cult) was founded on fear and terror, in fact Quran has verses where Mohammed's "most merciful and benevolent" Allah commands and promotes terrorism against "un-believers" and proposes that the un-believers may be punished by Muslim hands as if it was Allah actually doing so through the proxy-hands of the faithful followers of Mohammed's Islam.Hi. Maybe they read in the OT where God used the King of Babylon as His servant against the wicked jews and other nations?. Jesus on the other hand told us not to take up the sword.

Jeremiah 5:8 " Therefore thus says the LORD of hosts: 'Because you have not heard My words, 9 'behold, I will send and take all the families of the north,' says the LORD, 'and Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, My servant, and will bring them against this land, against its inhabitants,

Matthew 26:52 Then, Jesus saith unto him--Put back thy sword into its place, for, all they who take a sword, by a sword, shall perish.

[Krusader]

Hi. Maybe they read in the OT where God used the King of Babylon as His servant against the wicked jews and other nations?. Jesus on the other hand told us not to take up the sword.

Jeremiah 5:8 " Therefore thus says the LORD of hosts: 'Because you have not heard My words, 9 'behold, I will send and take all the families of the north,' says the LORD, 'and Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, My servant, and will bring them against this land, against its inhabitants,

Matthew 26:52 Then, Jesus saith unto him--Put back thy sword into its place, for, all they who take a sword, by a sword, shall perish.

Nol, I don't think the OT has anything to do with it ICA. Islam was founded by a terrorist and spread through terrorism. Today we reap the crop of Mohammed's anti-Christ teachings. Now,it is possible that the Lord God could use Muslims to bring judgment on corrupt nations which have turned away from the Lord, trampled on the Gospel and put Christians to the sword.

[Maimonides]

Nol, I don't think the OT has anything to do with it ICA. Islam was founded by a terrorist and spread through terrorism. Today we reap the crop of Mohammed's anti-Christ teachings. Now,it is possible that the Lord God could use Muslims to bring judgment on corrupt nations which have turned away from the Lord, trampled on the Gospel and put Christians to the sword.

As for "corrupt nations" what do you make of the fact that many of Islam's initial conquests were of Christian lands that converted en masse, attracted by a simpler, more tolerant version of what they already believed? The choices offered to lands conquered by the Arabs were not "Islam or the sword", they were "Islam, jizya (poll tax), or the sword" (remember, this is how all empires are established, even ours). In general, Muslims in the Middle Ages were vastly more tolerant of Christians than Christians were of Muslims. Remember who started the Crusades- all of them.

As for "anti-Christ": Actually Islam follows quite concisely in the Semitic, Near Eastern, Judaic tradition of monotheism- much more concisely than does European (and Euro-American) Christianity (only to be expected, actually- remember Arabs and Hebrews both Semitic speaking). If anything Muhammad admired Christ, although he was disturbed by some of Christianity's (mainly Indo-European) ramifications- like the Trinity.

Theist only area

[Thomas More]

As for "corrupt nations" what do you make of the fact that many of Islam's initial conquests were of Christian lands that converted en masse, attracted by a simpler, more tolerant version of what they already believed?

No they did quite a bit of killing and subjegated with Dhimmitude the same system is in place today in majority Muslim countries

The choices offered to lands conquered by the Arabs were not "Islam or the sword", they were "Islam, jizya (poll tax), or the sword" (remember, this is how all empires are established, even ours).

What Empire is that? The United States was never an Empire despte what the leftist try to say.

In general, Muslims in the Middle Ages were vastly more tolerant of Christians than Christians were of Muslims.

Actually animosity existed except were overwhleming force could be bought to bear by numbers. Muslims were not stupid enough to pick fights with Christians if in the minority and vice versa. You can also look at the army models Christians were coerced to serve under Muslim rule while the Christian power in the east (Byzantium) hired them (Muslims) as mercenaries


Remember who started the Crusades- all of them.

The first one was a direct cause of a Turkish tribe peacefully promoteing Islam by raiding and killing against the Byzantine empire.

As for "anti-Christ": Actually Islam follows quite concisely in the Semitic, Near Eastern, Judaic tradition of monotheism- much more concisely than does European (and Euro-American) Christianity (only to be expected, actually- remember Arabs and Hebrews both Semitic speaking).

Excepting that Judaism has developed past it's Joshuan tradition of killing in the name of God quite some time ago, as did Christianity. We are still waiting for Islam to cross that thresh hold.


If anything Muhammad admired Christ, although he was disturbed by some of Christianity's (mainly Indo-European) ramifications- like the Trinity.


No Muhammad admired what ever he could use to keep his people in order and create cash flow. Namely coercion, robbing and killing. I look at him as an historical figure not a religious leader.

[mikey123]

Thanks Jude3b I guess the same question about Islam could be asked of us Christians as well....good to talk with you...mikey123

[mikey123]

I wonder if we could not spend more time seeking how we can build bridges, rather than seeking enemies. I'm always concerned about creating a "bunker" mentality, us against them mentality....It worries me that doing so takes part in the dynamics of making war not peace...mikey123

[Mujibur]

I wonder if we could not spend more time seeking how we can build bridges, rather than seeking enemies. I'm always concerned about creating a "bunker" mentality, us against them mentality....It worries me that doing so takes part in the dynamics of making war not peace...mikey123

Well said. The "all muslims are terrorists, or passively support terrorism" mentality does not help promote dialogue about faith between the two groups (Christians and Muslims I mean).

[Soundsurfr]

Well said. The "all muslims are terrorists, or passively support terrorism" mentality does not help promote dialogue about faith between the two groups (Christians and Muslims I mean).

Each religion claims that the other is heretical. How much "dialogue about faith" are you going to have?

Nontheists are not allowed to post here.

[barnasha]

you would be surprised how much judeo-christianity coincides with islam in a philosophical sense...

for example: the prophet Muhammed (peace be upon him) did not 'invent' submission to God. Adam did.

he purportedly said, 'I have perfected your religion for you' according to the paper trail of people who recorded their memories of interacting with him. Islam came from Adam, because Adam was the one who 'fell' into his own ideas of what is good and bad (read Genesis), therefore at that moment of duality, Islam implicitly became to exist, because one was free to NOT submit. (remember that Islam means submission (in peace) [to God] in Arabic)

It's ironic that people can take Jesus's word out of the Christian gospels so literally, when there is no paper trail nor argued paper trail as to the veracity of the actual scriptures, so literal adherence to the texts is meaningless - even if one is very serious and has the earliest known manuscripts without the retranslation and transcribing into english versions.

to study the history of the biblical scriptures is a nightmare, because there is so much information and yet so little information about who wrote what when. but we can agree that God knows best and no one can know what God is, unless that person is one with God.

"blessed are the pure of heart, for they shall see God"
"one must be born again (from above) in spirit"
"be like little children (in your faith)"

-the new testament (covenant)

[mikey123]

you would be surprised how much judeo-christianity coincides with islam in a philosophical sense...

for example: the prophet Muhammed (peace be upon him) did not 'invent' submission to God. Adam did.

he purportedly said, 'I have perfected your religion for you' according to the paper trail of people who recorded their memories of interacting with him. Islam came from Adam, because Adam was the one who 'fell' into his own ideas of what is good and bad (read Genesis), therefore at that moment of duality, Islam implicitly became to exist, because one was free to NOT submit. (remember that Islam means submission (in peace) [to God] in Arabic)

It's ironic that people can take Jesus's word out of the Christian gospels so literally, when there is no paper trail nor argued paper trail as to the veracity of the actual scriptures, so literal adherence to the texts is meaningless - even if one is very serious and has the earliest known manuscripts without the retranslation and transcribing into english versions.

to study the history of the biblical scriptures is a nightmare, because there is so much information and yet so little information about who wrote what when. but we can agree that God knows best and no one can know what God is, unless that person is one with God.

"blessed are the pure of heart, for they shall see God"
"one must be born again (from above) in spirit"
"be like little children (in your faith)"

-the new testament (covenant)

I appreaciate your views ...i often ask myself why is it that we can make ourselves feel so right by making others feel so wrong...mikey123

[piggy]

you would be surprised how much judeo-christianity coincides with islam in a philosophical sense...

for example: the prophet Muhammed (peace be upon him) did not 'invent' submission to God. Adam did.

he purportedly said, 'I have perfected your religion for you' according to the paper trail of people who recorded their memories of interacting with him. Islam came from Adam, because Adam was the one who 'fell' into his own ideas of what is good and bad (read Genesis), therefore at that moment of duality, Islam implicitly became to exist, because one was free to NOT submit. (remember that Islam means submission (in peace) [to God] in Arabic)

It's ironic that people can take Jesus's word out of the Christian gospels so literally, when there is no paper trail nor argued paper trail as to the veracity of the actual scriptures, so literal adherence to the texts is meaningless - even if one is very serious and has the earliest known manuscripts without the retranslation and transcribing into english versions.

to study the history of the biblical scriptures is a nightmare, because there is so much information and yet so little information about who wrote what when. but we can agree that God knows best and no one can know what God is, unless that person is one with God.

"blessed are the pure of heart, for they shall see God"
"one must be born again (from above) in spirit"
"be like little children (in your faith)"

-the new testament (covenant)

Some information to ponder, wth regard to the thread's topic...... see the attachment "Quran states.doc"

Please do not attach word documents to posts as an argument. Argument via attachment (or weblink) is not allowed)

[barnasha]

Some information to ponder, wth regard to the thread's topic...... see the attachment "Quran states.doc"


don't know what's in the doc - couldn't load it.

btw - whoever said that the prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him) taught anti-Christ teachings is probably not aware that the Holy Qur'an states that Jesus christ (peace be upon him) is the Messiah (we say Christ in english but the arabs say Mesih, like the Quran, since Christ is from the greek for Messiah) and that he was one of the most important prophets of Islam.

if mainstream islamic culture and the only valid islamic scripture say that Jesus Christ (may God's peace be upon him) is a prophet of Islam, how would you reconcile the accusation that the prophet Mohammed (may God's peace and protection be with him) was teaching something against Christ?

It is one thing to be critical of Roman Christianity, it is another to be critical of a specific jew who is known as a prophet of God Who Is Exhalted.

[barnasha]

another interesting note, with nothing to do with either (worldly) religions.

When angels pray to god, it does not mean a lot, since they have no choice. Angels pray with us while we pray.

but it means more than a thousand angels praying when a human prays (and really means it in his heart of course - not just outward movements and sayings.),

because we have a choice not to pray to God - ever since we fell from the garden and took upon our own nature of good and evil... this is akin to the 'american dream' - basically Adam and Eve dreamed up their own fantasy (eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil) and for that they were implicitlyremoved from the garden of eden, (as i may have mentioned before, eden means delight, and evokes a sense of blissful existence. the text in hebrew is amazingly beautiful in a spiritual sense and in a sonorous one.)

[laura laurance]

first hi
iam laura
and i feel really upset when ppl who did not even konw what the work islam means and they began to criticise islam...whats wrong with islam
you feel very strange whay most or as you said(all) terrorists are muslims
you do not even have adifinition what is terror do you know why
shall we call those who resist occupation forces in palstine as terrorists!
if we take this idea for granted.. so if some body attacked you at home
killed your famely...stole you lands raped yo sisters and wives and even daughters
your normal response that the western world want is i should welcome those ppl and invite them to kill the rest!!!!!
the west still do not understand that our souls in the dust of our lands
secondly... the world have never gaven us any justice sine the security council divided palestine it was arobbery of awhople country which was full of life.. any body who feels that his rights we ignored or maginalised
he or she has to resist... this is anormal instict in any human being
the whole wold did not present to us any help..
any way we do not need any help
but at least... nobody felt sorry for the massacers we commited against us
even the world sould interfere in a nuetral and just way or to leave us take our rights by ourselves
by the way
iam not agrressive.. iam only delivering how muslems now feel towards the injustice committed against them
by the way too.. i have alist of docummented massacers commutted against palestiian,lebanese,syrian and many other islamic counteries
as long as no body show respect to our pain
who you ask us to feel yours.
laura
aproud muslem girl

[laura laurance]

but at least... nobody felt sorry for the massacers was commited against us

[piggy]

Sahih Bukari:

The Book of Jihaad

No.2778 Narrated - Abu Huraira

"Allah's Apostle said: 'I have been sent with the shortest expressions bearing the widest meanings, and I have been made victorious with terror, and while I was sleeping the keys of the treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand"
Abu Huraira added "Allah's Apostle has left the world and now you people are bringing out those treasures"

Quran:
003.151
"We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbilieve........."

007.003
"Follow the revelation given unto to you from your Lord and follow not, as friends or protectors other than Him. Little is it ye remember of admonition"

032.021
"And certainly We will make them taste the nearer punishment, before the the greater chastisement, that haply they may turn"

009.014
"Fight them; Allah will chastise them at your hands, and bring them to disgrace, and assist you against them and relieve the hearts of a believing people"

007.004
"How many towns have We (Allah speaks in first-person plural) destroyed as a raid by night, or while they slept at noon, Our terror came unto them."

008.012
"Remember the Lord inspired the angels, 'I am with you: give firmness to the believers: I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them"

009.005
"So when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush. But if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor rate, leave their way free. Surely Allah is forgiving and merciful"
------------------------------------------------------------------

It's about time this evil, barbaric, Mohammedan cult was exposed for what it truly is.

Those who would call themselves 'muslim' are the victims of the deceitfulness of this criminal against humanity, Mohammed and his fellow charlatens.

This narcissist criminal, Mohammed and the compilers of his hate and war manual, Quran have deceived, lied, plagerizing sayings, scriptures, myths and legends and folk-lore of others as a means to sugar-coat their sinister, evil doctrine.

[jesusfreak]

They aren't all of them are terrorist. Just the extemist are the terrorist, it seems like they all are extemist sometimes.

[barnasha]

hmmm... who is the one who has hate here? :)

[barnasha]

Hey look ... I can misquote texts out of context to suit my agenda too! look how evil the bible is!

. "Samar'ia shall bear her guilt, because she has rebelled against her God; they shall fall by the sword, their little ones shall be dashed in pieces, and their pregnant women ripped open."

Hosea 13:16



2. "He whose testicles are crushed or whose male member is cut off shall not enter the assembly of the Lord."

Deuteronomy 23:1


3. "Circumcise yourselves to the Lord, remove the foreskin of your hearts..."

Jeremiah 4:4



4. "Behold the day of the Lord is coming, when the spoil taken from you will be divided in the midst of you. For I will gather the nations against Jerusalem to battle, and the city shall be taken and the houses plundered and the women ravished..."

Christian god-Zechariah 14:1



5. "Behold, I will corrupt your seed and spread dung upon your faces..."

Christian god-Malachi 2:3



6. "Happy shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock!"


Psalms 137:9



7. "But God will shatter the heads of his enemies..."
Psalms 68:21



8. "...they have rejected the word of the Lord, and what wisdom is in them? Therefore I will give their wives to others..."


Christian god-Jeremiah 8:9



9. "And David took more concubines and wives from Jerusalem..."

2 Samuel 5:13



10. "...I will take your wives before your eyes and give them to your neighbor, and he shall lie with your wives in the light of this sun."

Christian god-2 Samuel 12:11



11. "(Elisha) went up from there to Bethal; and while he was going up on the way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him, saying, 'Go up, you baldhead! Go up you baldhead!' And he turned around, and when he saw them, he cursed them in the name of the Lord. And two she-bears came out of the woods and tore forty-two of the boys."

2 Kings 2:23



12. "The men of Judah carried away very much booty. And they smote all the cities round about Gerar, for the fear of the Lord was upon them. They plundered all the cities, for there was much plunder in them. And they smote the tents of those who had cattle, and carried away sheep in abundance and camels. Then they returned to Jerusalem."

2 Chronicles 14:13



13. "The men of Judah captured another ten thousand (men) alive and took them to the top of the rock and threw them down from the top of the rock; and they were all dashed to pieces."

2 Chronicles 25:12



14. "Behold the day of the Lord comes, cruel, with wrath and fierce anger...Whoever is found will be thrust through and whoever is caught will fall by the sword. Their infants will be dashed in pieces before their eyes, their houses will be plundered and their wives ravished."

Christian god-Isaiah 13:9, 13:15



15. "'Pass through the city after him, and smite; your eye shall not spare and you shall show no pity; slay old men outright, young men and maidens, little children and women...'"

Christian god-Ezekiel 9:5



16. "Behold, I am against you, says the Lord of hosts, and will lift up your skirts over your face; and I will let nations look on your nakedness and kingdoms on your shame. I will throw filth at you...."

Christian god-Nahum 3:5



17. "I myself will lift up your skirts over your face and your shame will be seen."

Christian god-Jeremiah 13:26


18. "..the Lord will smite with a scab the heads of the daughters of Zion, and the Lord will lay bare their secret parts."

Christian god-Isaiah 3:17



19. "But Ama'sa did not observe the sword which was in Jo'ab's hand, so Jo'ab struck him with it in the body, and shed his bowels to the ground..."

2 Samuel 20:10



20. "The Lord raised up for them a deliverer, Ehud...And Ehud said, 'I have a message from God for you.' And he rose from his seat. And Ehud reached with his left hand, took the sword from his right thigh, and thrust it into his belly; and the hilt also went in after the blade, and the fat closed over the blade, for he did not draw the sword out of his belly; and the dirt came out."

Judges 3:15, 3:20


21. "Slay and utterly destroy after them, says the Lord, and do all that I have commanded you."

Jeremiah 50:21


22. "Then they (the Israelites) utterly destroyed all in the city, both men and women, young and old, sheep and asses, with the edge of the sword."

Joshua 6:21



23. "And the Lord our God gave him over to us; and we defeated him and his sons and all his people. And we captured all his cities at that time and utterly destroyed every city, men, women and children; we left none remaining..."

Deuteronomy 2:33



24. "...Men'ahem sacked Tappuah and all who were in it and its territory from Tirzah on; because they did not open it to him, therefore he sacked it, and ripped up all the women in it who were with child."

2 Kings 15:16



25. "As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from the nations that are round about you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you, to inherit as a possession forever; you may make slaves of them, but over your bretheren the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another, with harshness."

Christian god-Leviticus 25:44



26. "When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be punished; for the slave is his money."

Christian god-Exodus 21:20



27. "Bless, O Lord, his substance, and accept the work of his hands; crush the loins of his adversaries..."

Deuteronomy 33:11



28. "When men fight with one another, and the wife of one draws near to rescue her husband from the hand of him who is beating him, and puts out her hand and seizes him by the private parts, then you shall cut off her hand; your eye shall have no pity."

Christian god-Deuteronomy 25:11



29. "Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him. But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."

Moses-Numbers 31:17



30. "But if the thing is true, that the tokens of virginity were not found in the young woman, then you shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones..."

Christian god-Deuteronomy 22:20



31. "You shall not sacrifice to the Lord your God an ox or a sheep in which is a blemish, any defect whatever; for that is an abomination to the Lord your God."

Christian god-Deuteronomy 17:1



32. "Any animal which has its testicles bruised or crushed or torn or cut, you shall not offer to the Lord or sacrifice within your land..."

Christian god-Leviticus 22:24



33. "You have not brought me your sheep for burnt offerings, or honored me with your sacrifices."

Christian god-Isaiah 43:23



34. "...I make weal and create woe, I am the Lord, who do all these things."

Christian god Isaiah 45:7



35. "Folly is bound up in the heart of a child. But the rod of discipline drives it far from him."

Proverbs 22:15



36. "Do not withhold discipline from a child; if you beat him with a rod, he will not die. If you beat him with the rod, you will save his soul from Sheol."

Proverbs 23:13



37. "David arose and went, along with his men, and killed two hundred of the Philistines; and David brought their foreskins, which were given in full number to the king, that he might become the king's son-in-law."

1 Samuel 18:27



38. "Saul has slain his thousands and David his ten thousands."

1 Samuel 21:11



39. "...she played the harlot in the land of Egypt and doted upon her paramours there, whose members were like those of asses and whose issue was like that of horses."

Ezekiel 23:19



40. "...so when he went into his brother"s wife he spilled the semen on the ground...And what he did (spilling his semen) was displeasing in the sight of the Lord and He slew him also."

Genesis 38:9



41. "I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire will be for your husband."

Christian god punishing
Eve-Genesis 3:16



42. "I will strew your flesh upon the mountains, and fill the valleys with your carcass. I will drench the land even to the mountains with your flowing blood..."

Christian god-Ezekiel 32:5


43. "I will fall upon them like a bear robbed of her cubs, I will tear open their breast, and there I will devour them like a lion, as a wild beast would rend them."

Christian god-Hosea 13:8


44. "And I will fill your mountains with the slain; on your hills and in your valleys and in all your ravines those slain with the sword shall fall...Then you shall know that I am the Lord."

Christian god-Ezekiel 35:8


45. "The Lord tests the righteous and the wicked, and his soul hates him that loves violence."

Psalms 11:5


46. "And the Lord said to Moses, 'How long will this people despise me? And how long will they not believe in me, in spite of all the signs which I have wrought among them?'"

Numbers 14:11


47. "While the people of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the sabbath day...And the Lord said to Moses, 'The man shall be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp.' And all the congregation brought him outside the camp, and stoned him to death with stones, as the Lord commanded Moses."

Numbers 15:32


48. "...the Lord has trodden as in a wine press the virgin daughter of Judah."

Lamentations 1:15


49. "Therefore fathers shall eat their sons in the midst of you and sons shall eat their fathers...I will send famine and wild beasts against you and they shall rob you of your children; pestilence and blood shall pass through you; and I will bring a sword upon you. I, the Lord, have spoken."

Christian god-Ezekiel 5:10, 5:17


50. "I look at the faithless with disgust..."

Psalms 119:158







New Testament passages








51. "But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised; if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain."

1 Corinthians 15:13




52. "Truly, truly I say to you, he who believes has eternal life."

Jesus-John 6:47


53. "...but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or the age to come."

Jesus-Matthew 12:32


54. "He who believes and who is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned."

Jesus-Mark 16:16


55. "The angels will come out and separate the evil from the righteous, and throw them into the furnace of fire; there men will weep and gnash their teeth."

Jesus-Matthew 13:49


56. "...he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God."

Jesus-John 3:18


57. "He who believes in the Son has eternal life; he who does not obey the son shall not see life, but the wrath of god rests upon him."

Jesus-John 3:36




58. "If a man does not abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire and burned."


Jesus-John 15:6


59. "'But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them before me.'"

Jesus speaking in a parable Luke 19:27


60. "Not all men can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it."

Jesus-Matthew 19:11


61. "Circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law; but if you break the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision. So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision?"

Romans 2:25



62. "On the following day, when they came from Bethany, he (Jesus) was hungry. And seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to see if he could find anything on it. When he came to it, he found nothing but leaves, for it was not the season for figs. And he said to it, 'May no one ever eat fruit from you again.'"

Mark 11:12


63. "But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will be falling from heaven, and the powers in the heavens will be shaken. And they will see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory. And then he will send out the angels, and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven....Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away before all these things take place."

Jesus-Mark 13:24, 13:30


64. "Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother- in-law...."

Jesus-Matthew 10:34


65. "Do you think I have to come to give peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division; for henceforth in one house there will be five divided, three against two and two against three; they will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against her mother, mother- in-law against her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against her mother-in- law.".

Jesus-Luke 12:51


66. "If any one comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple."

Jesus-Luke 14:26


67. "And let him who has no sword sell his mantle and buy one."

Jesus-Luke 22:36


68. "Thus a married woman is bound by law to her husband as long as he lives..."

Romans 7:2


69. "For if a woman will not veil herself, she should cut off her hair; but if it disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her wear a veil"

1 Corinthians 11:6


70. "Likewise, you wives, be submissive to your husbands..."

1 Peter 3:1




71. "For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman but woman for man."

1 Corinthians, 11:8


72. "As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church."

1 Corinthians 14:34
73. "Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord."

Ephesians 5:22


74. "Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or have authority over men; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor."


Timothy 2:11

75. "It is well for a man not to touch a woman."

1 Corinthians 7:1


76. "O, woman, what have you to do with me?"

Jesus talking to his mother
John 1:4





77. "We destroy arguments and every proud obstacle to the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ..."

2 Corinthians 10:5


78. "But if through my falsehood God's truthfulness abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner? And why not do evil that good may come?-as some people slanderously charge us with saying. Their condemnation is just."

Romans 3:7


79. "The Lord knows that the thoughts of the wise are futile."

1 Corinthians 3:20



80. "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment."

Romans 13:1




81. "Slaves, be obedient to those who are your earthly masters, with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as to Christ...."

Ephesians 6:5




82. "Let all who are under the yoke slavery regard their masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be defamed. Those who have believing masters must not be disrespectful on the ground that they are brethren; rather they must serve all the better since those that benefit by their service are believers and beloved."

1 Timothy 6:1


83. "Bid slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect..."

Titus 2:9

84. "Blessed are those servants whom the master finds awake when he comes...."

Jesus-Luke 12:37


85. "No servant can serve two masters..."

Jesus-Luke 16:13


86. "A servant is not greater than his master."

Jesus-John 15:20


87. "And that servant who knew his master's will, but did not make ready or act according to his will, shall receive a severe beating."

Jesus-Luke 12:47

[Soundsurfr]

Hey look ... I can misquote texts out of context to suit my agenda too! look how evil the bible is!


Not fair. You're supposed to ignore those verses.

You have been warned repeatedly not to post in theist only areas.

[semar_mendem]

Hey look ... I can misquote texts out of context to suit my agenda too! look how evil the bible is!

...


And your agenda is... ??

Muslim use the 'jihad' verses to justify them killing people from other beliefs. Is there any Islamic apologist that argue AGAINST using this verses for jihad? Or are they simply spouting slogans like 'Islam is peace'.. etc.?

Compare this:
- Tear a Koran in downtown Surabaya, Indonesia (doesn't have to be near a mosque) and see how peaceful Islam is. But prepare a bunch of riot police just in case.
- Tear a Bible in front of a church and see how evil the bible-believing christians are.

[Keith Johnson]

And your agenda is... ??

Muslim use the 'jihad' verses to justify them killing people from other beliefs. Is there any Islamic apologist that argue AGAINST using this verses for jihad? Or are they simply spouting slogans like 'Islam is peace'.. etc.?

Compare this:
- Tear a Koran in downtown Surabaya, Indonesia (doesn't have to be near a mosque) and see how peaceful Islam is. But prepare a bunch of riot police just in case.
- Tear a Bible in front of a church and see how evil the bible-believing christians are.

This is driving me batty. All you people who are saying "Muslims do this [fill in some horrible act] while Christians do that [display the opposite behaviors]" are committing a logical fallacy. You are inappropriately grouping together the radical Muslims with the moderates who aren't advocating violent holy war against the west under a single label and thus condemning large numbers of people who are not at all guilty of the offense you suggest. I could pick a different grouping and we Christians would have to share the blame.

For example, Let's group us Christians, Jews and Muslims together as monotheists; let's ask "why are almost all terrorists monotheists? What is it about believing in one God that makes people fly airplanes into buildings and kill innocent kids on buses in Israel?". The fallacy of such statements is obvious: it includes large numbers of monotheists who are nothing like terrorists. The same is true for general claims about Islam when there are vast differences of practice and belief between the radicals like Bin Laden and the moderates.

your friend
keith

[Keith Johnson]

They aren't all of them are terrorist. Just the extemist are the terrorist, it seems like they all are extemist sometimes.

I am gald to hear someone acknolwedge that there are non-terrorist Muslims. But I would suggest that anytime a person thinks that "they"--for any group of "they"--sometimes seem all one way, the person is falling into prejudice.

your friend
Keith

[semar_mendem]

This is driving me batty. All you people who are saying "Muslims do this [fill in some horrible act] while Christians do that [display the opposite behaviors]" are committing a logical fallacy. You are inappropriately grouping together the radical Muslims with the moderates who aren't advocating violent holy war against the west under a single label and thus condemning large numbers of people who are not at all guilty of the offense you suggest. I could pick a different grouping and we Christians would have to share the blame.

Who's committing a logical fallacy here? The thread said: Why is it that Almost all terrorists are Muslims? Some poster said: It's because of the teaching of the Quran. Another poster countered: Jihad teaching in the Quran is the same with the teaching of the bible. I disagree: by pointing the DISCREPANCY of the behaviour that I see. Am I claiming that all Moslem act in unison? NO. But I do claim that there is a different behaviour between Bible following Christian and Quran following Moslem. There's no logical fallacy in there. It's only an error if it can be shown that the Moslems in Surabaya that I use as an example are actually Bahai'st.

Ie., if somebody say that Ford and GM are the same car, I just need to show an example of where ONE of the GM car IS NOT the same with ONE of the FORD car. I don't have to claim that ALL GM car behaves like this ONE car.

Read my other post, I defend Moslem against accusation that all Moslems are bad. I believe you even post in that thread.


For example, Let's group us Christians, Jews and Muslims together as monotheists; let's ask "why are almost all terrorists monotheists? What is it about believing in one God that makes people fly airplanes into buildings and kill innocent kids on buses in Israel?". The fallacy of such statements is obvious: it includes large numbers of monotheists who are nothing like terrorists. The same is true for general claims about Islam when there are vast differences of practice and belief between the radicals like Bin Laden and the moderates.


Now THIS is a logical fallacy :teeth:
Consider this question:
- Why are almost all harakirist Japanese?
- Why are almost all Philipine criminals Catholics?
As long as 'Japanese', and 'Catholics' are CLEARLY identifiable groups, this is a fair question. Of course, the answer in the first case is the social-cultural background of Japanese people and the religious demographic percentage on the second question.
Now, based on your point above, I think you somehow got this understanding from the questions:
- Why are all Japanese harakirist?
- Why are all Philipine catholics criminals?
The fallacy of such understanding is obvious.

[barnasha]

I encourage you all to go to a masjid (prayer hall) and view just how violent muslims are, instead of using front page pics from CNN and quotes from pundits to categorically categorize 1.5 billion humans by the actions of a million or so.

yours,
barney

[Krusader]

I encourage you all to go to a masjid (prayer hall) and view just how violent muslims are, instead of using front page pics from CNN and quotes from pundits to categorically categorize 1.5 billion humans by the actions of a million or so.

yours,
barney

You have a valid point. What have you personally done to change the face of Islam to the world?

[piggy]

Hey look ... I can misquote texts out of context to suit my agenda too! look how evil the bible is!

I know you can find evil things elsewhere, it doesn't change the fact that Mohammed and his invented version of God commanded condoned and perpetrated acts of crimes against humanity.

You are guilty of resorting to the fallacy of tu quo quo (i.e. they did it too)

Two wrongs don't make it right.

The information I have posted is not mis-quoted, it comes from written historical documents, preserved by the Mohammedans, and it clearly is in context with the topic at hand.

The topic is "Why is it that Almost all Terrorists are Muslims" and the information I posted clearly shows where these terrorists get their guidance from.

[Krusader]

I know you can find evil things elsewhere, it doesn't change the fact that Mohammed and his invented version of God commanded condoned and perpetrated acts of crimes against humanity.

You are guilty of resorting to the fallacy of tu quo quo (i.e. they did it too)

Two wrongs don't make it right.

The information I have posted is not mis-quoted, it comes from written historical documents, preserved by the Mohammedans, and it clearly is in context with the topic at hand.

The topic is "Why is it that Almost all Terrorists are Muslims" and the information I posted clearly shows where these terrorists get their guidance from.

You are quite correct in pointing out that Islam is based on revelations which Muslims use to justify their violence. For instance, the Quran teaches that some Jews were changed into monkies and apes for rejecting Mohammed, and other absurd things. Moderate Muslims must make their voice heard and oppose Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. Right now their voice is only a whisper.

[Cynic Sage]

You are quite correct in pointing out that Islam is based on revelations which Muslims use to justify their violence. For instance, the Quran teaches that some Jews were changed into monkies and apes for rejecting Mohammed, and other absurd things. Moderate Muslims must make their voice heard and oppose Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. Right now their voice is only a whisper.

Could you cite the passage?

[Cynic Sage]

Compare this:
- Tear a Koran in downtown Surabaya, Indonesia (doesn't have to be near a mosque) and see how peaceful Islam is. But prepare a bunch of riot police just in case.
- Tear a Bible in front of a church and see how evil the bible-believing christians are.

Semar, I'm going to perform a small experiment, ready:


Your mom is like the town bibycle, everybody get's a ride. I'm not saying she's a prostitute, because you know, a prostitute doesn't do it pro-bono. Even if she were,she wouldn't make much money as most farm animals don't have anywhere to keep a wallet.

Angry? Wish there was a way to punch someone over the internet? Know why? Because your mom is dear to you. Get it? There are places where guys can make those kinda jokes to each-other have a larf. But you go on up to the hoity-toits in "clean"-society and do likewise and they boil with anger and you most-likely will end up with a black-eye or worse. That's the problem with your "experiment", it doesn't prove that Muslims are violent and easily angered due to their belief that "Muhammad is the Prophet". It proves that people get angry and violent when the right buttons are pushed (If you tore a Bible on the steps of Westboro Baptist there might very well be simmilar results to that of tearing a Qu'ran is Surabaya, Indonesia).

Not only that, but arguing over whether Islam is a religion of War/Peace ist ultimately meaningless. What would matter would ultimately be of importance would be the question of "is Islam True?". I have heard Muslim arguments about this and am not convinced that Muhammad was a prophet. If Muslims had a religious practice of sticking pineapples up their butts it would be of more relevance than wheather or not "Islam is a religion of Peace". Calling Christians and Muslims prattle on-and-on about this "apologetics" is like calling an argument between two scientists discussing the penis-sizes of Einstein compared to Newton "Physics".

Oy!:rant:

Jude3b's work is almost as beneficial to the Kingdom of God as wearing a hat made of goat feces.

Johnny, sorry to mess up your analogy, but that was over the top. Try using something that is a bit more "G" rated next time.

[piggy]

You are quite correct in pointing out that Islam is based on revelations which Muslims use to justify their violence. For instance, the Quran teaches that some Jews were changed into monkies and apes for rejecting Mohammed, and other absurd things. Moderate Muslims must make their voice heard and oppose Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. Right now their voice is only a whisper.

Mohammed was a "moderate" when he started-out in Mecca and changed after migrating to Madina.

Read-up on the Meccan and Medinan verses os quran and you might get the picture.

The 9/11 murderers where seen as "moderate".

Have you heard of taqiyya and kitman?

The answer to the question of this thread has been provided, i.e. without any doubt the "god" of Quran and the self proclaimed "prophet" Mohammed command, condone, order terror and practiced terror.

Anyone who believes the Quran is the word of God and that Mohammed is God's prophet is a potential terrorist, whatever phase they may be seen to be practicing at any given time.

The mohammedans are a trojan-horse within our free societies and are agents of the Ummah at different levels for the ambition to over-throw the free, democratic systems and turn them into mohammedan sharia states.

You would be deluding yourself to fantisize any other aim in the mission of this evil cult.

[fredguff]

Mohammed was a "moderate" when he started-out in Mecca and changed after migrating to Madina.

Read-up on the Meccan and Medinan verses os quran and you might get the picture.

The 9/11 murderers where seen as "moderate".

Have you heard of taqiyya and kitman?

The answer to the question of this thread has been provided, i.e. without any doubt the "god" of Quran and the self proclaimed "prophet" Mohammed command, condone, order terror and practiced terror.

Anyone who believes the Quran is the word of God and that Mohammed is God's prophet is a potential terrorist, whatever phase they may be seen to be practicing at any given time.

The mohammedans are a trojan-horse within our free societies and are agents of the Ummah at different levels for the ambition to over-throw the free, democratic systems and turn them into mohammedan sharia states.

You would be deluding yourself to fantisize any other aim in the mission of this evil cult.

With over 1 billion Muslims on the earth, it's difficult for me to accept your premise that all of them want to overturn every free society and turn it into a sharia state. I would venture that many Muslims, including Americans like Muhammad Ali and Paula Abdul, are primarily focused on gleaning helpful wisdom from their religion the same way that reasonable Christians are. I happen to interact daily with reasonable Muslims and Christians on both a personal and professional basis. There is no way that any of my Christian or Muslim friends are interested in installing a theocracy in the USA. They, like me, are concerned with things of far greater import like who the Redskins will sign or draft as their second receiver.

[syrianyounglady]

you know piggy you are such a sick person
you have no right to call our holly profit these aguly words of you...
but Muhammed is more popular he is in the blood of every Muslem soul
so do not trt your cheap attmpt to make muslems hate him coz you must be mad if you thout that.... secondly why you are very upset with these phrases of QURAAN
if it ment we must fight we will fight those who will try to erase us from the map
thirdly your silly words still stupied coz why we should listen to you while we have the universal truth of this existance which is the only God who is very great and very merciful and muhammed is his last profit
and Islam will not be eraed coz God is the protector
syrianyounglady+muslem+highly educated+respect those who respect my believes
done

[Krusader]

you know piggy you are such a sick person
you have no right to call our holly profit these aguly words of you...
but Muhammed is more popular he is in the blood of every Muslem soul
so do not trt your cheap attmpt to make muslems hate him coz you must be mad if you thout that.... secondly why you are very upset with these phrases of QURAAN
if it ment we must fight we will fight those who will try to erase us from the map
thirdly your silly words still stupied coz why we should listen to you while we have the universal truth of this existance which is the only God who is very great and very merciful and muhammed is his last profit
and Islam will not be eraed coz God is the protector
syrianyounglady+muslem+highly educated+respect those who respect my believes
done

Hello, syrianyounglady. I don't believe that all Muslims are terrorists. In fact, back east, I knew a very kind Muslim who was from Syria. Could you tell me what the relationship is between Muslims in Syria and Christians in Syria? Do you get along with one another.

One thing I have always seen is this: the Muslims hold Jesus in higher regard than do the Jews. What do you believe about Jesus? Thank you for your answers. Cr.

[semar_mendem]

That's the problem with your "experiment", it doesn't prove that Muslims are violent and easily angered due to their belief that "Muhammad is the Prophet".
And my point is NOT about that.

It proves that people get angry and violent when the right buttons are pushed (If you tore a Bible on the steps of Westboro Baptist there might very well be simmilar results to that of tearing a Qu'ran is Surabaya, Indonesia).

Did you even read my previous response??? I'm just countering a poster that argue that Jihad teaching in the Quran is the same with the teaching of the bible. Do you want to argue the same too?


The thread said: Why is it that Almost all terrorists are Muslims? Some poster said: It's because of the teaching of the Quran. Another poster countered: Jihad teaching in the Quran is the same with the teaching of the bible. I disagree: by pointing the DISCREPANCY of the behaviour that I see. Am I claiming that all Moslem act in unison? NO. But I do claim that there is a different behaviour between Bible following Christian and Quran following Moslem. There's no logical fallacy in there. It's only an error if it can be shown that the Moslems in Surabaya that I use as an example are actually Bahai'st.

Ie., if somebody say that Ford and GM are the same car, I just need to show an example of where ONE of the GM car IS NOT the same with ONE of the FORD car. I don't have to claim that ALL GM car behaves like this ONE car.

[semar_mendem]

Could you cite the passage?
I think Crusader might be mistaken here. The Quran teaches that people turned into apes for:
- breaking sabbath
http://www.quranbrowser.com/cgi/bin/get.cgi?version=pickthall&searchstring=+2:65
- pride
http://www.quranbrowser.com/cgi/bin/get.cgi?version=pickthall&searchstring=+7:166
- This one I'm confused. Could mean Jews and Christian, but I'm lost reading the text itself:
http://www.quranbrowser.com/cgi/bin/get.cgi?version=pickthall&searchstring=+5:60

[Keith Johnson]

Who's committing a logical fallacy here? The thread said: Why is it that Almost all terrorists are Muslims? Some poster said: It's because of the teaching of the Quran. Another poster countered: Jihad teaching in the Quran is the same with the teaching of the bible. I disagree: by pointing the DISCREPANCY of the behaviour that I see. Am I claiming that all Moslem act in unison? NO. But I do claim that there is a different behaviour between Bible following Christian and Quran following Moslem. There's no logical fallacy in there. It's only an error if it can be shown that the Moslems in Surabaya that I use as an example are actually Bahai'st.

....As long as 'Japanese', and 'Catholics' are CLEARLY identifiable groups, this is a fair question. Of course, the answer in the first case is the social-cultural background of Japanese people and the religious demographic percentage on the second question...


Before I get too far afield, I'd like to say that I think it is ludicrous to suggest that most people who self-identify as Muslim are terrorists. On the contrary, the overwhelming part of the self-declared Muslim faith are not. I emphasize self-identification here.

I would say that "Muslim" isn't a clearly identifiable group in the sense implied by the claim that "nearly all Muslims are terrorists". The difference between the set of beliefs held by radical Muslims and by moderate Muslims is so great that it misleads to group them together. You contrast the behavior of Quran-following Muslims with Bible-following Christians, but both moderate and radical Muslims would describe themselves as Quran-followers. They would each say that the others are misinterpreting the Quran. On what basis would you determine whose interpretation is correct?

your friend
Keith

[semar_mendem]

Before I get too far afield, I'd like to say that I think it is ludicrous to suggest that most people who self-identify as Muslim are terrorists. On the contrary, the overwhelming part of the self-declared Muslim faith are not. I emphasize self-identification here.

Agree. As I point out, 'why almost all x are y?' is NOT to be interpreted as 'why almost all y are x?'.


I would say that "Muslim" isn't a clearly identifiable group in the sense implied by the claim that "nearly all Muslims are terrorists". The difference between the set of beliefs held by radical Muslims and by moderate Muslims is so great that it misleads to group them together. You contrast the behavior of Quran-following Muslims with Bible-following Christians, but both moderate and radical Muslims would describe themselves as Quran-followers. They would each say that the others are misinterpreting the Quran. On what basis would you determine whose interpretation is correct?


I don't. They identify themselves. Look, if a lot of terrorist said that they follow Jesus' teaching for doing the act, I will ask the same question too: Why is it that almost all terrorists are Christians? Doesn't matter if they are real Christian or not, based on whoever's interpretation.
Why do THEY identify themselves AS Christian?

This question is not negative to Christian by itself. For example, do you think this question:
Why is it that almost all evil medieval kings are religious?
offends religious people?? I don't feel offended. As a matter of fact, I can answer it by saying 'because religious people are regarded in high esteem and therefore by claiming to be religious, the kings has more credibility'.
Putting in this context, the question actually put the religious people in better light.

So, back to the question: why is it that almost all terrorists are muslims?

[Keith Johnson]

Agree. As I point out, 'why almost all x are y?' is NOT to be interpreted as 'why almost all y are x?'.



I don't. They identify themselves. Look, if a lot of terrorist said that they follow Jesus' teaching for doing the act, I will ask the same question too: Why is it that almost all terrorists are Christians? Doesn't matter if they are real Christian or not, based on whoever's interpretation.
Why do THEY identify themselves AS Christian?

This question is not negative to Christian by itself. For example, do you think this question:
Why is it that almost all evil medieval kings are religious?
offends religious people?? I don't feel offended. As a matter of fact, I can answer it by saying 'because religious people are regarded in high esteem and therefore by claiming to be religious, the kings has more credibility'.
Putting in this context, the question actually put the religious people in better light.

So, back to the question: why is it that almost all terrorists are muslims?


I have to confess I misread the original quote. So let me take a crack at the actual claim: why are almost all terrorists Muslim? I'm not sure that's valid either, depending on how you define terrorism. Trying to scare your opponents through the threat of violence into doing what you want? That's US foreign policy (see Iraq, Iran, Vietnam, NIcaragua, Guatemala, El Salvador, carpet boming in WW II, Hiroshima, the fire bombing of Tokyo). Willingness to kill civilians to accomplish your aims? That's also US policy. Traditionally any guerrilla warfare is called terrorist by the victims of it, and guerrilla warfare has historically been spread out among all different religions. The ETA terrorists in the Basque region of Spain, the FARC in Columbia, the Shining Path in Peru (they aren't very active now), none of them aer Muslim. Right now our terrorists are Muslim, which is what you might expect when we have declared war against countries with predominantly Muslim populations.

your friend
keith

your friend

[piggy]

Right now our terrorists are Muslim, which is what you might expect when we have declared war against countries with predominantly Muslim populations.

your friend
keith

your friend

Dear Keith,
Mohammed and his war and persecution manual i.e. Quran declared (back in 7trh century) war on all that were not "muslim" and/or were not prepared to enter into oppression and subjegation of his cult and pay a humiliating jizka tax to them and they progressively moved across Europe with their "religion of peace"..........nowadays it is the entire world that is clearly in their sights.
Quran is believed by the mohammedans to be the unalterable word and commandment of the creator, forever.
The mohammedans are stiil at war with dar al-harb (non-muslims) ....... the west is in self defence of this nazi like cult.
Have you studied the Quran and Ahadith and the history of this cult?

[Keith Johnson]

Dear Keith,
Mohammed and his war and persecution manual i.e. Quran declared (back in 7trh century) war on all that were not "muslim" and/or were not prepared to enter into oppression and subjegation of his cult and pay a humiliating jizka tax to them and they progressively moved across Europe with their "religion of peace"..........nowadays it is the entire world that is clearly in their sights.
Quran is believed by the mohammedans to be the unalterable word and commandment of the creator, forever.
The mohammedans are stiil at war with dar al-harb (non-muslims) ....... the west is in self defence of this nazi like cult.
Have you studied the Quran and Ahadith and the history of this cult?

Most Muslims in the world are not interested in foisting Islam on the rest of world by force. They pose no danger at all. They are less dangerous than the most powerful military power on earth that has killed far more than the radical Islamists have.

your friend
Keith

[K.Graham]

== I encourage you all to go to a masjid (prayer hall) and view just how violent muslims are, instead of using front page pics from CNN and quotes from pundits to categorically categorize 1.5 billion humans by the actions of a million or so.

What, you think terrorists do not pray also? I am quite sure they appear peaceful as well. You don't really think Osama bin Ladin is constantly slapping people and shooting children in his spare time do you? Everytime we see him he looks peaceful; just a sweet old man. And the figure of 1.3 billion is an exagerration. It is funny how the number increases by a hundred million every month. It is 1.5 now? What apologetic purpose does it serve to exagerrate the numbers?

The apologetics of Islam appears to be intellectually bankrupt, I am afraid. Their arguments amount to little more than citing Bible passages and assuming some kind of equivalency. Yet, there is no equivalency. You insist we take Quran passages out of context, so prove it. Muslim apologists are on the fringe, and the Muslim authorities all throughout the Mid-East, even at Cairo`s Al Azhar pretty much agree with the radical "interpretations" used by terrorists. The OT was fulfilled with the NT and it is entirely pacifist. 600 years later Muhammed comes along to drag everyone back into the dark ages. He had people assassinated for murmuring against him. He legislated the raping of women, even in front of their own husbands. Those who think the QUran can be interpreted ~in context~ as the Bible, are just shooting in the dark. Unlike the Bible, the Quran is not in chronological order. It is all over the place, organized from shortest verses to longest verses. Further, what the Quran says is supposed to be universally applicable throughout all time. There is no changes that any human can make, literally, or in interpretation, for God has already said what needs to be done in the Quran and the Hadeeth serve as the official interpretations. Thus, you still see people slaughtered for leaving the faith. Hands are chopped off for crimes, adulterers are stoned, etc. There is no open-ended mandate to kill all non-believers in the Bible.

Yes, these ridiculous events are because of Islam, not some wacked out government official who likes to get his kicks. The fact is the only reason most Musloim countries do not endorse alls haria principles is because of Human Rights movements and pressures from western politicians. But when Muslims are given the chance to speak in a democratic voice, what do we get? Well, the Iraq constitution declared Islam the official religion following sharia principles as a guide and in Palestine we get Hamas, a terror organization elected by the Muslim populace. "Tiny minority of extremists" you say? Prove it.
There is simply no comparing Christian fluke acts of violence with that of Muslims. For one thing, when a Christian acts out of line he or she is universally condemned by Christians Churches world-wide. When Muslims commit atrocities, the first thing we get is the royal silent treatment, and then when they find their voice they begin to complain about prejudice. It is always someone else`s fault in the Middle-East.

Islamic law condones the screwed up doctrine that apostates should be killed. Not harangued or criticized, but killed! Islami doctrine states that the world is divided up into two realms, the House of Islam and the House of war. All territories not ruled by Muslims is up for grabs by any jihadists who want to try taking it. Non-Muslim lives are worthless. God, according to Islam, does not love all humankind unconditionally. He hates all non-Muslims.

== With over 1 billion Muslims on the earth, it's difficult for me to accept your premise that all of them want to overturn every free society and turn it into a sharia state.

So what if I tell you the "moderate" Muslim groups in America have stated that exact goal? Teh fact is, however, that most Muslims do not want violence. But it is equally true that most Muslims are illiterate women and children. Those who typicall educate themselves in Arabic and the Quran, generally are those likely to fall into radical mentality. Take Johnny Walker for example. He was your typical sweet American Catholic boy. We was a sweet mild-mannered Muslim boy when he converted. But then he traveled to the Mid-East to learn Arabic and study the Quran. Next thing you know he is behind enemy lines in Afghanistan, complete with beard and AK-47.

So you see, just because most Muslims do not engage in violence doesn't mean most Muslims do not support it. 65% of Pakistan sees Osama bin Ladin as a fighting hero. And Pakistan is one of treh larghest clusters of Muslims in the world. The fact is most Americans do not participate in the War in Iraq, but most support it. In Islam the Mujuhadeen are those who engage in jihad activity. Only when Muslim lands are being invaded by outside forces is every able bodied individual commanded to fight.

== I happen to interact daily with reasonable Muslims and Christians on both a personal and professional basis. There is no way that any of my Christian or Muslim friends are interested in installing a theocracy in the USA.

And what about CAIR, the Muslim Student Association, or the Islamic Thinkers Society? You would probably be shocked to know what some of these representatives have said.

== They, like me, are concerned with things of far greater import like who the Redskins will sign or draft as their second receiver.

And they represent a fraction of a fraction of global Muslims. There are only about 2-3 million Muslims in the USA. It is absurd to see them as mild-mannered, humble folk and then assume this is how Muslims are world-wide. And it is also absurd to assume that even these American Muslims have no malicious intentions. Again, Johnny Walker, and numerous Imams have been deported or jailed because of their support for terror. On a few million Muslims and theyve managed to nab about two dozen of their religious leaders for promoting what you say is only an extreme minority view. There are as many Mormons in the USA as Muslims. How many LDS bishops have been arrested for promoting violence of any stripe? How many Baptists? Hindus? Amish?

Religion of peace?

My foot.

== why you are very upset with these phrases of QURAAN if it ment we must fight we will fight those who will try to erase us from the map

That is not what the Quran says. That is your apologetic spin-doctoring of the text. The text clearly says to fight all people of the Book, which of course includes Christians and Jews. You are the one with the problem accepting what it clearly says, not us.

== Before I get too far afield, I'd like to say that I think it is ludicrous to suggest that most people who self-identify as Muslim are terrorists.

Right, but it is equally ludicrous to deny the fact that most terrorists are Muslim. That might not mean anything to the moral/multicultural relativists, but it should.

== contrast the behavior of Quran-following Muslims with Bible-following Christians, but both moderate and radical Muslims would describe themselves as Quran-followers. They would each say that the others are misinterpreting the Quran. On what basis would you determine whose interpretation is correct?

How about Sunni Islam`s highest religious authorities in Cairo. Ever read the Reliance of the Traveler? The point is, moderates are marginalized as uncle toms who are just trying to appeal to western sentiments. That is why free thinkers in Pakistan, Egypt and elsewhere are generally banished or killed. Extremists are on firm religious grounds.

== So let me take a crack at the actual claim: why are almost all terrorists Muslim? I'm not sure that's valid either, depending on how you define terrorism.

Oh give us a break. Your leftist nonsense notwithstanding, it remains a fact that none of the examples you provided are driven by religious zeal. You see, it is this kind of twisted justification that pretty much puts the spotlight on a terror supporter. Do not condemn it, just rationalize how it is the same as other acts of warfare.

== Most Muslims in the world are not interested in foisting Islam on the rest of world by force.

Might be true, but it sure was revealing every time Muslims commit atrocities and people back home hear about them and celebrate. There is no united condemnation unless Muslim orgs are pressured by the PR dept. Osama bin Ladin is a hero to significant, if not majority clusters in Muslim majority countries. What does that tell us? You are making excuses in an attempt to take pot shots at the US government. Same excuses Osama bin Ladin offers.

[barnasha]

very many people have condemned violence, muslims and non-muslims. You shouldn't be so slanderous. Just because you didn't see the fatwas against terrorism or killing civilians on the front page of CNN doesn't mean it's not so. (Quran forbids violence just like the tanach does anyway - if you kill one person for no just reason it is as if youu killed all humanity).

This is not the christian way. Don't insult others. Set a good example. Otherwise, you lose all credibility and become part of the problem.

[barnasha]

K Graham... you need to relax man. Don't generalize. You are speculating wildly about a group of people you know nothing about. I invite you to come to chicago and meet me face to face and I will show you how peaceful I am. I will take you to a mosque here and you can converse with REAL muslims, not the ones on CNN or the terrorists, and then you can form your opinion.. until then, as my mom taught me, if you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything at all.

as far as the number of muslims - from China to Morocca to the USA, there are between 1.4 and 1.9 billion (estimated). a delegation to the UN gave the figure 1.5 billion.

peace,
barney

[barnasha]

FredGuff: you're right. Actually part of Sharia is that you have to obey the law of whatever country you live in. So following the speed limit on the highway is actually part of Shariah! Not everyone is fundamentalist - just not like every Christian is like Pat Roberts and not every republican is like Ann Coulter :)

[K.Graham]

== very many people have condemned violence



Very many is an overstatement. The silence from the Muslim community is defeaning. One Muslim tried to get a “Million Muslim March against terror” going last year but the prominent Muslim orgs wanted nothing to do with it. Why not? About 100 people showed up, most of whom were not Muslim. But draw a cartoon or spread a false rumor about a Quran in a toilet, and Muslims miraculously find their voice.



== You shouldn't be so slanderous.



I’m not slandering anyone. Please name one thing I said that is false about anyone.



== Quran forbids violence just like the tanach does anyway - if you kill one person for no just reason it is as if youu killed all humanity



The Quran later says to fight all infidels. The Quran is definitely taken out of context at times, but only by the apologists who refuse to acknowledge that the Muhammed of Mecca was a different Muhammed from the one in Medina. The later verses are of retribution and violence, while the earlier verses were more peaceful – mainly because Muhammed had no power or authority to be anything but peaceful. Once he got power, he used it ruthlessly.

== This is not the christian way.



Yes it is. The Christian way is to accept truth no matter how unpleasant it might be. Where do you get this nonsense that Christ would expect us to ignore the history just for the sake of patronizing the community?



== Don't insult others.



Who am I insulting? If Muslims do not know their own history, it is their own insult to themselves. I’m not obligated to play along and act blissfully ignorant just for the sake of political correctness.



== Set a good example.



I believe I am.



== Otherwise, you lose all credibility and become part of the problem.



Nonsense. The problem is that we’re under attack yet nobody wants to name the enemy. It is Islamic extremism. Finally we are beginning to see politicians naming the enemy more accurately. Before it was a war against “evil” terrorism” extremists” or whatever they could say to avoid the Islamic qualifier. When someone comes into my house and tries to kill my family, and he explains his motives and intentions, I think it is wise to pay attention. But nobody wants to pay attention to what the terrorists say because we work off the silly assumption that what they say cannot be true. After all, Islam means “peace” right? Wrong.



== You are speculating wildly about a group of people you know nothing about.



Fortunately, I know much more about it than most. Including you, apparently.



== I invite you to come to chicago and meet me face to face and I will show you how peaceful I am.



And that you might be. Did I say every single Muslim on the planet is violent? Heavens no. Iftheya re peaceful it is in spite of Islam, not because of it. Try to spread your peaceful version of Islam in Pakistan or Egypt and you might find yourself banished from those countries because it isn’t at all the mainstream.



== I will take you to a mosque here and you can converse with REAL muslims, not the ones on CNN or the terrorists



You think my only interaction with Muslims is on TV? You’re wrong. I’ve worked with several, and I went to school with three, all of whom agreed with the Islamic principle that ex-Muslims should be killed. But hey, they were really peaceful though.



== and then you can form your opinion.. until then, as my mom taught me, if you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything at all.



The problem is that to say nothing negative about Islam is to avoid much of what Islam is all about.

== as far as the number of muslims - from China to Morocca to the USA, there are between 1.4 and 1.9 billion (estimated). a delegation to the UN gave the figure 1.5 billion.



And it is exaggerated nonsense provided to them by idiot organizations like CAIR who fudge their own tallies. Never mind the several instances of genocide over the past few decades that accounted for perhaps more than 100 million. Nobody bothers to subtract any of that though.

[barnasha]

Here are some statements from various muslims condemning 'terrorism'.

http://www.unc.edu/~kurzman/terror.htm

[barnasha]

== very many people have condemned violence



Very many is an overstatement. The silence from the Muslim community is defeaning. One Muslim tried to get a “Million Muslim March against terror” going last year but the prominent Muslim orgs wanted nothing to do with it. Why not? About 100 people showed up, most of whom were not Muslim. But draw a cartoon or spread a false rumor about a Quran in a toilet, and Muslims miraculously find their voice.

The USA admitted it wasn't a rumor, actually.

The Quran later says to fight all infidels. The Quran is definitely taken out of context at times, but only by the apologists who refuse to acknowledge that the Muhammed of Mecca was a different Muhammed from the one in Medina. The later verses are of retribution and violence, while the earlier verses were more peaceful – mainly because Muhammed had no power or authority to be anything but peaceful. Once he got power, he used it ruthlessly.

Read it in context.... It does not say to 'slay anyone you think is an infidel'. Be sure to read the context of the chapter and do not twist words, as I could well do with the bible or any other text you like. But I am a scholar, and not a divider or a hater of anyone.

and please do not read things from biased web sites... do some research if you want to discuss things, don't just wave your hands and condemn things without having researched. for your own benefit.

As far as using it ruthlessly, I don't see where you are drawing that from. You don't seem to be particularly authoritative in the realm of Islamic or Middle Eastern or Medieval history...

stop thinking with your emotions or sectarian bias, if you are.

before Mohammed came to power, women had no rights, slaves had no rights, people buried female infants alive, lots of bad stuff went on. Why don't you ever take note of all the good that came out of Muhammed's influence?

religions don't spread by the sword... Islam spread all the way to Morocco because people accepted it... Conquistadors forced Christianity on people in the americas but they were nowhere near as successful.

[color=black][font=Verdana]Yes it is. The Christian way is to accept truth no matter how unpleasant it might be. Where do you get this nonsense that Christ would expect us to ignore the history just for the sake of patronizing the community?

christian way is to be peaceful and not be bigoted.

God gives the truth, IS the truth, not mankind or its religions.

You should listen to God instead of pushing your own version of 'truth'.

What would Jesus do?


Who am I insulting? If Muslims do not know their own history, it is their own insult to themselves. I’m not obligated to play along and act blissfully ignorant just for the sake of political correctness.

saying 'we' as muslims (submitters to God) are supporting terrorism or crimes is an insult in and of itself.

insulting our way of life is an insult.

we don't insult christians. (maybe some do, but they don't represent us. I bet there are a lot of level-headed christians that live in peace with muslims - i.e. in the middle east - who think YOU do not represent them)


Nonsense. The problem is that we’re under attack yet nobody wants to name the enemy. It is Islamic extremism. Finally we are beginning to see politicians naming the enemy more accurately. Before it was a war against “evil” terrorism” extremists” or whatever they could say to avoid the Islamic qualifier. When someone comes into my house and tries to kill my family, and he explains his motives and intentions, I think it is wise to pay attention. But nobody wants to pay attention to what the terrorists say because we work off the silly assumption that what they say cannot be true. After all, Islam means “peace” right? Wrong.

And you think peaceful muslims are not under attack from 'extremism', either? You look at everything so black and white, as if it is a mere religious divide and there is no geopolitics. Ask any jewish historian, the state of israel was founded on terrorism. Who do you think bombed the brits and arabs?

The enemy, my brother, is ignorance and hatred. The enemy is not a religion. There are peaceful jews and there are violent jews. There are peaceful christians and there are violent christians. There are peaceful muslims and there are violent muslims.

But a violent jew is not obeying God.
But a violent Christian is not a true Christian.
But a violent Muslim is not a Muslim.

Don't buy into the mythical enemy the neo-cons push. What happened to the 'domino theory', why didn't communism take over the world? I don't know, but now the new fad is to be Islamophobic....


And that you might be. Did I say every single Muslim on the planet is violent? Heavens no. Iftheya re peaceful it is in spite of Islam, not because of it. Try to spread your peaceful version of Islam in Pakistan or Egypt and you might find yourself banished from those countries because it isn’t at all the mainstream.

You should visit those countries sometime instead of speculating wildly...

You think my only interaction with Muslims is on TV? You’re wrong. I’ve worked with several, and I went to school with three, all of whom agreed with the Islamic principle that ex-Muslims should be killed. But hey, they were really peaceful though.

3 people out of 1.5 billion... I'd say you have more research to do before you think you understand the world's problems.

And it is exaggerated nonsense provided to them by idiot organizations like CAIR who fudge their own tallies. Never mind the several instances of genocide over the past few decades that accounted for perhaps more than 100 million. Nobody bothers to subtract any of that though.

again with the insults.... relax man, you aren't solving any problems letting your hatred seethe out like that.

Here's a hadith from Sahih Muslim:

Abu Huraira reported:

I heard Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: One is not strong because of one's wrestling skillfully. They said: Allah's Messenger, then who is strong? He said: He who controls his anger when he is in a fit of rage.

[barnasha]

One thing I have always seen is this: the Muslims hold Jesus in higher regard than do the Jews. What do you believe about Jesus? Thank you for your answers. Cr.

Well I will tell you a little about what muslims think about Jesus.

Muslims consider Jesus a prophet of God - and thus a prophet of islam (the obeying of God)

Our holy revelations given to the prophet Muhammed detail Jesus and Mary in extremely positive lights, and they also detail Jesus as the Christ (Messiah/Moshiach/Masih)

We consider Muhammed to teach the same things Jesus would teach - that one should obey God alone and we shoul never set up any graven images or partners of him ("Hear O Israel, the Lord your God is One" - see also first commandment)

So we do not consider Muhammed to have abrogated the teachings of Moses or Jesus. We consider Muhammed to have abrogated only the teachings of those who interpreted the meanings of Jesus and Moses

Even though Moses and Jesus did not write the tanach or the new testament, we still consider them holy books in islam (the Taurat/Torah, Zabur/Psalms, and Injeel/Gospel/Good Word)

(peace be upon them all - they are all prophets of God! Jesus had respect for Moses and David and Abraham and so do I and so does the ummah/community of Islam.)

the Qur'an describes this more clearly in regards to the Book.

By the way, The Qur'an is not very self-referential in some cases where you think it might be.

Take for example the first part of the longest surah (chapter), it is usually translated as "this is the book in which there is no doubt, guidance for the pious". But the actual Quran does not say that, it says 'THAT is the book in which there is no doubt'. So it could be referring to the bible, it could be referring to the torah.

but I am just a man, and God knows best.

[semar_mendem]

depending on how you define terrorism.

My definition is an action that's SPECIFICALLY targetted towards civilian. I.e., just a rampant disregard for civilian live is not enough. It has to SPECIFICALLY target civilian.

Guerilla wars? No. The ones that I know in Indonesia, we target MILITARY installation. Sure, we ran away afterwards, but we don't just open fire on Dutch people walking on the street.

Carpet bombing, etc? They all have MILITARY targets. Civilian just stand in the way, and although I disagree with civilian casualty, the action itself is NOT terrorism.

And refresh me, but when do we declare war against countries which predominantly muslims?