In another thread, I was asked to provide some verses that indicated that the Koran instructs it's followers to kill all unbelievers of Allah.

For those that asked, I have found these sites. Please have a look, and tell me that you think ALL of these verses were taken out of context; that only the muslim extremists actually follow through with this stuff, and finally, that Islam is a nation of peace.

I'm gonna catch plenty of flack for this, but when don't I ? *shrugs*

- http://hauns.com/~DCQu4E5g/koran2.html

- http://michnews.com/artman/publish/article_3405.shtml



(NOTE: I do not support the obvious intolerance of the authors of these pieces. The verses speak for themselves, and I ABSOLUTELY do not agree with the purpose of these papers, which appears to be coercing others into "hating" Muslims. Muslims are people, too. I just don't happen to agree with their belief system.)

What else would you expect from a religion started by a militant, illiterate, 12-year old child marrying bastard? A religion that rejects the drinking of alcohol, yet promises 'rivers flowing with wine' and young virgin girls and even boys to have sex with in heaven. I mean, wtf?!?!?

Whats your point?

Why would muslims be any diferent that Christians? You have pretty much said that the two largest denominations of Christianity are corupt or even anti-christian. Do you think that muslims live there live by the Koran more than Christians do the Bible. Half the muslims I know smoke and drink.

My point is that to say that the majority of the world's conflicts involve those of the Muslim faith, is not inaccurate. (as some have claimed)

My other point is to convey that the LIES of the media: "Islam resides under a faith of peace" is just that. LIES.

And anyone who says otherwise is either delusional, uneducated about the texts of the Koran, or a liar themselves.

Why don't you try and comment on the actual content, and not your obtuse belief system which says "No matter what the facts are, Christianity is by far the worst belief system. I hate Christians."

Again, I encourage you to show me where in the Bible Jesus either instructed his followers to draw their swords and exterminate all non-believers, or even did it himself.

As a matter of fact, he says that those who live by the word, die by the sword.

Apparently, you haven't seen any footage of DEVOUT Muslims, which are consequently larger in number than Christians are.

Anwyay, I was asked to provide proof that the Koran tells it's followers to kill unbelievers, and that's what I did.

quote:Originally posted by KikoSanchez:

What else would you expect from a religion started by a militant, illiterate, 12-year old child marrying bastard? A religion that rejects the drinking of alcohol, yet promises 'rivers flowing with wine' and young virgin girls and even boys to have sex with in heaven. I mean, wtf?!?!?

Well, that is sort of a crude synopsis, but yeah...

I was trying to be a bit more PC, for the sake of fairness.

I never thought I'd be quoting scripture to Digi, but....

quote:

Orginally posted by that Awesome Good Book, the Bible:

MAT 7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.

MAT 7:2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.



Christianity has not exactly been a "peaceful" religion, either, judging from it's history. Although Jesus might not have condoned it, unbelievers have been killed in His name.

No religion on earth has been entirely peaceful, for that matter, not even Buddhism. Rivel temples went to war with each other in ancient Japan and China.

You do realize that those verses were sent to Muhammad when the Muslims were facing extreme persecution? Back then Muslims were tortured just for being Muslim. Not all of the verses in the Qur'an are to be used today. Islam prohibits the killing of civilians.

Kind of like how the Christians are being persecuted by the Muslims nowadays ?

I'll get to this tomorrow...

quote:Originally posted by Social Junker:

I never thought I'd be quoting scripture to Digi, but....

Christianity has not exactly been a "peaceful" religion, either, judging from it's history. Although Jesus might not have condoned it, unbelievers have been killed in His name.

No religion on earth has been entirely peaceful, for that matter, not even Buddhism. Rivel temples went to war with each other in ancient Japan and China.

Yes, and you have tried to use that scripture on me before. However, it is out of context.

Someone had asked me to provide the verses in the Koran that support the fact that Islam is not held under a faith of peace, and I did.

You judge me every time I post, Social, so don't be a hypocrite.

I can't say I like the fact that Muslim extremists are holding a Russian school full of students hostage, in the name of Allah, and I don't see how I am judging by having that opinion. It is a matter of ethics.

The term "Christian" can be considered just as subjective as you are portraying the term "Muslim" to be.

By your standards, it's ok for Muslims to kill, because people who claimed to be Christians did ?

Obviously, the individuals that committed those atrocities in the name of the Christian God did not heed the teachings of the Bible. They were in clear violation of God's law.

But to say the same of Muslim extremists isn't accurate, because the Koran TELLS them to murder unbelievers. In contrast, the BIBLE does not.

So, you can try and compare the two if you'd like, but there is a VAST difference between those that claim to be Christian, and those that ARE. Those that murder in the name of God, clearly aren't.

Those that murder in the name of Allah, are following the laws set forth by the Koran, and are thus being true "Muslims".

I see no comparison, and your line of reasoning for why Christians are equally as horrific as Muslims is uneducated, at best.

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 09-05-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by Loc Dogg:

You do realize that those verses were sent to Muhammad when the Muslims were facing extreme persecution? Back then Muslims were tortured just for being Muslim. Not all of the verses in the Qur'an are to be used today. Islam prohibits the killing of civilians.

Hmm..ok, so now you are saying that the Qu'ran is flawed ? If not, why would they need to revise it to exclude the mentality that murdering innocent people, simply because they don't share the same beliefs, is not acceptable ?

The Muslims believe that the Bible is flawed, and that the Qu'ran is perfect. From my understanding of world events, they follow it with strict adherence to it's laws and ideals.

I guess Islam ought to try a bit harder to prevent it's "extremists" from going too far, because it appears that they aren't hearing this message of "peace".

I will address the issue of their "torture" tomorrow, when I have more time.

quote:Originally posted by Social Junker:

I never thought I'd be quoting scripture to Digi, but....



I'm in like Flynn, on this one. The following is taken from a discussion on www.crosscurrents.org: (http://www.crosscurrents.org:)

Consider Second Chronicles 20:24. The writer shows us a landscape strewn with corpses. From a watchtower in the wilderness we see, with Judah, that the inhabitants have been utterly destroyed. Thousands of dead bodies have fallen to the earth. None escaped. This is but one of myriad biblical events that fulfill the Psalmist's joyous hope of the day when his people's feet will be dipped in the blood of their enemies. Blood, as Zephaniah says, that will pour out like dust (Zeph. 1:17). Blood, as the Psalmist says, that the dogs will lap up (Ps. 68:23).

With righteous wrath and indignation God lashes out against man and all creation. We read that "all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: all in whose nostrils was the breath of life. . . Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark" (Gen. 7:21).

And consider too how God, further on in Genesis, flagrantly destroys Sodom and Gomorrah with "brimstone and fire." Another Sunday school lesson that is taught with cartoon pictures, a violent story sans the violence. No close-ups, no burned and scorched flesh, no agonized mourners. Just swift, clean, unfathomable justice (Gen. 19:24).

Not long after that old Abraham is prepared to cut the throat of his beloved son, on God's inscrutable orders, intended to make Abraham prove himself. Yet another pervasive and powerful Sunday school lesson devoid of all the implications of what would have happened if God's angels had not stayed Abraham's hand (Gen. 22:9-13).

Paul (or Apollos) tells us there is no forgiveness of sins without the shedding of blood (Heb. 9:22). Faith, hope, and love may be the cardinal virtues, and they may be the enduring message, but the over-riding theme of the Bible is blood and stone -- the blood of sacrifice and the stone of redemption.

Complete article:

http://www.crosscurrents.org/moser0701.htm

(edit: this isn't flack. this is healthy rebuttal)

[This message has been edited by AngryFemme (edited 09-05-2004).]

[This message has been edited by AngryFemme (edited 09-05-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:



Why don't you try and comment on the actual content, and not your obtuse belief system which says "No matter what the facts are, Christianity is by far the worst belief system. I hate Christians."



The only times that mulsims actualy have holy war is when their goverment is run by fundementalists. The only time Christians go on crusades and mass convertoin trips is when their government is controled by fundementalists. The religions on there own are usualy somewhat benign but they both seem to get twisted into really great reasons for war and conquest when a government gets ahold of one of them.

I don't hate either, I just can not think of a good reason why anyone would want to associate themselves with either of these groups with all the horible thing atributed to them in the past and present.

[This message has been edited by MasterPython (edited 09-05-2004).]

Verses from the Bible:

A few of many verses to show the christian god likes killing unbelievers too. These parts of the bible seem particularly unpopular in churches.

Isaiah - Chapter 45:

"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these [things]...

Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I [am] God, and [there is] none else... unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear."

1KI 20:29-30 The Israelites kill 100,000 Syrian soldiers in one day. A wall falls on 27,000 remaining Syrians.

2KI 2:23-24 Forty-two children are mauled and killed by bears, according to the will of God, for having laughed at a man of God.

2KI 10:19-27 Jehu uses trickery to massacre the Baal worshippers.

"Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished.

17 Behold, I will stir up the Medes against them...

18 [Their] bows also shall dash the young men to pieces; and they shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb; their eye shall not spare children." - Isaiah 13:13

"O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us. Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones." - Psalm 137

[ EX 7:1, 14, 9:14-16, 10:1-2, 11:7

The purpose of the devastation that God brings to the Egyptians is as follows:

to show that he is Lord;

to show that there is none like him in all the earth;

to show his great power;

to cause his name to be declared throughout the earth;

to give the Israelites something to talk about with their children;

to show that he favors Israel over Egypt.]

[ Leviticus 27:29 - Human sacrifice is condoned and human life is weighed in monetary units. (Note: An example is given in Judges 11:30-39, where the father sacrifices his daughter to god.) ]

"David also defeated the Moabites. He made them lie down on the ground and measured them off with a length of cord. Every two lengths of them were put to death, and the third length was allowed to live. So the Moabites became subject to David and brought tribute...

When the Arameans of Damascus came to help Hadadezer king of Zobah, David struck down twenty-two thousand of them. 6 He put garrisons in the Aramean kingdom of Damascus, and the Arameans became subject to him and brought tribute. The LORD gave David victory wherever he went." - 2 Samuel 8

Homo's http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

If I had to chose between the lesser of two evils, it would be christianity. Why? Christians,no matter how fundamentalist, don't behead people and attack children.( @least not recently)

A religion must ultimately be judged by it's application, and not it's dogma.

Fuck islam. Islam is a cancer that must be stopped. Do I dare say Sam is right on this one thing? I must.

Islam has it's positives... when it was first released it was apparently pretty progressive when it came to giving women rights. When the Taliban first seized power in Kabul alot of women really welcommed them... at first.

Unfortuently, like christianity, and most other religions/belief systems, Islam has it's nutbags.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

You judge me every time I post, Social, so don't be a hypocrite.



I see no comparison, and your line of reasoning for why Christians are equally as horrific as Muslims is uneducated, at best.

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 09-05-2004).]

You're right, I admit I am a hypocrite, as are most people at one time or another, because sometimes it is impossible to practice what we preach, because we are human, but we can try.

I think what I said was misunderstood, I was not trying to prove that Christians were "equally as horrific" as Muslims, just pointing out that perhaps Christianity is not perfect either on the "tolerance of non-believers" issue, and we should remember that beofre we go pointing fingers at Muslims.

But, still, those Koran verses do disturb me, and make me question the true intentions of the Islamic faith.

Digital:

1. Desecration of the Host

2. The Blood Libel

3. The Inquisition

4. The Crusades

5. The Church during the Holocaust

6. Incessant "you killed Jesus" remarks

7. Persecution throughout two millenia

8. Expulsion from your countries

9. You racist plays, songs and books.

10. The KKK

Because Christianity is such a righteous foundation from which to judge all other religions.

That was a list right off the top of my head.

You think the muslims are any worse or the Jews are any better?

You're wrong. We are all human. We all do stupid fucking things.

And if you would please quote from an Online Koran it would make discussion far easier because I could put that inane drivel into context.

I'll even give you the link: http://www.hti.umich.edu/k/koran/

TERRORISM from the Quran and hadiths:

Bukhari:V4B52N220 “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘I have been made victorious with terror.’”

Qur’an 8:12 “I shall terrorize the infidels. So wound their bodies and incapacitate them because they oppose Allah and His Apostle.”

Qur’an 8:57 “If you gain mastery over them in battle, inflict such a defeat as would terrorize them, so that they would learn a lesson and be warned.”

Ishaq:326 “If you come upon them, deal so forcibly as to terrify those who would follow, that they may be warned. Make a severe example of them by terrorizing Allah’s enemies.”

Qur’an 8:67 “It is not fitting for any prophet to have prisoners until he has made a great slaughtered in the land.”

Ishaq:588 “When the Apostle descends on your land none of your people will be left when he leaves.”

Tabari IX:42 “We have been dealt a situation from which there is no escape. You have seen what Muhammad has done. Arabs have submitted to him and we do not have the strength to fight. You know that no herd is safe from him. And no one even dares go outside for fear of being terrorized.”

Ishaq:326 “Allah said, ‘No Prophet before Muhammad took booty from his enemy nor prisoners for ransom.’ Muhammad said, ‘I was made victorious with terror. The earth was made a place for me to clean. I was given the most powerful words. Booty was made lawful for me. I was given the power to intercede. These five privileges were awarded to no prophet before me.’”

Ishaq:327 “Allah said, ‘A prophet must slaughter before collecting captives. A slaughtered enemy is driven from the land. Muhammad, you craved the desires of this world, its goods and the ransom captives would bring. But Allah desires killing them to manifest the religion.’”

Qur’an 7:3 “Little do you remember My warning. How many towns have We destroyed as a raid by night? Our punishment took them suddenly while they slept for their afternoon rest. Our terror came to them; Our punishment overtook them.”

Ishaq:510 “When the Apostle looked down on Khaybar he told his Companions, ‘O Allah, Lord of the Devils and what into error they throw, and Lord of the winds and what they winnow, we ask Thee for the booty of this town and its people. Forward in the name of Allah.’ He used to say this of every town he raided.”

Bukhari:V5B59N512 “The Prophet offered the Fajr Prayer [Prayer of Fear] near Khaybar when it was still dark. He said, ‘Allahu-Akbar!’ [Allah is Greatest] Khaybar is destroyed, for whenever we approach a hostile nation to fight, then evil will be the morning for those who have been warned.’ Then the inhabitants came out running on their roads. The Prophet had their men killed; their children and woman were taken as captives.”

Bukhari:V9B87N127 “The Prophet said, ‘I have been given the keys of eloquent speech and given victory with terror.’”

Ishaq:517 “Khaybar was stormed by the Apostle’s squadron, fully armed, powerful and strong. It brought certain humiliation with Muslim men in its midst. We attacked and they met their doom. Muhammad conquered the Jews in fighting that day as they opened their eyes to our dust.”

Tabari VIII:116/Ishaq:511 “So Muhammad began seizing their herds and their property bit by bit. He conquered home by home. The Messenger took some people captive, including Safiyah and her two cousins. The Prophet chose Safiyah for himself.”

Bukhari:V5B59N512 “The Prophet had their men killed, their children and woman taken captive.”

Tabari VIII:129 “After the Messenger had finished with the Khaybar Jews, Allah cast terror into the hearts of the Jews in Fadak when they received news of what Allah had brought upon Khaybar. Fadak became the exclusive property of Allah’s Messenger.”

Tabari VIII:133 “The raiding party went to Tha’labah. One of Muhammad’s slaves, said, ‘Prophet, I know where Tha’labah can be taken by surprise.’ So Muhammad sent him with 130 men. They raided the town and drove off camels and sheep, bringing them back to Medina.”

Tabari VIII:138 “Muhammad carried arms, helmets, and spears. He led a hundred horses, appointing Bahir to be in charge of the weapons and Maslamah to be in charge of the horses. When the Quraysh received word of this, it frightened them.”

Qur’an 33:26 “Allah made the Jews leave their homes by terrorizing them so that you killed some and made many captive. And He made you inherit their lands, their homes, and their wealth. He gave you a country you had not traversed before.”

Qur’an 59:2 “It was Allah who drove the [Jewish] People of the Book from their homes and into exile. They refused to believe and imagined that their strongholds would protect them against Allah. But Allah came at them from where they did not suspect, and filled their hearts with terror. Their homes were destroyed. So learn a lesson, O men who have eyes. This is My warning…they shall taste the torment of Fire.”

Qur’an 33:60 “Truly, if the Hypocrites stir up sedition, if the agitators in the City do not desist, We shall urge you to go against them and set you over them. Then they will not be able to stay as your neighbors for any length of time. They shall have a curse on them. Whenever they are found, they shall be seized and slain without mercy—a fierce slaughter—murdered, a horrible murdering.”

Tabari VIII:143 “In this year a twenty-four man raiding party led by Shuja went to the Banu Amir. He launched a raid on them and took camels and sheep. The shares of booty came to fifteen camels for each man. Also a raid led by Amr went to Dhat. He set out with fifteen men. He encountered a large force whom he summoned to Islam. They refused to respond so he killed all of them.”

Bukhari:V4B52N256 “The Prophet passed by and was asked whether it was permissible to attack infidels at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, ‘Their women and children are from them.’”

Tabari IX:20 “The captives of Hunayn, along with their possessions, were brought to the Messenger. He ordered that their captives, animals, and their possessions be taken to Ji’ranah and held there in custody.”

Ishaq:576 “Allah and His servant overwhelmed every coward. Allah honored us and made our religion victorious. We were glorified and destroyed them all. Allah humiliated them in the worship of Satan. By what our Apostle recites from the Book and by our swift horses, I liked the punishment the infidels received. Killing them was sweeter than drink. We galloped among them panting for the spoil. With our loud-voiced army, the Apostle’s squadron advanced into the fray.”

Ishaq:580 “Our strong warriors obey his orders to the letter. By us Allah’s religion is undeniably strong. You would think when our horses gallop with bits in their mouths that the sounds of demons are among them. The day we trod down the unbelievers there was no deviation or turning from the Apostle’s order. During the battle the people heard our exhortations to fight and the smashing of skulls by swords that sent heads flying. We severed necks with a warrior’s blow. Often we have left the slain cut to pieces and a widow crying alas over her mutilated husband. ’Tis Allah, not man we seek to please.”

Tabari IX:122 “Muhammad sent Uyaynah to raid The Banu Anbar. They killed some people and took others captive. Asma was one of the women taken prisoner.”

Tabari IX:123 “Muhammad sent an expedition to Ghalib and to the land of the Banu Murrah. The raid on Amr and Abi was sent to the valley of Idam. Another by Aslami was sent to Ghabah. And Abd al-Rahman was ordered by the Messenger to lead an army to the seashore.”

Tabari IX:69 “He who believes in Allah and His Messenger has protected his life and possessions from us. As for those who disbelieve, we will fight them forever in the Cause of Allah. Killing them is a small matter to us.”

Bukhari:V5B59N516 “When Allah’s Apostle fought or raided people we raised our voices saying, ‘Allahu-Akbar! Allahu-Akbar! None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.’”

Tabari VII:10 “In Ramadhan, seven months after the Hijrah, Muhammad entrusted a white war banner to Hamzah with the command of thirty Emigrants. Their aim was to intercept a Quraysh caravan.”

Ishaq:281 “The Raid on Waddan was the first Maghazi [invasion]. The Expedition of Harith was second. They encountered a large number of Quraysh in the Hijaz. Abu Bakr composed a poem about the raid: ‘When we called them to the truth they turned their backs and howled like bitches. Allah’s punishment on them will not tarry. I swear by the Lord of Camels [Allah?] that I am no perjurer. A valiant band will descend upon the Quraysh which will leave women husbandless. It will leave men dead, with vultures wheeling round. It will not spare the infidels.’”

Ishaq:285 “Then the Apostle went raiding in the month of Rabi u’l-Awwal making for the Quraysh. Then he raided the Quraysh by way of Dinar.” Tabari VII:11 “In this year the Messenger entrusted to Sa’d a white war banner for the expedition to Kharrar. Sa’d said, ‘I set out on foot at the head of twenty men. We used to lie hidden by day and march at night, until we reached Kharrar on the fifth morning. The caravan had arrived in town a day before. There were sixty men with it.” Tabari VII:11 “The Messenger of Allah went out on a raid as far as Waddan, searching for Quraysh.”

Tabari VII:15 “Expeditions Led by Allah’s Messenger: In this year, according to all Sira writers, the Messenger personally led the Ghazwa of Alwa. [A Ghazwa is an Islamic Invasion in Allah’s Cause consisting of an army unit led by the Prophet himself.] He left Sa’d in command of Medina. On this raid his banner was carried by Hamzah. He stayed out for fifteen days and then returned to Medina. The Messenger went on a Ghazwa at the head of two hundred of his companions in October, 623 and reached Buwat. His intention was to intercept a Quraysh caravan with a hundred men and twenty-five hundred camels.”

Ishaq:286 “Meanwhile the Apostle sent Sa’d on the raid of Abu Waqqas. The Prophet only stayed a few nights in Medina before raiding Ushayra and then Kurz.”

Bukhari:V5B57N51 “The Apostle said, ‘Tomorrow I will give the flag to a man whose leadership Allah will use to grant a Muslim victory.”

Bukhari:V5B59N569 “I fought in seven Ghazwat battles along with the Prophet and fought in nine Maghazi raids in armies dispatched by the Prophet.”

Bukhari:V5B57N74 “I heard Sa’d saying, ‘I was the first Arab to shoot an arrow in Allah’s Cause.’”

Bukhari:V5B59N401 “Allah’s Wrath became severe on anyone the Prophet killed in Allah’s Cause.”

Bukhari:V5B59N456 “Muhammad led the Fear Prayer [Allahu Akbar!] with one batch of his army while the other (batch) faced the enemy.”

Bukhari:V5B59N440 “Allah’s Apostle used to say, ‘None has the right to be worshipped except Allah Alone because He honored His Warriors and made His Messenger victorious. He defeated the clans; so there is nothing left.’”

Ishaq:287 “The Muslim raiders consulted one another concerning them. One of the Muslims said, ‘By Allah, if we leave these people alone, they will get into the sacred territory and will be safely out of our reach. If we kill them we will have killed in the sacred month.’” Tabari VII:19 “They hesitated and were afraid to advance, but then they plucked up courage and agreed to kill as many as they could and to seize what they had with them. Waqid shot an arrow at Amr and killed him. Uthman and al-Hakam surrendered. Then Waqid and his companions took the caravan and the captives back to Allah’s Apostle in Medina. This was the first booty taken by the Companions of Muhammad.”

Ishaq:289 “Our lances drank of Amr’s blood and lit the flame of war.” Tabari VII:20/Ishaq:287 “Abd Allah told his Companions, ‘A fifth of the booty we have taken belongs to the Apostle.’ This was before Allah made surrendering a fifth of the booty taken a requirement.”

Tabari VII:20/Ishaq:288 “The Quraysh said, ‘Muhammad and his Companions have violated the sacred month, shed blood, seized property, and taken men captive.’ The polytheists spread lying slander concerning him, saying, ‘Muhammad claims that he is following obedience to Allah, yet he is the first to violate the holy month and to kill our people.’”

Ishaq:288 “When the Qur’an passage concerning this matter was revealed, and Allah relieved Muslims from their fear and anxiety, Muhammad took possession of the caravan and prisoners. The Quraysh sent him a ransom and the Prophet released the prisoners on payment. When the Qur’an authorization came down to Muhammad, Abd Allah and his Companions were relieved and they became anxious for an additional reward. They said, ‘Will this raid be counted as part of the reward promised to Muslim combatants?’ So Allah sent down this Qur’an: ‘Those who believe and have fought in Allah’s Cause may receive Allah’s mercy.’ Allah made the booty permissible. He divided the loot, awarding four-fifths to the men He had allowed to take it. He gave one-fifth to His Apostle.”

Ishaq:288 “Allah divided the booty stolen from the first caravan after he made spoils permissible. He gave four-fifths to those He had allowed to take it and one-fifth to His Apostle.” Tabari VII:29/Ishaq:289 “The Apostle heard that Abu Sufyan [a Meccan merchant] was coming from Syria with a large caravan containing their money and their merchandise. He was accompanied by only thirty men.” Ishaq:289 “Muhammad summoned the Muslims and said, ‘This is the Quraysh caravan containing their property. Go out and attack it. Perhaps Allah will give it to us as prey.”

Tabari VII:29 “Abu Sufyan and the horsemen of the Quraysh were returning from Syria following the coastal road. When Allah’s Apostle heard about them he called his companions together and told them of the wealth they had with them and the fewness of their numbers. The Muslims set out with no other object than Sufyan and the men with him. They did not think that this raid would be anything other than easy booty.”

Bukhari:V5B59N702 “Allah did not admonish anyone who had not participated in the Ghazwa [raid] of Badr, for in fact, Allah’s Apostle had only gone out in search of the Quraysh caravan so that he could rob it. But Allah arranged for the Muslims and their enemy to meet by surprise. I was at the Aqaba pledge with Allah’s Apostle when we gave our lives in submission, but the Badr battle is more popular amongst the people. I was never stronger or wealthier than I was when I followed the Prophet on a Ghazwa.’”

Tabari VII:29 “They did not suppose that there would be a great battle. Concerning this Allah revealed a Qur’an: Qur’an 8:7 ‘Behold! Allah promised you that one of the two parties would be yours. You wished for the unarmed one, but Allah willed to justify His truth according to His words and to cut off the roots of the unbelievers.’”

Tabari VII:29 “When Abu Sufyan heard that Muhammad’s Companions were on their way to intercept his caravan, he sent a message to the Quraysh. ‘Muhammad is going to attack our caravan, so protect your merchandise.’ When the Quraysh heard this, the people of Mecca hastened to defend their property and protect their men as they were told Muhammad was lying in wait for them.” Ishaq:290 “Some Meccans got up to circumambulate the Ka’aba…. Sitting around the mosque, they wondered why they had allowed this evil rascal to attack their men.”

Ishaq:292 “Setting out in Ramadhan, Muhammad was preceded by two black flags. His companions had seventy camels.” Tabari VII:38 “I have been informed by authorities that Muhammad set out on 3 Ramadhan at the head of 310 of his companions. The war banner of the Messenger was carried by Ali. The banner of the Ansar was carried by Sa’d.”

Ishaq:293/Tabari VII:30 “The prophet marched forward and spent the night near Badr with his Companions. While the Prophet was standing in prayer [asking Allah to help him steal] some Quraysh water-carriers came to the well. Among these was a black slave. Muhammad’s men seized him and brought him to the Messenger’s bivouac. They ordered him to salute Allah’s Apostle. Then they questioned him about Abu Sufyan. When the slave began to tell them about the protecting force, it was unwelcome news, for the only object of their raid was the caravan.” Tabari VII:30 “Meanwhile the Prophet was praying, bowing and prostrating himself, and also seeing and hearing the treatment of the slave. They beat him severely and continued to interrogate him but they found that he had no knowledge of what they were looking for.”

Ishaq:294 “The Apostle was afraid the Ansar would not feel obliged to help him fight without the enemy being the aggressor and attacking in Medina. Sa’d said, ‘We hear and obey. We are experienced in war, trustworthy in combat. Allah will let us show you something that will bring you joy. The Apostle was delighted at Sa’d’s words which greatly encouraged him. Muhammad shouted, ‘It is as if I see the enemy lying prostrate.’”

Tabari VII:32 “When the Quraysh advanced, Muhammad threw dust in the direction of their faces, and Allah put them to flight.… The Meccan [merchant] force and the Prophet’s [pirates] met and Allah gave victory to His Messenger, shamed the unbelievers, and satisfied the Muslims’ thirst for revenge.” Ishaq:297 “When the Apostle saw them he cried, ‘Allah, they called me a liar. Destroy them this morning.’”

Bukhari:V5B59N330/Ishaq:300 “Here is Gabriel holding the rein of a horse and leading the charge. He is equipped with his weapons and ready for the battle. There is dust upon his front teeth.” Bukhari:V5B59N327 “Gabriel came to the Prophet and said, ‘How do you view the warriors of Badr?’ The Prophet said, ‘I see the fighters as the best Muslims.’ On that, Gabriel said, ‘And so are the Angels who are participating in the Badr battle.’”

Tabari VII:55 “Mihaja, the mawla [slave] of Umar [the future Caliph] was struck by an arrow and killed. He was the first Muslim to die.”

Tabari VII:55 “Allah’s Messenger went out to his men and incited them to fight. He promised, ‘Every man may keep all the booty he takes.’ Then Muhammad said, ‘By Allah, if any man fights today and is killed fighting aggressively, going forward and not retreating, Allah will cause him to enter Paradise.’ Umayr, who was holding some dates in his hand and eating them, said, ‘Fine, fine. This is excellent! Nothing stands between me and my entering Paradise except to be killed by these people!’ He threw down the dates, seized his sword, and fought until he was slain.”

Tabari VII:56 “‘Messenger of Allah, what makes the Lord laugh with joy at his servant?’ He replied, ‘When he plunges his hand into the midst of an enemy without armor.’ So Auf took off the coat of mail he was wearing and threw it away. Then he took his sword and fought the enemy until he was killed.”

Ishaq:301 “Muhammad picked up a handful of pebbles and faced the Quraysh. He shouted, ‘May their faces be deformed!’ He threw the pebbles at them and ordered his companions to attack. The foe was routed. Allah killed Quraysh chiefs and caused many of their nobles to be taken captive. While the Muslims were taking prisoners, the Messenger was in his hut.”

Bukhari:V5B59N290 “The Prophet said, ‘The believers who failed to join the Ghazwa of Badr and those who took part in it are not equal in reward.”

Bukhari:V5B59N333 “Az-Zubair said, ‘I attacked him with my spear and pierced his eye. I put my foot over his body to pull the weapon out, but even then I had to use great force. Later on Allah’s Apostle asked me for that spear and I gave it to him.’”

Ishaq:301 “As the Muslims were laying their hands on as many prisoners as they could catch, the Prophet, saw disapproval in the face of Sa’d. He said, ‘Why are you upset by the taking of captives?’ Sa’d replied, ‘This was the first defeat inflicted by Allah on the infidels. Slaughtering the prisoners would have been more pleasing to me than sparing them.’”

Tabari VII:59 “On the day of Badr I passed Umayyah as he was standing with his son Ali, holding his hand. I had with me some coats of mail which I had taken as plunder. Umayyah said, ‘Abd al-Ilah, would you like to take me as a prisoner? I will be more valuable to you as a captive to be ransomed than the coats of mail that you are carrying.’ I said, ‘Yes. Come here then.’ I flung away the armor and bound Umayyah and his son Ali, taking them with me. Muslims encircled us. Then they restrained us physically. One of the Muslims drew his sword and struck Ali in the leg, severing it so that he fell down. Umayyah gave a scream the like of which I have never heard. I said, ‘Save yourself, for there is no escape for your son. By Allah, I cannot save him from these men.’ Then the Muslims hacked Ali to pieces. Abd al-Rahman used to say, ‘May Allah have mercy on Bial [a slave turned Muslim marauder]! I lost my coats of mail, and he deprived me of my captives.’”

Bukhari:V5B59N297 “The Prophet faced the Ka’aba and invoked evil on the Quraysh people.”

Bukhari: V5B59N397 “Allah’s Apostle raised his head after bowing the first Rak’a of the morning prayer. He said, ‘O Allah! Curse so-and-so and so-and-so.’ After he had invoked evil upon them, Allah revealed: ‘Your Lord will send thousands of angels riding upon chargers sweeping down as a form of good tidings to reassure you that victory comes from Him. He will cut off parts of the unbelievers, overthrow them, and turn them back in frustration. For Allah is forgiving and kind.’” [3:124]

Ishaq:303 “A cousin and I mounted a hill from which we could overlook Badr and see who would be defeated, so that we could join in the plundering afterwards. I was pursuing one of the Meccan polytheists in order to smite him, when his head suddenly fell off before my sword touched him. Then I knew that someone other than I had killed him.”

Tabari VII:61 “When the Prophet had finished with his enemy, he gave orders that Abu Jahl should be found among the dead. He said, ‘O Allah, do not let him escape!’ The first man who encountered Abu Jahl yelled out and I made him my mark. When he was within my reach, I attacked him and struck him a blow which severed his foot and half his leg. By Allah, when it flew off I could only compare it to a date-stone which flies out of a crusher when it is struck. Then his son hit me on the shoulder and cut off my arm. It dangled at my side from a piece of skin. The fighting prevented me from reaching him after that. I fought the whole day, dragging my arm behind me. When it began to hurt me, I put my foot on it and stood until I pulled it off.’” Ishaq:304 “Abd Allah bin Mas’ud said, ‘I found Abu Jahl in the throws of death. I put my foot on his neck because he had grabbed me once at Mecca and had hurt me. Then I said, Has Allah disgraced you and put you to shame, O enemy of Allah?’ ‘In what way has he disgraced me?’ he asked. ‘Am I anything more important than a man whom you have killed?’” Bukhari:V5B59N298 “Abu Jahl said, ‘You should not be proud that you have killed me.’”

Ishaq:304/Tabari VII:62 “I cut off Abu Jahl’s head and brought it to the Messenger. ‘O Allah’s Prophet, this is the head of the enemy of Allah.’ Muhammad said, ‘Praise be to Allah.’”

Ishaq:305 “Ukkasha fought until he broke his sword. He came to the Apostle who gave him a wooden cudgel telling him to fight with that. He brandished it and it became a brilliant weapon. Allah gave him victory while he wielded it. He took that weapon with him to every raid he fought with Allah’s Apostle until he was killed in the rebellion. These were his dying words: ‘What do you think about when you kill people? Are these not men just because they are not Muslims?’”

Ishaq:315 “It was so criminal, men could hardly imagine it. Muhammad was ennobled because of the bloody fighting. I swear we shall never lack soldiers, nor army leaders. Driving before us infidels until we subdue them with a halter above their noses and a branding iron. We will drive them to the ends of the earth. We will pursue them on horse and on foot. We will never deviate from fighting in our cause. We will bring upon the infidels the fate of the Ad and Jurhum. Any people that disobey Muhammad will pay for it. If you do not surrender to Islam, then you will live to regret it. You will be shamed in Hell, forced to wear a garment of molten pitch forever!”

Ishaq:310 “A Meccan said, ‘As soon as we were confronted by the raiding party, we turned our backs and they started killing and capturing us at their pleasure. Some of our men turned tail humiliated. Allah smote some of us with pustules from which we died.’” Ishaq:311 “When the Quraysh began to bewail their dead, consumed in sorrow, one said, ‘Do not do this for Muhammad and his companions will rejoice over our misfortune.’”

Ishaq:340 “Surely Badr was one of the world’s great wonders. The roads to death are plain to see. Disobedience causes a people to perish. They became death’s pawns. We had sought their caravan, nothing else. But they came to us and there was no way out. So we thrust our shafts and swung our swords severing their heads. Our swords glittered as they killed. The banner of error was held by Satan. He betrayed the evil ones, those prone to treachery. He led them to death crying, ‘Fear Allah. He is invincible!’ On that day a thousand spirits were mustered on excited white stallions. Allah’s army fought with us. Under our banner, Gabriel attacked and killed them.”

Ishaq:341 “Allah favored His Apostle and humiliated the unbelievers. They were put to shame in captivity and death. The Apostle’s victory was glorious. Its message is plain for all to see. The Lord brought repeated calamities upon the pagans, bringing them under the Apostle’s power. Allah’s angry army smote them with their trusty swords. Many a lusty youngster left the enemy lying prone. Their women wept with burning throats for the dead were lying everywhere. But now they are all in Hell.”

Ishaq:342 “I wonder at foolish men like these who sing frivolously and vainly of the slain at Badr. This was nothing more than an impious and odious crime. Men fought against their brothers, fathers, and sons. Any with discernment and understanding recognize the wrong that was done here.”

Ishaq:344 “I wonder at Allah’s deed. None can defeat Him. Evil ever leads to death. We unsheathed our swords and testified to the unity of Allah, and we proved that His Apostle brought truth. We smote them and they scattered. The impious met death. They became fuel for Hell. All who aren’t Muslims must go there. It will consume them while the Stoker [Allah] increases the heat. They had called Allah’s Apostle a liar. They claimed, ‘You are nothing but a sorcerer.’ So Allah destroyed them.”

Ishaq:348 “They retreated in all directions. They rejected the Qur’an and called Muhammad a liar. But Allah cursed them to make his religion and Apostle victorious. They lay still in death. Their throats were severed. Their foreheads embraced the dust. Their nostrils were defiled with filth. Many a noble, generous man we slew this day. We left them as meat for the hyenas. And later, they shall burn in the fires of Hell.”

Ishaq:349 “The battle will tell the world about us. Distant men will heed our warning. The infidels may cut off my leg, yet I am a Muslim. I will exchange my life for one with virgins fashioned like the most beautiful statues.”

Ishaq:357 “Their leaders were left prostrate. Their heads were sliced off like melons. Many an adversary have I left on the ground to rise in pain, broken and plucked. When the battle was joined I dealt them a vicious blow. Their arteries cried aloud, their blood flowed.”

Ishaq:308 “Muhammad halted on a sandhill and divided the booty Allah had given him. They congratulated him on the victory Allah had granted. But one of the warriors replied, ‘What are you congratulating us about? We only met some bald old women like the sacrificial camels who are hobbled, and we slaughtered them!’ The Apostle smiled because he knew that description fit .”

Tabari VII:81 “The next day I went to the Prophet. He was sitting with Abu Bakr, and they were weeping. I said, ‘O Messenger of Allah, tell me, what has made you weep? If I find cause to weep, I will weep with you, and if not, I will pretend to weep because you are weeping.’ The Prophet said, ‘It is because of the taking of ransoms. It was laid before me that I should punish them instead.’ Allah revealed: ‘It is not for any Prophet to have captives until he has made slaughter in the land.’ After that Allah made booty lawful for them.”

Tabari VII:98 “The Messenger ordered Zayd [the prophet’s former slave turned adoptive son] out on a raid in which he captured a Quraysh caravan led by Abu Sufyan at a watering place in Najd.… A number of their merchants set out with a large amount of silver since this was the main part of their merchandise. They hired a man to guide them along this route. Zayd captured the caravan and its goods but was unable to capture the men. He brought the caravan to the Prophet.” [If this isn’t piracy and terror the words need to be redefined.]

Tabari VII:98 “The reason for this expedition was the Quraysh said, ‘Muhammad has damaged our trade, and sits astride our road. If we stay in Mecca we will consume our capital.’ …The news of the caravan reached the Prophet, as did the information that it contained much wealth and silver vessels. Zayd therefore intercepted it and made himself master of their caravan. The fifth (khums) was twenty thousand dirhams; Allah’s Apostle took it and divided the other four fifths among the members of the raiding party. Furat was taken captive. They said to him. ‘If you accept Islam the Messenger will not kill you.’”

Qur’an 3:150 “Soon We shall strike terror into the hearts of the Infidels, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority: their abode will be in the Fire!”

Ishaq:395 “Muslims, if you listen to the unbelievers you will retreat from the enemy and become losers. Ask Allah for victory and do not retreat, withdrawing from His religion. ‘We will terrorize those who disbelieve. In that way I will help you against them.’”

Qur’an 33:9 “O ye who believe! Remember the Grace of Allah, on you, when there came down an army. But We sent against them a hurricane and forces that ye saw not. Behold! They came on you from above you and from below you, and behold, the eyes became dim and the hearts gaped up to the throats, stupefied with terror, and ye imagined various vain thoughts about Allah!”

Ishaq:461 “Muhammad besieged them for twenty-five nights. When the siege became too severe for them, Allah terrorized them. Then they were told to submit.”

http://www.prophetofdoom.net/quotes1.html#terrorism

http://www.prophetofdoom.net/toc.html

http://www.masada2000.org/islam.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2829059.stm

http://embark.to/AMS

http://atheism.about.com/cs/islamandviolence/

http://www.twin-towers.net/al-farooq_photos.htm

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/southeast/08/17/martyr.culture/index.html

http://muslim-quotes.netfirms.com/jihad.html

http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/amil30611.htm

http://www.domini.org/openbook/home.htm

http://www.persecution.org/news/PR_2002/alert2002-08-16.html

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=9583

http://www.danielpipes.org/

http://uk.geocities.com/rami_thekafir/articles.htm#13

http://www.angelfire.com/hi5/kafirdomunity/aboutus.htm

http://www.angelfire.com/hi5/kafirdomunity/action.htm

http://www.hraic.org/

http://www.geocities.com/khola_mon/Islam.html

http://www.geocities.com/khola_mon/BTaliban/Bangla_Taliban_Photos.html

http://www.topsitelists.com/out.cgi?area=bestsites&user=spoil29&nocheat=1033154536&ID=17&url=http://www.bwoi.cjb.net

http://www.chechentruth.cjb.net/

http://www.geocities.com/the_awful_truth_about_islam/index.htm

http://jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/

You're such a bastard Sam.

Why do you have to ruin every thread.

quote:Originally posted by AngryFemme:

I'm in like Flynn, on this one. The following is taken from a discussion on www.crosscurrents.org: (http://www.crosscurrents.org:)

Consider Second Chronicles 20:24. The writer shows us a landscape strewn with corpses. From a watchtower in the wilderness we see, with Judah, that the inhabitants have been utterly destroyed. Thousands of dead bodies have fallen to the earth. None escaped. This is but one of myriad biblical events that fulfill the Psalmist's joyous hope of the day when his people's feet will be dipped in the blood of their enemies. Blood, as Zephaniah says, that will pour out like dust (Zeph. 1:17). Blood, as the Psalmist says, that the dogs will lap up (Ps. 68:23).

With righteous wrath and indignation God lashes out against man and all creation. We read that "all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: all in whose nostrils was the breath of life. . . Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark" (Gen. 7:21).

And consider too how God, further on in Genesis, flagrantly destroys Sodom and Gomorrah with "brimstone and fire." Another Sunday school lesson that is taught with cartoon pictures, a violent story sans the violence. No close-ups, no burned and scorched flesh, no agonized mourners. Just swift, clean, unfathomable justice (Gen. 19:24).

Not long after that old Abraham is prepared to cut the throat of his beloved son, on God's inscrutable orders, intended to make Abraham prove himself. Yet another pervasive and powerful Sunday school lesson devoid of all the implications of what would have happened if God's angels had not stayed Abraham's hand (Gen. 22:9-13).

Paul (or Apollos) tells us there is no forgiveness of sins without the shedding of blood (Heb. 9:22). Faith, hope, and love may be the cardinal virtues, and they may be the enduring message, but the over-riding theme of the Bible is blood and stone -- the blood of sacrifice and the stone of redemption.

Complete article:

http://www.crosscurrents.org/moser0701.htm

(edit: this isn't flack. this is healthy rebuttal)

[This message has been edited by AngryFemme (edited 09-05-2004).]

[This message has been edited by AngryFemme (edited 09-05-2004).]

Yes, except the entire Old Testament is something for us to learn from, not copy. We are also not living under the law of Moses anymore.

It would be nice if those "rebuttling" Christianity actually UNDERSTOOD the religion.

Read the New Testament, and get back to me.

quote:Originally posted by MasterPython:

The only times that mulsims actualy have holy war is when their goverment is run by fundementalists. The only time Christians go on crusades and mass convertoin trips is when their government is controled by fundementalists. The religions on there own are usualy somewhat benign but they both seem to get twisted into really great reasons for war and conquest when a government gets ahold of one of them.

I don't hate either, I just can not think of a good reason why anyone would want to associate themselves with either of these groups with all the horible thing atributed to them in the past and present.

[This message has been edited by MasterPython (edited 09-05-2004).]

You are right about fundamentlism...actually, I think a more appropriate term would be "fanatacism".

FUNDAMENTALIST: A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.

This definition doesn't say anything about killing people because they don't believe the same way you do.

Key differences: If you are a true Christian, you follow the Bible. The Bible says we are no longer under the law of Moses, and the customs of his time. (i.e. murdering people) If you read the New Testament, it is clear that we are to kill NO ONE, for any circumstance, EVER. If someone says that they are Christian, and then kill in the name of "God", they are obviously not obeying His word.

Now, throughout the Qu'ran, it is a prevalent command that unbelievers should be exterminated from the planet. To be a true Muslim, that follows the laws of the Qu'ran, then you MUST follow this mentality.

After reading the verses I have supplied, I can't really understand how you came to the conclusion that Islam is benign.

quote:Originally posted by Social Junker:

You're right, I admit I am a hypocrite, as are most people at one time or another, because sometimes it is impossible to practice what we preach, because we are human, but we can try.

I think what I said was misunderstood, I was not trying to prove that Christians were "equally as horrific" as Muslims, just pointing out that perhaps Christianity is not perfect either on the "tolerance of non-believers" issue, and we should remember that beofre we go pointing fingers at Muslims.

But, still, those Koran verses do disturb me, and make me question the true intentions of the Islamic faith.

I appreciate that...

And I completely understand where you are coming from. But the important thing to remember is that if people go prancing around killing women whom they claim are witches without any viable proof, they aren't Christians. These people were relying on the Old Testament, which is intended only for learning in this day. Since Christ's birth and death, the laws of the Old Testament have been nullified. IF YOU KILL IN THE NAME OF GOD, YOU ARE NOT OF GOD.

Christianity is NOT perfect...know why ? Because men are involved.

I am called a "Christian" because there really isn't anything else to call me, but I do not participate in any religion. I study the Bible as objectively as possible, and question EVERYTHING. My point is, religion is the downfall of man, and IT is the reason why many wars have come and gone...NOT God.

I was not trying to point any fingers...I supplying the information that was requested of me. I said they were not peaceful, and then I provided the verses which support the extremist's activities.

The intention of the Islamic faith is to exterminate any and all who oppose Allah. Period.

It IS scary.

quote:Originally posted by Aphelion Corona:

Digital:

1. Desecration of the Host

2. The Blood Libel

3. The Inquisition

4. The Crusades

5. The Church during the Holocaust

6. Incessant "you killed Jesus" remarks

7. Persecution throughout two millenia

8. Expulsion from your countries

9. You racist plays, songs and books.

10. The KKK

Because Christianity is such a righteous foundation from which to judge all other religions.

That was a list right off the top of my head.

You think the muslims are any worse or the Jews are any better?

You're wrong. We are all human. We all do stupid fucking things.

And if you would please quote from an Online Koran it would make discussion far easier because I could put that inane drivel into context.

I'll even give you the link: http://www.hti.umich.edu/k/koran/

Jews weren't any better...and I never said as much. As a matter of fact, why do you think God hardened their hearts, and blinded their eyes against Him ? He called them a wicked generation, and cursed them. (though they are also His chosen, and will be redeemed in the end)

I will definitely touch upon all of these atrocities that you have mentioned, just can't do it now. (going to go to bed soon)

As I have said numerous times, these events did not take place because it was the will of God. It was the will of man. Those that kill in God's name will surely reap what they sew.

The verses are there. If you are too lazy to cut and paste, then that's your problem. Sorry...

I do ENOUGH research around here.

Let me just reitterate that THIS IS NOT an anti-Muslim thread.

I think that I am being taken WAY out of context.

You have to understand the culture of these people...most don't have a choice. They are threatened by excommunication if they don't participate, in many places in the world.

Most live in fear every day of the extremist's that actually implement and carry out the commands written in the Qu'ran.

I am not, by any means, trying to brew up hatred. I want the truth to be known, that the underlying principles of the Islamic faith system are NOT derived from peaceful intentions.

This is why it is so important for us to pay attention to what they are doing. This is why it was essential that Bush put a stop to their terrorism.

{TANGENT}Not to take away their right to believe in whatever they choose...but hey. Let's face it. If their belief system puts US, or any other country in DANGER, then it must be stopped. Don't you all agree ?

I detest what is happening to the people in Iraq...and in many other parts of the world. Whether by our hands, or by the hands of others, many innocent people who wanted nothing to do with this regime change are being killed. But what can we do ? Beg those that ruin it for the rest of the innocent's to be NICE ?

These extremist's don't care if we want to work things out in a diplomatic fashion. You know why ? Because the Qu'ran tells them that Christians must be removed. All unbelievers of their faith, actually. They don't want to work things out amicably. They want to do as they are told, so that they can reap the benefits promised to them in the afterlife.{/TANGENT}

I also promised that I would support my claim that Islam is not a nation of peace by giving examples from the Qu'ran, and I did.

Just so everyone knows...

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

As I have said numerous times, these events did not take place because it was the will of God. It was the will of man. Those that kill in God's name will surely reap what they sew.



How come when Christians kill people they get disowned and their actions have "nothing to do with Christianity", while when Muslims kill people their religion is to blame?

If anyone is curently reading the Koran I would like to know if these verses are commandments from God or descriptions of specific historical events. There are lots of things in the Bible that were a good idea at the time but are not a good idea now, I don't see why the Koran would be any diferent.



[This message has been edited by MasterPython (edited 09-07-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:



And I completely understand where you are coming from. But the important thing to remember is that if people go prancing around killing women whom they claim are witches without any viable proof, they aren't Christians. These people were relying on the Old Testament, which is intended only for learning in this day. Since Christ's birth and death, the laws of the Old Testament have been nullified. IF YOU KILL IN THE NAME OF GOD, YOU ARE NOT OF GOD.

Christianity is NOT perfect...know why ? Because men are involved.

.

I think you bring up a good point that some people fail to notice. A church is an organization run by men, and men are prone to mistakes, misunderstandings, and just plain old stupidity.

Many people judge a religion based on the conduct of people who claim to belong to that religion, but in reality, these people do not represent an accurate picture of that religion. I admit I am guilty of this, because, after all, isn't it easier to stereotype than to research the true teachings of that faith?

I am rusty on the Bible, but doesn't Jesus say there will be many false prophets who will come after him who will claim to be acting in his name? How right he was.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Let me just reitterate that THIS IS NOT an anti-Muslim thread. Just so everyone knows...

I think any muslim who reads this thread will be offended and insulted. It is therefore an anti-muslim thread. Especially because you are trying to convince me that the Muslim holy book is somehow more flawed and morally wrong than your own precious Bible.

"And I completely understand where you are coming from. But the important thing to remember is that if people go prancing around killing women whom they claim are witches without any viable proof, they aren't Christians. These people were relying on the Old Testament, which is intended only for learning in this day. Since Christ's birth and death, the laws of the Old Testament have been nullified."

If the OT is nullified then Jesus isn't the Messiah, it's your own oxymoron so deal with it.

Deut. 13:1-5

quote:Not to take away their right to believe in whatever they choose...but hey. Let's face it. If their belief system puts US, or any other country in DANGER, then it must be stopped. Don't you all agree ?

By "they must be stopped", you actually mean, 'they must be killed if necessary', right? Then how could you claim to be a Christian?

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 09-07-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Yes, except the entire Old Testament is something for us to learn from, not copy. We are also not living under the law of Moses anymore.

To copy is to imitate. To imitate is to "follow the actions of". Are you saying that your God did not approve of the vicious acts in the Old Testament described above? Or does this mean that your God just changed his direction, mid-stream? Does the word of God supposed to bend and curve with the times? That is what it appears like when you compare the Old with the New testaments.

quote: It would be nice if those "rebuttling" Christianity actually UNDERSTOOD the religion.

Read the New Testament, and get back to me.

I've had the Old AND New Testament beaten into my brain and shoved down my throat for three decades now. Realize that I am not ignorant to the Bible, although I can't spout off scripture like you so readily can. I can have a healthy understanding for it's verses and the context in which it was given, but my point is: Being a disbeliever doesn't make me ignorant.

quote:Originally posted by Aphelion Corona:

Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Let me just reitterate that THIS IS NOT an anti-Muslim thread. Just so everyone knows...

I think any muslim who reads this thread will be offended and insulted. It is therefore an anti-muslim thread. Especially because you are trying to convince me that the Muslim holy book is somehow more flawed and morally wrong than your own precious Bible.

They are insulted by the words cultivated from their own Qu'ran ?

Hmmm...

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

They are insulted by the words cultivated from their own Qu'ran ?

Hmmm...

NO! They are insulted by you claiming that they are somehow more violent and bloodthirsty than Christians and Jews because you gloss over all the nasty parts in the Old Testament.

It's known as hypocracy.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

By "they must be stopped", you actually mean, 'they must be killed if necessary', right? Then how could you claim to be a Christian?

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 09-07-2004).]

Nope, I don't agree with any form of murder.

You asked that I don't put words in your mouth, so I guess I can reasonably expect the same of you.

I don't remember giving any examples of what could or could not be done in order to accomplish this.

quote:Originally posted by Aphelion Corona:

NO! They are insulted by you claiming that they are somehow more violent and bloodthirsty than Christians and Jews because you gloss over all the nasty parts in the Old Testament.

It's known as hypocracy.

Except I didn't gloss over the events in the OT.

Ever heard of the word "reflection" ? To reflect on the OT as a learning tool is it's purpose.

How can you know contentment without pain ? Happiness without sadness ? Gain without loss ?

The Qu'ran actively commands it's followers to seek out and destroy all unbelievers.

The New Testament turns us from the merciless, violent people who resided under the law of Moses, into a peace-seeking people residing under a gospel of "love".

Nowhere in the New Testament does it command Christians to kill unbelievers.

This alone makes Muslims more violent and bloodthirsty.

The purpose of a Christian is to be selfLESS, while Muslims kill unbelievers in order to increase their gain in the form of afterlife blessings (all of which pertain to pootang in some form or another), which is totally selfISH.

"I kill, so I can be blessed." Doesn't sound like they are devoting themseklves to Allah, but rather themselves.

And I don't see anyone on this thread that is representing the nation of Islam, that is crying "injustice!", or "I'm offended!".

So, stop speaking for them. If I am offending you, take ownership.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Nope, I don't agree with any form of murder.

You asked that I don't put words in your mouth, so I guess I can reasonably expect the same of you.

I don't remember giving any examples of what could or could not be done in order to accomplish this.

I'm not putting words in your mouth. I'm asking a question, and anticipating a response to save myself time. I'm not claiming that was your response, or that those were your words, hence there is a noticeable difference.

--

Now given your answer, I find it stupefying that you would therefore support George Bush, when he is responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent Iraqis.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:



The New Testament turns us from the merciless, violent people who resided under the law of Moses, into a peace-seeking people residing under a gospel of "love".



By violent meciles people do you mean Jews? Becasue if I am not mistaken that is who the Old Testiment mainly deals with.

I never though that you were a racist until now Digital.

Maybe the New Testiment does not preach violence but that does not mean that Christians can not be violent people. By the same logic just because the Qu'ran preaches violence does not mean that muslims can not be peaceful people.

How many Muslims do you actuly know Digital? Would you say "You are inherently violent and blood thirsty." to their face?

quote:

And I don't see anyone on this thread that is representing the nation of Islam, that is crying "injustice!", or "I'm offended!".

You know better that anyone else that non athiests are rare on this forum. How many Muslims do you think even saw this.

quote:

Ever heard of the word "reflection" ? To reflect on the OT as a learning tool is it's purpose.

And you don't think that could work for Muslims too?

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

The New Testament turns us from the merciless, violent people who resided under the law of Moses, into a peace-seeking people residing under a gospel of "love".

Nowhere in the New Testament does it command Christians to kill unbelievers.



1. By denying the OT is still relevant and valid today you deny the foundations of your faith. What is the NT without the OT?

2. That didn't stop you killing non-believers did it?

Read Michener's The Source. Christianity is about personal relationship with God, Judaism is about how a society can have a relationship with God.

Stop preaching idealism and let's get pragmatic here.

Stop thinking right now and actually listen to your own NT that you love so much.

It teaches TOLERANCE to your Muslim brothers. So why do you go against the teaching of your Messiah? Is your faith so weak? Was his way not good enough for you? Was the simple sentance "Love your neighbour" not good enough for you?

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" - Is your heart so pure? Is christianity white as snow?

Why were Jews burned at the stake? Was it because Jesus told you not to shed blood, and burning was a clever way round it?

You disgust me when you only see half an issue.

Just accept that we all have blood on our hands. You as well as me. My brother as well as your brother.

I don't think I can rant enough about this.

DS: Tell me why you ignore the teachings of your Messiah and instead preach something that can only spread hate?

I don't see her as a Racist. I really don't. We can only construct someone's personality on here based on the context of their posts, and having said that - Digital strikes me as the type of human being who would aid her fellow human (in peacetime or war), whether they be Muslim or Christian, with few prejudices.

I say "few" instead of "no" because she is obviously a victim of all the propaganda being spout on television/newspaper/radio about the "evildoers" of Islam and the "violence" of the Koran. Our own president endorses it, and as a result, there has been alot of misconstrued labeling going on since 9/11. Christianity has it's own evildoers and the Bible has just as much violence of the Koran.

It would be interesting (albeit impossible) to roll this thread back about 3-4 years and then grill her on her opinions of the Islamic Faith. I am quite sure it would be an entirely different viewpoint altogether.

My point being:

I would like to believe she is not a racist. Just caught up in the dangerous hype that is generating throughout America, building all this anti-Islamic fervor.

Voltaire said it best:

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

I'm not putting words in your mouth. I'm asking a question, and anticipating a response to save myself time. I'm not claiming that was your response, or that those were your words, hence there is a noticeable difference.

--

Now given your answer, I find it stupefying that you would therefore support George Bush, when he is responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent Iraqis.

First, your questions were posed with rhetorical connotations. Meaning, they were more like "gently" put statements. Instead of just accusing me, you used "questions" to soften the blow.

You've said it yourself...you think you know the answer, so they weren't really questions. Rather, your perceptions, put into question form.

It is Saddam's fault that there is a war in Iraq right now, not Bush's. I feel that Bush did what he had to do in order to protect our freedom, and prevent any further terrorist attack's on US soil.

Iraq's leadership had PLENTY of opportunity to prevent war. How many times did we need to warn them ?

I don't advocate war, but I do support his decision to take action, which is something that needed to be done.

I can't possibly agree with every aspect of his leadership, or I WOULD be foolish.

I still question his motives, incentives, and purpose. He does not receive a "blanket" of acceptance from me, simply because he is a Christian.

I don't see how it is so stupifying to think that I agree with his morals, and the majority of the actions he has taken while in office.

Or, even that the alternative (Kerry) isn't really an alternative at all.

I know you think you just made an amazing point, but you really haven't. I know what I believe, and why. Since you don't, your assumptions and accusations don't hold too much clout.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

First, your questions were posed with rhetorical connotations. Meaning, they were more like "gently" put statements. Instead of just accusing me, you used "questions" to soften the blow.

You've said it yourself...you think you know the answer, so they weren't really questions. Rather, your perceptions, put into question form.

They where my anticipation of what would most likely, in my opinion, your response be. That is not "putting words in your mouth" because I never claimed those were your words.

quote:

It is Saddam's fault that there is a war in Iraq right now, not Bush's. I feel that Bush did what he had to do in order to protect our freedom, and prevent any further terrorist attack's on US soil.

Then are you agreeing with that war? Hence, agreeing with a 'type of murder'?

If we use that logic, it is a murderer's fault that he killed and he was caught? If so, and if you justify the war, it follows that you would justify capital punishment, would it not?

Moreover, this concerns Saddam, the killings he did, and any justice that would be brought to him; not the thousands of civilians killed by the U.S. in Iraq. So once, again how could you support a man that is responsible for thousands of deaths, when you claim to not agree with murder? When you claim to follow the words of the Christ, (which include "If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn the other cheek. If someone demands your coat, offer your shirt also.")?



quote:

I don't advocate war, but I do support his decision to take action, which is something that needed to be done.

Then arguably, you do agree with a type of murder, do you not?

quote:

I don't see how it is so stupefying to think that I agree with his morals, and the majority of the actions he has taken while in office.

To me, it is painfully stupefying. You claim to not agree with any type of murder, but justify the war, which is murder. Are you not then agreeing with it?



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 09-09-2004).]

quote:By violent meciles people do you mean Jews? Becasue if I am not mistaken that is who the Old Testiment mainly deals with.

Yes, I do. Where was I unclear on this point ?

quote:I never though that you were a racist until now Digital.

So, now I am a racist for showing that Muslims do NOT reside under a mentality of "peace" ? How so ?

I wouldn't care if they were purple people eaters from Mars. If their 'Code of Ethics' dictated that every other species besides them was to be annihilated, I would have to say the same thing.

It is not race specific, it is religion specific.

quote:Maybe the New Testiment does not preach violence but that does not mean that Christians can not be violent people. By the same logic just because the Qu'ran preaches violence does not mean that muslims can not be peaceful people.

Maybe ? It doesn't.

Christians that are violent are in direct violation of Scripture.

Muslims that are peaceful are also in direct violation of THEIR scriptures.

Your point is moot, though well taken.

quote:How many Muslims do you actuly know Digital? Would you say "You are inherently violent and blood thirsty." to their face?

And here is where "knowing me" would help you understand my perception on things.

I am no more popular in real life, than I am virtually (here on Totse). Why ? I tell the truth. Always.

And no one likes the truth, which is why everyone lies through their teeth, daily.

EXAMPLE:

"Do I look fat ?"

"Why NO, honey !" (husband wants to get laid, so he lies)

It seems harmless, but what happens when some 8 year old who has not yet learned couth or restraint asks her if she has a baby in her tummy ? Uh oh, hubby is in trouble, and the wife is crushed. Not only has her husband lied to her, but now she knows she REALLY DOES LOOK FAT !

Kids don't lie about things like that. They haven't been trained to.

I don't like being lied to, so I don't do it to other people.

I have had this conversation with two other Muslims in the past, and one actually converted their lives to Christianity, after seeing the flaws of their belief system. That is no small thing...I have not met more vigilant, loyal, steadfast practicers of a religion in my life. (but then, I haven't spent any time with the Omish, so I could be wrong *lol*)

This particular person was then expeditiously ostracized from his family, and friends.

And he praises God for it. (hard as it has been on him)

I have been friends with some Muslims in the past, though I don't know where they are, currently.

So, nice try...I'm not judgemental. I am honest. If that makes me a racist, and a liar, THEN SO BE IT ! (though I don't see how)

quote:You know better that anyone else that non athiests are rare on this forum. How many Muslims do you think even saw this.

I don't know, and don't really care.

The purpose of this thread was not to tell them that they were wrong.

I had two reasons: 1. WE ARE BEING LIED TO BY THE MEDIA. Islam is NOT a nation of peace. Keep your guard up, don't fall victim to APATHY !! 2. I said I would provide the verses supporting my opinion that Islam is not a nation of peace. And I did.

quote:And you don't think that could work for Muslims too?

I am not sure what you are referring to here. Sorry...it's been a long day. Having a hard time following you.

quote:Originally posted by Aphelion Corona:

1. By denying the OT is still relevant and valid today you deny the foundations of your faith. What is the NT without the OT?

2. That didn't stop you killing non-believers did it?

Read Michener's The Source. Christianity is about personal relationship with God, Judaism is about how a society can have a relationship with God.

Stop preaching idealism and let's get pragmatic here.

Stop thinking right now and actually listen to your own NT that you love so much.

It teaches TOLERANCE to your Muslim brothers. So why do you go against the teaching of your Messiah? Is your faith so weak? Was his way not good enough for you? Was the simple sentance "Love your neighbour" not good enough for you?

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" - Is your heart so pure? Is christianity white as snow?

Why were Jews burned at the stake? Was it because Jesus told you not to shed blood, and burning was a clever way round it?

You disgust me when you only see half an issue.

Just accept that we all have blood on our hands. You as well as me. My brother as well as your brother.

I don't think I can rant enough about this.

DS: Tell me why you ignore the teachings of your Messiah and instead preach something that can only spread hate?

1. I didn't say it wasn't relevant or valid. I said we are not to be following the LAW OF MOSES. Please try and comprehend what I have said. It will make this debate much smoother. (that was not a blow, I am begging you)

2. I never killed a non-believer, and wouldn't advocate it. Nice assumption, there.

I am fully aware of what being a Christian means. I live it every day.

How have I been idealistic by stating the TRUTH ?

I am very intimate with the NT. I don't see how this hasn't been obvious in my MULTITUDES of posts on Totse.

I am also not advocating INTOLERANCE. Why do you keep missing the point of my thread ? THEY ARE A PEOPLE OF WAR, not peace. I think it is fallacy to sit around numbly, believing this lie. It's going to get us all killed.

To take a quote from a GREAT movie: "They made the weather, then stand in the rain and say, "Shit ! It's rainin' !" " - Cold Mountain

If you believe they are a nation of peace, then please...feel free to head on over to Iraq, and paste a sign on your chest that says, "I'm a Christian !" See how long you last.

Jesus taught love, patience, tolerance, and did I mention "love" ?

If you brought a Muslim in front of me, armed with an AK47, I would still proclaim the gospel of Jesus, bullet in my chest be damned. Why ? Because everyone ought to be in Heaven. I don't see how this is being intolerant.

My faith is NOT weak...if it were, I would pretend that I agree with everyone here, and not make any waves. I would not subject myself to endless ridicule, denial, and verbal persecution here, day after day.

I am absolutely not above the law. I never claimed to be. You seem to be casting plenty of stones...

The difference between your perception, and the reality is that I would save a Muslim as quickly as I would a Latter Day Saint. Doesn't matter to me...but the issue here is NOT my intolerance for them (which has been totally fabricated via your misconceptions about my posts). It is the RELIGION I abhor, not it's followers. I feel for them, and hope that they are delivered from their confusion.

As for burning Jews, I don't have the faintest idea what you are talking about. You are ranting, and I think you ought to try and be a bit more logical.

I have no blood on my hands. I'm sorry that you do. Repent.

I have ignored nothing. You are being used as a tool, even though you think you are doing good.

YOU HAVE MISSED THE POINT ENTIRELY, and you are DANGEROUSLY WRONG ABOUT ME.

Sorry to break it to ya...(breathe, ok ?)

quote:Originally posted by AngryFemme:

I don't see her as a Racist. I really don't. We can only construct someone's personality on here based on the context of their posts, and having said that - Digital strikes me as the type of human being who would aid her fellow human (in peacetime or war), whether they be Muslim or Christian, with few prejudices.

I say "few" instead of "no" because she is obviously a victim of all the propaganda being spout on television/newspaper/radio about the "evildoers" of Islam and the "violence" of the Koran. Our own president endorses it, and as a result, there has been alot of misconstrued labeling going on since 9/11. Christianity has it's own evildoers and the Bible has just as much violence of the Koran.

It would be interesting (albeit impossible) to roll this thread back about 3-4 years and then grill her on her opinions of the Islamic Faith. I am quite sure it would be an entirely different viewpoint altogether.

My point being:

I would like to believe she is not a racist. Just caught up in the dangerous hype that is generating throughout America, building all this anti-Islamic fervor.

Voltaire said it best:

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.



Well, thank you. You're right, I am not a racist. Among the many things I have been called (i.e. "Pretentious Whore" *looks up at Rust*), RACIST is not one of them.

I would aid my fellow man, no matter what his station. I was serving in the Navy when 9/11 occured, and myself and my shipmates took a leave of absence, drove to New York, and donated as much as we could afford to the families of those who had lost their loved ones, as well as the Firefighters who were risking their lives.

We wanted to go IN and help, but we weren't even allowed into the state. It wouldn't have mattered to me if I was helping an African American, a Jew, or an Arab...all the same to me.

I am a victim of no such thing...I actually own a television, but do not have local, or cable channels. We rent movies, and that's about it. Why ? Because the media almost ALWAYS distorts the truth. AMERICANS always look good, no matter what. France is ALWAYS the enemy (though I tend to agree)...but SURELY they have done something good for American politics ? Anyway, I don't read the papers, and I don't watch the news. It's all bad. (why depress myself on purpose ?)

I read the Qu'ran (not all of it), and the message is clear. Live for self, and kill for Allah. Pleasant.

I agree that there have been atrocities committed in the name of God, HOWEVER the point that has been continually missed is that God does not advocate murder anymore. I can't say that I can sufficiently explain the change in His leadership tactics, but I'm not Him. I will try to find something relevant to explain this later.

I have never thought of Islam as peaceful. Has nothing to do with the events of Sept. 11th.

As a matter of fact, I find it even more abhorrant that these extremist's found it acceptable to murder THEIR OWN PEOPLE, who most likely shared their Muslim beliefs, in order to prove their point !

How is this honorable ? Respectable ? PEACEFUL ?!

God, Rust...you never listen ! You are just incorrigable.

I'll give you this: you're a master manipulator. I hope no one else is falling for this blatant twisting of intentions.

I don't advocate war. I advocate the decision to do something about terrorism, and the atrocities committed under Saddam's regime.

I don't know what other EFFECTIVE alternative there could have been taken...but that is why I am not President. If any other method could have been used, such as DIPLOMACY, then I would have supported it. But we tried that, didn't we ? Saddam was a brat...what would YOU have suggested we do ?

I have been in a war...Kosovo. I was in Sicily during that time, and I tell you, WAR IS HORRIBLE. Don't tell me what I think, or what I believe. I have been very clear.

Does it escape your attention that Bush is not the end all, be all of our country's decisions ?

There is an ENTIRE Congress that must approve such things as war...don't forget that.

If you are screaming about Bush's inadequacies as a President, simpy because he took our country to war, then you need to uproot the entire government we reside under, because if he could take us to war, then he had enough support to do it.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

God, Rust...you never listen ! You are just incorrigable.

I'll give you this: you're a master manipulator. I hope no one else is falling for this blatant twisting of intentions.

Somehow, I know you wont show were I have twisted anything.

quote:

I don't advocate war. I advocate the decision to do something about terrorism, and the atrocities committed under Saddam's regime.

You said you supported his decision to go to war. That is in fact, "advocating" war:

Advocate: To speak, plead, or argue in favor of. (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=advocate)

Support: To argue in favor of; advocate: "supported lower taxes". (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=support)

quote:

I don't know what other EFFECTIVE alternative there could have been taken...but that is why I am not President. If any other method could have been used, such as DIPLOMACY, then I would have supported it. But we tried that, didn't we ? Saddam was a brat...what would YOU have suggested we do ?

What would I suggest? How about:

1. Not prop up Saddam in the first place.

2. Not support him during the Iran-Iraq war, where coincidentally, was the period where Saddam killed more innocent civilians.

3. Not help him achieve Chemical weapons, which he then used on innocent civilians.

quote:

I have been in a war...Kosovo. I was in Sicily during that time, and I tell you, WAR IS HORRIBLE. Don't tell me what I think, or what I believe. I have been very clear.

Straw man. I never claimed to know what you believed, hence, the multiple questions.

quote:

Does it escape your attention that Bush is not the end all, be all of our country's decisions ?

Why would that escape me? Moreover, how is that relevant? The point I'm arguing is the discrepancies in your line of thought.

quote:

There is an ENTIRE Congress that must approve such things as war...don't forget that.

If you are screaming about Bush's inadequacies as a President, simply because he took our country to war, then you need to uproot the entire government we reside under, because if he could take us to war, then he had enough support to do it.

That's EXACTLY what I want to do.

---

It appears to me that you choose to make a verbose post, without quoting any issue, to ignore questions or arguments posted against you. You've done this quite a few times.

You evade my questions. Please answer them:

If you supported the decision to go to war, because Saddam 'brought it upon himself', does it the not follow that you would support capital punishment?

Moreover, how do you justify supporting a war, any war, and at the same time, claim to be a Christian, or a follower of the Christ?

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 09-09-2004).]

Yes well done Digital. You assumed that when I was referring to the MASS SLAUGHTER OF NON-BELIEVERS known as the inquisition, I meant you personally killed people, when in fact I was evidently referring to the Christian faith.

Look, the fact that "No one gets to the Father except through me" isn't very tolerant and I don't think that you have any grounds to attack Islam.

If, however, you accept full responsibility and publicly admit here that your religion persecuted everyone else for nigh-on 2000 years then I will allow you to question the motives of Islam.

If you deny that regardless of what the NT says, Christians fucked stuff up for the last 2000 years in terms of respecting non-christians, then I don't think you're mature enough to see your own faults as well as your opponents and therefore debate properly.

As an afterthought: Numbers 23:19. I'd like to hear a Christian perspective.

So, I'm not allowed to question things without your permission, but I am supposed to give my point of view on the Bible ?

Make up your mind.

You call ME intolerant, but you are standing for your beliefs as steadfastly as I am mine.

I have in NO way been immature, and I was well aware of the fact that you were referring to Christianity's members as a whole, not just me. Apparently facetiousness is lost on you.

*wonders if this is ever going to get back on topic*

Basically, Islam calls for peaceful interactions with all peoples of all the countries. Islam, as we explained earlier, is a Divine religion of peace, submission and mercy. Though Allah, the Almighty commands to wage war at times as a final remedy. He limited the application of such Command in the following five situations:

Defense against life, property, wealth of the nation and national borders. This is based on the verse revealed in the Glorious Quran, Sura al-Baqarah [The Cow] 2:190, “ Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors” (This is called Jihad according to Islamic terminology. The essential difference between war and Jihad is the latter's main objective is to deliver and spread the Divine Word of Allah, the Almighty, and spread the divine religion of Islam and not for any materialistic and worldly gains. As for war, in broad and general terms, it is waged for personal, governmental and expansionist purposes, or for colonization purposes, or for exploitation purposes, or even to brag about the force and power of one country, government, or nation against another. Islam does not condone any of the above objectives and purposes).



Redress the oppression of persons oppressed or assisting the defenseless. This makes war a humanitarian need. Allah, the Almighty, states in the Glorious Quran, Sura Nisa [The Women] 4:75, “ And why should ye not fight in the cause of Allah and of those who, being weak, are ill-treated (and oppressed)? Men, women, and children, whose cry is: Our Lord! Rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from thee one who will protect; and raise for us from thee one who will help!”. This is based on the verse revealed in the Glorious Quran, Sura Anfal [War Booties] 8:72, “ Those who believed, and adopted exile, and fought for the Faith, with their property and their persons, in the cause of Allah, as well as those who gave (them) asylum and aid, these are (all) friends and protectors, one of another. As to those who believed but came not into exile; ye owe no duty of protection to them until they come into exile; but if they seek your aid in religion, it is your duty to help them, except against a people with whom ye have a treaty of mutual alliance. And (remember) Allah seeth all that ye do”.



Breach of covenants, pacts and treaties. This is based on the verse revealed in the Glorious Quran, Sura Al-Tawbeh [The Repentance] 9:12-13, “ But if they violate their oaths after their covenant, and taunt you for your Faith, fight ye the chiefs of Unfaith: for their oaths are nothing to them: that thus they may be restrained. Will ye not fight people who violated their oaths, plotted to expel the Messenger, and took the aggressive by being the first (to assault) you? Do ye fear them? Nay, it is Allah Whom ye should more justly fear, if ye believe!”.



Disciplinary action against obstinate and unjust aggressors. Allah, the Almighty, states in the Glorious Quran, Sura Hujurat [The Chambers] 49:9, “ If two parties among the Believers fall into a quarrel, make ye peace between them: but if one of them transgresses beyond bounds against the other, then fight ye (all) against the one that transgresses until it complies with the Command of Allah; but if it complies, then make peace between them with justice, and be fair: for Allah loves those who are fair (and just)”.



Defending against Islam as a religion and its propagation. Islam is an universal faith and religion. Islam is not for a specific people only. All peoples must learn about Islam and comply with its commandments. Following Islam, or converting to it, however, is not an objective Muslims seek. Final destiny is only in the Hands of Allah. All people must learn about the goodness, justice, brotherhood, love, equality and peace for all that Islam teaches. Allah, the Almighty, states in the Glorious Quran, Sura Anfal [War Booties] 8:39, “ And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevails justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere; but if they cease, verily Allah doth see all that they do”.

If the enemies of Islam stop the war and accept peace, Muslims are obliged to stop the war as well, and it becomes unlawful for them to pursue war any more. Allah, the Almighty, states in the Glorious Quran, Sura Nisa [The Women] 4:90, “ Except those who join a group between whom and you there is a treaty (Of peace), or those who approach you with hearts restraining them from fighting you as well as fighting their own people. If Allah had pleased, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you: therefore if they withdraw from you but fight you not, and (instead) send you (guarantees of) peace, then Allah hath opened no way for you (to war against them)”.

As for other types of wars, such as pursued for colonization, expansionism and vengeance resulting in destruction and great losses are banned and declared unlawful in Islam. Wars waged to demonstrate force are also prohibited in Islam. War, in Islam, is a means to spread the Word of Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala). Allah, the Almighty, states in the Glorious Quran, Sura Anfal [The War booties], 8:47, “ And be not like those who started from their homes insolently and to be seen of men, and to hinder (men) from the path of Allah: for Allah compasseth round about all that they do”.

Additionally, Allah's Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) is reported to have declared, which reads as follows:“ He, who fights in order to make the Word of Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) the most supreme, is the one who is fighting for the cause of Allah” (This Hadith is reported by both, Bukhari & Muslim).

Although Islam permits fighting for necessary reasons, it directs the fighters to observe certain manners and ethics. Islam does not permit fighters to kill indiscriminately. It commands to kill those who fight against them, or assist other fighters in a battlefield. As for the elderly people, minors, women, sick, wounded, or even people who seclude themselves in worship, all such categories of people are not to be killed, or even bothered, by Muslim fighters. A wounded individual, in a battle field, fighting against Muslims, is banned to be killed as well. Islam even bans mutilation of the bodies and cadavers of killed enemies. Furthermore, Islam bans the killing of the enemies' animals, the destruction of the homes and dwellings of the enemies. Additionally, Islam bans to pollute the potable water of the enemies and their wells. Islam also does not permit Muslim fighters to chase the fleeing enemies' fighters. Islam considers all the aforementioned items as acts leading to the disruption of the society. Allah, the Almighty, states in the Glorious Quran, Sura al-Qasas [The Stories] 28:77, “ But seek, with the (wealth) which Allah has bestowed on thee, the Home of the Hereafter, nor forget thy portion in this World: but do thou good, as Allah has been good to thee, and seek not (occasions for) mischief in the land: for Allah loves not those who do mischief”.

Furthermore, Allah's Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) is reported to have said, which reads as follows:“ Begin your fight with the Name of Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) against those who declare the state of apostasy in Allah. Fight [against the enemies], but do not breach your contracts or covenants. Do not mutilate the bodies of the fighters killed. Do not kill a newly born baby” (This Hadith is reported by Muslim).

Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him), the first Muslim Caliph, gave the following advice to the dispatched Muslim army, which was heading to a battle against the enemies of Islam, 'Wait before you leave. I would like to give you the following ten advices:

Do not betray [your enemies].

Do not steal from the war booties before its proper and lawful distribution.

Do not breach your pledges and covenants with your enemies.

Do not mutilate the bodies of the killed fighters.

Do not kill a little, minor child, a woman, or an elderly man.

Do not cut or burn a palm tree [or any other tree for any reason].

Do not cut a fruit bearing tree.

Do not slaughter a sheep, a cow or a camel, except for your food.

You may come across people who seclude themselves for the worship of God. Leave them alone. Do not bother them or cause any disruption to their lives. (Tabari, Vol.3, p.226).

Similarly, Muslims must declare war prior to the beginning of the fight. This is because Muslims are neither betrayers, nor dishonest fighters. Islam imposes some of the best of war ethics and morals onto the Muslim fighters. Islam requires full adherence to justice and no oppression to the fighting enemies. Omar bin ABudulAziz (may Allah be pleased with him), one of the Muslim Caliphs, was approached by a delegation of fighters of the city of Samarqand. They complained about the Muslim leader; Qutaibah, who took them by chance. The Caliph sent a letter to the governor of Samarqand commanding him to assign a judge to investigate this matter, and if the judge sentenced that Muslims should get out of the city and leave it, they must comply with. The governor of Samarqand assigned a judge named Jomai' bin Hader al-Baji, who passed his verdict that Muslims should leave the city, which they opened and conquered. The Muslim army commander must first declare war properly against the people of Samarqand, prior to invading it. The Muslim army leader must warn the people of Samarqand prior to launch an attack. This would give them a chance to prepare themselves for the fight. This is the Islamic ethical approach towards fighting. The attacked must not be taken by a sudden attack. The people of Samarqand, however, hated to restart another war and accepted the Islamic rules' ("Fotuhul-Buldan" [Countries Conquest], Balathuri, p.428).

As for captives and prisoners of war, Islam prohibits torturing, humiliating, terrorizing, intimidating, mutilation of their bodies or starving them to death. Allah, the Almighty, states in the Glorious Quran, Sura Insan [The Human Being], 76:8-9, “ And they feed, for the love of Allah, the indigent, the orphan, and the captive, (Saying), We feed you for the sake of Allah alone: no reward do we desire from you, nor thanks”.

The Islamic state has the full freedom to either release the prisoners of war without any ransom, or to set ransom, or else release them in exchange for the release of Muslim prisoners of war. This is based on the verse revealed in the Glorious Quran, Sura Mohammed 47:4, “ Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; at length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: until the war lays down its burdens. Thus (are ye commanded): but if it had been Allah's Will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the way of Allah, He will never let their deeds be lost”.

As for the defeated non-Muslims residents of the conquered countries, i.e. Christians and Jews, they should be treated with respect. Their women must not be mingled with. Their wealth and properties must be preserved and honored. Their integrity, dignity and honor must be maintained. They must not be humiliated by any way or means. Their homes and dwellings must remain unharmed. They should be dealt with fairly and justly. They should be offered equal to the treatment to the Muslims. Their Divine faith must be preserved, honored and dignified, so long as they respect and obey the Islamic tenants and Divine religion. This is based on the verse revealed in the Glorious Quran, Sura al-Haj [The Pilgrimage] 22:41, “ (They are) those who, if We establish them in the land, establish regular prayer and give regular charity, enjoin the right and forbid wrong: with Allah rests the end (and decision) of (all) affairs”.

The best proof of evidence reflecting this situation with the example set by Omar bin al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him), the second Muslim Caliph, to the inhabitants of Jerusalem upon entering it as a conqueror. He has written to them as follows, 'In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, Most Merciful. The following is the pledge of allegiance given by Omar bin al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him), the Chief of the Believers to the dwellers of Jerusalem. Their lives, wealth, properties, churches and crosses are secured. None of them should be forced to leave their faith. None of them is to be hurt'.

Surely, there is nothing comparable recorded in the history of mankind. We believe that this is the best form of nobility, justice and tolerance from the conqueror's side towards the vanquished. Others have stripped the defeated people from all rights, including the right to a decent life. Omar bin al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him), could have easily dictated all his terms and conditions against the defeated Christians and Jews at the time. But he did not. In essence, this is the real justice, tolerance, and beauty of Islam; the Divine religion of peace, justice and tolerance. The laws of Allah, the Almighty, must apply to all people without any exception.

Non-Muslims living under the Islamic rule must pay a head tax called Jizyah; a minimal tax imposed on the non-Muslim residents in an Islamic country, or in a country conquered by Muslims. They, however, are the individuals who, willingly, chose to maintain their faith. This tax is of three types as follows:

Head tax of the rich and the affluent people. This is estimated, then, as forty-eight Dirhams of silver, taken annually, from each individual.

Head tax of the middle-class individuals such as merchants, businessmen, and farmers. This is estimated, then, as twenty four Dirhams of silver, taken from each individual, annually.

Head tax taken from the laborers and craftsmen who are in business. This is estimated, then, as twelve Dirhams of silver, taken from each individual, annually.

Head tax is imposed for the protection of the non-Muslims, living under Islamic governed state. The honor, integrity, wealth and life of such persons would be protected by the Islamic government against all possible encroachments. Such protection includes all rights which are enjoyed by the Muslims.

Khalid bin al-Waleed (may Allah be pleased with him), one of the most renowned Muslim war generals, in one of his pledges of allegiance to the non-Muslims living in the Islamic state says, ' I have given you my pledge of allegiance to accept your head tax and in return, protect you against all possible odds [that we generally protect ourselves against]. If we succeed in offering you the protection we would take the head tax. If not, then you would not pay it until we can provide you such protection ' (Balathuri's history).

L. Veccia Vaglieri, in her book titled Defending Islam, says: ' Conquered people by Islamic governments were given full freedom to maintain and preserve their faith and traditions provided that individuals who elect this option and do not accept Islam as a way of life, would pay a fair head tax to the Islamic government. Head tax was less than what Muslims pay to their government. Non Muslims, residing under Islamic ruled state, paid such tax in exchange for the general blanket protection offered by the Islamic government extended for its' own people ' (L. Veccia Vaglieri, Defending Islam, p.).

Another evidence of the justice and fairness of the Islamic system is the following: There are certain classes of people who were exempted from the payment of the head tax. They were: the poor and needy, the minor, the women, the monks, priests, or rabies, the permanently disabled individuals and the blinds. In fact, Islam imposed the protection right unto the Islamic government and proper welfare system to be provided for their needs from the Islamic Treasury. In Khalid bin al-Waleed t, pledge of allegiance to the non-Muslims of al-Heerah, in Iraq, the following was written, 'Any non-Muslim living under the protection of the Islamic state grows old and becomes unable to work, or becomes a terminal patient, or becomes broke and bankrupt in such a manner that he would be entitled for charity by his own people's faith, would no longer be required to pay the head tax. Such individual would be provided for his essential needs from the Islamic Treasury, along with his family' (Abu Yousef, in his book Al-Kharaj, p. 144).

Omar bin al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him), was sitting once and an old Jew passed by asking people to give him a charity. Omar (may Allah be pleased with him) inquired about the welfare of such individual. He was informed that the man was living as a non-Muslim under the rule of the Islamic state and protection, paying head tax. Omar (may Allah be pleased with him) declared, 'We have not been fair to you! We have imposed head tax on you and charged you such tax when you were young and able, and now we are not providing you with the proper social care and welfare.' As a result, Omar (may Allah be pleased with him) took the man to his own home, fed him and offered him proper clothing. Omar (may Allah be pleased with him) further, commanded the Muslim Treasurer, 'Look into the case of this man, and those of similar situation, and give them a sufficient income form the Islamic Treasury, along with their families. Allah, the Almighty, stated in the Glorious Quran Sura Tawbah [The repentance] 9:60, “ Alms are for the poor and the needy, and those employed to administer the (funds); for those whose hearts have been (recently) reconciled (to the truth); for those in bondage and in debt; in the cause of Allah; and for the wayfarer: (thus is it) ordained by Allah, and Allah is full of knowledge and wisdom”. The poor are the Muslims. The needy are the People of the Book' (Abu Yousef, in his book Al-Kharaj, p.126).

Lise Lictenstadter; a German scholar, in her book titled, Islam and the Modern Age, states, 'The option given to the people of Persia and Rome or the West, during the time of the spread of Islam, was not to be killed by the sword, or accept Islam. In fact, the option was either to accept Islam as a way of life, or else to pay the head tax [in exchange for the protection]. This is a praiseworthy plan which was applied later on in England during the rein of Queen Elizabeth' (Islam and Modern Age, p. 67. See also, Ahmad Shalabi, Comperative Religious Studies, Vol 3, p.174).

In regards to the treatment of the non-Muslims living under the rule of the Islamic state, they are fully entitled for full protection and respect for all rights. Allah, the Almighty, states in the Glorious Quran, Sura Momtahinah [The Tried ne] 60:8, “ Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for Allah loveth those who are just”.

Allah's Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) is reported to have said, which reads as follows:“ I would be defending, on the Day of Judgment, any oppressed non-Muslim who was given a pledge of security to be properly protected under the rule of the Islamic State, but was not given the proper full protection, or else he was charged over his abilities [to do or pay], or forced [against his will and acceptance] to pay any unnecessary amount [of money]” (This Hadith is reported by Abu Dawood).

So if Christians who don't follow the teachings of Christ "correctly" aren't Christians, then terrorists aren't Muslims. There are other quote from the Koran that completely go against what you quoted. So therefore there are no Muslims. And there are no Christians, as Old Testament GOD was ALL about the mass genocide of the non-believers. And I won't even get into how that alone shows christianity as bullshit.

Islamic terrorism is so much more politically motivated than religious that it's barely even worth mentioning. It's talkin about a political war in religious terms, i.e. Jihad, when it's actually a covert war against the west for mainly political reasons.

And DS, where in the Bible is there a qualifier on "thou shalt not kill"? I don't remember any. By your own admission, you're not a Christian. Jesus would have taken whatever Sadaam dished out, then turned the other cheek. By supporting Bush starting an war, you're going against the teachings of your faith. Nowhere in the Bible does it say "don't kill, unless someone says you have to, with absolutely no proof to back it up". "Thou shalt not kill" is an absolute, and Jesus was the ultimate pascifist.

We did not exhaust diplomatic measures with sadaam. Nowhere close. And sadaam had nothing to do with 9/11, or any proven terrorist attack against the US. He has never attacked the US, only people who were supplying us with more oil than him. Thats why he's "the enemy". Yes, congress was involved in the decision to go to war, to the extent that they gave bush the trust that he was doing the right thing. And look what he did with that trust.

Though I suppose, if you no longer follow the law of moses, then the commandments no longer apply. So all you have to go on is Jesus' status as the ultimate hippy pascifist. How can you honestly support a Leader your messiah would be condemning were he here today? Just because Bush is against abortion and gay rights? Jesus would tell him to forgive those sinners, for they know not what they do.

Also, if you don't read newspapers, and don't watch the news, and you've never read the Koran yourself, how can you claim to be in any kind of a knowledgeable state reguarding modern Islam?



Seriously, if you can't see how decidedly anti-christian you're being (thou shalt not kill, let him who hath no sin, love thy neighbor, refusing to awknowledge that anything wrong has ever been done in the name of christianity), then I have to agree that you're far to imature to contine this discussion.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

*wonders if this is ever going to get back on topic*

How has it gotten off topic? (I wonder)

Well, this has become more about what I believe, and less about:

"Please have a look, and tell me that you think ALL of these verses were taken out of context; that only the muslim extremists actually follow through with this stuff, and finally, that Islam is a nation of peace."

No one has adequately proven that these texts have been taken out of context ? Why not ? Probably because they haven't been read.

I also haven't seen anyone refute that only Muslim "extremists" commit murder. ( I am sure this can be proven, but no one has stepped up to the plate)

And where is the data proving that Islam is a nation of peace ?

Everyone is defending them, but not giving any resources for why. Everyone is attacking me for stating the truth, and completely ignoring the context of the original post.

This has become "How Christians are murderers", and not about the posted topic.

If you all want to talk about Christians, create a thread for it. (You do it all the time)

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Well, this has become more about what I believe, and less about:

"Please have a look, and tell me that you think ALL of these verses were taken out of context; that only the muslim extremists actually follow through with this stuff, and finally, that Islam is a nation of peace."

No one has adequately proven that these texts have been taken out of context ? Why not ? Probably because they haven't been read.

I also haven't seen anyone refute that only Muslim "extremists" commit murder. ( I am sure this can be proven, but no one has stepped up to the plate)

And where is the data proving that Islam is a nation of peace ?

Everyone is defending them, but not giving any resources for why. Everyone is attacking me for stating the truth, and completely ignoring the context of the original post.

This has become "How Christians are murderers", and not about the posted topic.

If you all want to talk about Christians, create a thread for it. (You do it all the time)

Obviously you didn't read Loc Dogs post. I suggest you go do so. Oh, and get a position to attack Islam from, because this has been the pot calling the kettle so far.

I was very impressed with Locc Dog's post. That reminds me very much of the Geneva Convention. Where that did that passage come from?

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:



And where is the data proving that Islam is a nation of peace ?

Everyone is defending them, but not giving any resources for why.

http://www.arches.uga.edu/~godlas/home.html

More specifically:

http://www.uga.edu/islam/islamwest.html

P.S. I'm still waiting for a reply. Do you want me to create another topic, so as to not interfere with this one?

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 09-10-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:



I also haven't seen anyone refute that only Muslim "extremists" commit murder. ( I am sure this can be proven, but no one has stepped up to the plate)

And where is the data proving that Islam is a nation of peace ?



http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

Muslims make up 22% of the world's population. If 1.3 billion people were bent on the destruction of the other five and a half billion or so don't you think we would notice?

quote:Originally posted by MasterPython:

http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

Muslims make up 22% of the world's population. If 1.3 billion people were bent on the destruction of the other five and a half billion or so don't you think we would notice?

Also, it is interesting to notice that only 18% of the world-wide Muslim population are ethnic-Arabs.

This week's Time magazine (Sept. 13, 2004 issue) has a special report called "The Struggle Within Islam", which is very relavent to the issue at hand here.

A few quotes from this article:

"In Southeast Asian countries with sizable Muslim populations, radical Islam does not command a wide following. In both Indonesia and Malaysia, Islamic fundamentalist parties have lost political support in recent elections."

So it is important to realize radical Islam might not be as wide-spread throughout the Islamic world as we were told.

Also in this issue there is a sub-article titled "Does the Koran Condone Killing?" This article seems central to the issue being talked about here, so I will reproduce it in its entirety.

quote:



Does the Koran Condone Killing?





A look at how extremists justify their acts



By DAVID VAN BIEMA









Posted Sunday, September 5, 2004

On the very videotape with which he advertised his beheading of American communications-tower repairman Nick Berg in May, Abu Mousab al-Zarqawi, the most wanted al-Qaeda terrorist in Iraq, appended a theological message. Berg's murder, the masked man intoned, was sanctioned by Islam's holiest texts. "Has the time not come for you to lift the sword, which the master of the Messengers [Muhammad] was sent with?" al-Zarqawi asked. "The Prophet ... has ordered to cut off the heads of some of the prisoners of Badr ... He is our example."

Al-Zarqawi's letter was a clear sign of the extent to which religious zealotry has come to drive, or at least to rationalize, the actions of the insurgents in Iraq. Since April, the rebels have executed 23 hostages there. Eight of the victims have been decapitated, including at least one of the 12 Nepalese laborers whose slain bodies were shown on a website last week. Like al-Zarqawi, the killers have often claimed religious sanction. As reported in the New York Times, a videotape of the execution in Fallujah last month of Muhammad Fawazi, an Egyptian believed by his killers to have been aiding the Americans, shows an insurgent standing over Fawazi, quoting verses from the Koran. "He who will abide by the Koran will prosper, he who offends against it will get the sword," the man says, just before two others force Fawazi to the ground and sever his head.

President Bush consistently describes the terrorists and insurgents he battles as deviant hijackers of Islam, while they have just as avidly tried to prove they are upholding the teachings of the faith's holy texts. In fact, the insurgency has found considerable support among Islamic religious authorities, especially those who see the U.S. presence in Iraq as occupation rather than liberation. They cite Koranic verses that exhort Muslims to resist, such as, "Slay them ... and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out."

But does Islam also excuse al-Zarqawi-style atrocity? Well, one verse in the Koran condones beheading, but in the heat of battle. Some accounts of the Prophet Muhammad's life, called hadiths, record the execution—by what method is debated—of a tribe that had lived among Muslims and then betrayed them. Al-Zarqawi's specific bid to sacralize Berg's slaughter rests on an allusion to Muhammad's great victory on the battlefield of Badr.

According to some hadiths, Muhammad was left wondering what to do with the resulting prisoners. This, the texts claimed, was the context for God's Koranic statement "As to prisoners of war, we have not sent you as an oppressor of the land." One 10th century gloss further asserted that the Prophet took God's word to mean he should kill the captives so as not to continue to be a prisoner holder, and that is probably the proof text al-Zarqawi had in mind.

But according to Khaled Abou El Fadl, a professor of Western and Islamic law at UCLA, that reading was discounted long ago. He says the vast majority of classical jurists subscribed to a more intuitively obvious version, whereby God's words prompted Muhammad to free his captives. They saw the "off with their heads" reading as insupportable. "Al-Zarqawi," says El Fadl, "searches for the trash that everyone threw out centuries ago and declares the trash to be Islam."

Indeed, most Islamic experts condemn the hostage murders for the same reason that—anti-American sentiment aside—they condemned the Sept. 11 attacks: the Prophet's prohibition on killing noncombatants, or, as he put it, "a woman or a child, or a hermit, a farmer plowing his field, [or] a person who is not carrying a weapon against you." Says Ingrid Mattson, vice president of the Islamic Society of North America: "Other than from the spokesmen for these different terrorist groups, everything I've heard is a complete rejection" of the beheadings. Scholars at Cairo's venerable al-Azhar seminary condemned Berg's fate. Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the learned star of an al-Jazeera ask-the-cleric show, has rationalized Palestinian suicide bombings, but said— albeit with some equivocation—that Berg's execution was not justified. Most scholars agree that the recent executions also sin against bans on mutilation of enemy bodies and mistreatment of prisoners.

Whether such injunctions are apt to sway militants in Iraq and elsewhere is a different issue. "I've spent my life studying the sources of Islamic law," says El Fadl. "But the extent to which these people enter into questions of Islamic principles is questionable." Since religious study was discouraged for decades under Saddam Hussein, many of the younger insurgents are educating themselves as they go along.

If they accept as teachers theorists of terrorism like al-Zarqawi, the Koran may continue to be used to sanction atrocities no one could ever have imagined.

Sorry guys...will get back to you ALL. *sighs* I've got my work cut out for me.

It is tiring being the minority all the time.

Anyway, busy weekend ! Try to get back soon.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Sorry guys...will get back to you ALL. *sighs* I've got my work cut out for me.

It is tiring being the minority all the time.

Anyway, busy weekend ! Try to get back soon.

I'll be waiting, I enjoy debating with you.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Sorry guys...will get back to you ALL. *sighs* I've got my work cut out for me.

It is tiring being the minority all the time.

Anyway, busy weekend ! Try to get back soon.

Bill Clinton voice: " I feel your pain". No I don't, but Loc Dogg does. It is tough to go against the current though.

quote:Originally posted by Loc Dogg:

I'll be waiting, I enjoy debating with you.

I had actually started to reply to you, but it was at work, towards the end of the day, so I saved what I had written to a Word document.

I will finish it tomorrow.

I enjoy it, too. You are one of the few that can do it without making it personal, and though you plagerized someone else's paper, it is decent, and civilized.

Thanks for the post...my answer comes tomorrow !

Ok, I have tried to post my response several times, but it's not working for me.

So, I am going to attempt to break this thing up into separate posts, and see if I have any luck.



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



As a Christian, murdering someone else is not "following the teachings of Christ incorrectly", it is directly rebelling against the will of God.

"...then terrorists aren't Muslims."

The quotes I posted are clear. Please post these "supposed" verses from the Qu'ran that go against what I have posted, and list the context of them, so as not to be misunderstood.

(I love the claims, without anything to back them up !)

"So therefore there are no Muslims."

You haven't proven your little theory, so this point is moot.

"And there are no Christians, as Old Testament GOD was ALL about the mass genocide of the non-believers."

Oh, really ? Please list some verses that illustrate this. Murders were handed out to believers and unbelievers alike, BY unbelievers, as well as believers.

In the Old Testament, there was no such thing as Christianity, since Christ hadn't been born yet.

Please tell me your interpretation of the Hebrew laws, as well as the Law of Moses, which the people in the Old Testament resided under.

I may not have read the Qu'ran in it's entirety, but I HAVE read the Bible (several times), so please...give us your "learned" viewpoint, with some actual verses, instead of just your obviously uninformed opinion.

If you are under the impression that the Old Testament holds Christian virtues, as the New Testament does, you are sorely mistaken, which only proves your ignorance of the Bible.

When did I specify what motivates the Muslims to commit these heinous acts ?

Doesn't really matter if it is politically motivated, religiously motivated, or otherwise...they cry out in the name of Allah as they behead innocent people. They proclaim the holiness of Muhammed, as they fly planes into buildings. If they are going to prance around, hiding beneath the cloaks of their religion in order to justify their insanity, then they should be held accountable under that pretense.

In another thread, I show how much of the Palestinian Muslim conflict with Israel is predominantly spurred by land. They want it, and Israel isn't about to let them have it. That is an example of how one conflict is DEFINITELY not about politics, but rather their "rights" to the land, as dictated by their forefathers.

(to be continued...)

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 09-14-2004).]

So, you are under the misconception that my posts are strictly adhering to the claim that Muslims are only anti-American ? *LAUGHS* And you expect me to take you seriously...

Here are the conflicts that the Muslims are currently involved in:

AFGHANISTAN (Since Soviet troops withdrew, various Afghan groups have tried to eliminate their rivals.), ALGERIA (Fighting breaks out regularly between warlords and religious groups calling for the establishment of Islamic states outside the Russian Federation.), EYGPT (Fundamentalist Muslim rebels seek to topple the secular Egyptian government.), INDONESIA (The struggle on the Indonesia islands is complicated by leaders of pro- and anti-independence movements, and by religious conflicts. More than 500 churches have been burned down or damaged by Muslims over the past six years.), INDIA/PAKISTAN (Muslim separatists in the Indian section declared a holy war against the mostly-Hindu India and started attacks in 1989, mainly from Pakistan-occupied section of Kashmir, and from Pakistan and Afghanistan.), IRAQ (Differing culture and religious groups within Iraq continues to clash with Shiite Muslims.), ISRAEL (Within its own borders, Israel continues to battle various Muslim organizations that seek independence for a Palestine state, areas made up of the Gaza strip, West.Bank, and part of Jerusalem.), IRAN (After the Iranian Revolution in 1979 toppled the government of the Shah, the Mujahadeen Khalq soon began a bloody guerrilla war against the new Islamic government.), KOSOVO (The Albanian Muslims have since burned down dozens of centuries-old Christian churches.), NIGERIA (There are violent religious clashes in the city of Kaduna in northern Nigeria beginning February 21 2004 and have continued.), SUDAN (The long-running conflict continues between the Arab Muslim northerners of Sudan, (the base of the government), and the African Christians of the south.), PHILIPPINES (Muslim rebel groups seek autonomy/independence from the mostly Christian Philippines.). http://www.homestead.com/prosites-prs/14muslimconflicts.html

I think it is quite evident that the majority of these conflicts is religiously based.

Where did you come to the conclusion that most are politically driven ? Your sources are wrong.

"Jesus would have taken whatever Sadaam dished out, then turned the other cheek."

Yes, but Jesus was perfect, and divinely annointed. I can't say that about too many humans. Can you ? Not a fair comparison. Though we strive to live our lives like Jesus, it is not possible, in all aspects.

I am a Christian, and I don't see what my point of view has to do with that.

I am coming from a completely non-religious standpoint here. What the Muslim extremist's do is wrong. And you apparently don't agree.

Saving the people of Iraq should be a priority. You'd have them suffer at the hands of a ruthless tyrant.

Now, then...I have condoned military force in Iraq. I don't, however, condone the murder of those who are innocent.

Is this such a hard concept to comrehend ?

(to be continued...)

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 09-14-2004).]

It is so easy for you to put labels on me, and assume you know what I am thinking. Though I have been clear and concise on my point of view, you continue to manipulate my words to suit your negative opinion of Christianity.

The original post said: "Please have a look, and tell me that you think ALL of these verses were taken out of context; that only the muslim extremists actually follow through with this stuff, and finally, that Islam is a nation of peace.”

Who here is ACTUALLY going to do that, besides Loc Dogg, who stole this paper from someone else, and offered no opinions of his OWN ?

"By supporting Bush starting an war, you're going against the teachings of your faith."

I never said I supported Bush's war...I said I supported ACTION. Our presence alone may have been enough, but I guarantee that even if our troops sat there in the desert with no weapons at all, the Muslims would have shot them dead anyway. (as evidenced by the many atrocities against Christians cited above.)

I don't think war is the answer to anything...but again, I ask, what could have been done ? PLEASE TELL ME. (there is probably a reason you aren't the president)

""Thou shalt not kill" is an absolute, and Jesus was the ultimate pascifist. "

Yup...you're right. And I never said murdering Muslims was the answer. Good job misinterpretting my posts on PURPOSE ! I guess you succeeded in making me look like a hypocritical Christian ! http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

"In the interview, al-Shamari confirmed he was involved in assisting Ansar al Islam, an al-Qaida affiliate responsible for attacks against Kurdish and Western targets in northern Iraq. Weapons, "mostly mortar rounds," were supplied to the terrorists, the prisoner told Schanzer.

Besides weapons, al-Shamari says, Saddam's secret police, the Mukhabarat, helped the terror group financially "every month or two months."

"On one occasion we gave them 10 million Swiss dinars [$700,000]," al-Shamari said.

The prisoner then confirmed that his former boss, Abu Wael, was the main point of contact between Saddam and the terror network. " http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37255

So, this is a lie ?

"My Iraqi escort informed me that al-Shamari has been in prison since March 2002, that U.S. officials have visited him several times, and that his story has remained consistent." http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=12292

What about that ? Lies, too ?

"Credible reporting states that al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities," Tenet wrote to the Senate Intelligence Committee on October 7, 2002. "The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs." http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/archive/index.php/t-2332.html

Yep, lies.

And just for good measure: http://www.asininity.com/comments/1598_0_1_0_C/

More lies. *sighs*



(to be continued...)

I think it is beneficial that I don't watch television...that way, I don't fall victim to the untruths and misconceptions that have apparently afflicted YOU. (NO NEWS REPORTING IS OBJECTIVE ANY LONGER. It's journalism now, not reporting.)

"We did not exhaust diplomatic measures with Sadaam. Nowhere close."

Oh, no ? So, you're claiming that we had no reason to invade Iraq, hmm ?

I think this sums it up perfectly, in case you were unaware of the going's-on in Iraq:

"Since the end of the Gulf War, the Iraqi government has continued work on the production of weapons of mass destruction, including long-range missiles and biological weapons. UN attempts to disarm Iraq by weapons inspections were unsuccessful.

The events of the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack on New York by al-Qaida led to a U.S. determination to attack the issue of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The U.S. government announced a "war on terrorism", and launched the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan to replace the Taliban government that was sheltering al-Qaida.

In 2002 the U.S. president George W. Bush named Iraq as part of an "Axis of Evil" with Iran and North Korea. A series of UN resolutions on Iraq culminated in UN Security Council Resolution 1441, which called upon Iraq to destroy its weapons of mass destruction. UN weapons inspectors re-entered Iraq in late 2002.

The slow pace of the UN initiative led to the U.S. developing a plan to invade Iraq. As time passed without resolution of the weapons issue, the U.S. made increasing diplomatic moves to secure UN support for a new war on Iraq, while stating that it would ultimately act independently if necessarily. This was accompanied by the mobilization of U.S. forces." http://www.fact-index.com/i/ir/iraq_crisis_of_2003.html

So, no one said that Saddam was responsible for 9/11. (as listed above, however, there is a witness that he is tied to Al Qaeda.)

The initial purpose of the war on Iraq was to eliminate terrorism, period.

Having been in the Navy, my rate was predominantly involved with Naval Intelligence (forget the oxymoron, folks !), and I held a Top Secret clearance. My husband and I still both know men in the SEALS. I can say on good authority that North Korea is next. It is a bit ignorant to say that Iraq is the only target on our war on terror.

Congress allowed Bush to go to war, because they believed it to be the right thing to do. And every decision that has been made regarding the war since then, has also been approved by Congress.

Once again, nice try blaming Bush for anything UNDESIRABLE that has come of this war. He can't do ANYTHING without permission. (didn't you learn about "weights and balances" in high school ?)

You are pretty judgemental to think that I support Bush only because he is for opposite sex marriages, and against ripping innocent children to shreds for the sake of "choice". He has done MANY things that have been positive for this nation, though you'd never hear about it on the liberal media news stations (which is pretty much all of them).

You should go check out the book, "Weapons of Mass Distortion", by L. Brent Bozell (the founder and president of the Media Research Center, America's largest and most respected media watchdog organization). See if your views change a bit about the "reputable" news you are basing your biased opinions on.

Now, let's talk about the Law of Moses, since you seem to think you know it well enough to pass judgement on me.

"Two factors have developed in the minds and teachings of many Christians that have contributed to the creation of this problem. One is the practice of dividing the Law into ceremonial, legal, and moral commandments. On the basis of this division, many have come to think that the believer is free from the ceremonial and legal commandments but is still under the moral commandments. The second factor is the belief that the Ten Commandments are still valid today, while the other 603 commandments are not.

The solution to this problem lies in discovering what the Bible says about the Messianic believer’s relationship to the Law, especially the Ten Commandments.

It is important to note that the Scriptures clearly state that the Law was given to Israel and not to the Gentiles or the Church (Deut. 4:7-8; Ps. 147:19-20; Mal. 4:4). Another thing to point out is the means by which the Mosaic Law was given. Most know that Moses received the Law on Mount Sinai from the Hand of God. Ten of those commandments, written on tablets of stone, were written with the Finger of God. The Old Testament indicates that the other 603 were written down as Moses was commanded by God.

The clear-cut teaching of the New Testament is that the Law of Moses has been rendered inoperative with the death of Messiah; in other words, the Law in its totality no longer has authority over any individual. This is evident first of all from Romans 10:4, with Paul telling us that Christ is the end of the law. Galatians 2:16 concurs, stating that neither is there justification through the Law. Furthermore, there is no sanctification or perfection through the Law (Heb. 7:19).

A second important point here is that the Mosaic Law was never meant to be a permanent administration, but a temporary one. In the context of Galatians 3:19, Paul describes the Law of Moses as an addition to the Abrahamic Covenant. It was added in order to make sin very clear so that all would know they have fallen short of God’s standard for righteousness. It was a temporary addition until Christ . . . till the seed should come; now that He has come, the Law is finished.

Third, with Christ there is a new priesthood, according to the order of Melchizedek, instead of the former order of Aaron. Whereas the Law of Moses provided the basis for the Levitical priesthood, this new priesthood required a new law under which it could operate. Hebrews 7:11-12 explains that only one type of priesthood was permitted and that was the Levitical priesthood. But the Levitical priesthood – and its sacrificial system of animal blood – could not bring perfection; only the Messiah’s blood could do that (Heb. 9:11-10:18). The Mosaic Law was the basis for the Levitical priesthood. But for the Levitical priesthood to be replaced by a new priesthood, the priesthood of Melchizedek, a change of the Law was required.

Was there a change of the Law? Hebrews 7:18 states that the Mosaic Law was disannulled. Because it is no longer in effect, we can now have a new priesthood after the order of Melchizedek. If the Mosaic Law was still in effect, Yeshua could not function as a priest. But the Mosaic Law is no longer in effect, and so Jesus can be a priest after the order of Melchizedek.

The fourth line of evidence for the annulment of the Mosaic Law zeros right in on the part of the Law that most people want to retain – the Ten Commandments. Second Corinthians 3:2-11 is very significant here: First, we need to see what Paul is saying in this passage concerning the Law of Moses. He calls it both the ministration of death and the ministration of condemnation (vv. 7, 9) – both certainly negative but valid descriptions. In addition, Paul is clearly emphasizing the Ten Commandments, as it is these that are engraven on stones. The main point, then, is that the Law of Moses, especially as represented by the Ten Commandments, is a ministration of death and a ministration of condemnation. And this would remain true if the Ten Commandments were still in force today.

But they are no longer in force, as the Law has passed away (vv. 7, 11). The Greek word used is katargeo, meaning “to render inoperative.” Since this passage’s emphasis is on the Ten Commandments, this means that the Ten Commandments have passed away. The thrust is very clear. The Law of Moses, and especially the Ten Commandments, is no longer in effect. In fact, the superiority of the Law of Christ is seen by the fact that it will never be rendered inoperative.

Paul sheds more light on this in his letter to the Ephesians (2:11-16; 3:6), explaining that God has made certain covenants with the Jewish people. (In fact, God made four unconditional, eternal covenants with Israel: the Abrahamic, the Palestinian, the Davidic, and New Covenants.) All of God’s blessings, both material and spiritual, are mediated by means of these four Jewish covenants, which are eternal, as well as unconditional.

At the same time, Paul points out that God added a fifth covenant: temporary and conditional, this is the Mosaic Covenant containing the Mosaic Law. According to Paul, the Mosaic Law served as a wall of partition (Eph. 2:15). And this is yet another purpose of the Law (one which we alluded to earlier): to serve as a wall of partition to keep Gentiles, as Gentiles, from enjoying Jewish spiritual blessings. In the Old Testament, if a Gentile wished to become a recipient of Jewish spiritual blessings, he would need to take upon himself the entire obligation of the Law – from circumcision to living as every other Jew lived. Only a Gentile who converted to Judaism could enjoy the blessings of the Jewish covenants. If the Mosaic Law were still in effect, there would still be a wall of partition to maintain this distinction between Jews and Gentiles. But the wall of partition was broken down with the death of Christ; again, the wall of partition was the Mosaic Law, and so the Law of Moses was rendered inoperative. Now, Gentiles as Gentiles, on the basis of faith, can and do enjoy Jewish spiritual (though not physical) blessings by becoming fellow-partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus.

To summarize, the Law is a unit comprised of 613 commandments, and all of it has been invalidated. No commandment has continued beyond the cross of Yeshua. The Law exists and can be used as a teaching tool to show God’s standard of righteousness and our sinfulness and need of substitutionary atonement. It can be used to point one to Christ (Gal. 3:23-25). It has, however, completely ceased to function as an authority over individuals. Hebrews 8:1-13 draws a parallel between the Mosaic Law and the New Covenant: The writer, quoting Jeremiah 31:31-34, states that as soon as a “new” covenant was enacted, it rendered the Mosaic Covenant the “old” one – and that which is old is nigh unto vanishing away (v. 13). The Mosaic Law grew old under Jeremiah and vanished away when Messiah died.

The Law of Moses has been done away with, and we are now under a new law. This new law is called the Law of Christ in Galatians 6:2, and the Law of the Spirit of Life in Romans 8:2. This is a brand new law totally separate from the Law of Moses. The Law of Christ contains all the commandments applicable to a New Testament believer.

The reason there is so much confusion over the relationship of the Law of Moses and the Law of Christ is that the two have many similar commandments, prompting many to conclude that certain sections of the Law have, therefore, been retained. But we have already shown that this cannot be so, and the explanation for the sameness of the commandments is to be found elsewhere.

First, we must realize that there are a number of covenants in the Bible, including the Edenic, Adamic, Noahic, Mosaic, and New. A new covenant will always contain some of the same commandments as the previous covenant, but this does not mean that the previous covenant is still in effect. While certain commandments of the Adamic Covenant were also part of the earlier Edenic Covenant, it does not mean that the Edenic Covenant was still partially in force; on the contrary, it ceased to function with the Fall of man. The same is true when we compare the Law of Moses and the Law of Christ. There are many similar commandments. For example, nine of the Ten Commandments are to be found in the Law of Christ, but this does not mean that the Law of Moses is still in force.

Let me illustrate this by using an example which you may have also experienced. I received my first driver’s license in the State of California; as long as I drove in California, I was subject to the traffic laws of that state. But two years later, I moved to New York. Once I left California, I ceased to be under California’s traffic laws. The traffic laws of that state were rendered inoperative in my case. Now my driving was subject to a new law – the traffic laws of the State of New York. There were many laws that were different: In California, I was permitted to make a right turn at a red light after stopping and yielding the right-of-way. But in New York this was not permitted. On the other hand, there were many similar laws between the two states, such as the edict to stop at red lights. However, when I stopped for a red light in New York, I did not do so in obedience to the State of California as I once had, but in obedience to the State of New York. Likewise, if I went through a red light without stopping, I was not guilty of breaking California law but New York law. Many laws were similar, but they were, nevertheless, under two distinctly different systems.

The Law of Moses has been nullified, and we are now under the Law of Christ. There are many different commandments: The Law of Moses did not permit one to eat pork, but the Law of Christ does. There are many similar commandments as well, but they are in two separate systems. If we do not kill or steal, this is not because of the Law of Moses but because of the Law of Christ. Conversely, if I do steal, I am not guilty of breaking the Law of Moses but the Law of Christ.

For believers, this understanding can resolve many issues – such as women wearing pants, the Sabbath, and tithing. As the commandments concerning these things are based on the Law of Moses, then they have no validity for the New Testament believer. The Law of Christ is now the rule of life for the individual New Testament believer.

What we are saying is that the believer in Yeshua Hamashiach is free from the necessity of keeping any commandment of the Law of Moses. But it is crucial to note that he is also free to keep parts of the Mosaic Law if he so desires.

The biblical basis for this freedom to keep the Law is evident in the actions of Paul, the greatest exponent of freedom from the Law. His vow in Acts 18:18 is based on Numbers 6:2, 5, 9 and 18. His desire to be in Jerusalem for Pentecost in Acts 20:16 is based on Deuteronomy 16:16. The strongest example is Acts 21:17-26, where we see Paul himself keeping the Law.

So, if a Jewish believer feels the need to refrain from eating pork, for example, he is free to do so. The same is true for all the other commandments. However, there are two dangers that must be avoided by the Messianic Jew who chooses to keep portions of the Law of Moses: One is the belief that one who does so is contributing to his own justification and sanctification. This is false and must be avoided. The second danger is that one may demand or expect others to also keep the Law. This is equally wrong and borders on legalism. The one who exercises his freedom to keep the Law must recognize and respect another’s freedom not to do the same." http://www.ariel.org/ff00006c.html

I hope that clearly defines why we, as Christians, feel that we are no longer under the law of Moses. It has been nullified by the Law of Christ, which is VERY similar.

The major difference being ceremonial law, and moral law.



(to be continued...)

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 09-14-2004).]

"Jesus would tell him to forgive those sinners, for they know not what they do."

This is true. But you are placing the responsibility of running a nation on the shoulders of Christianity, instead of world position. (a religion which you obviously don't agree with, anyway)

If America went by the ideals of Christ, we would be chaste in the eyes of God, but weak in the eyes of the world. Which doesn't matter to me, but to all the athiests out there, it matters a WHOLE lot.

So, trying to use Christianity against me (as though I were a hypocrite), by saying that we ought to follow the teachings of Christ (which cannot be applied to American ideology, which is far too self-important and arrogant to reside under such teachings), is not practical in leading a country that is a world power. In order to be in the position that we are in, the practice of being ruthless, business saavy, manipulative, and cut-throat is the only ideology that will continue to propell us in the direction that pagans deem worthy of recognition.

We did not obtain the world power we have by being "passivist hippies."

In a perfect world, running our country as Christ would, would be awesome. But this is an EARTHLY existence we are talking about, not a heavenly existence. That comes later.

Where living under the resolve of "peace" will not rape you of your own country.

Would I personally want to live this way ? OBVIOUSLY. This is the way it will be in heaven. Is this way a reality in our lives here on earth ? NO.

So, don't apply principles that aren't relevant, just for the sake of discreditting me.

Also, I never said I hadn't read the Qu'ran. I said I didn't read the WHOLE thing. I am currently reading it. Which is probably more than I can say for YOU.

I obviously have enough knowledge to post logical, supported opinions about modern day Islam.

If not, why have you bothered replying to me in such detail ?

You apparently feel threatened by my point of view, or else you wouldn't have put so much effort into trying to discredit me. Speaking as though I were an uninformed moron does not support the fact that you felt the need to prove me wrong.

If you want to debate, fine. I respect that, but I don't assume you are a moron, just because you don't agree with me, and I would expect the same respect from you.

I'm not being anti-Christian. And I don't condone the murder of innocent women and children in Iraq. (or murder, PERIOD)

I condone ACTION being taken...it is just a pity it ended in the deaths of Americans and Iraqi's.

Have atrocities been committed in the name of Christianity ? Most certainly. But murder is against the gospel of Christ, and it can be therefor assumed that these individuals weren't Christian at all. (if they were, they have been held accountable for their transgressions)

If you read the Qu'ran, you will see a pattern of living for self, vengeance, and earthly cleansing of unbelievers.

You won't find that mentality in the Law of Christ.

There really is no comparison.

(THE END)

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 09-14-2004).]

Ok, Loc Dogg...I lied. I got to this other dood first. SORRY !

Working on replying to you...it will be here, shortly.



God bless.

http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

Yes. I know these weren't directed at me, but since you've evaded my every argument dealing with this, What the hell? Right?

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Now, then...I have condoned military force in Iraq. I don't, however, condone the murder of those who are innocent.

Is this such a hard concept to comrehend ?

It IS a hard concept to comprehend when you call yourself Christian. You are not a Christian if you advocate, support or agree with any use of military force.

Moreover, your "I'm not perfect like the Christ" argument does not work, because if it did, there would be no point in following Christianity. I'm a materialist. It is my belief that there is no god. I willingly refuse to believe in ANY god. Will "I'm not perfect" work for god? http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

quote:I never said I supported Bush's war...I said I supported ACTION. Our presence alone may have been enough, but I guarantee that even if our troops sat there in the desert with no weapons at all, the Muslims would have shot them dead anyway. (as evidenced by the many atrocities against Christians cited above.)

You said you supported his decision to take action. What do you think was his decision? WAR! What do you think was his action? WAR! You support war. Period.

quote:I don't think war is the answer to anything...but again, I ask, what could have been done ? PLEASE TELL ME. (there is probably a reason you aren't the president)

Not Invade. Simple.

quote:So, this is a lie ?

Yes. Your own Senate Commission already showed there was no working relationship.

There being contacts is of no importance. Hell, the U.S. gave what is now Al-Qaeda, millions of dollars and their own training camps! I don't see you waging a war with yourself... Apparently, it's okay to fund them if you're the one doing the funding. http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

quote:Oh, no ? So, you're claiming that we had no reason to invade Iraq, hmm ?

I think this sums it up perfectly, in case you were unaware of the going's-on in Iraq:

How does that sum up anything? That's garbage being regurgitated!

Moreover, you evade his point that diplomatic means where not exhausted! The U.S. stopped the UN inspections! That's a diplomatic way right there!

quote:Having been in the Navy, my rate was predominantly involved with Naval Intelligence (forget the oxymoron, folks !), and I held a Top Secret clearance. My husband and I still both know men in the SEALS. I can say on good authority that North Korea is next. It is a bit ignorant to say that Iraq is the only target on our war on terror.

The U.S. would never attack a country capable of nuclear strike. Your theory has no ground to stand in.

2of2:

quote:Congress allowed Bush to go to war, because they believed it to be the right thing to do. And every decision that has been made regarding the war since then, has also been approved by Congress.

They gave him authority to use force. Not a go-ahead to invade.

quote:If America went by the ideals of Christ, we would be chaste in the eyes of God, but weak in the eyes of the world. Which doesn't matter to me, but to all the atheists out there, it matters a WHOLE lot.

Oh please, so it's your argument that you support America being Imperialistic just because of the atheists? http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

There are numerous more Christians than atheists in the U.S. so even then your point is moot.

quote:So, trying to use Christianity against me (as though I were a hypocrite), by saying that we ought to follow the teachings of Christ (which cannot be applied to American ideology, which is far too self-important and arrogant to reside under such teachings), is not practical in leading a country that is a world power. In order to be in the position that we are in, the practice of being ruthless, business saavy, manipulative, and cut-throat is the only ideology that will continue to propell us in the direction that pagans deem worthy of recognition.

Sorry, nice try, but the point is that YOU should support whatever a Christina should support. YOU don't base yourself on what atheists would want, or what it would take for the U.S. to be a super power, because to do so you would be betraying your own faith.

quote:In a perfect world, running our country as Christ would, would be awesome. But this is an EARTHLY existence we are talking about, not a heavenly existence. That comes later.

Once again, I can therefore rape, pillage and kill half of humanity, and say "Hey! This is the real world! I'm not perfect!" ... http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

quote:So, don't apply principles that aren't relevant, just for the sake of discreditting me.

They ARE relevant because nowhere in the bible nor in the Christina faith does it say that it is okay to support war or Imperialism just because "it's the real world".

Dig, I'm sorry, but you're an idiot. Unabashed, and completely moronic.

1. God dammit, no. There was no reason to invade Iraq. There were no weapons of mass destruction, the freeing of the Iraqi people was never given as a reason until after the WMD line was proven to be utterly false, by the UN inspector, as well as the mna Bush appointed to do the job. The 9/11 commission stated that there were no connections between iraq and al queda beyond one meeting between mid to low level administrators. Sadaam and bin Laden hated each other. One was secularist, the other a fanatic. Yes, Cheney, Bush, Ashcroft, and Powell lied their damned asses off to get this country to invade Iraq, something it is well documented they were planning as soon as they got into office. And bullshit that north korea is next. They don't have oil. And they do have nukes. Why do you think Bush is trying to reopen diplomatic channels for peace talks? After he stopped all aid to their country, for no reason beyond the fact that Clinton started it.

2. THERE IS NO LIBERAL BIAS IN THE MEDIA. You fucking idiot. Who owns the vast majority of the media? Rupert Murdoch. And as the most brilliant professor I've ever had said, "I consider myself a conservative, but Rupert Murdoch is a bit to the right of Genghis Kahn". Before the war, all 187 newspapers run by Murdoch in the US alone wrote editorials in favor of the war. The only reason anyone thinks there's a liberal bias is because Rush Limbaugh is a lying douchebag who is a mastermind at throwing together half-truths, blatently mis-represented information, and logic in the nature of "A, therefore red" and "<piece of information most concervatives would consider damning against them>, therefor, we were right all along".

3. How the hell can you say that all wars involving Muslims are religious in nature? That just shows what a jingoist, racsist, dumb bitch you are. If there hadn't been a cold war, most of this would never have happened. Go read a god damned history book. We propped up Islamic regimes, even though we knew they were headed by murderers, and religious extremists, because we thought they were less of a danger than the atheist communists. Isreal is not about religion, except for the zionists, and even they, they are flagrantly flouting the laws of their own religion. It's about Isreal expanding, and oppressing native Palestinians. Yes, there are religious elements to this, but it is so much more ethnicity, and politics, that those are barely worth mentioning.

4. Ok, so the 10 commandments are obsolete? Then get them the hell out of our courthouses. And then you, and all Christians, should strive to be more like Christ. Which means pascifism. And turning the other cheek. Don't even start on the bullshit about how jesus was perfect and above human. If he is what you should strive to be, then strive, damn you! Don't sit there supporting the murder of 10,000 innocent people, for no justifiable reason! Don't give that "I'm not perfect" shit, you people don't even fucking try! You just slap Christs name on whatever agenda you're touting at the moment, even when you're raping the fucking soul of your religion. I don't have a problem innately with a religios man running the country. As long as it's just his personal convictions, and not state sponsored, thats cool. What I'm saying is that Bush is not a Christian at all, but then neither are you. But Bush is using this supposed relation in common to take your "too fucking stupid to know when you're being cheated" vote.

5. No, you clearly lack the appropriate knowlegde to post an informed opinion about islam. I took a class on south asian history last year, taught by a professor who was raised both Hindu and Islamic. She knew Ghandi's kids. I've read the Koran. Islam is like communism, it's a great idea, hell, it's far superior to communism. But it's being hijacked by people who are leading others astray. And because of political reasons, such as the west ass raping the middle-east since they found it, there are a hell of alot of people pissed at us for non-religious reasons. But they are religious people, so of course it's going to play a part in their decisions. You just don't seem to get this. The religion isn't the issue here. Religion is being used, by the the media you claim not to watch, to offer a veneer of simplicity to a situation that is not simple at all. And frankly, this whole situation is entirely our own fault. And I'm not a policy expert, but I think it's pretty damn obvious, that anybody can see (christian, muslim, atheist), that going over there and killing a bunch of them, occupying their land, stealing their natural resources and condemning the same people as terrorists that 10 years ago we hailed as freedom fighters because they were fighting the USSR with arms and training that we provided them is not the way to go about fixing things.

In conclusion, Dig, you're an idiot. A religious zealot, and a rascist. I'm an atheist, and if I'm wrong, well, I'll be seeing you in hell with me.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:



I am coming from a completely non-religious standpoint here. What the Muslim extremist's do is wrong. And you apparently don't agree.



If you were really saying that we would have no problem. But you are trying to paint all Muslims with the same brush.

Muslims do NOT reside under a mentality of "peace"

Your words.

quote:Originally posted by MasterPython:

If you were really saying that we would have no problem. But you are trying to paint all Muslims with the same brush.

Muslims do NOT reside under a mentality of "peace"

Your words.





If they are Muslims that follow the Qu'ran religiously they're not. (based on the verses I quoted)

Do you disagree ? These are their own teachings. How can they be construed as peaceful ?



[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 09-15-2004).]

quote:Yes. I know these weren't directed at me, but since you've evaded my every argument dealing with this, What the hell? Right?[\quote]

I have evaded you ? Did you see how MUCH effort I put into that last post ? C'mon...that's ridiculous. I wasn't EVADING you.

I am a very busy lady. When I have time to respond, I do. And they are very researched, time-consuming posts. I don't have the TIME to do this for everyone, and you monopolize MOST of my time here on Totse, so don't go getting jealous on me, now. http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

I also don't consider your opinions "arguments", since you give no supporting evidence of what you claim. How am I supposed to "debate" with that sort of approach ?

Calm down. It wasn't personal, nor was it intentional.

[quote]It IS a hard concept to comprehend when you call yourself Christian. You are not a Christian if you advocate, support or agree with any use of military force.

Are you SERIOUS ? Please show me where in the Christian doctrine that this is spoken against. Military occupation is not dealt with in the Bible, I believe. I could be wrong, so please show me.

I call myself a Christian because I am one. My "beliefs" about world politics bear very little relevance to this.

You can stop using this tactic now. It's childish, and it's getting old. (kinda stale, even)

quote:Moreover, your "I'm not perfect like the Christ" argument does not work, because if it did, there would be no point in following Christianity. I'm a materialist. It is my belief that there is no god. I willingly refuse to believe in ANY god. Will "I'm not perfect" work for god?

The point in following Christianity is NOT to succeed in perfectly emulating Christ. It is far deeper than that, and much more involved. Perhaps you should read the Bible so you can know exactly what you should be casting stones at me about.

God is perfect, so everything He does, whether you understand or agree with it or not, is good and just and perfect.

quote:You said you supported his decision to take action. What do you think was his decision? WAR! What do you think was his action? WAR! You support war. Period.

Obtuse. That is the only word that describes your interpretation of what I said, even though I feel I was quite clear.

Actually, in the beginning, he didn't know WHAT he wanted to do. In one of the links I provided, there is a report of Bush, Condi Rice, and some other fellow (whose name escapes me at the moment) sitting around discussing courses of action to take, and among those was NOT war.

War was apparently their LAST line of defense.

You think they all just sit around eating popcorn, watching old war movies saying, "Yeah...that's bad ass. Let's try that !"

Going to war is a long, arduous process. It requires many levels of approval, major efforts to plan, and LOTS of money, which must be allocated from SOMEWHERE.

This was not a rash decision, rather a well-thought out, meticulously planned event.

Though it has gone awry in many aspects, the original intent was good (as I have said before), and I am under the impression, based on many newspaper articles and other references, that this was a very hard decision for them to make.

These people knew that the public didn't want another war. Kuwait was still a bad taste in our mouths...don't you remember ?

Anyway, my point was that war was the last thing they decided on. And this decision came after much consideration and debate.

If you truly believe what you say, please cite some sources, so that I can find some credibility in your viewpoint.

quote:Not Invade. Simple.

You're right...it IS simple. Simple to say, but not simple to do.

What ELSE ? What could have taken the place of war, as far as preventive action is concerned ?

Use your imagination. You're taking the easy way out, and it is DEFINITELY not a viable solution to the issue of terrorism.

quote:Yes. Your own Senate Commission already showed there was no working relationship.

You mean the Senate that hasn't yet investigated the testimony of this Iraqi prisoner ?

Hmmm...

quote:There being contacts is of no importance. Hell, the U.S. gave what is now Al-Qaeda, millions of dollars and their own training camps! I don't see you waging a war with yourself... Apparently, it's okay to fund them if you're the one doing the funding.

No ? They funded them, and trained them on "special" arms. They had camps for the Al Qaeda members to train at.

Please show me some documentation on the US funding Al Qaeda.

As I have said before, if I am wrong, I would like to know.

quote:How does that sum up anything? That's garbage being regurgitated!

The TRUTH of the events is garbage ?

Ok, tell me how. Explain yourself. You talk about ME evading, yet you never truly explain why you say the things you say, or think the things you think.

quote:Moreover, you evade his point that diplomatic means where not exhausted! The U.S. stopped the UN inspections! That's a diplomatic way right there!

To "evade" would be to dodge the point intentionally. Prove that I did it on purpose, please. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

I think I covered everything else pretty thoroughly, and THIS is what you focus on ?

I think the evidence is clear...Saddam didn't WANT to cooperate. So, he didn't.

I think we DID exhaust every avenue of diplomacy with that guy. He wasn't having it.

But anyway, tell me what other courses of action we should have taken in light of diplomacy.

quote:The U.S. would never attack a country capable of nuclear strike. Your theory has no ground to stand in.

So, now you're calling me a liar ?

We have cells, and teams over there right now. Go ahead and wallow in your ignorance, but watch your precious liberal news. You'll see.

(and what do you call Russia ? They had nukes, and we had our missiles aimed and ready to annihilate them ! *lol*)

Ok, it's time for you to stop spouting off useless opinions, and start giving some references.

I'll be waiting for some ACTUAL "proof" of the things you are claiming.

Digital, you really are so fucking stupid it hurts.

1. Bush not having planned on going to war in Iraq.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/01/11/bush_began_iraq_plan_pre_911_oneill_says/ http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/US/oneill_charges_040113.html http://www.arena.org.nz/bushiraq.htm

Is three enough?

2. If you are Christian, then that should affect your view of world politics. Otherwise, you're what is known as a "Sunday Christian". Religions aren't supposed to be followed until they get in the way of your prejudices, or get hard. The early Christians who dies for their beliefs would consider you a mockery of what they died for, and Christ is probably looking at you and the rest of the flock thinking "They know not what they do".

3. When the hell did we attack Russia? Or did you mean the USSR, you stupid twit? By the way, the answer is never. We funded groups like the Taliban to fight them for us. And the fact that they had nukes pointed back at us is exactly the god damn reason we never attacked them directly. Thank you for pointing out an arguement in our favor. "*lol*"



4. Sadaam cooperating.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/unmovic/2003/0120agreement.htm http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles/Rai_Inspections.htm

A quote from that last one "The message seemed to be that even if weapons inspectors were re-admitted, the US could find another justification for a war against Iraq"

5. Here's info on the US training those who would later become major alqueda supporters.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/oct2001/tal1-o24.shtml http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/afghanistan-history.cfm

And now al qaeda specifically.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda

6. Iraq connected to al qaeda.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/08/02/al_qaeda_cyber_terror_panic/

Specifically "However, al-Qaeda captives have been responsible for a good deal of false "intelligence," such as that provided by Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, who has since retracted his claims that Saddam Hussein's government had provided training in the use of chemical weapons to the terror outfit. It was al-Libi's information that led US President George W. Bush to announce that Iraq had provided training in "poisons and gases" to al-Qaeda, an assertion that has since been discredited." So what was that about investigating a prisoner? I have to agree with Rust that what you claim as truth is garbage.

6. As to Bush having any problem with the cost of the war, that just proves you have no idea how the party you'll be voting for works. Raegan showed them that they can spend money like water, expand the government as they wish, and still get away with accusing the democrats of the same thing, when the man who got us out of the Great Depression was a Dem, and the last president to balance the budget (OMG Clinton is teh pervert! he, lik, had teh oral sex and IMPEACH!) was a Dem. Republicans aren't even conservatives any more. Neo-con is pretty much synonomous with fascist.

7. With all the lies Bush told about the war, quite a few people did want it. And I will be watching in the future to see if you ever claim there was a majority opinion for the war, because this just smacks of you touting bullshit to make your position sound better.

8. I'm going to take the Christianity aspect to another topic, because your version of christianity really seems to claim that you can do whatever the hell you want, and your still a christian as long as you believe that this one guy came back from the dead.

There. Was that "obtuse"? I dealt with every issue you raised. I challenge you to respond to each of mine, save 8. We'll deal with that later. And if you don't, then the fact that you spend as much time arbitrarily trying to discredit Rust without even touching his arguements proves even more that you don't have a real leg to stand on.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:



If they are Muslims that follow the Qu'ran religiously they're not. (based on the verses I quoted)



Before you called those people extremests. In any case most Mulsims are not.

Your're just premoting hate by showing what a small minority of a population of over a billion does.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:



If they are Muslims that follow the Qu'ran religiously they're not. (based on the verses I quoted)

Do you disagree ? These are their own teachings. How can they be construed as peaceful ?



It's taken out of context, much like you would argue to people who were labeling all Christians as overbearing punishment dolers and war mongers based on the Old Testament.

Page 1-2 of this thread.



[This message has been edited by AngryFemme (edited 09-15-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

I have evaded you ? Did you see how MUCH effort I put into that last post ? C'mon...that's ridiculous. I wasn't EVADING you.

You have evaded me by not answering me in this thread (until now obviously) and in another thread. You're busy, I'll give you that. But if you reply to messages in order, which you generally do, then mine would have been 'up' days ago.



quote:Are you SERIOUS ? Please show me where in the Christian doctrine that this is spoken against. Military occupation is not dealt with in the Bible, I believe. I could be wrong, so please show me.

I would say Military Force precludes pacifism, which is preached in the Bible. You cannot expect military force or military presence without military conflict.

quote:I call myself a Christian because I am one. My "beliefs" about world politics bear very little relevance to this.

You can stop using this tactic now. It's childish, and it's getting old. (kinda stale, even)

If it's childish, you should be able to deal with it quick like, right? You've yet to do so.

quote:The point in following Christianity is NOT to succeed in perfectly emulating Christ. It is far deeper than that, and much more involved. Perhaps you should read the Bible so you can know exactly what you should be casting stones at me about.



No. The point in following Christianity is to emulate the Christ as much as possible. It is certainly possible for you to preach non-military intervention. You don't support that, you support the opposite, which shows that you cannot possibly a Christian in any meaningful way. Put in other words, you're as much "Christian" as I, a materialist, am.

quote:Obtuse. That is the only word that describes your interpretation of what I said, even though I feel I was quite clear.

Actually, in the beginning, he didn't know WHAT he wanted to do. In one of the links I provided, there is a report of Bush, Condi Rice, and some other fellow (whose name escapes me at the moment) sitting around discussing courses of action to take, and among those was NOT war.

War was apparently their LAST line of defense.

...

This was not a rash decision, rather a well-thought out, meticulously planned event.

And yet numerous white house accounts prove otherwise. Bush was looking for a "smoking gun" in Iraq when the CIA and the terrorist experts had already told him there was no link. That is NOT wanting war as the ultimate action.

Moreover, the fact that the UN inspections were canceled because of Bush clearly refutes that notion.



quote:

Anyway, my point was that war was the last thing they decided on. And this decision came after much consideration and debate.

If you truly believe what you say, please cite some sources, so that I can find some credibility in your viewpoint.

Could you quote me saying this took no amount of deliberation?

In any case, lets see what that quality deliberation consisted of:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A13607-2004Mar21?language=printer

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/19/60minutes/main607356.shtml

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4571338/

quote:You're right...it IS simple. Simple to say, but not simple to do.

What ELSE ? What could have taken the place of war, as far as preventive action is concerned ?

Use your imagination. You're taking the easy way out, and it is DEFINITELY not a viable solution to the issue of terrorism.

The problem is... THERE WAS NO TERRORISM.

You have yet to link Saddam to an Al-Qaeda plot. All you have is is contacts. Similar contacts that the U.S. had in the past...

Not invade is the only logical answer when there was no WMD and when there was no working relationship with Al-Qaeda.

quote:You mean the Senate that hasn't yet investigated the testimony of this Iraqi prisoner ?

Hmmm...

You mean the prisoner that would say anything to save his ass?

Hmmm...

Oh, and could you show evidence that the Commission did not investigate his testimony? After all, your sources claimed he has been speaking since 2002, well before the report took place.



quote:No ? They funded them, and trained them on "special" arms. They had camps for the Al Qaeda members to train at.

Please show me some documentation on the US funding Al Qaeda.

As I have said before, if I am wrong, I would like to know.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/yemen/Story/0,2763,209260,00.html



quote:The TRUTH of the events is garbage?

Ok, tell me how. Explain yourself. You talk about ME evading, yet you never truly explain why you say the things you say, or think the things you think.

It's garbage because:

1. It leaves out that the U.S. effectively stopped the UN inspections.

2. It didn't refute SurahAhriman's statement.

3. It left out that there were no WMD.

quote:To "evade" would be to dodge the point intentionally. Prove that I did it on purpose, please.

Evade: "To avoid fulfilling, answering, or performing."

That speaks nothing of purpose.

quote:

I think I covered everything else pretty thoroughly, and THIS is what you focus on ?

I think the evidence is clear...Saddam didn't WANT to cooperate. So, he didn't.

I think we DID exhaust every avenue of diplomacy with that guy. He wasn't having it.

But anyway, tell me what other courses of action we should have taken in light of diplomacy.



How can you say that when the US put a stop to UN inspections, a diplomatic act? http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

quote:

So, now you're calling me a liar ?

Where the hell did I call you a liar, or did I gave the impression that I was calling you a liar? I was calling you mistaken.

quote:(and what do you call Russia ? They had nukes, and we had our missiles aimed and ready to annihilate them ! *lol*)

Yeah! I forgot you invaded Russia! http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

quote:

Ok, it's time for you to stop spouting off useless opinions, and start giving some references.

I'll be waiting for some ACTUAL "proof" of the things you are claiming.

What do you want proof of? Of this? This is my informed, logical opinion. I can't prove the U.S. wont attack NK just as much as you can't prove they will.

My point was, that the US has never attacked a Nuclear power. The term 'Mutual Assured Destruction' should be a sufficient explanation as to why. Hence, my belief that your opinion that "North Korea is next", is mistaken and has no ground to stand on.



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 09-15-2004).]