I'm sick of the rabid Islamophobia on these boards...

[RobHom]

:banghead:

Guys, I’m not saying that there aren’t any problems in the Muslim world. I’m saying that the muslim guy two houses down is actually not trying to blow your place up. Distorting my words will get this thread nowhere.

Are you “sure” about that?

Maybe you should read Sura 9. Its enlightening as to what they are about. If they are as devout and you should expect, then you have to expect what the Koran says they are to do, no?

I was being slightly rhetorical. By all I meant most.

In the case of muslims in this country…the timidity or silence most have shown is not disagreement, but rather…lacking their eager participation in condemning the wrongdoers…it is much like the “sin of omission”…their silence and inaction makes them complicit.

 

[swariffin]

Hi

The West, as I understand, due to certain disinformation has seen only MullahIslam or MullahShariah; the true face of peaceful and human loving Muhammad and his religion Islam and Islam of PromisedMessiah 1835-1908 is yet hidden from their eyes, which is truly speaking moral and peaceful.

The first forty years i.e. before Muhammad was appointed ProphetMessenger by GodAllahYHWH has been offered as a reasonable argument/challenge in Quran before Nonbelievers-of-Mecca, and they could not deny its truthfulness

Muhammad had a marvelous record of a peace loving person for 40+13=53 years, he joined in welfare activities if there was any in Mecca, he helped the needy and in distress, he stood for the human cause, he never harmed any person. His record in these 53 years is clean by any standards.

And you know Jesus only lived from 23 to 33 years maximum as per the Catholics; who knows what he would have done to his enemies if he would have lived longer, only GodAllahYHWH knows.

So, there is no justifialbe comparison. Compare first 33 years of Muhammad with first 33 years of Jesus and Muhammad continued 20 years more, all peaceful, so he is more creditable.

Jesus asked his not so brave disciples to sell their clothes they were wearing and buy Swords; and Sword is not used in cutting vegetables in the kitchens, I think, everybody knows.

Nevertheless, Muhammad was peaceful till the end of his life, only he is not understood correctly. Muhammad was a prince of peace, indeed.

Thanks

Well, I do not believe that you can make assumption that Jesus would conduct “evil” things should he lived longer than 33 years. That is purely subjective and groundless. What happen if I assume that you will become a terrorist 5 years from now? Definitely I can’t. Come on, be objective in posting something in this thread. Given your example, Jesus too was peaceful till the end of his life. He even died for others, even a criminal crucified next to him admitted that. By the way, please kindly quote the source that Jesus asked his not so brave deciples to sell their clothes and buy swords. That is new to me.

 

[obadiah]

Hi

The West, as I understand, due to certain disinformation has seen only MullahIslam or MullahShariah; the true face of peaceful and human loving Muhammad and his religion Islam and Islam of Promised Messiah 1835-1908 is yet hidden from their eyes, which is truly speaking moral and peaceful.

The first forty years i.e. before Muhammad was appointed Prophet Messenger by GodAllahYHWH has been offered as a reasonable argument/challenge in Quran before Nonbelievers-of-Mecca, and they could not deny its truthfulness

Muhammad had a marvelous record of a peace loving person for 40+13=53 years, he joined in welfare activities if there was any in Mecca, he helped the needy and in distress, he stood for the human cause, he never harmed any person. His record in these 53 years is clean by any standards.

And you know Jesus only lived from 23 to 33 years maximum as per the Catholics; who knows what he would have done to his enemies if he would have lived longer, only GodAllahYHWH knows.

So, there is no justifiable comparison. Compare first 33 years of Muhammad with first 33 years of Jesus and Muhammad continued 20 years more, all peaceful, so he is more creditable.

Jesus asked his not so brave disciples to sell their clothes they were wearing and buy Swords; and Sword is not used in cutting vegetables in the kitchens, I think, everybody knows.

Nevertheless, Muhammad was peaceful till the end of his life, only he is not understood correctly. Muhammad was a prince of peace, indeed.

Thanks

Please, tell me another fairy tale about Muhammad ( Gods’ curse and approbation eternally be upon him GCAAEBUH) :tsktsk:

 

[nonsumd]

nonsumd,
Historical points: the IRA was communist: written into their long-standing platform. It was founded by a Protestant. It was run, ultimately, like a mafia and richly funded by the USSR.

I think all Christians can agree that when it took to violence it violated Christianity.

Yes, in taking to violence, the IRA certainly violated Christianity.

Thanks, Palladio, for the information about the IRA – I had no idea. The Protestant founder bit was a surprise, the rest of it not particularly so (the Zionist founders, some of whom, like the Stern Gang, were terrorists, were socialist and initially received more backing from the USSR than from the USA).

I just thought it was an odd example to use, contrasting Islamic terrorists with Irish non-terrorists as if there were never any Irishmen who had ever resorted to terroristm.

 

[nonsumd]

That is pure sophistry on the part of some Muslims to point it out to well-meaning kafirs. It is nothing but a red herring.

This internal non-violent jihad does not concern kafirs…

You will have to produce proof that each and every Muslim who has ever existed has believed that the internal non-violent jihad excludes showing goodwill to non-Muslims and moreover that there has absolutely never been the case that a Muslim has shown goodwill to a non-Muslim.

Otherwise, you are just showing that you hate Muslims so much that you are unwilling even to imagine that Muslims could be capable of doing good and doing good under the influence of their religion as **they (not you) **interpret it.

The trouble with hating a stereotype is that one inevitably becomes like one’s stereotype. You accuse all Muslims of hating all non-Muslims, and you seem to return them the favor.

You don’t call yourself a Christian, so I will refrain from pointing out to you that even if all Muslims indeed hated you, Jesus would still ask you to love them, all of them.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

Not every Moslem is violent and it is certainly absurd to imply otherwise.

However, anyone that is not aware of the brute violence used in trying to convert people or keep people from converting, not to mention the suicide bombing, destruction, violence to supress independent thought and women… is niave. The Pope (Benedict) was absolutely correct and the moderate Muslims need to bring these other forces under control.

Radical elements in Islam seek to get their way through intimidation and violence. Women stoned to death in Saudi Arabia for riding in cars with a man they are not married to, women murdered by Taliban in Afghanistan for all sorts of minor offenses (while vendors sell snacks in the stadium), banned from practicing medicene, etc. Beheadings, behandings, murder for beliefs, etc. Radical Islam is ignorant, brutal and anti civilization. It is horrible and comes across as muder incorporated. Again, Benedict XVI is correct. Moderate Muslims need to band together and suppress this so that they can get their message out there.

Yes Christianity has done some not so nice things but this is 2007 and not 1597. Who would want to live under the hellish world created by radical Islam in Afghanistan and elsewhere.

Rev North

Preach it, brother!

 

[Verisimilitude]

Otherwise, you are just showing that you hate Muslims so much that you are unwilling even to imagine that Muslims could be capable of doing good and doing good under the influence of their religion as **they (not you) **interpret it.

Will you acept this persons interpretation?

1. this is a TOTAL FALSEHOOD, & this is why you are an infidel to your Creator! …

YOU SICK INDIVIDUAL!!!
this is where you foolish blind people follow the footsteps of the jews… …!

whether you find this offensive or not is not a care of mine! i merely have related the FACT of the matter!..

ONE MORE THING… I CALL THE AHMADI AND SHI`I HERE TO COME TO ISLAAM AND FOLLOW THE STRAIGHT PATH, THIS IS SPECIFICALLY FOR THEM AND GENERALLY FOR EVERYBODY ELSE! AND, BY THE WAY, WHOEVER THINKS I AM HATING ON JEWS BECAUSE OF THEIR BLOODLINE IS AN IDIOT… … THE ONES GUILTY OF REVILING AND ATTACKING THE PROPHETS AND PIOUS PEOPLE, THEN I HATE THEM FOR THE SAKE OF ALLAAH! THE SAME GOES FOR ALL INFIDELS! LIKE IT OR LUMP IT, … TO EITHER GUIDE YOU TO ISLAAM OR BREAK YOUR BACK OR REMOVE YOUR SIGHT DEAL WITH YOU HOWEVER HE SEES FIT, AMIIN!..

 

[nonsumd]

Also, with a very few exceptions, the IRA terrorist explosions were for the purpose of shock and threat rather than mass murder. Before a bomb went off in a building the IRA routinely phoned the police, using a prearranged code word so the police knew it wasn’t a hoax, to give the police time to evacuate people. The purpose was to show the population that they COULD commit mass murder if they wanted to. Unlike the moslem terrorists who do everything possible to maximise the number of innocent civilians killed, with no warning.

Yes, from what I’ve read and what I remember, IRA terrorism does seem to have been more “humanitarian” than Islamic extremists’ suicide bombing.

In the Palestinian case, though, I think the greater murderousness of suicide bombers can be partly explained by the far direr situation Palestinians face under Israeli occupation than the Irish faced vis-a-vis the British goverment and the Ulster Protestants (but to seek to understand under what pressures a person decides on a certain course of action is not to justify that action or exculpate the person).

It does appall me that so many Muslims believe that martyrdom includes killing others rather than just giving up one’s life for one’s faith. But it still needs to be pointed out that this type of thinking is far from confined to Muslims.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

You will have to produce proof that each and every Muslim who has ever existed has believed that the internal non-violent jihad excludes showing goodwill to non-Muslims and moreover that there has absolutely never been the case that a Muslim has shown goodwill to a non-Muslim.

Buddy, buddy, buddy,
You need to read up on Islam before you make such statements.

Internal Jihad to a Muslim has nothing do to with showing goodwill to a non-Muslim. It is merely striving to improve oneself as a Muslim. It has absolutely nothing about showing goodwill to non-Muslims.

nonsumd:

Otherwise, you are just showing that you hate Muslims so much that you are unwilling even to imagine that Muslims could be capable of doing good and doing good under the influence of their religion as **they (not you) **interpret it.

Why do you assume I hate Muslims?

nonsumd:

The trouble with hating a stereotype is that one inevitably becomes like one’s stereotype. You accuse all Muslims of hating all non-Muslims, and you seem to return them the favor.

You don’t call yourself a Christian, so I will refrain from pointing out to you that even if all Muslims indeed hated you, Jesus would still ask you to love them, all of them.

Who said anything about hating Muslims? I am merely showing up the evil that is ISLAM. I have freely told everyone that I have many Muslim relatives - whom I don’t hate, by the way. You non-Muslim well-meaning kafirs assume far too much.

You project your Christian sensibilities onto Muslims and Islam. I tell you the truth about Islam and you don’t believe me even when I show you the naked evidence from their scriptures. You don’t challenge the scriptures but talk out of ignorance. You then accuse me of hatred for revealing the hatred for Christians in Islam.

Tell me: which religion in the world specifically calls for the oppression of Christians in its holiest most sacred scripture?

What is laughable is that you don’t know the first thing about internal Jihad yet you presume to challenge me about it. Walk a mile in the shoes of a persecuted Christian and then tell me you know all about internal Jihad - which does not in any way relate to kafirs like you.

Have a nice life,
Rodrigo

 

[nonsumd]

What is laughable is that you don’t know the first thing about internal Jihad yet you presume to challenge me about it. Walk a mile in the shoes of a persecuted Christian and then tell me you know all about internal Jihad - which does not in any way relate to kafirs like you.

I have many Muslim friends and acquaintances, devout ones who certainly see themselves as following the Greater Jhad (internal jihad). They have shown goodwill to me, an “infidel,” countless times.

Walk yourself in the shoes of a Muslim (say, one from Bosnia)who has been persecuted by Christians and tell me you know everything there is about “Christian charity.”

Just kidding – you seem incapable of trying to see how others see things. Again, another disability you share with Bin Laden.

God help you, my brother!

 

[swariffin]

swariffin,
Not the out of context chestnut again.

Are the violent verses in the Old Testament descriptive or prescriptive?

The jihad the infidels verses in the Quran are not descriptive - they are prescriptive. They are Islamic Allah telling the Muslims to jihad the infidels. There is no ‘taken wrongly and out of context’.

Please read the Quran, particularly Surah 9, and see for yourself if it is descriptive or prescriptive.

Actually I do not mean to quote all of the posting, but the system did that anyway. I believe that it is not the main point (to our Catholic religion) whether Old Testament is descriptive or prescriptive. The main point is the interpretation. The problem is always come from people who irresponsibly interpret the verses and provoke others, especially the uneducated ones.

Regarding the Quran?, I do not have the need to read them myself, because I am still researching (just for curiousity) whether the current Quran is original or not. I have a source that the current Quran comes from “a certain editting process” ordered by Utsman long after Mohammad was dead. The committe who editted the Quran was Zaid bin Tsabit, Abdullah bin Zubair, Sa’id bin Ash, and Abdul Rahman bin Harits bin Hissyam. And the original collections (pieces of letters in the Quran) were burnt once the “new version” was issued. To my hyphotesis, the current Quran may have been altered. If the answer is yes, I am not sure that it was intentionally or not. The hadits, on the other hand, Abu Said Al-Khudri once quoted Mohammad “Do not quote my saying. Any quotation except the Quran, must be deleted”. It was on the 717-720 AD that the Hadits were documented in writing under Khalifah Umar bin Abdul Aziz. In this case, may be you can help me to find out. But anyway, this thread does not talk about the validity of Quran. I am just responding to your post.

BTW, I would forget about the Quran and concentrate on our own bible. Whether the current Quran is original or altered, is none of my business. It was not from the Quran that God speaks to me.

The Catholics have done great things of canonizing the bible after long search and research, and after a painful time consuming contemplations. Still, our Church never dared to say that the Bible came directly from heaven in the form of physical books that we all know today.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

nonsumd:

I have many Muslim friends and acquaintances, devout ones who certainly see themselves as following the Greater Jhad (internal jihad). They have shown goodwill to me, an “infidel,” countless times.

Then tell me what the internal jihad says about showing goodwill to Christians? It doesn’t.

I have better than you - I have RELATIVES who are Muslims. And they are also good and kind people. What does that tell me? That they are good and kind. They are not good and kind because of Islam but in spite of Islam.

The theology of Islam discriminates against minorities. That is a sad fact all throughout the Muslim world where they are the majority and call the shots. Tell me how the Bosnians are persecuted? They now have their own country thanks to the kafirs. Did you know how they came about? The Bosnian Muslims exist only because the Turks (Muslims) persecuted the native people.

So don’t cry to me about the Bosnians because I weep for the people who died so their Turkish Muslim masters

nonsumd:

Walk yourself in the shoes of a Muslim (say, one from Bosnia)who has been persecuted by Christians and tell me you know everything there is about “Christian charity.”

Are you a Christian?

Which part of the teaching of your Lord Jesus Christ told you to persecute Muslims or anyone else?

So why make Christians suffer a guilt trip over something their Lord Jesus Christ did not tell them to do.

nonsumd:

Just kidding – you seem incapable of trying to see how others see things. Again, another disability you share with Bin Laden.

Unlike you I have lived on BOTH sides of the fence. So spare us your ad hominem.

 

[nonsumd]

Hi nonsumd,

Would they be right?

Hi, Charles.

I am a Christian, so I would leave Muslims to debate among themselves what the “right” meaning of jihad is.

I would think that all Muslims would agree on the meaning “the struggle against the evil within onself” (whether each and everyone actually practices that kind of jihad is another question just as all Christians would, I assume, agree that to be a Christian one should follow Christ’s example in one’s own life, but who knows how many actually do that – I certainly know I fall far short of this ideal).

As for the meaning of “armed struggle for the faith,” I expect that there is a minority who absolutely reject that meaning, while there is a minority (hopefully smaller) that see themselves literally at war with The Infidel (all infidels are threats to be destroyed) and act accordingly.

The majority falls no doubt along a continuum between the two extremes, focusing on the internal jihad in their daily lives but seeing external jihad justified in certain specific cases (they see some infidels as a threat, others as not a threat – a moderate Indonesian Muslim might, in solidarity with Palestinian Muslims, view Israeli Jews as his enemies but not see a Christian who is a fellow Indonesian as an enemy).

 

[nonsumd]

Are you a Christian?

Which part of the teaching of your Lord Jesus Christ told you to persecute Muslims or anyone else?

So why make Christians suffer a guilt trip over something their Lord Jesus Christ did not tell them to do.

There is no logic in your retort.

Whether or not some Christians believe Jesus has commanded them to do something which other Christians or anyone else would consider to be evil, those evil-doing Christians ***should ***feel guilty.

Unlike you I have lived on BOTH sides of the fence. So spare us your ad hominem.

The trouble with your way of thinking is that you imagine there really is a “fence.” We are all humans together.

In any case, even if a Muslim tells me I belong to the dar al-harb, I will still say to him my Christian *dar-as-salaam *includes you, I will not consider you my enemy even if you consider me yours. That’s what Jesus – from the Cross – teaches me to do.

“Ad hominem” – if only I were addressing someone acting like a human being!

 

[Charlie_Zeaiter]

… I am a Christian, so I would leave Muslims to debate among themselves what the “right” meaning of jihad is…

This is why I’m uncomfortable with your posts (with all due respect); You have been telling us what Jihad is, and now you appear to have lost confidence in your own definition of it.

 

[nonsumd]

This is why I’m uncomfortable with your posts (with all due respect); You have been telling us what Jihad is, and now you appear to have lost confidence in your own definition of it.

I haven’t lost confidence in “my definition of it.” I have never said that “jihad” only means the internal struggle.

I have been telling you what many Muslims say they take “jihad” primarily to mean.

I am not telling Muslims what their vocabulary means as some others here are doing.

I would not appreciate a Muslim telling me that the real meaning of “Christian witness” is killing non-Christians.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

There is no logic in your retort.

Whether or not some Christians believe Jesus has commanded them to do something which other Christians or anyone else would consider to be evil, those evil-doing Christians ***should ***feel guilty.

You don’t see that it is you who are illogical for asking the Christians to feel guilty about what other Christians do IN SPITE of the teachings of Jesus Christ?

nonsumd:

The trouble with your way of thinking is that you imagine there really is a “fence.” We are all humans together.

There is a fence all right - between Muslims and non-Muslims.

nonsumd:

In any case, even if a Muslim tells me I belong to the dar al-harb, I will still say to him my Christian *dar-as-salaam *includes you, I will not consider you my enemy even if you consider me yours. That’s what Jesus – from the Cross – teaches me to do.

“Ad hominem” – if only I were addressing someone acting like a human being!

Now you’re getting nasty. Great. It sure does help your case, bro. Keep it up.

 

[nonsumd]

You don’t see that it is you who are illogical for asking the Christians to feel guilty about what other Christians do IN SPITE of the teachings of Jesus Christ?

If there are Christians who are going to condemn all Muslims categorically for doing evil in the name of their prophet, such categorical condemnation of a whole category of people itself being an injustice, they deserve to feel guilty if there is even one Christian in history who has done evil in the name of his savior.

Now you’re getting nasty. Great. It sure does help your case, bro. Keep it up.

Just catching up with you, my brother!

In a strange way, I admire your persistence.

Maybe I’ll let you have the last word for the night, since the last word is not necessarily the best word.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

If there are Christians who are going to condemn all Muslims categorically for doing evil in the name of their prophet, such categorical condemnation of a whole category of people itself being an injustice, they deserve to feel guilty if there is even one Christian in history who has done evil in the name of his savior.

That’s not what you were alluding to, I’m sure.

I will tell you what I think:

1. Evil Muslims who do evil according to the teachings of their prophet should be condemned.
2. “Peaceful” Muslims should also be condemned for perpetuating the hateful teachings of their prophet.

Obviously category 1. bears more guilt than category 2. but it is unjust to let category 2. off the hook because they support the evil teachings of Muhammad and perpetuate them to the next generation of jihadists. If there were no category 2. the evil that is Islam would cease to exist.

nonsumd:

Just catching up with you, my brother!

In a strange way, I admire your persistence.

Maybe I’ll let you have the last word for the night, since the last word is not necessarily the best word.

When have I uttered such words as you? I have never demonized anyone by calling them bigots or subhumans (like you have implied). I have merely shown up the evil that is Islam.

 

[burnside]

If hostility towards Islam is as bad as the OP suggests,i wonder why the Moderator did not delete the posts.I know a post of mine was deleted because i,among other things,said good riddance to a cafeteria catholic who had said he had done his last post on the forum.He was fed up with the “weird” posts he was reading on that Board,nothing to do with Islam.
While i don’t condone the actions of people who trashed a shop
because the owners were Asian,just after the terrrorist attack on
Glasgow Airport,i think you will find that the people who did that
were not practising Christians.
Secondly,the terrorists bring this violence on their own people.
See link below:-

eveningtimes.co.uk/news/display.var.1639316.0.0.php