Freedom of Speech.

[metadigital]

Regarding extremists in other countries, a BBC News correspondent suggests that the recent outbreak of cartoon violence is an outlet for pre-existing issues.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Exactly.

 

And as has been mentioned, above, the sight of Lebanese Imams standing up to the violent demonstrators attacking Scandinavian embassies brings the point into sharp focus. The poor people of Lebanon are sick of Syria using any means to destabilise the country for her own means.

 

It's a pity that Imams in other countries have been unable to portray a similar image ...

[metadigital]

They are not so much in disagreement with your statements as disagreement with the implication.  Yes, Christianity has extremist and some have committed murder for the sake of their beliefs.  However, in our age, similar acts or statements that have targeted Christianity have not resulted in multi-national calls for violence by the Christian community.  For example, I thought "Piss Christ" was in poor taste and I certainly wasn't happy that the government funded the project through the National Endowment for the Arts and Humanities.  However, I don't recall a widespread movement demanding violence by Christians in this country, let alone around the world.

 

I don't make this argument because it's important to defend Christianity.  Whatever you think of Christianity, you're going to be hard put to put it in the same category of extremist violence as Islam.  We can argue the reasons, but there are more Christians clamoring for less violence.  That means that there must be a greater minority (if not majority) of Muslims who advocate or resort to violence.

 

Sure, we can argue the reasons for it, but citing counter examples of doctors killed or taken hostage in the US just doesn't work.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What about the foreign policy of not providing aid to countries ravaged by AIDS in Africa without assurances of abstinence, rather than condom use?

 

Or the Catholic Church's role in the poverty cycle in South America because it refuses to endorce family planning methods like condoms, voluntary sterilisation and abortion?

 

We're better off trying to see why extremist are such a powerful force in Islam in comparison to other religions than trying to say that all have an equal percentage (if not number) of extremists calling for violence as does Islam.

 

Making this a politically correct issue dosn't help at all.  Saying, "well, Islam has extremists but so does everyone else" doesn't change the fact that priests and ministers in the United States don't call for this sort of activity.  Sure, you can cite the isolated exceptions, but violence as a response looks increasingly like an acceptable choice to a large number of Muslims.  Why is that?  If we cannot accept that terrorism is far more the choice of Islam than Judaism, Hinduism, Christianity, or Buddhism, then we have hit an impasse.  Don't tell me that there are examples of Buddhist violence and so the violence is somehow comparable to the spontaneous uprisings of Muslims in countries throughout the region and beyond.  Hell, my experience and understanding is that Buddhism is less violent than Christianity, but neither approach what we see today in Islam.  Is it simply unreasonable to express such observations?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Are you suggesting that religions should be rated on a violence scale?

 

Buddhism is okay, they can keep their temples.

 

Islam is too violent, so it must be ... errr ... what? Forced out of the world? What do you propose? A crusade?

 

I have seen the Zionists protesting: they are just as vociferous and violent and extreme in their opinions about Islam and the Arabic peoples. They are the Hamas of Judaism, for they too won't stop until every Muslim/Arab is dead.

 

Or is the violence-o-meter weighted by population? "

Finally, Fundamentalism is not the cause of this.  It is extremism.  Fundamentalism does not equate to a call for violence.  When someone takes a fundamental belief and uses it as a springboard to advocate violence, they are an extremist.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

He he.

 

Fundamentalists are certainly a big problem. When someone thinks they have the divinely inspired truth and all who disagree are heathens to be converted or slaughtered (it was Pope Innocent III who said "kill them all, God will know the difference" when asked about the women, children and those who were not the target his sectarian genocide).

 

But extremists are certainly a big problem, too.

 

And the two groups are not mutually exclusive.

 

[~Di]

Sorry, but I don't think I can personally justify worldwide groups of burning, looting, murdering mobs, which are spurred on in their violence by their own religious leaders. Lots of people are poor, oppressed, unhappy. The vast majority of them do not loot, burn, and murder in their name of their god. And no, I don't wanna go back decades or even centuries to find similar violence in the name of some other religion's god. If they did it, it was wrong of them too and I don't give a fig what excuse they and their apologists gave at the time.

 

I do not see why it is so damned difficult to simply acknowledge that the violence going on nearly world-wide by a violent, and extremist sect of Islam is just... plain... wrong. No excuses. Just wrong.

[metadigital]

We are in violent agreement, ~Di.

[SteveThaiBinh]

I do not see why it is so damned difficult  to simply acknowledge that the violence going on nearly world-wide by a violent, and extremist sect of Islam is just... plain... wrong.  No excuses.  Just wrong.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It is wrong, and there are no excuses. Trying to understand or explain something is not the same as trying to justify or excuse it. It's important not to cross the line and use language that even appears to justify or excuse violent action. On the other hand, it's also important to seek to understand the problem if we want to do something about it.

[metadigital]

I do not see why it is so damned difficult  to simply acknowledge that the violence going on nearly world-wide by a violent, and extremist sect of Islam is just... plain... wrong.  No excuses.  Just wrong.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It is wrong, and there are no excuses.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

he he. That's a very extreme and fundamental view, Steve.

[~Di]

Hehe... pun recognized and appreciated! :D

[Cantousent]

Okay, meta, you get high marks for gymnastic but low marks because you're acting like you need to score points more than engaging in actual discussion.

 

First of all, the idea that we put religions on a scale is a red herring. I didn't do so. I merely pointed out that there are differences in what various religions have tolerated in terms of violence, but that the Islam of today more readily resonds with violence than do other "mainstream" religions. If I were to use a scale, everyone else would be far over on the other side.

 

Then, you cite AIDS relief in Africa? Give me a break. That's plain offensive. You write: "[w]hat about the foreign policy of not providing aid to countries ravaged by AIDS in Africa without assurances of abstinence, rather than condom use?" You somehow equate what a particular country shells out in aid to a foreign entity as the same things as multi-national calls for violence against foreign nationals. meta, I was asking what I thought were serious questions, not trying to make points. My perception is that Islam as a whole today is more violent than pretty much any other major religion. I might be wrong, but citing African aid doesn't move me much.

 

Next, and even worse, you cite a 12th century pope? I'm not mad because I feel attacked. I'm irritated that you trivialize the discussion with these tactics.

 

I believe you have insight into these matters, but as long as we can't explore Muslim violence in a meaningful way, we're not discussing much. Citing centuries old conflicts to justify modern day violence is simply wrong. The Crusades are over.

 

Let's not pretend that we're lawyers trying to advocate our clients at all costs and argue in good faith. I'm serious, dammit. Why is it that we praise the imams who call for peace but we cannot accept that there is a sizeable minority calling for war?

 

If I even have the temerity to suggest that Islam exhibits more violent tendencies than other religions, folks are likely to call me prejudiced. At least you didn't do that. You do, however, cite foreign aid and edicts almost a thousand years old.

 

I'll put off the fundamentalist argument for a while simply because this is a bigger issue for me. I'm not prejudging Islam. These widespread (and they are widespread) protests are a timely matter that I did not prejudge.

 

Hell, Surreptishus' argument is more convincing because it essentially says that it is not the religion but how folks are using it to further political or geopolitcal aims. That makes sense. That's a reflection not of the religion nor of the innate qualities of the people, but of political opportunism, which knows no ethnic, cultural, or (so-called) racial bound.

[Surreptishus]

Hell, Surreptishus' argument is more convincing because it essentially says that it is not the religion but how folks are using it to further political or geopolitcal aims.  That makes sense.  That's a reflection not of the religion nor of the innate qualities of the people, but of political opportunism, which knows no ethnic, cultural, or (so-called) racial bound.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

To be honest thats half of what I think. As an apostate i have views which would lean towards those that suggest the religion - the scriptures and practices or at teh very leats understanding of them - are fundamentally(!) flawed.

Edited February 7, 2006 by Surreptishus

[julianw]

Sorry, but I don't think I can personally justify worldwide groups of burning, looting, murdering mobs, which are spurred on in their violence by their own religious leaders.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Though I'd like to point out that many Islamic clerics have also stood up and condemned those acts of violence as being far worse than caricaturing the prophets. They have openly admitted that the existence of militant extremists is also to blame for the west's misinterpretation of the religion and many of them who tried to calm down the protesters have gotten stoned at as well...

 

As for whether Islam has a tolerance for violence, I certainly don't believe that it advocates any form of aggression. However, I feel perhaps that Muhammad's great military career may have actually become a weakness of Islam as a religion. Maybe many Muslims, out of admiration for the prophet, have found defending the faith with force to be the favorable course when it was clearly the last resort for Muhammad.

[Dark Moth]

"Fighting may be imposed on you, even though you dislike it. But you may dislike something which is good for you, and you may like something which is bad for you. GOD knows while you do not know.

They ask you about the Sacred Months and fighting therein: say, "Fighting therein is a sacrilege. However, repelling from the path of GOD and disbelieving in Him and in the sanctity of the Sacred Masjid, and evicting its people, are greater sacrileges in the sight of GOD. Oppression is worse than murder." They will always fight you to revert you from your religion, if they can. Those among you who revert from their religion, and die as disbelievers, have nullified their works in this life and the Hereafter. These are the dwellers of Hell, wherein they abide forever." (Sura 2:16-17)

 

"And he who fights in the cause of Allah and is killed achieves victory. We will bestow on him a great reward." (Sura 4:74).

 

"Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah, and those who disbelieve in the cause of Satan. So fight against the allies of Satan." (Sura 4:76).

 

"Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and his messenger . . . is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from the opposite sides." (Sura 5:33).

 

"I will instill terror into the hearts of the infidels. Strike off their heads then, and strike off them every finger-tip." (Sura 8:12).

 

"Kill those who join other gods with God (Allah) wherever you find them." (Sura 9:5).

 

"Fight those who do not believe in Allah." (Sura 9:29).

 

"If you do not fight, (Allah) will punish you severely, and put others in your place." (Sura 9:39).

 

"O Prophet, fight against the disbelievers and the hypocrites and be harsh upon them." (Sura 9:75).

 

"So when you meet those who disbelieve, strike their necks until, when you have inflicted slaughter upon them, then secure their bonds . . . And those who are killed in the cause of Allah never will waste their deeds." (Sura 47:4).

 

 

I don't mean to offend, but if I may be blunt, just what the hell are Muslims supposed to gather from those verses?

Edited February 7, 2006 by Mothman

[metadigital]

Okay, meta, you get high marks for gymnastic but low marks because you're acting like you need to score points more than engaging in actual discussion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wow, settle down Eldar. I am having a discussion; ENJOY the discussion. I thought the use of humour was an apt way of defusing any pent up pressure. Evidentally I am not infallible. :/

First of all, the idea that we put religions on a scale is a red herring.  I didn't do so.  I merely pointed out that there are differences in what various religions have tolerated in terms of violence, but that the Islam of today more readily resonds with violence than do other "mainstream" religions.  If I were to use a scale, everyone else would be far over on the other side.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Islam is no more violent, fundamentally, than Christianity or Juduaism. After all, the Talmud is common to all Abrahamic religions, in some form. (Christians just stick the beginning, middle and end in a different order, for example, and call it the "Old Testament".)

Then, you cite AIDS relief in Africa?  Give me a break.  That's plain offensive.  You write:  "[w]hat about the foreign policy of not providing aid to countries ravaged by AIDS in Africa without assurances of abstinence, rather than condom use?"  You somehow equate what a particular country shells out in aid to a foreign entity as the same things as multi-national calls for violence against foreign nationals.  meta, I was asking what I thought were serious questions, not trying to make points.  My perception is that Islam as a whole today is more violent than pretty much any other major religion.  I might be wrong, but citing African aid doesn't move me much.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You don't think the US aid budget and trade sanctions don't contribute to the misery of developing countries (co-incidentally mostly Islamic nations)?

 

So Islam is violent because some extremists are warmongering in her name, yet fundamentalist Christian policy from the world's richest nation that inflicts uncountable hardship and suffering is not violent? What do you think is a root cause of violence? Why aren't there (and never have been, afaik) people rioting in Switzerland?

Next, and even worse, you cite a 12th century pope?  I'm not mad because I feel attacked.  I'm irritated that you trivialize the discussion with these tactics.

...

I believe you have insight into these matters, but as long as we can't explore Muslim violence in a meaningful way, we're not discussing much.  Citing centuries old conflicts to justify modern day violence is simply wrong.  The Crusades are over.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I wasn't trivialising, actually. A lot of the Islamic extremism evident today is a long term result of the fundamentalist Christian behaviour of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries which, amongst other things, killed a lot of the moderate Muslims in the M.E.

 

That's like the poor use of antibiotics in hospitals leading to MRSA, and you blaming the Golden Staff bacterium, rather than the hygiene policy of administrators.

If I even have the temerity to suggest that Islam exhibits more violent tendencies than other religions, folks are likely to call me prejudiced.  At least you didn't do that.  You do, however, cite foreign aid and edicts almost a thousand years old.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's not a predjudice if you are open to argument and liable to change your mind given sufficient evidence. That's an (hopefully) informed decision. Predjudice is when you make up your mind before the facts are known, and don't counternance any alternative interpretation. (Fundamentalist, if you will.)

Let's not pretend that we're lawyers trying to advocate our clients at all costs and argue in good faith.  I'm serious, dammit.  Why is it that we praise the imams who call for peace but we cannot accept that there is a sizeable minority calling for war?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Mixed messages.

 

The Arab nations are probably pretty peed off that they haven't been taken seriously in world politics ever. The French and British conveniently forgot all the promises they made in WW1, and

[Cantousent]

Okay, meta, apparently too much spice in my diet lately. You know how I am. I appreciate the response, though.

[Volourn]

1. Extremists using Islam (or any religion for that matter) to commit violent acts are scumbags.

 

2. Any religion that oks violence outside of self defense or defending families, and friends from violence is a scumbag religion.

 

That said, extremists of all rleigions - Islam, Christian, and so - tend to twist various verses in their respective religious texts to justify their lust for power, and their hatred for those whoa re different.

 

A good exmaple is going on now over these comics.

 

Step 1: Certain European newpapers (kinda irrelevant who) decides to print some arguably funny yet insulting pictures.

 

Step 2: Protests occur, and dissapproval occurs with many Muslims and others taking insult with the implication that their religion is being protrayed as violent.

 

Step 3: The aforementioned scumbags in Part 1 decide to use this oppurtunity to ransack, burn, and utter threats of murder including threats of an 'European 9/11'.

 

Step 4: An Iranian newspaper who i presume highly dissaproved of these mocking comics decide thet'll hold a contest to see who can mock the Holocaust in the funniest matter.

 

Step 5: I shake my head in disgust at the silliness and sadness of the needless deaths.

 

 

But, all is not lost. Many good Muslims can voice their displeasure without violence like all civilized folks should.

 

Just look at the Muslim Organizations in the US, or the West.

 

I think this is more about the ME gov'ts encouraging such displays to bash the West as to keep their citizens from pointing their fingers at those who are really threatening and mocking Islam - and, it's not some silly comic writer who has possibly bad tatse in place of humour.

Edited February 7, 2006 by Volourn

[julianw]

@Mothman

 

Though it's really not my place to defend Islam...

 

Islam is a religion that advocates peace is indicated by its name itself. S-L-M from which Islam and Muslim are derived means 'peace' and 'submission'.

 

As for references to Jihad or 'holy war', one must understand Islam was born in a harsh environment where fighting was common and essential to survival.

 

You are also taking those misinterpretated lines out of the context.

 

"Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God loveth not transgressors. And slay them wherever you catch them...If they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward for those who reject faith....And fight them on until there is no more persecution..."

 

"They ask thee concerning fighting in the Prohibited Month. Say: Fighting therein is a grave offense; but graver is it in the sight of God... to deny Him" and "But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them."

 

(As a Christian, you really can't argue against this since "whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or the age to come".)

 

In the early days of Islam, Muslims were being persecuted and slaugthered for their love of God. Even then, Muhammad chose exile at first. He decided to fight not because his life was threatened but that of those he love were threatened. He permitted killings not to save one's own lives but the lives of others. As Volourn pointed out, versed could be twisted to suit one's own cause; hence, Muhammad's own life stands as better instructions than words out of the mouths of 'scholoars'. He taught his followers to pray before, during and after every battle, not to harm any who surrender but send them to return to their homes instead, and eventually forgave the entire city of Mecca, his worst enemies.

[Blank]

If I may be blunt, just what the hell are Muslims supposed to gather from those verses? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Duh! they are supposed to read it figuratively Mothy!

 

but you have good points, it does appear that their holy book encourages certain "violent" actions.

 

Look at the fundamental lunatics in the US who kill doctors who have families, merely because their moral compass places this as a lesser evil than the many foetuses that he helped to abort. In particular I recall the guy who got the death penalty was convinced, as were all his like minded people, that he was on his way to sit on the right hand side of God.

Hmm, that "fundamental lunatic" was not very "fundamental" now was he? Let's take a look at the Holy Bible, which is what you refer to when you say "fundamental".

 

Exodus 20:13

"You shall not murder."

 

hmm, that one is a little vague, i mean, it only states something that can only mean one thing. so obviously it is not enough evidence to prove these people are acting against God's Word. (i am being facetious). this command is also specifically seen in Deuteronomy 5:17, and Jesus supports it in Matthew 19:19, Matthew 5:21,22. But the theme of "you shall not murder" is seen throughout the whole Bible.

 

Romans 2:1

"You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things."

 

It looks like that one man was passing judgment on someone else (namely, the doctor who killed fetuses), and so he took judgment into his own hands. wow, what an idiot. he judges someone by killing them because they killed someone. maybe he should practice what he preaches, and not kill people.

 

As for sitting at the right hand of God, I only see that place designated for Jesus in the Bible. And as for sitting beside Jesus, i only see Matthew 20:23

"Jesus said to them, 'You will indeed drink from my cup, but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared by my Father.'"

 

In lew of that, i can't imagine God placing someone who happily violates His commands at His right or even left.

 

My point: those people you refer to are not "fundamental" in the true sense of the word. They are, however, lunatics, as you so accurately stated, who probably have never studied the Bible.

[Dark Moth]

@Mothman

 

Though it's really not my place to defend Islam...

 

1.  Islam is a religion that advocates peace is indicated by its name itself. S-L-M from which Islam and Muslim are derived means 'peace' and 'submission'.

 

2.  As for references to Jihad or 'holy war', one must understand Islam was born in a harsh environment where fighting was common and essential to survival.

 

3.  You are also taking those misinterpretated lines out of the context.

 

"Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God loveth not transgressors. And slay them wherever you catch them...If they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward for those who reject faith....And fight them on until there is no more persecution..."

 

"They ask thee concerning fighting in the Prohibited Month. Say: Fighting therein is a grave offense; but graver is it in the sight of God... to deny Him" and "But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them."

 

4.  (As a Christian, you really can't argue against this since "whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or the age to come".)

 

5.  In the early days of Islam, Muslims were being persecuted and slaugthered for their love of God. Even then, Muhammad chose exile at first. He decided to fight not because his life was threatened but that of those he love were threatened. He permitted killings not to save one's own lives but the lives of others. As Volourn pointed out, versed could be twisted to suit one's own cause; hence, Muhammad's own life stands as better instructions than words out of the mouths of 'scholoars'. He taught his followers to pray before, during and after every battle, not to harm any who surrender but send them to return to their homes instead, and eventually forgave the entire city of Mecca, his worst enemies.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

1. It may interest you to note that in Islam, the world is divided into two parts: "Dar al Islam", House of Islam, and "Dar al Charb", House of war. Also, the submission part refers to god, not submission to other men.

 

2. I'd be a lot more sympathetic if religions such as Buddhism and Christianity managed to survive without waging wars. In Christianity's case, they faced even worse persecution but never waged any wars in order to survive. And I'm of course talking about during the time of the Roman Empire, not afterward.

 

3. Even in context, all the verses still mean as they are shown above. In fact, the one verse you sight still goes on to say "when the forbidden months are past, fight and slay the infidels wherever ye find them..."

 

4. Yes I can. Does it say "kill those who insult the Holy Spirit"?

 

5. Muhammad did not "choose" exile. He was forced into exile because of hostility toward him. And it wasn't without good reason. Muhammad had been causing disturbances in the city in his quest to convert others. Maybe you never heard about his attitudes toward his uncle, in which he became angry and even cursed his uncle and aunt when he refused to convert? His words, still preserved in the Quran, were "May the hands of Abu Lahab perish! May he himself perish! Nothing shall his wealth and gains avail him. He shall be burnt in a flaming fire, and his wife, laden with faggots, shall have a rope of fibre arounder her neck!" (Sura 111: 1-5)

Edited February 8, 2006 by Mothman

[julianw]

but you have good points, it does appear that their holy book encourages certain "violent" actions.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword." (Matthew 10:34)

 

It's all about the interpretation...

Edited February 8, 2006 by julianw

[Dark Moth]

but you have good points, it does appear that their holy book encourages certain "violent" actions.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword." (Matthew 10:34)

 

It's all about the interpretation...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

In that case, that is of course figurative. Jesus never killed anyone, nor encouraged violence. All his teachings go against physical force. In fact, he forbid his apostles from fighting in order to save him from the Romans. Also, even in that verse, it is not a command to kill, as the Quranic verses listed above. Lastly, those words were true in the sense that the coming of Christ didn't bring peace to the earth. Why? He knew there would be hard times ahead. Christians were persecuted, and the faith caused division amonst people, because many refused to accept it. Hope that makes sense.

[Blank]

Lastly, those words were true in the sense that the coming of Christ didn't bring peace to the earth.  Why?  He knew there would be hard times ahead.  Christians were persecuted, and the faith caused division amonst people, because many refused to accept it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

thanks mothman.

to prove what he says, here is the verse more in context:

It is in small font so as to not annoy people who don't want to read it. you can just copy+paste and it will be normal size (w00t)

Matthew 10:

22All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved.

 

23When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. I tell you the truth, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes.

 

24"A student is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master. 25It is enough for the student to be like his teacher, and the servant like his master. If the head of the house has been called Beelzebub, how much more the members of his household!

 

26"So do not be afraid of them. There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known. 27What I tell you in the dark, speak in the daylight; what is whispered in your ear, proclaim from the roofs.

 

28Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell. 29Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from the will of your Father. 30And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. 31So don't be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows.

 

32"Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven. 33But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven.

 

34"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35For I have come to turn

" 'a man against his father,

a daughter against her mother,

a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law

[julianw]

3.  Even in context, all the verses still mean as they are shown above.  In fact, the one verse you sight still goes on to say "when the forbidden months are past, fight and slay the infidels wherever ye find them..."

My point is that the line was intended for people at the time. People who were getting killed by the Pagans. Not religious students in the Middle East getting three meals every day.

 

4.  Yes I can.  Does it say "kill those who insult the Holy Spirit"? 

My point is that to fight the Holy Spirit is a worse sin than murder. If others are bent are the destruction of Christianity, would you choose to let your friend, family and everyone you love be murdered or fight for their lives?

 

5.  Muhammad did not "choose" exile.  He was forced into exile because of hostility toward him.  And it wasn't without good reason.  Muhammad had been causing disturbances in the city in his quest to convert others.  Maybe you never heard about his attitudes toward his uncle, in which he became angry and even cursed his uncle and aunt when he refused to convert?  His words, still preserved in the Quran, were "May the hands of Abu Lahab perish!  May he himself perish!  Nothing shall his wealth and gains avail him.  He shall be burnt in a flaming fire, and his wife, laden with faggots, shall have a rope of fibre arounder her neck!"  (Sura 111: 1-5)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Don't know him, so I did a quick search. You have sympathy for this idiot?

 

Once Abu Lahab asked the Prophet: "If I were to accept your religion, what would I get?" The Prophet replied: "You would get what the other believers would get." Abu Lahab responded: "Is there no preference or distinction for me?" In which the Prophet replied, "What else do you want?" Abu Lahab replied back: "May this religion perish in which I and all other people should be equal and alike!"

 

I sense serious prejudice from you about Muhammad. Let's pretend for a minute that his mission is true or that it's false but he believes it to be true. You would blame him for causing his persecutors mischief?

 

You claim that Christ suffered so much more than Muhammad, but is death and physical pain truly worse than pain in the spirit? Once Muhammad sought lodging in a village and the pagan children (innocent and sinless in Muhammad's eyes) threw stones at him and chased him out of the village. It was said that Muhammad, the warrior who would unite the Arabia Peninsula, broke down and wept for hours. Do you think he wished for all the persecution and suffering brought upon him? Could it be that he knew he must prevail because his message was true and it was his responsibility to elevate an entire nation of people to an advanced civilization, which he accomplished? For centuries, the Islamic empire stood at the peak of human civilization. Was Muhammad not worthy of praise at all from even Christians?

Edited February 8, 2006 by julianw

[Dark Moth]

Don't know him, so I did a quick search. You have sympathy for this idiot?

 

Once Abu Lahab asked the Prophet: "If I were to accept your religion, what would I get?" The Prophet replied: "You would get what the other believers would get." Abu Lahab responded: "Is there no preference or distinction for me?" In which the Prophet replied, "What else do you want?" Abu Lahab replied back: "May this religion perish in which I and all other people should be equal and alike!"

 

I sense serious prejudice from you about Muhammad. Let's pretend for a minute that his mission is true or that it's false but he believes it to be true. You would blame him for causing his persecutors mischief?

 

You claim that Christ suffered so much more than Muhammad, but is death and physical pain truly worse than pain in the spirit? Once Muhammad sought lodging in a village and the pagan children (innocent and sinless in Muhammad's eyes) threw stones at him and chased him out of the village. It was said that Muhammad, the warrior who would unite the Arabia Peninsula, broke down and wept for hours. Do you think he wished for all the prosecution and suffering brought upon him? Could it be that he knew he must prevail because his message was true and it was his responsibility to elevate an entire nation of people to an advanced civilization, which he accomplished? For centuries, the Islamic empire stood at the peak of human civilization. Was Muhammad not worthy of praise at all from even Christians?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I know a lot of idiots, too. Would that be okay for Muhammad to wish him torture, damnation, and his wife to be hanged?

 

You say Muhammad's suffering may have been greater than Jesus'? Jesus suffered the same spiritual anguish, as well as the torture and death Muhammad never had to endure.

 

You know about my attitude toward Muhammad already. My opinions are all based on fact. Muhammad killed. Muhammad murdered. Muhammad defied his own faith. Muhammad may have had sexual relations with a nine year old (whom he may have married when she was six). I dare you to tell me this is false. Here's another example of Muhammad, the great and forgiving man, in action:

 

After the battle of Badr, Uqba bin Abi Mu'ait, one of the Quraysh leaders, pleaded with Muhammad for his life. He pleaded for his life. "But who will look after my children, O Muhammad?"

"Hell," responded Muhammad, and ordered Uqba killed.

 

Also, Amr ibn Hisham, (also known as Abu Jahl, a name given to him by Muslims, meaning "father of ignorance), another Quraysh leader, was beheaded. The Muslim who cut off his head proudly carried it to Muhammad and said "I cut off his head and brought it to the apostle, saying, "this is the head of the enemy of God, Abu Jahl.'"

Muhammad was delighted, and said "By God than Whom there is no other, is it?", and gave thanks to Allah for his death.

 

This information comes from Ibn Ishaq's "The Life of Muhammad".

Edited February 8, 2006 by Mothman

[Nick_i_am]

But could he walk on water?

[metadigital]

As for references to Jihad or 'holy war', one must understand Islam was born in a harsh environment where fighting was common and essential to survival.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

(As a Christian, you really can't argue against this since "whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or the age to come".)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Here's a couple of quotes from the King James Bible:

...

6  If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;

7  namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth;

8  thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him:

9  but thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people.

10  And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.

11  And all Israel shall hear, and fear, and shall do no more any such wickedness as this is among you.

...

Deuteronomy 13

 

He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed.

Deut. 17.2-7

 

It's not like the Bible is a bastion of common decency.

[SteveThaiBinh]

I believe (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that Jesus said the greatest commandment was to love God, and the second was to love thy neighbour. It's not so hard to see that Christians consider this to overrule stoning adulteresses and so on.

 

Mohammed also preached tolerance and respect. Perhaps Muslims consider these commandments as overruling summary executions and wife-beating?

 

Mohammed was a warrior, and Jesus was not, that is true. But can you truly say that Christian Europe has been less violent over the course of its history than the Muslim world? If Islam were a violent religion inspired by a violent prophet, and Christianity a peaceful religion inspired by a peaceful prophet, you would expect a clear difference between them.