War?

[OttomanScribe]

Perhaps the best way to understand Christianity is that we are not called to kill anyone that turns from the faith or blaspehemes the name of Jesus Christ - those that choose this way or pronounce violent action against those that oppose the Christian faith have yielded themselves to the desire of the flesh as opposed to the leading of the Holy Spirit that dwells within them through Jesus Christ.

In other words the direct opposite of the teachings of Islam.

Turn the other cheeck is the action you are looking for.

Does your religion condone the slanderous generalisation of other faiths?

I would hope that they thought it over, and are joining to protect innocent people against vicious people. Every society needs people who do that. One could make the case that joining the military is an extension of protecting your own family, you're just protecting more people. That makes sense, but if I don't go to the killing myself, it will be less likely that I myself will have to kill. I don't want that on my conscience if I can avoid it; those who do have it on their conscience will have to deal with it. __________________

True indeed.

No offense, but it seriously sounds like a twisted view of "defense"

If someone breaks into my home and tries to hurt my family, I will kill them. I will not let them escape and then go burn down their house, kill their family and destroy his possessions. I will kill him and him alone, for he is responsible and there on the spot. If he is witty enough to escape, I will not give chase or retaliate, because he has left and the treat is gone (at least for the time being). What part of an offensive bombing seems defensive in the mind of a Muslim. I still do not understand because I do not share that perception on murder or the same outlook on God. I try to put myself into the shoes of a citizen of an American military occupied area and honestly it would infuriate me to no end. Would I kill these people? No, I'd pray for them.

Honestly I think God will destroy those that He means to, are "warriors" even necessary? Or it is quite frankly a perception out of a humanistic need for revenge?

As I have said elsewhere, long have evil men come wearing the cloak of religion. The justification that some of my brethren use is that the United States is a democracy. This means that the actions of the United States are the actions of the people of the United States. Therefore when the United States sells arms to oppressive regimes, backs coups and murders innocents, it is the American people who do so. They say that because the Americans call civilians 'collateral damage', that their own civilians are fair game.

They are of course wrong.

That is the essence of the faith through Christ. The big difference between Christianity and Islam is that the more obedient Christians become in the faith, the more love, joy and peace they have. Obedient and devout Muslims on the other hand seem to have a lot more intolerance and dare I say it a lust for blood. Almost the reversal of the Christian's journey.....

Those who murder in the name of Islam are very rarely deeply religious. One of the hijackers had a Turkish girlfriend in Germany, before getting on the plane he called her, 'what's wrong?' she said, 'I love you' he said, 'what's wrong?', she repeated, 'I love you' he said and then hung up. One who could commit fornication is not a warrior in the name of God. A man who died in battle against those who would oppress us was denied entry to heaven because he fought wearing a stolen jacket!

I would respectfully hope that this would mean that you are not that a religious Christian, because it is you who are the one showing intolerance here. How many religious Muslims do you know? Judge not...

 

[Coralie]

Coralie,

You mention one's king/ruler, in what sense is the King or ruler to act in the case that they are themselves Christian? It interests me that Christians are told to 'give unto Caesar', I always wondered what occurs when Caesar is Christian.

Quite a question! Leaves me feeling glad not to be a ruler.

In the case where a Christian ruler must choose whether to go to war or not (and I am not a scholar, more of a dilettante, so do not take my word as final!), the issues of justice and mercy again come to the fore. Same goes for how a war should be fought.

Firstly, Christian rulers are expected to treat all other rulers (Christian or not) with Christlike love and mercy--giving alms, assisting those in need, and leading his people by example. One hopes that this would minimize the need for war.

Secondly, where war is unavoidable and diplomacy has been exhausted, the Christian ruler weighs each battle and does only what's necessary to defend his people from suffering and penury. This is a grey area, and the ruler's conscience is his only safeguard. He takes St John the Baptist at his word: he accuses no-one falsely, and expects no great rewards from war. He goes into battle with humility and tears, searching his conscience continually. In other words, he does not move on account of his ego, lust for power, or for revenge, but only out of duty and necessity. {Here's where I would make a bad ruler.}

Thirdly, he repents for each battle death and begs God for mercy, for himself and for his troops. As I said, death is often legal; but it's still a terrible, irreversible, monumental thing. That truth should never be lost on any Christian.

All this is complicated HUGELY by the behaviour of the enemy. A Christian ruler has no comfort; he commits personal sins--espionage, deception, executions--in order to defend innocent people. As I said in my last post, the world is scarred by sin, and this forces good people into untenable positions. If it were only him, he might turn the other cheek; but he must defend the defenceless, and in doing so, he places his heart and soul in peril, trusting in God's mercy to redeem him. This is sacrifice, and is therefore Christlike. We follow the spirit of the Law, not the letter...

That's a sketch of it. So, basically a Christian ruler lives on a knife-edge. He must search his heart constantly. I would assume he spends a lot of time with his priest.

 

[lucaspa]

Now I would be a Mujahid (warrior in the path of God) if I were attacked, however that is an established part of my religion. Is killing ever sanctioned in Christianity? Or war for that matter? Even in self defence?

You need to read the works of St. Augustine on the subject. He is the one who really looked, in depth, into the subject of war and Christianity. Here are some places to start: http://www.hyw.com/Books/History/War__jus.htm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/war/just/history.shtml
http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/just_war.htm
http://www.jknirp.com/mattox.htm

In the short form, yes, killing in war or self defence is allowed under special circumstances in Judeo-Christianity. Wars are permissible only if they are "just" wars. And there is a list of criteria to decide if a war is just.

Now, the dinner guest that said he would kill any Iraqi is stating something outside Christianity. Just walking up to an unarmed, defenseless Iraqi man, woman, or child and killing them is not sanctioned by Christianity. That is reflected in the Rules of Engagement.

As you noted, there are denominations of Christians who believe that you cannot, under any circumstances, take the life of another human being. Not even in self-defence.

 

[berachah]

Does your religion condone the slanderous generalisation of other faiths?

I would respectfully hope that this would mean that you are not that a religious Christian, because it is you who are the one showing intolerance here. How many religious Muslims do you know? Judge not...

Is it slanderous to state the many things that Muslims the world over declare openly. Or is it not more slanderous if one should enter into the presence of believers of another faith (under the guise of interest in that faith) only to litter their space with thinly veiled disgust and judgement of their belief and to drop innuendos and subtle half truths with the intent to sow disunity and confusion?

O' OttomanScribe I am not religious at all. That I believe is for those of this world that seek to impress with their appearance and eloquence of words.

And if a truth be told I know of and know many Muslims, from the devout to the radical and all in between. Some impress me with their reverence of their God. Many disappoint with their arrogance and judgment of Christianity, almost all with their scorn of Christ being the Son of God. But perhaps the most of outrageous is the universal delight the Islam faith seems to gleen from tragedies such as 9/11. And I never cease to be amazed at the loathing hatred there is for the Jewish nation.

Besides that the faith does intrigue and Im always open to discussion. But let us not call this intolerance. Intolerance would be if you weren't allowed to post your views or openly express your faith. Much like in large portions of the Middle East.....

 

[OttomanScribe]

Is it slanderous to state the many things that Muslims the world over declare openly. Or is it not more slanderous if one should enter into the presence of believers of another faith (under the guise of interest in that faith) only to litter their space with thinly veiled disgust and judgement of their belief and to drop innuendos and subtle half truths with the intent to sow disunity and confusion?

You may see this as my intent, I feel that it is not, God knows and we know not. I ask questions indeed, and I press them. Simply pushing a question does not constitute disgust. If I show disgust, it is in reaction to other's attacks upon my religion. I wonder how, were I to characterise you as in various parts brainwashed and deluded, you would readily feel respected? Were I to go through your history and blame you for all the crimes committed in the name of Christianity, would you not feel vilified?

I personal believe that Christianity is not to blame for such things, save in that, lacking a clear stance on such things (or indeed the law) it can be seen as making excuse for such actions. Yet, you do not extend me the same courtesy, characterising my faith as bloodthirsty and in this in the exact opposite to yours.

O' OttomanScribe I am not religious at all. That I believe is for those of this world that seek to impress with their appearance and eloquence of words.

God is beautiful and loves beauty, be it in words or otherwise. If I seek religion to impress, I do not take it as a bad thing, God willing it is not others though whose approval I seek, may it be none save God.

And if a truth be told I know of and know many Muslims, from the devout to the radical and all in between. Some impress me with their reverence of their God. Many disappoint with their arrogance and judgment of Christianity, almost all with their scorn of Christ being the Son of God. But perhaps the most of outrageous is the universal delight the Islam faith seems to gleen from tragedies such as 9/11. And I never cease to be amazed at the loathing hatred there is for the Jewish nation.

You must know a very select few Muslims, only 8% of Muslims supported 9/11, and only 2% of that 8% used religious, rather than political justification. Do you support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? The occupation of Falastin, the US sponsored coup in Iran, the Saudi dictatorship propped up with US petro-dollars? I assure you if anything disgusts Muslims, it is above all the pure apathy that many in the Western world seems to have for the suffering of those not Christian and not white. The 1 million civilians that died because of US bombing of Iraqi infrastructure between the wars vied with football scores for coverage.

Indeed, in much of the Middle East the people are oppressed by their secular governments, secular governments that pose as democracies. Secular governments armed and supplied with aid from the countries you live in, who are given a blank cheque to oppress and kill as long as the oil flows...

I happily denounce any oppression of innocents. The killing of Christian civilians in Sudan, even in civil war, is unjustifiable, same for Nigeria. Any attack that kills civilians is against Islamic law and the huge majority of our scholars denounce such things (like the huge wave of fatwas issued against the 9/11 attacks). I do not justify such things. Do you justify the flip-side?

Also I do have scorn for the deifying of Jesus (as), it is disbelief and a grave crime. However you are people of the book and as thus are still worthy of respect. One can well understand the love of a Prophet so beautiful as Isa (as), if not understand the eagerness to part from monotheism for that love. You will note that I do not discuss such things here unless they come up, my questions are not about your theology in regards to such things, they more delve into the social manifestation of Christianity.

Will reply to Coralie and Lucas in time, I must depart for work.

 

[lucaspa]

Does your religion condone the slanderous generalisation of other faiths?

There is a prohibition against false witness. Is the generalization false?

The justification that some of my brethren use is that the United States is a democracy. This means that the actions of the United States are the actions of the people of the United States.

The USA is a republic. It is a representative democracy. What this means is that the leaders can, at least for a while, act against the wishes of the majority of the voters.

Also, you should remind your brethren that in a democracy it is 50% +1 that decides policy. That means that nearly half the people can be opposed to an action even if it is approved "democratically". They are engaging in the same "generalization" that you complained about a poster at the beginning of your post. Sauce to the goose.

Therefore when the United States sells arms to oppressive regimes, backs coups and murders innocents, it is the American people who do so.

Non sequitor based upon a misunderstanding of what a "democracy" is. Democracy does not mean 100% agreement. For instance, there were quite a few Americans, myself among them, who thought the rationalization for the invasion of Iraq was just that -- a rationalization and not reasons. False rationalization at that. But we were not listened to.

Those who murder in the name of Islam are very rarely deeply religious.

So were the Crusaders, the IRA, the Inquisition, etc. Labeling oneself "religious" does not mean you have the tenets of your religion correct.

One who could commit fornication is not a warrior in the name of God. A man who died in battle against those who would oppress us was denied entry to heaven because he fought wearing a stolen jacket!

It seems Islam is not a very tolerant religion.

 

[OttomanScribe]

There is a prohibition against false witness. Is the generalization false?

Quite simply, yes. The traditional ruling regarding what in the West is termed as 'apostasy' is actually one more accurately described as the punishment for treason. One can no more tell if someone has left the religion than one can see into another's head. Rather the traditional punishment (death) was reserved for those who actively conspired against and betrayed the community within which they lived.

Similarly traditionally there is no punishment of which I am aware for slandering the Messenger (sws). The objection that has been raised in Muslim countries and Muslim communities has not so much been about that, but more about what it means regarding Muslims in general. When one implies that Mohammed (sws) is a terrorist, one essentially vilifies every Muslim, for all Muslims emulate him. When this occurs in a country with a vulnerable Muslim minority, it makes people nervous, and nervous people sometimes (wrongly) respond with violence.

The Prophet (sws) said 'don't get angry, don't get angry, don't get angry', but when someone describes a harlot house called 'hijab', where the prostitutes within are all named after the wives of the Prophet (sws) and mirror their characters, one can understand Muslims getting upset.

The USA is a republic. It is a representative democracy. What this means is that the leaders can, at least for a while, act against the wishes of the majority of the voters.

Also, you should remind your brethren that in a democracy it is 50% +1 that decides policy. That means that nearly half the people can be opposed to an action even if it is approved "democratically". They are engaging in the same "generalization" that you complained about a poster at the beginning of your post. Sauce to the goose.

My apologies if I was unclear. I tried to show that this was not my understanding, but rather that of those who justify such attacks. I am under no allusions about the true representative nature of Western 'democracies'. I was explaining their viewpoint to give some perspective.

Non sequitor based upon a misunderstanding of what a "democracy" is. Democracy does not mean 100% agreement. For instance, there were quite a few Americans, myself among them, who thought the rationalization for the invasion of Iraq was just that -- a rationalization and not reasons. False rationalization at that. But we were not listened to.

Indeed, I was one who marched against it, before I was Muslim.

So were the Crusaders, the IRA, the Inquisition, etc. Labeling oneself "religious" does not mean you have the tenets of your religion correct.

Indeed. One cannot be extreme while truly following the message of any Prophet (as).

It seems Islam is not a very tolerant religion.

One could easily say the same of a religion in which one who lives a good life yet does not profess to believe the tenets of Christianity is condemned to eternal damnation, regardless of his works. Could we steer away from the name calling? It seems to get us nowhere.

 

[berachah]

You may see this as my intent, I feel that it is not, God knows and we know not. I ask questions indeed, and I press them. Simply pushing a question does not constitute disgust. If I show disgust, it is in reaction to other's attacks upon my religion. I wonder how, were I to characterise you as in various parts brainwashed and deluded, you would readily feel respected? Were I to go through your history and blame you for all the crimes committed in the name of Christianity, would you not feel vilified?

I would not feel vilified at all and I dont take offense. I know your examples are much the general thinking of Muslims and I have dealt with such comments before.

I personal believe that Christianity is not to blame for such things, save in that, lacking a clear stance on such things (or indeed the law) it can be seen as making excuse for such actions. Yet, you do not extend me the same courtesy, characterising my faith as bloodthirsty and in this in the exact opposite to yours.

What characterises the Muslim faith as bloodthirsty is; the call to murder those that choose to exercise their free will and accept another faith, the vowed destruction of the Israeli people, holy wars in the name of the faith and well...there is lots more.
Christians on the other hand have never been called to kill. (man is made in the image of God and murder is contrary to everything about God. The OT is another dbate entirely and needs a little HS for revelation) Anyone that would dare to act contrary to this foundation of the Christian faith(and there those that do) is contrary to the faith. This is what makes the faiths so opposite

You must know a very select few Muslims, only 8% of Muslims supported 9/11, and only 2% of that 8% used religious, rather than political justification. Do you support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? The occupation of Falastin, the US sponsored coup in Iran, the Saudi dictatorship propped up with US petro-dollars? I assure you if anything disgusts Muslims, it is above all the pure apathy that many in the Western world seems to have for the suffering of those not Christian and not white. The 1 million civilians that died because of US bombing of Iraqi infrastructure between the wars vied with football scores for coverage.

Great, so only about 80 000 000 people rejoiced at 9/11. I feel a lot better, but actually the figure is certainly higher.

The problem is Muslims seem to think the West is Christian. The foundations are perhaps Christian but that season has long passed. Perhaps all that is left is the liberty that the faith brings and that liberty has been used to introduce in all sort of evil, all of which are contrary to the Christian faith. If you want to see the face of Chrisitianity go into the poorest of the poor places (obviously not in much of the Middle East where Christianity is illegal or suppressed) and you will see the work of Christ. And no Christian will ever rejoice at any suffering, nor declare a jihad, nor curse or hate others. There is too much of that already and it is justified by faith..

I happily denounce any oppression of innocents. The killing of Christian civilians in Sudan, even in civil war, is unjustifiable, same for Nigeria. Any attack that kills civilians is against Islamic law and the huge majority of our scholars denounce such things (like the huge wave of fatwas issued against the 9/11 attacks).

Then you are indeed a lonely voice in the Islamic wilderness.
But have you ever denouced these actions openly? Have you stood up in your Mosque and made such denoucenments? I dare say not...

Also I do have scorn for the deifying of Jesus (as), it is disbelief and a grave crime. However you are people of the book and as thus are still worthy of respect. One can well understand the love of a Prophet so beautiful as Isa (as), if not understand the eagerness to part from monotheism for that love.

And what is punishment for the grave crime of believing Jesus Christ is the Son of God, do you suppose?
If I had scorn for the contradictions of the Koran or if I had scorn for the known, less than righteous acts of your Prophet, would that be as acceptable as your scorn?
Juch enquiring, my friend......

 

[OttomanScribe]

What characterises the Muslim faith as bloodthirsty is; the call to murder those that choose to exercise their free will and accept another faith, the vowed destruction of the Israeli people, holy wars in the name of the faith and well...there is lots more.
Christians on the other hand have never been called to kill. (man is made in the image of God and murder is contrary to everything about God. The OT is another dbate entirely and needs a little HS for revelation) Anyone that would dare to act contrary to this foundation of the Christian faith(and there those that do) is contrary to the faith. This is what makes the faiths so opposite

I previously explained that misconception about 'apostasy' in the post above yours. As to the vowed destruction of the Israeli people, I am unaware of any such thing. Beni Israel are considered Ahl al-Qitab and have a special status in the Sha'riah. Saleh'Uddin al-Ayyubi was described as the 'saviour of the Jews' when he delivered the Jews there from Christian persecution. Similarly Jews lived under the Moors in Spain (like Christians) peacefully and unmolested. Until the Christians forcibly converted and expelled Jews and Muslims both.

If anyone has a history of religious persecution of Beni Israel, it is Christianity. They were reviled as 'Christ killers' and blamed for everything and anything throughout European history. Even after 6 million of them had been killed the United States and Europe both rejected them, sending them instead to the land of Palestine. We have no problem with the Jews, they aren't idol worshippers, and our theology is extremely similar. We reject their chosen status and some of their beliefs but otherwise have no more differences than you do.

Similarly my religion condones wars of defence, but according to St. Augustine and the posters above you, so does yours. As you pointed out, you can no more condemn our stance than condemn God, for the Qu'ran has nothing like the Book of Joshua.

Great, so only about 80 000 000 people rejoiced at 9/11. I feel a lot better, but actually the figure is certainly higher.

Have you conducted an independent survey that trumps the reputable one that I got that statistic from? Did 80 000 000 Christians come out in rejection of the Iraq war, apparently done because God told Bush to do it? Where were the Christians marching when a US missile hit a mosque in Afghanistan during Friday prayers, killing 104 people, many women and children, none of them Taliban? If some Muslims wrongly support such terrorists acts, they do so out of grief and fear that the same may happen to them.. something far more explainable than those who live sheltered and protected lives yet speak not.

The problem is Muslims seem to think the West is Christian. The foundations are perhaps Christian but that season has long passed. Perhaps all that is left is the liberty that the faith brings and that liberty has been used to introduce in all sort of evil, all of which are contrary to the Christian faith. If you want to see the face of Chrisitianity go into the poorest of the poor places (obviously not in much of the Middle East where Christianity is illegal or suppressed) and you will see the work of Christ. And no Christian will ever rejoice at any suffering, nor declare a jihad, nor curse or hate others. There is too much of that already and it is justified by faith..

No true Christian may.... but many who call themselves thus have. Ask Urban II. Kill an infidel, get to heaven was the cry as they marched, bloodstained tunics marked with the cross to massacre their way to Jerusalem. Forgive me this impression but I am getting a lot of hate coming from you, and someone else called Allah, God a demon.. a curse indeed.

That said I don't hold religions accountable for the misguidance of their followers, merely their followers, of whom you are one.

Then you are indeed a lonely voice in the Islamic wilderness.
But have you ever denouced these actions openly? Have you stood up in your Mosque and made such denoucenments? I dare say not...

At this website is a list of some prominent Muslim scholars who have made statements condemning 9/11. I have not just done it myself, but heard it from the mouth of the Khatib (speaker) every time another one occurs. I have been commanded by God not to lie, so I say this, check your sources before you make such statements, vilifying the Muslim people in general as unwilling to condemn terror can readily be seen as false witness against your brothers. The Muslim world has condemned til they are hoarse, it is simply that you and others haven't been listening.

And what is punishment for the grave crime of believing Jesus Christ is the Son of God, do you suppose?
If I had scorn for the contradictions of the Koran or if I had scorn for the known, less than righteous acts of your Prophet, would that be as acceptable as your scorn?
Juch enquiring, my friend.....

In the case that someone does not know better, hellfire. Such is appropriate for one who abandons God to worship an idol, even if that idol is a Prophet (as). Though of course I do not tell you that you are destined as such, for to me you seem to know no better. All you seem to know of Islam is slander and misconceptions. Allah forgive you for that, if it His will. In this I guess you could say that your scorn is 'acceptable', in that I know that anything you say of the Messenger of God (sws) does not harm in the least. Similarly I am content that were you to attempt to show contradictions in the Qu'ran, I could happily reply, as there are none. I could also readily begin upon the Bible.

Thank you for your enquiry, may we both find ourselves happy in Jannah (heaven).

Sagacity leads to God.

 

[berachah]

I previously explained that misconception about 'apostasy' in the post above yours. As to the vowed destruction of the Israeli people, I am unaware of any such thing.

Unfortunately these miconceptions seems to run deeper throughout the world of Islam than anywhere elsewhere. Many people are murdered simply for accepting Christ, much of the Islamic world hate the Jews and Christianity is pursecuted / outlawed in many Islamic states. This is not the case in the West.

If anyone has a history of religious persecution of Beni Israel, it is Christianity. They were reviled as 'Christ killers' and blamed for everything and anything throughout European history. Even after 6 million of them had been killed the United States and Europe both rejected them, sending them instead to the land of Palestine. We have no problem with the Jews, they aren't idol worshippers, and our theology is extremely similar. We reject their chosen status and some of their beliefs but otherwise have no more differences than you do.

.
And the points I have previously made, (not that clearly it would appear), is that; 1 - not every western country is Christian. There is a clear separation between state and religion. In fact I can hardly recall a born again Spirit led Christian president. (A Christian as defined by the new covenant ushered in through Christ.) 2- To act contrary to the New Covenant through Christ is to be contrary to the will of God. Those that have murdered in the name of Christ will be judged no differently than those that murder in the name of Allah.

Have you conducted an independent survey that trumps the reputable one that I got that statistic from? Did 80 000 000 Christians come out in rejection of the Iraq war, apparently done because God told Bush to do it? Where were the Christians marching when a US missile hit a mosque in Afghanistan during Friday prayers, killing 104 people, many women and children, none of them Taliban? If some Muslims wrongly support such terrorists acts, they do so out of grief and fear that the same may happen to them.. something far more explainable than those who live sheltered and protected lives yet speak not.
No true Christian may.... but many who call themselves thus have. Ask Urban II. Kill an infidel, get to heaven was the cry as they marched, bloodstained tunics marked with the cross to massacre their way to Jerusalem. Forgive me this impression but I am getting a lot of hate coming from you, and someone else called Allah, God a demon.. a curse indeed.

OttomanScribe, my survey was less formal. But I will never forget the images of delight from around the world, Muslims rejoicing as thousands died in 9/11. Here in Cape Town is was almost carnival like at times. (big Satan I think the term is for America) I personally have never witnessed any joy expressed by Christians when a single Muslim is murdered or killed in war. That to me is the defining difference. There is no hate in me, friend. As you have questions and views, so to do I. Perhaps my style is less articulate, but you should not allow that afflict you.

That said I don't hold religions accountable for the misguidance of their followers, merely their followers, of whom you are one.

That judgement you were speaking of...?

In the case that someone does not know better, hellfire. Such is appropriate for one who abandons God to worship an idol, even if that idol is a Prophet (as). Though of course I do not tell you that you are destined as such, for to me you seem to know no better. All you seem to know of Islam is slander and misconceptions. Allah forgive you for that, if it His will. In this I guess you could say that your scorn is 'acceptable', in that I know that anything you say of the Messenger of God (sws) does not harm in the least. Similarly I am content that were you to attempt to show contradictions in the Qu'ran, I could happily reply, as there are none. I could also readily begin upon the Bible.

Thank you for your enquiry, may we both find ourselves happy in Jannah (heaven).

Both our faiths declare only one of us will enter heaven, but thank you.

I base my views of Islam on personal experiences and on my observations of the actions of Muslims and Muslim states. It is easy to speak, (and you do it so well) but ultimately people behave according to their inner state. And that is how I assess Islam as a faith, how I assess others of my faith and even how I assess myself and my own actions.

in my view the Muslim faith is best when it is a very small minority. There it remains humble, mindful of others and perhaps even a voice of reason.

But thank you for making your inner beliefs of Christ known. And once again you have presumed what I believe or think on a matter, but that is your right.

 

[lucaspa]

Quite simply, yes. The traditional ruling regarding what in the West is termed as 'apostasy' is actually one more accurately described as the punishment for treason.

The original post was not about apostasy. Here is what you originally responded to as "slanderous generalization":

"Perhaps the best way to understand Christianity is that we are not called to kill anyone that turns from the faith or blaspehemes the name of Jesus Christ - those that choose this way or pronounce violent action against those that oppose the Christian faith have yielded themselves to the desire of the flesh as opposed to the leading of the Holy Spirit that dwells within them through Jesus Christ.

In other words the direct opposite of the teachings of Islam."

This is about the teachings of Islam against people who turn from the faith or blaspheme the name of Jesus. Does Islam teach that those people should be dealt with violently? If not, please supply quotes from the Quran or other Islamic writings supporting that. Thank you.

Rather the traditional punishment (death) was reserved for those who actively conspired against and betrayed the community within which they lived.

Wasn't Salmon Rushdie sentenced to death for writing about Mohammed? Rushdie never "conspired against" nor "betrayed" Islam. This is even truer for the cartoonists who did cartoons of Mohammed. They were outside the community and thus can't be accused of treason. Yet violence was threatened against them and was not carried out solely because the cartoonists were out of reach. In each of these cases were the people who threatened violence acting according to the teachings of Islam?

The Prophet (sws) said 'don't get angry, don't get angry, don't get angry',

Where did Mohammed say that? Is it in the Quran?

one can understand Muslims getting upset.

Upset, yes. Threaten to kill people? No. Unless their religion condones it. Does Islam condone violence in the case you mentioned?

I am under no allusions about the true representative nature of Western 'democracies'. I was explaining their viewpoint to give some perspective.

I understand. And I was explaining why that viewpoint is mistaken. Hopefully you can use the information to educate your fellow Muslims.

One could easily say the same of a religion in which one who lives a good life yet does not profess to believe the tenets of Christianity is condemned to eternal damnation, regardless of his works.

Christianity does not say that. In this case you have a (admittedly large) number of Christians misunderstanding Christianity.

 

[lucaspa]

What characterises the Muslim faith as bloodthirsty is; the call to murder those that choose to exercise their free will and accept another faith, the vowed destruction of the Israeli people, holy wars in the name of the faith and well...there is lots more.

People who live in glass houses must be careful about throwing stones. Everything you have said also applied to Christianity in the past. No, not destruction of Israel, but Christians have called for, and overseen, the destruction of other people because they were "heathens". And let's face it, the Christians of Germany got a lot closer to destroying the Israeli people than the countries surrounding Israel ever have.

So, by your reasoning, Christianity can equally be called bloodthirsty.

Christians on the other hand have never been called to kill.

Oh, they most certainly have. Pope Urban II called on Christians to kill Muslims in 1095. Popes and Protestant leaders called upon Christians to kill the opposite believers all thru the Reformation Wars. And those are just two examples among hundreds.

The way we can say this is "contrary to the faith" is that Jesus, the disciples, nor Paul called on Christians to kill. So now we must go to the Quran. Does the Quran call people to kill, and in what circumstances? That's how we decide what "Islam" thinks on the subject.

And, in reading the Quran, I think we are going to have to view much of that, and early Muslim history, as we do the OT. Like you said "The OT is another dbate entirely and needs a little HS for revelation)" We need HS for revelation about the social and political situation at the time of the Quran and immediately afterward. Just as we need the social and political history of Palestine during the time of the OT to understand many of the books, chapters, and verses there.

Anyone that would dare to act contrary to this foundation of the Christian faith(and there those that do) is contrary to the faith. This is what makes the faiths so opposite

So far, neither side in this discussion has talked about the foundation of Islam. If you want to state that Islam is bloodthirsty, you need quotes from the Quran. If Ottomanscribe claims that Islam is not bloodthirsty, he too needs quotes from the Quran.

Great, so only about 80 000 000 people rejoiced at 9/11. I feel a lot better, but actually the figure is certainly higher.

2% is very low. And that will not give you 80 million people. You would need 4 billion Muslims, and there are not that many Muslims on the planet. Think of some of the more outrageous things Christians have claimed, such as Robertson's claim that 9/11 was punishment for toleration of gays and lesbians. At least 2% of Christians "rejoiced" and agreed with that statement. Would you say those people were accurately representing Christianity?

And no Christian will ever rejoice at any suffering,

Again, there is considerable evidence to the contrary. We can point to many instances in the USA where Christians have rejoiced at suffering. Think of all those times where Christians have stated that such and such (always suffering) was "God's just punishment". Again, glass house.

 

[OttomanScribe]

Unfortunately these miconceptions seems to run deeper throughout the world of Islam than anywhere elsewhere. Many people are murdered simply for accepting Christ, much of the Islamic world hate the Jews and Christianity is pursecuted / outlawed in many Islamic states. This is not the case in the West.

Iran, admittedly a Shia country, has the largest population of Jews outside of Israel. I challenge you on this also, show me a single state where Christianity is outlawed. Please.

And the points I have previously made, (not that clearly it would appear), is that; 1 - not every western country is Christian. There is a clear separation between state and religion. In fact I can hardly recall a born again Spirit led Christian president. (A Christian as defined by the new covenant ushered in through Christ.) 2- To act contrary to the New Covenant through Christ is to be contrary to the will of God. Those that have murdered in the name of Christ will be judged no differently than those that murder in the name of Allah.

I have previously made a similar point... not every Muslim country is Islamic. Similarly holding a religion to account for the actions of those who express it is illogical. Was George Bush not Christian? He counted himself as born-again and would read the Bible in his defence briefings....

OttomanScribe, my survey was less formal. But I will never forget the images of delight from around the world, Muslims rejoicing as thousands died in 9/11. Here in Cape Town is was almost carnival like at times. (big Satan I think the term is for America) I personally have never witnessed any joy expressed by Christians when a single Muslim is murdered or killed in war. That to me is the defining difference. There is no hate in me, friend. As you have questions and views, so to do I. Perhaps my style is less articulate, but you should not allow that afflict you.

I was around when 9/11 happened, there was no joy. I have read many accounts of people in Cairo, in Damascus, in Jakarta, there were no festivals. Only people saying 'subhanAllah'. Again as I have said before, a devout Muslim may fight against enemies of the faith, but they are told never to take joy in it, killing is killing.

If some had joy in it, it was not as Muslims, it was as humans that are subject to desires like revenge.. for them one can imagine that 3000 office workers mean less than 1 million Iraqi civilians.

That judgement you were speaking of...?

No judgement, just reminding you that we are all accountable for what we say.

Both our faiths declare only one of us will enter heaven, but thank you.

No, as I previously said, there is a possibility that you may enter heaven, just like there is a possibility I may not. According to you it is yours that is definitive. Regardless, you nor I know the future, lets not go damning anyone to hell yet shall we?

I base my views of Islam on personal experiences and on my observations of the actions of Muslims and Muslim states. It is easy to speak, (and you do it so well) but ultimately people behave according to their inner state. And that is how I assess Islam as a faith, how I assess others of my faith and even how I assess myself and my own actions.

Do you similarly hold Christianity accountable for the actions of Christians and Christian states. As I have said time and time again, there is no Islamic state in the world today, no Caliph, and therefore no state one can see as being definitively Muslim.

But thank you for making your inner beliefs of Christ known. And once again you have presumed what I believe or think on a matter, but that is your right.

My view of Jesus (as) is as the Messiah and a Glorious Prophet and Messenger (as). I have called your conceptions slander and misconception because, knowing more of my religion than you, I can see that much of what you say is based on broad meta-narratives drawn from the Orientalist tradition, with little reference to fact. The points you bring against me are not from my tradition, but rather from your own anecdotal experiences.

 

[OttomanScribe]

The original post was not about apostasy. Here is what you originally responded to as "slanderous generalization":

"Perhaps the best way to understand Christianity is that we are not called to kill anyone that turns from the faith or blaspehemes the name of Jesus Christ - those that choose this way or pronounce violent action against those that oppose the Christian faith have yielded themselves to the desire of the flesh as opposed to the leading of the Holy Spirit that dwells within them through Jesus Christ.

In other words the direct opposite of the teachings of Islam."

This is about the teachings of Islam against people who turn from the faith or blaspheme the name of Jesus. Does Islam teach that those people should be dealt with violently? If not, please supply quotes from the Quran or other Islamic writings supporting that. Thank you.

Apostasy is the word used for one who leaves Islam in Western descriptions of Islamic practice. The Sha'riah holds various positions on the use of violence. As to apostasy, I will refer you to a renowned Sunni Scholar and convert, Sheikh Abdal Hakim Murad, with an explanation. The Qu'ran puts down no punishment for leaving the religion (save in the afterlife).

Wasn't Salmon Rushdie sentenced to death for writing about Mohammed? Rushdie never "conspired against" nor "betrayed" Islam. This is even truer for the cartoonists who did cartoons of Mohammed. They were outside the community and thus can't be accused of treason. Yet violence was threatened against them and was not carried out solely because the cartoonists were out of reach. In each of these cases were the people who threatened violence acting according to the teachings of Islam?

As Shaykh Abdal Hakim says in his lecture, the highest Sunni legal authority, Al-Azhar university issued a fatwa denouncing Khomeini's fatwa. Khomeini was a Shia Ayatollah, the Shia comprise about 8% of Muslims and are not representative, any more than the Westboro Baptist church is representative of Christianity.

Where did Mohammed say that? Is it in the Quran?

The two sources of Muslim law are the Qu'ran (which is the word of God, revealed to the Messenger of God (sws) through the angel Gabriel (as) and the Hadith (which is the Prophetic tradition, sayings and actions of the Prophet Mohammed (sws). From the Qu'ran we have, in Surah Al-Imran (trans): 'those who control their anger and are forgiving towards mankind, Allah loves those who do good' (this is in a discussion of what makes a Muslim). Also in the Prophetic tradition, from Bukhari, the Messenger (sws) was asked for advice by a man and he replied 'don't be angry' and repeated it several times. Also from the Prophetic tradition, Muslim (the name of a compiler) recounted that the Messenger of Allah (sws) said 'Who is strong? He who controls himself when angry'.

So as you can see in both the Qu'ran and in the Prophetic tradition there is a strong compulsion against getting angry.

Upset, yes. Threaten to kill people? No. Unless their religion condones it. Does Islam condone violence in the case you mentioned?

If one takes 'Islam' as the ijma (consensus) of the Ulema (scholars) of the Ahl-Sunnah Wa-Jammah (the People of the Sunnah, Sunnis), then no. If we take 'Islam' to be a few disgruntled political leaders trying to hold on to power by riling up popular sentiment and the oppressed people that go along with it, then yes.

I know which I would rather take as Islam

I understand. And I was explaining why that viewpoint is mistaken. Hopefully you can use the information to educate your fellow Muslims.

If they will not listen to their Prophet (sws) when he says that killing an innocent is impermissible, why would they listen to me?

I will expand a bit on this point, as it is rather complex. I will do my best to be succinct. The movement that calls for terrorist acts and performs them is a new one. It is essentially a schizmatic Sunni sect that arose in the last three centuries. They led an uprising against the Ottomans but were tried and put to death. Then, with the help of the British after World War 1, they gained control of Arabia with the help of the family of Saud. They now rule over Saudi, despite being rejected by the majority of Muslims, they can do so because of the huge amount of aid they receive from the US, which goes into arms that 'keep the region stable'. They are far more virulently anti-Muslim than they are anti-West, calling everyone who disagrees with them a [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth] and bombing and killing almost indiscriminately.

They don't have our support, but unfortunately we can't get rid of them because they have Western backing. The same goes for Jordan (where US special forces killed 160 unarmed protesters in the 60s in the name of 'stability'), Egypt (which has the largest police force in the world, trained and equipped, again with US and Soviet support) etc. etc. etc.

These misconceptions are not held by the majority, it is just that it only needs 19 people to cause all hell to break loose. They would of course not be such a powerful minority were they not put in power by Western governments. NATO gave Al Qaeda millions of dollars during the Afghanistan Jihad, and the Taliban almost 4 billion.

Christianity does not say that. In this case you have a (admittedly large) number of Christians misunderstanding Christianity.

What is the Catholic position? Aren't they the majority?

Thankyou for you replies, and manners, I appreciate both

 

[lucaspa]

I base my views of Islam on personal experiences and on my observations of the actions of Muslims and Muslim states.

There's the problem. Selective data. If you are going to decide what a religion is, as opposed to what some of its adherents say, then you need to 1) go back to the founding principles and 2) make sure that your "personal experiences" include a complete cross-section of the adherents.

It is easy to speak, (and you do it so well) but ultimately people behave according to their inner state. And that is how I assess Islam as a faith, how I assess others of my faith and even how I assess myself and my own actions.

Do you see the dichotomy of what I bolded? You assess Islam according to the adherents, but you only assess the adherents of Christianity. Sorry, but that is a double-standard. Apparently you already know that many Christians do not live up to the principles of Christianity. So you give Christianity a pass. But you decide that Islam is how people behave without considering that many Muslims may not also live up to the principles of Islam.

If you paid attention, nearly every Muslim state condemned the 9/11 attacks. The exceptions were Hamas and Saddam Hussein. Even Iran condemned the attacks and huge crowds of Iranians attended candlelight vigils and 60,000 gathered at a stadium for a memorial.

Look at these sources:
Scholars of Islam & the Tragedy of Sept. 11th
The Spirit of Islam
Reactions to the September 11 attacks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There are also many reports that the videos of people celebrating were staged and forced by a few.

Bottom line: make sure you have all the appropriate data before you do the assessing. Oh yes, and don't do double standards.

 

[berachah]

My selective data includes much discussion with Muslims who have dedicated their life to serving their God and expanding their faith into the west.
In fact I know of no Christians that have such dedication.
If their witness, their words, their tracts and judgements are not good enough a reference, then perhaps you are right.
And yes their walk is humble, it is peaceful and it is admirable in many ways.
But they do believe there is one way to heaven - their way. They do believe that Christians have corrupted the Bible and distorted the teachings and message of Jesus; they do not believe he was the Son of God and they do believe that Christians will go to hell for believing this. And they do believe there is justification for violence and killing if they perceive an attack or threat.

When you gets to grips with what this actually means this is denying the very essence of who Christ was and what he cam to achieve on earth. Imagine the same pronouncements on Mohammed and the Koran and maybe the reponse would clarify the differences in the faith better.

Lucaspa, your glass houses comment is out of place. Were I to represent a body of Christians that rejoiced in Muslim suffering perhaps. But I dont. The Pope does not speak for me and if he called Christians to violence the only people I suppose that would respond where those that yielded to the spirit of a man. A man is a man and God is no repector of persons. Do you really suppose the Pope Urban II is going to be judged any different from me or you?? Do you really think he speaks for God and Christianity?

I do however see your point of how I view Islam and Christianity differently. But I suppose I am no different from OttomanScribe or anyone else.

As for Christians having liberty in Muslim states...? Go to Wikipedia and type : Christianity in Saudi Arabia (im sure this is a good start for any neutral observer) There is much more, but this should satisfy..

 

[OttomanScribe]

I have very limited time as I have much to do this evening. I will just post a few statements for people to mull over before I leave.

On this account I, or rather the Lord, beseech you as Christ's heralds to publish this everywhere and to persuade all people of whatever rank, foot-soldiers and knights, poor and rich, to carry aid promptly to those Christians and to destroy that vile race from the lands of our friends. I say this to those who are present, it meant also for those who are absent. Moreover, Christ commands it.

(Urban IIs call to Crusade).

One of our knights, named Lethold, clambered up the wall of the city, and no sooner had he ascended than the defenders fled from the walls and through the city. Our men followed, killing and slaying even to the Temple of Solomon, where the slaughter was so great that our men waded in blood up to their ankles....

The Emir who commanded the Tower of St. David surrendered to the Count and opened that gate at which the pilgrims had always been accustomed to pay tribute. But this time the pilgrims entered the city, pursuing and killing the Saracens up to the Temple of Solomon, where the enemy gathered in force. The battle raged throughout the day, so that the Temple was covered with their blood. When the pagans had been overcome, our men seized great numbers, both men and women, either killing them or keeping them captive, as they wished. On the roof of the Temple a great number of pagans of both sexes had assembled, and these were taken under the protection of Tancred and Gaston of Beert. Afterward, the army scattered throughout the city and took possession of the gold and silver, the horses and mules, and the houses filled with goods of all kinds.

This may seem strange to you. Our squires and poorer footmen discovered a trick of the Saracens, for they learned that they could find byzants [note: a gold coin] in the stomachs and intestines of the dead Saracens, who had swallowed them. Thus, after several days they burned a great heap of dead bodies, that they might more easily get the precious metal from the ashes. Moreover, Tancred broke into the temple of the Lord and most wrongfully stole much gold and silver, also precious stones, but later, repenting of his action, after everything had been accounted for, be restored all to its former place of sanctity.

Forthwith, they joyfully rushed into the city to pursue and kill the nefarious enemies, as their comrades were already doing. Some Saracens, Arabs, and Ethiopians took refuge in the tower of David, others fled to the temples of the Lord and of Solomon. A great fight took place in the court and porch of the temples, where they were unable to escape from our gladiators. Many fled to the roof of the temple of Solomon, and were shot with arrows, so that they fell to the ground dead. In this temple almost ten thousand were killed. Indeed, if you had been there you would have seen our feet colored to our ankles with the blood of the slain. But what more shall I relate? None of them were left alive; neither women nor children were spared.

(from various contemporary accounts of the Crusades)

The rest of that Easter was spent under siege. Insurgents held off Bravo Company, which was called in to rescue the men in the compound. Ammunition ran low. A helicopter tried to drop more but missed. As dusk fell, the men prepared four Bradley Fighting Vehicles for a “run and gun” to draw fire away from the compound. Humphrey headed down from the roof to get a briefing. He found his lieutenant, John D. DeGiulio, with a couple of sergeants. They were snickering like schoolboys. They had commissioned the Special Forces interpreter, an Iraqi from Texas, to paint a legend across their Bradley’s armor, in giant red Arabic script.
“What’s it mean?” asked Humphrey.
“Jesus killed Mohammed,” one of the men told him. The soldiers guffawed. JESUS KILLED MOHAMMED was about to cruise into the Iraqi night.


...



“Jesus kill Mohammed!” chanted the interpreter. “Jesus kill Mohammed!”


“Jesus kill Mohammed!” Another head, another shot. Boom. “Jesus kill Mohammed!” Boom. In the distance, Humphrey heard the static of AK fire and the thud of RPGs. He saw a rolling rattle of light that looked like a firefight on wheels. “Each time I go into combat I get closer to God,” DeGiulio would later say. He thought The Passion had been a sign that he would survive. The Bradley seemed to draw fire from every doorway. There couldn’t be that many insurgents in Samarra, Humphrey thought. Was this a city of terrorists? Humphrey heard Lieutenant DeGiulio reporting in from the Bradley’s cabin, opening up on all doorways that popped off a round, responding to rifle fire—each Iraqi household is allowed one gun—with 25mm shells powerful enough to smash straight through the front of a house and out the back wall.

(From an American reporter in Samarra, Iraq)

[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica][FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]We are on God's side. This is not a war between Arabs and Jews. It's a war between God and the devil.[/FONT][/FONT]

(a description of the Palestine situation by an American evangelist)

[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica][FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica]He also called for the expulsion of all foreign Muslim university students in the United States and for profiling of airline passengers 'with a diaper on their head and a fan-belt around their waist.[/FONT][/FONT]

(a quote about an American evangelist's statements about how Muslims should be treated in the Christian world).

We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war.

(famous quote by Ann Coulter)

God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them

This crusade, this war on terrorism is going to take a while.

(quotes by George Bush).

AIDS is a racial disease of Jews and (racist word for a Black person)s, and fortunately it is wiping out the queers. I guess God hates queers for several reasons. There is one big reason to be against queers and that is because every time some white boy is seduced by a queer into becoming a queer, means his white bloodline has run out.

(quote by a Christian White Supremacist about AIDS)

Those are just a few examples I could find of statements made by various Christian organisations. I don't vilify all Christians based upon such statements or actions. Yet apparently Muslims should be, that is, vilified for our extreme minorities.

 

[lucaspa]

Apostasy is the word used for one who leaves Islam in Western descriptions of Islamic practice.

Really? That's a strange use of the word "apostasy". Apostasy in English means claiming to be God.

The Sha'riah holds various positions on the use of violence. ..The Qu'ran puts down no punishment for leaving the religion (save in the afterlife).

So, let's try to get to the bottom here. The Quran puts down no punishment for people leaving Islam. Since the Shariah "holds various positions", what are those positions? If there is a conflict between Shariah and Quran, which of these is "Islam"?

As Shaykh Abdal Hakim says in his lecture, the highest Sunni legal authority, Al-Azhar university issued a fatwa denouncing Khomeini's fatwa. Khomeini was a Shia Ayatollah, the Shia comprise about 8% of Muslims and are not representative, any more than the Westboro Baptist church is representative of Christianity.

So the simple answer is "no", they are not the teaching of Islam.

So as you can see in both the Qu'ran and in the Prophetic tradition there is a strong compulsion against getting angry.

Thank you.

If one takes 'Islam' as the ijma (consensus) of the Ulema (scholars) of the Ahl-Sunnah Wa-Jammah (the People of the Sunnah, Sunnis), then no. If we take 'Islam' to be a few disgruntled political leaders trying to hold on to power by riling up popular sentiment and the oppressed people that go along with it, then yes.

Again, ideas are separate from the people who hold them. It's not about "consensus", because occasionally the group can get it wrong. It's about what was stated originally in the founding ideas of the faith. You are starting to make a good argument that Islam is not the jihadists.

If they will not listen to their Prophet (sws) when he says that killing an innocent is impermissible, why would they listen to me?

Don't you still have an obligation to try?

The movement that calls for terrorist acts and performs them is a new one. It is essentially a schizmatic Sunni sect that arose in the last three centuries. ... Then, with the help of the British after World War 1, they gained control of Arabia with the help of the family of Saud. They now rule over Saudi,

Excuse me, but aren't the rulers of Saudi also fighting against the terrorists? In fact, didn't the terrorists perform terrorist acts in Saudi?

They don't have our support, but unfortunately we can't get rid of them because they have Western backing. The same goes for Jordan (where US special forces killed 160 unarmed protesters in the 60s in the name of 'stability'), Egypt (which has the largest police force in the world, trained and equipped, again with US and Soviet support) etc. etc. etc.

Sorry, but neither the Egyptian nor Jordanian governments are either committing nor supporting the terrorists. So I need to know how you got the idea that this "schizmatic Sunni sect" is the same as the Saudi, Egyptian, and Jordanian rulers. Also, the group that we are told is supporting terrorists are Shia, not Sunni.

They would of course not be such a powerful minority were they not put in power by Western governments. NATO gave Al Qaeda millions of dollars during the Afghanistan Jihad, and the Taliban almost 4 billion.

Did we know at the time that Al Qaeda was going to attack anyone besides agressors in Afghanistan? Also, didn't Bin Laden only turn on the USA after US forces were based in Saudi during the First Gulf War?

 

[lucaspa]

My selective data includes much discussion with Muslims who have dedicated their life to serving their God and expanding their faith into the west.
In fact I know of no Christians that have such dedication.

LOL! You don't know any missionaries? Christians for centuries have dedicated their life to serving "their God" and expanding their faith around the world. They are called missionaries.

But they do believe there is one way to heaven - their way.

LOL! Don't Christians claim the same thing? "I am the way, the Truth, and the Life".

They do believe that Christians have corrupted the Bible and distorted the teachings and message of Jesus; they do not believe he was the Son of God and they do believe that Christians will go to hell for believing this.

And don't many Christians (and all the missionaries) believe that non-Christians will go to hell for not accepting Jesus and getting saved?

Glass house, again.

And they do believe there is justification for violence and killing if they perceive an attack or threat.

That you have to document. Quote from some of "their tracts".

When you gets to grips with what this actually means this is denying the very essence of who Christ was and what he cam to achieve on earth.

So? And yes, the same pronouncements have been made on Mohammed and the Quran! Where have you been that you missed that? Christians deny the very essence of Islam: that Mohammed is a prophet of God and that the Quran was dictated by God.

Lucaspa, your glass houses comment is out of place. Were I to represent a body of Christians that rejoiced in Muslim suffering perhaps.

You weren't talking about any particular Muslim. You were stating Islam based on the behavior of some Muslims. So, the glass house means that we can say the same about Christianity based on the behavior of some Christians. And the Lord knows there are enough historical examples of Christians being bloodthirsty in the name of God and Christianity. Examples where Christians really did, and still do, "rejoice in Muslim suffering".

Do you really suppose the Pope Urban II is going to be judged any different from me or you?? Do you really think he speaks for God and Christianity?

But yet you think Bin Laden speaks for Islam, don't you? You think the people on the news celebrating 9/11 speak for Islam. Can't you see the double standard and hypocrisy of that? Like I said: "You assess Islam according to the adherents, but you only assess the adherents of Christianity. "

I do however see your point of how I view Islam and Christianity differently. But I suppose I am no different from OttomanScribe or anyone else.

That wasn't the point. You apply different standards to Christianity and Islam. You insist a few Muslims be all of Islam, and condemn the religion because of that. But you refuse to allow a few Christians to stand for Christianity. You insist that they be viewed as individuals and won't let Christianity be condemned.

It doesn't matter if OttomanScribe or anyone else does the same thing: it's wrong. Or can't you see that?

As for Christians having liberty in Muslim states...?

I never brought that up. Why are you?

 

[98cwitr]

As I have said elsewhere, long have evil men come wearing the cloak of religion. The justification that some of my brethren use is that the United States is a democracy. This means that the actions of the United States are the actions of the people of the United States. Therefore when the United States sells arms to oppressive regimes, backs coups and murders innocents, it is the American people who do so. They say that because the Americans call civilians 'collateral damage', that their own civilians are fair game.

wow...gross generalization there....