Christian Vs. Muslim Part III
I. "Christo-Fascism"
Blessed are the Poor in Spirit, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven.
Blessed are those who Mourn, for they shall be comforted.
Blessed are the Meek, for they shall inherit the earth.
Blessed are those who Hunger and Thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.
Blessed are the Merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.
Blessed are the Pure in Heart, for they shall see God.
Blessed are the Peacemakers, for they shall be called Sons of God.
Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven.
Blessed are you when men revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account.
Matthew 5:3-11 (The Sermon on the Mount)
For I was hungry and you gave me food,
I was thirsty and you gave me drink,
I was a Stranger and you welcomed me,
I was naked and you clothed me,
I was sick and you visited me,
I was in prison and you came to me.'
Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these, my brethren, you did it to me.
Matthew 25:35-40
Love one another.
John 15:12
Put away your sword.
All who live by the sword, die by the sword.
Matthew 26:52
One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?" "The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: `Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' The second is this: `Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these."
Mark 12:28-31
"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you."
Matthew 5:43
II. The Religion of Peace
The punishment of those who pit themselves against Allah and His Messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement, except those who repent before you have them in your power.
(Quran, 5:33-34)
Announce painful punishment to those who disbelieve.
(Quran 9:3)
Surely the vilest of animals in Allah's sight are those who disbelieve.
(8:55)
And if they intend to act unfaithfully towards you, so indeed they acted unfaithfully towards Allah before, but he gave you mastery over them.
(8:71)
When the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and beseige them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer [become believers] and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them.
(9:5)
Fight them: Allah will punish them by your hands and bring them to disgrace, and assist you against them.
(9:14)
Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the book (Christians and Jews), until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.
(9:29)
Right. Any questions?
Blessed are the Poor in Spirit, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven.
Blessed are those who Mourn, for they shall be comforted.
Blessed are the Meek, for they shall inherit the earth.
Blessed are those who Hunger and Thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.
Blessed are the Merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.
Blessed are the Pure in Heart, for they shall see God.
Blessed are the Peacemakers, for they shall be called Sons of God.
Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven.
Blessed are you when men revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account.
Matthew 5:3-11 (The Sermon on the Mount)
For I was hungry and you gave me food,
I was thirsty and you gave me drink,
I was a Stranger and you welcomed me,
I was naked and you clothed me,
I was sick and you visited me,
I was in prison and you came to me.'
Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these, my brethren, you did it to me.
Matthew 25:35-40
Love one another.
John 15:12
Put away your sword.
All who live by the sword, die by the sword.
Matthew 26:52
One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?" "The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: `Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' The second is this: `Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these."
Mark 12:28-31
"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you."
Matthew 5:43
II. The Religion of Peace
The punishment of those who pit themselves against Allah and His Messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement, except those who repent before you have them in your power.
(Quran, 5:33-34)
Announce painful punishment to those who disbelieve.
(Quran 9:3)
Surely the vilest of animals in Allah's sight are those who disbelieve.
(8:55)
And if they intend to act unfaithfully towards you, so indeed they acted unfaithfully towards Allah before, but he gave you mastery over them.
(8:71)
When the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and beseige them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer [become believers] and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them.
(9:5)
Fight them: Allah will punish them by your hands and bring them to disgrace, and assist you against them.
(9:14)
Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the book (Christians and Jews), until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.
(9:29)
Right. Any questions?
posted by John | 1:30 PM
80 Comments:
well, i know that if they could, they'd love us to DEATH!
If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant, And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; ... Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.
-- Deuteronomy, Chapter 17:2-3,5
"And the Lord said unto him, Go through...the midst of Jerusalem, and set a mark upon the foreheads of the men that sigh and that cry for all the abominations that be done in the midst thereof. And to the others he said in mine hearing, Go ye after him through the city, and smite: let not your eye spare, neither have ye pity: Slay utterly old and young, both maids and little children, and women: but come not near any man upon whom is the mark..."
Ezekiel 9:4-7
"Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up."
Hosea 13:16
"Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."
Numbers 31
John,
Normally I don't mind the back and forth around here. Typically it's good natured and often well thought out. But this stuff is just offensice John.
You take Tyson as an example of Muslims but forget Ali right. What about the KKK; they're a Christian group too. Your taking the worst possible examples of Islam and comparing them to the best possible examples of Christianity.
You did notice that there is a difference between the old testament and the new? Excellent. There is a reason that the Jewish christians of the time called the teachings of Christ the "Good News."
Now you will notice that Mohammed was familiar with both the old testament and the christian teachings of the time (ca. 630 and thereabouts). Which model did he use you formulate his own teachings? The Quran holds Christ and his mother, Mary, in high esteem, but seemingly used few of his teachings. This is no mark against Mohammed per se, but the differences must be marked in this sort of camparison.
That being said, a comparative religion study must be taken with a grain of salt. The christian teachings do not deny the truth of the old testament canon, but claim that it was modified with the "New and everlasting Covenant." Even the Jews of Roman times claimed that God acted in our lives, and as a result can change. In a similar vein, there are many Islamic teachers that emphasize the teachings of peace in the Quran rather than the image of Allah as the "Wrathful God." The products of Islam have included our own western basis of understanding mathematics, medicine, astronomy and philosophy. This is undeniable.
In the west, we have the ilk of Jerry Falwell proclaiming that ALL of Islam is in point of fact evil. In my humble opinion, this places him in the same radical category of those teachers of Islam that wish to destroy the west because we are seemingly evil. It is far too easy to start loosly quoting scripture from either side and then start generalizing about who believes what, when the picture far too complicated for 'ipso facto' deductions.
I posit this: just as you cannot generalize all Christians into the same group, you cannot generalize all of Islam into the same group. We must be specific about who we are castigating and who we are not if we want to have anything like peace on this planet.
Sorry about the grammatical errors, I have been in a bit of a rush.....
Great posts, I will hang around here for sure.
Forgive me for not feeling like a debate. I am on my way to bed and wanted to check this blog out. Thats NANC.
I will be back!!!!
he just embarked on a new career and is about to make a grand impression, but you'll love him. i love him as a son. he has a great blog also.
I take a very different approach to the "Christian vs Muslim" debate.
First of all I agree with Phelonius when he said, "I posit this: just as you cannot generalize all Christians into the same group, you cannot generalize all of Islam into the same group."
I looked up the Mormon Church's stand on Islam... (forgive me for the lenth of this)
From this source Source
'"As early as 1855, at a time when Christian literature generally ridiculed Muhammad as the Antichrist and the archenemy of Western civilization, Elders George A. Smith (1817–75) and Parley P. Pratt (1807–57) of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles delivered lengthy sermons demonstrating an accurate and balanced understanding of Islamic history and speaking highly of Muhammad’s leadership. Elder Smith observed that Muhammad was “descended from Abraham and was no doubt raised up by God on purpose” to preach against idolatry. He sympathized with the plight of Muslims, who, like Latter-day Saints, found it difficult “to get an honest history” written about them. Speaking next, Elder Pratt went on to express his admiration for Muhammad’s teachings, asserting that “upon the whole, … [Muslims] have better morals and better institutions than many Christian nations.”'
'"In recent years, respect for the spiritual legacy of Muhammad and for the religious values of the Islamic community has led to increasing contact and cooperation between Latter-day Saints and Muslims around the world. This is due in part to the presence of Latter-day Saint congregations in areas such as the Levant, North Africa, the Persian Gulf, and Southeast Asia. The Church has sought to respect Islamic laws and traditions that prohibit conversion of Muslims to other faiths by adopting a policy of nonproselyting in Islamic countries of the Middle East. "'
'"Yet examples of dialogue and cooperation abound, including visits of Muslim dignitaries at Church headquarters in Salt Lake City; Muslim use of Church canning facilities to produce halal (ritually clean) food products; Church humanitarian aid and disaster relief sent to predominantly Muslim areas including Jordan, Kosovo, and Turkey; academic agreements between Brigham Young University and various educational and governmental institutions in the Islamic world; the existence of the Muslim Student Association at BYU; and expanding collaboration between the Church and Islamic organizations to safeguard traditional family values worldwide. 11 The recent initiation of the Islamic Translation Series, cosponsored by BYU and the Church, has resulted in several significant exchanges between Muslim officials and Latter-day Saint Church leaders. A Muslim ambassador to the United Nations predicted that this translation series “will play a positive role in the West’s quest for a better understanding of Islam.”'
As a whole they are good people, with some bad apples in their midst
Oh man, shaking my head. :(
Kelly says:
"As a whole they are good people, with some bad apples in their midst"
Couldn't agree with you more
Jeff says
Aren't we all?
Jeff said...
"Oh man, shaking my head. :("
Which part of this discussion are you shaking your head at?
Oh...and Jeff agreed with me (as they say in Utah, "OH MY HECK!!) :)
What's this twice in one week ...'who da thunk it?' ;)
One more time, people:
"The punishment of those who pit themselves against Allah and His Messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement, except those who repent before you have them in your power."
(Quran, 5:33-34)
"Announce painful punishment to those who disbelieve."
(Quran 9:3)
"Surely the vilest of animals in Allah's sight are those who disbelieve."
(8:55)
"And if they intend to act unfaithfully towards you, so indeed they acted unfaithfully towards Allah before, but he gave you mastery over them."
(8:71)
"When the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and beseige them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer [become believers] and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them."
(9:5)
"Fight them: Allah will punish them by your hands and bring them to disgrace, and assist you against them."
(9:14)
"Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the book (Christians and Jews), until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection."
(9:29)
And so predictable.
I'm pretty damn sure that was Jeff as "anonymous" who took the time to retreive the Bronze Age Old Testament passages and skulked in here with them to imply some sort of "moral equivalence" in his defense of the indefensible, and attempting to drag down the foundation of Christianity--i.e. Judaism-- to the level of aggressive Islamic violence, intolerance, and expansion inherent in many sections of the Quran.
But that's what liberals like Jeff do: Instead of raising up his team (it must be his team, since he attacked mine) by taking the time to find the equivalent Peace, Love, and Charity passages in the Quran (and I guess they're there somewhere) to favorably compare it to the posted Christian passages (e.g. "See, we promote Peace and Love, too"), he automatically tries to pull down and degrade what I posted about Judeo-Christianity (its quintessence) to the murderous level of the relevant Quran passages by bringing in irrelevant Third Party Bronze Age Jewish histories and so "level the playing field" that way (e.g. "You're killers, too!")...
The fact that he automaically chose to do the latter tells you a lot:
He didn't bother defending the implications for Islam, but decided to kick Judeo-Christianity in the shins instead.
You also forgot the passages from Joshua, "anonymous," where God commands genocide, and the extermination of not only men, women, and children, but the livestock too, of tribes and cultures that disappeared 3,200 years ago (because they were exterminated by the super-mojo Israelites with the Ark of the Covenant at the front-lines).
The Old Testament passages are about a fledgling nation often on the defensive in the perpetually-warring, polytheistic, Bronze Age Levant.
Yes, they fought their way--tooth and nail--from Egypt to the Promised Land, but once they got there they were rightly concerned with purity and cultural integrity in an environment swarming with violent, primitive, wicked, Nature-worshipping pagans with murderous cults that engaged in child sacrifices (like the cult of Moloch) and all sorts of sexual depravities and decidedly unkosher customs.
And they all fought the same way back then.
No one had Geneva Conventions.
It was the Bronze Age and war is war.
And like today, a loss of nerve can make all the difference.
If Ripley from *Aliens* stumbled into a nursery full of pods and--instead of torching them with a flame-thrower--felt "sorry" for them, the audience would think she was being a fool, wouldn't they?
Well, in the ancient Levant, without very tough policies for national security, the "enemy" could burn your crops, raid your house, rape you (if you're a man or a woman) and your daughter, grab your young son, cut off his testicles, and sell him off as a eunuch and your wife and daughter as slaves as the last thing you'll see before you're killed.
And that kind of stuff still happens in Third World countries.
What do you think is happening in Darfur (Muslim on black Muslim)?
But forget all that.
The main difference is that the modern, Western Jew and Christian understand historical contexts and *the moral* of the story.
And NOWHERE in the Old Testament--even in the brutal war-time passages you provided--does the Voice of the Bronze Age deity--even at his Angriest--come anywhere near the aggressive, religious militancy and sheer barbarity of the Quranic quotes (which are UNPROVOKED), so your sorry attempt at moral equivalence has failed.
Furthermore, NOWHERE in the New Testament does Christ promote aggressive militancy, imperial conquest, and conversion at knife-point, NOWHERE, so your sorry attempt at moral equivalence with WHAT WAS POSTED not only also failed, but increases the probbility that you are, in fact, none other than the *dunkhoff* Lee Harvey.
Finally, you did nothing to dilute the contrast of the post, but only managed to, once again, characteristically, distract from it and try to shout over the epiphany.
Don't be naive, any of you, about the nature of the enemy we're fighting.
Republicus is not condemning "each and every" Muslim.
He has devoted posts to the courageous Wafa Sultan, and other Muslims who have spoken out against the pathologies of the extremists.
He is counting on the "moderates" to help win this war.
Unfortunately, I can barely hear them.
Understand that there are large--very large--multitudes of devout Muslims thoroughly brain-washed by Imams and madrassahs and taught to read and understand precisely what I posted from the Quran as eternal and omnipresent Commands.
To obey them--to the letter--is to ba a "good Muslim."
Read them again.
Republicus had a Middle-Eastern girlfriend and dated a couple of others.
They were Westernized, "hip," educated, and well-assimilated.
They also turned away from Islam (because they were ex-patriates who fled theocracies, and lost property and the freedom--if not lives-- of relatives).
They are considered "bad Muslims."
I don't know of any Jew or Christian who embraces the war-time passages in the Torah/Old Testament and understands them as eternal and omnipresent Commands.
The "good Christian" embraces the positive passages posted.
The contrast is a legitimate one.
Wasn't me man
i posted this at the mel gibson thread, but it seems apropos for here:
there is a degree of truth to that kelly, but like christians, if muslims do not read their manual neither can claim their faith - if christians were to follow the bible to a tee, how much better the world would be. conversely, if all muslims read their koran, there would be no christians. think about it.
wake up and greet the day! good morning!
Well, John, I have to disagree that the contrast is legitimate in an historical context.
The Christians under Byzantines were so oppressive to other religions (and versions of Christianity)that when the Muslims came to Anatolia and the area around Lebanon many of the cities threw open their gates and welcomed the Arabs. The reason was that they had learned that the Islamic leaders were tolerant of other religions. The same held true in Spain and elsewhere.
The first crusade found the "Franks" slaughtering everyone in Jerusalem including the Jews and other Christian sects. In Spain, when the Mohammedans were finally defeated in Granada in 1492, the very same year saw the Jews expelled from Spain or converted under pain of torture or death. The reason that they did this was that they had read in scripture that it was the Jews that had killed Christ and were therefore all evil.
There are Christians today that read in Revelations that the Anti-Christ has certain characteristics that leave them no doubt that it is the Pope in Rome, and he is therefore evil. The terrible wars of the Reformation were justified on both sides by reading scripture.
The Point is this: for every example of extremism that can be seen in Islam, it is just as easy to find extremism in Christianity. This is not a political point. It has nothing to do with "right" or "left" ideology. It has everything to do with recognizing, again, that characterizing a global religion by spot quoting scriptures is not intellectually honest.
There are, indeed, fanatics in the middle east that will kill us for jollies. At the same time there are huge numbers of Muslims in India, for example, for whom the whole thing is a huge embarassment. We have to be careful to understand the differences.
Phelonius said,
"This is not a political point. It has nothing to do with "right" or "left" ideology."
This is precisely why Jeff and Kelly actually agree on something. :)
Yep
I could post a ton of verses where God commands the death of entire cities. Or we can fastforward a few hundred years and look at the crusades. They are completely differant from one another, but still have one powerful thing in common. They are both used to make a case against Christians. Most of the old test. cases in which this happens, the people on the receiving end of the wooping, were the kind of people who sacrified thier own kids for pagan gods. The children also would have been raised the same. IN these days the woman and children were not included in the killing. Alot of the time they were a hundred miles away. Without going on to long on each case. I think that God in all cases did not want us to just go and kill for the sake of killing.
When the Jews were commanded to stone someone to death because of the sin the commited. They were told to do so to show the Jews just how serious sin was and still is.
When the Christ came he put an end to the old ways and said all of thing in the original post. (see Post).
Christ wanted us to focus on helping each other. If one of us was struggling with a sin problem we are suppost to share in the pain. Help each other by confession and prayer. The new test. is very clear on how we are to live. Using old test. verse to make Christians look bad is an old tool. It just doesn't cut it.
If anyone wants to get a better idea of what I am attemting to say read "A Case for Faith" by Lee Strobel. He does a much better job then I can.
I am adding this blog to my roll. I hope to join in at lot more.
whoa.
A lot of people use verses from the Old Testament to blanket demonize Christians. (Judges, Leviticus and Deuteronomy care the juicy ones).
But, that does not erase my suspicion that John's comparison here involved a pinch of cherry picking.
Here:
God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East." -George w. bush
Matthew 10: 34 “Think not that I came to send peace on the earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.” (ASV)
“Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword”. (KJV)
The KKK is not a Christian group. They may say they are, but they are far from it. What they believe and what Christ taught are to completely differant things. It is the same as saying all muslims are terrorists. All KKK members are nuts however. I am white and Christian. I think what the klan is doing is filling peoples minds with hate. Christ came to offer salvation to the world. Not hate!!!
F.B.,
To be fair I think you cannot characterize the people in Jerusalem at the time of the first crusade to be the kind of people that sacrificed children. That is just not accurate. Now the Caananites, perhaps, did, but there is no real conclusive proof of that as yet. We know they sacrificed animals to Baal or Tiamat, but the Jews also had animal sacrifices in the Temple. The people of Carthage, the relatives of the Caananites, did practice child sacrifice, and that is at least documented. The people that killed them, though, were the Romans, and their own track record of humanity was a bit questionable at best. At the time of the Crusades, the Jews had long lost the Temple and the practice of animal sacrifice, but the Franks killed the hell out of them anyway (because they had killed Christ.)
John - do not take my criticism of your methodology personally, as I find this a very interesting thread. I do think that there has been a lot of negative press about Islam for reasons that are crystal clear, but my criticism is based on the fact that the media has rightfully concentrated on the fanatics that have attacked us. In my own city here in Texas, the result was that a small group of assholes have placed bullet holes in the local Mosque from time to time because THEY cannot see the difference. This is not how civilized people should live, and we have a large population of law-abiding citizens here that just happen to be Moslems. Caution is warranted, but blind hatred is not. (Not that you suffer from this anomoly, but they also use the Quran as justification for dangerous vandalism against innocents.)
Jeff said:
"Wasn't me man."
I wasn't sure. But you gave me good cause to suspect.
The only thing that made me uncertain was the improbability that you had enough knowledge about and facility with the material to provide such a rapid response with counterpoints.
nanc said...
"there is a degree of truth to that kelly, but like christians, if muslims do not read their manual neither can claim their faith - if christians were to follow the bible to a tee, how much better the world would be. conversely, if all muslims read their koran, there would be no christians. think about it."
Well, both are complex books, and you can cherry pick and say "Look here, this is what it's about."
For it's part, as a whole, The Bible does not champion the more unseemly attributes of its heroes so much as it unabashedly makes the point about fallen human nature, e.g.:
The first son murdering his younger sibling, Noah getting drunk and incestually seduced by his daughters, Moses a fugitive for murder and sanctioning genocide as Ordered, King David (the first "Messiah"--a political, secular one) coveting his general's wife and arranging for his death in battle, King Solomon--the "Wisest Man in the World"--a filthy rich polygamist who tipped his crown to idols, etc, *ad nauseum.*
Such behaviors are nowhere in the text justified or apologized for, but almost always leads to terrible consequences, e.g.:
King David's covetuous murder of Bathsheba's first husband was credited as the cause of the death of his first-born with her, Solomon's idolatrous extravagances were the cause of the civil war which split the kingdom within a generation, etc.--although such hindsight "explanations" do come off as somewhat belabored or contrived for the sake of Justice when priests went in and redacted the history.
But these are ancient, indeed pre-historic (i.e. pre-Herodotus) people, and to apply our own greatly-progressed ethical standards upon them is anachronistic, which is THE POINT HERE: The Jihadists think like Mediaevalists. They're still harping about the 8th Century Caliph and Saladin; 21st Century Judeo-Christians (and "moderate"--or "bad Muslims") do not embrace the warrior ethos of the Bronze Age.
You have tribes of Judeo-Christian Quakers and Shakers and the like who are 17th-18th century Luddites, and Fundamentalists who have Mosaic notions of sin, but what floats to the top out of the turmoil of the millennia-long Old Testament is The Rule of Law--the Ten Commandments, and the foundations of our notions of Justice.
With the exception of a very few cults, the rich melting pot of American religious diversity does not attack itself.
But what floats to the top of the Quran is the aggressive militancy and imperial conversion.
That's a very important theme: The global triumph of Islam by militancy.
Again, I am not condemning every individual Muslim as being a brain-washed cult-member who is explicitly taught that the ticket to heaven is dying by the sword for the cause of Islam, but am simply stating what should be obnvious:
The theme of militancy against the infidel is far stronger in the Quran than any theme of militancy against the heathen is in the Old Testament.
It's an underlying theme versus incidental strains.
As for the New Testament influence adding to and humanitarianizing the Rule of Law from the Old, well, I don't think it's a coincidence that--however annoying they are and not ones you want with you in a fistfight--the Western Judeo-Christian culture produces protesting populations of anti-war, "Love Thy Enemy" and "Turn-the-Other-Cheek" peaceniks while their civilian counterparts in the Islamic Middle East --MULTITUDES of them, adults, teen-agers, and children--hit the Arab Streets and chant "Death To America" (and dance in the streets with the news of 9/11).
Why?
LISTEN:
"Failing to carry out jihad, WHICH IS CALLED FOR IN OUR RELIGION, is a sin..."
Usama bin Lade, January 2006 tape
LISTEN:
"The best death to us is UNDER THE SHADOWS OF SWORDS."
(Ibid)
Nanc, bless her, smiled:
"wake up and greet the day! good morning!"
Yes, WAKE UP.
And good afternoon, friends and pests. :)
Phelonius said:
"Well, John, I have to disagree that the contrast is legitimate in an historical context."
I'm talking about themes versus strains, James.
You can compare the theme of militant Islam with strains of similar militancy and imagery in The Bible, but you cannot compare Quranic theme with the overall Biblical theme (i.e aggressive militancy versus the rule of law and universal Love).
"The Christians under Byzantines were so oppressive to other religions (and versions of Christianity)that when the Muslims came to Anatolia and the area around Lebanon many of the cities threw open their gates and welcomed the Arabs."
But the modern Judeo-Christian, on hindsight, above the fray, is free to criticize such appaling shortcomings in supposed representatives of Jesus Christ by the very rules of Christendom.
The modern Islamicist, on the other hand, CELEBRATES the EQUIVALENT atrocities on their end, as it represents "The Might of Islam."
"The reason was that they had learned that the Islamic leaders were tolerant of other religions. The same held true in Spain and elsewhere."
Yes, the Moorish Al Andulis.
Nevertheless, the "tolerance" in Al Andulis and the Ottomans (for example) still subscribed to sharia, and therefore the "tolerance" for "the other" was nothing like the celebratory multicultural diversity we have in America, but consigned "the other" to the status of dhimmitude (to one degree or another).
Furthermore, to say that the Byzantine Christians "started it" is not fair, since that whole area--the intersection of East & West--has been the field of Armageddon for clashing cultures and civilizations for a very long time, and all sides have their victimized sob-stories.
A lot of the bloodshed was impassioned tit-for-tat.
But you're implying--perhaps inadvertantly--that the muslim Empire was the rose of civilization and competing Christendom the thorn, i.e. it sounds like you're subtlety sliding into anti-Western, "Blame-Judeo-Christo-America-First" rationalizations.
Again, the modern Judeo-Christian, on hindsight, above the fray--like you and I-- can be embarrassed and is free to criticize such appaling shortcomings in supposed representatives of Jesus Christ, and to criticize by the very rules of Christianity.
Again, the modern Islamicist, on the other hand, CELEBRATES the EQUIVALENT atrocities on their end, as it represents "The Might of Islam" and the proper fate of the infidel.
I am well aware of the positive contributions on civilization that the sprawling, Muslim Empire in the 12th Century enabled (e.g. in sciences like astronomy, medicine, and chemistry, and their reintroducing of Plato and Aristotle to the West), and the Jihadists yearn for that (i.e. an Islamic world at the vanguard of progress and power), but is resurrecting that era an apology for the Islamicist, or even a plug?
Say I'm an unhinged, Greek Nationalist (or Macedonian, whatever) and dream of the days of Alexandrian conquest and the supposed multi-cultural utopia he conquered (the way the 12th Century supposedly did for themselves), and I engage in terrorism based on that ancient civilization, for the Glory of Greece, and furthermore decry its decline and blame America for usurping the True Culture Leader (i'e. Alexander's Hellenistic Empire).
Of course, plenty of Americans will beg to differ. My culture had its turn, but nevertheless I had stirred up my fellow Mediterranean people's from Turkey to Spain who fervently want the return of Hellenistic Glory and produced terrorists out of that yearning who struck the obstructing U.S. and ignited war.
There are Americans who RIGHTEOUSLY stand up for their own interests and supremacy and resist the attack, and cite rather barbaric practices in *The Iliad* (the ancient Greek "Bible" and Alexander's favorite book) to warn their fellow American's that my ideology is based on a Bronze Age Warrior mentality (that rapes the enemy's captive wives and throws their infants from the walls).
And there are Americans who say, no-no, *The Iliad* is not just about grievous war but is another foundational text of Western Civilization, is no more violent than The Bible, and the influence of the Greek culture (e.g. having given us our alphabet) is as benign and positive as the Arabic one is (e.g. having given us our numbers).
So leave John and his Hellenistic agenda alone, or appease it, or let it succeed.
That's what you're doing, James.
But those days are gone, and the only way they could retrieve them is by civilized competition in the Free Market (what they can give to the world), not by the sword.
Unfortunately, the Islamic culture has been so infected by extreme, religious ideology, the sciences have suffered in their own theocratic Dark Age era and can produce nothing but oil they punp from the ground for $5.00 and sell for $70.00 so they can consume--when unable to steal-- Western technological goods.
Did you see how excited the Iranians were to attain enriched uranium?
It was a religious moment. They put on little theatrical "Allah Akbar" skits that had actors holding aloft a "sacred" container of uranium the way Zarqawi holds aloft a severed head.
"The first crusade found the 'Franks' slaughtering everyone in Jerusalem including the Jews and other Christian sects."
It's not the first--or the last-- time the Jews or Christian sects were slaughtered in Jerusalem, and the ones who did the slaughtering weren't exclusively Crusaders trying to win back lost ground from Islamic imperialism.
You're implying that the Islamic imperialists (who INVADED JERUSALEM FIRST) played patty-cakes and produced a Declaration of Independence.
Not so.
"In Spain, when the Mohammedans were finally defeated in Granada in 1492, the very same year saw the Jews expelled from Spain or converted under pain of torture or death."
And after all they did to help Columbus sail across the Atlantic with their astronomical discoveries, navigational sciences, and map-making. :)
"The reason that they did this was that they had read in scripture that it was the Jews that had killed Christ and were therefore all evil."
As a modern Christian, I'll say that's bad Christianity, and most fellow Christians would agree.
But for MANY Muslims, today, killing Jews in Israel for similar age-old trumped-up charges is being a good Muslim.
The Quran also says not just to kill Jews in Isreal, but the one's "behind the trees and rocks," which are, again, Commands understood to be eternal and omnipresent.
NOWHERE in the New Testament does Jesus Christ or his earthly representatives Command Christians to go out and kill Jews.
NOWHERE.
The earliest texts in the New Testament are the Letters of Paul.
He had many run-ins with his fellow Jews over his Christian faith and vented his frustration in not-so-flattering terms, but here's what he says in his last--and longest and most developed--Epistle:
"...for every well-doer there will be glory, honour, and peace, for the Jew first and also for the Greek.
For God has no favorites..."
Paul's Letter to The Romans, 2:10
That's the New Testament.
Now let's hear from a typical Shiek's sermon:
"Listen to the Prophet Muhammad, who tells you about the evil end that awaits Jews. The stones and trees will want the Muslims to finish off every Jew."
That's out of the Quran.
"There are Christians today that read in Revelations that the Anti-Christ has certain characteristics that leave them no doubt that it is the Pope in Rome, and he is therefore evil."
Sure, and there are Christians who thought Napoleon was the antichrist in his day. And Hitler in his. And the Soviets. And Saddam Hussein.
Yes, I'm aware of that strain of anti-Catholic Fundamentalism (which maybe why Gibson is none too fond of Protestants).
Most mainstream Dispensalitionists believe he'll be someone coming out of the EU.
"The terrible wars of the Reformation were justified on both sides by reading scripture."
Just like the terrible wars between Shia and Sunni are "justified" by the Quran."
But you don't have that stuff happening on a wide-scale today among Christians.
You'll have Roman Catholic Church standing side by side with a Lutheran one on Main St., USA.
Meanwhile, Sunni's are blowing up centuries-old Shia mosques in Iraq.
"The Point is this: for every example of extremism that can be seen in Islam, it is just as easy to find extremism in Christianity."
But the point is NOT in the 21st Century of the same kind and popular magnitude and frequency as among and from Islamists.
WHY?!?
Because of the greater, SELF-EVIDENT theme of aggressive militancy!
The armies of Christian missionaries do not preach the same kind of stuff your hear in madrassahs.
(SEE THE POST WHAT THEY RESPECTIVELY PREACH, TODAY!!!)
"This is not a political point. It has nothing to do with "right" or "left" ideology. It has everything to do with recognizing, again, that characterizing a global religion by spot quoting scriptures is not intellectually honest."
That's precisely what "anonymous" did, James.
I was being intellectually honest, and I stand by the contrasts.
"There are, indeed, fanatics in the middle east that will kill us for jollies. At the same time there are huge numbers of Muslims in India, for example, for whom the whole thing is a huge embarassment."
True, and they're the paradigms (along with Turkey) the administration strategy is counting on to defuse THE HUGE NUMBERS OF MUSLIM FANATICS nearby (Pakistan, Iraq, etc.), i.e. hoping that Democracy is one of the reasons why fanaticism in India is defused.
But while there are indeed "huge numbers" of civilized Muslims, the "fanatics in the middle east that will kill us for jollies" are not marginal, as you imply, but likewise are in "huge numbers."
Look at the violent, transcontinental demonstrations over the cartoons that caricatured the violence of Islam.
You're not going to see that by the Christians with the blasphemous release of *The Da Vinci Code* (but watch out for the occassional picket signs outside select theaters and boycotts!).
"We have to be careful to understand the differences."
Yes, James, but it's important not to underestimate and downplay the self-evident magnitude of the threat, and it's important to understand the differences between Islam and Judeo-Christianity.
There are differences in content, tone, and overarching themes, and I quintessentially captured them in the post.
Kelly said:
"Phelonius said,
'This is not a political point. It has nothing to do with "right" or "left" ideology.'
"Nothing to do" necessarily with Right/Left ideology, as far as you're independently concerned, but apologia--and even justifications-- for the Jihadists and making their guiding Tome morally equivalent with the guiding Tome of Jews and Christians certainly serves the position of anti-war--and anti-Western--Leftists.
The Jihadists--and Leftists--chose their sides in the fight.
Choose yours.
"This is precisely why Jeff and Kelly actually agree on something. :)"
I really don't think you realize what you're agreeing to, Kelly.
Jeff said:
"Yep."
"Yep" what, Jeff? That "this is not a political point" for you?
That it has "it has nothing to do with 'right' or 'left' ideology?"
Don't make me laugh.
F.B. Jones:
"I could post a ton of verses where God commands the death of entire cities. Or we can fastforward a few hundred years and look at the crusades. They are completely differant from one another, but still have one powerful thing in common. They are both used to make a case against Christians. Most of the old test. cases in which this happens, the people on the receiving end of the wooping, were the kind of people who sacrified thier own kids for pagan gods. The children also would have been raised the same."
Right. The cult of Moloch.
I addressed that. They were not "innocent victims" of prototypical "Zionism."
Thank God they were exterminated.
"IN these days the woman and children were not included in the killing. Alot of the time they were a hundred miles away."
Well, I can dredge up Divine Commands to kill women and children in a blatant act of genocide.
I can dredge up Mosaic laws that call for the stoning of wives who commit adultery.
And a law that permit parents to have their rebellious and unmanageable adolescent executed (I would think that was just a deterrant to scare kids with; I can't imagine any Jewish mother finding enough fault in her-- of course-- perfect child to hand him over to the State for execution).
And a law calling for the execution of "dreamers."
And several laws calling for the execurtion of someone who hits his thumb with a hammer and blasphemously exclaims the equivalent of: "JESUS-F*****G-CHRIST!"
"Without going on to long on each case. I think that God in all cases did not want us to just go and kill for the sake of killing."
"DO NOT KILL" was one of the Top Ten laws.
"When the Jews were commanded to stone someone to death because of the sin the commited. They were told to do so to show the Jews just how serious sin was and still is."
Yes. Deadly serious.
But it was the Bronze Age and the enforcement of Law was critical for the maintaing of Order.
But this ain't the Bronze Age.
Can you imagine the application of those kind of laws in modern society?
It's called sharia.
"When the Christ came he put an end to the old ways and said all of thing in the original post. (see Post)."
Right.
"Christ wanted us to focus on helping each other. If one of us was struggling with a sin problem we are suppost to share in the pain."
Welll...
"Help each other by confession and prayer."
I think that applies to people within your own group or congregation or those wanting to join it, but I don't see antything wrong with that if it's not coerced.
"The new test. is very clear on how we are to live. Using old test. verse to make Christians look bad is an old tool. It just doesn't cut it."
That's what "anonymous" was trying to do.
But you can't disengage the New from the Old.
The New can't be understood without the Old, and, indeed, cannot be justified without it.
"If anyone wants to get a better idea of what I am attemting to say read "A Case for Faith" by Lee Strobel. He does a much better job then I can."
Thank you F.B.
F.B. Jones said:
"I am adding this blog to my roll. I hope to join in at lot more."
Great. The more the merrier.
douglass said:
"whoa."
:)
"A lot of people use verses from the Old Testament to blanket demonize Christians. (Judges, Leviticus and Deuteronomy care the juicy ones).
But, that does not erase my suspicion that John's comparison here involved a pinch of cherry picking."
Nope. The "cherry-picking" was the material "anonymous" provided to counter the overarching theme of Christianity (Love) and morally equate it with the overarching theme of Islam (ie. fighting).
"Here:
'God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East." -George w. bush'
Wow. I never actually heard--or saw-- that quote.
I overheard the reaction to it though, and I don't think Bush in his communicatively-challenged way meant to imply that he heard voices in his head (which is how "God Speaks To Me" comes off to the atheist or rational skeptic), but that he prayed in his own way for guidance in making the decisions and equated his certainty and settled conscience with alignment to divine Will.
Then again, political leaders are constantly conscious of their constituents, and even P.R. with the Muslim world in this case, and he was speaking to them.
"Matthew 10: 34 'Think not that I came to send peace on the earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.' (ASV)
“Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword”. (KJV)
"Sword" in that context is a metaphorical acknowlegdment of the political turmoil the Faith incited (and still incites).
We can see what Jesus thought of *literal* sword-fare in the same gospel:
"Put away your sword. Those who live by the sword, die by the sword."
Matthew 26:52
It is VERY relevant that Jesus said that to Peter who struck a member of the party that was arresting his rabbi.
Why is that so relevant? Because, Douglass, there you had forces hostile to the movement, laying their hands upon and taking away the leader, the general, the king of the chess game, who, even then, EVEN THEN, spoke out against violent retaliation!
That's beautiful.
P.S.: I said (way above):
"And NOWHERE in the Old Testament--even in the brutal war-time passages you provided--does the Voice of the Bronze Age deity--even at his Angriest--come anywhere near the aggressive, religious militancy and sheer barbarity of the Quranic quotes (which are UNPROVOKED), so your sorry attempt at moral equivalence has failed."
Wellll...Yahweh had a Temper.
BUT, the operative word is "UNPROVOKED."
Phelonius said:
"To be fair I think you cannot characterize the people in Jerusalem at the time of the first crusade to be the kind of people that sacrificed children. That is just not accurate. Now the Caananites, perhaps, did..."
James, I think F.B. was indeed referring to them:
"Most of the old test. cases in which this happens, the people on the receiving end of the wooping, were the kind of people who sacrified thier own kids for pagan gods."
"...but there is no real conclusive proof of that as yet."
They did it.
The nature cults were nasty.
They were like the Mayans.
"We know they sacrificed animals to Baal or Tiamat, but the Jews also had animal sacrifices in the Temple."
Yeah, so did the Greeks. By the herds (Zeus liked steak).
But human--and child-- sacrifice is the dirty little secret of all those Old Age nature-worshipping cults (revived now under the inverted euphemism "New Age").
The practice seeps into the mythology of the patriarchal Greeks and the Old Testament--and can even be linked to the Crucifixion of Christ in the New-- but the patriarchal systems of thunder-gods Yahweh and Zeus did away with the old, Stone Age matriarchal moon-goddess nature cults, and only echoes survive.
"The people of Carthage, the relatives of the Caananites, did practice child sacrifice, and that is at least documented."
They still had that bloody moon goddess crap going.
"The people that killed them, though, were the Romans, and their own track record of humanity was a bit questionable at best."
Jupiter super-mojo.
"John - do not take my criticism of your methodology personally, as I find this a very interesting thread."
No worries. I'm being objective.
"I do think that there has been a lot of negative press about Islam for reasons that are crystal clear, but my criticism is based on the fact that the media has rightfully concentrated on the fanatics that have attacked us."
I know, but the dehumanizing or demonization of the enemy is a natural byproduct of war.
They have no problem demonizing us as The Great Satan.
"In my own city here in Texas, the result was that a small group of assholes have placed bullet holes in the local Mosque from time to time because THEY cannot see the difference. This is not how civilized people should live..."
Agreed.
"...and we have a large population of law-abiding citizens here that just happen to be Moslems."
Yup. Assimilated, democratic Americans.
The working theory is that Westernization will make all the difference.
"Caution is warranted..."
Yes.
"...but blind hatred is not. (Not that you suffer from this anomoly, but they also use the Quran as justification for dangerous vandalism against innocents.)"
Gotcha.
Just realize that when Bush said "God told me to free Afghanistan and Iraq" or something, Allah is telling the Jihadist stuff like:
"The punishment of those who pit themselves against Allah and His Messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement, except those who repent before you have them in your power."
AGAIN, I am not condemning all Muslims. I am for Western intervention and re-booting of those cultures precisely because I believe that "All Muslims" are not bad and that we shouldn't just nuke the place and be done with it.
But mark this:
MANY influential Imams, mullahs, and shieks preach that the militant Jihadist is "good muslim."
ALL Popes, Archbishops, and priests preach that a militant crusader makes for a bad Christian.
Sanjay said:
"John,
Just out of curiosity, have you ever read the Quran or been to a mosque?"
No, but I'm familiar with much of the Qurans history/content, and, most relevantly to this post, understand the overarching theme.
It's not my "opinion," Sanjay. That's just what is.
"Or are you googling 'violent quotes from the Quran'"
Not "violent"-specific. Just quotes. I knew what I was looking for.
"Of course there are violent muslim extremists and your condemning the whole religion because of them."
The overarching theme in the Quran--in regards to how Islam is to be globally disseminated, which it must, as COMMANDED-- is militant domination.
That's what it is.
If you read it, you'd know that.
How each and every Muslim interprets his or her faith as instructed by the Quran is their own business--until it means getting me or my fellow human's killed.
"So, should we also condemn christianity for the christians who protest US Soldier funerals?"
Why? They're not spokesmen for Christianity.
And they're not cutting people's heads off but are callously and tastelessly whining about G.I. Joe sticking his pee-pee in G.I. Jim's poo-poo in a military they pay taxes for and have the right to protest.
They're not terrorists.
They're idiots.
Furthermore, they're anomalies.
You're arguing that the Jihadists likewise are "anomalous" to the Muslim faith.
The evidence of my eyes and ears indicate otherwise.
This is about whether a reading of the Quran is more inclined to inspire violent, murderous zeolousness (i.e. terrorism) moreso than a reading of The Bible does.
The self-evident answer is yes.
"Or the ones who blow up abortion clinics?"
Peanuts and anomalies.
And they believed they were saving innocent lives from infanticide.
I'm not saying they shouldn't have been apprehended and prosecuted.
They were vigilantes.
But you can't compare their isolated acts of "terrorism" to entire global movements of Jihadists.
Come on. Sure, out of the millions and millions of people who read *Catcher in the Rye,* there's going to be a Mark David Chapman who shoots a Beatle.
But that analogy just doesn't apply to the millions of Muslims who immerse themselves in the Quran with an Imam at their shoulder telling them that, yes, this means that Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr also deserve punishment, as does Apple Records, England, the rest of Europe, and the Satanic United States.
Read the quotes again. I didn't make them up.
Then, listen to what comes out of the mouth of Abimenijahd (sp.? whatever), "secularist" Saddam Hussein, Al Sadr, Bin Laden, and mosques and madrassahs.
They align in tone and vocabulary with the quotes.
"Or the branch davidians?"
They were kooky separatists who defended themselves, their religion, and way of life.
They stockpiled guns in fear of a fascist government and they were justified in doing so.
"Before you claim encyclopedic knowledge of the Quran..."
I never did.
"...try reading it and not regurgitating someone else's interpretation. (Agian, if you have given Islam a fair shake I apologize)."
What I did is post quotations from The New Testament that represent the overarching theme (i.e. Love) preached in church's everywhere.
And Quranic quotes that likewise represent a major theme (i.e. forced conversion or mutilation and militant conquest) and are preached in mosques and madrassahs everywhere in the Middle East.
Do you follow what's going on out there?
Their teenagers wear bin Laden tee-shirts the way a teen-ager here has the Rolling Stones logo on his.
They have little terrorist baby outfits to make a fashion statement.
You can't tell me that the pious Muslim who eats and sleeps the Quran straps on a bomb and walks into a restaurant full of dining civilians, exclaims "Allah Akbar!" and then blows himself and innocent others to pieces because of the Quran's meditations on the beauty of flowers, and you can't tell me that an unhinged "Christian" takes a life because Jesus told him to.
Jesus NEVER said any such thing.
never forget...always remember - Yeshua did NOT turn his OTHER cheek to judas.
Judas was free to go.
He decided to kill himself.
John,
The only thing Jeff and I have agreed on is that there are a MANY good muslims and a few bad apples among them.
I stand by that.
Having said that...There are some who, because of their hatred of the West, have taken the words from the Quran as justification for their hatred.
In the Book of Mormon, which I believe, is the following passage:
"1 Nephi 4:10 'And it came to pass that I was constrained by the Spirit that I should kill Laban; but I said in my heart: Never at any time have I shed the blood of man. And I shrunk and would that I might not slay him.
11 And the Spirit said unto me again: Behold the Lord hath delivered him into thy hands. Yea, and I also knew that he had sought to take away mine own life; yea, and he would not hearken unto the commandments of the Lord; and he also had taken away our property.
12 And it came to pass that the Spirit said unto me again: Slay him, for the Lord hath delivered him into thy hands;
13 Behold the Lord slayeth the wicked to bring forth his righteous purposes. It is better that one man should perish than that a nation should windle and perish in unbelief."
And yet, we believe that murder is WRONG!!
There could be some who would take this as permission/justification for the shedding of blood.
Many Muslims have been blinded by the hatred of their leaders into accepting their interpretation of holy verse.
Yes, John, I will agree that it has been taught that to be a "good muslim" is to kill non-believers.
So, why is it that many devote muslims do not adhere to this precept? It is because there is more to Islam than this supposed mandate. Those who would like to see Israel and the west wiped off the map take those verses out of context to incite violence for their cause.
My feeling is that Satan takes truth (from holy script) and distorts it to meet his agenda...whatever the religious persuasion they may be.
"windle"= dwindle
Kelly said:
"The only thing Jeff and I have agreed on is that there are a MANY good muslims and a few bad apples among them."
But here the "few" has quickly turned to "many":
"Many Muslims have been blinded by the hatred of their leaders into accepting their interpretation of holy verse."
There's many of them.
How many?
I don't know, but it's not an anomalous, fringe element of Islam.
It's a worldwide movement.
Are there Muslims we could co-exist with, and trust?
OF COURSE!
I'm counting on that.
I SUPPORTED THE DUBAI PORTS WORLD DEAL.
What does that tell you about where I'm at?
It seems my provocative postings have created misimpressions with many of you.
Please go to this March 9 post to see what I had to say about the DPW controversy and my position vis-a-vis our international relations with responsible Muslim nations:
http://arlingtonian.blogspot.com/2006/03/setback-in-war-on-terror-situation.html
Again, I said (several times in one way or another):
"This is about whether a reading of the Quran is more inclined to inspire violent, murderous zeolousness (i.e. terrorism) more so than a reading of The Bible does.
The self-evident answer is yes."
Look at John Walker Lindh, "The American Taliban":
California suburban boy reads the Quran and--WHAM!--he zombies out, gets a one-way ticket to Afghanistan, and joins the Taliban.
On the other hand, suburban jock Joe Gibbs reads The Bible and--WHAM!--zombies out and joins the Branch Davidians?
Nope. Takes the Redskins to four Super Bowls and wins three of 'em. :)
Okay, okay, there was that Bible-thumping community in Salem, Massachusetts who read The Bible and burned witches, but that was centuries ago.
A few years ago the Quran-thumping Taliban--not a "community," but the rulers of a nation-- hauled off an adulteress to a packed stadium for a public execution.
"Judge a tree by the fruit it bears," said Jesus Christ.
What "fruit" do the Islamist--not just "Muslim"-- nations produce (aside from oil)?
Nothing but rage and terror.
The Judeo-Christian "In-God-We-Trust" United of America?
We are the freest, strongest, wealthiest, most diverse, most hospitable, most charitable, most productive, most inventive, and indubitably most excellent country the world has ever seen.
With the most prettiest women, too. :)
Coincidence?
I think not.
No, John, when I say there is no proof of child sacrifice among the Caananites, I mean that there is no proof of it. Just to say that they did it implies that you were there or that you have archeological proof that no one else seems to have. I know that nature cycles can be nasty, but many other things are as well.
"They have no problem demonizing us as The Great Satan."
ALL of them? You know them all personally? Are you sure you want to gp on record as knowing them all?
"It's not the first--or the last-- time the Jews or Christian sects were slaughtered in Jerusalem, and the ones who did the slaughtering weren't exclusively Crusaders trying to win back lost ground from Islamic imperialism."
They were not? Who exactly WERE the first Crusaders then? If they were not Franks who the hell were they? That is an argument that has little bearing on history.
"But human--and child-- sacrifice is the dirty little secret of all those Old Age nature-worshipping cults (revived now under the inverted euphemism "New Age")."
This is just not historical, John. I think the best reference would be probably Mircea Eliade for a great historical reference to religious history. You cannot just blankly accuse nature religions of this sort of thing without some kind of archeological or written proof. The most violent of the nature religions were most likely those of the Arian invasions. Not all of the nature religions had human sacrifice by a long shot, and that is just based on the records that we have.
That being said, I would point out that the religions history of the Eurasian continent cannot be conveniently grouped into "before Christ and after Christ." Whether we like it or not, our own religious understanding of God has a lot to do with the teachings of the likes of Zarathustra, the Egyptian dieties, the Greek deities and those of the far north, such as Woden and Thor.
"This is about whether a reading of the Quran is more inclined to inspire violent, murderous zeolousness (i.e. terrorism) moreso than a reading of The Bible does.
The self-evident answer is yes."
Is it really? I do not think so. Have you ever read the history of the Irish stuggle? I think that there may have been one Scottish king that died in his bed, maybe. The Wars of the Reformation do not impress you? The Inquisition has no bearing in your thinking, or the witchcraft trials in Salem mean nothing? Come on, John, the meaning of religion can mean justification for whatever you want it to be, and now you are doing the same thing as the radical Islamists. There is no need for that. Humans need little inspiration for murderous and evil motivations. We do that quite well on an individual basis.
Now we are all going so fast that I am having trouble keeping up with all the commentary.....
John continues,
"Kelly said,'The only thing Jeff and I have agreed on is that there are a MANY good muslims and a few bad apples among them."
John said, 'But here the "few" has quickly turned to "many":
Kelly said,'Many Muslims have been blinded by the hatred of their leaders into accepting their interpretation of holy verse."
John said, "There's many of them."
.....
I said, "and a fewbad apples among them."
I refer to the leaders who are blinding the minds and hearts of many muslims.
The propaganda is that to be a good muslim you need to wipe out non-believers...
So why are their "visits of Muslim dignitaries at [LDS] Church headquarters in Salt Lake City"? [As I posted earlier.]
Because there are still many good muslims who do not adhere to this...who are NOT blinded by such propaganda.
Why hasn't anybody talked about Scientology? It seems it may be the only religion tha John understands.
This is the worst blog ever. You have ignorant conservatives verses uneducated liberals. Wow... so this is life in Wichita. Thanks everyone.
Sorry, John. I should not speak like that on your site.
Anonymous doesn't understand that this is a debate. There are many opinions presented in this forum.
Man! talk about the pot calling the kettle black...WOW...
Though I don't agree with Phelonius' language I agree...Anonymous...bring something to the table to stay the HECK out of Kansas ;)
I must say...John, though I don't agree...this is a good discussion.
Phelonius said:
"No, John, when I say there is no proof of child sacrifice among the Caananites, I mean that there is no proof of it. Just to say that they did it implies that you were there or that you have archeological proof that no one else seems to have. I know that nature cycles can be nasty, but many other things are as well."
I can't refer to any hard evidence (I'm not aware of any), but more by what mythologies suggest.
As I said:
"The practice seeps into the mythology of the patriarchal Greeks and the Old Testament--and can even be linked to the Crucifixion of Christ in the New-- but the patriarchal systems of thunder-gods Yahweh and Zeus did away with the old, Stone Age matriarchal moon-goddess nature cults, and only echoes survive."
"Echoes survive" in the mythologies.
I must admit it's speculation, but it adds up.
Human sacrifices? No doubt about it as far as I'm concerned, even in ancient Greece.
James quoted me:
"They have no problem demonizing us as The Great Satan."
James replied:
"ALL of them? You know them all personally? Are you sure you want to gp on record as knowing them all?"
The "them" I was referring to are the Jihadists.
The size of "them" is in question. One camp here seems to believe that it's a marginal fringe group in the Muslim world, whereas I think it is significantly larger.
And I didn't use the word "all," but I think it's a good bet to presume that ALL who embrace the posted quotes think of us in satanic terms.
James quoted me:
"It's not the first--or the last-- time the Jews or Christian sects were slaughtered in Jerusalem, and the ones who did the slaughtering weren't exclusively Crusaders trying to win back lost ground from Islamic imperialism."
"They were not? Who exactly WERE the first Crusaders then?"
The unedited grammar can imply "other Crusaders" (i.e. "Crusaders trying to win back lost ground from Islamic imperialism" and Crusaders who...)
but I didn't mean that.
I meant that it wasn't one way and that the Crusades were more of a reaction to one of the most--if not the most--aggressive imperial expansion in history (from the 7th to 12th Century).
As I said, I'm aware of the positive contributions on civilization that the sprawling, Muslim Empire enabled (e.g. in sciences like astronomy, medicine, and chemistry, and their reintroducing of Plato and Aristotle to the West), and furthermore that they accomplished their expansion without too much bloodshed over weak and disorganized older societies, and that they demonstrated a new religious tolerance (because the new dhimmis were weaklings and didn't mind), but I also said that to assert that the Crusaders "started it" (i.e. the bloodshed and persecution of Jews, other Christian sects, etc.) is not fair.
Jerusalem was the holiest city in all of Christendom FIRST.
"If they were not Franks who the hell were they?"
The Muslims themselves.
"That is an argument that has little bearing on history."
You're granting the Muslims right of passage--into Jerusalem, across North Africa, and all of Spain.
James quoted me:
"But human--and child-- sacrifice is the dirty little secret of all those Old Age nature-worshipping cults (revived now under the inverted euphemism "New Age")."
James replied:
"This is just not historical, John."
I shouldn't have used "all."
"I think the best reference would be probably Mircea Eliade for a great historical reference to religious history. You cannot just blankly accuse nature religions of this sort of thing without some kind of archeological or written proof."
I believe human sacrifices were a rampant custom among the moon-worshipping nature cults across pre-Olympian ancient Greece and all over the Levant.
It's not roundly agreed, but a school of thought, mostly involving sacrificial "sacred kings."
The pre-historic (i.e. pre-Herodotus/written) mythologies not only compellingly seem to echo those practices but involve children from time to time.
For example, as late as the recitals of the Trojan War cycles, we have the drama of Agamemnon sacrificing his young daughter Iphigenia to the gods in exchange for winds when the legendary fleet heading for Troy was stalled for lack of it at Aulis.
That was abominable to the sophisticated Greek audience by the time the bards presented the poems to the societies, but it is not believed to be an *ex nihilo* concept and instead echoes religious practices of the not too distant past.
"The most violent of the nature religions were most likely those of the Arian invasions."
I'm not familiar with those.
"Not all of the nature religions had human sacrifice by a long shot..."
Yes, I shouldn't have used "all."
"...and that is just based on the records that we have."
From my studies they appear to have been pretty rampant before Zeus and the solar patriarchs usurped the rule of lunar matriarchies-- indicating that the first "Sexual Revolution" was the oppressed male over the ruling female.
This goes way back into prehistory and, again, is not roundly agreed upon in academia, but what evidence there is and the interpretation of it is compelling.
Feminists eat this stuff up and subjectively go overboard with it, but I'm inclined to agree that the earliest, Neolithic Societies reckoned time by the moon (that's roundly agreed to), were matriarchical, and involved seasonal, human sacrifices of select males.
"That being said, I would point out that the religions history of the Eurasian continent cannot be conveniently grouped into "'before Christ and after Christ.'"
Oh, yeah.
"Whether we like it or not, our own religious understanding of God has a lot to do with the teachings of the likes of Zarathustra..."
Right, making his rounds when the Jews were in earshot in Babylonian Exile (or when he was in earshot of the Jews? Which the chicken, which the egg?)...
"...the Egyptian dieties..."
Right, particularly Aton, the deity of the renegade Pharoah Akhenaton (who may very well have been a contemporary of the young Moses)...
...the first monotheist.
"...the Greek deities, and those of the far north, such as Woden and Thor."
Sure.
James quoted me:
"This is about whether a reading of the Quran is more inclined to inspire violent, murderous zeolousness (i.e. terrorism) moreso than a reading of The Bible does.
The self-evident answer is yes."
James replied:
"Is it really? I do not think so. Have you ever read the history of the Irish stuggle?"
Nope.
"I think that there may have been one Scottish king that died in his bed, maybe. The Wars of the Reformation do not impress you? The Inquisition has no bearing in your thinking, or the witchcraft trials in Salem mean nothing?"
But I addressed that, here:
"The main difference is that the modern, Western Jew and Christian understand historical contexts and *the moral* of the story."
And here:
"Understand that there are large--very large--multitudes of devout Muslims thoroughly brain-washed by Imams and madrassahs and taught to read and understand precisely what I posted from the Quran as eternal and omnipresent Commands.
[...]
I don't know of any Jew or Christian who embraces the war-time passages in the Torah/Old Testament and understands them as eternal and omnipresent Commands."
And here:
James: "The Point is this: for every example of extremism that can be seen in Islam, it is just as easy to find extremism in Christianity."
John: "But the point is NOT in the 21st Century of the same kind and popular magnitude and frequency as among and from Islamists."
And here:
"But these are ancient, indeed pre-historic (i.e. pre-Herodotus) people, and to apply our own greatly-progressed ethical standards upon them is anachronistic, which is THE POINT HERE: The Jihadists think like Mediaevalists. They're still harping about the 8th Century Caliph and Saladin; 21st Century Judeo-Christians (and "moderate"--or "bad Muslims") do not embrace the warrior ethos of the Bronze Age."
"Come on, John, the meaning of religion can mean justification for whatever you want it to be, and now you are doing the same thing as the radical Islamists."
All I said was that the tone and tack of the Quran--indeed, the overarching theme vis-a-vis the spreading of the Faith--promoted, indeed Commanded, aggressive militancy, far louder and more frequent than any equivalent militancy in The Bible (the over-arching theme of which is the Rule of Law and Love):
"Failing to carry out jihad, WHICH IS CALLED FOR IN OUR RELIGION, is a sin...The best death to us is UNDER THE SHADOWS OF SWORDS."
Usama bin Laden, January 2006 tape
"There is no need for that. Humans need little inspiration for murderous and evil motivations. We do that quite well on an individual basis."
Yes indeed. And how much easier is the motivation when encouraged by your sacred script?
"Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the book (Christians and Jews), until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection."
(9:29)
Anyway, your last post came in right after mine, so you have may missed this:
"It seems my provocative postings have created misimpressions with many of you.
Are there Muslims we could co-exist with, and trust?
OF COURSE!
I'm counting on that.
I SUPPORTED THE DUBAI PORTS WORLD DEAL.
What does that tell you about where I'm at?
Please go to this March 9 post to see what I had to say about the DPW controversy and my position vis-a-vis our international relations with responsible Muslim nations:
http://arlingtonian.blogspot.com/2006/03/setback-in-war-on-terror-situation.html
Excellent discussion. Peace.
Eureka. "Anonymous" is the annoying, whining, nit-picking "Fact-Master" Houstonmod who likes to laugh but can't help lurking.
Whoa. "Scientology?" lol
I said:
"Right. The cult of Moloch."
Yes.
MOLOCH. ;)
James said:
"Sorry, John. I should not speak like that on your site."
Actually, that was well-put.
I think my comment was misunderstood. Anyway I was just trying to say that using the old testament to demonize Christians is a poor choice. The same as the crusades. The verses from the old testament were given to a primative people. It was the first established set of rules in history. Most of them had to be right to the point. God left no room for assumptions.
I only mentioned the crusades, because that is usaully the second place people opposed to Christianity go. I am not a historian. Just a Christian that sees nothing evil in how God treats people. We have free will and if people choose not to follow His word. It is their choice. Sorry to get off subject.
John,
on a side note, don't waste your money buying a surcoat.
you can rent!!!!!
(I already have mine ready to ship)
http://brianbero.com/crusader_surcoat.html
Also, John,
I don’t think that your schema of the actions of Jesus cannot be compared to those of a mortal political leader, as Jesus was not a man, but god.
According to the Christians, the god of the Jews is the one and only God, who is infallible, unlike a mortal political leader.
Also, I liked your 'A' game, when you said to 'people' that:
"Your sorry attempt at moral equivalence has failed"
Oh really.
The cherry picking I refer to is your decision to place violent passages of the Koran next to nonviolent passages of the Bible and pretend to have some sort of even comparison.
If your moral synopsis of Islam and Christianity is indeed valid, as you claim, then why did you need to be biased towards Christianity when choosing the texts to be compared?
Sorry John...wasn't me. But your defense is yet again weak and makes now sense. First off, it was Lot who got drunk and slept with his daughters, not Noah. (have you ever read the bible?) Secondly, anonymous did Nothing more than what you did. He cherry picked some verses from the Books of Moses. Why are you so defensive? Do you not agree with the Bible? Are you upset that Anonymous made a point using the same book you used?
Are we to disregard the Old Testament? Is that your irrelevant point behind referring to it's teachings as "Bronze Aged"? You do realize that cherry picking verses out of the Quran that shows compassion, love and liberty for others is a very simple task.
You mention they didn't have a Geneva Convention back then. This is true, but you do know that the Quran actually gives guidance to how a war is to be fought without effecting civilians. It was way ahead of it's time.
You do realize that Islam was the first major religion to actually accept other religions to live in peace in Muslem lands. (granted they needed to pay a little more in taxes)
You love to throw around the term moral equivalence. Unfortunately you are doing just that when you have decided that it's only the New Testament (which there is plenty of violence in) that should be adhered to. Do you consider yourself a Christian?
You have heard of the 7 deadly sins right? Yet you are OK with God having a "temper". So, that would mean that God isn't perfect. But God has to be perfect. hmmmm so confusing to go through life as hypocrit John.
Lastly John, many of your posts are senseless and lack any semblance of logic, but this one is downright bigoted and hateful. So you dated a expat from the Middle East once...wow, I guess you really aren't a bigot! (please) Have you ever lived in the Middle East? What makes you a expert on Muslims? (am radio no doubt). You are attacking an entire religion for no other apparent reason than to make your "team" feel better. That is the heart of bigotry.
If you are a Christian, you may want to think about ridding yourself of all this venom in your heart and hate in your mind.
Maybe on your next posts you could posts pictures of Opie from the Andy Griffith show next to Malcom X to show us all how white people are better than black people.
(Phelonious has some nice posts btw)
Keep up the good work.
john, I anticipate your response.
Hustonmod: sure John is picking cherries, but he is NOT a bigot.
He's not talking about the best way to crush the Muslim infidel cancer or any of that nonsense.
It's unfair of you (Hustonmod) to toss around such powerful words (i.e.: bigot) for the purpose of smearing John instead of taking his argument head on
. Even if John has been caught red handed under the cherry tree with a bushel of cherries that he has picked, that does not mean that he is racist or bigoted.
Douglass said,
"It's unfair of you (Hustonmod) to toss around such powerful words (i.e.: bigot) for the purpose of smearing John instead of taking his argument head on."
I agree.
Whether we agree with John or not the debate is one that has been good for discussion. It has allowed us to explore this issue.
Houstonmod, Anonymous or anyone else who comes in here slamming: perhaps you could contribute to the topic, rather than tearing down the person.
I learned (yes, I have been there) that doesn't do anything but start fires.
Sorry guys, but you have to call a spade a spade. His original post does nothing more than to vilify a religion he knows nothing about (although I question his knowledge of the Bible as well). You can defend him and befriend him, but let's not pretend there is anything intellectual about his original posts. All he did was cherry pick nice things about Christianity and terrible things about Islam in order to smear an entire religion. But the very nature of those posts, he portrays himself as a bigot. I do not throw that word around very often but maybe it's time to step up and call him out for starting "this fire". Look at the people he picked to compare!! Is there a difference there than picking Opie verses Malcolm X?
If he wants to operate a blog, he needs to know that when you serve up disinformation and bigoted hatred, he will be called out for it.
Honestly, I don't know John, so I can only go by what he has posted and in this case, there is no doubt that what he has posted is bigotted.
While I tend to give John the benefit of the doubt with terms like bigot and racist I'm beginning to wonder. First a recent post with an arguably racist buckwheet picture. Ok, I'll let it slide. Now a condemnation of an entire religion with the classic closet racist defense of "Hey some of my best friends are muslims". John, I don't think your a KKK skinhead or anything but I can see why people can think you are.
Your knowledge of the Quran seems limitted to some selctive quotes. Have you ever talked to an Imam and asked him to explain those passages to you. Like the way I asked Kelly to explain what I thought of her mormon beliefs? Or do you (as you have done in the past) look at something out of context and post it as if you've looked at it from all sides?
You've excused Christian extremists as being on the fringe but fringe muslims... eh; just throw the baby out with the bathwater!
FB said:
"I think my comment was misunderstood. Anyway I was just trying to say that using the old testament to demonize Christians is a poor choice."
Using it to "demonize" Judaism, too.
As I said, several times in one way or another, you would be hard-pressed to find an Orthodox Jew or Fundamentalist Christian who consider the militant and heavy-handed passages in the Old Testament to be omnipresent and eternally pursued.
But you will find, not all, but MANY Muslims--especially among the clerics in mosques and Madrassahs--who themselves cherry-pick their own respective passages (as posted) and consider them to be omnipresent and eternally pursued.
They're called "terrorists."
"The same as the crusades."
What do you think drove one of the most aggressive imperial expansions in history (from the 7th to 12th Century) That swallowed the ntire Middle-East, stretched across the entire north coast of Africa, and engulfed all of Spain?
A crusade for Allah.
"The verses from the old testament were given to a primative people. It was the first established set of rules in history. Most of them had to be right to the point. God left no room for assumptions."
It was a zoo. Law had to be strictly enforced to maintain order and preserve cultural integrity.
But followed to the letter it resembled how we see sharia and was oppressive.
Then Christ came along and the Jewish Sect (i.e. early Christianity) that followed was to ancient Judaism what the Protestant Reformation was to the Roman Catholic Church.
"I only mentioned the crusades, because that is usaully the second place people opposed to Christianity go. I am not a historian. Just a Christian that sees nothing evil in how God treats people. We have free will and if people choose not to follow His word. It is their choice. Sorry to get off subject."
No problem. This is obviously an open forum.
douglass said:
"John,
on a side note, don't waste your money buying a surcoat.
you can rent!!!!!"
lol Yes, you'll find me in the army of Richard the Lion-Heart (not Saladin's). :)
"Also, John,
I don’t think that your schema of the actions of Jesus cannot be compared to those of a mortal political leader, as Jesus was not a man, but god."
Well, that's a matter of faith and cannot be premised in an objective discussion--and it doesn't need to be.
Reason suffices.
"According to the Christians, the god of the Jews is the one and only God, who is infallible, unlike a mortal political leader.
According to Islam, Allah is the very same One-And-Only and infallible God of Abraham, and they could argue that with equal passion and certainty.
"Also, I liked your 'A' game, when you said to 'people' that:
'Your sorry attempt at moral equivalence has failed'
Oh really.
The cherry picking I refer to is your decision to place violent passages of the Koran next to nonviolent passages of the Bible and pretend to have some sort of even comparison."
As I said over and over again, the overarching theme of The Bible is the Rule of Law (Old Testament)softened by Love (New Testament).
I did not "cherry-pick," but plucked the largest fruit.
You will find strains of militancy and entire sections of plugging theocracy, but they don't come close to shouting them as loudly and as frequently in the Quran, the overarching theme of which--vis-a-vis the "destined" determination of its dominance--is murderous and/or subjugating militancy.
The "Destiny" of Christianity, on the other hand, is that it will be hated, persecuted, and devoured like sheep among wolves (though not if I can help it).
Thsat's quite a difference in tone and tack.
"If your moral synopsis of Islam and Christianity is indeed valid, as you claim, then why did you need to be biased towards Christianity when choosing the texts to be compared?"
I was not "biased." For the umpteenth time (it really gets tiresome having to answer the same questions and respond to the same accusations over-and-over again--there's a reason why my comments are so long winded: they cover all the bases still being overrun):
The quotes from The New Testament that I posted are--SELF-EVIDENTLY--the overarching themes of Christianity preached by pope and priest everywhere.
They are the largest fruit of a tree that bears many different kinds.
Likewise, the posted passages from the Quran:
The posted quotes from there are--SELF-EVIDENTLY--the overarching themes of Islamists in regards to the DUTY of the "good Muslim" to pursue and ensure the supremacy of Islam, preached by Imam and shiek in mosque and madrassah.
For the third time, from the horse's mouth:
"Failing to carry out jihad, WHICH IS CALLED FOR IN OUR RELIGION, is a sin...The best death to us is UNDER THE SHADOWS OF SWORDS."
Usama bin Laden, January 2006 tape
AGAIN, the debate here is whether the "extremists" who embrace that are a marginal fringe group, or are but a part of a culture-wide malignancy.
I am attacked as a "bigot" for recognizing the latter-- which is no suprise, as the terrorist-apologists and PC fascists from the Left resort to such attempts at character assassination to discredit in lieu of an ability to debate against the obvious.
And right there, ladies and gentlemen, do you see the divide between the pro-intervensionists and the "antiwar" crowd:
The "antiwarrior" aggressively opines that the War on Terror should've been confined to attacking Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and ensuring that bin Laden did not escape from the pummeled mountains of Tora Bora.
And then: End of story.
Bin Laden and his mujahideen, it is argued, are a fringe anomaly, a wart on the body of Islam that simply needs to get excised and then its back to business as usual.
Hence, any argument--or proof, for that matter-- that the threat of INTERNATIONAL ISLAMIC TERRORISM is more endemic and wider than the isolated locality of the wart--perhaps covering an entire limb, if not a virus that has metastasized and entered the very brain of Islam itself-- only justifies the administration's strategy to perform invasive surgery and re-wire and reboot on a culture-wide scale, because, indeed, it is not the "one" wart of bin Laden, but a festering, cancerous rash that only a quack would dismiss as "benign."
There are three choices:
(1) Ignore it.
(2) Destroy it.
(3) Cure it.
The "antiwarrior" prescribes (1).
houstonmod said:
"Sorry John...wasn't me."
Hm. You all sound the same.
And I'm the one who's sorry, because I can't take your word for it.
"But your defense is yet again weak and makes now sense."
What do you mean, "Fact-Master?"
"First off, it was Lot who got drunk and slept with his daughters, not Noah."
Right. Noah's brother. Thank you. Seriously, I appreciate that. Slips like that are bothersome to both the reader and the writer, I can assure you.
And I should really keep on my toes around you when it comes to trivial errors that are utterly irrelevant to the thrust of "the defense"--but are cherry-picked to discredit the entire argument.
"(have you ever read the bible?)"
Heh.
"Secondly, anonymous did Nothing more than what you did. He cherry picked some verses from the Books of Moses. Why are you so defensive?"
I explained why I was "so defensive," many times.
Do you even read my comprehensive addendums, or dismiss them outright after tripping over a trivial slip in detail early on, and then come in here and expect me to repeat myself?
AGAIN: The Old Testament quotes anonymous provided--indeed cherry-picked-- are in no way representative of the overarching theme of Christendom, no less Judaism (which are, respectively, the Rule of Law and Love, with a common, traanscendant monotheism).
The quotes that were posted properly represent those themes.
The quotes I posted from the Quaran may not "represent" the faith of Muslims everywhere, but they were by no means cherry-picked and indeed represent the theme of militancy drummed by INTERNATIONAL "ALLAH AKBAR!" TERRORISTS, a theme which is not isolated to suposedly small, anomalous fringe groups, but infects cultures and spread across entire societies on national scales.
You will not see American children or teenagers sporting tee-shirts with Tim McVeigh's face on them.
You will see kids playing on the Arab Stret wearing bin Laden tee-shirts.
He's a cultural hero, and unless you're ready to apologize for or outright justify bin Laden, there is something very wrong with cultures that have parents who allow their kids to be dressed that way.
Bin Laden uses the Quran to authorize his Jihadist vision.
FOR THE THIRD TIME, from the horse's mouth:
"Failing to carry out jihad, WHICH IS CALLED FOR IN OUR RELIGION, is a sin...The best death to us is UNDER THE SHADOWS OF SWORDS."
Usama bin Laden, January 2006 tape
Don't tell me what the Quaran says.
Tell Sunni bin Laden and his A; Qaeda mujahideen, and Shia Hezbollah, and the countless multitudes who cheer them on and/or join their ranks.
Tell them. Try it, and see what happens to you.
"Do you not agree with the Bible? Are you upset that Anonymous made a point using the same book you used?"
That's a very sophomoric rhetorical tactic and ignores the REPEATED distinctions I made.
"Are we to disregard the Old Testament? Is that your irrelevant point behind referring to it's teachings as 'Bronze Aged'?"
You must've driven your high school English teachers nuts.
How did you arrive at the notion that I was being dismissive of the Old Testament because of the discussion of anachronistic qualities?
I said:
"But you can't disengage the New from the Old.
The New can't be understood without the Old, and, indeed, cannot be justified without it."
The relevant point about referring to its Bronze Age setting was:
"I don't know of any Jew or Christian who embraces the war-time passages in the Torah/Old Testament and understands them as eternal and omnipresent Commands.
But these are ancient, indeed pre-historic (i.e. pre-Herodotus) people, and to apply our own greatly-progressed ethical standards upon them is anachronistic, which is THE POINT HERE: The Jihadists think like Mediaevalists. They're still harping about the 8th Century Caliph and Saladin; 21st Century Judeo-Christians (and "moderate"--or "bad Muslims") do not embrace the warrior ethos of the Bronze Age."
How is that "irrelevant" to the point that the Jihadist--NOT the 21st Century Jew and Christian--is the one immersed in anachronisms, considering them to be eternally pursued and omnipresent Commands?
You either suffer from an inability to argue logically, or from poor reading comprehension abilities.
And yet: "But your defense is yet again weak and makes now (sic) sense."
And:
"Lastly John, many of your posts are senseless and lack any semblance of logic."
Physician heal thyself.
Or, you simply aren't reading my rebuttals and elaborations and are cherry-picking.
And yet:
"All (John) did was cherry pick ...terrible things about Islam in order to smear an entire religion."
If you're not suffering from cognitive deficits and reading incomprehesion but only read some parts of my commentaries, then that's precisely what you're engaging in, Houston. You're projecting.
All you do is cherry pick things I say (separating them from the entire tree of the argument) to attack my credibility and the integrity of the entire tree (e.g. the little sour cherry erroneously identified as Noah, not his brother Lot) and/or insidiously suggest terrible things about my branching argument in order to smear my entire character:
"Lastly John...this (post) is downright bigoted and hateful."
Why, nitwit?
Because I posted downright bigoted and hateful things right out of the Quran?
"Surely the vilest of animals in Allah's sight are those who disbelieve."
(8:55)
"When the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and beseige them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer [become believers] and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them."
(9:5)
Here's a snippet from sermon by a sheik preaching to Palestinian Authority TV. It aired on May 13, 2005, and is quite typical:
"Listen to the Prophet Muhammad, who tells you about the evil end that awaits Jews. The stones and trees will want the Muslims to finish off every Jew."
And then you attack ME for being "bigoted" and "hateful" for outing textual bigotry and hatefulness in the Quaran THAT IS BEING PREACHED ON PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY TELEVISION?
YOU, sir, are a liberal.
"You do realize that cherry picking verses out of the Quran that shows compassion, love and liberty for others is a very simple task."
Don't remind me. Remind the psychotically-violent hordes of Islamists.
"You mention they didn't have a Geneva Convention back then. This is true, but you do know that the Quran actually gives guidance to how a war is to be fought without effecting civilians."
lol Someone should have told Bin Laden--and the multitudes of Muslim men, women and children dancing in the streets from Iraq to Israel with the news of 9/11-- that the World Trade Center towers weren't military barracks.
"It was way ahead of it's time."
Do you read anything I soundly rebut? Do you follow the discussion, or do you just walk in here with uninformed prejudice against me?
I said, to James, TWICE:
"As I said, I'm aware of the positive contributions on civilization that the sprawling, Muslim Empire enabled (e.g. in sciences like astronomy, medicine, and chemistry, and their reintroducing of Plato and Aristotle to the West), and furthermore that they accomplished their expansion without too much bloodshed over weak and disorganized older societies, and that they demonstrated a new religious tolerance (because the new dhimmis were weaklings and didn't mind."
"You do realize that Islam was the first major religion to actually accept other religions to live in peace in Muslem lands. (granted they needed to pay a little more in taxes)."
There was a lot more that was required of the dhimmi than "just" discriminatory taxation.
And as a whle they were second-class citizens.
But I suppose you have a problem with discriminatory taxing based on ethnicity and religion.
No, that's perfectly acceptable and the mark of an enlightened culture!
What's that? That was then? You can "disregard" that anachronism?
No, you can't, because those are considered eternal and omnipresent Commands RIGHT OUT OF THE QURAN:
"...then if they repent and keep up prayer [become believers] and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them."
9:5
That's what Houston was celebrating when he said:
"You do realize that Islam was the first major religion to actually accept other religions to live in peace in Muslem lands. (granted they needed to pay a little more in taxes)."
Do you "realize" what you're defending?
"You love to throw around the term moral equivalence."
I "throw around" nothing.
It is YOU who are flippant.
"Unfortunately you are doing just that when you have decided that it's only the New Testament (which there is plenty of violence in) that should be adhered to."
"Unfortunately," that's a non sequiter to what I've written.
NOWHERE did I "decide that it's only the New Testament...that should be adhered to."
And "plenty of violence?"
lol Yeah, moral equivalence with the violence of the religious leader of the New Testament getting arrested, beat up, flogged, and nailed to a cross by heathens and then saying "Forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do" and the religious leader of the Quran about-facing and telling his followers to do just that (and then some)to infidels:
"The punishment of those who pit themselves against Allah and His Messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement..."
(Quran, 5:33-34)
But WAIT!
"...except those who repent before you have them in your power."
Right (*whew!*), as Houston "defended":
"You do realize that Islam was the first major religion to actually accept other religions to live in peace in Muslem lands. (granted they needed to pay a little more in taxes)."
Idjoot.
And don't be dragging in bridle-high blood quotes from Revelations.
Give it up.
"You have heard of the 7 deadly sins right?"
Sure. Have you?
Pride? Envy? Ignorance? Vanity?
Are you familiar with them?
And, of course, Anger:
"Yet you are OK with God having a 'temper'. So, that would mean that God isn't perfect."
Bravo, Houston, bravo! You're logical train of thought is a mighty locomotion!
How old are you, Houston? Am I wasting my time arguing with a snot-nosed punk?
I made no value judgments either way about Yahweh's famous temper.
And who said the capacity for emotional response is "imperfect" for a God who "made man in His image?"
"But God has to be perfect. hmmmm so confusing to go through life as hypocrit John."
Must be confusing to go through life as an idjoot, Houston.
"Lastly John, many of your posts are senseless and lack any semblance of logic, but this one is downright bigoted and hateful."
M-hm.
"So you dated a expat from the Middle East once...wow, I guess you really aren't a bigot! (please)"
"Please" what?
I'm not trying to "prove" I'm not a bigot, especially to you.
I don't think that way, and I gave no reason for that interpretion, therefore, you must be projecting because YOU do.
You're a liberal.
It was not gratuitous, as it must be if your sniveling insinuation is to be believed.
I said:
"Republicus had a Middle-Eastern girlfriend and dated a couple of others."
TRANSLATION: They were not passing acquaintances I've chit-chatted with on a superficial level, but intimate friends who provided personal insights on this very subject.
Here are the pertinent points:
"They were Westernized, 'hip,' educated, and well-assimilated."
TRANSLATION: Just like you and me (well, at least me).
However:
"They also turned away from Islam (because they were ex-patriates who fled theocracies, and lost property and the freedom--if not lives-- of relatives)."
We talked about this.
Listen carefully: They would take no offense at what I posted, because they would agree that the people who looted them and caused them to flee their homeland HAVE THAT ISLAMIC MENTALITY ESSENTIALIZED IN THE QUOTES.
You reserve words like "bigot" and "fascist" and "intolerant theocrat" and even "murderes" for Evangelical Bush and the Biblical conservatives, and then you come in here and apologize for and defend the Islamo-fascist, Quran-thumping thugs who would cut your fool, infidel head off if you had the idiocy to speak out on behalf of "homosexual rights" and "abortion rights " in their countries?
Fool.
"Have you ever lived in the Middle East?"
No. Not too far from there, though.
"What makes you a expert on Muslims? (am radio no doubt)."
I don't claim to be an "expert."
Obviously, you fancy yourself as one, so where do you get your expertise? Michael Moore? Noam Chomsky? Paul Krugman? Daily Kos? Antiwar.com? Moveon.org?
I do not support a war against Islam.
I support the war against Islamic terror.
It's not confined to Al Qaeda.
However, it is confined to Muslims who absorb the very passages I posted from the Quran and consider them eternal and omnipresent commands.
THEY are intolerant. THEY are the sexists. THEY are the mediaevalists. THEY are the bigots. And THEY are the supremacists.
As inspired by their sacred tome.
"You are attacking an entire religion for no other apparent reason than to make your 'team' feel better. That is the heart of bigotry."
Can you read, or do you just like to presume things based on your prejudice?
For THE THIRD TIME:
"It seems my provocative postings have created misimpressions with many of you.
Are there Muslims we could co-exist with, and trust?
OF COURSE!
I'm counting on that.
I SUPPORTED THE DUBAI PORTS WORLD DEAL.
What does that tell you about where I'm at?
Please go to this March 9 post to see what I had to say about the DPW controversy and my position vis-a-vis our international relations with responsible Muslim nations:
http://arlingtonian.blogspot.com/2006/03/setback-in-war-on-terror-situation.html
"If you are a Christian, you may want to think about ridding yourself of all this venom in your heart and hate in your mind."
Yeah, the venom and hate like THIS:
"Announce painful punishment to those who disbelieve."
(Quran 9:3)
"Surely the vilest of animals in Allah's sight are those who disbelieve."
(8:55)
Fight them: Allah will punish them by your hands and bring them to disgrace, and assist you against them.
(9:14)
"Maybe on your next posts you could posts pictures of Opie from the Andy Griffith show next to Malcom X to show us all how white people are better than black people."
Oh, that's rich. I'm a "racist" now.
Tell me how contradistinctively juxtaposing the respective statements regarding violence and racism from the two most prominent Civil Right's leaders of the 1960's--one a Christian Reverend and the other the LEADER OF THE NATION OF ISLAM--is analogous to juxtaposing Opie and Malcolm X for the purpose of saying "White is better?"
Because Christianity is
"The White Man's" religion and Islam "The Black's?"
But Martin Luther King is black.
The contrast was in the ideologies and language of the religious leaders (who must have been informed of their respective faiths and language by their respective sacred tomes).
And do you know what "Arab Muslims" are doing to "Black Muslims" in Darfur?
Evander Holyfield is black, too.
But he's not the one who bit off part of Tyson's ear, not just once, but twice.
Does that have anything with the respective sacred tomes they consult for spiritual guidance?
It can't be the violence of Tyson's profession. They're both pugilists.
There was certainly no implication about race.
They're not only both African American, but Holyfield is even blacker in skin tone.
Yet Houston still decided to finally throw down the race card in what appears to be a desperate resorting to character assassination.
How old are you, Houston?
Are you out of high school?
Actually, I wouldn't make such an astonishingly illogical analogy in high school.
Or ever.
Too much Kool Aid, Houston. You've got a problem.
"(Phelonious has some nice posts btw)"
lol What a weasel. He's trying to kiss up to you, James, after you told him to "fuck off" and "STFU" for the sheer purpose of scrambling and rearranging relational equations to his political benefit.
"Keep up the good work."
Yeah, you too, Houston.
douglass said:
"Hustonmod: sure John is picking cherries, but he is NOT a bigot."
lol I'm NOT picking cherries!
Come on. They had kneeling, bound civilian contractors--old, young, American, Japanese, male, female--weeping and pleading for their lives, on videotape.
They get their heads painfully sawed off with a knife.
The severed head is raised for the camera.
What do your hear (after the screaming abruptly stops)?
"Allah Akbar."
"He's not talking about the best way to crush the Muslim infidel cancer or any of that nonsense."
Heathens. Muslim heathens. :)
"It's unfair of you (Hustonmod) to toss around such powerful words (i.e.: bigot) for the purpose of smearing John instead of taking his argument head on."
He can't. That's why resorted to personal attacks and character assassination.
"Even if John has been caught red handed under the cherry tree with a bushel of cherries that he has picked, that does not mean that he is racist or bigoted."
:(
Kelly said:
"Douglass said,
'It's unfair of you (Hustonmod) to toss around such powerful words (i.e.: bigot) for the purpose of smearing John instead of taking his argument head on.'
I agree.
Whether we agree with John or not the debate is one that has been good for discussion. It has allowed us to explore this issue.
Houstonmod, Anonymous or anyone else who comes in here slamming: perhaps you could contribute to the topic, rather than tearing down the person."
Let them. They reveal themselves.
"I learned (yes, I have been there) that doesn't do anything but start fires."
They're i.e.d. bombers. They come in here and plant roadside bombs to slow the progress of Republicus, or they come in here with a strap-on bomb and try to blow up Republicus, who is heavily armored and so only end up killing themselves.
And he's back.
houstonmod said:
"Sorry guys, but you have to call a spade a spade."
Yes.
"His original post does nothing more than to vilify a religion he knows nothing about..."
I can assure you, Houston, that bin Laden knows his religion better than both of us.
"(although I question his knowledge of the Bible as well)."
Right. Noah-Lot, Lot-Noah, I dunno. I just work here.
"You can defend him and befriend him, but let's not pretend there is anything intellectual about his original posts."
I think they can decide for themselves, Houston. They don't you to tell them what's "intellectual" and what's not.
"All he did was cherry pick nice things about Christianity and terrible things about Islam in order to smear an entire religion."
For the fourth time:
"It seems my provocative postings have created misimpressions with many of you.
Are there Muslims we could co-exist with, and trust?
OF COURSE!
I'm counting on that.
I SUPPORTED THE DUBAI PORTS WORLD DEAL.
What does that tell you about where I'm at?
Please go to this March 9 post to see what I had to say about the DPW controversy and my position vis-a-vis our international relations with responsible Muslim nations:
http://arlingtonian.blogspot.com/2006/03/setback-in-war-on-terror-situation.html
"But the very nature of those posts, he portrays himself as a bigot."
The "very nature?"
The "very nature" you're whining about is the politically incorrect aspect of them, that's all.
"I do not throw that word around very often but maybe it's time to step up and call him out for starting 'this fire'."
Don't tell me what I can or can not say on my blog, Houston.
And YOU started the fire yoiu lying sack of shit.
I posted pictures and quotations.
Interpret them as you will.
Don't get all hissy with me because the self-evident epiphanies slapped you in the face.
"Look at the people he picked to compare!!"
Please do.
"Is there a difference there than picking Opie verses Malcolm X?"
Yes. A HUGE difference. Age, race, career.
MLK and Malcolm X were around the same age, were the same race, and had the same careers (i.e. political religious leaders).
The difference is that one is a Christian reverend, the other the leader of The Nation of Islam.
Oh, and I forgot: Their different takes on race and violence.
Pretty much the same with Holyfield and Tyson.
"If he wants to operate a blog, he needs to know that when you serve up disinformation and bigoted hatred, he will be called out for it."
Go preach the words of the Quran to bin Laden and his numerous ilk, since they obviously haven't read it.
"Honestly, I don't know John, so I can only go by what he has posted and in this case, there is no doubt that what he has posted is bigotted."
You best shaddup, Houston, because you're starting to rouse the wrath of Republicus (and it ain't pretty).
Sanjay said:
"While I tend to give John the benefit of the doubt with terms like bigot and racist..."
:)
"...I'm beginning to wonder."
:(
"First a recent post with an arguably racist buckwheet picture. Ok, I'll let it slide."
You should, as far as my being compelled by any racist motivations.
We beat that dead horse into the ground.
"Now a condemnation of an entire religion..."
False.
For the fifth time:
"It seems my provocative postings have created misimpressions with many of you.
Are there Muslims we could co-exist with, and trust?
OF COURSE!
I'm counting on that.
I SUPPORTED THE DUBAI PORTS WORLD DEAL.
What does that tell you about where I'm at?
Please go to this March 9 post to see what I had to say about the DPW controversy and my position vis-a-vis our international relations with responsible Muslim nations:
http://arlingtonian.blogspot.com/2006/03/setback-in-war-on-terror-situation.html
"...with the classic closet racist defense of "Hey some of my best friends are muslims".
False. I addressed that:
"So you dated a expat from the Middle East once...wow, I guess you really aren't a bigot! (please)"
"Please" what?
I'm not trying to "prove" I'm not a bigot, especially to you.
I don't think that way, and I gave no reason for that interpretion, therefore, you must be projecting because YOU do.
You're a liberal.
It was not gratuitous, as it must be if your sniveling insinuation is to be believed.
I said:
Houston said:
"Republicus had a Middle-Eastern girlfriend and dated a couple of others."
TRANSLATION: They were not passing acquaintances I've chit-chatted with on a superficial level, but intimate friends who provided personal insights on this very subject.
Here are the pertinent points:
"They were Westernized, 'hip,' educated, and well-assimilated."
TRANSLATION: Just like you and me (well, at least me).
However:
"They also turned away from Islam (because they were ex-patriates who fled theocracies, and lost property and the freedom--if not lives-- of relatives)."
We talked about this.
Listen carefully: They would take no offense at what I posted, because they would agree that the people who looted them and caused them to flee their homeland HAVE THAT ISLAMIC MENTALITY ESSENTIALIZED IN THE QUOTES.
You reserve words like "bigot" and "fascist" and "intolerant theocrat" and even "murderes" for Evangelical Bush and the Biblical conservatives, and then you come in here and apologize for and defend the Islamo-fascist, Quran-thumping thugs who would cut your fool, infidel head off if you had the idiocy to speak out on behalf of "homosexual rights" and "abortion rights " in their countries?"
It was not a gratuitous "I have friends who are Muslims," Sanjay, to prove something.
If I said: "I recently made a friendly acquaintance with a Saudi Arabian Shia in a bar!" for the hell of it, just to "prove" something, then yeah, I could understand the impression that would have given off.
It's actually true, but wasn't relevant.
"John, I don't think your a KKK skinhead or anything but I can see why people can think you are."
Who? Houston? Jeff?
You, Sanjay?
"Your knowledge of the Quran seems limitted to some selctive quotes."
Unfortunately, so does bin Laden's.
"Have you ever talked to an Imam and asked him to explain those passages to you."
AGAIN, I'm sure there are "moderate" Muslims.
I'm counting on it.
"Like the way I asked Kelly to explain what I thought of her mormon beliefs? Or do you (as you have done in the past) look at something out of context and post it as if you've looked at it from all sides?"
I don't post things "as if I looked at them at all sides."
I leave it to my guests to discuss other facets I may have missed.
"You've excused Christian extremists as being on the fringe but fringe muslims... eh; just throw the baby out with the bathwater!"
There's a lot more "fringe" Muslims than Christians, Sanjay.
And I don't equate Christian "extremists" who are against homosexual "marriage" with Muslim extremists who decapitate homosexuals.
Do you?
John said,
"AGAIN, the debate here is whether the "extremists" who embrace that are a marginal fringe group, or are but a part of a culture-wide malignancy."
I will certainly say that this is how I have argued the point.
But, I think that the presentation of the argument could have been handled with better clarity. If that had been your purpose then state it as such....then open it up for discussion.
John made the point, "But you will find, not all, but MANY Muslims--especially among the clerics in mosques and Madrassahs--who themselves cherry-pick their own respective passages (as posted) and consider them to be omnipresent and eternally pursued."
As I said, in an earlier comment,
"There are some who, because of their hatred of the West, have taken the words from the Quran as justification for their hatred."
"Many Muslims have been blinded by the hatred of their leaders into accepting their interpretation of holy verse."
It seems that we agree...on that point.
There are many good muslims who are not blinded by such interpretations.
Ok, let's just chill here for a minute. I know John, knew him well in fact. And I can say definitively he is not a bigot or racist by any measure. He has much love in his heart for most people( obviously Fringe Islamic fundamentalist not included here). One does not have to be a conservative or liberal though John to take offense(or question) at what is rightly perceived to be a fairly lopsided comparison of these two religions on your part. I know you have explained yourself to death here ad nauseum and that has to be annoying, but obviously not everyone agrees with you even after your explanations of your position. And thats ok, but it doesn't mean they or you are wrong.
I do personally think that the Islamic religion is primarily based on peace and love, as is Judaism and Christianity, and quite frankly most if not all widespread world religions. Bin Laden is not a religious leader, he is a radical financier of the tactic of terrorism, using a fucked up interpretation of his religion as an excuse to justify his casualties. All are fair game to the religious terrorist practitioner. An actual Jihad in Islam has to be sanctioned and called for by a religious leader to be valid. The most common definition of Jihad in Islam is not an armed conflict, but actually an inner struggle to achieve personal righteousness within themselves.Bin Laden calling for a Jihad(holy war-the third level of Jihad) against America is about as valid as Pat Robertson calling publicly for the execution of President Chavez in Venuzuela. Most practitioneers of Islam know this and disregard his calling. Yes he has his followers, but in the large and small of the world, they aren't that significant. Terrorism is a tactic explicitly employed by a person or group who have no capabilities to confront an oppositions millitary. It is the only millitary tactic that the insignificant have to use against the big boys. Manachim Begin was a master terrorist tactician in his time as the leader of the Irgun, and was instrumental in driving the British from Palestine after WWII. Most terrorism in the past was Ethno/Nationalistic in nature, opressed groups trying to create or take back their homeland. They are generally the groups also who have had any longevity as standing terrorist organizations(PLO being the longest in History). Religious based terrorism really just started getting big about 30 years ago, and most groups rarely last beyond a year or two to any funtional or operational degree. That being said, yes, Bin Laden is a dangerous nutjob, with a twisted interpretation of his religion. I just don't believe that Islam can or should be condemned for or because of him. Alot of people out there right now are using religion as an excuse for their actions, and we have certainly elevated these marginal fringe groups to some lofty " boogeyman" status that they probably aren't worthy of either. Propoganda goes both ways when the millitary is involved, from both sides, theirs and ours. For Bin Laden or any of his followers or admirers to be effective or taken seriously, they need to be seen as ruthless and larger than life. Yes the filmed and distributed beheadings of innocent people is horrendous, but it is also the path of least resistance for them, and more goes to prove they aren't capable of sustaining or carrying out anything other than these isolated incidents of individual murder. And conversely for us, we need to see these terrorists as larger than life and such a mortal threat to all of us, especially here at home, to sustain the populations continued support in treating the events of 9-11 as anything less than full scale acts of war against what is essentially a very loosely banded group of like minded nut jobs who took six years to hijack four of our own planes to use against us as weapons, because they have no major weapons of their own to use. It goes both ways.
I personally compare the people like Bin Laden to the equivalent of the Christian Identity followers here in the U.S. We must take them all seriously, but hopefully not to the point of inflicting millions of more casualties through the total condemnation of the Religion of Islam as a whole. I know you don't, as you have explained, but you're closer to that side of the argument than not.
Long winded I know, but lay off John here on this, he is no bigot or racist, he is a decent guy. There has been a great deal of effort to lionize Islam, the creation of an enemy must be harsh to allow and sustain a prolonged millitary engagement. "Islamic Terrorism is the new kid on the block right now, there have been many more before them, and there will be after. Let's just try and keep the entirety of it in perspective.
A real good book on this subject for anyone interested is "Inside Terrorism" by Bruce Hoffman. He has been Rand Corps lead terrorism expert for 20 plus years and has a real good breakdown of this. It was a pre 9-11 publish but still very relevant. It's a quick read on the history from beginning to present on terrorism.
Thank you, Jeff.
Thank you, Jeff, that's very informative and you make good points--and thank you for the character reference ;)-- but I have to disagree with most all of you who took offense, on two main points:
(1) I do not believe that the magnitude of the threat is no bigger than a small, renegade cabal that can fit in a cave or two at Torah Borah and is dismissed by an overwhelming majority of the world's practicing Muslims.
Joe-Shmoe-Shia who is no fan of bin Laden is not necessarily turned off by him because of his pursuit of THIRD LEVEL JIHAD, but because he's a Sunni.
(2) I repeat: The overarching theme of Islam--in both the Qur'an and Hadith-- is not found in the verses of tolerance and peaceful co-existence, but in the REPETITIVE THIRD LEVEL "Sword Verses," and the Commands therein TO TAKE THE SWORD are as applicable today as they were thirteen centuries ago.
"Islamic religion is primarily based on peace and love, as is Judaism and Christianity, and quite frankly most if not all widespread world religions."
Nope. That's PC, wishful thinking.
Islam was established by the sword.
That's an historical fact.
Christianity by The Word.
The orthodox view of the Sunnis is that peace--TRUE peace, when the sword can be put down-- will only occur when Islam rules the world unchallenged.
That's a fact.
As you mentioned, Islam does, like just about all religions, have some good parts (about mercy, justice, charity, etc.), but the PRIMARY PRINCIPLE is its supremacy and the duty of every GOOD Muslim to prove it.
BY MIGHT.
By the sword.
By aggressive expansion.
Just ONE century after the death of Mohammad, jihad had acquired MORE TERRITORY THAN ANCIENT ROME EVER HAD.
Bloody, Third-Level, Jihad.
It took Christianity FIVE centuries to cover that kind of ground.
Why? Because its primary principles ARE faith, hope, and charity.
As I've said from the outset: The Bible--particularly the New Testament-- does NOT COMMAND the faithful to pick up arms and spread the faith by slaying heathens.
The Qur'an and the Haddith do.
And how long did it take Spain (under the influence of Rome) to conquer...I mean convert all of South America to the Catholic church.
Think about it...Cortez, Pizzaro, and others...it was not by way of peace and love. Where are the Aztecs, the Incas and the Mayans? They became "assimilated" rather quickly into the Spanish (Catholic) culture/religion.
I think after you see Gibson's new movie you'll be glad Christianity came to the Mayans and Aztecs.
I mean, talk about human sacrifices, sheesh.
Drop the moral equivalence (that's what it is).
Some people here attacked my "ignorance" of the Quran (and The Bible) while posing as authorities themselves. I won't name anyone (Houstonmod), but, again, they should take it up bin Laden.
Good luck "enlightening" him, though. He'll talk circles around your head about what the Quran says and means until it forms a noose.
Jeff said:
"Bin Laden is not a religious leader..."
False. He is not only a religious leader, but a cult superstar.
"...he is a radical financier of the tactic of terrorism, using a fucked up interpretation..."
False. He is unpologetically doing what Allah and Mohammad explicitly Command.
"...of his religion as an excuse to justify his casualties."
His fundamentalist interpretation of the Quran justifies the "casualties."
"All are fair game to the religious terrorist practitioner. An actual Jihad in Islam has to be sanctioned and called for by a religious leader to be valid."
Again, bin Laden is a religious leader just as David Koresh of the Branch Davidians or Jim Jones of the People's Temple was, with this difference:
His followers are far more numerous and go OUT to kill, not kill within.
"The most common definition of Jihad in Islam is not an armed conflict, but actually an inner struggle to achieve personal righteousness within themselves."
BACKWARDS. It is the most common definition--the overarching theme--of Christianity that is "not an armed conflict, but actually an inner struggle to achieve personal righteousness within themselves."
The overarching theme of Jihad in Islam is indeed armed conflict and the aggressive pursuit of global hegemony as the prerequisite to the day when everyone--EVERYONE--can spend their life dealing with "an inner struggle to achieve personal righteousness within themselves," free of infidels.
"They are generally the groups also who have had any longevity as standing terrorist organizations(PLO being the longest in History)."
That's historical nonsense and indicative of temporal egocentrism.
But yeah, they don't stop.
Why?
"When the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and beseige them and lie in wait for them..."
They're following orders.
"Religious based terrorism really just started getting big about 30 years ago..."
NONSENSE. Bunk.
"...and most groups rarely last beyond a year or two to any funtional or operational degree."
NONSENSE. Bunk.
"That being said, yes, Bin Laden is a dangerous nutjob, with a twisted interpretation of his religion."
NONSENSE. He reads the Commands of Allah in the Quran and Mohammad in the Haddith as eternal and omnipresent.
Violent Jihad is NOT a "misreading."
"I just don't believe that Islam can or should be condemned for or because of him."
Judge it by it what it says.
"A lot of people out there right now are using religion as an excuse for their actions, and we have certainly elevated these marginal fringe groups to some lofty 'boogeyman' status that they probably aren't worthy of either."
They're not? Hello? They kicked the testicles of the financial nerve center of the civilized world, hit the brain of the U.S. military, and went for the heart of our political system until Todd Beamer and the boys prevented the final hit.
They mean business.
"Propoganda goes both ways when the millitary is involved, from both sides, theirs and ours."
Moral equivalence.
"For Bin Laden or any of his followers or admirers to be effective or taken seriously, they need to be seen as ruthless and larger than life."
They ARE ruthless.
"Yes the filmed and distributed beheadings of innocent people is horrendous, but it is also the path of least resistance for them..."
What, an apology? A rationalization? Shame.
"...and more goes to prove they aren't capable of sustaining or carrying out anything other than these isolated incidents of individual murder."
OR SAYING FUCK YOU TO THE CIVILIZED WORLD AND ATTAINING ENRICHED URANIUM, anyway.
"And conversely for us, we need to see these terrorists as larger than life and such a mortal threat to all of us, especially here at home, to sustain the populations continued support in treating the events of 9-11 as anything less than full scale acts of war against what is essentially a very loosely banded group of like minded nut jobs who took six years to hijack four of our own planes to use against us as weapons, because they have no major weapons of their own to use."
What is this BULLSHIT?
They chased us out of Somalia--A HUMANITARIAM MISSION. They hit the WTC low in 1993. They bombed our sovereign embassies in Africa. They bombed the guided missile destroyer U.S.S. Cole. THEY EXPLICITLY DECARED WAR ON US, NOT ONCE, BUT TWICE.
And they planned and carried out 9/11 in the belief that we were "Paper tigers" and our society a house of cards.
"It goes both ways."
Damn right it does.
"I personally compare the people like Bin Laden to the equivalent of the Christian Identity followers here in the U.S."
That's moral equivalence.
And insane.
They killed Western film-maker Theo Van Gogh, pinning a note to him with a knife.
Violent, transcontinental riots broke out over cartoons that caricatured the violence in Islam.
On the other hand, "predictions" were made that Gibson's *The Passion* would ignite a rash of anti-Semitism among "Christian-Identity-bin-Laden-equivalents."
There were ZERO incidents.
Now, should Opie or Tom Hanks--not to mention author Dan Gray--fear "righteous retaliation" (i.e. violence) from the "bin Laden equivalents Christian Identity followers here in the U.S?"
Hell no.
Look what you just did: You called the American, Judeo-Christian Religious Right "equivalent" to the bin Laden types!
THAT'S MORAL EQUIVALENCE, and it's BULLSHIT.
"We must take them all seriously..."
Whoa-whoa-whoa, you were just being dismissive of them just above:
"And conversely for us, we need to see these terrorists as larger than life and such a mortal threat to all of us, especially here at home, to sustain the populations continued support in treating the events of 9-11 as anything less than full scale acts of war against what is essentially a very loosely banded group of like minded nut jobs who took six years to hijack four of our own planes to use against us as weapons, because they have no major weapons of their own to use."
"...but hopefully not to the point of inflicting millions of more casualties through the total condemnation of the Religion of Islam as a whole."
"Total condemnation of the religion as a whole."
What did Nanc say to you, Jeff, in the Gibson post?
This: "a word to jeff - if you're going to use words please do them justice..."
"I know you don't, as you have explained, but you're closer to that side of the argument than not."
I'm not a paper tiger.
"Long winded I know, but lay off John here on this, he is no bigot or racist, he is a decent guy."
Thank you.
"There has been a great deal of effort to lionize Islam..."
Was that an unconscious slip? There's been an awful lot of "lionizing" of Islam here, but not from me.
You must have meant THE EXACT INVERSE: "demonizing."
You apologists and defenders and stooges are BACKWARDS (I hope unconsciously).
The "great deal of effort" to demonize and "the total condemnation of a religion as a whole" comes not from me, but from the Quranic purists:
"Announce painful punishment to those who disbelieve."
(Quran 9:3)
"Surely the vilest of animals in Allah's sight are those who disbelieve."
(8:55)
"Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the book (Christians and Jews), until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection."
(9:29)
That's not "cherry-picking," fools.
"...the creation of an enemy must be harsh to allow and sustain a prolonged millitary engagement."
Right. That's why were "The Great Satan" and Jews "a cancer on the world like AIDS," to "allow and sustain a long militaruy engagement"--THEIR OWN.
"Islamic Terrorism is the new kid on the block right now..."
"Islamic Terrorism" is 1,400 years old.
"...there have been many more before them, and there will be after."
Moral equivalence--but only, of course, when trying to defend the indefensible.
There is no "moral equivalence" when those same defenders then attack that which was supposedly "morally equivalent."
Leftology.
"Let's just try and keep the entirety of it in perspective."
Yes, please.
"A real good book..."
Kool Aid alert.
"...on this subject for anyone interested is 'Inside Terrorism' by Bruce Hoffman. He has been Rand Corps lead terrorism expert for 20 plus years and has a real good breakdown of this. It was a pre 9-11 publish but still very relevant. It's a quick read on the history from beginning to present on terrorism.
No. Pre-9/11 world-views on terrorism are as relevant today as pre-WWII apologies for Kaiser Wilhelm were to the Allied Forces battling the Third Reich.
Sanjay:
When you said this:
"...with the classic closet racist defense of "Hey some of my best friends are muslims".
And I replied thusly:
"False. I addressed that:..."
All of the following was addressed to Houston, who had begun to annoy me, not you (so I hope you didn't think I was directing it to you personally),
[Houston said: "So you dated a expat from the Middle East once...wow, I guess you really aren't a bigot! (please)"
I said: "Please" what?
I'm not trying to "prove" I'm not a bigot, especially to you.
I don't think that way, and I gave no reason for that interpretion, therefore, you must be projecting because YOU do.
You're a liberal.
It was not gratuitous, as it must be if your sniveling insinuation is to be believed.
I said:
"Republicus had a Middle-Eastern girlfriend and dated a couple of others."
TRANSLATION: They were not passing acquaintances I've chit-chatted with on a superficial level, but intimate friends who provided personal insights on this very subject.
Here are the pertinent points:
"They were Westernized, 'hip,' educated, and well-assimilated."
TRANSLATION: Just like you and me (well, at least me).
However:
"They also turned away from Islam (because they were ex-patriates who fled theocracies, and lost property and the freedom--if not lives-- of relatives)."
We talked about this.
Listen carefully: They would take no offense at what I posted, because they would agree that the people who looted them and caused them to flee their homeland HAVE THAT ISLAMIC MENTALITY ESSENTIALIZED IN THE QUOTES.
You reserve words like "bigot" and "fascist" and "intolerant theocrat" and even "murderes" for Evangelical Bush and the Biblical conservatives, and then you come in here and apologize for and defend the Islamo-fascist, Quran-thumping thugs who would cut your fool, infidel head off if you had the idiocy to speak out on behalf of "homosexual rights" and "abortion rights " in their countries?"]
That was all with Houston.
Jeff said:
"Long winded I know, but lay off John here on this, he is no bigot or racist, he is a decent guy."
I said:
"Thank you."
And I mean it.
But you made your debut at Republicus (as posted in the November 20, 2005 post "The Bush-Hater") thusly:
"Bush Hater, mother fucking right. I hate anyone who has a radical insane policy that lies, cheats , steals and murders people and our democracy. I CAN'T STAND YOU freakin fascists that can't think for themselves, can only spew what you hear on fox and GOP.com."
So will the REAL Jeff please stand up?
Well, I have heard from some of my former professors that too much education can absolutely ruin an educated opinion......maybe that is what is happening to me.
Really my objections to using scriptures as criticims of the faiths that they come from is based on the fact that it is far too easy to misunderstand or over-generalize.
Now, after all this bandying about of centuries of history, I was reading today where the Iranian Parliament has copied a rule from what was, ostensibly, a christian regime of a sort.....and wants to force the Jews and Christians to wear a marker on their clothes to identify themselves.
D***. That's a bad sign. Even in places like the UAE, they are nervously standing around adjusting their headbands hoping that this one cools down. So, John, I guess while I am a stickler on being accurate about criticisms of world religions, there is no doubt that there are quite a few of the Quran reading types that are of a bad sort.
We just have to be careful about casting motes from other's eyes if we have logs in our own eyes that need casting. At some point it could be fun to have a discussion of the Islamic expansions of the 7th and 8th centuries and look a while at some of the reasons it happened. It most surely was not entirely a religious question. There were solid political and economic reasonings for the expansion, just like there was for Alexander the Great, the Assyrians and the multitudes of others that have fought over the middle east trade routes. It is my experience that when a war come up as a possibility, the first thing that is said is that it is "for God (or Allah/Zeus/Thor) and Country!" I think every time God hears that He cringes.
As to the Mayans and Aztecs, well, Cortez did not go into take out Montezuma because he didn't like their religion. It turned out that a LOT of the natives didn't like the Aztecs either, but later they did not really favor the smallpox epidemic or the system of slavery that Cortez also brought with him. He went in "for God and Country," (i.e. Gold), and he certainly got that. Others like de Soto and Coronado were not as lucky.
Be all that as it may, you make a cogent point about how we must be on a war footing with the Islamic extremists that send terror around the world.
Phelonius:
"Well, I have heard from some of my former professors that too much education can absolutely ruin an educated opinion......maybe that is what is happening to me."
lol I know what you mean--and it seems to apply to many of our intellectual "elite" on the Left--but nah.
It's "a LITTLE knowledge that's a dangerous thing--so drink deeply from the Pierian spring." ;)
The problem with our leftist intellectual elite is that they drink deeply NOT from the classical "Pierian Spring," but deeply from well that's filled with something that tastes like Kool-Aid.
"Really my objections to using scriptures as criticims of the faiths that they come from is based on the fact that it is far too easy to misunderstand or over-generalize."
Absolutely.
"Now, after all this bandying about of centuries of history, I was reading today where the Iranian Parliament has copied a rule from what was, ostensibly, a christian regime of a sort.....and wants to force the Jews and Christians to wear a marker on their clothes to identify themselves.
D***. That's a bad sign. Even in places like the UAE, they are nervously standing around adjusting their headbands hoping that this one cools down."
That's Nazi stuff. THat's why it's called "Islamo-fascis" (although the same Leftist crowd that calls Bush and the Evangelical constituents "Christo-fascists" take offense at the term "Islamo-fascist"--go figure).
"So, John, I guess while I am a stickler on being accurate about criticisms of world religions, there is no doubt that there are quite a few of the Quran reading types that are of a bad sort."
Yes, quite a few, not a "fringe," renegade group you can pack into a couple of caves at Tora Bora.
"We just have to be careful about casting motes from other's eyes if we have logs in our own eyes that need casting."
Yes indeed, but that's precisely what the log-jammed Quranist apologist does when pointing out the stick's in the hawk nests of the Old Testament.
For myself--an "anti-Muslim bigot"-- I don't go spray-painting graffiti on the local mosques and demand that Muslims be put on a neighborhood watch list.
"At some point it could be fun to have a discussion of the Islamic expansions of the 7th and 8th centuries and look a while at some of the reasons it happened. It most surely was not entirely a religious question."
It never is.
That reminds me of the "fox and hedgehogs" discussion on Irina's blog...
But anyway...
"There were solid political and economic reasonings for the expansion, just like there was for Alexander the Great, the Assyrians and the multitudes of others that have fought over the middle east trade routes."
True.
"It is my experience that when a war come up as a possibility, the first thing that is said is that it is "for God (or Allah/Zeus/Thor) and Country!" I think every time God hears that He cringes."
Yeah. I think you're right--but EVERY time?
Don't you think God ever Grumbles: "I gave you a brain, folks, and a survival instinct: USE 'EM!"
"As to the Mayans and Aztecs, well, Cortez did not go into take out Montezuma because he didn't like their religion. It turned out that a LOT of the natives didn't like the Aztecs either, but later they did not really favor the smallpox epidemic or the system of slavery that Cortez also brought with him. He went in "for God and Country," (i.e. Gold), and he certainly got that. Others like de Soto and Coronado were not as lucky."
Right, right, but surely Western Civilization--with all its flaws--is a preferable program to overwrite that of the Aztecs and the Mayans, in the long run.
Despite the greed, contagions, and genocidal tactics the Europeans used against them, and the incessantly backfiring good intentions that seems to be a constant in human nature, they did not practice the OUTRAGEOUSLY superstitious and outright ATROCITY of human sacrfice, as SANCTIONED BY STATE RELIGION.
They were bloody, man.
Good riddance.
"Be all that as it may, you make a cogent point about how we must be on a war footing with the Islamic extremists that send terror around the world."
Ah, Phelonius. I feel like I'm in the mud when entering the intellects of some commentators.
With you, I feel like I'm taking a a warm bath of Reason. :)
...but there's not much to be ":)" about, unfortunately, about that very footing. :(
Thanks, John. I wish I deserved a comment like that.
This thread caught my attention because of my background in early medieval education and the Islamic influences. Add to that a smattering of comparative religion and I find that I know enough to get into trouble, but I find it intensly interesting.
In my own mind, I find it sad what has happened to Islam over the last couple of centuries, because they really were getting somewhere. It wasn't really the west that destroyed the height of their civilization, it was the mongols and those that followed from the east. The loss of the library at Baghdad was as bad as what the west lost with the burning of the library of Alexandria, and possibly worse. I think what I want, in the back of my mind, is a resurgence of the Islam that lead the world in philosophy and art, rather than the savage brutality of the Hamas movement and the regime in Iran among others.
I have contacted some of those in the Muslim community that really desire the same thing. That is what makes me sad for those who do. It seems that there is a hang-up over Palestine even among some of the more educated in that community, but it is still possible to find commonality with them. ( I think a lot of those contacts find me 'quaint' because I have come to them looking for those things, but most are eager to dialogue and teach me WHY they think that way even if we cannot totally agree.)
Keep patience. You run an open forum so you are going to get all comers, so remember that, I guess, even though I understand why it is easy to blow your stack sometimes. I wish I had half the commentary on my blog that you get on yours even at that.
Nations rise by the welfare of their citizens and by what positive, common interests they can contribute to the rest of the world.
Like Freedom.
The Islamist Middle East is undergoing its own Dark Ages, masked--and sustained-- only by the lucre it receives from its sole contribution of common interest to the rest of the world: Oil.
(which it can pump out from the ground only by the aid of Western technology)
So, John, Arab Muslim reliance on western technology is some sort of jab at their level of civilization, huh.
Well, on the topic of dark stages in civilization, remember how the medieval Church eradicated all traces of civilization that came before it?
The surviving documents, texts and literary works (traces) of Greek and Roman (Western) civilization were DESTROYED by the medieval church as 'heresies'. (excuse my passive voice)
We have knowledge of Greece and Rome today ONLY because ARAB MUSLIMS preserved the heritage of Greece and Rome in their Universities and Libraries.
That is why the 'renaissance’ happened, John, because Europeans were able to get materials about Greek and roman civilization from Islamic sources that the church had destroyed in the name of the most high.
Sure, TODAY Islam is going through a rough phase, but come on, give them credit where it is due, things have not always been the way they are between Islam and Christianity.
Douglass said,
"The surviving documents, texts and literary works (traces) of Greek and Roman (Western) civilization were DESTROYED by the medieval church as 'heresies'.
Hence our own western dark ages came.
Right now I resist the urge to go way off topic...
Perhaps a blog entry of my own.
At any rate, along with the eradication of Greek and Roman literature came illiteracy. The people were then at the mercy of the Church for all their "learning".
I have MAJOR opinions about this...not in this blog.
Douglass said:
"Sure, TODAY Islam is going through a rough phase, but come on, give them credit where it is due..."
Is anyone reading my comprehensive responses?
Douglass, I said, TWICE:
"As I said, I'm aware of the positive contributions on civilization that the sprawling, Muslim Empire enabled (e.g. in sciences like astronomy, medicine, and chemistry, and their reintroducing of Plato and Aristotle to the West), and furthermore that they accomplished their expansion without too much bloodshed over weak and disorganized older societies, and that they demonstrated a new religious tolerance."
As long as one didn't mind being a Dhimmi.
Also, you should understand that at the flowering height of the Medieaval Muslim empire, the falasifa Muslims were PLATONISTS and ARISTOTELIANS.
Avicenna (980-1036) attempted a synthesis between Islam, Plato, and Aristotle.
Maimonides, a falasifa Jew out of 12th Century Islamic Spain-- helped transmit Aristotle to the West.
Those were truly moderate Muslims, and their providing of Aristotle to the Christian West greatly helped put an end to the European Dark Ages and usher in the Renaissance.
Kelly said:
"Douglass said,
'The surviving documents, texts and literary works (traces) of Greek and Roman (Western) civilization were DESTROYED by the medieval church as 'heresies'.
Hence our own western dark ages came."
Right. A LONG TIME AGO.
How many times have we discussed anachronisms?
That's behind us.
And yes, the Christian Dark Age suppression of science and extra-Scriptural knowledge was indeed aided into the Rennaissance by the contributions of Islamic falasifas--who were Platonists and Aristotelians, i.e. WESTERNIZED.
They tried to synthesize Islam with Greek philosophy.
Douglass said:
"So, John, Arab Muslim reliance on western technology is some sort of jab at their level of civilization, huh."
It's not a "jab." They're Third World countries with lots of petrodollars that gloss that fact over.
The far-and-away leader in scientific progress in the Middle East is Israel.
Why?
Because they're not shackled by oppressive religious laws.
John said, "The far-and-away leader in scientific progress in the Middle East is Israel.
Why?
Because they're not shackled by oppressive religious laws."
So, why is it that they were able to have such an enlightenment...earlier in their history? I really want to know what you think here? Are they not guided by the same passages of the Quran as before? What is the difference? And Why?
when I said, "So, why is it that they were able to" I mean Islam.
Kelly, about the crimes of early and middle Christianity, I know, it's despicable.
On Israel, most Israelis are secular, and don't care much for the guidance of the Torah and Talmud.
John, thanks for clearing that up. Mea culpa.
My Impression now is that it isn't Muslim people that you have beef with, but with the particular effect that strict interpretations of Islamic scriptures has on Muslim society at large, like the production of fanatics at an exponentially increasing rate.
It would be interesting to examine how nonreligious factors such as GDP, nutrition, infrastructure, etc play out in an atmosphere where unrepresentative secular governments are competing with repressive theocracies, all the while everyone is blaming the USA and Israel.
(On a side note, recall that those petrodollars are NOT petrodinars, petroyen or petroeuros)(yet)
But I have a question:
John, What is the #1 source of international Islamic terrorism?
Kelly asked:
"So, why is it that they were able to have such an enlightenment...earlier in their history?"
I emphasized above:
"Also, you should understand that at the flowering height of the Medieaval Muslim empire, the falasifa Muslims were PLATONISTS and ARISTOTELIANS."
i.e. Philosophical Westerners ("falisifa"=philosopher)
"I really want to know what you think here? Are they not guided by the same passages of the Quran as before?"
Sure. What do you think drove the greatest and most rapid imperial expansion in history?
Again, just ONE century after the death of Mohammad, jihad had acquired MORE TERRITORY THAN ANCIENT ROME EVER HAD.
"What is the difference? And why?"
The Quran was tempered by Greek philosophy and they chilled.
You had the Aristotelian Averroes (1128-1198)--among others-- who even gave Aristotle the status of the prophet.
It was that kind of liberal thinking (by purely Islamic standards) that injected that Islamic world with a cosmopolitan air and progressive bent.
However, though certainly an influence on the popular zeitgeist, the power structure was run by Islamic purists, and the caliph EXILED Averroes for straying from the "true faith."
Averroes believed--like Aristotle--that God's existence could be proven by Reason alone--which was practically heresy to the orthodoxy, and he had his Orthodox Muslim detractors, e.g. Algazel, who wrote a book called *The Destruction of Philosophers,* the theme of which was that all philosophy was bad for you.
Today's Islamists--who harp back to those glory days--are Orthodox, Quranic Purists like Algazel, NOT Averroes.
But there are plenty of Averroens in the Muslim world today.
Like Averroes in his day, however, they, too, are exiled--or fled on their own--to the West, and I would wager they are precisely the American Muslim several here thought I was attacking and sprang to their defense.
Like I've been saying all along, it's strict, exclusive adherence to the Quran that produces terrorists (much moreso than strict, exclusive adherence to The Bible does today: The Quakers and Amish are Luddites, but NOT murderous terrorists).
As Douglass said:
"...the particular effect that strict interpretations of Islamic scriptures has on Muslim society at large (produces) fanatics at an exponentially increasing rate."
Indeed, because of the ancient militancy INHERENT in the Quran untempered by Western liberalism.
Western, Judeo-Christian liberalism is influenced by syncretic hybrids of Aristotle, Plato, and The Bible.
Them philosophical themes and strains were retained and worked their way into the doctrines, even though it took a LONG time to sort out kinks that left long trails of blood and misery along the way.
But look at the final product, right here.
And although America-haters argue as if we're the only ones who have that trail of blood and misery in our historical wake, this was the best and safest place to be in the 20th, 19th, and late 18th Century.
That's why the people of the world have flocked to this country in greater numbers than any other country in history.
Douglass said:
"Kelly, about the crimes of early and middle Christianity, I know, it's despicable."
But NOT exceptional.
And, if Christianity was directly involved in the despicable history, it was due to--like the Islamicists-- a strict, "cherry-picking," legalistic interpretation (which, ironically, Jesus explicitly did not approve of), or a failure to abide by the proper--but no less explicit-- interpretation).
"On Israel, most Israelis are secular, and don't care much for the guidance of the Torah and Talmud."
I don't know much at all about the national character, except that they have Western values and are Democratic.
"John, thanks for clearing that up. Mea culpa."
No worries. I'm obviously giving off mixed signals.
"My Impression now is that it isn't Muslim people that you have beef with, but with the particular effect that strict interpretations of Islamic scriptures has on Muslim society at large, like the production of fanatics at an exponentially increasing rate."
BINGO.
The Quran and Mohammad's Haddith, like The Bible, is complex and comprehensive and covers a lot of ground, war & peace, ethics and morality, but I must insist, the Quran is hard-wired for militancy in a way that The Bible is not and therefore facilates the production of fanatics not only at an exponentially increasing rate, but in a way that The Bible does not.
Obviously some readers here considered that assessment "bigoted, hateful, ignorant, etc," but it's true, and the Jihadists are plugged into that hard-wiring.
"It would be interesting to examine how nonreligious factors such as GDP, nutrition, infrastructure, etc play out in an atmosphere where unrepresentative secular governments are competing with repressive theocracies, all the while everyone is blaming the USA and Israel."
It's been examined by the strategists, and the gambit is that the dismantling of dictatorships (e.g. the Baathists in Iraq) and the theocracies (e.g. the Taliban in Afghanistan) will allow the conditions for liberalism to do its works.
THAT'S THE STRATEGY.
Again, we have three options:
1) Ignore it
2) Destroy it
3) Fix it
And yes, Cold War realpolitic compelled the U.S. to be greatly responsible for the Frankenstein monsters of both bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, as incessantly reminded, but that just makes it more incumbent upon us to clean up after ourselves and give the people of the Middle East a fresh start and the opportunity to stand, with honor, with the rest of the nations of the Free World.
"Pro-War" Republicus believes they can do it.
The "Antiwar" Left evidently does not, but is willing to write them off as lost causes.
And Republicus is called "anti-Muslim."
Ironic, isn't it?
"(On a side note, recall that those petrodollars are NOT petrodinars, petroyen or petroeuros)(yet)"
Yes. "Yet." It's always something...
"But I have a question:"
I answer it in the next post.
Well, a couple up...
Douglass said,
"My Impression now is that it isn't Muslim people that you have beef with, but with the particular effect that strict interpretations of Islamic scriptures has on Muslim society at large, like the production of fanatics at an exponentially increasing rate."
John said, "BINGO."
I can accept that.
James (Phelonius) said:
"That being said, I would point out that the religions history of the Eurasian continent cannot be conveniently grouped into "'before Christ and after Christ.'"
I replied:
"Oh, yeah."
Actually, the BC/AD demarcation
is a fine one.
Christianity is revolutionary.
Mr. Bargholz, Phelonius is a man I respect. Please aim your bazooka at Houstonmod and Jeff.
Thank you. :)
Post a Comment
<< Home