Burning of the Q'uoran, and Biblical perspectives...

[Avniel]

anopenhand
Yes I agree with you that?s basically what I also said, the focus for the church needs to be on Christ. My point was really for the non-Christian world who when presented with this story may be unaware that Bibles are restricted, confiscated or destroyed in Islamic all the time. No need to make a fuss.

Many muslims view the Bible as one of three holy books.

 

[Avniel]

There needs to be a fuus.

Why is this so ignored the world over?

And why isn't the Imam Rauf speaking out against this intolerance?????

America is a country of freedom of religion that maybe why. Some Muslim countries are not allowed the liberty to pick who they worship. Also the muslims believe that America is the number one enemy of Islam burn the book and it will remove all doubt in their minds, and any cognitive able American knows what that means. But this time the radicals will have proof, meaning it will be more then just a handful hating america.


As far as them burning dont muslims believe in the Bible they just feel it has been corrupted, so until I see them burning Bibles then I would protest............I dont believe a thing our media says since "Iraq has w.m.d's."

 

[rdcast]

dbhost

I am seeing something about a Church in Florida that wanted to hold a public Q'uoran burning on September 11th, for whatever reason I do not know. I am concerned, not so much with the sentiment that Christians are in spiritual war with the powers of darkness, and that darkness does include any false teachings about God. My concern was more with the manner in which that spiritual warfare is proposed to be conducted.

I have some serious doubts about the Biblical standing of this minister and his congregation in this regard. My doubt is based on Matthew 5:9

"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God."

Now I know there are some things that simply need to be stood up for, and strongly so. I just believe that the manner this is being done is as inflamatory as the site selection of that proposed Mosque within 2 blocks of ground zero in New York.

Is this minister right in what he proposed? If not, how should Christians deal with the darkness that Islam represents in the world? How do we reach out to the lost that are trapped in the world of Islam, and show them the love that God has for them too?

Gotta love this bubba>>>YouTube - CHRISTIANS BURNING QURAN?
He turned me around...we sorely do need each other.

 

[Zebra1552]

Jaws13,
I know, that’s what I said, it is the wrong motive to burn the books.
On the contrary I have argued through the Quran, Haddith and Islamic history show it isnt peaceful. Is it your opinion against the evidence; what is you’re the reasoning behind your claim? By the way, do you see almost weekly occurrences of suicide bombs let off all over the world in the name of Christ? Do you see Muslims arrested and imprisoned for owning a Quran in the west where Christians are often arrested for owning a Bible? Could Christians build a mega church in Mecca? On what do you base your view?

I base my view on the fact that the media, especially since the incident 9 years ago today, has had an unhealthy focus on these things. I base my view in reality, not your supposed history and evidence (which you have presented none of).

But just because you asked for evidence politely, I suppose I'll give it:

Muslims Against Sharia
Irshad Manji blog and official website » home
Muslims Against Sharia Blog

There's plenty you don't hear about because the media doesn't care to share it. They're getting shouted down because a bomb speaks louder than words.

As for Christian persecution, as I said: that isn't the issue. We are told to love those who persecute us and pray for them, not whine about them.

Again I judge people’s actions as to whether they adhere to what they claim. Ghandi noticed a difference between what Christ taught and what many Christians did. And, what about the crusades, did Muslims not occupy Jerusalem, did Muslims not also kill and fight? And who you call Chistians dont picket all funerals, they picket funerals of people who lived homosexual lifestyles, look at how Islam treats homosexuals!!

Oh, gee, you're getting attacked by Christians. What would you do? Lay down and die? Or fight back for the sake of yourself, your neighbors, and your children? Don't forget who initiated these lovely crusades! It wasn't Muslims. And today, it isn't just Muslims, it is RADICAL Muslims who are killing people, threatening, etc.

Its not my argument, my argument is based on looking at what Christ taught and look at what Mohammed taught.
I don’t. I don’t look at the followrs to judge the religion, I look at what they say they are following.

Oh, really? Is that why you've had nothing but bad things to say about Muslims throughout this thread? Your argument isn't based on the differences between the Quran and the Bible. It's based on what you see radical Muslims doing and proclaiming in the name of Islam, what you hear in the media, and what you hear from secondary sources. Have you read the Quran? Have you actually studied the radical's idea of Jihad and its basis?

I would say in the cases you mention its not Christianity.

So you agree it is bad to burn someone’s else treasured Quran and refuse them specific places to build their mosque but its more serious to prohibit others owning a Bible arrest them and worse, and slay unbelievers? Yes?

No true Scotsman fallacy. 'Oh, they weren't real Christians, so it didn't represent Christianity'. I've got news for you: people don't care what the few say about what the many do, they care about what they do it in the name of, and they do it in the name of Christianity.

Is it loving to complain about what your neighbors are doing? Or is it loving to accept that some people are misguided and love on them anyway?

 

[Phinehas2]

Avniel,

Many muslims view the Bible as one of three holy books.

In the west yes, but many Islamic countries also do not tolerate the Bible. As I have explained, the earlier Mecca revelations in the Quran refer to Jews and Christians as people of the book, even though the Quran changes the stories, the later ones which override the earlier ones refer to the Bible as corrupt and Jews and Christians as non-believers in Islam.
This is the problem with Islam, one can tell an atheist or a Hindu for example about Jesus and they can respond that they believe in Him or don’t believe in Him, one cant tell a Muslim that because the Muslim already sees the testimony as corrupt and corrected by the Quran.

 

[Phinehas2]

Jaws13,

I base my view in reality, not your supposed history and evidence (which you have presented none of).

Apart from the evidence I have presented which you don’t like.

But just because you asked for evidence politely, I suppose I'll give it:

It is common for argument in debates to be supported by evidence.
Muslims Against Sharia
Interesting first link, other Muslims want to behead these guys, you apparently believe the ‘moderate’ Muslims as opposed to the Islamists, yet this is contrary to the Quran in my view and generally somewhat contrary to my experience of Islam in west and in Islamic countries.
It seems like many in the west, you merely choose to believe what you prefer.

As for Christian persecution, as I said: that isn't the issue.

Yes it is. I am interested in fellow Christians being persecuted for just believing in Christ, I am not offended that Bibles are destroyed in their hundreds across the world, nor am I bothered that Qurans might be burned, What I am disappointed in, is a Christian church wishes to do so as this isnt the right motive.

Oh, gee, you're getting attacked by Christians. What would you do? Lay down and die?

Sorry but Islam slaughtered as well, the gulf and Eygpt by force. All I am doing is giving a balance, all you seem to see is the violence in the crusade violence in name of Christianity and refuse to see violence of Islam. How come you are so biased against Christianity and so pro-Islam?

Oh, really?

Yes. Perhaps you would care to address the points about Jesus and Mohammed.

Is that why you've had nothing but bad things to say about Muslims throughout this thread?

I haven’t said anything bad about Muslims, all my criticism has been about Islam, Islam is what Muslims follow.

Your argument isn't based on the differences between the Quran and the Bible.

Yes.

It's based on what you see radical Muslims doing and proclaiming in the name of Islam, what you hear in the media, and what you hear from secondary sources.

No, my argument as you wrote, is based on the differences between the Quran and the Bible.

Have you read the Quran? Have you actually studied the radical's idea of Jihad and its basis?

As I have been quoting from it and in relation to Islamic history you can easily read it yourself to verify what I am saying. Why don’t you?

 

[Zebra1552]

Jaws13,
Apart from the evidence I have presented which you don’t like.

Oh? What valid scholarly sources have you presented for the idea that all or most Muslims are violent?

It is common for argument in debates to be supported by evidence.

Which is why I reluctantly agreed to provide you with any. You see, in debates there are rules for who must give evidence given certain situations. You claim that Muslims ARE violent, I then countered that claim with another claim and logical evidence for why most Muslims are NOT violent. You were making the affirmative claim, thus the burden to present evidence for that claim resides with you, not I.

Muslims Against Sharia
Interesting first link, other Muslims want to behead these guys, you apparently believe the ‘moderate’ Muslims as opposed to the Islamists, yet this is contrary to the Quran in my view and generally somewhat contrary to my experience of Islam in west and in Islamic countries.

Contrary to the Quran, hmm? Do tell. Have you read it? Have you memorized chunks of it? These Muslims you disagree with have. And yet you hold your opinion above theirs. What makes you think your word has more validity than theirs?

It seems like many in the west, you merely choose to believe what you prefer.

In light of the comments you just made about preferring your own opinion over that of Muslims who know far more about their own holy book than you do, I'll take your accusation with a grain of salt.

Yes it is. I am interested in fellow Christians being persecuted for just believing in Christ, I am not offended that Bibles are destroyed in their hundreds across the world, nor am I bothered that Qurans might be burned, What I am disappointed in, is a Christian church wishes to do so as this isnt the right motive.

Christian persecution has NOTHING to do with the Qurans being burned. That is a red herring.

Sorry but Islam slaughtered as well, the gulf and Eygpt by force. All I am doing is giving a balance, all you seem to see is the violence in the crusade violence in name of Christianity and refuse to see violence of Islam. How come you are so biased against Christianity and so pro-Islam?

Straw man argument. You are not giving balance, you are accusing all Muslims of being violent, saying that Islam is a violent religion. This is false, and I have shown that it is. You have not done anything besides dismiss the evidence I have presented.

Yes. Perhaps you would care to address the points about Jesus and Mohammed.

You have not addressed my evidence, why should I address your unsupported conjectures?

I haven’t said anything bad about Muslims, all my criticism has been about Islam, Islam is what Muslims follow.

By criticizing their religion, you criticize them. Their religion simply is not what you say it is, and I have shown this using more evidence than you have presented thus far. If you have evidence you would like me to consider, I would be happy to listen to you. But baselessly accusing Muslims of being violent (or of Islam being a violent religion) without supporting evidence is nothing but a logical fallacy.

No, my argument as you wrote, is based on the differences between the Quran and the Bible.

Then perhaps you can tell me, since you know the Quran, where these supposedly violent verses are and why they are violent.

As I have been quoting from it and in relation to Islamic history you can easily read it yourself to verify what I am saying. Why don’t you?

You have not quoted it once in our discussion thus far. I have read it for myself. It is not my job to back your arguments for you. Do it yourself.

 

[Phinehas2]

Jaws13,
My apologies, I don’t seem to have presented evidence in this thread

Let me give a summary.
The Quran is not ordered in chronological order. If it were two particular surah (chapters) would be at the end, 5 and 9.
The first set of revelations in the Quran Mohammed had in Mecca. He tried to convince his own tribe, Jews and a Christian sect this was revelation from God.
He did gain a few followers but mostly they did not accept. Some hostility from his own tribe and he moved north to Medina where he continued to try and convince Jews and Arabs. He met aggressive opposition form the Jews. The Quran revelations change the Torah and OT prophets accounts, and corrupt them. The Jews demanded signs (they did of Jesus Christ as well John 2:18) which Mohammed could not give but instead gave more revelation from Allah. A Jewish woman, Zaineb, tried to poison Mohammed. It was at this time Mohammed's revelations from Allah changed? ie Surah 5 and 9
Haddith is the collections of sayings and actions of Mohammed that his followers complied as the Quran says they should follow what Mohamed does and says.
There is also abrogation in the Quran which describes how later passages do not contradict earlier ones but add something better. OS for example early passages on alcohol advise to beware, later ones prohibit altogether.
In the same way one should be able to compare early passages which describe to Christians and Jews as people of the book ‘our Allah and your Allah are one’ against later ones which describe Christians and Jews as unbelievers and pagans.
Note therefore
Surah 9:5 “But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.”
Surah 9:14 “Fight them, and Allah will punish them by your hands, cover them with shame, help you (to victory) over them, heal the breasts of Believers,

After this Mohammed organised military campaigns, the massacre of the Jewish Nadir, Qurayzah and Khaybar tribes
So why don’t some Muslims do what the Quran instructs and what Mohammed preaches and practiced?

​

 

[Zebra1552]

Jaws13,
My apologies, I don’t seem to have presented evidence in this thread

Let me give a summary.
The Quran is not ordered in chronological order. If it were two particular surah (chapters) would be at the end, 5 and 9.
The first set of revelations in the Quran Mohammed had in Mecca. He tried to convince his own tribe, Jews and a Christian sect this was revelation from God.
He did gain a few followers but mostly they did not accept. Some hostility from his own tribe and he moved north to Medina where he continued to try and convince Jews and Arabs. He met aggressive opposition form the Jews. The Quran revelations change the Torah and OT prophets accounts, and corrupt them. The Jews demanded signs (they did of Jesus Christ as well John 2:18) which Mohammed could not give but instead gave more revelation from Allah. A Jewish woman, Zaineb, tried to poison Mohammed. It was at this time Mohammed's revelations from Allah changed? ie Surah 5 and 9
Haddith is the collections of sayings and actions of Mohammed that his followers complied as the Quran says they should follow what Mohamed does and says.
There is also abrogation in the Quran which describes how later passages do not contradict earlier ones but add something better. OS for example early passages on alcohol advise to beware, later ones prohibit altogether.
In the same way one should be able to compare early passages which describe to Christians and Jews as people of the book ‘our Allah and your Allah are one’ against later ones which describe Christians and Jews as unbelievers and pagans.
Note therefore
Surah 9:5 “But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.”
Surah 9:14 “Fight them, and Allah will punish them by your hands, cover them with shame, help you (to victory) over them, heal the breasts of Believers,

After this Mohammed organised military campaigns, the massacre of the Jewish Nadir, Qurayzah and Khaybar tribes
So why don’t some Muslims do what the Quran instructs and what Mohammed preaches and practiced?

I'm sorry, but I don't accept anecdotal evidence in this matter. You'll have to provide real sources for your claims rather than piling claims on top of more claims. All I have to do to debunk your above claims is point out that all we have is your word, and the words of two verses pulled out of context.

 

[Phinehas2]

Jaws13,

I'm sorry, but I don't accept anecdotal evidence in this matter.

I am sorry I don’t accept mere opinion calling evidence anecdotal.

Your opinion is contrary to what the Quran, Haddith and Islamic history say.

You'll have to provide real sources for your claims rather than piling claims on top of more claims.

so how come you don’t thing the Quran is a real source?

and by the way I gave the context of the Quran through the Islamic history.

I am sorry you will have to do better than your mere contradiction through personal opinion, it just looks like you argument is closed to reason and debate.

 

[Phinehas2]

The account of Elijah is not one we should follow, mocking other's for their gods, we are through Christ looking to make disciples and for all who can, to come to know Christ as Lord. So our witness should be focussed on the truth of Christ, and not on the error of other religions unless exposed by the truth of Christ; the latter will bring us enough trouble as it did the NT disciples.
So is the burning of the Quran right, no, but is God bothered, I suggest not. Jesus Christ did not come to bring peace as the world sees it, but His peace, a peace that passes all understanding. He said "Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid. - John 14:27

 

[Zebra1552]

Jaws13,
I am sorry I don’t accept mere opinion calling evidence anecdotal.

Your opinion is contrary to what the Quran, Haddith and Islamic history say.

Then you can systematically refute the evidence I gave you. Address the websites, and address how Muslims who read and know the Quran have a different idea of what it says.

so how come you don’t thing the Quran is a real source?

Because you selected two passages and took them outside their context, then proceeded to explain why you are supposedly able to do that and not butcher the meaning of those passages. Your claims are empty until you can provide sources.

and by the way I gave the context of the Quran through the Islamic history.

Then show where you got it. I gave you sources for my opinion, sources which you have not addressed. You have given me none and formed your own opinion and called it fact. Until you show where you got it, your claim is empty.

I am sorry you will have to do better than your mere contradiction through personal opinion, it just looks like you argument is closed to reason and debate.

If it's closed to reason and debate, review this:
Fallacy: Burden of Proof

Burden of Proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B. A common name for this is an Appeal to Ignorance. This sort of reasoning typically has the following form:

1. 
   [*]Claim X is presented by side A and the burden of proof actually rests on side B.
   [*]Side B claims that X is false because there is no proof for X.

In many situations, one side has the burden of proof resting on it. This side is obligated to provide evidence for its position. The claim of the other side, the one that does not bear the burden of proof, is assumed to be true unless proven otherwise. The difficulty in such cases is determining which side, if any, the burden of proof rests on. In many cases, settling this issue can be a matter of significant debate. In some cases the burden of proof is set by the situation. For example, in American law a person is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty (hence the burden of proof is on the prosecution). As another example, in debate the burden of proof is placed on the affirmative team. As a final example, in most cases the burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists (such as Bigfoot, psychic powers, universals, and sense data).

You can't limit the discussion to logical discourse while ignoring the guidelines FOR logical discourse.

 

[Phinehas2]

Jaws13,

Then you can systematically refute the evidence I gave you. Address the websites, and address how Muslims who read and know the Quran have a different idea of what it says.

That’s up to you, the ball is in your court, the Quran, Haddith and Islamic history is there for you to examine and comment on.

Because you selected two passages and took them outside their context,

NO I gave the context of how they fit in the Quran itself and how it fits with Islamic history. All I have had from you is the usual baseless contradiction. And two passages from the Quran is still a real source, don’t call it not so.

 

[Phinehas2]

Further to the burning of the Quran in protest to the ground zero Islamic centre I now learn that the only place of worship that was destroyed by the twin towers was a Greek orthodox church which has been refused permission to rebuild. Pity I didnt know this whilst I have had to listen to endless liberal argument that people are entitled to build where they like.

 

[Zebra1552]

Jaws13,

That’s up to you, the ball is in your court, the Quran, Haddith and Islamic history is there for you to examine and comment on.

No, your claims on those topics are there for me to examine, and claims are inadequate in light of the evidence I already provided. If you have sources to support your claims, I'd be happy to give them more weight.

NO I gave the context of how they fit in the Quran itself and how it fits with Islamic history. All I have had from you is the usual baseless contradiction. And two passages from the Quran is still a real source, don’t call it not so.

You gave empty claims. I gave you real sources. Until you can back your claims, your 'evidence' is useless.

 

[Archivist]

Further to the burning of the Quran in protest to the ground zero Islamic centre I now learn that the only place of worship that was destroyed by the twin towers was a Greek orthodox church which has been refused permission to rebuild. Pity I didnt know this whilst I have had to listen to endless liberal argument that people are entitled to build where they like.

You should really take time to learn the facts before you make statements like this. The St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church was in negotiation with the Port Authority of New York but they were unable to reach a deal:

"By late 2008, St. Nicholas and the Port Authority had reached a tentative agreement for the church to give up its 1,200-square-foot site at 155 Cedar Street in exchange for 130 Liberty Street, a bigger site half a block away.

Six months later, the Port Authority said negotiations ended because St. Nicholas demanded too much money and approval power over a vehicle security center beneath the sites. Port Authority spokesman Stephen Sigmund said the church can return to its original location.

"In 2009, we made our final offer, which again included up to $60 million in public money, and told St. Nicholas Orthodox Church that the World Trade Center could not be delayed over this issue," he said in a written statement. "They rejected that offer."

Church officials say otherwise:

"He and other church officials think the agency changed course because the fate of the old Deutsch Bank building next to the new site -- which is supposed to become Tower 5 of the rebuilt World Trade Center -- became unclear after JP Morgan Chase took over Bear Stearns' midtown offices and no longer needed a new building downtown.

"Maybe they wanted to figure out what else to do with that property," Couloucoundis said. "The official account is that the church was too demanding. That's completely ridiculous. We weren't suddenly asking for $100 million or to build a church 30 stories high."

The full story is available here: Ground Zero Greek Orthodox Church: St Nicholas Waits For New Life. My guess is that the truth lies somewhere between these two positions. In any case it isn't a matter of an "endless liberal argument" that is somehow against Christianity.

 

[Phinehas2]

Jaws13,

No, your claims on those topics are there for me to examine, and claims are inadequate in light of the evidence I already provided. If you have sources to support your claims, I'd be happy to give them more weight.

You gave me links to some Islamic sites which don’t seem representative of Islam as a whole nor the Quran and Haddith they are supposed to follow.

 

[Zebra1552]

Jaws13,
You gave me links to some Islamic sites which don’t seem representative of Islam as a whole nor the Quran and Haddith they are supposed to follow.

Your claim is that Islam is a violent religion. That that religion has followers of it who are not violent refutes your claim, because it shows Islam is not, by necessity, a violent religion. And if that didn't:

http://muslimmatters.org/2010/02/21/is-islam-a-violent-religion/

http://www.religioustolerance.org/isl_war.htm

That certainly will refute your hasty generalization.

 

[Phinehas2]

Archivist,

You should really take time to learn the facts before you make statements like this.

Not really, as you say the facts may be somewhere between what is reported, nonetheless the facts that extremists are behind the Islamic centre may also be true.
The reality is the church was destroyed, an Islamic centre wasn’t. The fact is the president has put his weight behind the Islamic centre and not the church to be rebuilt. The fact is the twin towers were not destroyed in the name of Christianity but in the name of Islam. Not good enough. In any case it is a matter of an "endless liberal argument" that is against Christianity, that’s exactly what it is.

 

[Phinehas2]

Jaws13,

Your claim is that Islam is a violent religion. That that religion has followers of it who are not violent refutes your claim.

Except that it has followers who are violent which supports the claim. That’s why I refer to the Quran, Haddith and Islamic history to see whether I believe the ones who are violent are following Islam or whether the ones you link to are; and its not your links