The Prblem with Islam

[East of Eden]

In Pakistan, Tolerance Shrinks
It's shocking how many of my countrymen celebrated the murder of a secular politician.

By MIRA SETHI
Lahore, Pakistan

Three years ago, when Benazir Bhutto—the first woman to lead a postcolonial Muslim state—was assassinated, Pakistanis mourned her from the syncretic South to the Punjab to the tribal North. With the recent assassination of Punjab Gov. Salman Taseer, the opposite has been true. While his friends, party-workers and family huddled together in despair, Pakistan's silent majority and vocal Islamist minority ignored and celebrated his murder.

Late last week, when Taseer's assassin was presented at an antiterrorism court, no public prosecutor showed up out of fear for his safety. Instead, a throng of shouting lawyers and activists, bearing garlands for the assassin, crowded the streets hailing the killer as a hero.

Taseer's assassin, Malik Mumtaz Qadri, proclaimed that he had acted out of "love" for the Prophet Muhammad. His disconcertingly calm snapshot—raised chin, slight smile—now serves as a profile picture on his multiple Facebook "fan" pages.

As far as Qadri was concerned, Taseer's crime was championing the cause of a Pakistani Christian woman, Aasia Bibi, who was accused of blaspheming against Muhammad. Taseer had very publicly asked President Asif Ali Zardari to commute her death sentence, arguing that the country's "black blasphemy laws," as he put it a number of times on national TV, were being used to hound the country's minorities. These blasphemy laws, which have no basis in either the Quran or Muhammad's life, were passed by Gen. Muhammad Zia ul-Haq. Zia, a military dictator during the 1980s and ally of the U.S. in its fight against the Soviets, ruthlessly Islamized the country.

The day after Taseer's burial, a prayer service was held for him at the Governor's House. I went with my brother and, upon entering the house, we parted ways, he to sit with the men, I with the women. Taseer's youngest daughter is a friend of mine, and sitting down with her on white cotton sheets laid on the floor, traditional in a house of mourning, I thought back to the days leading up to her father's death.

During a Christmas cake- cutting ceremony at the Governor's House last month, surrounded by Christians in purple robes, Taseer had recalled that the white stripe in the Pakistani flag represented the rights of the nation's religious minorities. He was killed for standing up for these rights. But first, he was abandoned by his own party: Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani shamelessly asserted that "this is the governor's personal point of view, I am a Syed [direct descendant of the prophet], my government has no intention to dilute the blasphemy law." And yet Taseer was honored with a meticulously carried-out state funeral, his coffin wrapped in the green and white Pakistani flag.

At a crowded local market, a woman told me that what Qadri had done was indefensible. "I can't understand his 'love' for the prophet," she said, cradling a baby on her hip. "The prophet even forgave the woman who threw trash on him. . . . What is this Islam we are practicing today?"

From the corner of my eye, I saw a man leaning out of his rickshaw looking at us. The rickshaw was red and blue; on its back, encircled by a large red heart, were the words, "A Mother's Love Is a Blessing." Talking about Taseer's assassin, the driver told me: "He acted out of love for the prophet. When I heard that the priest at the Governor's House refused to say the funeral prayer for Taseer, my passion was refreshed."

And so a sense of panic in Pakistan has been renewed once again. Zia's proteges in the army still rule the country and continue to foster the religious right as their asset. Poverty breeds anger. And though the terrorists may be few, the extremists are many.

I remembered Taseer's last tweet, a couplet by the poet Shakeel Badayuni, posted eight hours before his assassination and translated by the blog Café Pyala. Perhaps there's still room for conviction:

My resolve is so strong that I do not fear the flames from without.

I fear only the radiance of the flowers, that it might burn my garden down.

Ms. Sethi is assistant books editor at the Journal.





The article above describes how a Pakistani Christian woman was sentanced to death for supposedly blaspheming the 'prophet', and how a brave Pakistani government official who tried to protect her was murdered. Not just a few radicals, but the majority of Pakistanis seem to approve of these crimes because of their religion. Unfortunately this is happening in many Muslim countries, where persecution of non-Muslims is like an ongoing 'Kristallnacht'.

The question for debate is, how is this not a problem inherent to Islam itself? And please, no thread hijacks about the Crusades or Inquisition.

[East of Eden]

More problems with Islam:

1. According to the authoritative Arabic text, Al-Taqiyya Fi Al-Islam: "Taqiyya [deception] is of fundamental importance in Islam. Practically every Islamic sect agrees to it and practices it. We can go so far as to say that the practice of taqiyya is mainstream in Islam, and that those few sects not practicing it are out of the mainstream."

2. An example of Taqiyya in action can be seen in the assertions of men like Akbar Ahmed, the chair of Islamic studies at American University. He "counsels" U.S. government officials about Islam and makes false public pronouncements on CNN and the BBC, claiming that Islam was considered a legitimate religion by America's Founders, when in fact they considered it an abomination.

3. The role of Saudi funding of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is engaged in civilizational jihad in the West, is discussed in this article. Even left-wing comedians like Bill Maher are beginning to be alarmed at the encroachment of Islam in the West. In 1991 a Muslim Brotherhood document entitled An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America outlined a "Civilization-Jihadist Process," and stated that Muslims "must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house." As Frank Gafney recently observed, "the Saudis are never held accountable for their role as prime-movers behind the 'stealth jihad' - the effort to insinuate shariah into nations like ours through the text books, mosques, Muslim Brotherhood front organizations, media ownership and other influence operations they underwrite. This dangerous practice is often lubricated by the Saudis' generous financial and other relationships with former senior U.S. government officials and prominent businesses, who can be counted upon to discourage probing questions or more prudential policies here."

4. Newt Gingrich hit the nail on the head in a speech he gave to the Institute for Public Policy Research: "Stealth jihadis use political, cultural, societal, religious, intellectual tools; violent jihadis use violence. But in fact they're both engaged in jihad and they're both seeking to impose the same end state, which is to replace Western civilization with a [radical] imposition of Sharia."

5. Even in India, where mainstream Islam is alleged to be moderate, we find this conclusion being drawn from a recent study of official Islamic sources: "It is of the very essence of a totalitarian ideology that it enforces its right to regulate the totality of life. The Koran, the Hadith, the fatwas represent one continuous endeavor in this respect: they aim at controlling every single aspect of life."

From 'American Thinker'


Murad, I also have to dispute your contention that during the rise in Islam churches were treated with respect. In Damascas Christians had to turn 15 churches over to the Muslims to become mosques. The Umayyad Caliph Abd al-Malik is said to have transformed ten churches in Damascus into mosques. The Great Mosque of Caliph al-Walid I was originally the Church of St. John. Over the centuries, many churches in Egypt were also converted into mosques. Many churches of the Byzantine era on Cyprus became mosques. The Abbasid Caliph al-Ma'mun (813-833) turned many churches into mosques. The Ottomans converted nearly all the churches, monasteries, and chapels in Constantinople into mosques, including the famous Hagia Sophia, after capturing the city in 1453.

Unfortunately, this destruction of churches is still going on today all over the Muslim world. Not surprising, when Christians and Jews are vilified during sermons. An article in the March 10, 2008 edition of the Saudi pro-government daily newspaper Al-Jazirah described how "in almost every sermon, without exception imams recite supplications against Jews and Christians, and ask Allah that we defeat them, capture their women, and confiscate their possessions as booty."

Some examples of cursing prayers are as follows:

O Allah, destroy the kuffar (infidels, i.e. non-Muslims) who are trying to prevent people from following your path, who deny your messengers and who do not believe in your promise (the day of judgement). Make them disunited, fill their hearts with terror and send your wrath and punishment against them, O God of truth."

O God, destroy the Jews and their supporters and the Christians and their supporters and followers. O God, destroy the ground under their feet, instill fear in their hearts, and freeze the blood in their veins.

- From the Grand Mosque in Sanaa, Yemen

[DeBunkem]

Only Judaism isn't killing and persecuting non-Jews. Muslims have more freedom in Israel than they do in most Muslim nations.

Really? They have as much freedom in Gaza as the Jews had in Warsaw. They are the most afflicted group of people in the ME. What Bizarro dimension do you live in? Not even FOX news makes claims as patently outrageous as this. Yes, they have the freedom to live in IDF-imposed squalor while their lands are increasingly subdivided by ugly Occupation settlements. They are free to be constantly harassed at IDF checkpoints and even die there waiting for "permission" to get to a hospital. They are free to be shelled, shot, bombed and starved for any or no reason. That is just a small part of the "freedom" that Palestinian Muslims (and Christians) have inflicted on them by IDF terrorists and settler thugs.

Selective Nature of UN Intervention
By Sasha Simic

March 19, 2011 "The Guardian" -- When Israel bombed Gaza at the end of 2008 in a brutal action which killed 1,300 people and destroyed 20,000 buildings, there was no question of the US allowing the UN to impose a no-fly zone over Gaza to protect its people, 50% of which are children. Those who support the UN security council's authorisation of a no-fly zone over Libya (Britain, France and US line up for air strikes against Gaddafi, 18 March) need to reflect on the selective nature of UN intervention throughout the world and in the Middle East in particular.

The UN will not be intervening in the Libyan revolution to protect civilians from Gaddafi's brutality. It will go in to further the interests of the world's major powers in the region. It will be an imperialist action, not a humanitarian one. After the bloodshed it produced in Serbia, Iraq and Afghanistan, the doctrine of "humanitarian military intervention" should be discredited beyond rehabilitation. The west is a major source of the problems of the Middle East and north Africa. It's not part of the solution, even when its troops wear blue helmets.

Now you have the "freedom" to question the Guardian as a reliable source compared to AIPAC media disinfo. I doubt even the most ardent Zionist could hold back from at least giggling over your contention. Certainly Haaretz and informed, non-zealot Israelis can distinguish reality from delusion when they see the Appropriation Wall.

When it is leveled at Israel, the charge of apartheid generates not counter-argument backed by counter-evidence, but rather walls of sheer stony denial, if not inarticulate eruptions of blind rage, as though either denial or sheer fury could permanently forestall argument Saree Makdisi2010-03-11

[cnorman18]

When it is leveled at Israel, the charge of apartheid generates not counter-argument backed by counter-evidence, but rather walls of sheer stony denial, if not inarticulate eruptions of blind rage, as though either denial or sheer fury could permanently forestall argument

There's that same repeated unsubstantiated claim again. I would go so far as to call it a claim that is patently false and has been proven false on several occasions.

To quote myself from another thread:

The fact [is] that very many Arabs never left Israel at the time of its founding, and many (20% of the Israeli population) live there in peace and freedom as full citizens to this day.

As I have noted many times; Arabs and Muslims live and work in Israel as full citizens, owning land and businesses, buying and selling, VOTING, serving in the Israeli Knesset and the Israeli Army, as attorneys and judges in the Israeli courts, as Israeli government officials and bureaucrats, as Israeli police officers, physicians, emergency personnel, and on and on -- in fact, in every aspect of public and private Israeli life. NONE of this was true of blacks in South Africa, and yet DeBunkem insists on referring to "Apartheid Israel" as if that term were appropriate, applicable and beyond dispute. Again; he has never, as in not once, responded to nor acknowledged any of these arguments and facts.

On the contrary: he insists [as he does yet again here] that the charge of "apartheid" is always and only met with nothing but "sheer stony denial" and "eruptions of inarticulate rage." One may agree that the term is applicable to Israel or not: but THAT oft-repeated claim of DeBunkem's is patently and inarguably unsubstantiated, indefensible, and totally false. Further -- and yet again -- he has never acknowledged repeated criticisms of his posts on these grounds, either.

Repeating a claim does not make it true, no matter how many times it's repeated: and putting other members on "ignore" doesn't make the proof of its falsity disappear, either.

There are, as I have also pointed out MANY times, very many FACTS and ARGUMENTS which DeBunkem steadfastly refuses to acknowledge and absolutely refuses to address, starting with the FACT of Palestinian terrorism -- which as far as DeBunkem is concerned, apparently does not exist. Those many facts and arguments are examined in detail at the link posted above.

Once again, I observe that posting one-sided propaganda without the least interest in or effort at responding to contrary arguments is commonly called "SPAM." Since SPAM is supposedly barred from this forum, I have to wonder why this member keeps getting away with it.

[Wyvern]

Really? They have as much freedom in Gaza as the Jews had in Warsaw.

To use your own words, really? In your zeal to demonize Israel I guess you forgot what happened to the Warsaw ghetto when they started shooting at their nazi captors.

They are the most afflicted group of people in the ME.

No, they are the most media savvy group in the middle east.

They are free to be shelled, shot, bombed and starved for any or no reason.

I guess you haven't bothered watching the news lately, Hamas has launched fifty rockets into Israel but I guess according to you that's no reason for Israel to return fire into Gaza.

Selective Nature of UN Intervention
By Sasha Simic

March 19, 2011 "The Guardian" -- When Israel bombed Gaza at the end of 2008 in a brutal action which killed 1,300 people and destroyed 20,000 buildings, there was no question of the US allowing the UN to impose a no-fly zone over Gaza to protect its people, 50% of which are children. Those who support the UN security council's authorisation of a no-fly zone over Libya (Britain, France and US line up for air strikes against Gaddafi, 18 March) need to reflect on the selective nature of UN intervention throughout the world and in the Middle East in particular.

The UN will not be intervening in the Libyan revolution to protect civilians from Gaddafi's brutality. It will go in to further the interests of the world's major powers in the region. It will be an imperialist action, not a humanitarian one. After the bloodshed it produced in Serbia, Iraq and Afghanistan, the doctrine of "humanitarian military intervention" should be discredited beyond rehabilitation. The west is a major source of the problems of the Middle East and north Africa. It's not part of the solution, even when its troops wear blue helmets.

This article is just plain beautiful, even if other nations intervene in Libya to help the rebels(which has happened) it stilll will be interpreted in the worst light possible. If the west does nothing it's their fault and if they actually do something its still wrong because they are doing it for the wrong reasons.

[East of Eden]

Really? They have as much freedom in Gaza as the Jews had in Warsaw. They are the most afflicted group of people in the ME. What Bizarro dimension do you live in?

The real one. You might want to visit it sometime.

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/pu ... detail.asp

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31947

[Wyvern]

Really? They have as much freedom in Gaza as the Jews had in Warsaw. They are the most afflicted group of people in the ME. What Bizarro dimension do you live in?

The real one. You might want to visit it sometime.

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/pu ... detail.asp

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31947

Hey EoE I think we might actually agree on something

[Murad]

The only thing "wacky" here is the continual BS by the American Government, "Weapons of Mass Destruction"? Its funny how the status quo kept changing, a continuous array of pseudo excuses that were in effect used to invade a foreign nation. Which was the result of innumerable deaths, far more than the saddam regime.

Complete baloney. Many of those 'civilian' deaths were wearing a mask and carrying an AK-47 at the time of their transportation to the 72 virgins.

False Claim.

Iraq Body Count project
98,170 — 107,152 civilian deaths as a result of the conflict. 150,726 civilian and combatant deaths

WikiLeaks. Classified Iraq war logs[1][2][3][4]
104,924 recorded iraqi deaths, including 92,003[5] (or 66,081[6]) civilian deaths.

These are the PLAIN facts, they will go hard down your throat considering your pre-"America the Greatest" ideology. If you want to dispute FACTS, by all means, lets dispute facts, but all you have done so far is give your subjective opinion which although im interested to hear, i give no significance.

It is a well known fact, that AFTER saddam refused to accept the US dollar for Iraqi oil, America decided to "Liberate Iraq". Its not muslims that are saying this, its your own people.

& i did not bring 9/11 up, nor are the people making documentaries about it muslims.

Are these Americans 'nutcase 'muslims' ?

No, they are nutcase Americans. Think Michael Moore.

Why the double standards then?
Its the American public that are spreading these kinds of propaganda. So please tell me WHY you single out muslims when it comes down to 9/11 and label them 'nutcases' while turning a blind eye on your own people?

Ofcourse im glad Saddam is gone,

You don't act like it. If I didn't know any better I would think you feel democracy to be some kind of threat to Islam.

The difference between you and me is, i look at the big picture, your still at "Saddams Gone, America is justified for everything". This is the minimal type of analysis one could portray, infact you seem to have no problem googling hateful anti-islamic websites, while you show great difficulty in accepting objectively backed-up American criticism.

A better question is: "Are you glad with the way Saddam was overthrown".

Do you know of a perfectly conducted war with no casaulties? I don't.

I do know America was far from perfect

Like in Nazi Germany, the US mass media feature unconfirmed reports by the US military of the bloody murders, beheadings and kidnappings "by the foreign terrorists". The unconditional support of Nazi/US mass media for the killing fields is best captured in their reports of the massive bombing of densely populated city districts. For the US network NBC, the dropping of 500-pound bombs in the city of Fallujah is described as targeting an "insurgent tunnel network in the city". And the houses, markets, stores — the mothers and children above those tunnels — vaporised into "pink mist", their existence never acknowledged by the leading reporters and broadcasters.

Almost the entire population of non-Kurdish Iraq is opposed to the US military and its puppet regime — yet the media refer to the patriots defending their country from the imperial invaders as "insurgents", minimising the significance of a nationwide patriotic liberation movement. One of the most surreal euphemisms is the constant reference to the "coalition forces" — meaning the US colonial conquerors and the mercenaries and satraps that they direct and control.

The terror bombing of homes, hospitals and religious buildings by hundreds of airplanes and helicopter gunships is described by the media as "securing the city for free elections".
-James Petras

No im not, an American invasion resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands & displaced millions, it utterly destroyed an already poor nation, & guess what? Its still a hell-hole, so much for liberation.

Iraq is far better off in many measurable ways.

Oh really? Tell me how the deaths of 1,033,000 are made better? Iraq is still a hell hole, security is still low in numerous regions, please, i would really love to know what are the "measurable ways"?

America, single handedly was the result of those deaths, the whole concept of 'collateral damage' is a euphemistic attempt cover the American massacre. The cons far outweigh the pros, & im sure the Bush administration knew that very well before making BS like the whole "WMD Theory".

Learn the difference between a lie and bad intel. Bush didn't say anything different than big-name Democrats were saying at the time. If he hadn't gone into Iraq they probably would have accused him of doing nothing about Saddam.

Bad Intel? Something as significant, something of such a great magnitude as the "WMD" theory was the result of "Bad" Intel?
Ex-CIA official: WMD evidence ignored

Such Bad intel was used to invade a foreign nation. Such Bad intel resulted in countless civilian deaths.

Absolutely not.
Do you even question WHY the libyan rebels dont want a military intervention? Its because they dont want another massacre by a foreign power.

At the very least they do want a no-fly zone, as does the Arab League.

Yes they do. & Thats not the same as an invasion.

IMHO we have every right to depose Ghaddafi (why does he always dress like a drag queen?) for his role in the 1988 Lockerbie bombing alone.

Its a Libyan problem & the Libyan rebels dont want a foreign military intervention, America has no right in invading Libya.

Yes he did, Paul made the Mosaic Laws obsolete. Is Paul not an apostle of God in Christianity?

Jesus made them obsolete, in fulfillment of Jeremiah 31:31-34, among other passages of the OT.

No where in Jeremiah does it say the laws were made obsolete, infact on the contrary it says the New Covenant "with the house of Israel & Judah" (what a surprise no "Gentile") would have laws imprinted in their hearts & mind. Is the Christian concept of "Salvation" a law?

(Hosea 14:1-2). "Rend your heart, and not your garments, and turn unto the Lord your God: for he is gracious and full of compassion, slow to anger and plenteous in mercy, and repenteth him of the evil" (Joel 2:13).

No need for a crucified God.

Human rights are also routinely violated in America, take Guantanamo Bay for example:

Guantanamo Bay represents the very worst of abuses of international humanitarian and human rights law. Detainees are imprisoned WITHOUT adequate access to legal counsel or independent tribunals violating the right to fair trial. Prisoners have been detained for undefined periods, without charges, and have been subjected to prolonged solitary confinement violating the right to be free of arbitrary detention. Detainees lack independent medical evaluation violating the right to health Detainees have been subjected to physical and psychological interrogation techniques that are in violation of the right to be free of torture. Prisoners have been denied independent investigation into allegations of torture and ill treatment. Rendition of prisoners to countries with a substantial risk of torture violates the principle of non-refoulment. There have been violations of the right to freedom of religion or belief. Force feeding of detainees on hunger strikes violates the right to health. As an expert consultant to the legal teams representing Guantanamo detainees, Dr. Grodin will call for independent investigation, documentation, accountability and possible prosecution of violations of prisoner's human rights. Guantanamo Bay must be closed.

Source

Another American nutcase. Keeping hunger-striking prisoners alive is an abuse of some kind? I see Obama has come to his senses and decided to keep Guantanamo open.

What a surprise, the only time someone is a 'nutcase' is when they disagree with your perception?
And that "Hunger Strike" is called fasting, the only abuse here is the lack of medical evaluation & the constant unjustified torture. I have no doubt your for Guantanamo, good thing the majority of Americans disagree with you.

Firstly, i request again that you use correct terminology.

What are you talking about?

Jihad.

Secondly, HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT? Where is the evidence? Where are the charges laid? Are the tortures pre-justified with proof? You cannot lock someone up in one of the worlds harshest prisons WITHOUT a single charge or without expressing objectively WHY you have done so.
These men are under the control of the American Government, who most boastfully talk about "Human Rights", & where is the justice in this? Give me ONE reason why these men don't deserve a fair trial? Blatant hypocrisy & double standards at its best.

A military tribunal IS a fair trial. Worry about the complete lack of rights in most Muslim countries before you start criticizing the US.

Red Herring, before you critisise the middle eastern nations that you invade, fix your own problems.
The facts are, men are being held WITHOUT CHARGE in Guantanamo Bay. How on earth do you see this as fair?

"Innocent until proven guilty"
Isn't that what the judicial system of America implements? I dont disagree, America has the tendancy of torturing innocents, muslims being the most popular choice.

At least the terrorist vermin variety, and BTW it isn't torture. What do you propose we do with these people? Of those released at least 25% have returned to their life of crime.

The interrogation methods are torture, i dont know how you get the idea that they're not. I propose they should be given federal trials like any human & then we can objectively establish whether these men are terrorist offenders.

Red Herring, is this your justification on why America lacks justice against muslims?

I reject your premise. Why do you keep ignoring the lack of justice in Muslim nations, you know the religion we should be emulating?

I dont ignore the "lack of justice", i've repeated numerous times in this thread various aspects of Sharia need reforming, & i've also asked you to present your objective evidence on how "Islam warrants the killings of Christians", you havn't been able to do so. What we have here is Double Standards, you accusing the eastern nations of 'X' while justifying American human right breaches with:
You call waterboarding torture, I call it the first bath these creeps have had in years.

Ok heres what you do:

Go on Google.
Search "Quran Violence" (Or whatever you want)
Take the chapter & verse # of the 'violent' verse.
Now read the verse in context.
http://quran.com

If that doesn't convince you, post the verses here i'll clarify each one.

See:

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages ... .htm#other

Games muslims play? LOL:

“And Jesus said to him, ‘Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone. (Mark 10:18)�

“And Jesus said to him, ‘Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.
(Luke 18:19)

But," he said, "you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live."
(Exodus 33:20)

Can you justify the above biblical verses so they do not conflict with Christian theology (Jesus is God)? (P.S. No "Verbal Games" allowed)

You made the claim Islam is violent, i asked you to search for these so called 'violent' verses & read them in context, quoting the opinions of an anti-Islamic website is like me quoting the opinions of pro-Jewish websites that label Jesus as a 'gay lunatic'.

Do you want to debate objectively or not? Enough of linking me to hate websites. If you want to play that game, ill play all day long:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Now you tell me, what was the point of the above?

And here is Jesus giving the thumbs up:

"And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing. Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end. And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.
(Luke 22:35-38)"

An extreme figure of speech used to warn the disciples of the perilous times about to come. They would need defense and protection, as Paul did when he appealed to Caesar (Acts 25:11) as the one who "bears the sword" (Romans 13:4). Sensing that the disciples had taken Him too literally, Jesus ironically closes the discussion with a curt "That is enough". Not long after this, Peter was rebuked for using a sword in verse 50.

An extreme figure of speech? Funny how its a figure of speech when it doesn't suit you.
Where did you get the idea of "Defence & Protection" ?
In the above verse no such 'defence' is being spoken of, its your assumption. Jesus is plainly telling his disciples the importance of maintaining military power, obviously the 12 disciples weren't going to engage in warfare with an entire empire, but its a messege to the future christians.

The fact is, no Christians today are using this passage to justify violence as Muslims routinely do with the Koran, rightly or wrongly. The dead victims don't care if it was a right or wrong interpretation.

"Today" ? That is not the point, Christian violence in the name of Christ is all over our historical textbooks. No need to apply double standards to such conspicuous facts.

Yep, there might be some nutcase muslims endorsing massacres done by Christian civilizations.

The teachings of Jesus didn't cause the holocaust, and there aren't crowds of a million Christians gathering today to hear that act applauded.

Yes but the religion of Christianity did. I dont think there is anyone that argues Christendom's influence on hitler.

Im not disputing fairness here, if the American Government was founded upon a Christian Constitution, then all the non-Christian migrants/citizens have to abide by the laws.

I didn't say the US was founded on a Christian Constitution, it was founded on a Judeo-Christian heritage, which accounts for our freedoms that are sorely lacking in Muslim lands.

The American constitution does not even signify a "Judeo-Christian heritage", but one could say it signifies a 'deity', whether the founders had certain subjective beliefs, thats for another debate.

Ofcourse it bothers me, Islam does not permit the expulsion of Christians / Jews just because of their religion.

So why is routine persecution of Christians and Jews going on all over the Muslim world by governments, not just a few nutcase extremists?

You really better ask them, you don't expect me to objectively talk on their behalf do you? If we were living in 1400 i could ask you the same question about Christianity. I made the claim "Islam does not permit the expulsion of Christians / Jews just because of their religion" & im ready to defend this position objectively with the Quran & Sahih Hadiths, whatever certain muslims do is not my concern in an objective debate.

So you could only imagine how he would feel to find brothels scattered around like corner stores within a Christian Nation?

Other than NV, where are they? I've never seen one.

If in 1990 the prostitution trade in the United States was estimated to generate $14 billion a year, imagine the figures 21 years later.

Im sure you've atleast seen a strip club or something?

Jesus would say to the brothel workers and customers, 'Go and sin no more', he wouldn't have them stoned as under Sharia Law, nor did He tell the Romans to make laws in conformity with His.

Jesus sure expressed more hate/anger towards adultry than any other biblical prophet, so i disagree with the "slap on the wrist".

Although im well aware on the implications each Christian doctrine has, what is your personal view of the doctrine of 'Atonement & Blood' ?

Why does the doctrine conflict with the Jewish scriptures so much?

The OT Jewish sacrificial system was an imperfect system pointing to Jesus' later perfect sacrifice on the cross, where He bore our sins. Even in the OT the just were saved by faith. Isaiah 53 prophecies about the atonement:

"Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows...He was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities, the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed."

Judaism, teaches that the "servant" is the nation of Israel, not the Messiah. The Christian quotations of Isaiah are out of context, thus highly deceving. For example, Isaiah 53:10 tells us of the suffering servant: "He shall see seed, he shall prolong days."

Christian commentators would like us to believe that the term "seed" is used metaphorically, meaning, in Isaiah 53:10, "disciples." Generally, the Hebrew word bayn ("son") may be employed metaphorically with the meaning "disciples," but never is the term zer'a ("seed") used in this sense. For example, "And Abraham said: 'Behold to me You have given no seed (zer'a), and, see the son (ben) of my house is my heir.' And, behold, the word of the Lord came to him, saying: 'This man shall not be your heir, but he that shall come forth out of your own bowels shall be your heir'" (Genesis 15:3-4). Hence, zer'a must be taken literally, which rules out the possibility that it refers to Jesus since he had no children of his own.

The second part of the promise, ". . . he shall prolong days," also cannot be applied to Jesus, who died at a young age. To apply these words, as Christian commentators do, is not only evasive but also meaningless. How can such a promise have any meaning for Jesus, who is viewed as being of divine substance and whose existence is believed by Christianity to be eternal? There would be no need for God to assure a fellow member of the Trinity eternal life.

In understanding the meaning of the phrase ". . . he shall prolong days" it should be understood that there is a difference in meaning between the concept of prolonging of days and that of gaining eternal life. The concept of a prolonged life cannot be treated as the equivalent of eternal life because in an eternal context, time of any duration is of no consequence. Consequently, one cannot speak of an eternal being as having his days prolonged: "Are Your days as the days of man, or Your years as a man's days?" (Job 10:5). God must be referred to as eternal: "The number of his years is unsearchable" (Job 36:26). He is the first, He is the last, He cannot be anything else. Prolonging the days of one who is already supposed to be eternal would make his life longer than eternity. That is an obvious impossibility. If the promise of prolonged days is applied to Jesus, he could not be of divine origin.

Once again, we see that Isaiah 53's description of the suffering servant of the Lord does not find fulfillment in the New Testament's description of Jesus.

Source

Our sins are an offense against God, and only He can forgive them. Through faith in His atoning death, Christians can have assurance of salvation, unlike false works-based religions.

So God just played dumb with the Jews? His real plan was to incarnate himself as a man & commit suicide on the cross so he wouldn't get angry at you....?

The biblical verses are quite militant & assertive in speech:

The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: EVERY man shall be put to death for his own sin. (Deuteronomy 24:16)

The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. (Ezekiel 18:20)

But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge. (Jeremiah 31:30)

For many nations and great kings shall serve themselves of them also: and I will recompense them according to their deeds, and according to the works of their own hands. (Jeremiah 25:14)

Jesus NEVER said anything about "Atoning your Sins",

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son." John 3:16-18

Re-Read my statement.
You are quoting the words of the anonymous author of John written half a century after Jesus.

Lets disregard the fact that the entire doctrine was concocted years after Jesus,

Already demonstrated to be false.

No its a fact that Jesus never taught 'atonement', do you want to debate this objectively?

what logic does it have? So basically, God is 3 persons in 1, and to not get angry at his own creation, he kills one person of himself (ironically God cannot die).

God the Son did die. You can also say men cannot really die, their souls go on.

Even better, so God required a physical death so he could forgive his creation?

Does this make sense or is it another divine mystery like the Trinity & the Hypostatic Union?

The whole doctrine is like a physician breaking his own head to cure the headache of all his patients. The idea of vicarious sacrifice is illogical, meaningless and unjust.

The Bible says to the spiritually dead the Gospel is foolishness. If you put a 400 lb. weight on a corpse, it wouldn't feel anything either.

Isaiah 1:18 tells us:

"Come now, let us reason together," says the LORD

Surah 5:59 tells us:

Say: "O People of the Book! come to common terms as between us and you

So lets reason together, what logic does a physician breaking his own head to cure the headache of all his patients have?

You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless?
Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar?
(James 2:21-22)

Apart from its context, this verse might seem to contradict the Biblical teaching that people are saved by faith and not by good deeds (Romans 3:28; Galatians 2:15-16). But James means only that righteous action is evidence of genuine faith - not that it saves, for the verse in Genesis to substantiate his point says "Abram believed the Lord, and he credited it [i.e., faith, not works] to him as righteousness." Also, Abraham's act of faith recorded in Gen. 15:6 happened before he offered up Isaac, which was only a proof of the genuineness of his faith. As Paul wrote, "The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love" (Gal 5:6). Faith that saves produces deeds.

The context of James is not defined by Paul, what gave you that idea?
In Genesis, Abrahams faith was proven by his works (why else did God want the sacrifice?), thus faith without works is futile. No doubt Paul conflicts with the author of James:

For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.
Romans 3:28 (ESV)

VS.

You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.
James 2:24 (ESV)

The author of James gave Abraham as an example, you tell me, what else was James implying other than the obvious: You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless?

The Jewish & Islamic notion of forgiveness & repentance doesn't need verbal gymnastics to be justified:

(O prophet)! Declare: “Oh my servants! Oh you who have overly and unduly burdened yourself (with sins)! Do not abandon hope in the mercy of Allah. Of course Allah pardons all sins! Indeed He is the most Forgiving; and the most Merciful!

Turn to your Lord in repentance, and submit to Him before the punishment comes upon you. Lest (it is too late and) you cannot be helped.

Follow the excellent advice revealed to you by your Lord before the time (arrives) when the punishment will creep up on you stealthily and you would not realize.
(Quran 39:53-55)

Do Jews and Muslims have assurance of salvation?

No one has absolute assurance of salvation & we dont need to. The Christian concept of God is someone who was born out of the womb of a woman & died on the cross so that God wouldn't punish humanity. The original teachings of Judaism clearly state:

"But if a wicked man turns away from all the sins he has committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, he will surely live; he will not die.
(Ezekiel 18:21)

Repentance is the key to salvation. The Islamic notion of salvation is, do your best to follow the commandments of God (You are human afterall), & seek his forgiveness & his mercy:

Say: "O my Servants who have transgressed against their souls! Despair not of the Mercy of Allah. for Allah forgives all sins: for He is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.
(Quran 39:53)

How do you know when you're good enough?

You don't, and the person that claims to know would be a narcissist.
The Companions of Muhammad asked him about 'heaven & salvation' & he replied:

"Do good deeds properly, sincerely and moderately, and receive good news because one's good deeds will not make him enter Paradise." They asked, "Even you, O Allah's Apostle?" He said, "Even I, unless and until Allah bestows His pardon and Mercy on me."
Sahih al-Bukhari, 8:76:474

Even the Prophets of God need mercy from God.

The NT says our best efforts are as filthy rags.

No argument, Islam shares a similar notion.

The idea we can earn our salvation appeals to human pride. If that were possible Jesus wouldn't have had to die on the cross.

The only reason Jesus died on the cross (In Christian History) is because the Jews accused him of blasphemy & being a 'false prophet'. Not because he wanted to "save" you.

Infact, Jesus prayed to God not to die:

"Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done."
(Luke 22:42)

Can you imagine an Al-Mighty God praying to himself not to die?

Furthermore, Jesus says in Luke 11:9-11:

"So I say to you: Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.
For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened.
"Which of you fathers, if your son asks for a fish, will give him a snake instead?

Christianity is the complete antithesis of their own scripture. Not only do Christians indirectly assert that Jesus' prayer in Luke 22:42 was rejected (By dying), they also assert Jesus was ressurrected which is in complete violation of the bolded line above. (i.e Jesus asked not to die but instead he was resurrected).

In the time of Jonah, Jonah was the "Way, the truth, the Life" to the people of Nineveh.
In the time of Moses, Moses was the "Way, the truth, the Life" to the tribes of Israel.
In the time of Jesus, Jesus was the "Way, the truth, the Life" to the lost sheep of Israel (Matthew 15:24)
In the time of Muhammad, Muhammad was the "Way, the truth, the Life" to the whole humanity.

It applies to every prophet, whom at their time, are the way to God.

Jonah and Moses never said 'No man cometh unto the Father but by me' or anything remotely like John 3:16.

It is common sense, how else would one attain salvation in the time of Moses? Obviously by following him. Jesus also didn't say alot of things that other prophets said, that does not mean those things dont apply to him.

And they are all made obsolete by the doctrine of atonement. Is it not true,

No they aren't. True faith results in abstaining from the aforementioned list of sins, and if they are violated (is it an event or a pattern?), they are sincerely repented of.

Are you as a Christian guaranteed a ticket into heaven or not? If not whats the purpose of Christian Salvation, if yes, what logic does it have?

theologically (by mainstream Christians), that the blood of Christ atones ALL sins for ALL that believe he died for them? I request that your reply be objective (With scripture) rather than your own opinion.

Romans 3:23-26 (New International Version, ©2011)

23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement,[a] through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26 he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

So the blood of Christ atones all sins? No matter how big or small?

So the people of America talk on the behalf of God?
When you say "God Given Rights", where does God say in the Bible: "Make Laws on my behalf, O Children of Lincoln". Please quote the reference, it would be really helpful.

This passage from 'Freedom to Believe' explains the differences in the idea of rights between Islam and the Judeo-Christian West:

"Ali A. Allawi, a former Iraqi Minister of Defence, in his recent book The Crisis of Islamic Civilization, discusses the concept of the individual in Islam and the Judeo-Christian West is a radically different view of the individual. In classical Islam only God possesses real, autonomous individuality. The concept of the human individual as an autonomous entity endowed with free will simply does not exist. The individual acquires choice and will from God only at the point of performing a specific action. They are essential attributes of God and therefore cannot be innate, natural, autonomous endowment of humans.

A central premise of Islamic human rights is that the interests of Islam and the Muslim community as a whole are paramount. If there is a conflict between these and the interests of the individual, then it is the individual's freedom that must be sacrificed. This is completely at odds with the assumption of international human rights law that the individual is the best judge of his or her interests and should therefore have freedom to choose.

On this view there is no room within Islam for the Western concept of the autonomous individual. The concept of the absolutely transcendent God leaves no space for the individual as a free moral being. Islam thus dissolves the individual into a totalitarian Islamic community governed by God and his revealed law (sharia'a). By its very nature Islam cannot therefore allow free choice, and the apostate must therefore be destroyed to preserve the integrity of its ideology. Allawi sees the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a Western construct; the authors deliberately affirmed the freedom of the individual both to choose his or her faith and to change it, knowing this would always be problematical for Muslims."


This is my OP question of the problem with Islam, at least from a Western perspective. I understand you don't think it to be a problem.

What religious authority does Ali A. Allawi ? He is absolutely wrong when he says: the apostate must therefore be destroyed to preserve the integrity of its ideology, that is a biblical ideology made optional in Islam. & when he says: By its very nature Islam cannot therefore allow free choice i wonder how he justifies the 14million arab Christians.

You tell me, how does a referendum work in America?

In America, we don't need a referendum to express freedom of religion, and we would never allow a referendum that would take away that right.

The constitution is made/altered upon the majority of votes (Referendum).
Have a look on the percentage of muslims throughout the Islamic World.

Generalised statement, but it is true, without a doubt there is discrimination against non-muslims by the muslim public in the middle east. But its not "Islam", its more "Muslims". Factually & Theologically, Islam prohibits the discrimination against Jews & Christians, & this is how the Quran describes Christians:

"...and nearest among them in love to the believers will you find those who say, 'We are Christians,' because amongst these are men devoted to learning and men who have renounced the world, and they are not arrogant"
(Quran 5:82)

&

"O you who believe! Be helpers of God -- as Jesus the son of Mary said to the Disciples, 'Who will be my helpers in (the work of) God?' Said the disciples, 'We are God's helpers!' Then a portion of the Children of Israel believed, and a portion disbelieved. But We gave power to those who believed, against their enemies, and they became the ones that prevailed"
(Quran 61:14)

I don't exactly see where those verses prohibit the whole 'dhimmi' thing

Do you see how your status in the Quran is portrayed as a noble one?
Christians themselves are portrayed as "Noble & not arrogant", its the Christian faith such as the 'Trinity, Hypostatic Union' etc.. that are condemned, not Christians.

, but why is such persecution widespread in Islam? Could there be, as my OP asks, a problem with Islam?

Need of reforms? Absolutely.

Your absolutely right. But I doubt there are 157million radicalized muslims (we'd all be dead by now)

I still find it unfair that you punish 10 people on what 1 person amongst them does.

I'm not trying to punish the other nine, but I do wish the other nine would punish the one. As Ayaan Hirsi Ali has noted, Islamic terrorism is able to thrive because it is embedded in a wider circle of fellow Muslims.

Mainstream muslims despise terrorism of all kinds, you will not find an 'ahlus sunnah wal jamaah' that supports the actions of the taliban.
Ayaan is wrong, the only reason Islamic Terrorism is able to thrive is because of the lack of security & the tribal elders that freely indoctrinate the youths into believing "Suicide Bombing = Paradise".

Thats because Christianity itself doesn't have any significance within the American Government. & the rabbinical courts are seperate from other judical systems.

Exactly, the Judeo-Christian heritage, believes in a separation of powers, Islam does not.

No it has reformed into that, the faiths themselves don't believe in a seperation.
For example, polygamy is not prohibited in Judaism or Christianity when we examine the Scripture, but the religious authorities have reformed it into prohibition over time. True Sharia requires a caliph, which can only happen under a Khilafah, thus the awaited "mahdi" that will unite all the muslim nations into a single empire. There is no real "Muslim Nation" anywhere in the world.

Their motives can be Islam, i dont disagree. Throughout history, many inexcusable massacres have happened in the name of religion. Ofcourse who are we to judge someones subjective beliefs. But, that being said, we can examine the source of the belief objectively, & distinguish truth from myth.

As I've said before, it doesn't make any difference to the dead victims.

It makes a huge different to the other muslims that are wrongly victimised by Christians such as yourself.

Absolutely, so why the double standards with Islam?
Where does Islam say: "Blow yourself up & kill Christians & Jews?"

Here:

http://www.letusreason.org/islam12.htm

That is all BS. Out of context, classic Christian propaganda.

Quote me a SINGLE passage in context that tells muslims to "Blow yourself up or kill Christians & Jews".

No, you need to know this as much as they do.
Globalisation plays a big role in the middle east, the more Americans understand Islam, the better it is.

How about if Muslims drop the persecution complex and better understand the US?

Thus Newtons 3rd Law: "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction". Stop wrongfully critisising Islam & the muslims will stop wrongfully critisising the US. However, if you insist "Muslims are all terrorists from the devil" why do you expect a different reaction from the muslims to the US?

We were masters of the universe at the conclusion of WWII, yet withdrew from the conquered nations, and helped pay for our enemies' reconstruction.

Not for long though, you dont actually think America would of maintained military power? Ofcourse you would need to "help" your enemies, after what, initiating nuclear warfare?

Its not from the Quran, its a quote from a hadith. (The Quran does not contain ANY words of Muhammad ) Only God. The word 'Quran' basically means 'Recitation' (Of Gods Word).

I would say a recitation from Satan.

The only thing satanic here is the biblical contradictions and "doctrinal mysteries".
Here is the good old satans word (isn't satan the father of lies?), what ashame you attribute such lies to God:

How old was Ahaziah when he began to rule over Jerusalem?
(a) Twenty-two (2 Kings 8:26).
(b) Forty-two (2 Chronicles 22:2).

How old was Jehoiachin when he became king of Jerusalem?
(a) Eighteen (2 Kings 24:8).
(b) Eight (2 Chronicles 36:9).

When David defeated the King of Zobah, how many horsemen did he capture?
(a) One thousand and seven hundred (2 Samuel 8:4).
(b) Seven thousand (1 Chronicles 18:4).

How many stalls for horses did Solomon have?
(a) Forty thousand (1 Kings 4:26).
(b) Four thousand (2 Chronicles 9:25).

In what year of King Asa’’s reign did Baasha, King of Israel die?
(a) Twenty-sixth year (1 Kings 15:33 - 16:8).
(b) Still alive in the thirty-sixth year (2 Chronicles 16:1).

Solomon built a facility containing how many baths?
(a) Two thousand (1 Kings 7:26).
(b) Over three thousand (2 Chronicles 4:5).

Ezra 2:64 and Nehemiah 7:66 agree that the total number of the whole assembly was 42,360. Yet the numbers do not add up to anything close. The totals obtained from each book is as follows:
(a) 29,818 (Ezra).
(b) 31, 089 (Nehemiah).

How many singers accompanied the assembly?
(a) Two hundred (Ezra 2:65).
(b) Two hundred and forty-five (Nehemiah 7:67).

Who killed Goliath?
(a) David (1 Samuel 17:23, 50).
(b) Elhanan (2 Samuel 21:19).

Here is the top Christian apologetic website (not to mention anti-islamic): www.answering-islam.org. Answer these contradictions please, i hope that website helps you. & while your at it, find any Quranic contradictions that are not answered here.

Note the whole terror-filled cave episode (with the 'prophet' being grabbed by the throat), very different from angelic Biblical appearances, where the angels said, "Fear not."

Not grabbed by the throat, let me guess, you read it on some "Christianity is the Truth" website? Here are the facts

Deuteronomy 13:6-9
Deuteronomy 17:3-5
Leviticus 20:27

Again, intended for the OT theocracy of Israel and not binding on Christians, which is probably why none are doing those acts today. Jesus told Peter to walk on water, but that doesn't mean I should try it.

Yes its not binding on Christians because to them the commandments of God are "Done away with". A new era of grace & faith alone.

Verse 9 sound familiar? (Aren't all Christian doctrines man made & disputable?)

Not at all.

Trinity
Hypostatic Union
Original Sin
Atonement & Blood
Divine Sonship
Kenosis

Do you know a single Christian doctrine that cannot be biblically objected?

In verse 4, Jesus used the cursing of parents' punishment as an example. But in the context, its not just limited to this example. Thus Jesus INDEED taught death for apostasy when we read Deuteronomy 13:6-9 & Deuteronomy 17:3-5

I don't know what you're talking about here.

Its quite simple & common sense:

1 Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked,
2 "Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don't wash their hands before they eat!"
3 Jesus replied, "And WHY do you break the COMMAND of God for the sake of your tradition?
4 For God said, 'Honor your father and mother' and 'Anyone who curses his father or mother MUST BE PUT TO DEATH.'
5 But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, 'Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is a gift devoted to God,'
6 he is not to 'honor his father' with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition.
7 YOU HYPOCRITES! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:
8 " 'These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.
9 They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.'"

(Matthew 15:1-9)

Jesus CLEARLY taught that WHOEVER breaks the commandments of God, whether it be Saul of Tarsus, is a hypocrite that only honors Jesus with their lips. Thus, because the context of the above applies to all of Gods laws, that would definitely include:
Deuteronomy 13:6-9
Deuteronomy 17:3-5
Leviticus 20:27

EoE im well aware of the parable.

Biblically Jesus said:

Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a NATION bringing forth the fruits thereof.
(Matthew 21:43)

Notice the word "Nation" ? If God was taking the Kingdom of God from the Israelites... What other "Nation" is left? The word 'Gentile' is too much of a generalisation.

My Bible says 'a people', not 'nation'.

That is an outright lie, so your Bible is wrong. A false Christian fabrication, thanks for pointing out how Christians deceive their own people, you being a victim.

The Greek word 'eqnei' that is pronounced "ethnei" translates DIRECTLY into "to-NATION". Not "to-PEOPLE".

Thus this "Nation" that God gave the kingdom of God to, can be none other than the Ishmaelites whom God spoke of in Deut 18:18.

East of Eden do you want to dispute Deuteronomy 18:18 biblically or not?

No, just your interpretation of it.

So you reject something simply because its hard to swallow?
There is little left to interpretation, the people being addressed are the Israelites & their 'brothers' are the Ishmaelites, pretty self-explanatory.
Do you want to dispute this fact or not?

Red Herring, a complete deviation from topic.
Im not talking about "Self Defense", im talking about the mere fact that the Biblical GOD encourages the killing of babies, children & women.

Yes, in that time and place, to the OT theocracy of Israel. Heck, if that bothers you the whole world (save Noah's family) was destroyed in the Flood in that act of judgement.

The whole world in Christian theology, a local flood in Islamic theology.
What bothers me is the barbaric biblical portrayal of God who kills 70 people for no reason other than looking inside the ark (1 Samuel 6:19).

I do suggest you purchase a biography of him.

As far as the pedophile charge, what do you call someone who 'marries' a 9-year old?

I also highly reccomend you read the quotes & sayings of Aisha(r.a) & then tell me why someone being 'child molested' would praise & cry over such a man?

Read the rebuttal.

The OT may cave called for wiping out idol-worshiping nations that threatened Israel, but I don't recall it approving of sexually assaulting children.

Many Jewish Rabbi's, who know their own scripture [the OT] more than any Christian ever could (simply because of Christian bias'), such as Rabbi Joseph, Rabbi Nahman bar Isaac, Rabbi Meir, Rabbi Shimon etc..etc.. Say that under Mosaic Law, girls as YOUNG AS 3 can have intercourse. Thus Moses in Numbers 31:17 is allusively portrayed as "raping 3 year olds". I bet you didn't know that.

Gosh, even the Christian God (Jesus) comes from a family lineage of incest

Matthew
Chapter 1 Verses 1-3
KJV

The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren; And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar;

"Philosopher, orator, apostle, legislator, warrior, conqueror of ideas, restorer of rational dogmas, of a cult without images; the founder of twenty terrestrial empires and of one spiritual empire, that is Muhammad. As regards all standards by which human greatness may be measured, we may well ask, is there any man greater than he?"

[Lamartine, HISTOIRE DE LA TURQUIE, Paris, 1854, Vol. II, pp. 276-277.]

Yes, just as he made the cover of Military History Quarterly, with his record with women the 'prophet' should be on the cover of Playboy also.

I disagree, theres no chance anyone can compete with Solomon

More problems with Islam:

1. According to the authoritative Arabic text, Al-Taqiyya Fi Al-Islam: "Taqiyya [deception] is of fundamental importance in Islam. Practically every Islamic sect agrees to it and practices it. We can go so far as to say that the practice of taqiyya is mainstream in Islam, and that those few sects not practicing it are out of the mainstream."

First of all, WHAT "authoritative" text are you talking about? You have to give references when making such a claim. I honestly dont know anything other than the Quran that every Islamic sect agrees to.

Murad, I also have to dispute your contention that during the rise in Islam churches were treated with respect. In Damascas Christians had to turn 15 churches over to the Muslims to become mosques. The Umayyad Caliph Abd al-Malik is said to have transformed ten churches in Damascus into mosques. The Great Mosque of Caliph al-Walid I was originally the Church of St. John. Over the centuries, many churches in Egypt were also converted into mosques. Many churches of the Byzantine era on Cyprus became mosques. The Abbasid Caliph al-Ma'mun (813-833) turned many churches into mosques. The Ottomans converted nearly all the churches, monasteries, and chapels in Constantinople into mosques, including the famous Hagia Sophia, after capturing the city in 1453.

The crusaders destroyed just as many mosques in their invasions accross europe. Im not justifying the muslims that have destroyed Churches, im justifying the authentic Islamic teachings that show utter respect for Churches by the disciples of Muhammad(pbuh).


Prophet Muhammad sent a message to the monks of Saint Catherine's Monastery, Mount Sinai:

"This is a message written by Muhammad ibn Abdullah, as a covenant to those who adopt Christianity, far and near, we are behind them. Verily, I defend them by myself, the servants, the helpers, and my followers, because Christians are my citizens; and by Allah! I hold out against anything that displeases them. No compulsion is to be on them. Neither are their judges to be changed from their jobs, nor their monks from their monasteries. No one is to destroy a house of their religion, to damage it, or to carry anything from it to the Muslims’ houses. Should anyone take any of these, he would spoil God’s covenant and disobey His Prophet. Verily, they (Christians) are my allies and have my secure charter against all that they hate. No one is to force them to travel or to oblige them to fight. The Muslims are to fight for them. If a female Christian is married to a Muslim, this is not to take place without her own wish. She is not to be prevented from going to her church to pray. Their churches are to be respected. They are neither to be prevented from repairing them nor the sacredness of their covenants. No one of the nation is to disobey this covenant till the Day of Judgment and the end of the world.�

[East of Eden]

Really? They have as much freedom in Gaza as the Jews had in Warsaw. They are the most afflicted group of people in the ME. What Bizarro dimension do you live in?

The real one. You might want to visit it sometime.

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/pu ... detail.asp

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31947

Hey EoE I think we might actually agree on something

[Woland]

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages ... .htm#other

Games muslims play? LOL:

I highly recommend the page that Murad so quickly dismissed to every reader here. There are some excellent points there.

It's been my overwhelming experience that Muslims often use these "catchphrases" that "appear" to make Islam look good by quoting them, ironically, TOTALLY OUT OF CONTEXT, either out of ignorance or dishonesty (and I've seen both cases, an astounding number of times). Some of them know very well that the verses don't say what they're trying to make them say - sometimes it's virtually the exact opposite. I've been debating Islam for many years with MANY Muslims, and I've seen this sort of fallacious tactic used again...and again...and again.

Murad himself tried to pull the "no compulsion in religion" card when he CLEARLY in another thread stated that Islamically the death penalty can be applied for apostasy (now he says it isn't "necessary" - how peaceful).

Try to get him to unconditionally condemn killing people who change from Islam to another religion and try to share their new faith with other people. Try to get him to say that no "God" would tolerate such mindless brutality. Ask him if a Muslim woman can marry a non-Muslim man. Ask him if non-believers have totally equal rights when compared to Muslims under a "true" Islamic government. He's put me on ignore, but anyone is free to try this - see what sort of answer you're likely to get.

Then you'll see how much "mainstream" Islam is serious about "no compulsion in religion", and about "tolerance" and "peace".

Muslims so very often pull out the "if one killed a life it would have been as if he'd killed everyone" mantra as well. Utter nonsense.

Know more than they do, if they're being honest.

Know that they're being dishonest if that is the case, because it happens more often than you're probably ready to believe.

While you're at it, ask Murad "the self-described mainstream Muslim" all about his views of supporting lethal and barbaric torture for "sex crimes".

Then you'll know the problem with Islam, even if he doesn't.

Take the time to read the link. As always, when Islam is involved, innocent human lives are at stake - that's the reality.

-Woland

[East of Eden]

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages ... .htm#other

Games muslims play? LOL:

I highly recommend the page that Murad so quickly dismissed to every reader here. There are some excellent points there.

It's been my overwhelming experience that Muslims often use these "catchphrases" that "appear" to make Islam look good by quoting them, ironically, TOTALLY OUT OF CONTEXT, either out of ignorance or dishonesty (and I've seen both cases, an astounding number of times). Some of them know very well that the verses don't say what they're trying to make them say - sometimes it's virtually the exact opposite. I've been debating Islam for many years with MANY Muslims, and I've seen this sort of fallacious tactic used again...and again...and again.

Murad himself tried to pull the "no compulsion in religion" card when he CLEARLY in another thread stated that Islamically the death penalty can be applied for apostasy (now he says it isn't "necessary" - how peaceful).

Try to get him to unconditionally condemn killing people who change from Islam to another religion and try to share their new faith with other people. Try to get him to say that no "God" would tolerate such mindless brutality. Ask him if a Muslim woman can marry a non-Muslim man. Ask him if non-believers have totally equal rights when compared to Muslims under a "true" Islamic government. He's put me on ignore, but anyone is free to try this - see what sort of answer you're likely to get.

Then you'll see how much "mainstream" Islam is serious about "no compulsion in religion", and about "tolerance" and "peace".

Muslims so very often pull out the "if one killed a life it would have been as if he'd killed everyone" mantra as well. Utter nonsense.

Know more than they do, if they're being honest.

Know that they're being dishonest if that is the case, because it happens more often than you're probably ready to believe.

While you're at it, ask Murad "the self-described mainstream Muslim" all about his views of supporting lethal and barbaric torture for "sex crimes".

Then you'll know the problem with Islam, even if he doesn't.

Take the time to read the link. As always, when Islam is involved, innocent human lives are at stake - that's the reality.

-Woland

The lying is called 'taqiya', right? Hey Murad, if you're not man enough to respond to Woland, why should I respond to you? I disagree with him, but he is a decent human being, what's your problem with him?