Help Save The Life Of An Afghan Man Who Refuses To Deny Christ

[ebia]

Well, that is true. But you forget Isiah. And Moses. Moses was a murderer.
Killing is bad, basically. Not always, but usually. While the Old Testament does contain much genocide, and as does the history of any nation from that time, the bible does not tell us to kill the infidels and make war on our unbelieving neighbors.

I agree with you, but. Plenty of Christians in the past have thought it does.

Islam does.

And plenty of Muslims do not believe that Islam teaches this.

How do you get to decide both what is correct Christian teaching and what is correct Islamic teaching despite the Christians and Muslims who disagree with you?

The funder of Christianity, Jesus Christ told us to turn the other cheek. He told us to love and pray for those who persecute us.

And yet He (as God) is portrayed in parts of the OT as a genocidal maniac.

Mohammed told the Muslims to persecute.

And yet in other places he told them not to.

He told them to kill. He told them we are the descendants of pigs and monkeys, and have ten intestines. (what kind of an insult is that by the way?)
Christ died at the hands of others. Mohammed made others die by his hands.

God has killed heaps of people according to the OT, so therefore Christ has.

And then there are the killings that were justified by God. Judas' death for instance. Or the people who attacked Israel up through the times. Difference is among many things; God has not told us to persecute and kill those who convert from Christianity.

Christians in the past seem to have thought he did demand. And the Muslims I know don't think he demands this.

He has not told us to slay our unbelieving neighbors. Mohammed has done so.

See above.

I have serious issues with anyone who kills for religious reasons.

So do I, whatever their faith. So does every Muslim I know.

As for Islam, by it's nature it is violent.

So you say - the reality is both Christianity and Islam can be violent or peaceful.

We should not meet this with violence though. But we may have to, if they continue their "crusade" against the west.

If you do, then you really are no different. The Muslims who commit violence for their faith also see that response as forced upon them.

How long until it blossoms into a full scale war? Are we not already at the edge of one? If a war starts, we have the most powerful weapons. But Islamic nations have the most zeal. It will be a bloodbath if/when it starts. And if it does come to war, then I have no doubt the agressors will be the middle eastern nations.

Right now the agressors are the US, the UK and Australia.

Not because of Islam, but because of Islamic extremism being firmly lodged in central positions in their leadership.

Finally a statement that I agree with. The problem isn't Islam - it's extremeist Islamic leaders and leaders (around the world) willing to exploit extremism and reactionary conservatism for their own political ends.

 

[TheReasoner]

I agree with you, but. Plenty of Christians in the past have thought it does.


And plenty of Muslims do not believe that Islam teaches this.

I have spoken with a few. None have really countered the quotes from the Quaran I have made further down this post.

How do you get to decide both what is correct Christian teaching and what is correct Islamic teaching despite the Christians and Muslims who disagree with you?

Just quoting the founders of both beliefs.

And yet He (as God) is portrayed in parts of the OT as a genocidal maniac.

True.

And yet in other places he told them not to.

God has killed heaps of people according to the OT, so therefore Christ has.

Christians in the past seem to have thought he did demand. And the Muslims I know don't think he demands this.

Really?
"fight and slay the pagans (or infidels or unbelievers) wherever you find them"

"Then, when the sacred months are drawn away, slay the idolaters (The non-Muslims) wherever you find them, and take them, and confine them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush"

"Humiliate the non-Muslims to such an extent that they surrender and pay tribute."

So do I, whatever their faith. So does every Muslim I know.

Wish I could say the same. About Muslims I mean. Sure, most are definitely alright. But then I have had the misfortune of encountering a few who are not moderate, but rather quite extreme.

So you say - the reality is both Christianity and Islam can be violent or peaceful.

Violence is against the core of Christianity. While we are not forbidden to defend ourselves, or even enlist in the army - Christ encourages peace. I hear Muslims say Mohammed does the same in the Quaran, but so far I have seen loads of information stating the opposite. Verses encouraging holy war and genocide. The reason for my scepticism towards Islam is not rooted solely in this though. It is also rooted in what I see in the middle east. In what I see here - our largest gangs are predominantly Muslim, and some of these use violence on religious grounds.During the cartoon uproar the muslims gathered in downtown Oslo and cried for the blood of infidels. In London they did the same, cried for a war on Denmark, on extermination of that nation.
Granted, I saw two demonstrations in Oslo, regarding the cartoons. One, consisting of about ten-fifteen people of middle eastern origin demonstrating against the government's approach, wanting them to avoid public apologies as a nation. And a group of a few thousand angry people demanding an apology from the entire nation.
I am all for freedom of speech, and if they are angry, they should be allowed to express it. In a non-threatening manner. Once people cry out for the blood of others.... Well, I don't feel very at peace...

If you do, then you really are no different. The Muslims who commit violence for their faith also see that response as forced upon them.

Oh I do not want to use violence. But if they invade Europe, I will enlist and pick up my rifle again. If Europe decides to go to a holy war against Islam, I will protest and do what I can to stop it.
Violence must not be used lest it is the last resort.
Terror or attacks on civilians CANNOT be excused. And now that is primarily the target of the extremists. Target the soldiers. The officials who oppress you. Not the innocent.

Right now the agressors are the US, the UK and Australia.

Agreed, that is true. And this agression may be the trigger. But still, we see a lot of Muslim agression against neutral bystanders such as Norway and Denmark for trivial issues, while they themselves burn embassies, churches, synagogues, buddha statues... I understand the Muslim anger against the USA particularly because of the terrible crimes that nation has committed. But why be angry with us? I realize there is a huge cultural gap, and political as well. But that does not excuse their unwarranted agression against a nation which often has taken the side of the Palestinians. IMO they are shooting themselves in the foot.

[/QUOTE]Finally a statement that I agree with. The problem isn't Islam - it's extremeist Islamic leaders and leaders (around the world) willing to exploit extremism and reactionary conservatism for their own political ends.[/QUOTE]

Well, my problem, thus far is with extremism mainly. I have stated the reasons for my questioning the peacefulness of Islam.
I have found more of an opportunity for extremists to use violence in the Quaran than I have in the bible.
Hence my scepticism to the religion. This is also the reason why I am sceptical to Åsatru in it's old form.

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

Plenty of attrocities have been committed in the name of Christianity.

Apples and oranges. We were speaking about the early Christians ("bible heroes"), then you switched the ground to substantiate your perspective

Was there a point to this, because it looks like flaming to me, and that's a breach of forum rules.

No, it wasn't a flame at all. In fact, it was an illustration that the label doen't define the contents of the
package.

FYI- accusing someone of flaming/trolling is also against forum rules.

I assure you- I do not flame or purposefully insult on this forum- ever. I may occasionally be tongue-in-cheek to make a point or to keep it light.

Some Christians have not, and most Muslims are peaceful, so what's your point?

My point was precisely aimed at your careless broad brush and seeming equivocation. Regardless of what David did in the OT, Christians have every right to call evil what it is.

Like, for example, executing a man for his faith- or lack thereof.

 

[hobbitfeet]

perhaps he is an example of things to come

 

[ebia]

I have spoken with a few. None have really countered the quotes from the Quaran I have made further down this post.

Not countered them or not countered them to your satisifaction?

Just quoting the founders of both beliefs.

When you make a statement "Islam teaches this" you are not just quoting what a founder said, but putting an interpretation on the totality of Islamic teaching on the issue.

Really?

Yes, really. We could (and opponents of Christianity do) quotemine the bible in the same way to prove how attrocious Christianity is. It's not tricky.

Any quote from the Koran needs to be seen in the light of the totality of Islamic teaching, just as any quote from the bible needs to be seen in the light of the totality of Christian teaching. Anything less is a double-standard.

Violence is against the core of Christianity. While we are not forbidden to defend ourselves, or even enlist in the army - Christ encourages peace. I hear Muslims say Mohammed does the same in the Quaran, but so far I have seen loads of information stating the opposite.

So you are going to believe the best of Christianity and believe the worst of Islam - more double standards.

The reason for my scepticism towards Islam is not rooted solely in this though. It is also rooted in what I see in the middle east. In what I see here - our largest gangs are predominantly Muslim, and some of these use violence on religious grounds.

So if our largest gangs here are ethnicly Italian does that prove that the Roman Catholic Church and Christianity is intrinsically violent?

During the cartoon uproar the muslims gathered in downtown Oslo and cried for the blood of infidels. In London they did the same, cried for a war on Denmark, on extermination of that nation.

Anyone who thinks the cartoon issue is primarily about religion is naieve.

Oh I do not want to use violence. But if they invade Europe, I will enlist and pick up my rifle again.

Well, we've invaded their lands - so, by your argument, they are justified in retaliating.

Violence must not be used lest it is the last resort.

Anyone can say that, resting assured that violence will always be the last resort for the same reason that you always find something in the last place you look for it.

Agreed, that is true. And this agression may be the trigger. But still, we see a lot of Muslim agression against neutral bystanders such as Norway and Denmark for trivial issues, while they themselves burn embassies, churches, synagogues, buddha statues... I understand the Muslim anger against the USA particularly because of the terrible crimes that nation has committed. But why be angry with us?

Maybe for the same reason that you lump the whole of Islam into one bucket, forgetting the vast differences between sects, ethnicity, culture, etc in a religion spanning several continents.

For the same reason that Europeans and Americans tend to view Islam as the Middle East, forgetting Indonisia (the largest Islamic country on earth), and everything between, so Muslims tend to view "The West" as one lump.

I have found more of an opportunity for extremists to use violence in the Quaran than I have in the bible.
Hence my scepticism to the religion.

Extremists find justification for their abuse whereever they look for it, and they have been as successful in finding that justification in Christianity as anywhere else.

 

[TheReasoner]

Not countered them or not countered them to your satisifaction?

Well, countering it with "it an be interpreted differently" without supplying such an interpretation is not a counter argument I consider valid.

When you make a statement "Islam teaches this" you are not just quoting what a founder said, but putting an interpretation on the totality of Islamic teaching on the issue.

Show those verses to a Muslim who has studied the Quar'an and ask him what they mean if they do not mean what they say.

Yes, really. We could (and opponents of Christianity do) quotemine the bible in the same way to prove how attrocious Christianity is. It's not tricky.

Show me. There are loads of quotes to counter such interpretations firmly in the base of the values promoted throughout the bible

Any quote from the Koran needs to be seen in the light of the totality of Islamic teaching, just as any quote from the bible needs to be seen in the light of the totality of Christian teaching. Anything less is a double-standard.

Good point. But still, what do you think of the quotes I made? What about Mohammed as a historical figure? His actions cannot be denied. The man performed genocide, and he promoted racial division when he lived.

So you are going to believe the best of Christianity and believe the worst of Islam - more double standards.

I think you have misunderstood me.

So if our largest gangs here are ethnicly Italian does that prove that the Roman Catholic Church and Christianity is intrinsically violent?

Do they perform violence in the name of their beliefs? I expect they might. Is it encouraged from the pulpit?
I doubt it.

Anyone who thinks the cartoon issue is primarily about religion is naieve.

That's not what I said. But religion is largely a part of the response, and the fuel added to the fire has been religious. It makes little sense to pick on us, who do not pose a threat, and also have spoken and promoted their case among the western nations.
Shooting themselves in the foot. This extremism and indeed all radical ideals are easy to spread among the people. Clear and absolute ideas spread quickly. Powerful ideals appeal. This is what makes sects and cults able to recruit. When these violent extremists become the ruling force in a nation the danger level is extreme. That is what has happened in the middle east, and it is not new. The Ottoman Empire did great harm to the west through religious extremist behaviour, and many of the leaders in Muslim nations today have not changed noticably much from that time. These people have gotten so much influence, basically from Mohammed's time and then on throughout history until now that they define the religion. If the religion is peaceful - I fail to see that. Mohammed was genocidal, and a warlord for sure. The Ottoman empire was no better. Even today you will face the death penalty for converting from Islam to whatever- or if you are a Christian and attempt to enter Mecca, you are also in mortal danger. Which one of my uncles got to experience back when he made the attempt as a tourist who just didn't know better.

If Islam is a religion of peace, it's leaders have worked hard to carve a violent association into stone. For centuries at that. If they abuse the religion for their own benefit, then that is no different from what Christianity was abused by the Roman empire. And later on by others as well.
But, the religion is currently largely defined by the violence by the extremists who are currently in charge.

Well, we've invaded their lands - so, by your argument, they are justified in retaliating.

Yes. They are.
But not against innocent civilians.
It is true that civilians will perish during war and resistance. That is unfortunate, but unavoidable. However, there is a difference between targetting military and logistics for the purpose of undermining the occupying force and purposefully targetting civilians for the purpose of spreading terror amid the civilian population of your enemy. It's simply unacceptable.

Anyone can say that, resting assured that violence will always be the last resort for the same reason that you always find something in the last place you look for it.

For me, using a gun or other violence would require a lot. I will refuse to seize arms until we are invaded by uniformed forces.

Maybe for the same reason that you lump the whole of Islam into one bucket, forgetting the vast differences between sects, ethnicity, culture, etc in a religion spanning several continents.

The totalitarian nature and overfocus on islamic extremism in the middle east does portray Islam a certain way here. They work actively to instate shaira laws here in the west. Working against what we have worked hard to achieve. While this does not go for all Muslims, it goes for the visible majority. I am well aware of the media focus on the extremists, I am well aware of their visibility as extremists. But nevertheless this is happening, and extremistic Islam must be dealt with. It cannot be allowed to fester like the wound it is. I am not advocating the killing of them. Nor am I advocating an American approach, that will only make matters worse. But the issue of extremistic Islam is definitely a real issue, and it must be dealt with.

I do agree that certain aspects of what they work for are good, and should be implemented within reason. The west IS backslidden and demoralized. But when this is forcibly implemented through threats and localized violence and gang mentality and activity, the extremists' work actively encourage racial division and religious segregation. If the extremists are not dealt with in some way (not violent, violence begets violence) I fear we will see pre WW2 segregational mindsets resurface, this time targeted at Arabs and Muslims. No-one benefits from that.

Culture? Well, I will accept their way of speaking, which includes mentioning a lot of blood and violence as a cultural issue. I will accept that culture is the reason for their view on a lot of things. And for a lot of their ways of doing things. But I will not see culture as an excuse for the extremistic and violent approach many has. That's not cultural. It could be religious, had they said they worshipped Satan you would probably not have doubted this. Nor would I have doubted it's plausability in such an event. But once someone says they believe in a God, and say they are peaceful we believe them. And I am keen to believe them too. But the extremism embraced by many Muslims does make me sceptical to wether or not the religion is peaceful. The history of the muslim nations further increases my scepticism. The historical figure Mohammed does so even more. Then, what I have read of the Quaran does not deny it. So what am I to believe? What they say, or what I see? It is true that the majority are probably not violent. But they have not done much to be seen above the extremists. Yes, much of this is bound to be cultural. They have a different way of expressing themselves, and that's fine. No problem. However, I would be completely fine if they sticked to expressing it. I am not fine when they back it up with actions as violent as their threats. That's when I get a problem. Do I understand their approach to the USA? Yes. Do I understand their anger against the west? Absolutely. Do I understand they feel the wish to retaliate? Yep. Do I understand their attacks on civilians? Partially. Do I condone it? Far from it! We have fought against greater opposition than they face without resorting to violence against civilians. I know these are actions done by the few extreme extremists who go beyond thoughtless zeal, but it colors the perception of the middle east and Islam.

For the same reason that Europeans and Americans tend to view Islam as the Middle East, forgetting Indonisia (the largest Islamic country on earth), and everything between, so Muslims tend to view "The West" as one lump.

Mmm. True.

Extremists find justification for their abuse whereever they look for it, and they have been as successful in finding that justification in Christianity as anywhere else.

So, how come religious extremism still has a huge foothold in many Muslim governments, wherease it is largely absent in Christian governments now?! Is it the nature of despotisms which is to blame for the extremistic abuse of Islam? Or is it the extremistic nature of Islam which is to blame for the problems we face today?
If things continue, the peole believing in 'option two' or something along those lines will increase. And the people believing we simply see history repeat itself will diminish.

As of right now, I am not too sure about it, because of Islam's history - which is full of violence and bloodshed, but so far without any change from that.

 

[ebia]

Well, countering it with "it an be interpreted differently" without supplying such an interpretation is not a counter argument I consider valid.

Perhaps the people you've asked are not theologians, or they don't think you are really interested in the answer, or...

Show those verses to a Muslim who has studied the Quar'an and ask him what they mean if they do not mean what they say.

Why? It's quite clear from their behaviour and attitudes what their morality is, why do I need to know the details of how they've dealt with those 3 or 4 quotes?

Show me. There are loads of quotes to counter such interpretations firmly in the base of the values promoted throughout the bible

Exactly what a Muslim could say about your quotes from the Koran.

Good point. But still, what do you think of the quotes I made? What about Mohammed as a historical figure? His actions cannot be denied. The man performed genocide, and he promoted racial division when he lived.

I'm not an Islamic theologian or apologist.

I think you have misunderstood me.

I don't think I have.

Do they perform violence in the name of their beliefs? I expect they might. Is it encouraged from the pulpit?
I doubt it.

This was posted in response to a particular piece of "evidence" posted. However, even extreme Muslim clerics do not normally preach violence from the pulpit. Rather, they preach hate, (as some extremist Christian preachers do).

That's not what I said. But religion is largely a part of the response, and the fuel added to the fire has been religious.

Nasty people have always used and abused religion for their ends in this way. If that condemns Islam, then it condemns Christianity by the same token.

It makes little sense to pick on us, who do not pose a threat, and also have spoken and promoted their case among the western nations.

It makes little sense to pick on all Muslims for the actions of a few. You can hardly blame Muslims for steriotyping "the West" while steriotyping them.


(More double standards snipped)

Even today you will face the death penalty for converting from Islam to whatever-

In a handful of the most extreme Islamic countries only. It's not that long ago that Christian countries were executing people for being the wrong brand of Christian.

Which one of my uncles got to experience back when he made the attempt as a tourist who just didn't know better.

Going to Saudi without doing your homework on Islam is both stupid and offensive, to be quite honest.

If Islam is a religion of peace, it's leaders have worked hard to carve a violent association into stone.

Clearly untrue when most Muslims are peaceful people.

For centuries at that. If they abuse the religion for their own benefit, then that is no different from what Christianity was abused by the Roman empire. And later on by others as well.

Another double standard - you call the abuse of Islam "Muslims abusing their own religion", but the equivalent abuse of Christianity "Someone else abusing Christianity". Those who have abused Christianity are just as much Christians as those who abuse Islam are Muslims.

But, the religion is currently largely defined by the violence by the extremists who are currently in charge.

Say's who?

Yes. They are.
But not against innocent civilians

The choice to wage war without is no longer one available to those without military strength, and hasn't been for more than half a century.

It is true that civilians will perish during war and resistance. That is unfortunate, but unavoidable. However, there is a difference between targetting military and logistics for the purpose of undermining the occupying force and purposefully targetting civilians for the purpose of spreading terror amid the civilian population of your enemy. It's simply unacceptable.

The 2nd world war was won (and lost) by indiscriminate bombing. America has the option to avoid civilian targets - at the other end of the power scale people are reduced to waging war however they can.

The totalitarian nature and overfocus on islamic extremism in the middle east does portray Islam a certain way here. They work actively to instate shaira laws here in the west.

A few do. The same is said here, but I've never met a Muslim who would want Sharia here, let alone is working towards it.

Working against what we have worked hard to achieve. While this does not go for all Muslims, it goes for the visible majority. I am well aware of the media focus on the extremists, I am well aware of their visibility as extremists. But nevertheless this is happening, and extremistic Islam must be dealt with.

Yes, but it's not best dealt with by painting the whole of Islam with one brush. We need moderate Muslims on our side, and they are entitled to be treated with respect.

So, how come religious extremism still has a huge foothold in many Muslim governments, wherease it is largely absent in Christian governments now?!

You may not have noticed, but very few Muslim countries are genuine democracies. Most were left in an appalling mess at the end of the colonial era. Many are partially democratic and are making steps in the right direction- The government of Indonesia (the largest Muslim country by far) is far from perfect but isn't fundamentalist Muslim by a long shot. Similar can be said for Malaysia. Pakistan has it's ups and down but is making overall progress. When was the last time anyone heard inflamintory rhetoric from Bangladesh? Turkey has it's issues but is getting close to being a true western democracy. Some of the small, rich, Arab states such as the Emirates have pretty much embraced western greed. It has to be noted that it's very much harder to reform a country that is stuck in poverty, and the current world economic system keeps most of the really big Islamic countries in incredible povery. Neither extreme poverty nor extreme wealth are condusive to the kind of social justice at the heart of real reform, and most Muslims countries are stuck in one or the other (or sometimes both at once).

Is it the nature of despotisms which is to blame for the extremistic abuse of Islam? Or is it the extremistic nature of Islam which is to blame for the problems we face today?

IMO clearly the former.

If things continue, the peole believing in 'option two' or something along those lines will increase. And the people believing we simply see history repeat itself will diminish.

Argument from popularity?

As of right now, I am not too sure about it, because of Islam's history - which is full of violence and bloodshed, but so far without any change from that.

It's much easier to spot violence than peace. Because of the way our news media works, evil get's lots of coverage but you have to go looking for the image of God.

The biases of the media in Muslim countries similiarly portrays the west in the worst light.

Peace can't result until we stop being satisfied with half the story and are prepared to go looking for the best in each other.

 

[TheReasoner]

Peace can't result until we stop being satisfied with half the story and are prepared to go looking for the best in each other.

Okay. Please, refrain from flaming for a second. Take a deep breath and read what I am actually saying.

I do not necessarily consider Islam a religion of peace because of not two or three verses, not because of what is done now alone. But what has been the way of Islam since it's foundation.

Fact; Mohammed committed genocide. True, several key figures in the bible did so too.
Fact; The Muslims later invaded Europe and performed terrible acts in their "crusade" against Christianity.

Fact; The quran has plenty of verses encouraging fighting and killing infidels. Among these, the following;
2:190-193, 210, 224; 4:74-76, 89, 101; 5:36, 54; 8:12, 17, 59-60, 65; 9:5, 14, 29, 41, 123; 47:4 etcetera, etcetera. I have heard many refer to the Quran and say there are over a hundred verses encouraging battle or fighting. Personally, I believe most of these are verses which can be interpreted in several ways. But much like many verses people dislike about the bible, such as "You shall not lie with a man as you lie with a woman, it is an abomination" (Leviticus 18:22) so many of these are very hard to interpret in a peaceful manner.

Many of these verses speak of going abroad to fight the unbelievers.

The Ishaq, a biography about Mohammed's life contains many disturbing revelations about his violent behaviour. Much like many fantasy books portray battle, so does the Ishaq and many more Muslim books.

Yes, I do not deny the bible also contains a lot of violence and a lot of bloodshed for reasons we today will disagree more than wholeheartedly with.

------------------------------------------------

That being said, these are the reasons I am sceptical to the nature of Islam. Because throughout many of their central texts it is exceptionally easy to find justification for violence, and hard to find much to contradict it. I am sceptical because of these verses, I am sceptical because of Mohammed's actions and the actions of his followers throughout history until the modern era. A behaviour and philosophy crossing the border of culture and going well into religious fanatcisism of the worst sort.

But; I am willing and able to let this perception go if the Muslim world were to prove this perception wrong. So far what I see is thousands of Muslims here in Norway, in Britain, in France who support the violence of their fellow believers in the middle east. And I have seen and know of but a handful who oppose it. If the majority is indeed against the violence, this majority needs to speak up more. They are hardly heard. And I know that violence speaks louder than peace. It always has. Which is one reason why it appeals so much to people. Why it is used so much.

Maybe Islam really is a religion of peace. I doubt it, to be honest. But maybe it is. If so, then that's great.
However, I believe it is very much a modern philosophy to accept and view everything as equally peaceful, or equally good. It is a modern day perception that all ways lead to Rome. They don't. Fact is, there are religious beliefs out there which are anything but peaceful, and due to my observations I am lead to believe that Islam is indeed one of these. It may not be so, but it seems like it. Flame me if you wish, but that is how it seems the way things are.
Regardless of it's nature as a religion, the issue of violent use/abuse of islam must be dealt with. And I strongly oppose to using violence to fight it. Which is what certain western nations have done. Mainly the USA, but also Britain and to some extent France. I am sure a few others have as well.
This approach I believe is the root of many of these problems we face today. Why would people become fanatically violent and suicidal in their hatred towards the west if they had no reason to?
And the fact is; They have a reason. Plenty of reasons. The shah of Iran. Saddam Hussein, the product of American interference in middle eastern issues. The colonial approach to the middle east. The provocation and favoritism displayed by the USA chiefly. The Mujahedeen. The USSR invasion of Afghanistan... There are many reasons for the Muslim world to feel oppressed by the west. And indeed they are and have been.

This feeds the violence and eases the recruitment for the fanatical.

To deal with the issue at hand we must show clearly that we do neither wish to meet the demands of terrorists. But also that we do not wish to continue the violence and oppression the west has used so far.
We must peacefully and through time guide them and help them into a democracy created by their own hands. Not forced upon them by us. Guide them past the medieval mindset they have by peaceful means, and in their time, at their initiative.

How does this unify with my perception of Islam as a violent religion?
Well, I believe there are aspects of Islam which are violent indeed. That there are aspects of it which are really really bad. As shown by Mohammed and his followers for centuries. But I also believe that human beings have an inate urge for peace. And I believe that if this is nurtured, such violent aspects of any belief will dwindle. If the bad sides are nurtured and fed - like they are today - things will get worse.
We can keep on with the old ways of fighting them as a response to them fighting us. But that way we will simply stay stuck in a conflict which started shortly after Mohammed's rise as a 'Prophet'.

 

[ebia]

Your argument is still no more than seeing the worst in Islam as typical despite the good, and the best in Christianity as typical despite the bad. Except where you have something new to say, I can't see much point in repeating myself.

Why would people become fanatically violent and suicidal in their hatred towards the west if they had no reason to?
And the fact is; They have a reason. Plenty of reasons. The shah of Iran. Saddam Hussein, the product of American interference in middle eastern issues. The colonial approach to the middle east. The provocation and favoritism displayed by the USA chiefly. The Mujahedeen. The USSR invasion of Afghanistan... There are many reasons for the Muslim world to feel oppressed by the west. And indeed they are and have been.

You forgot possibly the most important of all, that the whole west (and perphaps a handful of oil-rich Islamic states) are guilty of ... the economic oppression that keeps most Islamic and other 3rd world countries in intense poverty.

How does this unify with my perception of Islam as a violent religion?
Well, I believe there are aspects of Islam which are violent indeed. That there are aspects of it which are really really bad. As shown by Mohammed and his followers for centuries. But I also believe that human beings have an inate urge for peace. And I believe that if this is nurtured, such violent aspects of any belief will dwindle. If the bad sides are nurtured and fed - like they are today - things will get worse.
We can keep on with the old ways of fighting them as a response to them fighting us. But that way we will simply stay stuck in a conflict which started shortly after Mohammed's rise as a 'Prophet'.

I don't disagree.

 

[TheReasoner]

Your argument is still no more than seeing the worst in Islam as typical despite the good, and the best in Christianity as typical despite the bad. Except where you have something new to say, I can't see much point in repeating myself.

Well, I cannot say I agree. I am looking at things fairly objectively through history and acknowledge the fact that Christianity has been abused. And that this may be the case with Islam as well, even though I doubt it is that way due to the historical facts presented. I do not believe I see the worst in Islam. I believe I see the worst in the people who make Islam what it is. As does the rest of the world. What I have presented has for the most part been cold hard facts. Fact is Islam has been in the centre of a conflict which spans from the dawn of the religion. Fact is, that has not changed since then. All that has changed is the power the muslim world has, and the way the conflict looks.
The conflict has of course evolved a lot since Mohammed's days. There are more reasons for it now than there were (to the extent of my knowledge) then. Much like the conflict in Ireland the roots may be political, while the emphasis and basis for popular support is on ideals and religion.
That does not change what Islam has been used for by it's founder and by his successors.
IMO.

You forgot possibly the most important of all, that the whole west (and perphaps a handful of oil-rich Islamic states) are guilty of ... the economic oppression that keeps most Islamic and other 3rd world countries in intense poverty.

Hear ye!

I don't disagree.

 

[Abiel]

Moderator notice:

I'm closing this thread for now- it has gone way off the original topic. Paladindoodler has asked if I can get the thread back on topic, which I am now going to do.

 

[Abiel]

Help Save The Life Of An Afghan Man Who Refuses To Deny Christ

Quote

Please email President Bush and ask him to intervene to save the life of Abdul Rahman.

Abdul Rahman, 41, faces death because he converted from Islam to Christianity and refuses to convert back to Islam.

His family accused him of being a Christian. During his trial last Thursday in Kabul, Rahman confessed that he converted from Islam to Christianity 16 years ago while working as a medical aid worker for an international Christian group helping Afghan refugees in the Pakistani city of Peshawar.

http://www.afa.net/Petitions/IssueDetail.asp?id=191

This is the original post. We need to get back to the topic in hand please, which is the fate of this one individual, our brother in christ.

 

[crumbs2000]

Typical of Islamic extremism and there double standard sharia laws.

Christians In Afghanistan: A Community of Faith and Fear


A chilling profile of Hashim Kibar, a convert from Islam to Christianity, in Afghanistan. This abundantly illustrates the fact that the Abdul Rahman case was not isolated, and that Christians -- converts and others -- must live in fear in that country even after the alleged demise of the Taliban. Note also that this article carries a note: "Due to the danger of persecution, the convert's name has been changed and his picture is not shown."
From Spiegel, with thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist:

But the disappearance of the Taliban has not made much of a difference for people like Kabar. Converts continue to be hunted down, thrown into prison or even killed by their neighbors. The West was largely unaware of the situation, and it was only by coincidence that Rahman's case captured international attention. Afghanistan's 2004 constitution, which guarantees freedom of religion, is of little use to Christians. "Many in power in the judicial branch are imams or clerics who have little interest in the constitution," says Kabar.
Hide and seek
Kabar is forced to renounce his core identity every day. There is an Islamic name on his business card, although privately he carries the name of one of the apostles. Only his family and his closest friends know his secret. Sometimes, he says, he has to act as if he is praying to Allah. "If business associates come to my house and suddenly want to pray, I have to go along," he says, adding that he only hopes his God understands.
No one knows how many Afghan converts there really are. Because there are no churches, there are also no records. Everything is carried out in secret; only Christians know other Christians. Kabar says he knows a couple of hundred in Kabul and in many other Afghan cities, estimating that there are probably in total between 1,000 and 2,000 people of the Christian faith in Afghanistan, against a Muslim majority of nearly 20 million. Christian Web sites put that number at 10,000, a figure which seems exaggerated.
Even Christian foreigners in Afghanistan feel the oppression brought down by the larger Islamic society. While Christians in Kabul, who mostly come from the Philippines, can hold masses in Kabul, they have to do so in secret. The head of a small foreign congregation, an ophthalmologist from the United States, declined to talk about the issue last week. Christian groups are often suspected of being missionaries; therefore it's better to keep a low profile. His own church is completely unrecognizable as such, apart from a (relief of a) fish on the outer wall.