[Abbas]

This thread is for people that are so blind that they will go ahead and say Islam is religion of hate without any real facts. Well, I asked the same question except this time Christianity is in question.

A great article:

Over the last few months, neoconservatives and Christian leaders have banded together in an attempt to mar the value systems defined by Islamic ideology and to present Islam to America as a violent, bloodthirsty religion that demands the subversion of the world, or its death. Islam has been decried by many a pastor and priest as a “religion of hate” and a “culture of intolerance.” Neoconservatives claim that Islamic ideology is so foreign and fundamentally different from Western ideology that overlap or mutual understanding is impossible. After all, they reason, how can America come to terms with a society that sends its children to die in the name of God, or a faith that demands its adherent to kill all infidels if they refuse to covert to Islam?

When I first heard these comments, I laughed. I laughed at the sheer stupidity of the people that would suggest such patently false ideas. I laughed at what I thought were their pathetic attempts to wage a propaganda and misinformation war against Muslims in America in an attempt to vilify and marginalize them. After all, what kind of dupe would believe the ridiculous lies they were spreading? Anyone could pick up a book or talk to a Muslim and find out the truth.

Well, I am not laughing anymore.

A lot of thought has gone into planning the war for America’s opinion. The misinformation war that the neoconservatives and Christian right have launched is from two fronts. First, Christian leaders take specific quotes out of the Qu’ran (or Koran), the Muslim holy book, in an attempt to depict Islam as a fundamentally violent faith, as defined by its basic ideology. They are particularly interested in presenting the idea of jihad as a call to war, knowing that this is completely false and that Muslims cannot reject jihad, as it is a central theme in Islam. Secondly, the public opinion spin doctors use misunderstood or poorly documented dogmas in Islam and present them as proof that Islam has a carnal and perverted moral code.

As both of these topics are extremely diverse and complex, I will attempt to answer them in two successive columns.

It seems to me that no matter how loudly we protest that Islam is not a religion of violence, conservative Christians are not willing to listen. They point out specific passages in the Qu’ran that demand Muslims to go to war against the infidels, or to kill the unbelievers wherever we should find them. Passage after passage is recited or detailed with exacting patience and precision; passages that deal with war, death, and punishment. Why is Islam so violent? Why does it demand so much bloodshed and death? Why does Allah command that Muslims kill Christians, Jews, and anyone else who does not convert to Islam?

It is thus with great irony that I would ask the same question of the Christian world. Why does the Biblical God demand the death of enemies or the seemingly brutal subjugation of women?

"If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth . . . -- Ex. 21:22-25

"I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." -- Genesis 3:16

"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." --1 Tim. 2:11-14

In fact, it seems to me that the Bible demands the murder of children!

"Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones." --Psalm 137:9

“… slay both man and woman, infant and suckling.” -- I Samuel 15:3

”… dash their children, and rip up their women with child.” -- 2 Kings 8:12

Of course, the intent here is to illustrate that any quote that is taken out of context can be made to fit the crime. It is not difficult to selectively provide quotes that incriminate or condemn. For instance, take a commonly used quote from the Qu’ran that is used as proof that it is violent:

“...slay (enemies] wherever you find them!" -- (4: 89).

This line does look extremely violent. It is difficult to imagine a viable explanation for such a statement. Indeed, can there even be such a justification? Well, let us take a look at the following line:

"Thus, if they let you be, and do not make war on you, and offer you peace, God does not allow you to harm them.” -- (4: 90).

The idea that this is “proof” that Islam is violent then is preposterous. The second line is crucial to the message of the text; even in times of war, soldiers must observe the laws of compassion and reason as dictated by the Qu’ran. One wonders why pundits like Jerry Falwell and Ann Coulter do not come across these lines in their search for the truth:

"Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loves not transgressors." – (2:190)

Do not "take life -- which God has made sacred -- except for just cause. And if anyone is slain wrongfully, we have given his heir authority" to demand justice for the death or to forgive it. "But let him not exceed bounds in the matter of taking life; for he is helped [by the Law]." -- Surah 17

One other ideological process neoconservatives have committed themselves to is the attempt to malign the intent of jihad. Western media have picked up their cry of jihad as “holy war,” which is in fact a western adaptation, reminiscent of crusader mentality used against Muslims during the Church’s holy war against Islam. There is no term for “holy war” in Arabic. The word jihad translates to “struggle.” It refers to the difficult effort that is needed to put God's will into practice at every level: personal and social, as well as political. A very important and much quoted tradition has Muhammad (s.a.w.) telling his companions as they go home after a battle, "We are returning from the lesser jihad [the battle] to the greater jihad,' the far more urgent and momentous task of extirpating wrongdoing from one's own society and one's own heart. Indeed, although jihad can be a struggle to protect the weak or to free the oppressed, a greater jihad is that of one’s own desires; the jihad for spiritual cleanliness and the application of the laws of God into one’s own life. This includes telling the truth, providing for the destitute and the hungry, and the control of carnal desires like gluttony and sleep. Although jihad can be used to defend one’s person, property, or community, it is not some rallying call to arms in an attempt to advocate violence as a way of life or to suggest that all infidels should be put to the sword.

It is clear then that the use of selective quotes out of the Qu’ran is merely an attempt at the legitimization of the false claim that Islam is violent. Indeed, by the examples referenced above, it is unmistakable that neoconservatives are relying on misinformation and lies to propagate their vicious slander. Their attempt to vilify jihad is similar in its intent, if not its process. What could be more in sync with American ideals of honor, self-sacrifice, and courage in the face of adversity? Jihad is not an Islamic invention; it is a global definition of valor and a demand for personal excellence.

It is all the more wretched that these lies are told by men and women that claim to represent the leadership of their faith. If this is what Christianity is, then I am glad that I am Muslim. Now it is time to determine if these leaders represent the exception or the rule. Do these leaders espouse what is commonly believed by the practitioners of their faith, representative of a majority of Christians that would like to see pluralism and interfaith communication perish? Or are these pundits on the leading edge of extremism, delegates of the few fanatics that Christianity generally rejects? From what I see in the media, I am fearful that it is the former.


OPEN YOUR EYES AND LEARN TO LIVE WITH ALL RELIGIONS OTHERWISE THERE IS NO ONE RELIGION THAT IS SUPERIOR TO ANOTHER.

[Abbas]

Here is what Hitler was saying before kill Jewish people"

My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before in the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice.... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.... When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom to-day this poor people is plundered and exploited.

-Adolf Hitler, in his speech in Munich on 12 April 1922


Just as the Jew could once incite the mob of Jerusalem against Christ, so today he must succeed in inciting folk who have been duped into madness to attack those who, God's truth! seek to deal with this people in utter honesty and sincerity.

-Adolf Hitler, in Munich, 28 July 1922

In the Bible we find the text, 'That which is neither hot nor cold will I spew out of my mouth.' This utterance of the great Nazarene has kept its profound validity until the present day.

-Adolf Hitler, speech in Munich, 10 April 1923

In the life of nations, what in the last resort decides questions is a kind of Judgment Court of God.... Always before god and the world the stronger has the right to carry through what he wills.

-Adolf Hitler, speech in Munich, 13 April 1923

The Government, being resolved to undertake the political and moral purification of our public life, are creating and securing the conditions necessary for a really profound revival of religious life.... The National Government regard the two Christian Confessions as the weightiest factors for the maintenance of our nationality. They will respect the agreements concluded between them and the federal States. Their rights are not to be infringed.... It will be the Government's care to maintain honest co-operation between Church and State; the struggle against materialistic views and for a real national community is just as much in the interest of the German nation as in that of the welfare of our Christian faith. The Government of the Reich, who regard Christianity as the unshakable foundation of the morals and moral code of the nation, attach the greatest value to friendly relations with the Holy See and are endeavouring to develop them.

-Adolf Hitler, in his speech to the Reichstag on 23 March 1933

Help yourself, then God will also help you!

The German people was created by Providence, not in order to obey a law which suits Englishmen or Frenchmen, but to stand up for its vital right. That is what we are there for!

-Adolf Hitler, at Wilhemshaven, 01 April 1939

Thus one of Europe's most serious crises will be ended, and all of us, not only in Germany but those far beyond our frontiers, will then in this year for the first time really rejoice at the Christmas festival. It should for us all be a true Festival of Peace....

-Adolf Hitler, in Berlin, 05 Oct. 1938

[thefactremains]

yes,, the christiains bombed the twin towers,,,yea right,,,wake up canada,,the muzzies are trying to DESENSITISE you

[Abbas]

Crusades:

The origin of the Crusades is directly traceable to the moral and political condition of Western Christendom in the eleventh century. At that time Europe was divided into numerous states whose sovereigns were absorbed in tedious and petty territorial disputes while the emperor, in theory the temporal head of Christendom, was wasting his strength in the quarrel over Investitures. The popes alone had maintained a just estimate of Christian unity; they realized to what extent the interests of Europe were threatened by the Byzantine Empire and the Mohammedan tribes, and they alone had a foreign policy whose traditions were formed under Leo IX and Gregory VII. The reform effected in the Church and the papacy through the influence of the monks of Cluny had increased the prestige of the Roman pontiff in the eyes of all Christian nations; hence none but the pope could inaugurate the international movement that culminated in the Crusades. But despite his eminent authority the pope could never have persuaded the Western peoples to arm themselves for the conquest of the Holy Land had not the immemorial relations between Syria and the West favoured his design. Europeans listened to the voice of Urban II because their own inclination and historic traditions impelled them towards the Holy Sepulchre.

From the end of the fifth century there had been no break in their intercourse with the Orient. In the early Christian period colonies of Syrians had introduced the religious ideas, art, and culture of the East into the large cities of Gaul and Italy. The Western Christians in turn journeyed in large numbers to Syria, Palestine, and Egypt, either to visit the Holy Places or to follow the ascetic life among the monks of the Thebaid or Sinai. There is still extant the itinerary of a pilgrimage from Bordeaux to Jerusalem, dated 333; in 385 St. Jerome and St. Paula founded the first Latin monasteries at Bethlehem. Even the Barbarian invasion did not seem to dampen the ardour for pilgrimages to the East. The Itinerary of St. Silvia (Etheria) shows the organization of these expeditions, which were directed by clerics and escorted by armed troops. In the year 600, St. Gregory the Great had a hospice erected in Jerusalem for the accommodation of pilgrims, sent alms to the monks of Mount Sinai ("Vita Gregorii" in "Acta SS.", March 11, 132), and, although the deplorable condition of Eastern Christendom after the Arab invasion rendered this intercourse more difficult, it did not by any means cease.

As early as the eighth century Anglo-Saxons underwent the greatest hardships to visit Jerusalem. The journey of St. Willibald, Bishop of Eichstädt, took seven years (722-29) and furnishes an idea of the varied and severe trials to which pilgrims were subject (Itiner. Latina, 1, 241-283). After their conquest of the West, the Carolingians endeavoured to improve the condition of the Latins settled in the East; in 762 Pepin the Short entered into negotiations with the Caliph of Bagdad. In Rome, on 30 November, 800, the very day on which Leo III invoked the arbitration of Charlemagne, ambassadors from Haroun al-Raschid delivered to the King of the Franks the keys of the Holy Sepulchre, the banner of Jersualem, and some precious relics (Einhard, "Annales", ad an. 800, in "Mon. Germ. Hist.: Script.", I, 187); this was an acknowledgment of the Frankish protectorate over the Christians of Jerusalem. That churches and monasteries were built at Charlemagne's expense is attested by a sort of a census of the monasteries of Jerusalem dated 808 ("Commemoratio de Casis Dei" in "Itiner. Hieros.", I, 209). In 870, at the time of the pilgrimage of Bernard the Monk (Itiner. Hierosol., I, 314), these institutions were still very prosperous, and it has been abundantly proved that alms were sent regularly from the West to the Holy Land. In the tenth century, just when the political and social order of Europe was most troubled, knights, bishops, and abbots, actuated by devotion and a taste for adventure, were wont to visit Jerusalem and pray at the Holy Sepulchre without being molested by the Mohammedans. Suddenly, in 1009, Hakem, the Fatimite Caliph of Egypt, in a fit of madness ordered the destruction of the Holy Sepulchre and all the Christian establishments in Jerusalem. For years thereafter Christians were cruelly persecuted. (See the recital of an eyewitness, Iahja of Antioch, in Schlumberger's "Epopée byzantine", II, 442.) In 1027 the Frankish protectorate was overthrown and replaced by that of the Byzantine emperors, to whose diplomacy was due the reconstruction of the Holy Sepulchre. The Christian quarter was even surrounded by a wall, and some Amalfi merchants, vassals of the Greek emperors, built hospices in Jerusalem for pilgrims, e.g. the Hospital of St. John, cradle of the Order of Hospitallers.

Instead of diminishing, the enthusiasm of Western Christians for the pilgrimage to Jerusalem seemed rather to increase during the eleventh century. Not only princes, bishops, and knights, but even men and women of the humbler classes undertook the holy journey (Radulphus Glaber, IV, vi). Whole armies of pilgrims traversed Europe, and in the valley of the Danube hospices were established where they could replenish their provisions. In 1026 Richard, Abbot of Saint-Vannes, led 700 pilgrims into Palestine at the expense of Richard II, Duke of Normandy. In 1065 over 12,000 Germans who had crossed Europe under the command of Günther, Bishop of Bamberg, while on their way through Palestine had to seek shelter in a ruined fortress, where they defended themselves against a troop of Bedouins (Lambert of Hersfeld, in "Mon. Germ. Hist.: Script.", V, 168). Thus it is evident that at the close of the eleventh century the route to Palestine was familiar enough to Western Christians who looked upon the Holy Sepulchre as the most venerable of relics and were ready to brave any peril in order to visit it. The memory of Charlemagne's protectorate still lived, and a trace of it is to be found in the medieval legend of this emperor's journey to Palestine (Gaston Paris in "Romania", 1880, p. 23).

The rise of the Seljukian Turks, however, compromised the safety of pilgrims and even threatened the independence of the Byzantine Empire and of all Christendom. In 1070 Jerusalem was taken, and in 1071 Diogenes, the Greek emperor, was defeated and made captive at Mantzikert. Asia Minor and all of Syria became the prey of the Turks. Antioch succumbed in 1084, and by 1092 not one of the great metropolitan sees of Asia remained in the possession of the Christians. Although separated from the communion of Rome since the schism of Michael Cærularius (1054), the emperors of Constantinople implored the assistance of the popes; in 1073 letters were exchanged on the subject between Michael VII and Gregory VII. The pope seriously contemplated leading a force of 50,000 men to the East in order to re-establish Christian unity, repulse the Turks, and rescue the Holy Sepulchre. But the idea of the crusade constituted only a part of this magnificent plan. (The letters of Gregory VII are in P.L., CXLVIII, 300, 325, 329, 386; cf. Riant's critical discussion in Archives de l'Orient Latin, I, 56.) The conflict over the Investitures in 1076 compelled the pope to abandon his projects; the Emperors Nicephorus Botaniates and Alexius Comnenus were unfavourable to a religious union with Rome; finally war broke out between the Byzantine Empire and the Normans of the Two Sicilies.

It was Pope Urban II who took up the plans of Gregory VII and gave them more definite shape. A letter from Alexius Comnenus to Robert, Count of Flanders, recorded by the chroniclers, Guibert de Nogent ("Historiens Occidentaux des Croisades", ed. by the Académie des Inscriptions, IV, 13l) and Hugues de Fleury (in "Mon. Germ. Hist.: Script.", IX, 392), seems to imply that the crusade was instigated by the Byzantine emperor, but this has been proved false (Chalandon, Essai sur le règne d'Alexis Comnène, appendix), Alexius having merely sought to enroll five hundred Flemish knights in the imperial army (Anna Comnena, Alexiad., VII, iv). The honour of initiating the crusade has also been attributed to Peter the Hermit, a recluse of Picardy, who, after a pilgrimage to Jerusalem and a vision in the church of the Holy Sepulchre, went to Urban II and was commissioned by him to preach the crusade. However, though eyewitnesses of the crusade mention his preaching, they do not ascribe to him the all-important rôle assigned him later by various chroniclers, e.g. Albert of Aix and especially William of Tyre. (See Hagenmeyer, Peter der Eremite Leipzig, 1879.) The idea of the crusade is chiefly attributed to Pope Urban II (1095), and the motives that actuated him are clearly set forth by his contemporaries: "On beholding the enormous injury that all, clergy or people, brought upon the Christian Faith . . . at the news that the Rumanian provinces had been taken from the Christians by the Turks, moved with compassion and impelled by the love of God, he crossed the mountains and descended into Gaul" (Foucher de Chartres, I, in "Histoire des Crois.", III, 321). Of course it is possible that in order to swell his forces, Alexius Comnenus solicited assistance in the West; however, it was not he but the pope who agitated the great movement which filled the Greeks with anxiety and terror.

[Abbas]

thefactremains wrote:

yes,, the christiains bombed the twin towers,,,yea right,,,wake up canada,,the muzzies are trying to DESENSITISE you

Yes, Muslims were the cause of millions dieing cause of Hitler and his Christain vision. Rightttttttttttttttttttt

[thefactremains]

learn to live with other religion?,,are you fucken kidding me? London, England tryed, so did America, It doesnt matter, anyway you cut it. Islam is the Enemy of all mankind, If you think its a peaceful religion, yoy can keep telling urself that. everybody in the World knows, its a killing religion.

[Firecat]

Abbas wrote:

This thread is for people that are so blind that they will go ahead and say Islam is religion of hate without any real facts. Well, I asked the same question except this time Christianity is in question.

A great article:

Over the last few months, neoconservatives and Christian leaders have banded together in an attempt to mar the value systems defined by Islamic ideology and to present Islam to America as a violent, bloodthirsty religion that demands the subversion of the world, or its death. Islam has been decried by many a pastor and priest as a “religion of hate” and a “culture of intolerance.” Neoconservatives claim that Islamic ideology is so foreign and fundamentally different from Western ideology that overlap or mutual understanding is impossible. After all, they reason, how can America come to terms with a society that sends its children to die in the name of God, or a faith that demands its adherent to kill all infidels if they refuse to covert to Islam?

When I first heard these comments, I laughed. I laughed at the sheer stupidity of the people that would suggest such patently false ideas. I laughed at what I thought were their pathetic attempts to wage a propaganda and misinformation war against Muslims in America in an attempt to vilify and marginalize them. After all, what kind of dupe would believe the ridiculous lies they were spreading? Anyone could pick up a book or talk to a Muslim and find out the truth.

Well, I am not laughing anymore.

A lot of thought has gone into planning the war for America’s opinion. The misinformation war that the neoconservatives and Christian right have launched is from two fronts. First, Christian leaders take specific quotes out of the Qu’ran (or Koran), the Muslim holy book, in an attempt to depict Islam as a fundamentally violent faith, as defined by its basic ideology. They are particularly interested in presenting the idea of jihad as a call to war, knowing that this is completely false and that Muslims cannot reject jihad, as it is a central theme in Islam. Secondly, the public opinion spin doctors use misunderstood or poorly documented dogmas in Islam and present them as proof that Islam has a carnal and perverted moral code.

As both of these topics are extremely diverse and complex, I will attempt to answer them in two successive columns.

It seems to me that no matter how loudly we protest that Islam is not a religion of violence, conservative Christians are not willing to listen. They point out specific passages in the Qu’ran that demand Muslims to go to war against the infidels, or to kill the unbelievers wherever we should find them. Passage after passage is recited or detailed with exacting patience and precision; passages that deal with war, death, and punishment. Why is Islam so violent? Why does it demand so much bloodshed and death? Why does Allah command that Muslims kill Christians, Jews, and anyone else who does not convert to Islam?

It is thus with great irony that I would ask the same question of the Christian world. Why does the Biblical God demand the death of enemies or the seemingly brutal subjugation of women?

"If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth . . . -- Ex. 21:22-25

"I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." -- Genesis 3:16

"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." --1 Tim. 2:11-14

In fact, it seems to me that the Bible demands the murder of children!

"Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones." --Psalm 137:9

“… slay both man and woman, infant and suckling.” -- I Samuel 15:3

”… dash their children, and rip up their women with child.” -- 2 Kings 8:12

Of course, the intent here is to illustrate that any quote that is taken out of context can be made to fit the crime. It is not difficult to selectively provide quotes that incriminate or condemn. For instance, take a commonly used quote from the Qu’ran that is used as proof that it is violent:

“...slay (enemies] wherever you find them!" -- (4: 89).

This line does look extremely violent. It is difficult to imagine a viable explanation for such a statement. Indeed, can there even be such a justification? Well, let us take a look at the following line:

"Thus, if they let you be, and do not make war on you, and offer you peace, God does not allow you to harm them.” -- (4: 90).

The idea that this is “proof” that Islam is violent then is preposterous. The second line is crucial to the message of the text; even in times of war, soldiers must observe the laws of compassion and reason as dictated by the Qu’ran. One wonders why pundits like Jerry Falwell and Ann Coulter do not come across these lines in their search for the truth:

"Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loves not transgressors." – (2:190)

Do not "take life -- which God has made sacred -- except for just cause. And if anyone is slain wrongfully, we have given his heir authority" to demand justice for the death or to forgive it. "But let him not exceed bounds in the matter of taking life; for he is helped [by the Law]." -- Surah 17

One other ideological process neoconservatives have committed themselves to is the attempt to malign the intent of jihad. Western media have picked up their cry of jihad as “holy war,” which is in fact a western adaptation, reminiscent of crusader mentality used against Muslims during the Church’s holy war against Islam. There is no term for “holy war” in Arabic. The word jihad translates to “struggle.” It refers to the difficult effort that is needed to put God's will into practice at every level: personal and social, as well as political. A very important and much quoted tradition has Muhammad (s.a.w.) telling his companions as they go home after a battle, "We are returning from the lesser jihad [the battle] to the greater jihad,' the far more urgent and momentous task of extirpating wrongdoing from one's own society and one's own heart. Indeed, although jihad can be a struggle to protect the weak or to free the oppressed, a greater jihad is that of one’s own desires; the jihad for spiritual cleanliness and the application of the laws of God into one’s own life. This includes telling the truth, providing for the destitute and the hungry, and the control of carnal desires like gluttony and sleep. Although jihad can be used to defend one’s person, property, or community, it is not some rallying call to arms in an attempt to advocate violence as a way of life or to suggest that all infidels should be put to the sword.

It is clear then that the use of selective quotes out of the Qu’ran is merely an attempt at the legitimization of the false claim that Islam is violent. Indeed, by the examples referenced above, it is unmistakable that neoconservatives are relying on misinformation and lies to propagate their vicious slander. Their attempt to vilify jihad is similar in its intent, if not its process. What could be more in sync with American ideals of honor, self-sacrifice, and courage in the face of adversity? Jihad is not an Islamic invention; it is a global definition of valor and a demand for personal excellence.

It is all the more wretched that these lies are told by men and women that claim to represent the leadership of their faith. If this is what Christianity is, then I am glad that I am Muslim. Now it is time to determine if these leaders represent the exception or the rule. Do these leaders espouse what is commonly believed by the practitioners of their faith, representative of a majority of Christians that would like to see pluralism and interfaith communication perish? Or are these pundits on the leading edge of extremism, delegates of the few fanatics that Christianity generally rejects? From what I see in the media, I am fearful that it is the former.


OPEN YOUR EYES AND LEARN TO LIVE WITH ALL RELIGIONS OTHERWISE THERE IS NO ONE RELIGION THAT IS SUPERIOR TO ANOTHER.

I'm concerned about any thought system that includes the notion of "convert or die." such as that tenet within Islam.

Unlike the Old testament (from which you've drawn most of your quotes. The New Testament is the prime Book of Christianity.

The New testament was written by people with the perspective of 2000 years ago and their writings and laws reflect that degree of sophistication. There is nothing surprising in its attitudes about some things.

The Koran though was swritten more recently (about 500 years ago) and reflects a more "modern" worldview of some things like the rights of women in COMPARISON to works from 1500 years earlier but that is hardly something unexpected.

The last big murderous crusade by the Christians, however, was about a thousand years ago; the Sunni/Shi'ia civil war, and other similar religious violence is the present state of Islam:

so - at this period in time, there is no doubt in my mind that Islam is by far the most violent of prevalent religions.

[thefactremains]

Screw the POPE, He lives and stays, in Rome, not in CAnda, or USA,,,DUH

[Abbas]

Quote:

I'm concerned about any thought system that includes the notion of "convert or die." such as that tenet within Islam.

Unlike the Old testament (from which you've drawn most of your quotes. The New Testament is the prime Book of Christianity.

The New testament was written by people with the perspective of 2000 years ago and their writings and laws reflect that degree of sophistication. There is nothing surprising in its attitudes about some things.

The Koran though was swritten more recently (about 500 years ago) and reflects a more "modern" worldview of some things like the rights of women in COMPARISON to works from 1500 years earlier but that is hardly something unexpected.

The last big murderous crusade by the Christians, however, was about a thousand years ago; the Sunni/Shi'ia civil war, and other similar religious violence is the present state of Islam:

so - at this period in time, there is no doubt in my mind that Islam is by far the most violent of prevalent religions.

There are so many different testaments however, it seems we have to judge a religion by what it says originally and how its practiced in the real world. So, if Islam is the cause of all wars then Christianity is the mother of the entire world conflict. This world has seen World War 1 and 2, the worst wars in the history of mankind and guess who start/fought both of them?

I have no doubt in my mind either that Christianity is far worse because people have their minds occupied with Hating Islam that they don't realize their own religion is no different.

[thefactremains]

Pope is in ROME, towel head, not in Canada, or USA,, so dont mix us up with him, ok?

[thefactremains]

and Hitler is in Germany,the Pope is in Rome,whats the matter? you cant figure it out? go move in over there, in rome. your not wanted here

[Firecat]

Abbas wrote:

Quote:

I'm concerned about any thought system that includes the notion of "convert or die." such as that tenet within Islam.

Unlike the Old testament (from which you've drawn most of your quotes. The New Testament is the prime Book of Christianity.

The New testament was written by people with the perspective of 2000 years ago and their writings and laws reflect that degree of sophistication. There is nothing surprising in its attitudes about some things.

The Koran though was swritten more recently (about 500 years ago) and reflects a more "modern" worldview of some things like the rights of women in COMPARISON to works from 1500 years earlier but that is hardly something unexpected.

The last big murderous crusade by the Christians, however, was about a thousand years ago; the Sunni/Shi'ia civil war, and other similar religious violence is the present state of Islam:

so - at this period in time, there is no doubt in my mind that Islam is by far the most violent of prevalent religions.

There are so many different testaments however, it seems we have to judge a religion by what it says originally and how its practiced in the real world. So, if Islam is the cause of all wars then Christianity is the mother of the entire world conflict. This world has seen World War 1 and 2, the worst wars in the history of mankind and guess who start/fought both of them?

I have no doubt in my mind either that Christianity is far worse because people have their minds occupied with Hating Islam that they don't realize their own religion is no different.

You have made up the phrase "Islam is the cause of all wars" and inserted it into your text as though it were something in my text to which you were responding, then you used that fiction to fuel your outrage.

Further you are responding to my statement that AT THIS TIME Islam is most often in conflict by attempting to answer over a broader sweep of history - a ridiculous comparison first because that is not the comparison being made, and even if it were Islam has been around less than 1/4 the time.

[Abbas]

Quote:

You have made up the phrase "Islam is the cause of all wars" and inserted it into your text as though it were something in my text to which you were responding, then you used that fiction to fuel your outrage.

Further you are responding to my statement that AT THIS TIME Islam is most often in conflict by attempting to answer over a broader sweep of history - a ridiculous comparison first because that is not the comparison being made, and even if it were Islam has been around less than 1/4 the time.

I guess you didnt notice but I used the word "IF" Islam was cause of all wars.

Second, its not a question of AT THIS TIME.... AT THIS TIME USA is killing Afghanis, Iraqis and now Somalians. Also, AT THIS TIME Christains are in as many conflicts as Muslims.

It is a question of what the religious teachings are and they are clearly the same. It is a question of what your kids and Muslim kids are taught and it doesn't seem to be that different.

Islam has been around 1/4 of the time Christianity has yet Christians still seem to be fighting in almost every single war in the history of Mankind? Shouldn't they know already especially because they have been around for so long that War is in their nature more then a Muslims?

You question every War Muslims are in, what about USA?

By the way, you didn't comment on the biggest and the bloodiest wars fought in the history were started, fueled and fought by Christians, was that also Islam's teachings that brought such terror to the world?

Also, it wasn't Muslims that chose to drop a nuke on Japan. If you think nuking a country that has no nukes is justified then I am speechless.

[hwacker]

Abyss you are a Idiot.

[tritium]

Anyone can cite historic events. Yes Hitler was an evil person, and so was anyone who followed him, regardless of faith.

However, Hitler abolished religion and was an Atheists (even though this is open to debate).

This is today, not 100 years ago. The present day enemy is Islam.

Sure, Catholics and Protestants planted road side bombs that killed children.

However, UNLILKE Muslims, Catholics and Protestants stood up and denounced the actions of those terrorists.

Show me at least 15 links to "Muslims" denouncing the actions of the Islamic Terrorist. Fuck show me 5.


BTW, OT Vs NT. Please Christianity follows the teachings of the New Testament.

We have learned from our mistakes, unlike the Muslims who rather strap on a bomb like a dog rather than negotiate that humans.

Why don't you sit down and read the Bible, maybe you will cast away your book of lies and find the true God.