An article on The Islamic Concept of Peace

[Dr T]

The Islamic Concept of Peace

http://answering-islam.org/Terrorism/peace_concept.html

After much research and thought, I have come to understand the Islamic concept of peace as something like this:

Peace comes through submission (Islam).

This submission, of course, is submission to Muhammad and his concept of Allah in the Quran, in other words, Islam.

Theoretically, peace exists inside Dar ul-Islam, the House of Submission. I say theoretically, because we all know that Muslims, even though they are not supposed to, do fight fellow Muslims. The most recent examples are the civil war in Afghanistan between the Pushtuns on one side and the Northern Alliance (Uzbeks, Tajiks, etc.) on the other. Other recent exceptions were the Iraqi attack on Iran, the Iraqi attack on Kuwait, the West Pakistani attack on East Pakistan which subsequently became Bangladesh, the Yemeni Civil War with Egypt and Saudi Arabia interfering, the civil war in Algeria, the war between Morocco and Algeria over the Saharan Republic, etc.

Peace with pagans, that is, not the People of the Book, is impossible, as they are all to be given a chance to accept Islam or be killed. This is illustrated by the recent killing of pagans in the South Sudan by northern Muslims attempting to impose Islamic Law on them, the killing of non-Muslims in Northern Nigeria by Muslims attempting to impose Islamic law on them, the attacks of the northern Muslims on the southern pagans in Chad with Gaddafi interfering, etc.

With regard to Christians and Jews, they, too, are to be fought against until they are subdued and feel themselves subdued -- that is found in Quran 9:29 (Yousuf Ali). Illustrations of this are also in Sudan, Nigeria, Chad, Indonesia and smaller atrocities against Christians in Egypt, and the heinous repression of all Christian activity in Saudi Arabia by the Wahhabis.

Muslim have to fight on until there is "no more tumult or oppression" Quran 2:190-193, Q. 9:5 (Yousuf Ali).

To say that Islam is a religion of peace is not true. Islam is committed to war by both the example of Muhammad who fought on until he subdued Mecca and then other tribes, and by the Quranic teaching itself, plus numerous references in the Hadith.

Perhaps a quote from Amir Tahiri, the editor of Politique International of Paris would be illustrative of the current state of affairs. He says of the 30 wars going on at the present time (October 2001), 28 involve Muslim people fighting either non-Muslims or even other Muslims!

The Quran, by the way, teaches that Muslims are never to initiate war. But Islam has a strange way of explaining this. For example, Muslims are supposed to offer non-Muslims an opportunity to embrace Islam. If the non-Muslims refuse, the Muslim thinking is that they have commited aggression against Allah and Islam. Therefore, the Muslim is allowed to fight these aggressors against Allah and Islam until they become Muslims or are killed.

Perhaps the greatest proof that Islam is not a religion of peace is the interpretion of Quran 4:89 that says if anyone wants to leave Islam (turns renegade) he is to be put to death. This makes it the religion of fear, not peace.

There will be war in the world as long as people believe in Muhammad, his example and his teaching.

The Islamic concept of peace, meaning making the whole world Muslim, is actually a mandate for war.

Submitted by a long-time resident in the Muslim world.

[Fideist345]

Today @ 08:12 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=375638#post375638)
Dr T:

The Islamic Concept of Peace

http://answering-islam.org/Terrorism/peace_concept.html

After much research and thought, I have come to understand the Islamic concept of peace as something like this:



"Like so much of Christian countercult apologetics, the information on this site is presented as though there is no overt proselytic intent. "The purpose of these pages," write the authors, "is to help honest seekers to find ALL evidence needed to come after their investigation to an informed decision which faith they want to follow." However, the information is organized in such a manner as to throw into conceptual bas-relief the alleged deficiencies of Islam in face of the overwhelming superiority of evangelical Christianity. Indeed, one of the pages on the text-based site, authored by "Faruq al-Dhimmi," asks "Has this site strengthened your faith in Islam?" "Has your faith in Islam been strengthened by Christian apologetics or by reading the Bible? If so, you have reason to be concerned," Mr. al-Dhimmi continues. Citing 1 Cor.1:20-25, he concludes that Muslims should "not think that you have defeated or nullified this Word when you or your fellow Muslims reject it. I tell you, you have not defeated this Word, it has defeated you."

http://c.faculty.umkc.edu/cowande/ccw/islam.htm

"It must be emphasized, however, that the vast majority of fundamentalists in all three religions do not take part in acts of terror, but are simply struggling to live a religious life in a world that they feel is inimical to faith."

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/88/story_8849_1.html

"Which point of view is right?
They both are.

Islam is not a homogenous religion. It is divided into many subgroups, including Sunni, Shi'ite, and Sufi. A very small, radical, hate-filled, extremist, Fundamentalist, terrorist wing does exist. So too does a much larger peaceful, moderate wing. Unfortunately, the former seem to capture all the media's attention, while the latter is rarely heard from."

http://www.religioustolerance.org/isl_war.htm

[Jin-Roh]

Dr T:


Muslim have to fight on until there is "no more tumult or oppression" Quran 2:190-193, Q. 9:5 (Yousuf Ali).



I need to see the context on that one. He didn't site verses from the Koran for much else btw.

Fideist345:

"Like so much of Christian countercult apologetics, the information on this site is presented as though there is no overt proselytic intent. "The purpose of these pages," write the authors, "is to help honest seekers to find ALL evidence needed to come after their investigation to an informed decision which faith they want to follow." However, the information is organized in such a manner as to throw into conceptual bas-relief the alleged deficiencies of Islam in face of the overwhelming superiority of evangelical Christianity. Indeed, one of the pages on the text-based site, authored by "Faruq al-Dhimmi," asks "Has this site strengthened your faith in Islam?" "Has your faith in Islam been strengthened by Christian apologetics or by reading the Bible? If so, you have reason to be concerned," Mr. al-Dhimmi continues. Citing 1 Cor.1:20-25, he concludes that Muslims should "not think that you have defeated or nullified this Word when you or your fellow Muslims reject it. I tell you, you have not defeated this Word, it has defeated you."

Why yes. Christians do what to convert Muslims. Yes the Infomation is presented with a theological slant -just the same as if anybody else presented it. If you're concered that Christians aren't upfront about it, you might consider this article (http://www.answering-islam.org/glenn.html) that was taken right off the site.

"It must be emphasized, however, that the vast majority of fundamentalists in all three religions do not take part in acts of terror, but are simply struggling to live a religious life in a world that they feel is inimical to faith."

I have never heard a credible Christain author argue that every muslim out there is an inherentley violent individual. The argument is whether or not the Qur'an itself. preaches peace considering one of the major concepts in Islamic interpratation.

Islam is not a homogenous religion. It is divided into many subgroups, including Sunni, Shi'ite, and Sufi. A very small, radical, hate-filled, extremist, Fundamentalist, terrorist wing does exist. So too does a much larger peaceful, moderate wing. Unfortunately, the former seem to capture all the media's attention, while the latter is rarely heard from."

:ahem:
Peaceful Muslims have gotten plenty of media attention, as have the extremists. I don't think its a fair statement to say that your average peace loving Muslim hasn't been represented.

And again, the discussion is about what the Qur'an teaches, not what Muslims practice.

[Fideist345]

Today @ 01:27 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=385234#post385234)
Jin-Roh:

Why yes. Christians do what to convert Muslims.

Why, no. Christians do not want to convert Muslims, conservative Christians do. Especially those that populate the Southern Baptist Conference, The Lutheran Missouri Synod and other "Bible Christians."


Yes the Infomation is presented with a theological slant -just the same as if anybody else presented it.

Misrepresenting somebody else's position about such a serious subject is not a theological slant.

If you're concered that Christians aren't upfront about it, you might consider this article (http://www.answering-islam.org/glenn.html) that was taken right off the site.

That article was written by Glenn Miller, not anybody at the answering Islam site. Show me something that someone at Answering Islam site has written that is even handed, explains Christianity in its entirety, not just the "Bible Christian" version and lacks the intent of subverting the beliefs of others.

I have never heard a credible Christain author argue that every muslim out there is an inherentley violent individual. The argument is whether or not the Qur'an itself. preaches peace considering one of the major concepts in Islamic interpratation.

Well, if I ever see anyone from a site like Answering Islam give an evenhanded objective report about the Qur'an itself in context, then maybe I'll be interested. For now, I don't think Answering Islam has much credibility.

ahem:
Peaceful Muslims have gotten plenty of media attention, as have the extremists. I don't think its a fair statement to say that your average peace loving Muslim hasn't been represented.

That misses the point entirely.

And again, the discussion is about what the Qur'an teaches, not what Muslims practice.

Again, when I see an evenhanded critique of the Qur'an, I'll give it the credence it deserves.

[bar Jonah]

Fideist345:
Why, no. Christians do not want to convert Muslims, conservative Christians do. Especially those that populate the Southern Baptist Conference, The Lutheran Missouri Synod and other "Bible Christians."
Thank you for pointing that out. Amen! The typical Christian doesn't care if these people burn in Hell for eternity. But thankfully the conservatives/evangelicals, including the Southern Baptist Conference, The Lutheran Missouri Synod and other "Bible Christians" do care.

:thumb:

Thank you for noticing and pointing it out, Fideist. :rigreen:

[Fideist345]

Today @ 03:28 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=386529#post386529)
RightIdea:


Thank you for pointing that out. Amen! The typical Christian doesn't care if these people burn in Hell for eternity.

Baloney. And misrepresenting the intent and beliefs of "typical Christians" is no different than misrepresenting what the Qur'an says on a given subject.

But thankfully the conservatives/evangelicals, including the Southern Baptist Conference, The Lutheran Missouri Synod and other "Bible Christians" do care.

Of course they care. But misrepresenting the Qur'an is an inappropriate way to demonstrate that caring.

Thank you for noticing and pointing it out, Fideist.

What I noticed, Right Idea, was that somebody stated that Christians, which implies all Christians, want to convert Muslims. I pointed out that such is not necessarily the case. I will also point out that your statement is a complete misrepresentation of my intent.

[bar Jonah]

Fideist345:
Baloney. And misrepresenting the intent and beliefs of "typical Christians" is no different than misrepresenting what the Qur'an says on a given subject.
Misrepresenting? I agreed with you -- most Christians don't care enough about Muslims to actually do something about it. As I was agreeing with you, if anyone misrepresented something, it was you. :ahem:

What I noticed, Right Idea, was that somebody stated that Christians, which implies all Christians, want to convert Muslims. I pointed out that such is not necessarily the case. I will also point out that your statement is a complete misrepresentation of my intent.
And I disagree with them and agree with you that most Christians don't care enough to want to convert Muslims away from their evil paganism.

So, where is the problem?

[Fideist345]

Yesterday @ 04:27 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=386782#post386782)
RightIdea:


Misrepresenting? I agreed with you -- most Christians don't care enough about Muslims to actually do something about it.

Where did I say such a thing? Why don't you go ahead and quote me saying that most Christians don't care? Do something about what?

As I was agreeing with you, if anyone misrepresented something, it was you.

You were not agreeing with me. If anything, you were agreeing with words you put in my mouth, not with me.


And I disagree with them

Who?

and agree with you that most Christians don't care enough to want to convert Muslims away from their evil paganism.

So, where is the problem?

The problem is that it is not my position that most Christians don't care. That is your position. One which you have yet to support with facts and evidence. It is also not my position that Islam is evil paganism. That is your position. One which you have yet to support with facts and evidence.

It is my position that many Christians do not want to convert Muslims in contrast to a statement that was made implying all Christians do want to.

[bar Jonah]

Fideist345:
Where did I say such a thing? Why don't you go ahead and quote me saying that most Christians don't care? Do something about what?

You were not agreeing with me. If anything, you were agreeing with words you put in my mouth, not with me.

Who?

The problem is that it is not my position that most Christians don't care. That is your position. One which you have yet to support with facts and evidence. It is also not my position that Islam is evil paganism. That is your position. One which you have yet to support with facts and evidence.

It is my position that many Christians do not want to convert Muslims in contrast to a statement that was made implying all Christians do want to.
So, what you're saying is that you can watch someone die in agony and "care" ... even if you don't do anything about it, even though you can prevent it?

That is your definition of caring? :hrm:

You have a strange idea of what it means to care about someone else. :rikookoo:

[Fideist345]

Today @ 03:25 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=388423#post388423)
RightIdea:


So, what you're saying is that you can watch someone die in agony and "care" ... even if you don't do anything about it, even though you can prevent it?

Show me where I said you can watch somebody die in agony, etc. Those are your words, not mine.

That is your definition of caring?

No. It is your attempt to impute me with your deliberate mischaracterization of my actual position.

You have a strange idea of what it means to care about someone else.

Your idea, not mine. A man of straw that you have erected to do battle with.

[bar Jonah]

Fideist345:
Show me where I said you can watch somebody die in agony, etc. Those are your words, not mine.
But you apparently fail to understand... that to a true Christian, that's what we see when we walk down the street. Whether we are right or wrong, please understand... we see people all around us, walking down the train tracks with a Walkman on, and they can't hear the train coming behind them... And that breaks our heart and tugs at us to share what we truly believe the be the only rescue out of this violent, untrustworthy world. For me to not share this with someone I believe to be in danger, well, that's not even an act of apathy ... it is arguably an act of hatred. to knowingly watch them die without doing anything.

[Jin-Roh]

Yesterday @ 12:21 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=386493#post386493)
Fideist345:

Why, no. Christians do not want to convert Muslims, conservative Christians do. Especially those that populate the Southern Baptist Conference, The Lutheran Missouri Synod and other "Bible Christians."

Oh. I'm sorry, didn't I misrepreset my own religion? :lol:
Perhaps I should be more specific. Us Big-bad-bible-believers want to convert Muslims. Is that about right? :wink:

If you really feel that evangalism is inconsitant with Christianity, I suggest you read through the Gospels and Acts. Come on man.

Besides, even if we want to hair-split what makes a Christian, you should probably consider the context of my responce.

Misrepresenting somebody else's position about such a serious subject is not a theological slant.

Fine. You disagree with them. You believe the Qur'an teaches otherwise.

But this still doesn't make my statement false. You're seriously decievied that anybody can talk "about such a serious subject" without that talk being influenced by their prior position.

That article was written by Glenn Miller, not anybody at the answering Islam site.

But, it's at their site and they seem to be letting Glenn Miller speak for them on this subject.

Show me something that someone at Answering Islam site has written that is even handed, explains Christianity in its entirety, not just the "Bible Christian" version and lacks the intent of subverting the beliefs of others.

I never claimed that such was possible.

Well, if I ever see anyone from a site like Answering Islam give an evenhanded objective report about the Qur'an itself in context, then maybe I'll be interested. For now, I don't think Answering Islam has much credibility.

Poisoning the well. Have you actually considered any of their arguments without responding to them by simply quoting other scholars?

That misses the point entirely.

I fail to see how. The orignal quote you gave alledged that the peaceful muslims aren't getting enough air-time. I strongly disagree with that.

Again, when I see an evenhanded critique of the Qur'an, I'll give it the credence it deserves.

Again, there is no such thing as an "evenhanded critique." Questions of religion and religionous texts are lifeboat questions my friend. There is simply no way we can just be dispassionate observers.

Thanks for the responce though. :smile:

[dizzle]

Oh boy.... didn't Fideist gripe about US talking about Muslim doctrine and allegedly misrepresenting that faith, and he is saying utter nonsense about how it is not Christian to evangelize. If he were not serious, I would be laughing. How about telling us it is not Christian to believe in Christ? That is about how ridiculous that comment was.

Would you really like to examine the Koran?

Here ya go:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7024

[Dr T]

How about some evidence as to why the article wasn't even handed, that might be a useful start for a discussion.

If you read the Qur'an one of things you will find (or at least I did) is that it is unlike the Bible or any other book I have read, it isn't that coherent, it jumps haphazardly from topic to topic. This often makes the context of any particular verse difficult if not impossible to determine from the Qur'an itself. To get context you often have to refer to the Traditions, which relate to Mohammed's life, but actually aren't inspired.

[Fideist345]

Yesterday @ 10:38 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=389332#post389332)
RightIdea:


Fideist345: Show me where I said you can watch somebody die in agony, etc. Those are your words, not mine. ”


But you apparently fail to understand... that to a true Christian, that's what we see when we walk down the street.

I don't fail to understand that to a conservative Christian, of the type I indicated, that this is so. What I'm objecting to is the idea that "all Christians want to evangelize Muslims." The statement is simply not true. If you can prove, using facts and evidence, that it IS true, go ahead. But please don't give me the no-true-scotsman fallacy that a "true" Christian sees it your way. A"true" Christian in your perception is just that, your perception, not an observable fact.


Whether we are right or wrong, please understand... we see people all around us, walking down the train tracks with a Walkman on, and they can't hear the train coming behind them... And that breaks our heart and tugs at us to share what we truly believe the be the only rescue out of this violent, untrustworthy world. For me to not share this with someone I believe to be in danger, well, that's not even an act of apathy ... it is arguably an act of hatred. to knowingly watch them die without doing anything.

That's fine, Right Idea. If you want to attempt to evangelize people you personally see as being in danger, please do. But don't suggest that people who don't see things the way you do, are not "true" Christians. That is unless you have some actual facts you'd like to introduce. And please do not suggest that the best method of evangelization is to misrepresent somebody else's holy book. That is not evangelizing, that is attacking. Attacking somebody else is a totally inappropriate way to evangelize.

[Fideist345]

Yesterday @ 10:50 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=389350#post389350)
Jin-Roh:



[quote] Fideist345: Why, no. Christians do not want to convert Muslims, conservative Christians do. Especially those that populate the Southern Baptist Conference, The Lutheran Missouri Synod and other "Bible Christians." ”

Oh. I'm sorry, didn't I misrepreset my own religion?
Perhaps I should be more specific. Us Big-bad-bible-believers want to convert Muslims. Is that about right?

Some Christians want to, is about right. And yes, in a statement such as you made you should be specific.

If you really feel that evangalism is inconsitant with Christianity,

Where did I say such a thing?

I suggest you read through the Gospels and Acts. Come on man.

Where in the Gospels and Acts state that evangelizing is to defame somebody else's religion or holy book?

Again, there is no such thing as an "evenhanded critique."

Yes there is.

Questions of religion and religionous texts are lifeboat questions my friend. There is simply no way we can just be dispassionate observers.

Sure we can. There are plenty of expositions of Islam that are by non-Christians and non-Muslims. I gave two web sites that give the considered opinion of people who have no vested interest in whether the Qur'an advocates what Answering Islam asserts.

[Fideist345]

Today @ 07:31 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=389631#post389631)
Dee Dee Warren:

Oh boy.... didn't Fideist gripe about US talking about Muslim doctrine and allegedly misrepresenting that faith, and he is saying utter nonsense about how it is not Christian to evangelize.

Where did I say such a thing?

[Fideist345]

Today @ 10:22 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=389736#post389736)
Dr T:

How about some evidence as to why the article wasn't even handed, that might be a useful start for a discussion.

It is not even handed to state that the Qur'an teaches XYZ, but "Islam" has a strange way of interpreting it or putting it into practice. "Islam" is a religion that is based on the Qur'an, but encompasses more than one viewpoint.

If you read the Qur'an one of things you will find (or at least I did) is that it is unlike the Bible or any other book I have read, it isn't that coherent, it jumps haphazardly from topic to topic.

It is unfamiliar at first. There are commentaries. There are, especially since 9/11, any number of expositions not just of the Qur'an, but of Islam and even of Muhammad himself. Anyone so willing, can avail themselves of these resources.

This often makes the context of any particular verse difficult if not impossible to determine from the Qur'an itself. To get context you often have to refer to the Traditions, which relate to Mohammed's life, but actually aren't inspired.

Non-Christians could make the same observation about the NT. How many people have turned to Augustine and others for explanation? It is incumbent upon the reader of any religious text to discover what was actually being said. Not an easy task when the writing is from another culture and time. I've read in several places that the Qur'an makes way more sense after you've heard it the way it was meant to be heard. At least one person has attempted to solve the accessibility issue. I don't remember the title, but Amazon carries it for those who are truly interested.

[bar Jonah]

Dr T:
How about some evidence as to why the article wasn't even handed, that might be a useful start for a discussion.

If you read the Qur'an one of things you will find (or at least I did) is that it is unlike the Bible or any other book I have read, it isn't that coherent, it jumps haphazardly from topic to topic. This often makes the context of any particular verse difficult if not impossible to determine from the Qur'an itself. To get context you often have to refer to the Traditions, which relate to Mohammed's life, but actually aren't inspired.
Yes, it is haphazard and drastically inconsistent. But do you know why?

Like the Bible, it has passages that advocate killing God's enemies... and passages saying we should not do so.

BUT.... unlike the Bible, the Koran cannot be put into context, especially historically. You see, Mohammed began with violence, went through a period of peace with his neighbors, then waged holy war again. And his Koran reflects this, as he wrote advocating violence during the violent times, and peace during the peace times.

But the trouble is... we don't know what order any of it was written in! The Koran isn't organized chronologically, or even topically. The surahs are organized by SIZE, of all things! :doh:

So, when Muslims today advocate peace based on the teaching of the Koran, they are basically right.

And when Muslims today advocate "pursuing the infidel and killing them" and and pursuing the goal which is that "the End will not come until the Muslims kill all the Jews" .... they are also basically correct, based on the Koran! Anyone can just pick whichever parts they want, based on their current situation, to suit their needs. That's how it was written and passed down.

[Jin-Roh]

Today @ 07:55 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=389773#post389773)
Fideist345:

Some Christians want to, is about right. And yes, in a statement such as you made you should be specific.

*sigh*
Maybe I didn't make myself clear. My point is that you are attempting to redefine the term "Christianity" in your responce to me. This is equivation.

Fideist345 good doublespeak. Jin-roh doubleplusunconvince.

You can define Christianity however you want, but you can't just refute me by changing my definition, which is consistent with both the historical tradition and the holy writ of the relevent religion.

Where did I say such a thing?

Here! (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=386493#post386493)
Why, no. Christians do not want to convert Muslims, conservative Christians do. Especially those that populate the Southern Baptist Conference, The Lutheran Missouri Synod and other "Bible Christians."

Christianity according to Fideist does not seek to convert Muslims. Are you going to attempt to redefine evanglism now?

Where in the Gospels and Acts state that evangelizing is to defame somebody else's religion or holy book?

That's a bit of a loaded question isn't it?
If when you say "defaming" you mean "asserting that it's wrong" then I'd say that concept is all over the NT, and the OT. Guess what bro, God has a tendancy to be an absolutist.

Yes there is.

See below.

Sure we can. There are plenty of expositions of Islam that are by non-Christians and non-Muslims. I gave two web sites that give the considered opinion of people who have no vested interest in whether the Qur'an advocates what Answering Islam asserts.

Here's a quote from Belief.net (http://www.belief.net/about/index.asp)
We are independent. We are not affiliated with a particular religion or spiritual movement. We are not out to convert you to a particular approach, but rather to help you find your own. Fundamental to our mission is a deep respect for a wide variety of faiths and traditions.

Here's the thing: asserting that the Qur'an teaches violence is by your definition defaming. So how could Belief.net hold that position and be consistent with this statement? In other words, how are they any less baised? They are vested in whether or not the Qur'an holds a specific position, but if they asserted what Answerin-Islam asserts that would be "defaming."

And here's one from religious tolerance (http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_tol2.htm#crit):
criticism of religious beliefs is not acceptable

Their site will not allow criticism in the manner of which Answering Islam asserts! Here (http://www.religioustolerance.org/reac_ter18b.htm) they paint such activity as wrong. How then, can you say that they aren't invested in asserting that Qur'an teaches one thing or another?

Thanks again for the responce.

[Fideist345]

Today @ 03:09 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=390459#post390459)
Jin-Roh:



Fideist345: Some Christians want to, is about right. And yes, in a statement such as you made you should be specific. ”

*sigh*
Maybe I didn't make myself clear. My point is that you are attempting to redefine the term "Christianity" in your responce to me. This is equivation.

Go ahead and quote me doing so.

Fideist345 good doublespeak. Jin-roh doubleplusunconvince.

Jin-roh think Jin-roh's interpretation of what Fideist345 said what Fideist345 said. Not so. Let me put it in less cryptic terms: Your interpretation of what I said is not what I said. If you have a quote of me saying what you allege, paste it.

You can define Christianity however you want, but you can't just refute me by changing my definition, which is consistent with both the historical tradition and the holy writ of the relevent religion.

I'm not attempting to change any definitions. I'm attempting to say that conservative Christians are not all Christians. Or if you’d rather, all Christians are not conservative. I can say this several more ways if you’d like. Quote an objective source that says all Christians want to convert Muslims.

“ Where did I say such a thing? ”


Here!

Fideist345: “ Why, no. Christians do not want to convert Muslims, conservative Christians do. Especially those that populate the Southern Baptist Conference, The Lutheran Missouri Synod and other "Bible Christians." ”

You know, it would have helped a lot if you had quoted the statement you made that I questioned: “If you really feel that evangalism is inconsitant with Christianity, I suggest you read through the Gospels and Acts. Come on man.”

Where in the above quote you posted beginning "Fideist345" did I say what you say I said? Be specific. Quote the exact language I used that corresponds directly to your allegation. What I did, Jin-roh was to draw a distinction between conservative Christians and other Christians wanting to convert Muslims. I said nothing about evangelism being inconsistent with Christianity as a whole.


Christianity according to Fideist does not seek to convert Muslims. Are you going to attempt to redefine evanglism now?

Christianity according to Jin-roh’s man of straw, not Fideist 345..

“ Where in the Gospels and Acts state that evangelizing is to defame somebody else's religion or holy book? ”

That's a bit of a loaded question isn't it?

I don’t think so. I’m assuming that you are taking the Answering Islam position, which attacks Islam and the Qur’an without providing opposing points of view. If you are not taking Answering Islam’s position why do you continue responding to me?

If when you say "defaming" you mean "asserting that it's wrong" then I'd say that concept is all over the NT, and the OT. Guess what bro, God has a tendancy to be an absolutist.

Once again, I am alluding to the Answering Islam’s charge concerning the Qur’an teaching peace. Who said anything about the Bible?

“ Yes there is. ”

See below.

Jin-roh, I am not going to respond to any more statements where you have failed to paste the relevant language. Maybe you don’t mind jumping back and forth to see what was actually said, but I don’t have the inclination.

“ Sure we can. There are plenty of expositions of Islam that are by non-Christians and non-Muslims. I gave two web sites that give the considered opinion of people who have no vested interest in whether the Qur'an advocates what Answering Islam asserts. ”


Here's a quote from Belief.net
“ We are independent. We are not affiliated with a particular religion or spiritual movement. We are not out to convert you to a particular approach, but rather to help you find your own. Fundamental to our mission is a deep respect for a wide variety of faiths and traditions. ”

Exactly. Beliefnet cannot be said to have either an Islamic or Christian agenda.

Here's the thing: asserting that the Qur'an teaches violence is by your definition defaming.

No. Asserting that the Qur’an teaches violence without all the relevant facts in evidence is defaming. Not giving evidence, hiding evidence, de-emphasizing important evidence, overemphasizing unimportant evidence. These are all fallacies commonly committed by people engaging in religious debate where the object is to attempt to subvert the beliefs of another, rather than rigorously attempting to advance the benefits and rewards of a given claimant's beliefs. IOW, trying to make the other guy look bad so as you can look good is both inappropriate and will draw the charge of defamation unless all arguments from both sides are in evidence.

So how could Belief.net hold that position and be consistent with this statement?

Huh? Did you read the article? It is by Karen Armstrong. She is neither Christian nor Muslim. She is an independent commentator. She is also a recognized expert on all three monotheistic faiths.

In other words, how are they any less baised? They are vested in whether or not the Qur'an holds a specific position, but if they asserted what Answerin-Islam asserts that would be "defaming."

This is not about “they”, this is an article by Karen Armstrong, a recognized scholar with no evident ties to either Christianity or Islam.

And here's one from religious tolerance:
“ criticism of religious beliefs is not acceptable ”


Their site will not allow criticism in the manner of which Answering Islam asserts! Here they paint such activity as wrong. How then, can you say that they aren't invested in asserting that Qur'an teaches one thing or another?

Right. Religious Tolerance has no vested interest in either Christianity or Islam. They are an independent source of information. Did you read the article?

Thanks again for the responce.

Jin-roh, response is spelled the way I have spelled it, not the way you have above. If you are going to attempt to ridicule your interlocutors, I would suggest a more vigorous attempt to get the details correct.

[Jin-Roh]

:hrm:

[dizzle]

Quote an objective source that says all Christians want to convert Muslims.


That was never the point, nice strawman though. The point was according to the NT, it is the job of ALL Christians to evangelize the entire world which last time I checked included Muslims. By your standards one could not define any belief. And you are being horribly inconsistent for insisting the Muslim doctrine be judged only by the Koran, and not the practices of militants, and yet you want to judge Christian practice by those who are disobedient to the commands of the NT. Haarrummmph.

[Fideist345]

Today @ 06:40 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=392000#post392000)
Dee Dee Warren:



Quote an objective source that says all Christians want to convert Muslims.

That was never the point, nice strawman though.

Here was the original statement I responded to that started this entire line of conversation:

"Why yes. Christians do what to convert Muslims."

It is in this post:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&postid=385234#post385234

Notice the statement does not indicate "some" Christians. It is a clear statement that Christians, without dissent, want to convert Muslims.

The point was according to the NT, it is the job of ALL Christians to evangelize the entire world which last time I checked included Muslims.

No, that changes the subject from all Christians wanting to convert Muslims to the NT's great commission.

By your standards one could not define any belief.

And now the subject changes to my standards. What do my standards have to do with whether or not all Christians want to convert Muslims?

And you are being horribly inconsistent for insisting the Muslim doctrine be judged only by the Koran, and not the practices of militants, and yet you want to judge Christian practice by those who are disobedient to the commands of the NT.

And yet another change of subject, one of many brought in for whatever reason, that has nothing directly to do with the statement: "Why yes. Christians do what to convert Muslims." Apparently nobody wants to talk about this issue. I don't care to talk about some of the other issues that have been introduced. So, again: I don't think all Christians, as the above quote indicates, want to convert Muslims. If anyone has facts that support the above quote and wants to place said facts into evidence, please do so.

[Amazing Rando]

Well, this has been a fine lot of misrepresentation by nearly all the participants of this thread, eh? Maybe before this whole thing goes careening of course into a brick wall we could all take a step back, breathe, and start afresh?

Let me summarize what I think I've read so far- Fideist345 is attempting to show that not all Christians wish to evangelize to Muslims. Whether or not evangelism to Muslims is right or not is another matter. Maybe we should start the discussion headed that way?

I for one, believe that it is the call of the Great Comission and the rest of the New Testament to preach the gospel to all, and to show the love of Christ to the nations. Evangelism= Good, but only if done in the spirit of love that Jesus gave for us.

It does no good whatsoever to call Islam "evil paganism" as RightIdea has done in this thread. Jack Chick does a good enough job at that, thank you very much. We don't need any more Chicks! RightIdea, I agree with your fundamental principle of sharing the gospel with Muslims, but you've got to remember why we do it! We love them- pure and simple. Your word choice leaves much to be desired.

[bar Jonah]

Amazing Rando:
It does no good whatsoever to call Islam "evil paganism" as RightIdea has done in this thread. Jack Chick does a good enough job at that, thank you very much. We don't need any more Chicks! RightIdea, I agree with your fundamental principle of sharing the gospel with Muslims, but you've got to remember why we do it! We love them- pure and simple. Your word choice leaves much to be desired.
Rando, I encourage you to read my formerly front-page article, "Preaching the Bad News" here at TW. You cannot preach the good news to someone if there is no bad news, if there is nothing to save them from.

You can talk at length about how great a doctor is, what his credentials are, his experience, his state-of-the-art equipment and so forth ... But if the person you're talking to doesn't realize they are ill or injured, they won't care about a doctor. If they don't think they need a physician, they won't care about your Great Physician.

:smile:

(At the same time, I wholeheartedly agree that things like Jack Chick are a barrier for unbelievers, not an effective tool. But I am not Jack Chick!) :rieek2:

[Amazing Rando]

Today @ 06:01 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=392298#post392298)
RightIdea:


Rando, I encourage you to read my formerly front-page article, "Preaching the Bad News" here at TW. You cannot preach the good news to someone if there is no bad news, if there is nothing to save them from.

You can talk at length about how great a doctor is, what his credentials are, his experience, his state-of-the-art equipment and so forth ... But if the person you're talking to doesn't realize they are ill or injured, they won't care about a doctor. If they don't think they need a physician, they won't care about your Great Physician.

:smile:

(At the same time, I wholeheartedly agree that things like Jack Chick are a barrier for unbelievers, not an effective tool. But I am not Jack Chick!) :rieek2:

I understand, RI. My point is just that you need to approach people gently and lovingly! If the first words out of your mouth are "evil pagan," you're likely to turn them off to the gospel!

You're right, of course, about the need for them to realize their spiritually "sick" condition.

I believe that was Fideist's point as well- he has nothing against evangelism per se, as long as it's done in the loving spirit of Jesus.

[Dr T]

Irrespective of the what is the article my reading of the Qur'an is that it commands unceasing war until their are only Muslims, Christians and Jews left in the world, and this only if the Jews and Christians accept dhimmi status (ghettoised second class citizens).

I accept that they are nice verses in the Qur'an as well, but these fall into the abrogated (replaced) catergory because they were replaced by the sword verses.

Is this a reasonable interpretation? A couple of ways of testing this are as follows:

Look at the history of the Islamic world.
Look at Islamic world today.

Any look at Islamic history confirms my opinion, Islam destroyed any pagan religion it gained power over, and imposed secondary status (or worse) on Christians and Jews.

Looking at the world to day you get a right mixiture, Muslim violence on Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddists , Aethists etc. Where Islam is so is violence.

Even in states like Malaysia where (as far as I know) there is no violence going on they have enacted a series of apartheid laws based on religion. Non muslims are restricted in access to education, businesses have to have at least part Muslim ownership, amongst other things. This is leading to problems, so Malaysia has annouced (only recently) measures like enforced circumcision of non muslims, national service and so on, but not repeal of the apartheid style laws, nor anything that is likely to end the problems.

So to conclude this article may be wrong, I may be wrong, yet it is clear that very many Muslims believe the same thing. Now out of 1.2 billion human beings I'm sure that some don't intreprete the Qur'an in this fashion, but they don't seem to be the ones in control.

[Amazing Rando]

Man, I wish we could get some actual Muslims here on these boards to explain their views a little more!

[Dr T]

Today @ 02:41 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=394065#post394065)
Amazing Rando:

Man, I wish we could get some actual Muslims here on these boards to explain their views a little more!

Indeed