Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 9/30/06 05:09 PM, TheMason wrote: So I guess this means the OT that is created and inspired by Satan. Gee that would explain why Israel is so violent and wages terror campaigns of its own, and why we have seen a Christian history smeared with blood. Whereas much of Islam's history has been of tolerance in the region as well as political stability under the Ottomans.

AAK

Gee, Mason, that sounds kinda.....emotional.

At 9/30/06 05:15 PM, TheMason wrote: Funny the main Muslim problem with Christianity is that by declaring Jesus as divine; they are in fact committing a blasphamy against God. That while they respect JC as a great man and prophet, Christians have turned him into a false god AND false prophet (an amazing 2 for 1 deal not even the Muslims can match!) This is why there was revelation to Muhammed, to fix our apostacy. : However, the Qur'an is tolerant/enlightened enough that it can still preach respect for Christians and Jews to practice their beliefs, whereas EUROPEAN Christianity has preached a more convert or die message...

The Quran preaches violence and second class status for Christians:

9: 28:
Believers who ascribe partners to God are truly unclean; do not let them come to the sacred mosque after this year.

29:
Fight those people of the book who do not truly believe in God and in the last day, who do not forbid what God and his Messenger have forbidden, who do not obey the rule of justice until they pay the jiyza and submit.

Other passages:
IV.89: They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.
IX. 5-6: Kill those who join other gods with God wherever you may find them.
IV.76: Those who believe fight in the cause of God.
IV.74: Let those who fight in the cause of God who barter the life of this world for that which is to come; for whoever fights on God's path, whether he is killed or triumphs, We will give him a handsome reward.
VIII.39-42: Say to the Infidels: if they desist from their unbelief, what is now past shall be forgiven; but if they return to it, they have already before them the doom of the ancients! Fight then against them till strife be at an end, and the religion be all of it God's.
SURA 4.56: (As for) those who disbelieve in Our communications, We shall make them enter fire; so oft as their skins are thoroughly burned, We will change them for other skins, that they may taste the chastisement; surely Allah is Mighty, Wise.
5.51: O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.
4.144: O you who believe! do not take the unbelievers for friends rather than the believers; do you desire that you should give to Allah a manifest proof against yourselves?
9.23: O you who believe! do not take your fathers and your brothers for guardians if they love unbelief more than belief; and whoever of you takes them for a guardian, these it is that are the unjust.
9.5: So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

Sorry, but there's nothing to say that Islam "respects Christians and Jews". The closest it comes is sura 109:
Say, 'Disbelievers: I do not worship what you worship, you do not worship what I worship, I will never worship what you worship, you will never worship what I worship. You have your religion and I have mine.'

But compared to the hundred of passages encouraging violence against non-believers and specifically against Christians and Jews, yea, no, the Qur'an is far from "tolerant". And you're just saying that becuase you're a relativist.

It takes a big man to admit he's wrong....how big are you?

At 10/1/06 05:26 AM, WolvenBear wrote: No the goal of the first crusade was to drive the Muslim out of the holy land. The Pope's speech spoke of the violent campaign against Christians by the Persians, the Turks, The Sarceans, and the infidels. All of those are muslims. It focused Christians against Muslims only and some Christians decided to attack Jews.

The treatment of Christian Pilgrims in the holy land and the problems the Byzantine Empire had with the Turks were used as an excuse to achieve a greater goal: to stop Christians from warring among each other and to focus their might against the infidels. Urban may have eventually condemned the Pogroms in Germany, but his speech was a call for violence against non-Christians so it shouldn't have been a surprise that non-Christians besides Muslims were slaughtered. The abbot of Cluny asked why Christians should travel to "the ends of the world to fight the Sar[a]cens, when we permit among us other infidels a thousand times more guilty toward Christ than the Mohammedans?” And that's just in Europe itself, Jews were systematically massacred or expelled in the Levant as well. This is more than just a few misguided souls, there were many influential clerics who supported this and Urban's speech gave perfect vindication.

While I'm not sure what that quote comes from,

Yeah, I stated the source in the post under it. Again: here it is.

Lots of people have called themselves Christian, and have claimed devine inspiration for whatever savage acts they commit. The same can be said of Islam. HOWEVER, this is how the two differ. "Christian terrorists" don't quote the Bible. They can find no justification in the acts they have wrought in Christ's teachings. Muslims have no trouble finding justification in the Qur'an. When Falwell, Phelps or Robertson speaks up (and the worst they ever do is hurt someone's feelings), they are immediately condemned by Christians.

Jesus has always condemned any form of violence, that's true. "Put your sword back into its sheath, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword."(Matthew 26:52), and "turn the other cheek" when struck (Matthew 5:38-42). Even retaliatory violence is an abomination in his book. However, this not make for a very feasible way of life in the real world. When the WTC collapsed, a true Christian President would have said: "Bin Laden, we are deeply saddened by your attack, but we love you as our enemy and pray for your soul, for you do not know", rather than bomb the living crap out of Afghanistan and oust the ones deemed to collaborate with the culprits. Yet there are few modern Christians who deplore all violence, even violence used when fighting what they perceive as evil.

That's where the difference comes in, Islam does condone violence, but only against those who fight Islam and certainly not against those who are innocent. A certainty is that they are forbidden by the scriptures to aggress. However, this makes it easier for terrorists to justify acts of war since the word "retaliatory" is hard to define, a radical would say that American involvement in the Middle East is an act of aggression which therefore justifies a holy war while a moderate would say that they're also allied with Islamic peoples and that they fight their enemies for other reasons than religion.

What Muslims must do is deplore terrorism and correctly identify those who attack without a proper reason and those who slay the innocent as transgressors: it's not the fault of the scriptures but the fault of the ones who fail to interpret them correctly. Christianity's true teachings are impractical in a turbulent world and Islam tries to be more sustainable, and although that makes violence easier to justify followers of both religions have historically been known to commit deplorable acts.

Muslims monsters commit violence and one has to search high and low for a single "moderate" to give a non-condemnation condemnation, such as "I wish he hadn't done that, because it makes us look bad."

You don't look hard enough, then.

At 10/1/06 06:12 AM, WolvenBear wrote: Fight those people of the book who do not truly believe in God and in the last day, who do not forbid what God and his Messenger have forbidden, who do not obey the rule of justice until they pay the jiyza and submit.

What does this have to do with Christians? You must have missed Sura 2:62, although I wasn't expecting an unbiased commentary: "Surely, those who believe, those who are Jewish, the Christians, and the converts; anyone who (1) believes in GOD, and (2) believes in the Last Day, and (3) leads a righteous life, will receive their recompense from their Lord. They have nothing to fear, nor will they grieve." Christians believe in God, they believe in the Last Day and they don't violate the most grievous crimes that Muhammad had forbidden, so don't fight them - for they are believers. And for the record, I'd like to point out once again that this fighting must be retaliatory under Sura 2:190: "God does not love the Aggressors."

IX. 5-6: Kill those who join other gods with God wherever you may find them.

If they refuse to make peace. Here's the passage preceding it:9:4 - If the unbelievers/idol worshipers sign a peace treaty with you, and do not violate it, nor band together with others against you, you shall fulfill your treaty with them until the expiration date. GOD loves the righteous.

5.51: O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.

As you can read in 5:57, that applies to the ones who mock and ridicule Islam. That's why many modern translations insert the word "certain" instead of the word "the" that appears before "Jews" and "Christians", to avoid people naming one excerpt to avoid the context. If I only mention Matthew 10:34 without the proper context I could even make Jesus look violent.

9.5: So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

You like this passage so much that you mention it twice?

Sorry, but there's nothing to say that Islam "respects Christians and Jews". The closest it comes is sura 109:
Say, 'Disbelievers: I do not worship what you worship, you do not worship what I worship, I will never worship what you worship, you will never worship what I worship. You have your religion and I have mine.'

Oh please, try Sura 60:6-9, from both a modern and a traditional translation:

60:8-9 - "GOD does not enjoin you from befriending those who do not fight you because of religion, and do not evict you from your homes. You may befriend them and be equitable towards them. GOD loves the equitable. GOD enjoins you only from befriending those who fight you because of religion, evict you from your homes, and band together with others to banish you. You shall not befriend them. Those who befriend them are the transgressors."

Traditional 60:8-9 - "God doth not forbid you to deal with kindness and fairness toward those who have not made war upon you on account of your religion, or driven you forth from your homes: for God loveth those who act with fairness. Only doth God forbid you to make friends of those who, on account of your religion, have warred against you, and have driven you forth from your homes, and have aided those who drove you forth: and whoever maketh friends of them are wrong-doers."

Is jlwelch a troll, or is he just fucking nuts?

Answers on the back of a self-addressed postcard please.

'cause there arn't any suicide bombers that are christian, especially not in Northern Irland.

At 10/1/06 05:26 AM, WolvenBear wrote:

At 9/30/06 01:43 PM, seventy-one wrote: Well, I highly doubt that they're reliable for such news.

Again, because they have formed an opinion doesn't make them less reliable. People who just say "side a said this....side b says this", are unreliable AND useless. And many people claim Islam is peaceful everyday...oh wait, THEY'VE FORMED AN OPINION.

A) Why couldn't the topic starter have just posted verses that lead to his own opinion, instead of having to go through hate sites. B) If that weren't the case, and he was discussing the article, why couldn't he have gotten it from a more reputable news source, so there isn't doubt that this report exists.

The likelihood of that happening is pretty damned good. The Pentagon exists to discover threats to the USA. It has definately studied Islam, and as anyone who's not determined to paint Islam as peaceful despite all the fact, it would say "Islam is violent."

Yes, but isn't it odd that only that anti-Islamic site gets their hands on this so called report?

And it should be a debate on whether or not Islam is violent.

It could have been a debate about growing anti-Islamic prejudice in the U.S. Or about the government's policies toward Islam. It could have been any number things, but another straight up Islam-violence debate thread is redundant. There's been so many of them on this forum- of which the topic starter has even debated in.

Hell, the title of the thread IS "Suicide bombers follow Qur'an." What'd you expect? A discussion what cookies Santa likes best?

Well, I thought it would be yet another Islam-violence debate thread, but then he links to a story from an anti-Islamic site which may or may not be true, and then then just accepts it as fact. So in fact, the topic was about this specific report- but the problem is, in all likelyhood the article was made up- so therefore, it all just turns back into yet another Islam-violence debate thread.

At 10/1/06 03:07 PM, seventy-one wrote:

At 10/1/06 05:26 AM, WolvenBear wrote:

At 9/30/06 01:43 PM, seventy-one wrote: Well, I highly doubt that they're reliable for such news.

veryday...oh wait, THEY'VE FORMED AN OPINION.

A) Why couldn't the topic starter have just posted verses that lead to his own opinion, instead of having to go through hate sites. B) If that weren't the case, and he was discussing the article, why couldn't he have gotten it from a more reputable news source, so there isn't doubt that this report exists.

Well, I thought it would be yet another Islam-violence debate thread, but then he links to a story from an anti-Islamic site which may or may not be true, and then then just accepts it as fact. So in fact, the topic was about this specific report- but the problem is, in all likelyhood the article was made up- so therefore, it all just turns back into yet another Islam-violence debate thread.

That was my original thought, And somehow this went off coarse,The site though my guy , is not a anti-Islam site, It is essentially a newspaper, with many topics it just happens, that Many of the current world events deal with the Islamic people. Because like it or not there creating the most shocking atrocities, And violent acts in the current world. And do it in the name of GOD with the help of the Quran. I know you are an intelligent person, And are able to use the Quran the way GOD would intend it to be interpreted, The problem lies with the growing number of people who use it to justify personal wicked actions, I am currently trying to understand the whys? and hows? of there actions... buddy..

This is the same shit I've been telling people for about 3 years now. Nobody believes it. Everybody wants to think that religion can't possibly be making people act violent. The truth is that, while Islam is particularly bad about it, religion in general is the largest cause of violence throughout the entire world, and throughout all of history. Ever since the first prehistoric man claimed that a "higher power" had created all existence, people have been killing each other because they don't believe in the same "higher power". As much good as the various religions of the world may or may not do, their mere presence creates too much bad to make the good worth it. There's my two cents. There's another couple of cents in my blog if you care to read it.

At 10/2/06 12:41 AM, troubles1 wrote:
That was my original thought, And somehow this went off coarse,The site though my guy , is not a anti-Islam site,

I disagree, maybe its just all those anti-Islamic ads, or selective 'stories' that threw me off.

It is essentially a newspaper, with many topics it just happens, that Many of the current world events deal with the Islamic people.

Half of those "articles" are ads themselves. And, another third are articles that just happen to coincide with their POV (anti-Liberal and anti-Islamic) and they link out to those news sources. But then the other third, such as the one you linked have no author, and no credibility to them.

At 10/1/06 07:15 AM, lapis wrote: stuff about Crusades.

While it is true that there were bad things happening in the communities that provided soldiers for the crusades, it's not realistic for the Pope to call for neighbors to put a stop to each other's actions, especially not in those days. Should he have condemned it? Of course. But on the same token, (on a modern note), lots of nasty stuff happens in the United States every day. Neighbors kill neighbors...child porn, etc. But does the President step in and take care of person verses person disputes? Of course not. He deals more with national and international matters. So too with the Pope.

And the speech by the Pope was NOT a call for violence against non-Christians. It was a call for violence against Muslims. Pure and simple. The Pope outlined a laundry list of "offenses" that the Muslim had committed against the pilgrims, and then called for retalitory actions to protect the pilgrims. And all the calls for violence were against the Muslim. That there was violence against Jews and others is not surprising as they hired mercenaries, who have no loyalty but money.

Yet there are few modern Christians who deplore all violence, even violence used when fighting what they perceive as evil.

Yet there is a huge anti-war movement that at least calls themselves Christian and seems to abhor all retalitory action. Whether or not the call of Jesus is realistic or not is irrelevant. One CANNOT claim that Christ encouraged violence, as he himself submitted to a very painful horrible death, as did later most of his apostles.

That's where the difference comes in, Islam does condone violence, but only against those who fight Islam and certainly not against those who are innocent. A certainty is that they are forbidden by the scriptures to aggress. However, this makes it easier for terrorists to justify acts of war since the word "retaliatory" is hard to define, a radical would say that American involvement in the Middle East is an act of aggression which therefore justifies a holy war while a moderate would say that they're also allied with Islamic peoples and that they fight their enemies for other reasons than religion.

The Qur'an also says that it is unacceptable for any to mock Islam. It says that it is not permitted for outsiders to criticize Islam or the prophet. Yet "Allah overlooks the sins of the believer". Plus, given the call for the "3 options": conversion, jiyza, or death, it's even hard to say with a straight face that there's nothing in the Qur'an, about killing innocents, or if it even makes such a distinction.

You don't look hard enough, then.

Yeah, feel free to show me a Muslim defending the pope on his comments, or condemning the massive violence that followed. It's gonna be a hard look to find even one.

At 10/1/06 07:16 AM, lapis wrote: What does this have to do with Christians? You must have missed Sura 2:62, although I wasn't expecting an unbiased commentary: "Surely, those who believe, those who are Jewish, the Christians, and the converts; anyone who (1) believes in GOD, and (2) believes in the Last Day, and (3) leads a righteous life, will receive their recompense from their Lord. They have nothing to fear, nor will they grieve." Christians believe in God, they believe in the Last Day and they don't violate the most grievous crimes that Muhammad had forbidden, so don't fight them - for they are believers. And for the record, I'd like to point out once again that this fighting must be retaliatory under Sura 2:190: "God does not love the Aggressors."

Christians and Jews are the People of the Book. Plain and simple. So to ask what a passage concerning the "People of the Book" has to do with them is silly.

From a muslim friendly site:
http://www.pbs.org/e..lam/faithpeople.html

And if we're going to quote Sura 2:190:
Fight in God's cause against those who fight you. , but do not overstep the limits: God does not love those who overstep the limits. 191 Kill them wherever you encounter them, and drive them out from where they drove you out, for persecution is more serious than killing. Do not fight them at the sacred mosque unless they fight you there. If they do fight you, then kill them-this is what such disbelievers deserve- 192 but if they stop, then God is most forgiving and merciful.193 Fight them until there is no more persecution, and worshi is devoted to God.

Considering that the Qur'an loosely defines "aggression" as to include mockery and slander", this claim is also impossible to keep.

If they refuse to make peace. Here's the passage preceding it:9:4 - If the unbelievers/idol worshipers sign a peace treaty with you, and do not violate it, nor band together with others against you, you shall fulfill your treaty with them until the expiration date. GOD loves the righteous.

But as it later goes on to say in 9:37 that even denying the four holy months is an act of disobedience, which would, in effect, break the treaty.

As you can read in 5:57, that applies to the ones who mock and ridicule Islam. That's why many modern translations insert the word "certain" instead of the word "the" that appears before "Jews" and "Christians", to avoid people naming one excerpt to avoid the context. If I only mention Matthew 10:34 without the proper context I could even make Jesus look violent.

No, it applies to ALL Christians and Jews.
9:28 Believers who ascrice partners to God are truly unclean;
And in 30-35, it FURTHER confirms why all Jews and Christians are wronged.

You like this passage so much that you mention it twice?

My bad. Really, I'm too lazy to try and hold open my copy, read and type at once, so if I can find it online, I do that. I probably looked for a verse, saw this one under it and re copied and pasted. My apologies.

Oh please, try Sura 60:6-9, from both a modern and a traditional translation:

60:8-9

Ah sura 60. Which instructs (I'm shortening because I'm just too damned lazy two type three pages of stuff, and don't have room to boot) believers to not take as allies those who are Allah's enemies, including (in verse 1) "those who have rejected the truth he has revealed to you". It later goes on to show the believers what to do if "women believers come to you" including a basic nullification of their marriage with their "non-believer husbands.

At 10/2/06 02:47 AM, WolvenBear wrote: While it is true that there were bad things happening in the communities that provided soldiers for the crusades, it's not realistic for the Pope to call for neighbors to put a stop to each other's actions, especially not in those days. Should he have condemned it? Of course. But on the same token, (on a modern note), lots of nasty stuff happens in the United States every day. Neighbors kill neighbors...child porn, etc. But does the President step in and take care of person verses person disputes? Of course not. He deals more with national and international matters. So too with the Pope.

I don't think a case of two neighbours killing each other quite compares to the 12,000 Jews in the Rhine Valley who were slain by a Crusader army. The claim that Urban called to fight non-Christians instead of just Muslims comes from the paper I've linked to several times in this thread and this excerpt in particular: "All versions of Urban's speech in Clermont note that the pope urged Christians to fight righteous wars against non-Christians instead of being engaged in iniquitous and fratricidal combats among themselves", where the author in turn cites an article by D. C. Munro, a contibutor of The American Historical Review. Urban didn't specifically call for the "first Holocaust" and I'm sure he regretted the exact wording of his speech later on, but his speech did justified the massacres and numerous monks and abbots, people who spent their lives studying the Bible, fully supported taking revenge on the Jews for "murdering Christ".

The first website I'm linking to is a Christian apology site and I'm not trying to talk modern Christians into a sense of guilt over the Crusades, but what I'm trying to get across is

1) The Crusades were more than a simple response to Muslim aggression. Turkish violence and raids against pilgrims helped create the atmosphere needed for justifying the Crusades, but in the end they were used as a pretext for a greater goal: uniting the Christians against common enemies instead of letting them waste their lives fighting each other. Relations between the Byzantines and the Western Christians were frail, especially after the East/West schism and although the Crusades eventually resulted in Constantinople being sacked by Crusaders, Urban could also have intended to regain some dominance over the lost sheep in the East. But I honestly don't believe that Urban would have cared about the Muslims if they couldn't be used for the sake of uniting the Western Christians or spreading influence in the East.

2) Even though Christ's message was more peaceful than the message of Muhammad, history shows that it didn't even have that much of a differentiating effect on the behaviour of the followers of the religious movements they founded. Only in recent centuries, after the Age of Reason and the Enlightenment has Christian intolerance waned, and even though the situation in the Middle East has steeply deteriorated in recent years I believe that when the Middle East stabilises Muslim tolerance will decline as well.

That there was violence against Jews and others is not surprising as they hired mercenaries, who have no loyalty but money.

I believe the bulk of the merged armies in the First Crusade was made up of peasants.

One CANNOT claim that Christ encouraged violence, as he himself submitted to a very painful horrible death, as did later most of his apostles.

And I never did. I'll be first to admit that the Qur'an supports some violence while Jesus loathed the concept in its entirety, but I believe that the violence endorsed by the Qur'an is mostly justified. Not all violence is bad by default, only unwarranted violence.

Yet "Allah overlooks the sins of the believer".

If the believer repents, that is (Sura 11:3).

Plus, given the call for the "3 options": conversion, jiyza, or death, it's even hard to say with a straight face that there's nothing in the Qur'an, about killing innocents, or if it even makes such a distinction.

Again, these "options" only apply to those who have fought Islam. Sura 5:32-33 are widely considered to prohibit the killing of innocents. Here they are, from the traditional translation:

"For this cause have we ordained to the children of Israel that he who slayeth any one, unless it be a person guilty of manslaughter, or of spreading disorders in the land, shall be as though he had slain all mankind; but that he who saveth a life, shall be as though he had saved all mankind alive. Of old our Apostles came to them with the proofs of their mission; then verily after this most of them committed excesses in the land. Only, the recompense of those who war against God and his Apostle, and go about to commit disorders on the earth, shall be that they shall be slain or crucified, or have their alternate hands and feet cut off, or be banished the land: This their disgrace in this world, and in the next a great torment shall be theirs".

Yeah, feel free to show me a Muslim defending the pope on his comments, or condemning the massive violence that followed. It's gonna be a hard look to find even one.

First of all: "We [Muslims] do not need to defend every maniacal incident emanating from the Muslim world or the Muslim community, just as other religious groups need not defend their extremists". But if you want to see someone condemn the murder of the Italian nun, go here.

At 10/2/06 03:13 AM, WolvenBear wrote: Christians and Jews are the People of the Book. Plain and simple. So to ask what a passage concerning the "People of the Book" has to do with them is silly.

Right, but what does this have to do with Christians in general? You were giving an example of a "second class status for Christians" and then give a quote legalising violence, retaliatory violence, against who do not "truly" believe in the oneness of God, the Last Day and who do not uphold the core commandments of the Abrahamic faiths. It basically says: you're not forced to show restraint against those who call themselves Christians or Jews while not honestly following their religions.

Part of founding a religious movement is describing why people should follow your movement instead of others. That's why the Qur'an mentions the shortcomings of Christianity at points: Christians equate a man, Jesus, with God, which is a sin. But not a mortal sin, since Christians go to Heaven as pointed out in 2:62. That's why your quote does not refer to Christians in general but only to a certain subgroup of Christians and I'm therefore justified in asking what it has to do with Christians in general, although I considered the last two word redundant. If they weren't, sorry.

And if we're going to quote Sura 2:190:
Fight in God's cause against those who fight you. , but do not overstep the limits: God does not love those who overstep the limits.

Exactly, fight in God's cause against those who fight you. And even the traditional 1876 translation doesn't use the phrase "overstep the limits". Sura 2:190:

"And fight for the cause of God against those who fight against you: but commit not the injustice of attacking them first: God loveth not such injustice".

Considering that the Qur'an loosely defines "aggression" as to include mockery and slander", this claim is also impossible to keep.

Mockery is a reason for God to prohibit a Muslim from making friends with the jester, not for Him to endorse slaying him.

But as it later goes on to say in 9:37 that even denying the four holy months is an act of disobedience, which would, in effect, break the treaty.

It is a sin, not a legitimate reason to break a treaty. And 9:36 once backs up the point about retaliatory violence: "Twelve months is the number of months with God, 15 according to God's book, since the day when He created the Heavens and the Earth: of these four are sacred: this is the right usage: But wrong not yourselves therein; attack those who join gods with God in all, as they attack you in all: and know that God is with those who fear Him."

Attack them, as they attack you. They don't use violence, you don't use violence. The standard modern translation uses: "you may declare all-out war against the idol worshipers (even during the Sacred Months), when they declare all-out war against you, and know that GOD is on the side of the righteous. "

No, it applies to ALL Christians and Jews.
9:28 Believers who ascrice partners to God are truly unclean;

Therefore they may not enter a mosque. But you may befriend them, otherwise 60:8-9 would make no sense at all. Sura 9:28, full thing (traditional, I'm going to stop linking due to redundancy):

"O Believers! only they who join gods with God are unclean! Let them not, therefore, after this their year, come near the sacred Temple. And if ye fear want, 9 God, if He please, will enrich you of His abundance: for God is Knowing, Wise."

And in 30-35, it FURTHER confirms why all Jews and Christians are wronged.

They're wronged, equating prophets with God is a sin, but not a mortal one. And I don't read anywhere in those passages that a Muslim can't befriend the other followers of the book, I only read that he condemns the sin or does battle with it like he does battle with every sin.

Ah sura 60. Which instructs (I'm shortening because I'm just too damned lazy two type three pages of stuff, and don't have room to boot) believers to not take as allies those who are Allah's enemies, including (in verse 1) "those who have rejected the truth he has revealed to you".

And what God exactly meant by "rejecting" is then elaborated upon in the subsequent verses. Rejecting Muslims as being real believers, fighting them, driving them for their homes.

It later goes on to show the believers what to do if "women believers come to you" including a basic nullification of their marriage with their "non-believer husbands.

Meh, Haredim and Orthodox Jews also reject intermarriage, strictly following Devarim/Deut. 7:1-3. And this verse applies if the Muslim woman flees to the Muslims while having been married to a disbeliever elsewhere.

lapis, I dont even know why you bother. WolvenBear still think Coulter ever has anything worth saying so you can know how he thinks just from that.

And he claims he has read the Quran. I doubt it. You dont read another faiths holy book just to look for inconsistencies. Thats why there is the internet, so these bigots can justify their hatred and violence by doing the same thing the terrorists do, twisting passages out of context to suit their own purposes and ignoring the totality of Islam and the Quran, which overwhelmingly proves a religion of peace. You cant just read 2 passages that encourage violence and then forget the 10 that dont. That is fucking stupid.

At 10/1/06 05:54 AM, WolvenBear wrote: Those who would be terrorists profit off the backs of their less fortunate neighbors.

Bin Laden already had money, you retard. If this was some pyramid scheme to make these guys rich, why is Bin Laden living in a cave and why has Saudia Arabia kicked him out of their country?

This is all about their perception of reality. If you are to dense to realize that, tough. This has nothing to do with money. It is analogous at best to the Conquistadors and their zeal to spread the Word in the New World.

There were many countries in the ME that CELEBRATED the 9/11 attacks, including Iraq and Iran.

4000 people chanting some shit you see on TV is representative for a nation of millions.

OH, and btw, they've been attacking us for a long time.

If you mean since the 80's with years between attacks, yeah, thats a long time.

There is truth and there is falsehood.

Politics isnt science.

At 9/30/06 10:30 PM, jlwelch wrote:

At 9/30/06 05:15 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 9/30/06 05:05 PM, jlwelch wrote:

At 9/30/06 04:49 PM, Abyss wrote:

At 9/30/06 03:28 PM, jlwelch wrote:

Funny the main Muslim problem with Christianity is that by declaring Jesus as divine; they are in fact committing a blasphamy against God. That while they respect JC as a great man and prophet, Christians have turned him into a false god AND false prophet (an amazing 2 for 1 deal not even the Muslims can match!)

That is a TERRIBLE LIE SIR!!!
Jesus is the Son of God! The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit make up the ONE TRUE GOD! Furthermore, Jesus is our Savior, for no one speaks to the Father except through Christ!

Friend I would suggest you re-read what I said. I was explaining a tenant of Muslim doctrine. They do not accept Jesus as God made flesh. They believe that for so lowly a creature as man to claim this is a blasphamy. And if you truly believe that God does not speak directly with His creation I feel sorry for you, for you are trying to put a limitation on God.

This is why there was revelation to Muhammed, to fix our apostacy. However, the Qur'an is tolerant/enlightened enough that it can still preach respect for Christians and Jews to practice their beliefs, whereas EUROPEAN Christianity has preached a more convert or die message...

The "tolerance" of the Muslims is no longer true today. Satan has corrupted their minds over time so that now they are even more misguided than before! Hence, suicide bombings and acts of evil that are so frequently perported by the followers of Muhammed. Durk Durk ALLAH DURKA DURKA!!!!!

I hope you don't think you're repeating actual Arabic...but who knows?

I know many Muslims who are tolerant, in fact I have yet to meet an intolerant Muslim while I have had vast experience with intolerance from Christians. I think there is the same amount of Satan's involvement in American Protestantism than in Islam.

AAK

At 10/1/06 05:54 AM, WolvenBear wrote:

At 9/30/06 05:01 PM, TheMason wrote: But if you read the Qur'an there is nothing in there that supports the view that suicide bombing is legitimate. I do not know where these analysts got this information.

"Consensus" can be wrong. And it's far more than "one person" who thinks that.

As a military foreign affairs analyst I have yet to hear about this alleged report. Nor have I seen any sign of consensus about a Qur'anic basis for suicide bombing. Nor have I heard any other person in such a position who supports that conclusion. Being that my focus is this region, I would think I would have heard about this through more official channels than Newgrounds' BBS! (Sorry to burst your bubble!) Quite simply this would be a small minority opinion, that may be more than one person who agrees with the idea, but less than ten.

Brief overview

For space I deleted your argument. I will simply offer up a few points that negate the entire focus of your history lesson.

3. Even if (for whatever reason), these Periods of bloodshed were supported by the Bible, we rejected them and have moved on. The Muslims have not. They still live in Dark ages mentality.\

Yep...the Holocaust and the mishandling of the Ottoman Empire in the 19th and 20th Centuries are FAR in our past...

WolvenBear,

How sad. That poor bin Ladin guy...oh wait he's rich. Those poor Saudi royals...oh wait they're rich too! Well that poor Ahmen....damn rich again! Saddam? Rich. Eday, Ubay and Ebay? All rich. The blind shiek? Rich. Jeez, I'm starting to see a pattern. The reality is simple. And tragic. Those who would be terrorists profit off the backs of their less fortunate neighbors. Saddam plundered the countryside, murdered his citizens and attacked his neighbors. He became wealthy. And his is the common story.

A few things, the blind Shiek and bin Ladin (and I guess by Ahmen you mean the President of Iran?) fit the category of Islamic extremists. However the Husseins, the Saudi royal family, and Arafat are not Islamic extemists. In fact bin Laden believed that Saddam should have been overthrown, the difference is he believed that it should be accomplished by a "pure" Muslim army not the American infidels.

However, you do not disprove my point, there is massive unemployment in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, (shall I go on? I see you didn't attack the issue of the predicament of the Palestinians...)

The fallacies with your argument are even simpler. 75% of Iranians neither want sanctions or war with the US. There were many countries in the ME that CELEBRATED the 9/11 attacks, including Iraq and Iran.

I'm sorry but with my background (military and academic) I believe I have superior exposure to information on the ground in the ME...

Yawn. By at least killing enemy soldiers instead of your own civilians. These people aren't fighting for freedom.

No, not all are fighting for freedom this is true. However, in the case of Palestinians and Israel they are. I suggest you read more about modern history in the ME. In the 1920s and 30s many Muslim intellectuals where coming to the US to learn about our democracy and take our institutions back there. Unfortunately WWII and our support of Israel without care of justification on a cultural basis has destroyed our esteem in the region.

OH, and btw, they've been attacking us for a long time.

There is truth and there is falsehood. If you base your arguments on the latter, well, then your arguments have no basis in reality. For example, there is plenty in the Qur'an to support suicide missions. (The taking of one's live is prohibited, dying in battle is glorified).

The falsehood is your own. The Qur'an defines strict limits on "Just War" (a doctrine that took Christianity centuries to define), while the Bible does not. There are strict prohibitions on killing innocents (women, children and noncombatants and those unable to fight) especially Christians or Jews. And as you said the taking of one's life is prohibited. But you make a nonexistant connection to support your belief (a falsehood). You betray your ignorance. I suggest you buy a translation of the Qur'an and read it.

...If you're going to make an argument so easy to refute as ...don't question someone else's "forensic skills".

This is my point you loose credibility when you make definitive statements like the ones above. You betray your immense arrogance, and force me to show some of my own.

AAK

Yea, sorry I took so long to respond. I wanted time to check and double check my stuff. Sorry for the delay. And due to an error, I deleted my original responses...so this will be much shorter, and to the point.

At 10/2/06 05:36 AM, lapis wrote: I don't think a case of two neighbours killing each other quite compares to the 12,000 Jews in the Rhine Valley who were slain by a Crusader army. The claim that Urban called to fight non-Christians instead of just Muslims comes from the paper I've linked to several times in this thread and this excerpt in particular: "All versions of Urban's speech in Clermont note that the pope urged Christians to fight righteous wars against non-Christians instead of being engaged in iniquitous and fratricidal combats among themselves", where the author in turn cites an article by D. C. Munro, a contibutor of The American Historical Review. Urban didn't specifically call for the "first Holocaust" and I'm sure he regretted the exact wording of his speech later on, but his speech did justified the massacres and numerous monks and abbots, people who spent their lives studying the Bible, fully supported taking revenge on the Jews for "murdering Christ".

Well, while the page you linked to is interesting. It is simply unsupported by the facts.
http://www.fordham.e..ce/urban2-5vers.html

Even the Idiot's Guide to the crusade, which is pretty condescending and mocking towards Christianity, says the painfully obvious: The Pope called for a response to the Persian aggression, and demanded response by the Christians against the Persians, Turks, Sarceans and infidels. The closest he gets to "non-Christians is pagans...which aren't Jews, btw.
And as for the tragic incidence of the Jews being murdered, I would like to point out that some of the Crusaders slaughtered the Byzantine Christians...those they were sent to help. The pope must've slid that one in under the radar too, or the Crusaders must've done what they wanted...and ignored the Pope.

1) The Crusades were more than a simple response to Muslim aggression. Turkish violence and raids against pilgrims helped create the atmosphere needed for justifying the Crusades, but in the end they were used as a pretext for a greater goal: uniting the Christians against common enemies instead of letting them waste their lives fighting each other. ... But I honestly don't believe that Urban would have cared about the Muslims if they couldn't be used for the sake of uniting the Western Christians or spreading influence in the East.

Stop killing each other and fight the enemies of the state...yea, I brought that up last post. You kinda said it was irrelevant and talked about the slaughter of the Jews. And considering some of Urbans flock were also falling victim, he had a vested interest.

2) Even though Christ's message was more peaceful than the message of Muhammad, history shows that it didn't even have that much of a differentiating effect on the behaviour of the followers of the religious movements they founded.

Actually, the histories are quite different. Early Christians were persecuted and killed. Early Muslims persecuted and killed. Many of our "dark spots" are quite simply, the splitting of one from the faith and trying to establish themselves as dominant through the powerful church.

And I never did. I'll be first to admit that the Qur'an supports some violence while Jesus loathed the concept in its entirety, but I believe that the violence endorsed by the Qur'an is mostly justified. Not all violence is bad by default, only unwarranted violence.

I'll agree that not all violence is bad, and if it wasn't for the 9th sura and one or two others, I don't think Islam would be so bad. But when violence is ok in response to attacks, and an attack can be as loosely defined as even insulting Islam...we've got a problem.

If the believer repents, that is (Sura 11:3).

11:2-3 deals with the believer repenting their disbelief and coming back to God. Yet I cannot remember the scripture which I speak of. I cannot prove my case, so I will drop it. Since I cannot prove myself I will retract it.

Again, these "options" only apply to those who have fought Islam. Sura 5:32-33 are widely considered to prohibit the killing of innocents. Here they are, from the traditional translation:
"For this cause have we ordained to the children of Israel that he who slayeth any one, unless it be a person guilty of manslaughter, or of spreading disorders in the land, shall be as though he had slain all mankind; but that he who saveth a life, shall be as though he had saved all mankind alive. Of old our Apostles came to them with the proofs of their mission; then verily after this most of them committed excesses in the land. Only, the recompense of those who war against God and his Apostle, and go about to commit disorders on the earth, shall be that they shall be slain or crucified, or have their alternate hands and feet cut off, or be banished the land: This their disgrace in this world, and in the next a great torment shall be theirs".

In my copy of the Qur'an (translated by M.A.S. Abdel Haleem) it adds "spreading corruption in he land" after manslaughter. And this is a story with a decree to the People of Israel.

First of all: "We [Muslims] do not need to defend every maniacal incident emanating from the Muslim world or the Muslim community, just as other religious groups need not defend their extremists". But if you want to see someone condemn the murder of the Italian nun, go here.

Yea, and under MANY interpretations of Islam, the 9/11 attacks were unwarrented. So the condemnation of the attacks (one of which I'd heard before) are not surprising. The condemnation of the shooting of the nun has no text to it. It says they "condemned it in the strongest terms", but hell I've seen that about Hamas over the bombings in Israel...then when one reads the speech it's anything but condemnation. More like typical politician double speak. And there was even some of that one of the 9/11 condemnations.
I lost count of how many times Falwell and Robertson have been condemned. And they're just buffoons. Violence is committed in the name of Allah...where is the massive outcry? Silence.
And I don't feel the need to defend every "Christian" affront. But at the same time, it's beyond misleading to suggest Pope Pius called for the death of Jews.

At 10/2/06 05:42 AM, lapis wrote: Right, but what does this have to do with Christians in general? You were giving an example of a "second class status for Christians" and then give a quote legalising violence, retaliatory violence, against who do not "truly" believe in the oneness of God, the Last Day and who do not uphold the core commandments of the Abrahamic faiths. It basically says: you're not forced to show restraint against those who call themselves Christians or Jews while not honestly following their religions.

It calls for the People of the Book...who are Christians and Jews.
Those who ascribe partners to God are truely unclean (9:28-33), which talks about how the People of the Book do NOT follow the word of God.

Part of founding a religious movement is describing why people should follow your movement instead of others. That's why the Qur'an mentions the shortcomings of Christianity at points: Christians equate a man, Jesus, with God, which is a sin. But not a mortal sin, since Christians go to Heaven as pointed out in 2:62. That's why your quote does not refer to Christians in general but only to a certain subgroup of Christians and I'm therefore justified in asking what it has to do with Christians in general, although I considered the last two word redundant. If they weren't, sorry.

It is proceded by the uncleanness of Christians and Jews. Orders the believers to fight those of the Book, then goes back to slamming those other faiths. To me this sounds like a direct command to attack Christians and Jews. Perhaps your translation varies greatly from mine.

Mockery is a reason for God to prohibit a Muslim from making friends with the jester, not for Him to endorse slaying him.

Yea, not buying it. Ignoring the 4 holy months is a break of treaty. Those who break treaty are to be attacked. Similarily, those who mock Islam are breaking treaty.

It is a sin, not a legitimate reason to break a treaty. And 9:36 once backs up the point about retaliatory violence:

Fight those People of the Book who do not truly believe in God, and the last day, and do not forbid what God and his messanger have forbidden.
If they don't recognize the Holy months, they are not recognizing what God and the messanger have forbidden...therefore they must be fought. Until they pay the jiyza and submit.

Therefore they may not enter a mosque. But you may befriend them, otherwise 60:8-9 would make no sense at all. Sura 9:28, full thing (traditional, I'm going to stop linking due to redundancy):

Again with sura 60. The same one that counsils believeres not to befriend those who have rejected the truth and drove you out. The same sura that says to take in the "believing woman reject their previous marriages.

And what God exactly meant by "rejecting" is then elaborated upon in the subsequent verses. Rejecting Muslims as being real believers, fighting them, driving them for their homes.

Jesus was driven out of several places without violence. Being driven out doesn't neccessarily mean violence.

Meh, Haredim and Orthodox Jews also reject intermarriage, strictly following Devarim/Deut. 7:1-3. And this verse applies if the Muslim woman flees to the Muslims while having been married to a disbeliever elsewhere.

But since Muslims are required to teach the truth to those who are ignorant, this verse can EASILY include any who accept the truth, thereby NOT only extending to those who ARE muslim, but those who are willing to convert.

At 10/2/06 02:33 PM, FAB0L0US wrote: lapis, I dont even know why you bother. WolvenBear still think Coulter ever has anything worth saying so you can know how he thinks just from that.

OH MY GOD I READ COULTER! You really have nothing beyong that do you? You certainly never have anything even remotely intelligent to offer when you challenge me to debate something and I accept.

And he claims he has read the Quran. I doubt it. You dont read another faiths holy book just to look for inconsistencies. Thats why there is the internet, so these bigots can justify their hatred and violence by doing the same thing the terrorists do, twisting passages out of context to suit their own purposes and ignoring the totality of Islam and the Quran, which overwhelmingly proves a religion of peace. You cant just read 2 passages that encourage violence and then forget the 10 that dont. That is fucking stupid.

Yawn, I addressed this. I looked into the Muslim faith as a potential faith and until the Mohammid cartoon riots, all of my posts on this very board rabidly defend Islam. After the riots I relooked at it. But hell, you never really like to consider anything that doesn't comply with your world view do you? And since you've never read the Qur'an, shut up about it.

Bin Laden already had money, you retard. If this was some pyramid scheme to make these guys rich, why is Bin Laden living in a cave and why has Saudia Arabia kicked him out of their country?

Hmm, he's hiding in a cave cause he doesn't want to be found, and Saudi Arabia doesn't want our wrath? A thought.

This is all about their perception of reality. If you are to dense to realize that, tough. This has nothing to do with money. It is analogous at best to the Conquistadors and their zeal to spread the Word in the New World.

Did I say it had anything to do with money? NO. But the claim was: these people do this because they're poor. Bin Ladin is rich, therefore, theory falls apart. Are you too stupid to read right? Or do you just read and see what you want?

4000 people chanting some shit you see on TV is representative for a nation of millions.

If 10% of Islam is violent (as apologists claim) that's 160 million.

If you mean since the 80's with years between attacks, yeah, thats a long time.

If I mean the year long holding of our hostages in Iran, the Iranian sponsored PLO bombings, the stupidly Reagan financed kidnapping of MORE hostages to get MORE money (shit, I slammed a conservative...again...which might hurt your perception of me as a partisan...oh wait you only read what you want, so my status is safe), and the dozens of attacks during Clinton then yea, I mean a few spaced over years.

Politics isnt science.

It doesn't have to be. There's still truth and there is falsehood. This isn't first grade. Not everybody's right even if they say 6+6=179.

At 10/2/06 08:49 PM, TheMason wrote: Yep...the Holocaust and the mishandling of the Ottoman Empire in the 19th and 20th Centuries are FAR in our past...

Sorry, chuckles. The holocaust was not a christian endevour. Hitler was a militant darwinist, and the religion of Germany was Nazism. Hence why Christians were sersecuted as well. There's not a single thing Hitler did that was Christian.

A few things, the blind Shiek and bin Ladin (and I guess by Ahmen you mean the President of Iran?) fit the category of Islamic extremists. However the Husseins, the Saudi royal family, and Arafat are not Islamic extemists. In fact bin Laden believed that Saddam should have been overthrown, the difference is he believed that it should be accomplished by a "pure" Muslim army not the American infidels.

Hmm, yes. Bin Ladin DID offer his services to the Saudis to remove Hussein from power, during the fight with Iran. However, in one of his reasons for attacking America, he used the subjugation of Iraq as numbah 2. And Saddam was a hell of a lot more Muslim than Hitler was Christian.

However, you do not disprove my point, there is massive unemployment in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, (shall I go on? I see you didn't attack the issue of the predicament of the Palestinians...)

The prediciment of the Palestinians is due to their support of the PLO and Hamas. By putting their backings behind terrorist organizations, they are doomed to poverty. YET, somehow, the militant and terrorist actions of the Palestinians have not once been condemned by the UN, and many major states, INCLUDING Israel fund them. Boo hoo.
Almost all leaders of terrorism are rich. That they prey on the poor and downtrodded (that they themselves have created) is not beyond my notice.

I'm sorry but with my background (military and academic) I believe I have superior exposure to information on the ground in the ME...

OK then. Give me the real numbers. Otherwise I couldn't care less whether you are in the military or not.

No, not all are fighting for freedom this is true. However, in the case of Palestinians and Israel they are. I suggest you read more about modern history in the ME. In the 1920s and 30s many Muslim intellectuals where coming to the US to learn about our democracy and take our institutions back there. Unfortunately WWII and our support of Israel without care of justification on a cultural basis has destroyed our esteem in the region.

You mean how there WAS no Palestine before Israel? How not a single country in the middle east supported a free and independant Palestine before Israel's OFFICIAL creation. Jews have always been in the middle east, and have almost always controlled Jerusalem. That we give them a tiny strip of land is hardly an indictment against them. Indeed, Israel has made generous concessions, and we still demonize them. And still the arab nations attack them. The PLO's old flag is quite instructive...there is no Israel...only Palestine.

The falsehood is your own. The Qur'an defines strict limits on "Just War" (a doctrine that took Christianity centuries to define), while the Bible does not. There are strict prohibitions on killing innocents (women, children and noncombatants and those unable to fight) especially Christians or Jews. And as you said the taking of one's life is prohibited. But you make a nonexistant connection to support your belief (a falsehood). You betray your ignorance. I suggest you buy a translation of the Qur'an and read it.

I have bought three copies over my lifetime. I seriously considered Islam as a religion for a long time. And until the Mohammid cartoons I was one of those fools, like yourself, sitting there saying "OK, sure every Muslim country is violent, and sure the Qur'an has a COUPLE violent passages, but that doesn't mean anything." And as for innocents, there are plenty of passages that can EASILY be used to justify killing innocents. Sorry bud, but if the reseident Muslim (Iapis) is saying the Qur'an encourages violence (justified or not), your opinion means crap. Especially seeing as how you said it's identical to the New Testiment, which DOESN'T advocate violence.

This is my point you loose credibility when you make definitive statements like the ones above. You betray your immense arrogance, and force me to show some of my own.

AAK

Yea, you say there's no difference between the NT and the Qur'an, which even the resident Muslim says is wrong. I have respect for Military men, but you don't have a credible basis to criticize, well, anyone. And since you made the idiotic statement that the Qur'an (which benign or not) promotes violence), and the New Testiment (which says violence isn't even ok to save your own life) are identical, pardon me if your criticism doesn't mean a whole heck of a lot.

At 10/11/06 01:08 AM, WolvenBear wrote: Well, while the page you linked to is interesting. It is simply unsupported by the facts.
http://www.fordham.e..ce/urban2-5vers.html

Good. This bit from that website (second excerpt) perfectly reinforces my argument: "Let therefore hatred depart from among you, let your quarrels end, let wars cease, and let all dissensions and controversies slumber". A little further we read: "This royal city, therefore, situated at the centre of the world, is now held captive by His enemies, and is in subjection to those who do not know God, to the worship of the heathens". If the Muslims, who accept Jesus as one of their prophets, already qualify as pagans (first bit) and heathens (second bit), then what does that say about the Jews who rejected and killed him, according to medieval clerics?

The fourth excerpt makes a distinction between Jews and Gentiles, whose concourse was polluting Jerusalem, but also makes a clear distinction between Jews and Christians. When the Antichrist, bringer of evil, arrives the Jews will not oppose him. When Urban explains why the land is still holy the mentions the Jewish ownership of Jerusalem just after Jesus had been crucified. If it was holy when they held it, then the land is still holy even when held by Gentiles. The Jews weren’t mentioned as being even a little bit better than the Gentiles, the only difference is that the current transgressions of the Muslims are mentioned as warranting the crusades. The only Jews still sacred were the prophets of yore, but the only good is found among the adherents of Christ as long as they don’t become like Sodom and Gomorrah.

But I found this bit from the third account particularly interesting: "It is our duty to pray, yours to fight against the Amalekites. With Moses, we shall extend unwearied hands in prayer to Heaven, while you go forth and brandish the sword, like dauntless warriors, against Amalek." He quoted the Old Testament, which he shouldn't have since the Old Covenant was rendered obsolete with the coming of Christ, and equated the Muslims with the Amalekites. And what did God tell the Jews to do with the Amalekites? To destroy the seed of Amalek. Rambam later noted that the Amalekites should first be requested to follow the Noachide Laws but since the Muslims already followed these laws this was a call for genocide or at least a convert or die campaign and pretty much oversteps the boundaries of a rightful response to Muslim aggression.

Even the Idiot's Guide to the crusade, which is pretty condescending and mocking towards Christianity, says the painfully obvious: The Pope called for a response to the Persian aggression, and demanded response by the Christians against the Persians, Turks, Sarceans and infidels.

When Hitler seized absolute power he did it as a response to Marius van der Lubbe torching the Reichstag. The only thing that's painfully obvious however is that the arson per se wasn't the direct cause but that it was used as a pretext to achieve ulterior goals. I think a somewhat similar line of reasoning applies here.

The closest he gets to "non-Christians is pagans...which aren't Jews, btw.

If Muslims were pagans then so were Jews. They turned away from the light when they killed Jesus according to many Medieval clergymen and they were often the target of blood libels. The Abbot of Cluny was far from the only one who called the Jews the culprits of crimes against Christ.

And as for the tragic incidence of the Jews being murdered, I would like to point out that some of the Crusaders slaughtered the Byzantine Christians...those they were sent to help. The pope must've slid that one in under the radar too, or the Crusaders must've done what they wanted...and ignored the Pope.

That was hardly systematic and long after the death of Urban. The only reason why the sacking of Constantinople in the Fourth Crusade was worth mentioning was because of the irony. By then the Eastern Christians were already accused of haveing betrayed the Crusaders and a lot of geopolitics was involved on the account of the Venetians. Besides, while a Jew could easily qualify as a heathen according to Medieval Christians this reasoning does not apply to Eastern Christians. This act in the Thirteenth Century directly violated what Urban had called for, while the First Holocaust did not.

Stop killing each other and fight the enemies of the state...yea, I brought that up last post. You kinda said it was irrelevant and talked about the slaughter of the Jews. And considering some of Urbans flock were also falling victim, he had a vested interest.

I talked about the slaughter of the Jews because you tried to mitigate the crimes against them by equating 12,000 corpses to a "person versus person dispute". And what "enemies of the state", there was no state. There was a religion and the Crusaders were called to fight the enemies of that religion. The pagans, the heathens. The fact that Urban couldn’t control the actions of every single Crusader is irrelevant, what’s relevant is that his speech was easy to see as justification for those actions.

Actually, the histories are quite different. Early Christians were persecuted and killed. Early Muslims persecuted and killed. Many of our "dark spots" are quite simply, the splitting of one from the faith and trying to establish themselves as dominant through the powerful church.

Only focusing on the earliest histories is incredibly short sighted. After a few centuries of Christian friendliness followed a millennium of violence and Christian-instigated persecution of religious minorities. Explain why the Spanish Jews were purged after the Reconquista, explain why the Spanish Christians had to "establish themselves as dominant" when they already were.

I'll agree that not all violence is bad, and if it wasn't for the 9th sura and one or two others, I don't think Islam would be so bad. But when violence is ok in response to attacks, and an attack can be as loosely defined as even insulting Islam...we've got a problem.

There are many verses that are perfectly clear about unjust violence and the few violent verses can easily be placed into proper context.

In my copy of the Qur'an (translated by M.A.S. Abdel Haleem) it adds "spreading corruption in he land" after manslaughter. And this is a story with a decree to the People of Israel.

Although your translation is mentioned as one of the translations falling short by the Middle East Quarterly, noting that "Abdel-Haleem has incorporated his doctrinal bias into his translation", it all depends on what you consider "corruption". If a Christian or Jew spreads corruption simply by not following Muhammad then so does a Muslim who doesn't perfectly observe Ramadan and yet you won’t see a call for his death in the Qur'an.

It says they "condemned it in the strongest terms", but hell I've seen that about Hamas over the bombings in Israel

There is nothing more they can do than condemn, and they did it in the strongest terms. What the hell do you want them do? Mortify their flesh every time someone commits an atrocity they aren't personally responsible for? Do Christians apologise for the crimes of the "Lord's" Resistance Army simply because their leader uses biblical references? Your demands are absurd.

It calls for the People of the Book...who are Christians and Jews.
Those who ascribe partners to God are truely unclean (9:28-33), which talks about how the People of the Book do NOT follow the word of God.

They follow the word of God, but not all of his commandments. Please explain why Christians and Jews receive their recompense from the Lord if they're so terribly unclean.

It is proceded by the uncleanness of Christians and Jews. Orders the believers to fight those of the Book, then goes back to slamming those other faiths. To me this sounds like a direct command to attack Christians and Jews.

If you see that as a call for a violence then you want to see such a call. They are unclean and may therefore not enter the Masjid, but since even a Pope, the leader of the tainted, is allowed to enter a mosque this only refers to the Kaaba. Let's for simplicity assume that there are no varying degrees of cleanness and that Christians and pigs are equally unclean. What does the Muslim do with pigs? The pig is treated a little differently as the Muslim isn't allowed to eat it, but even though it's sullied it's not an evil that must therefore be wiped off the planet.

Yea, not buying it.

Entirely likewise. If in your warped view of Islam the act of ignoring the 4 sacred months constitutes a legitimate reason for violating a treaty then so be it, but it has no scriptural backing and it's not like there are actual Muslims who follow that belief, apart from a few fundamentalists perhaps. I don't observe the months and I have yet to find the Muslim who wants to slay me because of it. Name a recent instance where Muslims invaded a country solely because it didn't observe the 4 months and your belief might seem a little more usual instead of looking like the belief of one who deliberately twists passages out of context to feel better about his own religion.

Again with sura 60. The same one that counsils believeres not to befriend those who have rejected the truth and drove you out.

Those who drove the Muslims from their own houses are not be befriended. Oh my, Islam does not take kindly to purges! The horror, the horror. What a terribly violent religion.

Jesus was driven out of several places without violence. Being driven out doesn't neccessarily mean violence.

If you're being driven out and you refuse to leave then it will inevitably lead to violence. If you leave without fighting for your house, from your place of living, then you to some extent comply with the act. I'm not sure which specific events you're referring to, but Jesus was a wanderer. He wasn't kicked out of his house and if he had simply refused to leave those places then the other parties would have had to use force at some point, and force and violence are strongly concatenated.

But since Muslims are required to teach the truth to those who are ignorant, this verse can EASILY include any who accept the truth, thereby NOT only extending to those who ARE muslim, but those who are willing to convert.

If they're willing to convert then they have to abide by all the laws of Islam. I don't see how this makes the underlying message of the passage any more heinous.

At 10/11/06 02:31 AM, WolvenBear wrote:

At 10/2/06 08:49 PM, TheMason wrote:

Sorry, chuckles. The holocaust was not a christian endevour. Hitler was a militant darwinist, and the religion of Germany was Nazism. Hence why Christians were sersecuted as well. There's not a single thing Hitler did that was Christian.

Some could say that it was; there was propaganda leading up to the Holocaust depicting Jews as the killers of Christ. Plus Nazism waas not the religion of Germany, it was their ideology. Many Germans, to include guards at the Concentration camps were proclaimed Christians. My point is even Christians can commit atrocities.

Hmm, yes. Bin Ladin DID offer his services to the Saudis to remove Hussein from power, during the fight with Iran. However, in one of his reasons for attacking America, he used the subjugation of Iraq as numbah 2. And Saddam was a hell of a lot more Muslim than Hitler was Christian.

Again the issue was not purely relating to Hitler; but Germans in general. Also, bin Laden offered his services to the House of al-Saud during the invasion of Kuwait. During the war with Iran, UBL was in Afghanistan fighting the Soviets. Also, the "subjugation of Iraq" was not in support of Hussein. A deeper reading of his Fatwas and other writings indicates he wanted Hussein out of power, replaced with a more Taliban type of government.

The prediciment of the Palestinians is due to their support of the PLO and Hamas. By putting their backings behind terrorist organizations, they are doomed to poverty. YET, somehow, the militant and terrorist actions of the Palestinians have not once been condemned by the UN, and many major states, INCLUDING Israel fund them. Boo hoo.
Almost all leaders of terrorism are rich. That they prey on the poor and downtrodded (that they themselves have created) is not beyond my notice.

Really? So Muslim extremists moved the Palestinians into refugee camps in the late 1940s, displacing them so Israel could come into existance? Wow...that is some great revisionist and totally-disconnected-from-reality history! Also, it is the establishment of Royal families created from tribal warlords in support of European colonial contests that have created the problems of poverty in the ME; NOT modern extremists. Also the Western supported Fatah PLA leadership proved to be exceptionally corrupt. Their plight has been imporved by HAMAS leadership in the PLA due to more responsible governance. Where exactly do you get your news?

OK then. Give me the real numbers. Otherwise I couldn't care less whether you are in the military or not.

The point is suicide bombers are not Qur'anically based. Muslim extremists follow a standard bell curve and the religion is not more prone to extremist perversion than Christianity.

You mean how there WAS no Palestine before Israel? How not a single country in the middle east supported a free and independant Palestine before Israel's OFFICIAL creation. Jews have always been in the middle east, and have almost always controlled Jerusalem. That we give them a tiny strip of land is hardly an indictment against them. Indeed, Israel has made generous concessions, and we still demonize them. And still the arab nations attack them. The PLO's old flag is quite instructive...there is no Israel...only Palestine.

There was problems and protest; it was not heard due to the Colonial mentality of the European powers and the isolationism of the US. And Jews haven't almost always controlled Jerusalem. Control of Jerusalem, just since the rise of Islam in the region, was fought over by the Islamic empires and the European colonial powers. Again, where do you get your history?

I have bought three copies over my lifetime. I seriously considered Islam as a religion for a long time. And until the Mohammid cartoons I was one of those fools, like yourself, sitting there saying "OK, sure every Muslim country is violent, and sure the Qur'an has a COUPLE violent passages, but that doesn't mean anything." And as for innocents, there are plenty of passages that can EASILY be used to justify killing innocents. Sorry bud, but if the reseident Muslim (Iapis) is saying the Qur'an encourages violence (justified or not), your opinion means crap. Especially seeing as how you said it's identical to the New Testiment, which DOESN'T advocate violence.

I think maybe I misspoke; the NT does not advocate violence. However, there are people out there who do say it. I have heard people actually say that JC told his followers to arm themselves. Most of my comparisons come between the OT and the Qur'an. However, as a church the Christian tradition did not come up with the concept of Just War until several centuries after their founding. Meanwhile, the Qur'an did contain such a doctrine.

My main point is that most Christians look at the Muslim faith as fundamentally evil and violent based on doctrinal problems, which our own OT faith has. And yes the OT does advocate violence. Just think about the overarching theme of "We are the choosen people, and if the people living there do not accept our dominion we will go to war...

AAK

At 10/11/06 02:31 AM, WolvenBear wrote: Sorry, chuckles. The holocaust was not a christian endevour. Hitler was a militant darwinist, and the religion of Germany was Nazism. Hence why Christians were sersecuted as well. There's not a single thing Hitler did that was Christian.

Hitler’s personal beliefs aside, the only Christians he has a problem with was the Catholics. And that was only because German Catholics would put the Pope above the Führer.

Christianity, Hitler found, fit rather well into the Nazi idealism.

At 10/11/06 05:11 PM, TheMason wrote: I have heard people actually say that JC told his followers to arm themselves.

Luke 22:36 - He said to them, "But now one who has a money bag should take it, and likewise a sack, and one who does not have a sword should sell his cloak and buy one." He probably didn't want it to be taken literally (22:38, "it is enough", and 22:51), but when taken out of context it could be used to justify armament. Bleh. I don't want to get between the two of you but I could just as well specify what passage those people were talking about.

At 9/30/06 06:04 AM, Denta wrote:...

Everyday is a fight for survival...

etc.

No wonder that they'd go suicide bombing.

Well are you talking scuicide bombing our tanks or mini marts? because for the tank ordeal, an iraqi or whatever gives a little kid a toy tells him some lie and says just stand by that tank, and boom next thing you know you have 5 dead U.S. soldiers and you'd have never seen the killer anyways since its a big crowd.

The Quran also states equal rights for women.

Terrorist organizations just use the ignorance of arabs combined with false religious promises to get things done.

At 10/11/06 07:59 AM, lapis wrote: (edited for space) Stuff about the capture of the city...question about Muslim/Jewish Imagry.

However, Muslims, not Jews, were initiating violence against Christians. And while Muslims may have accepted Jesus as a prophet...I doubt the Church at the time knew that (I may be wrong on this count). Moreover, they were looking at their acts, and the practices at the time and proclaiming them pagan. Either way, while it may not say much for the jews, the common contention that the Pope called for their deaths is silly. That Byzantine Christians were also murdered shows that many Crusaders had little use for what the Pope wanted them to do.

Jew/Gentile vs Jew/Muslim distinctions

To harken back to one of your earlier arguments, it is the job of the religious leaders to proclaim why their religion is right and the others aren't. There's no doubt that there was a condescending attitude towards the Jews, but they tended to have it better in Europe under the Christians than under the Muslims.

Amalek references

Actually Christ's coming didn't invalidate the old Testiment, but instead fulfilled it, usually making the commands tougher than they were originally. And I won't dispute the who Amalek thing. The Pope called for the murder of the Muslims, no denying that.

When Hitler seized absolute power he did it as a response to Marius van der Lubbe torching the Reichstag. The only thing that's painfully obvious however is that the arson per se wasn't the direct cause but that it was used as a pretext to achieve ulterior goals. I think a somewhat similar line of reasoning applies here.

If the pretext is to get the Christians to stop fighting, then I agree. He wanted the infighting to stop. However, that far from invalidates the call to defend one's bretheren from foreign invaders.

If Muslims were pagans then so were Jews. They turned away from the light when they killed Jesus according to many Medieval clergymen and they were often the target of blood libels. The Abbot of Cluny was far from the only one who called the Jews the culprits of crimes against Christ.

Indeed. Jew/Christian relations weren't what they could be. But while there were those such as Little Peter, they were opposed along the way by Christian priests, some of which hid Jews in their churches. While there were hideous evil men who donned the cloak (and unfortunately in some cases were even cannonized by the church...such as Little Peter), there were also good honorable men who stodd up to defend the Jews, many of whom were hacked to death along with them.

That was hardly systematic and long after the death of Urban. The only reason why the sacking of Constantinople in the Fourth Crusade was worth mentioning was because of the irony. By then the Eastern Christians were already accused of haveing betrayed the Crusaders and a lot of geopolitics was involved on the account of the Venetians. Besides, while a Jew could easily qualify as a heathen according to Medieval Christians this reasoning does not apply to Eastern Christians. This act in the Thirteenth Century directly violated what Urban had called for, while the First Holocaust did not.

Actually the murder of Byzantine Christians happened during the first crusade, again by our beloved Little Peter. Since this attack was made by one of the same men who slaughtered Jews, it is not only insignificant, it sheds light on the blood thirsty greed that captured several Crusading leaders.

I talked about the slaughter of the Jews because you tried to mitigate the crimes against them by equating 12,000 corpses to a "person versus person dispute". And what "enemies of the state", there was no state. There was a religion and the Crusaders were called to fight the enemies of that religion. The pagans, the heathens. The fact that Urban couldn’t control the actions of every single Crusader is irrelevant, what’s relevant is that his speech was easy to see as justification for those actions.

No, I talked about the Crusades being called in part to end in-house squabbling. While there may not have been a state, the Church considered itself one, (and was moreover the best analogy I could come up with). and attacks on the Christian followers were seen much the same as America now sees warrentless attacks on their citizenry. The fact that Urban couldn't even control the very first Crusaders and stop them from committing attrocities against the Byzantines shows how limited his scope and control were. Little Peter and Walter attacked Christians in Belgrade (murdering 5000) and again at Nish (where 15000 of Peter's followers are killed). And at this point, the Crusade hasn't even really begun yet!

Only focusing on the earliest histories is incredibly short sighted. After a few centuries of Christian friendliness followed a millennium of violence and Christian-instigated persecution of religious minorities. Explain why the Spanish Jews were purged after the Reconquista, explain why the Spanish Christians had to "establish themselves as dominant" when they already were.

Why? It was a terrible attrocity. Why should I explain it? It's one of those lovely dark spots. However, the entirety of Islam has been one of violence. We have had periods of dark, and periods of light. Islam only has darkness.

There are many verses that are perfectly clear about unjust violence and the few violent verses can easily be placed into proper context.

Nonsense. Both Islam and Christianity have the same belief, that later revelations (for us Christ and for you the later Suras) can supplant the earlier ones. That the last sura declares that spreading corruption across the land is unacceptable and punishable by Jihad is full in its context. That those "believing women" can be taken from their husbands, impregnated, and then discarded (if one wishes) just because her husband is not a believer is full in it's context. That Christ said that "he who has anger in his heart has committed murder and is subject to the fires of hell" is completely different from "kill the unbelievers wherever you find them", even if it does say that even they repent God is forgiving.

At 10/16/06 02:29 PM, WolvenBear wrote:

At 10/11/06 07:59 AM, lapis wrote:

There's no doubt that there was a condescending attitude towards the Jews, but they tended to have it better in Europe under the Christians than under the Muslims.

How do you figure? Before the Holocaust there was the Inquisition where Jews were tortured and killed for "killing Jesus"? Not to mention the Passion Plays where emotions were stirred up against the Jews.

Contrast this to Caliph Ummar's removal of Jews from Mecca and Medina in the 8th Century. The Jews were compensated for their lands and given a timespan of years to leave the Muslim holy land; to move to lands set aside for them near modern day Israel. Yes they were forced to move, but compensated and given time to move rather than slaughtered!

The Jews were also appreciated under Ottoman/Caliphate rule since they allowed Muslims to utilize usury in trade without violating the Qur'an.

Muslim, Coptic Christian, and Jew lived together in a stable society more often than not. Most of the upheavals came from European interests (often disguised as religion such as in the Crusades) and colonial contests disrupting the region (such as the French/English/German induced destruction of the Ottoman Empire).

Hell even today you can see this natural stability in the ME. Tariq Aziz, Hussein's foreign minister was a Christian. The tolerance of Coptic Christianity in Egypt. 90% of Palestinians are willing to sign off on Israel's right to exist if they are given their own state, a reality HAMAS is caving into.

I'm sorry but history shows this statement that Jews had it better in Europe is patently false.

At 10/11/06 08:07 AM, lapis wrote: Although your translation is mentioned as one of the translations falling short by the Middle East Quarterly, noting that "Abdel-Haleem has incorporated his doctrinal bias into his translation", it all depends on what you consider "corruption". If a Christian or Jew spreads corruption simply by not following Muhammad then so does a Muslim who doesn't perfectly observe Ramadan and yet you won’t see a call for his death in the Qur'an.

OK, I'm a fair person. If my translation falls short, then suggest to me one that is more acceptable. If my copy has included extra biased verses to suggest Islam is more violent than it is, I'll spend another 10-15 bucks to get the more accurate translation.

And I'll wait for your response on what guide is best before I address this point, or any other one from the Qur'an.

There is nothing more they can do than condemn, and they did it in the strongest terms. What the hell do you want them do? Mortify their flesh every time someone commits an atrocity they aren't personally responsible for? Do Christians apologise for the crimes of the "Lord's" Resistance Army simply because their leader uses biblical references? Your demands are absurd.

My demands aren't absurd. I want to see the text of his speech. I'm not asking for you to move mountains here. I'm not asking for you to bring the dead back to life...just a simple transcript. After Clinton told the American people he shouldn't have lied about Monica...the papers posted that he was contrite about his affair, and apologized for everything, when this is not what he had done. When the leader of Hamas spoke and said that Israel (more or less) got what was coming to it and that the attacks were justified, the papers printed that he had "condemned in the strongest terms" the attacks. But he instead SUPPORTED them. Under all of that, I feel that asking for a transcript of his "condemnation" is reasonable.

At 10/11/06 05:11 PM, TheMason wrote: Some could say that it was; there was propaganda leading up to the Holocaust depicting Jews as the killers of Christ. Plus Nazism was not the religion of Germany, it was their ideology. Many Germans, to include guards at the Concentration camps were proclaimed Christians. My point is even Christians can commit atrocities.

Of course they can. As can Buddhists...I think. The point is that Hitler persecuted the Christians as well as everyone else. Hitler and country worship and socialism were the order of the day. That they jailed bishops and clergymen not only from the Catholic church, but from the protestants as well is a matter of historical fact.

PC nonsense

Um, hmmm, who was it who told the Palestinians to flee Israel? Oh, right, the Arabs. And there were no Palestinians in the 40s. There was Jordan, Sudan, etc, but no Palestine. Considering most of the royal families in the ME ARE extremists, I'm not sure what the point is. The PLA was corrupt, the PLO was corrupt. And if it weren't for Israel more or less running the show for Hamas, things wouldn't be any better. I had to laugh at someone talking about the Palestinians pre 40s calling me a revisionist.

The point is suicide bombers are not Qur'anically based. Muslim extremists follow a standard bell curve and the religion is not more prone to extremist perversion than Christianity.

That's not only silly, it's easily disprovable.
http://pewglobal.org..lay.php?ReportID=253

Quite frankly, the fact that you're insisting that there are no more Muslim terrorists than Christian ones should be cause for you to be laughed out of the discourse.

There was problems and protest; it was not heard due to the Colonial mentality of the European powers and the isolationism of the US. And Jews haven't almost always controlled Jerusalem. Control of Jerusalem, just since the rise of Islam in the region, was fought over by the Islamic empires and the European colonial powers. Again, where do you get your history?

Hmmm, well, you got me here. The Crusaders and Muslims did fight over Jerusalem...but wait, the Jews were there the whole time! Which is one of the standard talking points when people say Crusaders were evil...because they slaughtered Jews in the Holy land.

My main point is that most Christians look at the Muslim faith as fundamentally evil and violent based on doctrinal problems, which our own OT faith has. And yes the OT does advocate violence. Just think about the overarching theme of "We are the choosen people, and if the people living there do not accept our dominion we will go to war...

Nonsense, most Christians look at islam as a religion of peace. If they didn't I wouldn't be so heavily denounced (nor would others) when they suggested anything otherwise. The common prevaling view is that Islam is a religion no more or less violent than lets say...Buddhism (where it is murder to accidently step on a bug), and all these attrocities committed in it's name are weird abburations that every religion has.

You know, the view you yourself are telling me. And a view that I myself bought until the Muhammid cartoon riots. As all of my old posts show, I used to quote the Qur'an to defend it. "Sure it says to do this...but....."

At 10/16/06 02:56 PM, WolvenBear wrote:

At 10/11/06 05:11 PM, TheMason wrote:

Um, hmmm, who was it who told the Palestinians to flee Israel? Oh, right, the Arabs. And there were no Palestinians in the 40s. There was Jordan, Sudan, etc, but no Palestine. Considering most of the royal families in the ME ARE extremists, I'm not sure what the point is. The PLA was corrupt, the PLO was corrupt. And if it weren't for Israel more or less running the show for Hamas, things wouldn't be any better. I had to laugh at someone talking about the Palestinians pre 40s calling me a revisionist.

You are right that they were not a nationality per se; however the question becomes one of displacement. Pre-WWI there wasn't Jordan, Sudan, etc; there was the Ottoman Empire. However, post-WWI brought an unnatural division of tribes into artificial borders created by outside influences (UK and France mostly through secret treaties that were often contradictory.) So while you are correct that a Palestinian nation did not exist, there were people on the land who were displaced by outside powers.

The point is suicide bombers are not Qur'anically based. Muslim extremists follow a standard bell curve and the religion is not more prone to extremist perversion than Christianity.

That's not only silly, it's easily disprovable.
http://pewglobal.org..lay.php?ReportID=253

Quite frankly, the fact that you're insisting that there are no more Muslim terrorists than Christian ones should be cause for you to be laughed out of the discourse.

Okay Wolvenbear I think I know the problem here. On many points we agree but are talking past each other. I say extremist and you respond back terrorist. For me there are people who are terrorists in the ME but are not Muslim extremists. An example: Yassir Arafat was a nationalist and the terrorism of the PLO falls in this catagory.

So reading through the Pew study I don't place everyone in the ME who justifies terrorism against the US as religious extremists. Just because you are Muslim, live in the ME and think that suicide bombing is ok to use against Israel and the US does not mean this opinion is derived from religion (Jew, Christian or Muslim). So say 75% of people polled in Syria say Terrorism is okay; only 5% of that 75% may hold this view because a religious background. The majority may very well view it as the only way to effectively fight a technologically superior foe (which, in the past, more in-depth polling shows to be the case).

What I am saying is that there is about the same number of people who pervert Islam as there are people who pervert Christianity. I use the term Extremists to describe these individuals whether they are terrorists or just ideologues is beside the point. (Note that I am not making any suggestion of the number of Christian terrorists v. Islamic terrorists.)

My overarching point is that to simply claim that the violence in the ME is because of a violent religion called Islam is simplistic. It ignores historical truths and is counter-productive.

AAK