“That verse has nothing to do with Christ’s message.”

Neither does most of the New Testament – but that doesn’t stop the writings of Paul from being the foundation of that which separates Christians from Jews and Muslims. Christians believe the Bible is the “divine inspired word of God” – all of it, not just the bits you like.

And Muslims believe the Qur’an is the word of Allah. Go to an Islamic country and challenge even one word of it you’ll find yourself dead.

News flash chump, it’s Muslims that have killed 3,900 Buddhists in Thailand since 2004. Everywhere Muslims live they wage Jihad against non-Muslims because according to Muhammad, jihad is the second greatest thing a Muslim can do. The first, believing in Allah, which is why not all Muslims must wage jihad even though the Qur’an calls for it in perpetuity until the world follows Islam.

Muslims aren’t exclusive at all. They’ll force you to convert or kill you if you don’t. They “may” allow you to pay jizya/an existence tax, but they can do whatever they want to you if you accept second-class status in their countries.

Or rather, some Christians believe that, and some who call themselves Christian consider pretty much the entire Bible to be allegory. Hmm – who said it was exclusive?

Oh, and the OT is still very much relevant. Or shall we toss out the Ten Commandments and Genesis as well as wearing two types of cloth and beating your slaves?

With Christianity you have the privilege of standing up and stating what you accept and reject. Try it with Islam, see how long you live.

Or shall we toss out the Ten Commandments and Genesis as well as wearing two types of cloth and beating your slaves?

Fine with me. But please just leave my favorite bronze age life-style consultant & author, Leviticus. How else would I know what to do if I encounter either a witch or a promiscuous daughter of a priest? (FYI: answer involves fire or stones) Also helpful instructions about how to beat female slaves that you are NOT married to, and why serving shellfish is considered faux pas.

Highly recommended reading for today’s urban sophisticate!

Why do you think there are different sects of Islam?

Okay, let’s say I’m Catholic. What the hell, I’ll use a condom….
Actually, to be accurate you are right – I can *say* what I reject, I just can’t actually reject it….

With Christianity you have the privilege of standing up and stating what you accept and reject.

You are kidding, right?

@Leitmotiv – you’ve obviously never met a Congregationalist.

@ LB – Sure, I have. Was even raised (unsuccessfully) as one. In my experience they are not as guilt-free on this topic as you seem to think. But nonetheless, you know damn well that “Christianity” does not specify “Congregationalist” (or “Unitarian” for that matter). The same way “Muslim”, does not necessarily mean “blood-thirsty eliminator of infidels”. Trufax comment is absurd in that there are plenty versions of Christianity that will take serious offense if you “stand up and say what you accept and reject” – for example, that shooting doctors is maybe not acceptable, or waving that venomous snake around in a church full of people is not acceptable for safety reasons.

” Everywhere Muslims live they wage Jihad against non-Muslims because according to Muhammad, jihad is the second greatest thing a Muslim can do. The first, believing in Allah, which is why not all Muslims must wage jihad even though the Qur’an calls for it in perpetuity until the world follows Islam.”

Are you completely stupid or just pretending? How about actually finding out the meaning of jihad, and stop quoting Fox News? I am sick of explaining it, so I leave it up to you.

To leitmotiv, yes I am serious. Show me news articles of Christians running around in 2009 murdering people for apostasy. I will show you in advance what Muslims have done in the last month.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index.html#Attacks

It’s not Christians that have murdered 3,900 Buddhists in Thailand for being infidels.

To Serazahr, stop practicing taquiyya. I own two copies of the Qur’an and the Sahih Bukhari Hadith. I’ve read the supposed words of Allah as taught by Muhammad and I’ve read Muhammad’s teaching both in Mecca and Medina.

Every school of Islam still holds jihad as a fundamental and perpetual requirement against infidels. Infidels are non-believers and as with any monotheistic religion a non-believer is anyone that has a religion other than the one at issue. In this case, Islam.

I’m quite educated about Islam and unlike you I apparently actually know what the Qur’an and Hadiths say. It’s funny you would lie and try to deceive because all one has to do is pick up the books and objectively settle the matter.

At any rate, you can can call me a “misunderstander of Islam” but I tend to think you would better direct that to the Muslims all over the globe constantly waging jihad and extracting jiyza. If, as you say, Islam is the religion of peace, then it would seem that you should really work to educate Muslims on that matter.

Here is a simple challenge. Show me ANY peaceful passages from the Qur’an that weren’t abrogated by Muhammad’s teachings in Medina or the 100+ passages calling for jihad.

Oh and Serazahr, I didn’t quote Faux news. I limit my quotes to the Qur’an and the Hadiths. If you want to say that those quotes are incorrect then I invite you to go to any Islamic country and say so. You won’t go 10 minutes without being murdered as an infidel or in the case you are a Muslim, as an apostate.

Show me news articles of Christians running around in 2009 murdering people for apostasy.

*sigh*

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/31/george-tiller-killed-abor_n_209504.html

To: Trufax

1. I am not practicing taqiyya (also I think this only exist in Shia Islam.)

2. As for the list of attacks carried out by people calling themselves muslims: The way I was taught about my religion, nearly all of these are to be condemned (this can only be said for sure for those which have reasons stated).

3. As for your 2 Qurans: Are they translations? Every iteration adds the personal opinion of the translator. Which comes on top of already having different interpretations of the original.

4. (I am not totally sure on that point but that’s how I remember it.) If people of a different religion do not pose a threat to you, nor oppress you, then you cannot force them to surrender or convert. So killing people for having a different religion is not allowed (as long as they don’t satisfy one or both of the before given reasons). For example, muslims or not allowed to destroy or alter churches or synagogues.

5. Sadly many people act based on tradition and not on religion. In some places the line between the two is blurred and some people start adding their tradition to the religion.

HuffPo, why am I not surprised? I can’t think of a more liberal politically correct to the point of suicide blog than HuffPo. The religion of peace blog I linked has thousands of archived Islamic attacks and the best you can do is come at me with ONE crazy Christian?

Stop the presses folks, now one guy is representative of a religion and somehow counters the thousands of monthly jihadist attacks Muslims carry out around the globe…. What a joke!

It’s not Buddhists, Christians, Jews, Scientologists or what have you going around suicide bombing. They aren’t going around hijacking and crashing airplanes. They aren’t blowing up women and children in marketplaces. They aren’t destroying thousands of schools around the world or throwing acid in the faces of women that want an education….

Every time you hear about those attacks, who committed it? Muslims! Muslims that can point to over 100 passages of the Qur’an to justify their jihad against non-Muslims. I keep coming back to this example but it is poignant. It’s Muslims that have killed over 3,900 Buddhists in Thailand since 2004. But you’re going to come at me with George Tiller’s sad murder? Try a little harder! Give me 100 Christian attacks to counter the thousands I’ve provided already.

Two things:
Sadly many of these countries where these attacks happen frequently have a problem with educational coverage of the population and people are manipulated by political figures who call out “jihad”.

Also if you comparing numbers then you should also compare the number of people who say that they follow that religion (excluding those who just hold the religion by name, because they were born with it, something much more frequent in Christianity).
Because the bigger you sample group is, the higher the number of black sheep.

Note: Black Sheep sounds racist to me…

To Serazahr:

I’m going to make this quick because I want to sleep.

1)

“You think?” If you aren’t sure then you certainly shouldn’t be speaking as an authoritarian. Regardless, this is a Muslim game that Muslims love to play.

What you are doing here is kitman, which is speaking to half of a truth. Taqiyya is derived from the Qur’an, no other source. Sunnis practiced it against Shia, Shia against Sunni and both against infidels. You’re playing the common “Islam is being victimized” game because I’ve pointed out that outright lies (taqiyya) and half truths (kitman) are derived from the Qur’an and Hadiths.

I will defer to a true expert on the matter, Robert Spencer. http://www.jihadwatch.org/2007/03/taqiyya-about-taqiyya.html

However, if you would “like” me to I can provide you with 11 passages from the Qur’an and the Hadith regarding lying.

2) You tell me that the attacks are to be condemned but the attacks are condoned by over 100 jihad passages in the Qur’an. What you say about Islam is not the same thing as what Islam says about itself.

3) Your attack on translations is another favorite Muslim game. Are we to believe that Islam is the only language on the face of the planet that can not be learned, that can not be translated? This is a logical fallacy.

To translate a language, one must first LEARN IT. Further, the translations made by Muslims and non-Muslims are the same. Even more, why would Allah create a religion for all people that can only be understood by those that speak Arabic? Another logical fallacy of the common translation argument…

4) This sounds like you are attempting (poorly) to make the classic “defensive jihad” argument. Islam is the most religiously intolerant ideology on the face of this planet. Were one to go to Egypt, for example, one could not build a church. Further, one could not legally REPAIR a church that has been burned down by angry Muslims. Conversely, Western Civilization allows mosques to be build all across their land.

What Muslims consider “defense,” the rest of the world considers offense. But your argument is very telling here! The best you can come up with for tolerance is “well we only kill you in mass in defense.” Even conceding your point, that’s not exactly tolerant. But like I said, Muslims define words differently than everyone else, “defense” being one of the more notorious ones.

4. (I am not totally sure on that point but that’s how I remember it.) If people of a different religion do not pose a threat to you, nor oppress you, then you cannot force them to surrender or convert. So killing people for having a different religion is not allowed (as long as they don’t satisfy one or both of the before given reasons). For example, muslims or not allowed to destroy or alter churches or synagogues.

5. Sadly many people act based on tradition and not on religion. In some places the line between the two is blurred and some people start adding their tradition to the religion.

HuffPo, why am I not surprised? I can’t think of a more liberal politically correct to the point of suicide blog than HuffPo.

It was reported widely as you certainly know, einstein. Huffpo happens to have a live google news link months after the fact. Or do you want to say that it did not happen because its not reported in your personally vetted news site?

The religion of peace blog I linked has thousands of archived Islamic attacks and the best you can do is come at me with ONE crazy Christian?

Ahhh…the “one crazy christian” defense. Never mind the efforts of his church members to collect cash for his legal aid.

There are plenty of islamic leaders decrying murderous christianity while pointing to deaths of muslims by – for example – US soldiers who hold morning prayer groups about fighting the good fight in the name of Jesus and spreading the Good Word throughout middle east in afghanistan, iraq, etc. Tell me why you are any different pointing fingers from christian side at the muslim atrocities than they are pointing from the muslim side at what they view as latest christian crusade. They whine exactly and symmetrically as you do about the buddists in Thailand. Why is what you say so clearly valid, yet they are not?

You are the same. You are a annoying mullah decrying the crimes of the other side with no objectivity.

Letimotiv,

The facts were widely reported, the insane liberal spin of it was only reported on sites like HuffPo. There is a difference between facts and spin, and I don’t dispute the facts or make excuses for them.

However, I won’t let small individual acts serve as a DEFENSE of the thousands of acts coming monthly from Muslim mosques, Imams and rank & file practitioners. You’re playing a misdirection game. If I state an Islamic issue you do what you can to divert attention away to another religion. If I were talking about Hitler you would be saying “well Americans had slaves once.” It’s irrelevant and I won’t play your misdirection game anymore.

This looks like an interesting read. Only had time to skim it very quickly though so far.
http://www.meforum.org/2478/suicide-bombing-as-worship

Thanks for the link Overthinker. Raymond Ibrahim, an author I’ve cited to more than once, presently works there. He previously worked for the Library of Congress where he translated what the intelligence community now knows as the Al Qaeda Reader.

leitmotiv

I was remiss in not addressing the Crusades. You, as so many that haven’t actually studied history before commenting on it, are vastly misinformed. The first Crusade came hundreds of years after Muslims began sacking Christian cities and land, enslaving Christians in the process. Nearly the entire Eastern Holy Roman Empire was conquered by Muslims before the first Crusade.

Islam is only 1,400 years old, it is much younger than Judaism and Christianity. Yet somehow people think the Middle East is “Muslim land.” No, it was taken by conquest from others and now you would condemn the others for fighting to regain their homes. Sick!

Not an expert on ancient European history, but I seem to remember the Crusades were more about intra-European (intra-Christendom) politics than their stated purpose.

Lots of land is conquered land. The issue then is, how long are you going to protest the issue? Merely being conquered land is not enough – after 1400 years, fighting to “regain their homes”? Time to give up and cut your losses if you haven’t done it in 14 centuries….

Maybe after 1,400 years of Muslims taking slaves and sacking European cities gives one a little reason to push back? The Qur’an has a great deal to say about the “merits” of slavery, forced conversion and conquest. How would you feel if people attacked your home once a month for 10 years? Would you do something about it?

You may also be making an anachronism mistake here. People these days aren’t quite so faithful but in the past may have believed 100% of what their faith preaches, with no doubt as to its authenticity. If their faith is being attacked then they may have additional legitimate reasons for wanting to protect themselves.

I appreciate that you are discussing this instead of willfully spreading misinformation about what the Qur’an and the Hadith actually say, as other posters here have done.

To Trufax:

If I would be practicing “Taqiyya and kitman” that would mean that I would, according to your statement and would there be no legal consequences, force people to convert; which I don’t. In fact I had to read up both of these terms because I never had to use them, why should I lie about my own religion if I firmly believe in it? (That is why I said that I thought only Shia had it, as I only heard the term, but didn’t know the meaning) Also I don’t the any threat to myself or any of my brethren, by posting something about Islam here, therefore there exists no reason for me to lie.

About the link supplied by The Overthinker:
My personal view on this, is that any suicide attack on a non-military target is not right. Not only is killing women, children etc. not allowed, but also suicide itself is one of the greatest sins (maybe even the greatest), therefor to me: Suicide bombing makes only sense as a last resort against an actively oppressing or threatening force. Most people are anyway more helpful alive then dead in a bombing, so also the reason for the bombing is, from my viewpoint, not correct. As for example if somebody causes the death of enemy soldiers, I find it understandable, but somebody who blows himself up in a shopping mall, just makes everything worse, as not only does he commit suicide, kill women, children etc, but also he attracts hate from outsiders.

Furthermore to Trufax:
I also see that you have spend a lot of time researching about the topic (compliments for that). Even though we seemingly disagree on the topic, I wouldn’t mind continue discussing, but I on the other hand, can honestly say, that I am far from being well prepared, as I live by my religion and only seek clarification when the situation requires it (not necessarily the optimal way). Therefore due to my lack of specific research I will stop posting on this thread, due to any further arguing, being a waste of time in my eyes. I will go and find out more for myself and I hope you accept my decision.

Regards,
Serazahr

I have bugger-all idea about what the Koran etc say, never having read it. I do have a copy, but it’s all in Arabic (not “Islam”) as you stated earlier). So I am not going to argue about what the Koran states or does not state.

“Would you do something about it?”

Hmmm. A personal response? You realise this will be totally inapplicable to, say, the Mid-East situation. But assuming there are no police forces or similar higher authorities, and the power imbalance was sufficient, I’d trash the place then leave. My home is not worth risking my life for. Nothing is.

“If their faith is being attacked then they may have additional legitimate reasons for wanting to protect themselves.”

Here I dispute the use of “legitimate.” I can think of few LESS legitimate reasons than faith. Self-justifying, perhaps, but not legitimate. I am well aware people get fanatical with religion – one reason I despise it. So I have no sympathy whatsoever for people who commit violence in the defence of their religion. Especially as religion is so easily used to create this level of fanaticism in the first place. They both deserve each other, as far as I am concerned. It is a tool to control the masses. Far more sensible to cut your losses and leave (as in the Middle East, a lot of Jews did, creating the Jewish Diaspora throughout Europe).

“My personal view”

You see, the problem here is that your personal view is not under debate. Your view of your religion is clearly not universal, thus does not negate the existence of Islamic-sponsored suicide bombing. Are these mullahs more expert in Islam than you, or just misguided (or misguiding) fanatics?

Damn. My reply to Trufax got eaten somehow. To briefly recap:

1. I would never risk my neck to defend my home. Nor have a lot of Jews, leaving and creating the Diaspora. Always sensible to leave an untenable situation.

2. Faith isn’t exactly a “legitimate” reason – in fact it would be hard to come up with a less legitimate reason, since it’s all about stuff that ultimately doesn’t exist, and is constructed for control. But it sure does work to create the idea among the masses that their ideas are as legitimate as possible.

Sera I respect your decision and there is a wealth of information out there to study. If you find the good in something and embrace that then that is admirable. But there is a lot of bad written into the Old Testament, Qur’an and the Hadith. That’s why I find myself more and more “agnostic” every year.

Overthinker, I largely agree with what you are saying. But you may have misunderstood me. We don’t consider faith alone a good reason to wage war. But….hundreds of years ago faith alone “was” a legitimate reason. We can’t take our world view now and completely impose it on what people did because they didn’t have the benefit of knowing what we do. That’s the anachronism I was talking about. I’m also talking about faith and conflict on a massive societal scale, not an individual scale.

I think we’ve driven this topic further than it should have gone though. Thanks all for the debate, see you in the next controversial thread!

No, I did understand you. My point was that faith should never be a reason for war, since it is based on something that doesn’t actually exist. I do not dispute for a second that it *was* (hell, and still is) used to justify it, and that many people did and do fanatically believe in that justification.

Incidentally, I sometimes wonder why the Bible etc being full of evil would be enough to drive someone away. Perhaps we are supposed to accept that God is evil, despite the (modern) feel-good God-luvs-ya vibe we’re supposed to have. Which is patently unworkable, since with the threat of eternal hellfire, it means as much as the Dear Leader saying he loves the people of North Korea. Or worse – he can only kill them.

But yeah, getting too far off topic.

“And surely we’re including the new atheist Hitchens and Harris types who also advocate nuclear destruction of their enemies? ”

Hitchens is just depressive. Harris is……odd, esp. since i would think his dive into meditation is at variance with Materialism.

As a bonifide “Old Athiest,” i do take issue with New Atheism’s bizzare “putsch” if you will.

There’s an almost euphoric sense of self-righteous justification and a desire to make anyone not an atheist “see the light.”

To echo the sentiments of Camilla Paglia and Scott Atran (both “Old Atheists”), it kinda smells like religion to me.

“it kinda smells like religion to me”

It’s not though.

“It’s not though.”

Perhaps not in terms of structure, but definitely in terms of justifying a certain behavioral pattern. If the term “religion” however is what your hung up about, then swap that out with “social movement” (although technically a religion is simply a subcategory of that as well)

Frankly, “New Atheism” is the most recent incarnation of Secular Humanism as an ideology. It sadly also partakes of the binary “us vs. them” logic that characterizes much of extremist religious thought.

I suppose for some people its comforting in that it offers a rather simplified worldview raising one’s personal standing above the rest of the 6.796 billion people that he/she shares the planet with.

Of course i think those of religious faith tend to overplay the “dangers” of New Atheism.

Annoying? Most certainly. Dangerous? Hardly.

“wrongly interprets his own religion”

As usual – the “not a true Christian” argument, applied to the actions of anyone who is indisputably a Christian (or Muslim, or whatever) who does things the speaker doesn’t like.