Print Page | Close Window

Will anyone defend Islam?

Printed From: IslamiCity.com
Category: Religion - Islam
Forum Name: Interfaith Dialogue
Forum Discription: It is for Interfaith dialogue, where Muslims discuss with non-Muslims. We encourge that dialogue takes place in a cordial atmosphere on various topics including religious tolerance.
URL: http://www.IslamiCity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=25164
Printed Date: 31 October 2014 at 1:44am


Topic: Will anyone defend Islam?
Posted By: Ron Webb
Subject: Will anyone defend Islam?
Date Posted: 13 April 2013 at 4:23pm
Islam teaches its followers to fight non-Muslims until they "convert, submit (pay tribute), or die". Islam also teaches its followers to be very flexible and to use open warfare only when Muslims are stronger than their enemies. When Muslims are weak, they should pretend to be peaceful and wait for right time to strike at the non-Muslims, but the goal (domination of Islam) always remains the same.

That's why any sane non-Muslim is an Islamophobe.
 
http://forums.carm.org/vbb/showthread.php?142678-Presbyterian-Church-Uses-Islamists-for-Interfaith-Study&p=4199001&viewfull=1#post4199001 - http://forums.carm.org/vbb/showthread.php?142678-Presbyterian-Church-Uses-Islamists-for-Interfaith-Study&p=4199001&viewfull=1#post4199001
 
I was about to write a reply to this, but frankly I'm getting tired of speaking up in defense of Islam, when I've almost never seen a Muslim do the same.  Oh sure, you'll take on all comers here, on Islamicity; but what about challenging stereotypes on non-Muslim forums, where it would do some good?
 
Is there anyone here willing to set this guy straight?


-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.



Replies:
Posted By: nospam001
Date Posted: 14 April 2013 at 4:00pm
Gidday Ron - where the bloody hell were you? Smile


Posted By: Rational
Date Posted: 15 April 2013 at 1:58pm
And be patient over what they say and avoid them with gracious avoidance. ( http://tanzil.net/#trans/en.sahih/73:10 - 10 )

-------------
الله


Posted By: nothing
Date Posted: 15 April 2013 at 7:29pm
I used to do that from forum to forum and from person to person, but they are so many. Along the way many able to see the logic I am presenting and change, and many stayed the same, and some even became more hostile. You know, anyone can change themselves at any given time without being directed to do so, it is the individual heart that sees it. There are some muslims that circling the black cube in Mecca with the heart that no way near it, they do it because other people do it, or just for show.

So I only say what's in it as I believe, but I ask for no reward for what I do. Heaven and hell is not my price, I have no interest whatsoever by it.

So as it is written in the Qur'an, if God so willed than everyone will believe. But than that Islam is not Islam if that made to happen. Life is beautiful only when there is a struggle to walk through, otherwise death is the best thing to have.

Anyway nice to know you still intact.
LOL


Posted By: abuayisha
Date Posted: 16 April 2013 at 8:21am
Originally posted by nothing

Life is beautiful only when there is a struggle to walk through, otherwise death is the best thing to have.
 


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 22 April 2013 at 6:52pm
Originally posted by Rational

And be patient over what they say and avoid them with gracious avoidance. ( http://tanzil.net/#trans/en.sahih/73:10 - 10 )
 
Originally posted by nothing

So as it is written in the Qur'an, if God so willed than everyone will believe.
 
And that's it?
 
So let me get this straight:
  • - Publishing a few silly cartoons of Muhammad provokes riots in the streets and deadly attacks on news organizations;
  • - Writing a fictional book that satirizes the story of Muhammad (among many other things) provokes death threats not only against its author but anyone involved in it publication or distribition;
  • - A laughably bad anti-Islamic film that no one could take seriously incites violent protests at a US embassy (which had nothing whatsoever to do with it!);

    but

  • - Real, actual hatred and/or sincere ignorance of Islam is posted every day on discussion boards around the world, and it goes totally unchallenged??

    Confused



  • -------------
    Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


    Posted By: nothing
    Date Posted: 23 April 2013 at 4:16pm
    Originally posted by Ron Webb

    Originally posted by Rational

    And be patient over what they say and avoid them with gracious avoidance. ( http://tanzil.net/#trans/en.sahih/73:10 - 10 )
     
    Originally posted by nothing

    So as it is written in the Qur'an, if God so willed than everyone will believe.
     
    And that's it?
     
    So let me get this straight:
  • - Publishing a few silly cartoons of Muhammad provokes riots in the streets and deadly attacks on news organizations;
  • - Writing a fictional book that satirizes the story of Muhammad (among many other things) provokes death threats not only against its author but anyone involved in it publication or distribition;
  • - A laughably bad anti-Islamic film that no one could take seriously incites violent protests at a US embassy (which had nothing whatsoever to do with it!);

    but

  • - Real, actual hatred and/or sincere ignorance of Islam is posted every day on discussion boards around the world, and it goes totally unchallenged??

    Confused

  • I am not a boxer that throw punch for every punch received. Beside there are people that can't live without attacking, they are confrontational kind which is best to be left alone. Only every now and then I replied if it is genuine and within my ability.

    There are lots of conversion that is mind boggling, nobody preached them yet they accepted Islam. In this YT clip are examples.
    But maybe it just me, I understand Islam differently. It takes time to absorb what we see. Tranquil environment is needed to scrutinize the data we received.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGoLIh4juvU - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGoLIh4juvU


    Posted By: honeto
    Date Posted: 30 April 2013 at 9:27am
    Ron,
    What goes behind closed doors we leave it to God. He knows and will deal with it. But if you see something and are able to do something about it in a positive manner you have done a good. And beside having good feeling and satisfaction of doing good by correcting someone, you will have an enormous reward one day.

    Hasan

    -------------
    39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"


    Posted By: Experiential
    Date Posted: 05 May 2013 at 12:36am

    Hello Ron

    I agree that the radical militants tend to get more notice than moderate peace loving Muslims. However for those militants like Al-Qaeda with their ideology of ‘jihad’ where do they get it from? They appear to be getting it from the Koran itself. The Koran does appear to be violent. It’s full of militancy. For example here are some verses. Admittedly some are in the context of defense – but violent all the same.

     

    “Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits, for Allah does not love transgressors”. 2:190

     “And slay them (the infidels) wherever you catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out, for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter”

     2:191

     

    “And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and Faith in Allah; but if they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression”. 2:193

     

    “Fighting is prescribed for you, and you dislike it. But it is possible that you dislike a thing which is good for you, and that you love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knows, and you know not” 2:216

     

    "Let those fight in the cause of Allah who sell the life of this world for the Hereafter. To him who fighteth in the cause of Allah, whether he is slain or gets victory soon shall we give him a reward of great (value)" 4:74

     

     “Seize them and slay them wherever you find them: and in any case take no friends or helpers from their ranks.” 4:89

     

    "Allah has granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit at home "4:95

     

    "Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of Allah, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly" 8:60

     

    "O Prophet! rouse the Believers to the fight. If there are twenty amongst you, patient and persevering, they will vanquish two hundred: if a hundred, they will vanquish a thousand of the Unbelievers: for these are a people without understanding" 8:65

     

    "Fight them and Allah will punish them by your hands, cover them with shame, help you to victory over them, and heal the breasts of the Believers"  9:14

     

    "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued"  9:29

     

    "Say: can you expect for us (and fate) other than one of two glorious things (martyrdom or victory)? But we can expect for you either that Allah will send his punishment (for not believing in Allah) from Himself, or by our hands. So wait (expectant); we too will wait with you" 9:52

     

     

     

    Also here is a quote from the famous Pakistani thinker and theologian Maulana Maududi

     

    “Islam wishes to destroy all states and governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and program of Islam regardless  of the country or the Nation which rules it. …

    Maulana Maududi, - Jihad in Islam, p.6, 7,22.

     

     

    Or another one from the Ayatollah Khomeini who is quoted by Amir Taheri as stating –

     

    “Islam make sit incumbent on all adult males provided they are not disabled and incapacitated to prepare themselves for the conquest of (other) countries so that the writ of Islam is obeyed in every country in the world.

    But those who study Islamic Holy war will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world … Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war Those (who say this a) are witless. Islam says kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you….

    Islam says what ever good there is exists due to the sword and the shadow of the sword. People cannot be made obedient without the sword. The sword is the key to paradise, which can be opened only for Holy warriors.

    There are hundreds of other (Koranic) psalms and Hadiths urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all that mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls wjo make such a claim.

    Holy Terror by Amir Taheri page 226 -227

     

    Also look at the Muslim concept of Dar al-Harb. Dar al-Harb (the abode of war) provides the contrast to Dar al-Islam. Dar al-Harb denotes territory that is not governed by Islam.

    While these terms are not found in the Koran or Hadith and confusion exists in the Islamic world as to their definition they have been interpreted in a violent context.

    Muslim radicals claim that warfare (jihad) can be invoked in order to convert the abode of war into the abode of Islam. For example.

     

    Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi was quoted in As Sarq al Awast of  July 19, 2003 as saying: 

    "It has been determined by Islamic law that the blood and property of people of Dar Al-Harb are not protected."

     

    Likewise, Sheikh Ali Gomaa said  in an interview published in July 2003 by the Egyptian newspaper Al-Haqiqa:

    "...it is permitted to kill him, because he is a Harbi and the Harbi spreads corruption throughout the face of the earth."

     

    Also in regards to the person you quoted saying –

    Islam also teaches its followers to be very flexible and to use open warfare only when Muslims are stronger than their enemies. When Muslims are weak, they should pretend to be peaceful and wait for right time to strike at the non-Muslims, but the goal (domination of Islam) always remains the same.

    Earlier verses written in Medina when the Muslim armies were weak are less militant than the later militant verses written in Mecca when Mohammad’s armies were strong.



    Posted By: W.S.
    Date Posted: 10 May 2013 at 2:19am
    Interesting that that no one has responded to Experimental's post.


    Posted By: NABA
    Date Posted: 13 May 2013 at 9:18am
    Experiential y don't U quote these verses such as Surah Al Maidah ch 5 v 32-if U save an innocent human being as if U have save the whole humanity,in Surah Al Tawbah which is the only verse that does not start with Bismillah Ar Rehman Ar Raheem,that chapter Allah says that if any polyathiest wants peace forgive him and guide to the place of safety,Allah is merciful to those who repent.this is mentioned in surah Al Tawbah ch 9 v 1-9.


    Posted By: Ron Webb
    Date Posted: 13 May 2013 at 4:12pm
    Originally posted by NABA

    Experiential y don't U quote these verses such as Surah Al Maidah ch 5 v 32-if U save an innocent human being as if U have save the whole humanity,in Surah Al Tawbah which is the only verse that does not start with Bismillah Ar Rehman Ar Raheem,that chapter Allah says that if any polyathiest wants peace forgive him and guide to the place of safety,Allah is merciful to those who repent.this is mentioned in surah Al Tawbah ch 9 v 1-9.
    Well, why don't you, NABA!  Oh, look at that -- you did! LOL
     
    Now, is anyone interested in responding to this guy? --
     
    Originally posted by http://forums.carm.org/vbb/showthread.php?142678-Presbyterian-Church-Uses-Islamists-for-Interfaith-Study&p=4301500&viewfull=1#post4301500 - Ronson

    ]All I can say is that if peaceful, ordinary Muslims would come out of hiding and actually condemn the jihadists who are attacking everything that moves, then maybe Christians wouldn't have to do it for them.



    -------------
    Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


    Posted By: Experiential
    Date Posted: 14 May 2013 at 12:10am
    Originally posted by NABA

    Experiential y don't U quote these verses such as Surah Al Maidah ch 5 v 32-if U save an innocent human being as if U have save the whole humanity,in Surah Al Tawbah which is the only verse that does not start with Bismillah Ar Rehman Ar Raheem,that chapter Allah says that if any polyathiest wants peace forgive him and guide to the place of safety,Allah is merciful to those who repent.this is mentioned in surah Al Tawbah ch 9 v 1-9.

    Yes and read on to the next verse in Surah Al Maidah ch 5 –

     

    It is but a just recompense for those who make war on God and His apostle,  and endeavor to spread corruption on earth, that they are being slain in great numbers, or crucified in great numbers, or have, in result of their perverseness, their hands and feet cut off in great numbers …

     

    Also have a good read of Surah Al Tawbah ch 9 v 1-9. Look at verse 9.5-

     

    But when the forbidden months are past then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them and seize them beleaguer them and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-Forgiving Most Merciful.

     

    Not very gracious or merciful ! And Muslims say there is no compulsion is Islam!



    Posted By: NABA
    Date Posted: 14 May 2013 at 9:26am
    first of All a person cannot b called a Muslim unless he is peaceful,so there is no question to quote peaceful Muslims.if a person calls himself a Muslim then automatically he is peaceful,because Muslim is a person who acquires peace by submitting will to Allah and follow Quran and sayings of prophet.a person does not need to have arabic/persian name to b a muslim.for eg take this verse Surah Al Fussilat ch 41 v 34-Allah says no doubt a bad deed cannot b equal to a good deed,b good to your enemy and then U will c that he had become ur best friend.jihad doesn't mean to fight or cause terror,jihad means to strive and struggle.a common man doing hard work to feed his family,this is jihad,a wife taking care of whole household,this is jihad.those people who call themselves jihadists and cause terror among innocent human beings are not Muslims,they are those who are buildings their place in the hell.


    Posted By: Ron Webb
    Date Posted: 14 May 2013 at 4:47pm

    Originally posted by NABA

    first of All a person cannot b called a Muslim unless he is peaceful,so there is no question to quote peaceful Muslims.if a person calls himself a Muslim then automatically he is peaceful,because Muslim is a person who acquires peace by submitting will to Allah and follow Quran and sayings of prophet.a person does not need to have arabic/persian name to b a muslim.for eg take this verse Surah Al Fussilat ch 41 v 34-Allah says no doubt a bad deed cannot b equal to a good deed,b good to your enemy and then U will c that he had become ur best friend.jihad doesn't mean to fight or cause terror,jihad means to strive and struggle.a common man doing hard work to feed his family,this is jihad,a wife taking care of whole household,this is jihad.those people who call themselves jihadists and cause terror among innocent human beings are not Muslims,they are those who are buildings their place in the hell.

    That's fine, NABA, but you need to tell that to people like Ronson, not to me.

    Do you think it would be jihad to defend Islam on the Internet, especially in places where it is being unfairly criticised and there is no one to give a true understanding of Islam?



    -------------
    Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


    Posted By: W.S.
    Date Posted: 15 May 2013 at 2:38am
    Originally posted by NABA

    first of All a person cannot b called a Muslim unless he is peaceful,so there is no question to quote peaceful Muslims..
    So the Prophet was not a Muslim? He was a military commander, after all.
    Originally posted by NABA

    if a person calls himself a Muslim then automatically he is peaceful,because Muslim is a person who acquires peace by submitting will to Allah and follow Quran and sayings of prophet.
    You're so naïve I can barely believe it! Then automatically he's peaceful? If he calls himself Muslim? I wish that some day you'll pull your head out of the sand and get to know the real world and real life.
    Originally posted by NABA

    a person does not need to have arabic/persian name to b a muslim.for eg take this verse Surah Al Fussilat ch 41 v 34-Allah says no doubt a bad deed cannot b equal to a good deed,b good to your enemy and then U will c that he had become ur best friend.
    You're doing the same thing here as you did in my thread, which is avoiding the issue, because you have no answer to it and/or because it's too uncomfortable for you. You write and quote positive things but you don't respond to the issue at hand. So, what about those verses that Experimental posted? In my opinion they should be omitted along with a few other verses that have no place in today's world.
    Originally posted by NABA

    jihad doesn't mean to fight or cause terror,jihad means to strive and struggle.a common man doing hard work to feed his family,this is jihad,a wife taking care of whole household,this is jihad.those people who call themselves jihadists and cause terror among innocent human beings are not Muslims,they are those who are buildings their place in the hell.
    Yes, they are! Saying that they are not Muslims is running away from your responsibility to condemn jihadists and their actions. It's especially important that believing and practicing Muslims, such as yourself, condemn these people - for the sake of both Muslims and non-Muslims.


    Posted By: NABA
    Date Posted: 15 May 2013 at 9:06am
    At Ron Webb,well I m not to judge whether it is jihad to defend Islam on internet or not because I m not a daee,especially for those who does not find time because of other priorities(I m a doctor),I don't certify this as jihad but whatever I can do to spread message of Allah to others,I will do it,I never imagined in my life that I will b doing dawaah(spreading message of Islam to others),thanks to Allah who gave me guidance,I m just 23 years old,maybe I might grow more stronger in the field of Dawaah in future.As rightly said Allah is the best planner(Surah Al Imran ch 3 v 54).previous post was for ronson only,I had some problem with my device I couldn't quote it.on the day of judgement In sha Allah i can say that i atleast tried spreading message of Islam to non Muslims.at experential looking at ur post it seems that U are a regular reader of Qur'an,so U also might b knowing that in several places Allah especially in ch 4 v 48 n 116,Allah says that he can forgive any sin except shirk(worshipping besides Allah).this verse defines the mercy of Allah,ch 28 v 84-if U do a good deed Allah will grant U a reward greater than its merit,if U do a bad deed,Allah either punish U equal to the severity of sin or forgives u if u repent and seek forgiveness.truly Allah is of most merciful and forgiving.


    Posted By: Rational
    Date Posted: 16 May 2013 at 1:35pm
    Assalamo Alaik NABA,

    You're only 23. I wish I knew half of what you know when I was you're age.

    Remember what Allah (subhanaho wa ta'ala) said in the Quran:

    Indeed, those who disbelieve - it is all the same for them whether you warn them or do not warn them - they will not believe. (6) Allah has set a seal upon their hearts and upon their hearing, and over their vision is a veil. And for them is a great punishment. (7) And of the people are some who say, "We believe in Allah and the Last Day," but they are not believers. (8) They [think to] deceive Allah and those who believe, but they deceive not except themselves and perceive [it] not. (9) In their hearts is disease, so Allah has increased their disease; and for them is a painful punishment because they [habitually] used to lie. (10) And when it is said to them, "Do not cause corruption on the earth," they say, "We are but reformers." (11) Unquestionably, it is they who are the corrupters, but they perceive [it] not. (12) And when it is said to them, "Believe as the people have believed," they say, "Should we believe as the foolish have believed?" Unquestionably, it is they who are the foolish, but they know [it] not. (13) And when they meet those who believe, they say, "We believe"; but when they are alone with their evil ones, they say, "Indeed, we are with you; we were only mockers." (14) [But] Allah mocks them and prolongs them in their transgression [while] they wander blindly. (15) Those are the ones who have purchased error [in exchange] for guidance, so their transaction has brought no profit, nor were they guided. (16) Their example is that of one who kindled a fire, but when it illuminated what was around him, Allah took away their light and left them in darkness [so] they could not see. (17) Deaf, dumb and blind - so they will not return [to the right path]. (18) Or [it is] like a rainstorm from the sky within which is darkness, thunder and lightning. They put their fingers in their ears against the thunderclaps in dread of death. But Allah is encompassing of the disbelievers. (19) The lightning almost snatches away their sight. Every time it lights [the way] for them, they walk therein; but when darkness comes over them, they stand [still]. And if Allah had willed, He could have taken away their hearing and their sight. Indeed, Allah is over all things competent. (20) O mankind, worship your Lord, who created you and those before you, that you may become righteous - (21)

    They say:
    "In my opinion they should be omitted along with a few other verses that have no place in today's world."

    You see NABA, they love how the world is today. It's all nice and dandy for them and they are very comfortable in it. They spend their entire life paying a mortgage and living in debt, slaves owned by the banks, witnessing war after war, wars that they themselves pay for, savaging and terrorising people all around in "today's world". The death and destruction that is a daily routine over and over. A "today's world" with a monetary system designed to abuse and reap everything they own. A society that sexualises everything, promotes fornication, porn, same sex marriage, materialism, violence, anti family, anti marriage, anti children... A "modern" world that advertises everything bad for them. A dysfunctional world... That's their world. And yet, they have the audacity to speak against the messenger (salla Allah alayhi wasallam). It's as Allah (subhanaho wa ta'ala) said, they are deaf, dumb and blind.

    This is the world they blindly defend... "today's world"! If only they knew how naïve they are.



    -------------
    الله


    Posted By: Rational
    Date Posted: 16 May 2013 at 2:05pm
    Originally posted by W.S.

    Yes, they are! Saying that they are not Muslims is running away from your responsibility to condemn jihadists and their actions. It's especially important that believing and practicing Muslims, such as yourself, condemn these people - for the sake of both Muslims and non-Muslims.

    Did you read what NABA wrote? You even quoted the part where he condemns those so called jihadists. Why are you telling him to condemn them even though he did already? Everyone can see it. Why can't you? He even told you that they are "buildings their place in the hell".

    I'll quote what NABA said and make it easier for you to read in big, red and bold letters. Just incase you missed it from your post... Here it is again:
    Originally posted by NABA

    ...jihad means to strive and struggle.a common man doing hard work to feed his family,this is jihad,a wife taking care of whole household,this is jihad.those people who call themselves jihadists and cause terror among innocent human beings are not Muslims,they are those who are buildings their place in the hell.

    Deaf, dumb and blind.



    -------------
    الله


    Posted By: NABA
    Date Posted: 17 May 2013 at 10:48am
    thanx A lot rational,because it seems like ringing a bell in front of a cow when U R talking with W.S.he only read Qur'an to criticize it.he says I m avoiding his thread but the fact is the last post  on his thread I.e does Islam need to evolve was mine,talking about dumb and blind people,Allah says in Qur'an in Surah Al Ghaashiya ch 88 v 21-22,over job is to convey the message,giving guidance to people is in Allah's hand.whatever other people say I will do dawaah till the rest of my life,this is especially for W.S. who is becoming rude with every reply,I can also be agressive,but Allah says in Surah Al Nahl ch 16 v 125-invite people to the way of Lord with wisdom and argue with them in the best possible manner.W.S. should b thankful that Allah is merciful,Allah says in Surah Al Faatir ch 35 v 45-if Allah start punishing human beings for their every sin,no human can survive on this earth,truly Allah is merciful.and being peaceful doesn't mean that to b peaceful all the time,for eg if someone try to kill me with a knife,I will not standby and allow him to do,I will fight,similarly u said prophet was military officer,the job of military officer is to fight and defend.prophet Muhammad S.A.W was the best man in the human history,he famously says-a man is not strong with his external looks,real strong man is the one who is able to control anger,if everybody starts handling their anger then there will b less fights and hence less massacre.


    Posted By: Rational
    Date Posted: 17 May 2013 at 11:00am
    Jazak Allahu kairun brother NABA.


    -------------
    الله


    Posted By: Ron Webb
    Date Posted: 18 May 2013 at 11:02am
    Originally posted by Rational

    Originally posted by W.S.

    Yes, they are! Saying that they are not Muslims is running away from your responsibility to condemn jihadists and their actions. It's especially important that believing and practicing Muslims, such as yourself, condemn these people - for the sake of both Muslims and non-Muslims.

    Did you read what NABA wrote? You even quoted the part where he condemns those so called jihadists. Why are you telling him to condemn them even though he did already? Everyone can see it. Why can't you? He even told you that they are "buildings their place in the hell".
     
    He isn't condemning them where it matters, in mainstream public forums where the people are who actually need to read it.  That was my point in my opening post.  It's all very well for Muslims to stay in their own tight-knit communities like this forum and condemn extremism to each other, but it does nothing to redeem the reputation of Islam in the eyes of the world at large.
     
    The only (self-proclaimed) Muslims we ever hear from are the ones who fly planes into buildings and blow themselves up in crowded places, and the others who celebrate and praise such atrocities.  If you don't mind these people speaking for you, then continue to do nothing about it.  Just don't be surprised when you find yourself in the most hated religion in the world.  Don't be surprised when the phrase "the religion of peace" is used as an ironic joke.


    -------------
    Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


    Posted By: NABA
    Date Posted: 19 May 2013 at 11:07am
    At Ron,look yes U R right at ur place,that condeming extremism within this forum,will not change much,but at least I have started in this forum as I in my earlier post,that I had never imagined that I could talk about Islam to non Muslims,its Allah's plan that he gave me guidance at right time,and at least i had started talking to few non Muslims,in Sha Allah i will do this on large scale,Islam is not at all the hated religion,if U want to study any religion don't look at the individuals go to the scriptures,so its unfortunate because of few blacksheeps in the community Islam is being blamed which is illogical,because meaning of word Islam is acquiring peace by submitting will to Allah.


    Posted By: nospam001
    Date Posted: 19 May 2013 at 4:23pm

    A tribal world-view is one where loyalty to the tribe outweighs any other value. To publicly condemn the actions of a fellow tribesman, no matter how criminal or insane, is seen as nothing short of treason. No ifs, no buts.



    -------------
    God has the right to remain silent. For His advocates, however, each resigned shrug is a missed opportunity to win new converts.


    Posted By: abuayisha
    Date Posted: 20 May 2013 at 6:43am

    “O you who believe! Stand out firmly for justice, as witnesses to Allaah, even though it be against yourselves, or your parents, or your kin”

    [al-Nisa’ 4:135] 



    Posted By: Experiential
    Date Posted: 09 June 2013 at 3:54am
    Originally posted by NABA

    first of All a person cannot b called a Muslim unless he is peaceful,so there is no question to quote peaceful Muslims.if a person calls himself a Muslim then automatically he is peaceful,because Muslim is a person who acquires peace by submitting will to Allah and follow Quran and sayings of prophet.a person does not need to have arabic/persian name to b a muslim.for eg take this verse Surah Al Fussilat ch 41 v 34-Allah says no doubt a bad deed cannot b equal to a good deed,b good to your enemy and then U will c that he had become ur best friend.jihad doesn't mean to fight or cause terror,jihad means to strive and struggle.a common man doing hard work to feed his family,this is jihad,a wife taking care of whole household,this is jihad.those people who call themselves jihadists and cause terror among innocent human beings are not Muslims,they are those who are buildings their place in the hell.

    Here is more of the Quran –

     

    “cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their head and strike off every fingertip of them."-

    Sura (8:12)

     

     "Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor follow the religion of truth... until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection."  

    Sura 9:29

     

    Regarding Sura 41.34 and doing good deeds to enemies. And if they don’t become your friend? What then? If they are pagans who will not follow your prophet, what then? Cut off their hands and feet, ambush them, kill them and crucify them.

     

    Also your prophet was not peaceful. He was a violent man and lived by the sword. He had blood on his hands. He even gave his soldiers permission to take captured women as prizes.

     

    Yes, Jihad has different meanings. Sometimes to do with striving to do good work, feeding your family or spiritual goodness. However it can also mean killing by the sword.

    The Fascist Jihadists are not totally wrong. It is what Quran says and what Mohammad did. They follow his teachings and his example.



    Posted By: NABA
    Date Posted: 10 June 2013 at 9:21am

    if enemy does not become our friend we will continue to do good deeds because it will open the pathway for paradise as mentioned in Surah Al Asra ch 103 v 1-3-with token of time man is in state of loss except those who have faith,does good deeds,resorting people to truth,resorting people to patience and perseverance.Prophet Muhammad was the best human being,but he was a warrior too,what will u do if someone try to kill u,u will fight.we should b thankful that we are nit living during war periods,in those times every civilian should bbready for war,as today in Saudi.in Surah Al Tawbah ch 9 v 6-Allah says if any disbeliever wants peace forgive him and cast him to protective place.those violent verse were for those who want mischief on the land.



    Posted By: Experiential
    Date Posted: 12 June 2013 at 10:55pm
    Originally posted by NABA

    if enemy does not become our friend we will continue to do good deeds because it will open the pathway for paradise as mentioned in Surah Al Asra ch 103 v 1-3-with token of time man is in state of loss except those who have faith,does good deeds,resorting people to truth,resorting people to patience and perseverance.Prophet Muhammad was the best human being,but he was a warrior too,what will u do if someone try to kill u,u will fight.we should b thankful that we are nit living during war periods,in those times every civilian should bbready for war,as today in Saudi.in Surah Al Tawbah ch 9 v 6-Allah says if any disbeliever wants peace forgive him and cast him to protective place.those violent verse were for those who want mischief on the land.

    Surah Al Asra ch 103 v 1-3 has nothing to do with enemies. It does not even mention any thing about enemies.

    Here is a good verse from Jesus about enemies –

    "You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor [fn] and hate your enemy.'   But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 

    Mathew 5:43

    Do you really think you are capable of enough faith and good deeds to match God? Can a mans deeds ever match and satisfy the glory of God?

    How will the scales swing?

     

    How was Mohammad the best human being?

    He spoke badly of women and when he was aged in his 50s he married and had sex with a 9 year old girl. How disgusting!

    He had the men of Ukl or Uraynah tortured by having their hands and feet cut off. Then he ordered for nails which were heated and passed over their eyes, and they were left in the desert. When they asked for water, they were given none and left to die.

    He had his enemies assassinated and murdered.

    He gave permission for his ‘warriors’ to make slaves of captured women in battle and have sex with them. See the Quran Chapter 70.Verse 22-30.

    I don’t see what is great about this Naba.

    There is nothing fantastic about warriors. The world is full of them and most of the worlds problems are because of them.

    Mohammad was a killer and a warrior. Isa. Jesus Christ The Messiah was a peace loving man. He said to Love your enemies. Mathew 5:43

     

    You say in Surah Al Tawbah ch 9 v 6-Allah says if any disbeliever wants peace forgive him and cast him to protective place.

    But read on Naba. Ch 9 verse 12 says –

    But if they violate their oaths after their covenant, and attack your religion with disapproval and criticism, then fight (you) against the leaders of disbelief -- for surely, their oaths are nothing to them -- so that they may stop (evil actions).

     

    So nothing wonderful here !

     

    Muslims quote peaceful verses from the Quran and Muslims quote violent verses from the Quran. Either Muslims are confused, or the Quran is confused, or both.

    When Mohammad and Islam were weak in the early days they said to be peaceful. When they got stronger later they said to be violent.

    Who decides peaceful verses or violent verses? Al Qaeda or you ?

    And then there is the issue of abrogation in the Quran which makes the Quran even more confused. You have not answered Bronaz on this in the other post about the Quran.



    Posted By: NABA
    Date Posted: 20 June 2013 at 9:37am
    we not at all can match Allah,the concept of God is mentioned in Ch 112 v 1-4-Allah is one,he is eternal,he begets not begot,there is nothing like him.so we cannot even think of matching Allah,since Allah says do good deeds and enter jannah,we have to do it,yes jesus(pbuh) was the peaceful man because he is one of the best prophets of Allah,all prophets are peaceful because they preach to submit will to Allah and acquire peace,in Surah Al Tawbah ch 9 v 12-it is mentioned fight those who attack ur religion,one can take different meanings,either fight literally our fight rather struggle to clear misconceptions,I ask U how would U feel if I attack ur religion,U will fight,in fact U should fight,as far as marrying with 9 yr old girl to prophet.Hazrat Aisha(may Allah b please with her)was naturally a very intelligent woman,in Islam when girl or boy attains puberty they are liable to marry,similarly she attained puberty and was ready to marry,in fact prophet always forbid forcing girl to marry,hazrat Aisha was superintelligent woman(may Allah b please with her).regarding having sex with slaves,in that time verse regarding to not have sex besides wife was not revealed.


    Posted By: Experiential
    Date Posted: 25 June 2013 at 4:03am
    Originally posted by NABA

    we not at all can match Allah,the concept of God is mentioned in Ch 112 v 1-4-Allah is one,he is eternal,he begets not begot,there is nothing like him.so we cannot even think of matching Allah,since Allah says do good deeds and enter jannah,we have to do it,yes jesus(pbuh) was the peaceful man because he is one of the best prophets of Allah,all prophets are peaceful because they preach to submit will to Allah and acquire peace,in Surah Al Tawbah ch 9 v 12-it is mentioned fight those who attack ur religion,one can take different meanings,either fight literally our fight rather struggle to clear misconceptions,I ask U how would U feel if I attack ur religion,U will fight,in fact U should fight,as far as marrying with 9 yr old girl to prophet.Hazrat Aisha(may Allah b please with her)was naturally a very intelligent woman,in Islam when girl or boy attains puberty they are liable to marry,similarly she attained puberty and was ready to marry,in fact prophet always forbid forcing girl to marry,hazrat Aisha was superintelligent woman(may Allah b please with her).regarding having sex with slaves,in that time verse regarding to not have sex besides wife was not revealed.

    Isa in the Injil (John 14.27.) did not just say we are to acquire peace but he said as The Christ Messiah he is peace.

     

    If someone attacked my religion then, yes, I would struggle to clear the misconceptions. I would not riot, make death threats or pronounce fatwa like a lot of Muslims do.

     

    The confusion with Islam is Jihad can have different meanings. And the Quran does say to make violent Jihad against those who do not believe –

     

     “cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their head and strike off every fingertip of them."-

    Sura (8:12)

     

     "Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor follow the religion of truth... until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection."  

    Sura 9:29

     

    In regards to Aisha. It does not matter how you explain it. For a man aged in his 50s to have sex with a 9 year old girl is still disgusting.

     

    You said regarding having sex with slaves, in that time the verse regarding to not have sex besides wife was not revealed. My answer is so what? The fact that Mohammad would even tell his men to have sex with the captured women is disgusting.



    Posted By: NABA
    Date Posted: 26 June 2013 at 9:30am
    brother U R quoting the verses out of context,U quoted the verse 12 of ch 8 incompletely.in that verse says-remember Allah inspired to angels-"I am with U and strengthen those who believe"then comes the lines U quoted,in the next verse I.e 13-Allah says fight them because they oppose Allah and their messenger,U R not alien to the fact that in those days many people through mischief cause harm to our Nobel apostle,U also quoted ch 9 v 29 incompletely -fight those who disbelieve in Allah and apostle,fight those who do not consider unlawful what Allah has considered unlawful,fight till they themselves get humbled".now fight has different meanings,for eg when we say to people that alcohol is haraam,but some people will not accept it,but when I tell the harmful effects some will agree,some will disagree,but those who have disagreed I will still try to stop them,similarly fight doesn't mean just to hit somebody,when U try to convince others not to do those deeds which are harmful for themselves,I.e fight.it depends on how U take it,since Allah forbids killing innocent human beings unless for murder or causing mischief(ch 5 v 32).logically keeping this verse in mind one will not cause harm to others,remember whatever verses for fighting is for those who cause mischief and harm people for their needs,Allah clearly says in ch 28 v 83-We will give the home of hereafter only to those who do not believe in causing mischief.


    Posted By: Experiential
    Date Posted: 30 June 2013 at 4:14am
    Originally posted by NABA

    brother U R quoting the verses out of context,U quoted the verse 12 of ch 8 incompletely.in that verse says-remember Allah inspired to angels-"I am with U and strengthen those who believe"then comes the lines U quoted,in the next verse I.e 13-Allah says fight them because they oppose Allah and their messenger,U R not alien to the fact that in those days many people through mischief cause harm to our Nobel apostle,U also quoted ch 9 v 29 incompletely -fight those who disbelieve in Allah and apostle,fight those who do not consider unlawful what Allah has considered unlawful,fight till they themselves get humbled".now fight has different meanings,for eg when we say to people that alcohol is haraam,but some people will not accept it,but when I tell the harmful effects some will agree,some will disagree,but those who have disagreed I will still try to stop them,similarly fight doesn't mean just to hit somebody,when U try to convince others not to do those deeds which are harmful for themselves,I.e fight.it depends on how U take it,since Allah forbids killing innocent human beings unless for murder or causing mischief(ch 5 v 32).logically keeping this verse in mind one will not cause harm to others,remember whatever verses for fighting is for those who cause mischief and harm people for their needs,Allah clearly says in ch 28 v 83-We will give the home of hereafter only to those who do not believe in causing mischief.

    Yes Chapter 8 verse 12 mentions Angels. However it is obviously talking about human beings when it says …. “cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their head and strike off every fingertip of them."-

    Sura (8:12)

     

    Yes fight can have different meanings. But in Ch 9 verse 29 it is obviously talking about making war on the non believers.

     

    Whose definition of mischief? Yours or Al Qaeda?



    Posted By: NABA
    Date Posted: 08 July 2013 at 11:33pm
    In ch 8 v 12-Allah is talking only to angels.U say that ch 9 v 29 urges people to war,war is never mentioned in that verse,U R taking wrong meaning,war means a fight with arms between nations or groups,logically speaking Allah says in ch 5 v 32(don't kill innocent human beings unless for murder or mischief),so in future verses the word fight will b only for those who cause harm or mischief,not for innocent beings,another eg of fight is a reporter through his article revolts against corrupt government,literally he is fighting but he is not causing harm,fight means to strive to victory,so U R taking wrong meaning of verses to prove urself right!!!mischief means any destruction,harm or injury.Allah in fact says how to argue with non Muslims in ch 16 v 125-invite to the way of lord with beautiful words and wisdom and argue with them in best possible peaceful manner.


    Posted By: Experiential
    Date Posted: 24 July 2013 at 10:21pm
    Originally posted by NABA

    In ch 8 v 12-Allah is talking only to angels.U say that ch 9 v 29 urges people to war,war is never mentioned in that verse,U R taking wrong meaning,war means a fight with arms between nations or groups,logically speaking Allah says in ch 5 v 32(don't kill innocent human beings unless for murder or mischief),so in future verses the word fight will b only for those who cause harm or mischief,not for innocent beings,another eg of fight is a reporter through his article revolts against corrupt government,literally he is fighting but he is not causing harm,fight means to strive to victory,so U R taking wrong meaning of verses to prove urself right!!!mischief means any destruction,harm or injury.Allah in fact says how to argue with non Muslims in ch 16 v 125-invite to the way of lord with beautiful words and wisdom and argue with them in best possible peaceful manner.

    Sura 8 verse 12 is obviously talking about people.

     

    “cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their head and strike off every fingertip of them."-

    Sura (8:12)

     

    In regards to Sura 9 chapter 29 if you think Im causing mischief will you ‘fight’ me until I become subject and pay the tribute tax ?

    And how would you make me pay a tax? unless it was with a sword or gun.



    Posted By: Servetus
    Date Posted: 25 July 2013 at 7:13pm
    Originally posted by Ron Webb

    Now, is anyone interested in responding to this guy?


    Well, it's a dirty job, but somebody has to do it. This Ramadan, as a gift to my Muslim friends, it might as well be me.
    Originally posted by http://forums.carm.org/vbb/showthread.php?142678-Presbyterian-Church-Uses-Islamists-for-Interfaith-Study&p=4301500&viewfull=1#post4301500%5b/IMG - Ronson

    ]All I can say is that if peaceful, ordinary Muslims would come out of hiding and actually condemn the jihadists who are attacking everything that moves, then maybe Christians wouldn't have to do it for them.


    And all I can say is that if the Evangelical Christian Zionist types who seem to frequent Matt Slick's board would loosen their laconic tongues and condemn their own jihadists, sometimes in IDF uniforms, who, with comparative impunity, incinerate Palestinian children in the Gaza Strip with white phosphorus, who decimate a largely hapless Iraq with depleted uranium, and who stand by, as mute as they are mum, while war profiteers and others ransack the Treasury to finance their "crusade" (GW Bush's malapropism, correction, apropism) to make the Middle East safe for no-bid oil contracts and Israeli nuclear hegemony, then maybe Muslims wouldn't have to do it for them.



    Serv
    Male (vestigial) Christian


    Posted By: Experiential
    Date Posted: 25 July 2013 at 9:08pm
    Originally posted by Servetus

    Originally posted by Ron Webb

    Now, is anyone interested in responding to this guy?


    Well, it's a dirty job, but somebody has to do it. This Ramadan, as a gift to my Muslim friends, it might as well be me.
    Originally posted by http://forums.carm.org/vbb/showthread.php?142678-Presbyterian-Church-Uses-Islamists-for-Interfaith-Study&p=4301500&viewfull=1#post4301500%5b/IMG - Ronson

    ]All I can say is that if peaceful, ordinary Muslims would come out of hiding and actually condemn the jihadists who are attacking everything that moves, then maybe Christians wouldn't have to do it for them.


    And all I can say is that if the Evangelical Christian Zionist types who seem to frequent Matt Slick's board would loosen their laconic tongues and condemn their own jihadists, sometimes in IDF uniforms, who, with comparative impunity, incinerate Palestinian children in the Gaza Strip with white phosphorus, who decimate a largely hapless Iraq with depleted uranium, and who stand by, as mute as they are mum, while war profiteers and others ransack the Treasury to finance their "crusade" (GW Bush's malapropism, correction, apropism) to make the Middle East safe for no-bid oil contracts and Israeli nuclear hegemony, then maybe Muslims wouldn't have to do it for them.



    Serv
    Male (vestigial) Christian

    Hello Servestus

    The question here as posed at the beginning of the thread was whether there is violence inherent in the doctrines and theology of Islam itself. What secular governments may do out of secular motives is beyond the question.

    So the question is whether Mohamad set a violent example as a war lord and  man of the sword. Also are their passages in the Quran that promote violence?

    I challenge any one to show violence inherent in the life of Jesus and / or the New Testament.



    Posted By: Servetus
    Date Posted: 26 July 2013 at 8:17am
    Originally posted by Experiential

    Hello Servetus


    Hello in return, Experiential, and, in answer to Jimi Hendrix, yes, as a matter of fact, I am experienced. Standby, here's a little smiley face:   :)

    Originally posted by Experiential

    The question here as posed at the beginning of the thread was whether there is violence inherent in the doctrines and theology of Islam itself.


    That is one of the points at issue, but not the only one. Moreover, the issue here does not restrict itself exclusively to a comparison of the (unapologetically martial) Islam vs. the (presumably but far from actually pacifistic) Christianity, but also includes the increasingly militant, avowedly expansionistic and colonizing Judaism, under its dominant nationalistic form of Zionism, which has its own, decidedly non-Christian, often ersatz, Messianic agenda in the Middle Eastern region and beyond.

    Originally posted by Experiential

    What secular governments may do out of secular motives is beyond the question.


    Is it? I think the distinction you are drawing between secular and religious governments is a bit facile, especially if you point to the USA as a model of the former. Allow me to quote the late Senator George McGovern who, at the National Press Club, summed things nicely by quoting Bob Woodward and impertinently asking GW Bush:

    "Mr. President, Sir, when reporter Bob Woodward asked you if you had consulted with your father before ordering our army into Iraq you said, "No, he's not the father you call on a decision like this. I talked to my heavenly Father above."(1)

    Ref:
    http://www.thenation.com/article/impartial-interrogation-george-w-bush#

    Evidently, GW Bush's heavenly Father above -by means of a compliant, spineless Congress- gave him and his administration permission to invade and occupy Iraq and, perhaps in a larger PNAC-ian sense, permission to redraw the entire map of the Middle East. May we then, as GW Bush did, call that a "crusade" of sorts? Yes, we may.

    Originally posted by Experiential

    So the question is whether Mohamad set a violent example as a war lord and man of the sword. Also are their passages in the Quran that promote violence?


    It seems to me that Muhammad would be better and more accurately compared to Joshua than to Jesus. Unlike Jesus, both Muhammad and Joshua were military commanders, whose kingdoms, ultimately, were of this world.

    Originally posted by Experiential

    I challenge any one to show violence inherent in the life of Jesus and / or the New Testament.


    Christians are often closet jihadists - they hide out behind (and provide funds to) people in IDF uniforms, for instance. In any case, a significant difference between Christians and Muslims is this: that when we Christians go to war, which is often enough in our history, we have to largely disregard and ignore our prophet and his emasculating -as Nietzsche put it- Sermon on the Mount, but when Muslims do, they don't. Thus Christians, it seems to me and in this regard, are often considerably more hypocritical than Muslims.

    Originally posted by Experiential

    I challenge any one to show violence inherent in the life of Jesus and / or the New Testament.


    Would you consider that here Nocholas Kristof, published in the New York Times, has risen to your challenge? Read him here:

    "Jesus and Jihad"
    http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/17/opinion/jesus-and-jihad.html

    Best regards,

    Serv
    Male (vestigial and often embarrassed) Christian


    Posted By: Ron Webb
    Date Posted: 26 July 2013 at 4:00pm

    Originally posted by Servetus

    And all I can say is that if the Evangelical Christian Zionist types who seem to frequent Matt Slick's board would loosen their laconic tongues and condemn their own jihadists, sometimes in IDF uniforms, who, with comparative impunity, incinerate Palestinian children in the Gaza Strip with white phosphorus, who decimate a largely hapless Iraq with depleted uranium, and who stand by, as mute as they are mum, while war profiteers and others ransack the Treasury to finance their "crusade" (GW Bush's malapropism, correction, apropism) to make the Middle East safe for no-bid oil contracts and Israeli nuclear hegemony, then maybe Muslims wouldn't have to do it for them.

    I don't often see allegations of Christian jihadism in mainstream press.  Maybe in Muslim nations, in which case it might be worthwhile for Christians to visit those sites; but I am commenting on the negative view of Islam in my own culture and suggesting that Muslims might want to speak up.  I'm getting tired of defending their reputations, especially if they can't be bothered themselves.



    -------------
    Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


    Posted By: Ron Webb
    Date Posted: 26 July 2013 at 4:07pm

    Originally posted by Experiential

    The question here as posed at the beginning of the thread was whether there is violence inherent in the doctrines and theology of Islam itself.

    Well no, that wasn't my purpose in starting this.  I am taking it as given that Muslims do not consider Islam to be an inherently violent religion.  I am asking them to say that where it matters, -- not just here, but wherever their religion is being attacked.

    It seems to me that this would be a worthy project for Ramadan.  But what do I know? Clown



    -------------
    Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


    Posted By: Servetus
    Date Posted: 26 July 2013 at 5:04pm
    Originally posted by Ron Webb

    I don't often see allegations of Christian jihadism in mainstream press.


    I just sent Experiential a link to an article in the rather mainstream New York Times, entitled "Jesus and Jihad." Read it often and you will.

    But seriously, I grant that you might not see the two concepts, Christianity and jihad, or, for that matter, Judaism and jihad, very often linked in the mainstream press, but an astute reader, one who hasn't been too thoroughly brainwashed and thus gobsmacked by that same press, ought to be able to link the two concepts himself and read between the lines.

    Although the word, jihad, isn't overtly mentioned, here, and though it is a bit dated, is another example of many an article of its type which could be cited as proof. It is another mainstream media report, appearing in the New York Times, this time of cleric John Hagee having gone up to Washington D.C. to inform us of what "God's foreign policy" is. It should not be too surprising to note that, to him, God's policies and those of AIPAC are essentially indistinguishable. AIPAC, in consequence of the good Christian's announcements, has practically beatified the passively militant cleric. If you want to read the fatwah, it is here:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/14/washington/14israel.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0


    Serv
    Male (vestigial) Christian


    Posted By: NABA
    Date Posted: 27 July 2013 at 2:03am
    At experential, if someone cause mischief(injury or harm), definitely I will fight to stop him from causing mischief, talking abour tax, Surah Al Baqarah ch 2 v 280-Allah says give ample time to pay back to the person who u have give some debt, if he can't and if u forgive him that will b good for u.so Allah is saying if u forgive u will b blessed, pay attention to my words, I said I will fight to stop him from causing mischief not with the intention of causing harm to him.the ultimate goal of islam is "peace".


    Posted By: Servetus
    Date Posted: 27 July 2013 at 12:00pm
    Originally posted by Ron Webb

    ... I'm getting tired of defending their [Muslims'] reputations, especially if they can't be bothered themselves.


    I might also add that, by linking to CARM, you are suggesting that Muslims go to a board which is, at its root, as biased against Ishmael as was Sarah (according to the Biblical, in contradistinction to the Quranic, record of the event). Thus, no matter how persuasive any given defense of Muslims may be, at argument's end, to the true and largely intransigent believers on that board, one of the leitmotifs of the Old Testament will nevertheless remain: the rights of the first-born will have been switched to the second-born and the "bondswoman," i.e., Hagar, will have been cast out. Ishmael, no matter how legitimately grieved, polite and articulate he may be, will still be perceived, by many a Bibliophile, as the "wild ass" of Genesis 16:12, however that may be interpreted.

    But still, though I haven't read the thread in question at CARM, to the extent that you are seeking justice, I salute (and will try to support) your efforts. Furthermore, if together we can somehow find a way for all sides to suspend their biases and stereotypes, each toward the others, and without at the same time being rid of religion altogether, the better it will undoubtedly be.

    Best regards,

    Serv
    Male (vestigial) Christian
          


    Posted By: Ron Webb
    Date Posted: 29 July 2013 at 4:14pm

    Originally posted by Servetus

    I just sent Experiential a link to an article in the rather mainstream New York Times, entitled "Jesus and Jihad." Read it often and you will.

    My first reaction is Shocked.  Not so much that Christians might imagine their God like that (I know many of them do), but more that they would find it in any way entertaining or "Glorious".

    But let's keep in mind two important differences: one, that this is a work of fiction (I might say fantasy); and two, that God is the jihadist here, not Christians.  It may be a bit unsettling that some Christians indulge in such fantasies, but it's really none of my business.

    Although the word, jihad, isn't overtly mentioned, here, and though it is a bit dated, is another example of many an article of its type which could be cited as proof. It is another mainstream media report, appearing in the New York Times, this time of cleric John Hagee having gone up to Washington D.C. to inform us of what "God's foreign policy" is. It should not be too surprising to note that, to him, God's policies and those of AIPAC are essentially indistinguishable. AIPAC, in consequence of the good Christian's announcements, has practically beatified the passively militant cleric. If you want to read the fatwah, it is here:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/14/washington/14israel.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 - http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/14/washington/14israel.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

    Although I don't necessarily agree with Hagee's politics (much less his religion), I'm not sure I would describe him as a jihadist.  Why would you call him that?  Because he supports Israel's right to exist?  Because he wants to see Hezbollah (a terrorist organization by most standards) defeated?  Because he has faith that his God also wants those things?

    No doubt Christians commit atrocities, but they rarely do so explicitly in the name of God.  They do not shout the equivalent of "Allah akbar!" as they saw through their enemies' necks.  That is the kind of behaviour that demeans Islam, and that is what good Muslims cannot afford to remain silent about.

    (P.S.: Sorry for the delay in replying.  Life intervened.)

    -------------
    Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


    Posted By: Ron Webb
    Date Posted: 29 July 2013 at 4:47pm

    Originally posted by Servetus

    I might also add that, by linking to CARM, you are suggesting that Muslims go to a board which is, at its root, as biased against Ishmael as was Sarah (according to the Biblical, in contradistinction to the Quranic, record of the event).

    I linked to that particular thread because it was the one that inspired my post here, but I wasn't intending to promote that site; and in hindsight, it wasn't even a particularly egregious example.  It's not hard to find Islam being attacked all over the Internet, often much more strongly than this.

    Thus, no matter how persuasive any given defense of Muslims may be, at argument's end, to the true and largely intransigent believers on that board, one of the leitmotifs of the Old Testament will nevertheless remain: the rights of the first-born will have been switched to the second-born and the "bondswoman," i.e., Hagar, will have been cast out. Ishmael, no matter how legitimately grieved, polite and articulate he may be, will still be perceived, by many a Bibliophile, as the "wild ass" of Genesis 16:12, however that may be interpreted.

    Yeah, that's the response I get from Muslims all the time.  "It's too hard, and it won't do any good anyway."  ("Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it." (2:216))  But nothing worthwhile is easy, and if I didn't believe that presenting alternative (even unpopular) viewpoints wasn't worthwhile, I wouldn't be here.  No, of course you won't change anyone's mind in the course of a debate, but I believe you can make progress over the long term.  I have often noticed that if I return to the topic months or years later, my opponents' positions have moderated slightly.



    -------------
    Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


    Posted By: Experiential
    Date Posted: 01 August 2013 at 12:04am

    Thanks for the link Servestus.

    I think I’ll stick with the Bible rather than the ''Glorious Appearing,''



    Posted By: Experiential
    Date Posted: 01 August 2013 at 12:07am
    Originally posted by NABA

    At experential, if someone cause mischief(injury or harm), definitely I will fight to stop him from causing mischief, talking abour tax, Surah Al Baqarah ch 2 v 280-Allah says give ample time to pay back to the person who u have give some debt, if he can't and if u forgive him that will b good for u.so Allah is saying if u forgive u will b blessed, pay attention to my words, I said I will fight to stop him from causing mischief not with the intention of causing harm to him.the ultimate goal of islam is "peace".

    So if you think someone is causing mischief you will chop off their head and hands as Ch 8.12 says?

     

    We are not talking about ch 2 v 280 Naba.

    We are talking about 9.29 which is about the Jizyah tax imposed upon non Muslims.

    So again I ask you the question – how will you impose the Jizyah tax unless at the point of a sword or gun ?

     

    I always thought the ultimate goal of Islam was submission.



    Posted By: Servetus
    Date Posted: 01 August 2013 at 7:59am
    There is no need to apologize for delays, Ron, given that life tends to intervene in my case rather often as well. In fact, it has. I will try to return to this topic when I can, but, in the meantime, something to ponder.

    Originally posted by Ron Webb

    ... Why would you call him [Hagee] that?  Because he supports Israel's right to exist?  Because he wants to see Hezbollah (a terrorist organization by most standards) defeated?  Because he has faith that his God also wants those things?


    Not exactly, though parts of the above are included. Noticeably absent from your list of possibilities is Palestine's so called "right" to exist. Just last week the European Union decided to enforce its own laws, including some Geneva Conventions, I should think, by restricting trade with those entities with ties to the so called "settlements." That was surprisingly resolute. I (rhetorically) wonder if and when the USA, Israel's Siamese twin, will ever do the same?

    When you refer to Israel, I would ask you: which one? Are you referring to the Israel of the present or are you referring to Eretz, that is to say Greater Israel, from the Nile to the Euphrates, as that Greater Israel appears, for example, on old Irgun (not exactly an organization of pacifistic Boy Scouts, it might be worth mentioning) maps and as envisioned by plenty of the expansionists presently "squatting," to use a euphemism, on disputed territories? Those squatters are engaged in what is sometimes called an "ideological struggle," which ideology is based upon Judaism, and which struggle I think is analogous to a jihad, a Jewish jihad. The flapping wings of the butterfly is in this case causing a typhoon. Pop some corn because this I will try to demonstrate when once I return to this board and to my keyboard. Though we may go somewhat far afield in the discussion, I also intend to bring it back round to Hagee and show how he and others of his type, including, especially, Pat Robertson, are passively militant Christian jihadists, engaged in a "struggle," with very real and concrete consequences, which often masquerades as an end-times apocalyptic agenda.



    Serv
    Male (vestigial) Christian


    Posted By: Servetus
    Date Posted: 04 August 2013 at 5:01pm
    Originally posted by Experiential

    Thanks for the link Servestus.


    You are welcome, Experiential, but I am only called Servestus when I am wearing a vest: otherwise, I am Servetus, (a return of) the Christian Spaniard whom, some centuries back, the Roman Catholics burned in effigy and Protestants (John Calvin) burned at the stake in actuality. No worries, though, because plenty of people get my strange Latin name wrong and, when it is necessary for me to go incognito (especially to escape Calvin's sword-wielding henchmen), I operate as Michelle de Villaneuve.

    But enough about me and my fascinating life and untimely death.

    Originally posted by Experiential

    I think I’ll stick with the Bible rather than the ''Glorious Appearing,''


    Despite the fact that the "Glorious Appearing" is Biblically based, from start to fin, you are probably well advised to stick with the Bible. The authors of "Glorious Appearing" seem at best fervid and have written a novel for the Evangelicals which impresses, or, better said and to coin a term, unimpresses me as the written equivalent of George Orwell's music for the Proles. The Bible, especially as it is translated into the mellifluous KJV, is infinitely better written.

    Originally posted by Experiential

    I challenge any one to show violence inherent in the life of Jesus and / or the New Testament.


    I think one of the key verses you are looking for is this one, from St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans (13:1-4):

    "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. [bold emphasis mine]"

    This verse has historically been used, especially when Christian countries and nations were exactly (and at least nominally) that, Christian, to justify the use of the sword against enemies of the State, both foreign and domestic. I suppose it goes without saying that, at times, the ministers of God were remarkably diligent and the blood flowed in Christendom rather freely, not just at the feet of the Lord High Executioner, but also on the troublesome borders of Empire, at which borders the infidels, rabble and others tended to resist those ordinances of God.



    Serv
    Male (vestigial) Christian


    Posted By: NABA
    Date Posted: 05 August 2013 at 5:48am
    Jizya tax was the tax taken for protection for non muslims themselves, u r taking wrong meaning of fight in that verse,fight can also b meant as arguement.in ch 16 v 125, Allah says invite the people to the way of lord with beautiful words and preachings and argue with them in best possible peaceful manner


    Posted By: Servetus
    Date Posted: 11 August 2013 at 8:19am
    Originally posted by Ron Webb

    My first reaction is [shock]. Not so much that Christians might imagine their God like that (I know many of them do), but more that they would find it in any way entertaining or "Glorious".


    I am unsure and have not read the books, but I think the word "glorious" is a reference to the "glorious appearing" of what the authors envision, with the help of the Biblical books of Daniel and Revelation, as their Messiah. The author of the above-linked New York Times article rightly describes theirs as a "martial Messiah, presiding over a sea of blood."

    Originally posted by Ron Webb

    But let's keep in mind two important differences: one, that this is a work of fiction (I might say fantasy); and two, that God is the jihadist here, not Christians.


    Again, it is a fictionalized version of Daniel and Revelation. If the authors of the books have the Christians conveniently "raptured" to the top floor, above the fray, while the Muslims, Jews and others confront each other, in a final showdown, upon the Meggido Plain, it is only yet another indicator that, as I've said, Christians of this type tend to be passively aggressive: that they are, as one of their critics, Nietzsche, put it, emasculated (even if, in this case, their Messiah evidently is not).

    Originally posted by Ron Webb

    It may be a bit unsettling that some Christians indulge in such fantasies, but it's really none of my business.


    You seem to make the jihadists of Islam your business. Why not add the Christian and Jewish (to say nothing of the Mammonist, or secular worshippers of money) jihadists to your list as well? They're certainly on mine.

    Originally posted by Ron Webb

    Although I don't necessarily agree with Hagee's politics (much less his religion), I'm not sure I would describe him as a jihadist. Why would you call him that?


    Thank you for asking. Let me count the ways. For one thing, when he tells us that God's foreign policy is to "support" Israel, he is not talking about knitting booties for Jewish orphans. I think it rather more likely that he has such things as white phosphorus and so called "preemptive" strikes against Iran (Iraq, Syria, Ethiopia, Persia, Libya and all of the other countries mentioned in Ezekiel 38) in mind. He is a militantly passive jihadist who fights behind soldiers in IDF uniforms and AIPAC executives in Georgio Armani suits.

    The Shia's have their Twelfth Imam and John Hagee's is no less a Messianic agenda than Gush Emunim's. Members of the latter, little-known (thanks to the mainstream media), rarely discussed but highly influential, with John Hagee's and Pat Robertson's acquiescence, fight their mitzvah (i.e., "commanded by God") war to "redeem" or reconquer the (never very clearly defined) Biblical "land" of Israel, a greater territory than the current borders of the State of Israel, the occupied West Bank and Gaza included, to rebuild the Temple, and, not least, to wipe out the memory of Amelek (read: destroy the Palestinians). A significant difference among the three Messianic movements I mention here, however, is this: Hagee's Messianic agenda, expressed in his jihadist books (such as "Final Countdown Over Jerusalem") are distributed by no less an outlet than Wal-Mart. Absit omen.

    Originally posted by Ron Webb

    No doubt Christians commit atrocities, but they rarely do so explicitly in the name of God.


    The reclamation of the Biblical "land" of Israel is being done in the name of God. Anyway, Islam is 600 years younger than Christianity. What were the Christians doing 600 years ago?

    Originally posted by Ron Webb

    They do not shout the equivalent of "Allah akbar!" as they saw through their enemies' necks.


    No. They have better weaponry. Instead, they drop white phosphorus on Palestinian civilians in the Gaza Strip and destroy Fallujah, Iraq, with depleted uranium.

    Originally posted by Ron Webb

    That is the kind of behaviour that demeans Islam, and that is what good Muslims cannot afford to remain silent about.


    I have an idea. Why don't you and I try to get Wal-Mart to stop carrying Christian jihadist literature and allow the Muslims to get their own house in order?

    Best regards,

    Serv


    Posted By: Ron Webb
    Date Posted: 11 August 2013 at 6:02pm

    Originally posted by Servetus

    Again, it is a fictionalized version of Daniel and Revelation.

    So, a fictionalized version of a fantasy. Tongue

    If the authors of the books have the Christians conveniently "raptured" to the top floor, above the fray, while the Muslims, Jews and others confront each other, in a final showdown, upon the Meggido Plain, it is only yet another indicator that, as I've said, Christians of this type tend to be passively aggressive: that they are, as one of their critics, Nietzsche, put it, emasculated (even if, in this case, their Messiah evidently is not).
    ...
    You seem to make the jihadists of Islam your business. Why not add the Christian and Jewish (to say nothing of the Mammonist, or secular worshippers of money) jihadists to your list as well? They're certainly on mine.

    I am not so much concerned about "passively aggressive" jihadists.  My main concern is "aggressively aggressive" ones.  As for the "secular worshippers of money", I have them on a list as well, but it's a different list, i.e. not the subject of this discussion.

    Originally posted by Ron Webb

    Although I don't necessarily agree with Hagee's politics (much less his religion), I'm not sure I would describe him as a jihadist. Why would you call him that?

    Thank you for asking. Let me count the ways. For one thing, when he tells us that God's foreign policy is to "support" Israel, he is not talking about knitting booties for Jewish orphans. I think it rather more likely that he has such things as white phosphorus and so called "preemptive" strikes against Iran (Iraq, Syria, Ethiopia, Persia, Libya and all of the other countries mentioned in Ezekiel 38) in mind. He is a militantly passive jihadist who fights behind soldiers in IDF uniforms and AIPAC executives in Georgio Armani suits.

    I'm not sure that "I think it rather more likely" is a strong enough justification for labeling someone a jihadist.  Has he actually advocated or at least expressed approval for the use of white phosphorus or preemptive strikes?  I know nothing about Hagee beyond what I've read since joining this discussion, and I am open to being convinced otherwise, of course; but lacking any evidence to the contrary I think it is at least as likely that he is appalled by human suffering just as we all are.  His support in general for a regime or a goal does not imply specific support for every tactic and every weapon used by that regime or pursuant to that goal.

    Anyway, this is drifting away from my original intent.  I will concede that there are individuals who might be labeled "Christian jihadists".  The difference is that when such extremism is discussed in various public forums, there is normally a healthy contingent of mainstream Christians who are willing to condemn extremism and to distance their religion from the extremists.  I just don't see that on the Muslim side.  Islamist extremism is denounced in formal statements by Muslim organizations, but this denunciation is rarely echoed by mainstream Muslims in public discussions.  The impression is thus created that Muslim leaders are either out of touch with "real" Muslims, or just plain lying.

    Originally posted by Ron Webb

    No doubt Christians commit atrocities, but they rarely do so explicitly in the name of God.

    The reclamation of the Biblical "land" of Israel is being done in the name of God.

    That may be your suspicion, and there may be cheerleaders like Hagee who might make that connection, but the ones actually doing the reclamation (armed forces and political leaders) would never say that.  If they did, I would be among the first to object.  (Mind you, I object anyway, FWIW.)  And so would a whole heap of mainstream Christians.

    Anyway, Islam is 600 years younger than Christianity. What were the Christians doing 600 years ago?

    If I had been around six hundred years ago I might have said the same things about Christian crusaders.  (If I had a death wish, maybe.) 

    I have an idea. Why don't you and I try to get Wal-Mart to stop carrying Christian jihadist literature and allow the Muslims to get their own house in order?

    Because it's a fantasy based on a fiction.  People can indulge in whatever gruesome and (to me) disgusting fantasies they like.  None of my business.



    -------------
    Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


    Posted By: Servetus
    Date Posted: 12 August 2013 at 8:15am
    Originally posted by Ron Webb

    I am not so much concerned about "passively aggressive" jihadists.  My main concern is "aggressively aggressive" ones.


    In that case, examine the role of the passively aggressive jihadists, the block of Christian Evangelicals, who vote(d) for the crusading George W. Bush. Their passivity was expressed in the ballot box and became decidedly active. As far as I know, although Johns Hopkins put out some numbers, there is no record of the dead civilians as a result of Bush's crusade, continued by Obama, to make the Middle East safe for no-bid oil contracts and Israeli nuclear hegemony.

    Originally posted by Ron Webb

    As for the "secular worshippers of money", I have them on a list as well, but it's a different list, i.e. not the subject of this discussion.


    Why exclude them from the subject of this discussion? I will quote one: "The good Lord didn't see fit to put oil and gas only where there are democratically elected regimes friendly to the United States. Occasionally we have to operate in places where, all things considered, one would not normally choose to go. But, we go where the business is." That was said by Master of Halliburton and ex-Vice President, Dick Cheney, GWBush's fellow crusader in the Middle East. To which "good Lord" do you suppose he is referring? I would suggest that he is referring to Mammon (money). In any case, I would call him an aggressively aggressive jihadist.

    Originally posted by Ron Webb

    I'm not sure that "I think it rather more likely" is a strong enough justification for labeling someone a jihadist.  Has he actually advocated or at least expressed approval for the use of white phosphorus or preemptive strikes?


    Start here:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Auf-Su-xZVU&feature=player_embedded

    Originally posted by Ron Webb

    I know nothing about Hagee beyond what I've read since joining this discussion, and I am open to being convinced otherwise, of course; but lacking any evidence to the contrary I think it is at least as likely that he is appalled by human suffering just as we all are.


    It's quite possible, but he seems considerably less appalled by Palestinian than by Jewish suffering.

    Originally posted by Ron Webb

    His support in general for a regime or a goal does not imply specific support for every tactic ...


    Be that as it may, the fact remains that he is not talking about knitting booties for Jewish orphans when he tells us that God's foreign policy is to "support" Israel.

    Originally posted by Ron Webb

    Anyway, this is drifting away from my original intent.


    As I see it, your original intent is to get the Muslims to remove the sliver from their eye. I am suggesting, to the point of insistence, that we first remove the beam from our own. I am sometimes more than a vestigial Christian.

    Originally posted by Ron Webb

    I just don't see that on the Muslim side.  Islamist extremism is denounced in formal statements by Muslim organizations, but this denunciation is rarely echoed by mainstream Muslims in public discussions.  The impression is thus created that Muslim leaders are either out of touch with "real" Muslims, or just plain lying.


    I just don't see that on the Jewish side. Mitzvah wars -often stealth- to reclaim Eretz Israel by way of illegal settlements and colonization are denounced by Jews, but this act of jihad is rarely reported upon by the mainstream press. The impression is thus created that Jewish leaders -with a battalion of Christian crusaders behind them- are either out of touch with "real" Jews, the ultra-Orthodox and ultra-nationalists who are squatting on illegal land, or just plain lying and therefore complicit with the ultimate design to take 3/4 of the Middle East to reestablish the Davidic Kingdom.

    Originally posted by Ron Webb

    That may be your suspicion, and there may be cheerleaders like Hagee who might make that connection, but the ones actually doing the reclamation (armed forces and political leaders) would never say that.


    That is because, I would argue, they are often complicit in the stealth mitzvah war. With that said, and again if one knows how to read between the lines of mainstream media, one can see:

    "...no rational argument is left to block a withdrawal [from the occupied territories]. Israel's refusal to pull out is rooted in another dimension - the dream of Greater Israel has never disappeared."

    Ref: http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/don-t-search-for-logic-in-a-dream-1.306646

    Greater Israel. Eretz Israel, from the Nile to the Euphrates and beyond, including, in some estimates, Cyprus! Among the many other projects Hagee is said to fund is Gush Etzion, the early realizers of the "dream" referred to above. It's all being done in God's name, according to Biblical precepts. Has the memory of Amelek been wiped clean yet?

    Originally posted by Ron Webb

    If they did, I would be among the first to object.  (Mind you, I object anyway, FWIW.)  And so would a whole heap of mainstream Christians.


    How many of them are objecting on CARM? In all of their denunciations of Islam, have you ever heard one of them talk disapprovingly about the mitzvah wars of Israel and the implications, in realtime death tolls, of wiping the memory of Amelek clean?

    Originally posted by Ron Webb

    Because it's a fantasy based on a fiction.


    "Final Countdown Over Jerusalem" isn't and that is the one I referenced. How would you like to be a Muslim and walk by the book counter at Wal-Mart and see an author on display whose silent ambition, among others, seems to be to destroy the memory of Amelek (especially if you are interpreted as Amelek)?

    Originally posted by Ron Webb

    People can indulge in whatever gruesome and (to me) disgusting fantasies they like.  None of my business.


    Go ahead. Remain as uninvolved as the rest of your fellow citizens. I am nevertheless starting my non-violent campaign to stop Wal-Mart from distributing jihadist literatre and will, if necessary, go it alone (as soon as I get adequate funding [winkey face]).

    Serv


    Posted By: Servetus
    Date Posted: 13 August 2013 at 4:30pm
    Originally posted by Servetus

    As I see it, your original intent is to get the Muslims to remove the sliver from their eye. I am suggesting, to the point of insistence, that we first remove the beam from our own. I am sometimes more than a vestigial Christian.


    Sorry, Ron, it occurred to me, well after the fact of my posting, that, in this statement, I was talking as much or more to Ronson than to Ron Webb. Please accept my apologies.


    Serv


    Posted By: Ron Webb
    Date Posted: 14 August 2013 at 4:23am

    Originally posted by Servetus

    In that case, examine the role of the passively aggressive jihadists, the block of Christian Evangelicals, who vote(d) for the crusading George W. Bush. Their passivity was expressed in the ballot box and became decidedly active. As far as I know, although Johns Hopkins put out some numbers, there is no record of the dead civilians as a result of Bush's crusade, continued by Obama, to make the Middle East safe for no-bid oil contracts and Israeli nuclear hegemony.

    Bush himself always gave entirely secular justifications for his Middle East policies and actions.  Whatever his supporters might have said or believed, you can't blame Bush for that.  And coming back to my original point, there is no need and no opportunity for a Christian apologist to dispute Bush's religious views, because he never said anything that discredited the Christian religion.  In fact, as far as I know, he never said much of anything about religion in an official capacity.

    Why exclude them from the subject of this discussion? I will quote one: "The good Lord didn't see fit to put oil and gas only where there are democratically elected regimes friendly to the United States. Occasionally we have to operate in places where, all things considered, one would not normally choose to go. But, we go where the business is." That was said by Master of Halliburton and ex-Vice President, Dick Cheney, GWBush's fellow crusader in the Middle East. To which "good Lord" do you suppose he is referring? I would suggest that he is referring to Mammon (money). In any case, I would call him an aggressively aggressive jihadist.

    And I would suggest that this is a mere figure of speech, something that even I might say.  It's not a religious pronouncement; and even if it were, what exactly ought a Christian apologist to say in response?  Is Christianity being misrepresented in some way?

    Originally posted by Ron Webb

    I'm not sure that "I think it rather more likely" is a strong enough justification for labeling someone a jihadist.  Has he actually advocated or at least expressed approval for the use of white phosphorus or preemptive strikes?

    Start here:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Auf-Su-xZVU&feature=player_embedded - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Auf-Su-xZVU&feature=player_embedded

    Point taken.  But if you read the http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/03072008/transcript1.html - transcript of the interview, you will see that Bill Moyers is doing exactly what I advocate that Muslims do with their own extremists.  He accuses Hagee of "bigotry towards different faiths".  He quotes Bill Donahue, the President of the Catholic League, expressing the "outrage of many Catholics".  He points out the hypocrisy of McCain in welcoming Hagee's endorsement, when just eight years earlier he had been cautioning against "pandering to the outer reaches of American politics and the agents of intolerance."

    As I see it, your original intent is to get the Muslims to remove the sliver from their eye. I am suggesting, to the point of insistence, that we first remove the beam from our own. I am sometimes more than a vestigial Christian.

    Well, not exactly.  My intent is to get Muslims to actually defend their religion, which is under constant assault in the media and in public discussions; and specifically to defend it where it counts, in the same media and public discussions where the assault is taking place.  I see no such assault taking place against Christianity, and where it is occasionally misrepresented by guys like Hagee, there are plenty of Bill Moyers to set the record straight.

    I just don't see that on the Jewish side. Mitzvah wars -often stealth- to reclaim Eretz Israel by way of illegal settlements and colonization are denounced by Jews, but this act of jihad is rarely reported upon by the mainstream press.

    I'm not so sure about that -- I see plenty of stories in the mainstream press about illegal Jewish settlements -- but that's beside the point.  Quite possibly Jews should take a more active and vocal approach to defending there religion too, but they are not the subject here either.  And by the way, there's nothing "stealth" about Jewish settlements.  They are openly sponsored by the Israeli government.

    How many of them are objecting on CARM?

    Agreed, there is a double standard, but again that's not what I'm talking about.

    Originally posted by Ron Webb

    Because it's a fantasy based on a fiction.

    "Final Countdown Over Jerusalem" isn't and that is the one I referenced.

    Then I must have misunderstood you.  I thought it was a fictionalized version of the Books of Daniel and Revelation (which itself is a fantasy).



    -------------
    Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


    Posted By: Experiential
    Date Posted: 15 August 2013 at 2:11am
    Originally posted by NABA

    Jizya tax was the tax taken for protection for non muslims themselves, u r taking wrong meaning of fight in that verse,fight can also b meant as arguement.in ch 16 v 125, Allah says invite the people to the way of lord with beautiful words and preachings and argue with them in best possible peaceful manner

    The Jizya tax – protection? You mean ‘protection’ like that of a gang demanding

    ‘protection money’ from innocent people.

    You forget that Mohammad was a man who used a sword. Ch 9.29 is in the context of him conquering other peoples. Who do these conquered peoples need protection from?

     

    Also what is the last part of the verse about ? -

    in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection."  ?

    Obviously this about humiliating conquered people.  ? Paying Jizyah is a sign of being conquered and submitting to the conquers . A sign of being a second class citizen. A dhimmi.

     

     

    Different translations of the verse 9.29 read -

    SAHIH INTERNATIONAL: Fight those who do not believe in Allah …

    MUHSIN KHAN: Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allah, …

    PICKTHAL: Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah …

    YUSUF ALI: Fight those who believe not in Allah …

    SHAKIR: Fight those who do not believe in Allah, …

    DR. GHALI: Fight the ones who do not believe in Allah …

     

    You still haven’t answered my question about Ch 8.12. If you think someone is causing mischief will you chop off their head and hands ?

      



    Posted By: NABA
    Date Posted: 18 August 2013 at 3:28am
    so where it is written that we have to fight to kill???fight also means to argue!!!y don't U quote the verse of ch 16 v 125-Allah says invite people to the way of ur lord with beautiful words and preaching and argue with them in best possible peaceful manner.regarding ch 8 v 12,ch 8 starts with the verse that Allah says when they(unbelievers) ask u(prophet Muhammad(pbuh))about the bounties of war,so the initial verses are related to war with those who cause mischief I.e destruction,so I ask U if someone try to attack U would U behave as peaceful and  allow yourself to b attacked??naturally U will fight!!!!!for eg what R v doing in past 4 to 5 months we R arguing with each other or we R fighting!!I m trying to convince U,U R trying to convince me,this is nothing but a form of fight!!!!


    Posted By: AbuKhalid
    Date Posted: 18 August 2013 at 11:29pm
    The Jizya tax – protection? You mean ‘protection’ like that of a gang demanding


    Deu 20:10 "And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, [that] all the people [that is] found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee. And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it"

    So the christians have it too. Muslims pay taxes as well as non muslims. In an Islamic state, We have the zakaat and the jizya. There are exemptions as in all taxes ... so jizya is not required for monks/priests, women and children and those who are old / poor etc.

    Look, any country you go to there is some kind of tax ... Federal, state, municipal, provincial whatever it is ... and the Goverment will come after you if you dont pay the tax... as simple as that.

    Your comparing it to gang like protection makes no sense ... thats what all taxes look like. If you dont pay them, you are punished. When you do, you get some benefits ... in the case of Jizya, you dont do military service.

    Also ... I'm not sure how the word "protection" came about and is being misused here.


    Posted By: Servetus
    Date Posted: 19 August 2013 at 7:45am
    I am out of this discussion for some time, having to pay more attention to what St. Paul, in his letter to Timothy, called filthy lucre (money) than I might otherwise like, but ...

    Originally posted by Ron Webb

    Bush himself always gave entirely secular justifications for his Middle East policies and actions.


    I repeat an excerpt from my above post of 26 July in which I quote the late Senator George McGovern's address to the National Press Club:

    "Mr. President {G.W. Bush}, Sir, when reporter Bob Woodward asked you if you had consulted with your father before ordering our army into Iraq you said, "No, he's not the father you call on a decision like this. I talked to my heavenly Father above."

    Ref:
    http://www.thenation.com/article/impartial-interrogation-george-w-bush#

    Serv


    Posted By: Ron Webb
    Date Posted: 19 August 2013 at 7:35pm
    Originally posted by Servetus

    Originally posted by Ron Webb

    Bush himself always gave entirely secular justifications for his Middle East policies and actions.

    I repeat an excerpt from my above post of 26 July in which I quote the late Senator George McGovern's address to the National Press Club:

    "Mr. President {G.W. Bush}, Sir, when reporter Bob Woodward asked you if you had consulted with your father before ordering our army into Iraq you said, "No, he's not the father you call on a decision like this. I talked to my heavenly Father above."
    If the best you can do is to quote a Democrat (mis)quoting Bush, then you must already know you're on shaky ground.
     
    I don't believe Bush ever said that.  I think McGovern was deliberately distorting the following passage (with emphasis added):
    Having given the order, the president walked alone around the circle behind the White House. Months later, he told Woodward: "As I walked around the circle, I prayed that our troops be safe, be protected by the Almighty. Going into this period, I was praying for strength to do the Lord's will. I'm surely not going to justify war based upon God. Understand that. Nevertheless, in my case, I pray that I be as good a messenger of his will as possible. And then, of course, I pray for forgiveness."
     
    Did Mr. Bush ask his father for any advice? "I asked the president about this. And President Bush said, 'Well, no,' and then he got defensive about it," says Woodward. "Then he said something that really struck me. He said of his father, 'He is the wrong father to appeal to for advice. The wrong father to go to, to appeal to in terms of strength.' And then he said, 'There's a higher Father that I appeal to.'"
    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-612067.html - http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-612067.html


    -------------
    Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


    Posted By: Servetus
    Date Posted: 20 August 2013 at 7:38pm
    Originally posted by Ron Webb

    If the best you can do is to quote a Democrat (mis)quoting Bush, then you must already know you're on shaky ground.


    On the contrary, I think that you are quibbling. Senator McGovern was paraphrasing G.W.Bush and I think he was accurate in the part of his speech which I quoted and brought forward.

    To wit:

    "Mr. President {G.W. Bush}, Sir, when reporter Bob Woodward asked you if you had consulted with your father before ordering our army into Iraq you said, "No, he's not the father you call on a decision like this. I talked to my heavenly Father above."{Senator McGovern}


    In contrast:

    "Did Mr. Bush ask his father for any advice? "I asked the president about this. And President Bush said, 'Well, no,' and then he got defensive about it," says Woodward. "Then he said something that really struck me. He said of his father, 'He is the wrong father to appeal to for advice. The wrong father to go to, to appeal to in terms of strength.' And then he said, 'There's a higher Father that I appeal to.'"{CBS per Ron Webb}


    The strength to do what, exactly? The Lord's will? Where did that lead him and us? I don't think that Senator McGovern was too far afield to conclude that Bush, according to his own admission, appealed to his Heavenly, or "higher" Father for the strength to destroy Fallujah, Iraq, with, among other things, depleted uranium (which was one of the net results of his invasion).

    Originally posted by Ron Webb

    Bush himself always gave entirely secular justifications for his Middle East policies and actions.


    Sorry. That doesn't sound very secular to me and veteran Washington reporter Bob Woodward was reportedly struck by something in that exchange. But anyway, even if Bush did always give entirely secular justifications, how does that solve anything? Are secular crusades to make the Middle East safe for no-bid oil contracts and Israeli nuclear hegemony somehow more justifiable, in your opinion, than religious ones? I, personally, think crusades, by any other name, even a secular one, smell as foul.

    Serv


    Posted By: Ron Webb
    Date Posted: 22 August 2013 at 9:06pm

    Originally posted by Servetus

    The strength to do what, exactly? The Lord's will? Where did that lead him and us? I don't think that Senator McGovern was too far afield to conclude that Bush, according to his own admission, appealed to his Heavenly, or "higher" Father for the strength to destroy Fallujah, Iraq, with, among other things, depleted uranium (which was one of the net results of his invasion).

    The strength to make difficult decisions and do the right thing, obviously.  Not to justify the war based on God, as he stated explicitly.  There is no mention of God telling him to destroy Fallujah, and no mention of depleted uranium.  You're just mustering an army of strawmen.

    Sorry. That doesn't sound very secular to me and veteran Washington reporter Bob Woodward was reportedly struck by something in that exchange.

    He is acknowledging his belief in God.  What's wrong with that?  Are you saying that theists should not be allowed in public office, or that they should deny their beliefs?

    But anyway, even if Bush did always give entirely secular justifications, how does that solve anything? Are secular crusades to make the Middle East safe for no-bid oil contracts and Israeli nuclear hegemony somehow more justifiable, in your opinion, than religious ones? I, personally, think crusades, by any other name, even a secular one, smell as foul.

    Maybe so, but we were comparing the need for Muslims vs. Christians to defend their religions from extremists who discredit them.  Clearly if the justifications are entirely secular, then there is nothing for Christians to defend against.



    -------------
    Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


    Posted By: The LastProphet
    Date Posted: 25 August 2013 at 9:27pm
    it was my understanding that 'islam' is 'submission to God'.  if some wish to call it a religion..... then so be it.  but if a christian submits to God... then they are islamic also. 

    religion is a man made construct to separate one from another.  all biblical texts show that God , Allah, is one.  the One.  all biblical texts speak that the 10 commandments should be followed.  all biblical texts speak of turning your will over to Allah.

    so, if one chooses to kill, then they are not following islam.  they are not submitting to God.  so ..... one should use a bit of common sense to realize that using the name of God, Allah, to justify killing and destruction, has absolutely nothing to do with God, Allah.  anyone can say anything they please.  but that does not make them a servant of God , someone that is submitting to His will.


    Posted By: Al Saadiqeen21
    Date Posted: 28 August 2013 at 8:39am
    Originally posted by The LastProphet

    it was my understanding that 'islam' is 'submission to God'.  if some wish to call it a religion..... then so be it.  but if a christian submits to God... then they are islamic also. 

    religion is a man made construct to separate one from another.  all biblical texts show that God , Allah, is one.  the One.  all biblical texts speak that the 10 commandments should be followed.  all biblical texts speak of turning your will over to Allah.

    so, if one chooses to kill, then they are not following islam.  they are not submitting to God.  so ..... one should use a bit of common sense to realize that using the name of God, Allah, to justify killing and destruction, has absolutely nothing to do with God, Allah.  anyone can say anything they please.  but that does not make them a servant of God , someone that is submitting to His will.
     
     
     
     
     Some Muslims will say , It is the Submission to the will of their God , Allah . However , The word Islaam is taken from the 5th name of their God , Allah , As Salaam meaning The Peace , '' Taken from The Ashuric / Syriac Arabic root word '' Salama , Meaning '' To Have , To Be Peaceful ''; Which Euro-Arab and Muslims greeting '' As Salaamu 'Alaykum , '' Meaning '' Peace Be Upon You , Come from , The word Salaam was derived from The Aramic / Hebrew word Shalom , Meaning '' Peace . ''

    The word Muslim is derived from The Ashuric / Syriac Arabic word Salama meaning '' One Who Is Of Peace ,


    -------------
    One doesn't go to school let His / her's mind to die , They go to school so that their mind will come alive .



    Posted By: The LastProphet
    Date Posted: 30 August 2013 at 9:56pm
    you repeatedly used the phrase 'their God'.  do you not see Allah and the christian God as one and the same?

    thank you for the lesson ..... point in fact .... that just makes it more apparent that Allah and the christian God are one and the same.

    it was my understanding that Mohammad was disgusted by the early christians' corruption of the teachings of Jesus.  what the muslims do today and what was done in 700 AD are two different things.  some of the teachings they follow today leads them away from Allah/God.  just as some of the christian teachings lead them away from Allah/God.  it is spoken that at the end of times it shall be the christians and muslims that fight side by side against Allah/God.  and the remnant shall be small among the other servants of God/Allah.
    blessings.


    -------------
    blessings



    Print Page | Close Window