Sad but True

[TG123]

Again, thanks for the tu quoque

I'm happy to discuss the crusades - if you can show causal links between them and what Christ taught.

I have many times shown causal links between the violence done by Moslems and Islamic teaching and am more than happy to repeat it here too.

However I note most just want to apologise for Islam with relativist excuses, post-modern deconstruction of historical facts and logical fallacies, such as tu quoque

Funny how you pasted only half of what I actually wrote, then imply I am 'apologizing for Islam'. The Crusades were inexcusable, as is the war on terror or any war in light of Christ's teachings on loving enemies and turning the other cheek.

Islam allows war (which is wrong) but not killing children or women or non-combatants as militants do.

 

[razeontherock]

The Crusades were inexcusable, as is the war on terror

Wow. Really? You wrote that? Mind you, US has made some major blunders since Desert Storm. (I believe Saddam should have either been ousted with the first wave of assault, or at the very least confronted with the fact that he violated his terms for a cease fire by, you know, resuming fire) Innocent people have been killed, and the whole thing should have been handled in a way that didn't stir up insurgents, and that kept munitions away from them, all of which would have reduced the conflict. But to compare the "war on terror" to the Crusades?

1) They are incomparable

2) You must be operating on a definition of "war on terror" far different from anything I've considered

 

[Montalban]

Funny how you pasted only half of what I actually wrote, then imply I am 'apologizing for Islam'. The Crusades were inexcusable, as is the war on terror or any war in light of Christ's teachings on loving enemies and turning the other cheek.

Maybe I should have explained it better

The Crusades have no relevence here - unless you can show causal links between what they did and the teaching of Christ.

Islam allows war (which is wrong) but not killing children or women or non-combatants as militants do.

Only 'cause they can be enslaved and made Moslem

 

[razeontherock]

Maybe I should have explained it better

The Crusades have no relevence here - unless you can show causal links between what they did and the teaching of Christ.

Wait - he'd also have to show causal links between the war on terror and the teachings of Christ. So it's all a huge helping of herring

 

[Montalban]

Wait - he'd also have to show causal links between the war on terror and the teachings of Christ. So it's all a huge helping of herring

And if one who claims to be with Jesus believed that Jesus taught such things I think that they grossly misunderstand him.

There's just so many religious relativists who have been indoctrinated into this mind-set that they think all religions are equally bad/guilty as each other.

It's why so many lose faith. The secularists win with each new convert.

I've gone over this so many times that I think it's a fault in education that reasoning ascribes fault without causal links.

 

[Montalban]

Funny how you pasted only half of what I actually wrote, then imply I am 'apologizing for Islam'. The Crusades were inexcusable, as is the war on terror or any war in light of Christ's teachings on loving enemies and turning the other cheek.

Islam allows war (which is wrong) but not killing children or women or non-combatants as militants do.

If I can just explain causal links (again) for people reading my posts.

Say you are my religious leader. I go out and kill someone. They arrest me and I say "My religious leader told me to do that"
Two things are possible

a) IF you said no such thing you are not guilty at all by my actions
b) IF you had encouraged me then you share a degree of guilt for having encouraged an illegal act.

Under b) there is a causal link between what I did and what you taught.

If you can find such links between what Jesus taught and what Crusaders did, you'd have a right comparison (although still a tu quoque - because one wrong thing doesn't excuse another)

At best, I believe, you can draw causal links between what some Popes taught and what the crusaders did.

And on the other hand let's look at Islam.

Muhammed lead armies into battle. He permitted war. He over-saw the murder of 900 prisoners-of-war. He took captives as his wives/concubines. He took a share of spoils from military engagements. He encouraged the murder of his enemies.

The Koran has their god instilling terror into the hearts of men

The Hadith are full of examples

The four major schools of Islamic jurisprudence have consistantly upheld violence as an integral part of Islam.

That is a causal link to Moslems today - who are still committing these acts in the name of Islam, and still have backing from Islamic religious leaders.

Now I ask you again to show causual links between the bad things some Chrisitans did, and what Christ taught.

If you can find none then it's totally irrelevant that they were Christians, excepting insofar as they're an example of what shouldn't be done.

If a fat red-haired 30 year old man shot someone and they said "Red head goes on rampage" you'd be asking what has it to do with the colour of his hair - unless they can show causal links between having red hair, and gun-rage - then having red hair is irrelevant.

 

[Islam_mulia]

For alleged sexual licentiousness, it's there!

Check out this Islamic opinion folks...
Islam Question and Answer - Ruling on honour killings

Your link does not say that honour killing is allowed in Islam. In fact, it says that honor killing is a "transgression and wrongdoing".

Am I missing something here?

 

[TG123]

Wow. Really? You wrote that? Mind you, US has made some major blunders since Desert Storm. (I believe Saddam should have either been ousted with the first wave of assault, or at the very least confronted with the fact that he violated his terms for a cease fire by, you know, resuming fire) Innocent people have been killed, and the whole thing should have been handled in a way that didn't stir up insurgents, and that kept munitions away from them, all of which would have reduced the conflict. But to compare the "war on terror" to the Crusades?

1) They are incomparable

2) You must be operating on a definition of "war on terror" far different from anything I've considered

In both cases, Christians broke Christ's teachings by going to war and killing people.

In both cases, innocents were murdered. If you want to call US war crimes 'blunders' you are either unaware of reality or ignoring it. Dropping cluster bombs on residential areas in Baghdad is murder. Arming dictators who torture and murder people (Hosni Mubarak, Islam Karimov...) knowing very well what they are perpetrating is murder. Bombing and destroying a whole city (Fallujah) and killing hundreds of its residents in retaliation for the murder of 4 Blackwater contractors is murder. Supplying the Israeli army with weapons it uses to kill Palestinians, militants and civilians alike, is murder. I won't even get into what goes on in South and Central America and what our leaders did to Mexico and how that contributed to the 6,000 dead men, women and children in the Sonora Desert in Arizona.

In both cases, Christianity was given a black eye by the aggressors who invaded, led by their leaders who called themselves 'christians'.

Jesus said to love your enemies. To turn the other cheek. To hunger and thirst for righteousness. To suffer for righteousness.

The war on terror as the Crusades were and is a complete rejection of Christ's teachings and it is waged by hypocrites who claim to worship in church while disobeying Him and killing thousands in the process in other parts of the world.

If we condemn very real terrorism waged by extremists claiming to follow Islam while turning a blind eye to or defending terrorism waged by our so-called 'christian' leaders, we are hypocrites and are disobeying our Lord and Saviour and God.

 

[TG123]

If I can just explain causal links (again) for people reading my posts.

Say you are my religious leader. I go out and kill someone. They arrest me and I say "My religious leader told me to do that"
Two things are possible

a) IF you said no such thing you are not guilty at all by my actions
b) IF you had encouraged me then you share a degree of guilt for having encouraged an illegal act.

Under b) there is a causal link between what I did and what you taught.

If you can find such links between what Jesus taught and what Crusaders did, you'd have a right comparison (although still a tu quoque - because one wrong thing doesn't excuse another)

At best, I believe, you can draw causal links between what some Popes taught and what the crusaders did.

And on the other hand let's look at Islam.

Muhammed lead armies into battle. He permitted war. He over-saw the murder of 900 prisoners-of-war. He took captives as his wives/concubines. He took a share of spoils from military engagements. He encouraged the murder of his enemies.

The Koran has their god instilling terror into the hearts of men

The Hadith are full of examples

The four major schools of Islamic jurisprudence have consistantly upheld violence as an integral part of Islam.

That is a causal link to Moslems today - who are still committing these acts in the name of Islam, and still have backing from Islamic religious leaders.

Now I ask you again to show causual links between the bad things some Chrisitans did, and what Christ taught.

If you can find none then it's totally irrelevant that they were Christians, excepting insofar as they're an example of what shouldn't be done.

If a fat red-haired 30 year old man shot someone and they said "Red head goes on rampage" you'd be asking what has it to do with the colour of his hair - unless they can show causal links between having red hair, and gun-rage - then having red hair is irrelevant.

I don't know if you have written anything I've written but I will repeat myself. There is no causal link between Christ's teachings and either the crusades or the war on terror. They are both drastically in contrast to His teachings.

There is a causal link between Islam and defensive violence, but to my knowledge the Quran and hadith do not tell Muslims to intentionally kill women and children. If I am wrong, please demonstrate that.

That's all I meant to say.

 

[TG123]

And if one who claims to be with Jesus believed that Jesus taught such things I think that they grossly misunderstand him.

There's just so many religious relativists who have been indoctrinated into this mind-set that they think all religions are equally bad/guilty as each other.

It's why so many lose faith. The secularists win with each new convert.

I've gone over this so many times that I think it's a fault in education that reasoning ascribes fault without causal links.

I do not believe Islam is 'as bad' as Christianity. Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life. Islam is not. If you think I am a religious relativist, read everything I have written so far on this forum.

I am not against presenting the Truth to Muslims and other non-believers and debating with them. God loves them and wants them to be saved.

I am against hypocrisy and making false statements. If you think these things are acceptable, read what the Bible has to say about them.

 

[Montalban]

Your link does not say that honour killing is allowed in Islam. In fact, it says that honor killing is a "transgression and wrongdoing".

Am I missing something here?

I guess you want to quibble about it being done by a 'ruler'. I'm sure Soraya M. was appeased by this distinction

 

[Montalban]

I don't know if you have written anything I've written but I will repeat myself. There is no causal link between Christ's teachings and either the crusades or the war on terror. They are both drastically in contrast to His teachings.

Then it's irrelevant

There is a causal link between Islam and defensive violence, but to my knowledge the Quran and hadith do not tell Muslims to intentionally kill women and children. If I am wrong, please demonstrate that.

That's all I meant to say.

Define 'child'.

Of the prisoners-of-war I mentioned all boys who had reached puberty (thus 14 or older) were executed. Younger were enslaved.

Of those that wrote witticisms about Muhammed some were women. All were killed -check out Asma here
Muhammad's Dead Poets Society: The assassination of satirical poets in early Islam

Here's someone just plain murdered
Volume 5, Book 59, Number 369:

Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah:

Allah's Apostle said, "Who is willing to kill Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?" Thereupon Muhammad bin Maslama got up saying, "O Allah's Apostle! Would you like that I kill him?" The Prophet said, "Yes," Muhammad bin Maslama said, "Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Kab). "The Prophet said, "You may say it." Then Muhammad bin Maslama went to Kab and said, "That man (i.e. Muhammad demands Sadaqa (i.e. Zakat) from us, and he has troubled us, and I have come to borrow something from you." On that, Kab said, "By Allah, you will get tired of him!" Muhammad bin Maslama said, "Now as we have followed him, we do not want to leave him unless and until we see how his end is going to be. Now we want you to lend us a camel load or two of food." (Some difference between narrators about a camel load or two.) Kab said, "Yes, (I will lend you), but you should mortgage something to me." Muhammad bin Mas-lama and his companion said, "What do you want?" Ka'b replied, "Mortgage your women to me." They said, "How can we mortgage our women to you and you are the most handsome of the 'Arabs?" Ka'b said, "Then mortgage your sons to me." They said, "How can we mortgage our sons to you? Later they would be abused by the people's saying that so-and-so has been mortgaged for a camel load of food. That would cause us great disgrace, but we will mortgage our arms to you." Muhammad bin Maslama and his companion promised Kab that Muhammad would return to him. He came to Kab at night along with Kab's foster brother, Abu Na'ila. Kab invited them to come into his fort, and then he went down to them. His wife asked him, "Where are you going at this time?" Kab replied, "None but Muhammad bin Maslama and my (foster) brother Abu Na'ila have come." His wife said, "I hear a voice as if dropping blood is from him, Ka'b said. "They are none but my brother Muhammad bin Maslama and my foster brother Abu Naila. A generous man should respond to a call at night even if invited to be killed." Muhammad bin Maslama went with two men. (Some narrators mention the men as 'Abu bin Jabr. Al Harith bin Aus and Abbad bin Bishr). So Muhammad bin Maslama went in together with two men, and sail to them, "When Ka'b comes, I will touch his hair and smell it, and when you see that I have got hold of his head, strip him. I will let you smell his head." Kab bin Al-Ashraf came down to them wrapped in his clothes, and diffusing perfume. Muhammad bin Maslama said. " have never smelt a better scent than this. Ka'b replied. "I have got the best 'Arab women who know how to use the high class of perfume." Muhammad bin Maslama requested Ka'b "Will you allow me to smell your head?" Ka'b said, "Yes." Muhammad smelt it and made his companions smell it as well. Then he requested Ka'b again, "Will you let me (smell your head)?" Ka'b said, "Yes." When Muhammad got a strong hold of him, he said (to his companions), "Get at him!" So they killed him and went to the Prophet and informed him. (Abu Rafi) was killed after Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf."

Center for Muslim-Jewish Engagement

This was done to cause terror:
After this murder the Jews were struck with terror, and realised that Muhammed would resort to force…
When the Jews learned about the death of their tyrant, Ka‘b bin Al-Ashraf, they were scared and
even their stonelike hearts were in the grip of inexpressible panic. They realized that the Messenger
of Allâh (Peace be upon him) would thenceforth never hesitate to use force when good words and
admonition failed. They remained silent and resigned, and faked adherence to covenants.
“The Sealed Nectar” 111.

The problem with defence as an excuse is it ignores that Islam is at war with the world that hasn't already submitted. Any criticism of Islam is seen as an attack, and therefore they can 'defend'.

Submission is the only other option - submit to Islam, don't criticise it (or join), and they'll be peace

 

[Montalban]

I do not believe Islam is 'as bad' as Christianity. Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life. Islam is not. If you think I am a religious relativist, read everything I have written so far on this forum.

Then what's your point in raising the issue of the crusades in defence of Islam here?

I am against hypocrisy and making false statements. If you think these things are acceptable, read what the Bible has to say about them.

That itself is up for discussion. I have evidenced my side. I've no idea why you brought up your point - as you now say that Christianity is not as bad.

 

[Islam_mulia]

I guess you want to quibble about it being done by a 'ruler'. I'm sure Soraya M. was appeased by this distinction

Still I am not sure how illicit sex or accusation of adultery had anything to do with your casual link to "honor killing" and Islam.

 

[Montalban]

Still I am not sure how illicit sex or accusation of adultery had anything to do with your casual link to "honor killing" and Islam.

It mentioned conditions.

Your original comment reminds me of a character in the British comedy water
Brit soldier Charlesworth complains to an American that the people around are British citizens and if they're going to die it will be at the hands of his own men; that they'll die of a British bullet

 

[Islam_mulia]

It mentioned conditions.

Your original comment reminds me of a character in the British comedy water
Brit soldier Charlesworth complains to an American that the people around are British citizens and if they're going to die it will be at the hands of his own men; that they'll die of a British bullet

You are funny.What are these "conditions" that somehow make you come to a conclusion that Islam espouses "honor killings'?

I see a penalty for adultery, Yes... but the causality to honor killings is absent.

 

[Montalban]

You are funny.What are these "conditions" that somehow make you come to a conclusion that Islam espouses "honor killings'?

I see a penalty for adultery, Yes... but the causality to honor killings is absent.

What's the distinction for you between whether I kill you myself or go to 'court' like in the film I cited where the chief witness would be myself? And your own testimony is worth half of that of mine (if you're a woman).

Let me put this another way, what's the difference to you if you lynch someone or have a kangaroo court that lynches them?

Would your guilt be assuaged?

 

[Islam_mulia]

What's the distinction for you between whether I kill you myself or go to 'court' like in the film I cited where the chief witness would be myself? And your own testimony is worth half of that of mine (if you're a woman).

Let me put this another way, what's the difference to you if you lynch someone or have a kangaroo court that lynches them?

Would your guilt be assuaged?

How is that related to your point on "honour killing"?

 

[Montalban]

The Islamic form of apology is always about distraction

If Jews were called by the Koran to be donkeys, the worst of people and so on and someone mistakenly says that they are called say, theieves, it would be the role of a Moslem to denounce this and ignore every other insult that they're called.

Another would be to repeat a question over and over again.

 

[Borromeo]

Sickening.
But also surprising. There have been many stories like this in the news but it's always been a Christian who did it.

Really, examples...