Take the Islam IQ Test

[seebs]

Did the crusades also have nothing at all to do with Christianity?

Also, I'm now a bit unclear on why all this stuff about Moses is in the Christian holy book...

 

[Sauron]

Originally posted by Homie
Yes, the wars of Israel (in the OT) were territorial wars. But only to retrieve (get back) the land of Israel. After they achieved that, the wars stopped, there was no expansion beyond the one goal of the land of Israel. This is different from Islam.

Incorrect.  Even according to the Old Testament, which has some questionable history, the Jews had not entered Palestine previously.  So they could not be "getting back" land which they never had in the first place.

Also, christianity was spread ONLY by missionary work, and is supported in the Bible to ONLY be spread by missionary work.

Regardless of what the bible says, the actual history indicates that force and violence were used.

Islam was spread by the sword and is supported in the Quran to be spread by the sword.

1.  Islam spread by both preaching, as well as by military expansion - like christianity.

2.  You are wrong about the Koran.

You say christianity was also spread by the sword, what are you talking about?

If you don't know the history of christian expansion, then why are you trying to argue against the statement? 

 

[Sauron]

Originally posted by Outspoken
"Christianity spread both by conquest as well as preaching. Conquests of Europe, as well as Latin America, were done in the name of christianity and wound up converting the natives."

Not at all. Those were political wars having nothing to do with christianity at all.

Incorrect. 

1. They were started by people who claimed that they were acting on the order of God. You may say that these had nothing to do with christianity.  But those who engaged in such actions said they were christian.

2. The end result was that a lot of formerly heathen people became christians.  So whether you like it or not, christianity was indeed spread by military violence and forced conversions.

You may not like it, but these are the facts.

The wars by Islam on the other hand were carried on by muhammad, are you saying he was wrong to do this?

In the first place, and according to the Koran, the military actions of muhammad were defensive in nature.

In the second place, when we are discussing the expansion of the two religions, that includes the entire timespan of their expansion - over several hundred years.

In the third place - was Muhammad wrong to do that?  I don't think so. 

And in the fourth place (and as I indicated before, Louis) you cannot judge Islam by the moral standard of christianity, and claim any kind of "win".  The pacifist doctrine (or approach) you are describing is part of the moral code of christianity.  Using the moral code of christianity to judge the founder of Islam doesn't work. If Islam doesn't have any such doctrine of pacifism, then any (alleged) lack of such behavior does not constitute a moral failing for Islam.   If I reverse that, and use the moral code of Islam to judge Christ, we find that Muhammad is superior to Christ. 

"You cannot separate the two."

Saruon, yes you can seperate them. Its like me saying all of your family must be very mean spirited people who like to argue. One bad apple doesn't make the barrel bad.

No, you cannot separate them, Louis.  As usual, you are getting lost in the argument and you cannot remember what the original point was.  You seem to think that we're discussing two kinds of people.  But how this point first came up was in connection to Robert Morey's abysmal scholarship, with regards to the lame Islamic IQ test on his website.  Let me refresh you:

1. The IQ test deals with the topic of the Islamic religion's origin.
2. It uses Morey to support those statements about Islam's origin. 
3. But if Morey has little or no credibility, then any claims that it makes about the origins of Islam are likewise faulty.
   
   

Therefore any discussion of the religion's origin cannot be separated from the question of Morey's credibility. 

 

"Moses and Joshua killed people as well. As did Elijah, David, and other biblical figures. "

I'm glad you like talking about judism. when you're ready to talk about christianity let me know okay? Until then rant and rave all you want.

Christianity is rooted in Judaism.  And Christians are supposed to look to the Old Testament to see life stories of supposedly godly men and women.  If you're saying that those individuals were sinful and weren't godly after all, then I guess we agree.

I already have talked about christianity - you seem to have missed it. Here; let me repeat it since you are trying to avoid it:

The doctrine of killing in self-defense is supposedly a christian doctrine.  (If it isn't, then a lot of fundamentalists need to start speaking out against the war on terrorism and the Iraq war).

 

[Outspoken]

"They were started by people who claimed that they were acting on the order of God."

Hint: Muhammad said the same thing, I don't believe him either

"You may not like it, but these are the facts."

Yup, God always tries to take good from bad. That doesn't mean he supports the bad. Christ died-evil thing, but through that God did the greatest goood ever, through that event he saved us

"according to the Koran, the military actions of muhammad were defensive in nature."

I disagree. He declared lands his then went out and took them without being attacked first.

"that includes the entire timespan of their expansion - over several hundred years."

Not at all, we were looking at the orgins of the relgions, if you want to go off on that tangent, do so in another thread.

"was Muhammad wrong to do that? I don't think so. "

So then violence is supported by the orginator of the religion.

"by the moral standard of christianity"

Again, in case you missed it last time, its not about winning and loosing sauron, that's the difference between me and you. I go in to learn you go in to win. That's why I dislike talking to you. I'm going to stop responding to your posts in this thread now seeing as you're just arguing to argue. I'll let you have the last word so bash away Islam, in a literal reading is a very very violent relgion. That's the last I have to say about it.

 

[Sauron]

Originally posted by Outspoken
"They were started by people who claimed that they were acting on the order of God."

Hint: Muhammad said the same thing, I don't believe him either

Hint:  it doesn't matter what you believe.  We're discussing historical facts here; not personal opinions. 

The historical record on this is unambiguous:  there are clear examples where christianity was spread and gained converts by violent actions and forced conversions. 

"You may not like it, but these are the facts."

Yup, God always tries to take good from bad. That doesn't mean he supports the bad. Christ died-evil thing, but through that God did the greatest goood ever, through that event he saved us

Yup.  Allah always tries to take the good from the bad.  It doesn't mean he supports the bad. But Allah takes the lemons and makes lemonade.

"according to the Koran, the military actions of muhammad were defensive in nature."

I disagree. He declared lands his then went out and took them without being attacked first.

Flatly incorrect.  Unless you'd like to quote chapter and verse from the Koran, to show me where I am wrong?  Hint - you can't do it, because there's nothing remotely like that in the Koran.

"that includes the entire timespan of their expansion - over several hundred years."

Not at all, we were looking at the orgins of the relgions, if you want to go off on that tangent, do so in another thread.

Nonsense. We were discussing both the origins as well as the expansion.  In fact, it was your post that started the discussion on how the religions expanded, Louis. Sheesh; you can't even remember how this debate started. 

Here; let me refresh your memory.


1.  You posted this comment:
"In spite of the Qur'anic statement against forcing religion on others, Muslim leaders have sometimes threatened to kill unbelievers if they did not accept Islam.Although Islam spread to some parts of the world like Indonesia mainly by means of "beautiful preaching," much of its expansion elsewhere was due to offensive war, first by Muhammad to unify Arabia, then by his followers in conquering Palestine, Syria, Iraq, Persia, parts of India, North Africa, Spain, Turkey and the Balkans."

"Rudolph Peters, Jihad in Classical and Modern Islam (Markus Wiener, 1996).


2.  To which I responded:
Another way in which Islam is like Christianity.

The discussion of Islam's expansion is right there in your own post.  So then:  I hope we can all agree that your claim that I was sidetracking the discussion is just another nonsense claim from you.

In the expansion phase, both religions made converts through (a) nonviolent preaching as well as (b) forced conversion.

As for the origins, I've already addressed that question.   The military actions of muhammad were defensive in nature, limited in scope, and not intended as a directive for all time.  In addition, the principle of using deadly force in a defensive nature is supposedly a christian doctrine. If it isn't, then a lot of fundamentalists need to start speaking out against the war on terrorism and the Iraq war.

 

"was Muhammad wrong to do that? I don't think so. "

So then violence is supported by the orginator of the religion.

It is not random violence.  Nothing in the Koran indicates that, and your attempt to paint it that way is transparently deceitful, Louis.

You cannot judge Islam by the moral standard of christianity, and claim any kind of "win".  The pacifist doctrine (or approach) you are describing is part of the moral code of christianity.  Using the moral code of christianity to judge the founder of Islam doesn't work. If Islam doesn't have any such doctrine of pacifism, then any (alleged) lack of such behavior does not constitute a moral failing for Islam.   If I reverse that, and use the moral code of Islam to judge Christ, we find that Muhammad is superior to Christ. 

"by the moral standard of christianity"

Again, in case you missed it last time, its not about winning and loosing sauron, that's the difference between me and you. I go in to learn you go in to win. That's why I dislike talking to you.

You are the one who made this about winning and losing, Louis.  That's why you are trying to set the comparison up so that christianity wins, and islam loses. 

Edited for bordering on breaking Rule 1 (no flaming - insulting).

I'm going to stop responding to your posts in this thread now seeing as you're just arguing to argue. I'll let you have the last word so bash away Islam, in a literal reading is a very very violent relgion. That's the last I have to say about it.

And your "last word" is just as uninformed as your first word.  Wish I could say that I was surprised.

 

[Starscream]

Originally posted by Outspoken
Islam, in a literal reading is a very very violent relgion. That's the last I have to say about it.

Ahhh... I see we are back to a literal reading of the Islamic texts, but when it comes to the Bible, we must take everything into the proper "context".

We can all see through this double standard.

 

[Outspoken]

"I see we are back to a literal reading of the Islamic texts"

That's what I have always said star, haven't you been following along or are you just jumping in and jabbing at people with no real intent to add anything to the conversation as always?

 

[Sauron]

Originally posted by Outspoken
"I see we are back to a literal reading of the Islamic texts"

That's what I have always said star, haven't you been following along or are you just jumping in and jabbing at people with no real intent to add anything to the conversation as always?

Your insistence on a literal reading of the Koran, while not requiring that for the bible - you admit that such a position is actually a double standard?

 

[Starscream]

Originally posted by Outspoken
"I see we are back to a literal reading of the Islamic texts"

That's what I have always said star, haven't you been following along or are you just jumping in and jabbing at people with no real intent to add anything to the conversation as always?

Actually, you recently said this:

originally posted by Outspoken

the Koran, taken in context tells people its okay to kill in certain instances in this current day and age, the bible does not. fundimental difference

I noticed that this morning and thought, "Hey, he's changing his argument".  Just now I've seen a more recent post and thought, "Hey, he's changing his argument again."

Now I read this latest post and think, "Hey, is it fair for LouisBooth to insult me like this, I'm just going by what he says!".

The point is, you've argued both ways.  Why do you insult me, then?  I clearly have been following along - perhaps even better than yourself.

 

[Sauron]

Originally posted by Starscream
Actually, you recently said:


originally posted by Outspoken

the Koran, taken in context tells people its okay to kill in certain instances in this current day and age, the bible does not. fundimental difference

Did he really say that?

Then he must believe that the war on Iraq is wrong.  As well as The Revolutionary War against England, WW1, WW2, the Korean war, etc. 

Moreover, Louis must also be against the death penalty, even for a mass murderer.

I mean, if the Koran tells people that killing is OK under certain circumstances, BUT THE BIBLE DOES NOT say anything like that, then killing is never justified for the Christian.

Hmm.  Wonder why Louis wont' answer that point....



 

 

[MizDoulos]

Note:&nbsp&nbspAgain, please use your e-mail or private message option to resolve personal conflicts. Do not air them publicly. If the thread continues to deteriorate, it will be closed.

Thank you.

 

[Homie]

by Sauron

there are clear examples where christianity was spread and gained converts by violent actions and forced conversions.

You keep saying this without giving any examples.
BTW, the Crusades was in response to Islam taking the holy lands (Israel and Jerusalem especially) and denying christians to pilgrim to Jerusalem. Also the rapid growth of Islam and its power was probably an underlying reason as well. The Crusades did not take political control over the lands they went through to get to Jerusalem. It was not a mission to force convertion on heathens but to free the holy lands (and an underlying reason was probably to stop Islam expansion)

Muhammed himself was violent, his successors were violent and just look at today.

Did or did not the Jews stop taking land when they had Israel? (Please answear)

You have this notion that the Quaran does not allow or incourage to force heathens to convert or better yet kill them, when clearly it does.

Moses and Joshua killed people as well. As did Elijah, David, and other biblical figures.

Yes, they were people, importent people but still just people. Jesus did not, Muhammed did.

 

[Homie]

From the Quaran, Surat At-Taubah 9:5:
"Kill the Mushrikun (polytheists, Christians and non-Muslims), wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush. But, if they repent and perform As-salat (public prayer with Muslims) and give Zakat (Islamic alms), then leave their way free. Allah is oft-forgiving, most merciful"
Note:The words in parenthesis are comments and not in the Quran.

Jesus speaking:
"Put your sword in its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword" Matthew 26:52

 

[seebs]

Homie, is it possible that your selection of quotes is a little biased? The Bible I always look at has stuff about dashing infants against rocks, and Jesus says that he brings not peace, but a sword, and that anyone who wishes to follow Him should sell his cloak and buy a sword.

 

[Homie]

seebs, I said:
"Islam was spread by the sword and is supported in the Quran to be spread by the sword."

then Sauron said in response to that:
"You are wrong about the Koran."

I posted the passage from the Quran to show Sauron's errors. And my other post dismisses his others claims that christianity was spread like Islam was. I don't think he is a liar, just uninformed.

What have I done wrong seebs?

 

[Starscream]

Originally posted by Homie
Jesus speaking:
"Put your sword in its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword" Matthew 26:52

Isn't that kind of cooking the books in your favor?  I've quote quotes from Jesus saying he came to bring not peace, but a sword.  He also told he followers to sell their tunic to purchase a sword.

Look at the gun control thread and you'll see Christians using these verses to justify possesion of concealed firearms.  I think you are applying a double standard here to only pair the worst of the Koran with the best of the Bible.

 

[Homie]

Ok, my bad. I shouldn't have included the verse from the Bible. Yet Sauron said I was wrong about the Quaran, I clearly wasn't. Yes I admit I tried to "score some points" for christianity by quoting Jesus, but I still stand by that Islam was spread by conquest and christianity was not, and that the Quaran not only justifies the killing of infidels (their crime only being infidels) but encourages it.

 

[Starscream]

Originally posted by Homie
Yes I admit I tried to "score some points" for christianity by quoting Jesus..

Your honesty here is noted (and appreciated).

.. but I still stand by that Islam was spread by conquest and christianity was not...

But both religions were spread by both peacful and violent means.

...and that the Quaran not only justifies the killing of infidels (their crime only being infidels) but encourages it.

I'm not convinced it is as black and white as that.  The Koran also teaches that Muslims must not be the agressors.

When Christians are dealt with critism of the Bible supporting slavery or murder of children they are quick to remind us that everything must be taken in context.  I don't think the same courtesy is being rewarded to the Muslim faith here.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by Homie
Ok, my bad. I shouldn't have included the verse from the Bible. Yet Sauron said I was wrong about the Quaran, I clearly wasn't. Yes I admit I tried to "score some points" for christianity by quoting Jesus, but I still stand by that Islam was spread by conquest and christianity was not, and that the Quaran not only justifies the killing of infidels (their crime only being infidels) but encourages it.

I think the problem is that the Koran also has very peaceful-sounding quotes, and the Bible very violent-sounding quotes. I am inclined to grant that Islam is *often* more warlike - but Christianity has quite a record in this area.

 

[Homie]

It is still being said in this thread that christianity was spread (infidels being converted) by force, by military warfare, yet I have asked for examples on this repeatedly but none of you have been able to fulfill my request.

Would you, seebs, sauron, Starscream, anybody! give me an example.

As I recall, the apostles, the disciples travelled and preached and founded ministries and were killed for their faith (not in fighting though). The word spread to Turkey and Europe.

Muhammed and his followers started a war campaign and Islam was spread by war from the very beginning, by the very founder of Islam. Do you deny this?

by Starscream

The Koran also teaches that Muslims must not be the agressors

Would you please show the quote that teaches this and I will accept it.

by Starscream

When Christians are dealt with critism of the Bible supporting slavery or murder of children they are quick to remind us that everything must be taken in context. I don't think the same courtesy is being rewarded to the Muslim faith here.

Well, I will grant you (and anybody else) the courtesy right now. If anybody can put this quote from the Quaran into context and explain to me why the Quaran does not allow (and encourage) the killing of infidels simply because they are infidels, I would be eager to listen.

From the Quaran, Surat At-Taubah 9:5:
"Kill the Mushrikun (polytheists, Christians and non-Muslims), wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush. But, if they repent and perform As-salat (public prayer with Muslims) and give Zakat (Islamic alms), then leave their way free. Allah is oft-forgiving, most merciful"
Note:The words in parenthesis are comments and not in the Quran.