An honest and simple question for Muslims

[R_not]

And what was the time line for these attacks? Who attacked first? Does that matter in Islam? In Islam, can you ever forgive an attack or is it hate until avenged?

There are Muslims that still complain about battles from centuries ago. Isn’t that a bit much?

Well, in Lebanon - the violence was started by the muslims, not the Lebanese Christians. In Europe, and the UK, the crimes/violence has escalated against non-muslims by the muslims while the reverse is not true - although the muslims will claim they are the victims.

From Lebanon, and from the Gaza, the muslims lob bombs into Israel daily - aiming at schools, buses, pizza parlors, etc and when the Israelis strike back after almost heroic self control not to - the muslims claim it is the Israelis who are attacking, when it was them - who also cannot keep peace treaties, in many cases, no longer than a day or so.

In Africa, the Sudan, it was the muslims who attacked the Christians who did not have weapons or could defend themselves. In the Balkans that strife has been going on for decades and to be quite honest - it is usually the muslims who start it, we never keep track of the history of the area and our own media (as they did in the Lebanon/Israeli war, or with the Palestinians elsewhere) they take the word of the loudest whiners - and that is the muslims who will actually use the ones that they have hidden behind or used their houses to lob bombs from - and take their dead bodies and then use them as propaganda against non-muslims.

‘Because They Hate’
‘While Europe Slept’
‘The Revenge of the Prophet’
‘Menace in Europe’
a list of books that I got my info from, besides articles in jihadwatch.

The Armenian slaughter of Christians by muslims was definitely started by muslims - and Hitler based his slaughter of Christians and Jews on that and figured since no one was alarmed by the Armenican slaughter by the muslims that he could get away with his slaughter.

In China, just this year jihadists were among the so called ‘moderates’ and then struck out and killed some Chinese. Of course, afterwards the ‘moderates’ claimed they were innocent and blah blah blah - basically the same story. Of course, China isn’t like others and I didn’t follow up on it and heard nothing else on it - I would say the Chinese took care of the problem!

I don’t want to forget the Philippines. The muslims in the South have killed over 100,000 Philippine Christians while the reverse is not true. They have demanded their own land (well, because they are very intolerant - just like in India/kashmir/Pakistan) and so have upped the violence and have declared a jihad. The Philippine military aim for the murderers - while the muslims aim for civilians. They are funded by the saudis.

Of course, they never leave the non-muslim lands and demand that they be tolerated while for periods there might be some non-violence - but it usually escalates after a time. And then as we see in so many areas - kashmir/India, the Balkans, the Philippines, etc they start doing the same thing - demands, demand land, violence, claim victimhood, etc. It is the same that happened in lebanon, except for the fact they just took over all of lebanon and culled the Christians. Many fled, many are dhimmi now and if you read ‘Because They Hate’ you will read the violence, torture, and hatred that is being practiced against the Christians.

Here is the crux of the issue with all of this. Muslims do not feel that any non-muslim should do ANYTHING to a muslim - and starting the violence against non-muslims is their allah-given right. We are to just sit back and take it. Once non-muslims strike back, that is when muslims will claim victimhood and the violent ones ( that ‘moderates’ hide among them and support via muslim charities) will then keep on waging war and then just say it was the non-muslims who started it.

What they do is take violence and chaos, and turn it into an allah-given right - it is given an aura of goodness.

Centrality of jihad in islam

A quote from the above article:
a quote: **“Muslims are religiously obliged to disseminate the Islamic faith throughout the world… If non-Muslims submit to conversion or subjugation, this call can be pursued peacefully. If they do not, Muslims are obliged to wage war against them.” World peace, according to Islamic teaching, “is reached only with the conversion or submission of all mankind to Islam.” **

Basically the seeds of violence is in islam, their koran and hadiths have attested to it time and again on every thread that they start on this forum. They don’t like that we know this and will tell us that we are bashing them. Unfortunately, their history is not very good either and over time, and the build up of their numbers in any land they migrate to, has never been peaceful in the end.

Here is another article about jihad, but it doesn’t go into about the perversion of evil into goodness that the first article goes into, but it does explain the endless jihad or what I call a neverending war (a book is titled that too which I recommend - ‘A Neverending War’:

Endless jihad

 

[Sister_Amy]

I will elaborate. The 10% would be those who would condone violence against anyone that is not exactly like them. It may or may not be people who have the nerve to actually do anything against anyone else.

Prove it.

 

[ralphinal]

Prove it.

Oh, that is so easy to do.

Now, I am looking for hard numbers here, but for now, let’s use logic.

If half of all Muslims are women, and women rarely are involved in terror acts, then only 50% can be terrorists.

If 30% of the population in under 18, and those under 18 are rarely involved in terror acts, then only 35% can be terrorists.

If half of all Muslims are anti-terror, and the rest either neutral or in favor of it, then only 17.5% can be terrorists.

Does my 10% number seem that far off?

 

[SimonArizona]

Oh, that is so easy to do.

Now, I am looking for hard numbers here, but for now, let’s use logic.

If half of all Muslims are women, and women rarely are involved in terror acts, then only 50% can be terrorists.

If 30% of the population in under 18, and those under 18 are rarely involved in terror acts, then only 35% can be terrorists.

If half of all Muslims are anti-terror, and the rest either neutral or in favor of it, then only 17.5% can be terrorists.

Does my 10% number seem that far off?

What are you talking about? Women are very much involved in murdering the innocent.3 suicide women blew up a Muslim mosk in Iraq. They even kill each other.

 

[Sister_Amy]

With all due respect, Vickie, I would like to hear Sister Amy’s thoughts. I already know what many Christians would say in response to these questions. If there is such a thing as love for the non-believer in Islam, let a Muslim who wants to correct your assertion present you with the evidence of it. If there is not, let them present that, too. Either one would answer my question.

There is a concept in Islam, called “want for your brother what you want for yourself.” Now, it’s true some people take this to mean only your brother in Islam. However, the stronger and better understanding actually means your brother in humanity.

Now, let me explain something in Islam that might seem slightly off-topic but I’ll try to bring it back (God willing) to your point. And this is the idea of rights, and that the Muslim is obligated to respect certain rights.

First, the rights of God. And that is for example the right that the Muslim worship nobody or nothing other than God; and that he (the Muslim) shouldn’t love or fear anything as much as God.

Secondly, the rights of the self. A person’s body for example has a right on him (that he eat, and sleep.)

Thirdly are the rights of others, which is the broadest kind, and first among these are rights of parents. This comes immediately after the rights of God (before the rights of other Muslims, I will point out!) And naturally, a person’s parents who have raised for him and cared for him from the womb to adulthood are most deserving of his respect, and the Muslim is obligated to respect and honor them… incidentally, regardless of their religion. A great example is Abraham, whose father was an idol-worshipper. Muslims are taught that even if their parents are calling them to disbelief, or to commit shirk (think, something grievous as to worship Satan), then the Muslim is still supposed to treat his parents with honor and respect.

Other kinds of rights for others, after rights for parents (and relatives), are rights for neighbors, and after that, rights to all other Muslims, and then for the rest of mankind. And then there are rights of non-humans, like the rights of animals, and of the environment even.

I went around this way to explain that a Muslim is supposed to respect the rights of people in that order, and mostly it’s not a religious distinction. If you take me for example, of human beings, the first people to have rights over me and are deserving of good treatment from me are my parents, and my close family. And after that, my “neighbors.” I don’t really mean the people living next-door specifically, but my community in general–for me, I’d say that applies to my coworkers, my fellow students, my community/town in general, and even my country (which is America.) And the Muslims also have rights over me–the ones overseas. As do the non-Muslims in other countries.

So what about “love?” Is “love” a right? Maybe, maybe not. I am not aware of any specific teaching that Muslims have to “love” others, but here is something to consider: How does a person show love? Is it better to do righteousness without love, or to declare love, without acting righteously because of it?

So if a person says that he does in fact love people of other religions, because he has been told to do that, but yet he does not help them, does not pray for them, and instead criticizes and condemns them at every opportunity… does he really love them?

Or, what of a person who does not say he loves everyone, but instead respects their beliefs, and their rights, and works to ensure that they are free from persecution, and that they have access to food and shelter and protection anyway–would this not be the superior position, than to declare love without action?

I think it would be.

And I don’t mean to belittle your question, but I would just like to give you a slightly different perspective–if you could put on my muslim-goggles for just a minute.

The average American Muslim has this view of Americans–ultimately good people, who need our help (i.e., help from Muslims.) There isn’t this concept of someone being an “enemy” just because they are a different religion. And the preferred response to an attack is to actually demonstrate love and good will (instead of responding in kind with hatred and enmity.)

So do I “love” Christians just for the sake of loving them? I won’t issue a broad statement that I do, but I will tell you that there are many Christians (and Jews, I’ll add) who promote peace, tolerance, charity, and goodness, and who stand up against hatred and attacks against others. And I do love those Christians, and I love what they stand for. And many more, yes I love them.

And that love is an expression of my heart–it’s not forced, or commanded, it just opens up.

What about those who attack me, and others like me–do I love them? No, my heart doesn’t open to that, but I do feel sorry for them, and I do hope for something better for them (e.g., Islam.)

 

[Sister_Amy]

Oh, that is so easy to do.

Now, I am looking for hard numbers here, but for now, let’s use logic.

If half of all Muslims are women, and women rarely are involved in terror acts, then only 50% can be terrorists.

If 30% of the population in under 18, and those under 18 are rarely involved in terror acts, then only 35% can be terrorists.

If half of all Muslims are anti-terror, and the rest either neutral or in favor of it, then only 17.5% can be terrorists.

Does my 10% number seem that far off?

LOL

Only half of all Muslims are anti-terror now?
Says who?

That’s what I want you to prove. Fuzzy math doesn’t work for me.

 

[Sister_Amy]

What are you talking about? Women are very much involved in murdering the innocent.3 suicide women blew up a Muslim mosk in Iraq. They even kill each other.

Believe it or not, they mostly kill each other.

 

[ralphinal]

LOL

Only half of all Muslims are anti-terror now?
Says who?

That’s what I want you to prove. Fuzzy math doesn’t work for me.

I was being conservative. I do not think that more than 50% advocate it. If Muslims are like Americans, the most that are zelots would be aroun 15-20%, with about 50% not caring at all or not knowing what they should care or not care about.

That would mean that 20% like terrorist acts against others and 20% hate them, with 60% not caring as long as it is not them.

 

[ralphinal]

Believe it or not, they mostly kill each other.

NOt only that, but the use of women as terrorist bombers is a very new thing. IN fact, some of the other terrorist type groups are very put off by it.

 

[dzheremi]

Thanks for this reply, Sister Amy. You have a very interesting perspective, and I’m glad that you are willing to share it with us.

There is a concept in Islam, called “want for your brother what you want for yourself.” Now, it’s true some people take this to mean only your brother in Islam. However, the stronger and better understanding actually means your brother in humanity.

I see. Christians are given a similar axiom by which to live in Leviticus 19:18: “You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the sons of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself; I am the LORD.” I hope we can all agree that loving your neighbor would include within it wishing for him what you wish for yourself, so I would say this also must include your commandment implicitly.

Other kinds of rights for others, after rights for parents (and relatives), are rights for neighbors, and after that, rights to all other Muslims, and then for the rest of mankind. And then there are rights of non-humans, like the rights of animals, and of the environment even.

Interesting. So in this Islamic heirarchy of rights, the rights of Muslims are more important than the rights of others Ias they are higher on the list)? How do you reconcile this with the concept that you want for your neighbor what you want for yourself? If the rights of the parents are placed above that of the neighbor (wider community or all of humanity, however you wish to define it), then wouldn’t you want your Christian parents to have the most rights that they can have? In fact, wouldn’t they be entitled to more rights than other Muslims, according to their position in the heirarchy? And yet, paradoxically, seemingly also less because they are also among the “other people” of the world who are not Muslims? i have a feeling I am misunderstanding the use and meaning of this heirarchy. Can you please clarify?

I went around this way to explain that a Muslim is supposed to respect the rights of people in that order, and mostly it’s not a religious distinction.

“Mostly” not religious, maybe, but what is a matter of degree when what you have described above places the rights of non-Muslims lower than that of non-Muslims? I don’t understand that. I cannot only sort of respect your rights to believe as you do. If I said I respected your rights to believe whatever you do religiously, but then forbade you from praying five times a day as you are required to do, then I wouldn’t be truly respecting your rights at all, even if I didn’t try to interfere with any other aspect of your observance.

So what about “love?” Is “love” a right? Maybe, maybe not.

I would say it is not a right. This is an interesting sort of distinction to make. Your conception seems very legalistic, comparing by analogy to everything you mentioned earlier the idea of love. To me, it doesn’t even make sense to ask whether or not love is a right. It is not generated or agreed upon by consensus, and cannot be confered or revoked in a way comparable to other rights. I could write a lot about the Christian concept of love, but 1 Corinthians 13 says what I would want to say in a far more eloquent way than I ever could. Maybe you know it or know of it. It is a list of what love is (patient, kind) and is not (jealous, arrogant).

(continued below)

 

[dzheremi]

I am not aware of any specific teaching that Muslims have to “love” others, but here is something to consider: How does a person show love? Is it better to do righteousness without love, or to declare love, without acting righteously because of it?

Love without righteousness is like faith without works: Dead. Empty. Deuteronomy 10:18-19 tells us that to show love entails action, and this includes actions done for “the alien” (strangers).

So if a person says that he does in fact love people of other religions, because he has been told to do that, but yet he does not help them, does not pray for them, and instead criticizes and condemns them at every opportunity… does he really love them?

No, he does not. I am not aware of any Christian doctrine that says that we are to love others on account of their religion, and this is not in fact what I am interested in. I do not think I am engaging in personal interpretation if I say that Catholics and many other Christians love non-Christians as they are fellow men made in the image of God, endowed with the same rights given by the Creator to all of His Creation in kind. Do you think Muslims have this same idea, or a comparable idea? Do you, as an individual Muslim, agree with the above idea?

Or, what of a person who does not say he loves everyone, but instead respects their beliefs, and their rights, and works to ensure that they are free from persecution, and that they have access to food and shelter and protection anyway–would this not be the superior position, than to declare love without action?

I say that this is love. Love is not a mere word. Whether or not a person declares his love for others is not, strictly speaking, the issue. I do not constantly tell my friends that I love them, but I really hope that through my actions and attitudes they see that I love them even when I don’t say so. I strive to be a conduit of the love of God, and most of that is ideally expressed in actions. Maybe that sounds cheesy, but I’d be hard pressed to tell you why I am a Christian if I had some other ultimate goal in life. To love one another is the greatest of all commandments, and one of the two upon which hang all of the law (the other is to love God with all of your heart and soul, which is of course hard to do if you go around hating people).

I will tell you that there are many Christians (and Jews, I’ll add) who promote peace, tolerance, charity, and goodness, and who stand up against hatred and attacks against others. And I do love those Christians, and I love what they stand for. And many more, yes I love them.

Indeed. “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God.” (Matthew 5:9)

It’s a good verse to remember and try to live.

And that love is an expression of my heart–it’s not forced, or commanded, it just opens up.

Alhamdulillah.

What about those who attack me, and others like me–do I love them? No, my heart doesn’t open to that, but I do feel sorry for them, and I do hope for something better for them (e.g., Islam.)

This depends on your various definitions of terms like “attack” and “something better”. Obviously, I do not feel that Islam can even possibly be something better for me than Christianity, but I understand what you are saying. You cannot love those who attack you or your community. It is an understandable and very human reaction, and one that is also prevalent among many Christians, though I have been taught that it is not the most Christian of reactions, and I do believe that. It is certainly a struggle for the individual and community to forgive their oppressors, but again forgiveness can be a sign of love.

 

[Sister_Amy]

Thanks

Interesting. So in this Islamic heirarchy of rights, the rights of Muslims are more important than the rights of others Ias they are higher on the list)? How do you reconcile this with the concept that you want for your neighbor what you want for yourself? If the rights of the parents are placed above that of the neighbor (wider community or all of humanity, however you wish to define it), then wouldn’t you want your Christian parents to have the most rights that they can have? In fact, wouldn’t they be entitled to more rights than other Muslims, according to their position in the heirarchy? And yet, paradoxically, seemingly also less because they are also among the “other people” of the world who are not Muslims? i have a feeling I am misunderstanding the use and meaning of this heirarchy. Can you please clarify?

I will try. This is a vague hierarchy, I’m not sure of it being outlined in religious text, for example.

But as regards the rights of others (excluding the Lord Almighty, and the self), it would generally be

(1) parents & relatives
(2) neighbors (regardless of religion)
(3) Muslims
(4) the rest of mankind
(5) non-humans

That’s the way I’ve understood it.

And my parents come first, regardless of whatever religion they are. And that means that yes, they are entitled to even more rights than Muslims. Because they aren’t Muslim (in my case) does not in the least diminish the rights which they have over me, because those rights are independent of religion.

But let me give you an example of this hierarchy in action, so we can understand it.

I have extra food I would like to give to someone. I know that there are hungry people in some 3rd world country–should I help them first? Are they my first priority? Maybe.

But what if there are hungry Muslims in another country–maybe they should be a higher priority, for the sake of Islam.

But what if my neighbors, people in my own community (though they are not Muslim) are going hungry? Don’t they have a right to that food? And aren’t they the easiest to help (so far?) They are the easiest and they have the greatest right that I help them.

But what if my own parents are going hungry!? While I have extra food? So they are the first priority.

I recall a hadith to the effect that a believer isn’t really a believer if he eats a full meal while his neighbor goes hungry.

 

[dzheremi]

OK, so even though your parents are members of group 1 and 4 on your list, their membership in group 1 supercedes their membership in one of the “lower” heirarchies? So non-Muslims have more rights than Muslims as long as the non-Muslims are immediate family members of yours? Sorry to keeps harping on this, but it is very foreign to me. I really am trying to understand the reasoning here.

I don’t understand why everyone can’t just have the same rights, regardless of their religion. This goes back to the question in my previous post. If you see all human beings as created in the image of God and recipients of the same God-given rights, then heirarchies like the one you are describing seem very strange.

Am I being uncharitable if I take your focus on legalism to be something of a distinguishing feature of Islam? I realize that not all Muslims are so inclined, but I can’t help but notice that other posters in this thread (of those who have actually answered the OP question) have not talked about “love” within the framework of a defined heirarchy of rights. You yourself asked if love belongs in such a framework, so I’m not sure how to read your post. If love is a right, then it makes sense to bring it up in relation to other rights within a framework like the one you have outlined. It still doesn’t really make sense to me (do the people outside of your immediate family receive less love than others? do muslims receive more love than non-muslims, even if they are outside of your family or even your country?), but at least there is a way to discuss it that you can define for me or anyone else you talk to. Of course, if love is not a right, then what does your heirarchy have to do with it?

 

[R_not]

What are you talking about? Women are very much involved in murdering the innocent.3 suicide women blew up a Muslim mosk in Iraq. They even kill each other.

Yeah, and don’t forget the women that have blown themselves up in Isreal, or the woman in the UK not only willing to blow herself up but her baby too - that is why no liquids are allowed on airplanes!

And this article discusses that it was around a 49% average - and now it is an average of about 37%. But, here begs the question - how do you trust a people whose koran says it is ok to deceive us? This is a very fundamental question. It is one of the basics when training children not to lie - you tell them that when they do such a thing - it is hard to trust them again. So, how can any poll be trusted?

jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/007166.php

Take note that a supposed ‘moderate’ Jordan has a very high number of terrorist supporters which begs the question of how do we determine who is ‘moderate’?!

 

[Sam_777]

Actually, the Qur’an itself has an honest and simple answer to this question:

"Certainly, you will find the strongest among men in enmity to the Believers (Muslims) the Jews and those who are Pagans, and you will find the nearest in love to the Believers (Muslims) those who say: “We are Christians”. (Al-Qur’an 5:82-86)

http://quran.al-islam.com/GenGifImages/Normal/290X330-0/5/82/1.png

Actually the Arabic word “مودة” can be translated to the word “cordiality” in English (or something less than love), but not love, the translation of the word “love” is “محبة” which is not in that Quran verse.

 

[hamba2han]

I have to say that I think this whole discussion on whether or not Muslims love Christians rather frivolous.

I mean, why should Christians care whether or not Muslims love them??

I can tell you one thing about Muslims in general i.e. they care infinitely more about how much Allah loves them than any kind of love and affection that they may receive from Christians… or from Hindus, Jews, Sikhs, Buddhists or any other group for that matter.

The problem here is that most Christians believe that the love of the Lord for them is already guaranteed and this is why they do not seem to care much about obeying the Ten Commandments that their Creator has sent down to them.

They instead amuse themselves by wondering whether or not Muslims love them.

Get a grip folks, it is far, far, FAR better that Christians spend their valuable time wondering instead on much more important matters, for example, whether or not the Lord is happy with them when they make a mockery of the Second Commandment.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[cathopologist]

hamba2han, it is evident you do not understand the motives of the OP. This thread is simply asking Muslims a very basic question and even then, Muslims cannot answer in the most straight-forward, honest ways. What is so difficult about that?

On the other hand, how can Muslims answer a simple question like this when they violate Commandments 3-10 all the time?

 

[dolphinlove]

I have to say that I think this whole discussion on whether or not Muslims love Christians rather frivolous.

I mean, why should Christians care whether or not Muslims love them??

God wants all of his creation to LOVE ONE ANOTHER AS I LOVE YOU! That is why we care if Muslims, Hindu’s, Jews, and everyone loves us.

I can tell you one thing about Muslims in general i.e. they care infinitely more about how much Allah loves them than any kind of love and affection that they may receive from Christians… or from Hindus, Jews, Sikhs, Buddhists or any other group for that matter.

Yes, this is a good example of not loving your neighbour Hammy.
As Christians, we care first and foremost about God love for us, but we also love and respect not only our Christian brothers and sisters, but EVERYONE else. Even those who are duped into believing false religions, like yourself.

The problem here is that most Christians believe that the love of the Lord for them is already guaranteed and this is why they do not seem to care much about obeying the Ten Commandments that their Creator has sent down to them.

Yes, we know that God loves us, he created us, and the Christian God loves his creation. So by saying this, are you saying your Al’lah does not love you?
And we follow the 10 commandments, its in the bible, so we believe it is true, and we follow it as best as we humanly can.
But, as a muslim, do you think the 10 commandments are corrupt? You seem to claim the bible is corrupt, so does this include the 10 commandments?

They instead amuse themselves by wondering whether or not Muslims love them.

Get a grip folks, it is far, far, FAR better that Christians spend their valuable time wondering instead on much more important matters, for example, whether or not the Lord is happy with them when they make a mockery of the Second Commandment.

How on earth do we make a mockery of the 10 commandments. Give me proof instead of the same old rubbish you seem to regurgitate EVERY time you post.
I can give you MANY instances muslims make a mockery of the 10 commandments, can you really do the say the same about Christians?
Here is a prime example of idol worship in the picture below.
Are not the muslims bowing and worshipping the big black rock?

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Troy/4684/kabba.gif

 

[dolphinlove]

hamba2han, it is evident you do not understand the motives of the OP. This thread is simply asking Muslims a very basic question and even then, Muslims cannot answer in the most straight-forward, honest ways. What is so difficult about that?

On the other hand, how can Muslims answer a simple question like this when they violate Commandments 3-10 all the time?

I think some muslim has hacked into this site and programmed to leave the same old stuff all the time. Attempting Christians to read the same stuff over and over and over and ovvvveeerrrr again to attempt to brainwash us with their mumbo jumbo!!!

 

[cathopologist]

I think some muslim has hacked into this site and programmed to leave the same old stuff all the time. Attempting Christians to read the same stuff over and over and over and ovvvveeerrrr again to attempt to brainwash us with their mumbo jumbo!!!

You brought up a great question: How can Islam claim to be successors of Judaism and Christianity when they clearly teach both the OT and NT are corrupt? How can they adhere anything to what the 10 Commandments states when they violate it on a daily basis?

Even Atheists have questioned their inability to answer the simplest of questions. Rather than answer, they avoid what has been asked by answering questions with questions. Many religions outside Christianity also teach and promote intellectual thinking, not cowardice.