Is Islam a threat to Christianity around the globe?

  • Thread starter Thread starter TxPatriot281
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Planten

Check Mohammed and Trinity
Yes, wwolverine, I had seen that reply in that thread. Only you have replied and according to you, John the Baptist was the last Israeli prophet. Thank you for reply.

But you may not be right. I wonder, why all others are quiet on the subject.

I thank you for answering the question. I understand what you mean.
 
It is a very common muslim tactic to change the subject, but I actually enjoy answering. It can be teaching moments for the muslim. It is proof that Christianity holds TRUTH they can not argue for their cult and must resort to either violence or changing the subject of discussion.

Remember you must repeat something to a pre-schooler 75 times before they actually get it. I have no idea how many times you have to repeat something to someone that has been captured by the devil before they get it or if they ever can.

The beauty of Christianity is that we have many prophets and** their writtings or teachings- just read the Holy Bible.** Consider the one definition of prophets-a person who foretells or predicts what is to come-the whole Holy Bible is a prophecy leading up to Jesus.

Really the only way a book can be proven to be from GOD is if it contains prophecy and if that prophecy is fufilled. The Quran has nothing.

Islam says they have many prophets but funny thing all of their writtings have been lost or as Muslims say but not the Quran] the writtings are corrupt. That is most interesting, the quran confirms the Bible-Torah and Gospel but muslims do not.

Muslims are stuck with one unconfirmed, uneyewitnessed prophet and his wild and crazy teachings. Think Steve Martin here!

Whole problem with Islam-the Quran condones violence, it teaches prejudice and hatred towards all non-muslims. To reform Islam whole sections of the Quran, hadith, verse explainations tsfir [spelling?] would have to be thrown out.

I have not studied this but I wonder if the syriac-aramaic reading of the Quran is less violent:
syriacaramaicquran.com/

What? The best Jihad that the Muslims can carry out in western countries is to deliver sermons in their mosques for all Muslims to remain peaceful, to abide by the laws. They can also deliever sermons to protect all people from sinning and sex and drinking and gambling. But that should also be done very peacefully without mentioning any faith.

So you mean something like this? dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2010%between%23\story_13-2-2010_pg9_14

Indonesian clerics warn against Valentine’s Day’s ‘free sex’

What you are talking about here is an introspective religion, don’t worry about your neighbor so much as such as correct yourself. The Quran is all about pointing the finger at the other sinner - judging, subdueing, killing people for allah.

You need to come to a Christian worship!!

Now back to the topic at hand:

Did you know that now muslims are saying that the full body scanners at airports are unislamic!?!

cbsnews.com/stories/2010/02/12/cbsnews_investigates/main6202853.shtml

csmonitor.com/World/Asia-South-Central/2010/0212/20-insurgents-killed-as-Jihadist-attacks-rise-in-Russia-s-Caucasus
 
Must read for everyone:

barossa-region.org/Australia_Immigration/The-Threat-of-Quiet-Islam.html

The Threat of Quiet Islam

By Barbara Stock 10-19-05

Just about every conscious human in the free world knows about Islamic dissolution planters, train planters, and night club planters. Everyone knows that Muslims flying large commercial planes crashed into the World Trade Center buildings and the Pentagon on 9-11. Those are the actions of the obvious person side of Islam.

It is interesting that those Islamics committing these heinous acts believe absolutely that the Quran orders them to do these things to achieve Mohammed 's plan of Islam dominating the world. Yet, all the world hears is the plea from Muslims to understand that Islam is a religion of peace and love. If that is so, does this mean that Islamics who are persons use a Quran that is different from the “peaceful” Muslim’s Quran?

Does the fact that there is no one central power controlling Islam and giving one definitive translation or explanation for pbuttages from the Quran that causes seemingly diverse interpretations of the Quran? Unless one is willing to look around at what else Islamics have been doing around the world besides blowing people to bits, the uninformed might believe the Islam really is a religion of peace and love, cursed with a few “bad apples.”

“Peaceful Islam” has been just as busy as the terror wing. Large numbers of Arab-Muslims have immigrated all over the world. European countries are alarmed at the number of Muslims within their borders. The attack on America was like a fire bell ringing, waking other countries up to the growing mbuttes of Muslims in their midst. It was noticed that these Muslims made no effort to blend in with the local population. Instead, Muslims banded together, taking over neighborhoods and eventually driving out the non-Muslims. Any acceptance of the local culture and customs was strongly discouraged and often severely punished. These Muslim neighborhoods set up their own legal system of Islamic law, ignoring the laws of the land. Immigrants were encouraged to have very large families to form huge voting blocks to maneuver Muslims into positions of power within the government.

Islam in Africa has been much bolder in the power grab of third world countries with uneducated and poor citizens often living under corrupt governments. Again, large numbers of Muslims would move into a country such Nigeria and Sudan. Slowly growing in numbers, Muslims would either create a majority to take control of the government via a legal vote as in Nigeria, or by genocide as in Sudan. In tiny Rwanda, Islam used the war between the Hutu and the Tutsi tribes to convince those fleeing the carnage that Islam would protect them if they converted to Islam and many converted to stay alive. Islam is now the majority in many African countries and in control of several governments.

Whether by persuasion, reproduction, or mbutt liquidate, Islam is slowly taking control of the African continent. Not satisfied with Africa, Islam has moved swiftly into Asia. The terror arm of Islam has been busy in places like Bali reminding the local population that catering to Western infidels is dangerous business.

Both Australia and Canada have had to fend off Islamic attempts to remove Muslim communities from the laws of the land and allow Sharia Law to govern the Muslim population in matters of divorce, marriage, and inheritance. Power grabs in strongly democratic countries has proven to be more of a challenge for Islam and it has regrouped to try again, this time, dropping the words, “Sharia Law” from their submissions for change that would place Islam in control of Muslim communities within democratic countries.

The term “Islamic Sharia Law,” has become well known and closely buttociated with the oppression within Islam and the wide disparity between the rights of Muslim men and women. Western cultures want nothing to do with a 7th century view of justice where hands and feet are chopped off and young women who are raped are forced to produce three male witnesses to the crime or be judged as adulterers. Public end in the form of stoning does not have much support in a democracy. Many Islamic leaders state emphatically that Islam and democracy cannot co-exist. Muslims are expected to have only one master and that master is Islam. Islam dictates every aspect of their lives from birth to rest.

In America, Islam has had trouble gaining a real foothold. But Islam’s dictation to American Muslims is the same as illustrated by Omar Ahmad, the Council on American-Islamic Relation’s spokesman, when he publicly stated:

“Those {Muslims} who stay in America should be open to society without melting, keeping mosques open so anyone can come and learn about Islam. If you choose to live here, you have a responsibility to deliver the message of Islam…Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faiths, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth.”

In an effort to keep American Muslims under the total control of Islam, the Saudi Arabians have spent billions of dollars building mosques and Islamic schools so that Muslim children can be instructed in the strict laws of Islam. For decades, no one paid much attention to what was being taught in those Saudi-funded schools. Perhaps two generations of American Muslims were taught that Muslims are to be loyal to no country, only Islam. These children were taught that Christians and Jews were the enemy. They were taught that only Islam will dictate how they will live their lives. American children were being brainwashed right under our collective noses.
 
continued from above:

Because of that, American Muslims are often torn between country and Islam and there is no way to know which force will win in the end.

Islam has not grown in America as it has in Europe or Africa because of the strong Christian influence and democracy so Imams and Muslim clerics were dispatched to the prison system to scoop up the disillusioned and those in need of something to belong to that claimed it would care about them and for them.

In the general population, Islam has a tendency to attract those in need of someone to tell them how to live their lives while butturing them that their lives will be better. It’s unfortunate that people don’t remember the old saying, “If something sounds too good to be true, it probably isn’t true.” This is a perfect description of Islam. When convincing people to convert, only the loving side of Islam shows itself. It isn’t until it’s too late that people become aware of the dark side of Islam.

Islam is a shell game. buttisted by the “if it bleeds, it leads” motto of the media, Islam is able to keep the world’s attention on the person attacks while “peaceful Islam” quietly goes about the business of taking over entire countries and working its way into the fabric of the legal and governmental systems of others. American Muslims are now pebreastioning that the call to prayer be blasted over loud speakers five times a day in quiet neighborhoods and towns. This is Islam’s first step in using democracy to destroy democracy. Always on the move, the quiet side of Islam is every bit as dangerous as the persons. Their goals are the same, only the method varies.
 
Shaikh without any known faith, has tried to write long posts. These posts have no value for me. Shaikh has un-necessarily tried to enter the field about prophets. I wanted the name of the prophet of the Catholics. Shaikh has failed to give any name.

I cannot say anything about the posts of Shaikh because I do not know Shaikh is a Catholic or Protestant or Hindu or Budhist.
 
That’s a disingenuous claim. Nearly all the posters on this thread who criticize Islam are Christians.
So why is that news? I haven’t done a count, but suspect that most posters on this forum are Christian.
The truth of Christianity is the implied premise behind most of the criticisms.
And your point? Obviously, any discussion must be based on an assumed truth.
As I’ve said before and will say again (because it’s a matter of simple justice), if Christians make a criticism of Islam that applies just as well to Christianity, Muslims are perfectly justified in pointing it out.

Note: there are plenty of supposed parallels Muslims may point out which in fact don’t hold water. But your attempt to dismiss the tactic as invalid in principle remains irrational and unjust.
Edwin
You are the one who said you didn’t want to “live in a world that had abandoned the idea of intellectual freedom and open inquiry altogether and accept a world in which all we can do is shriek hatred at each other from our rival blogs and radio stations.”

I don’t see how a meaningful dialog leading to open inquiry and the fabled ‘common ground’ can happen if one side constantly shifts the discussion away from the topic. On this forum, it would seem, the typical “dialog” on Islam goes something like this:
Christian: “Islam / the Qur’an promotes violence against non-Muslims.”
Muslim: “There’s violence in the Bible too. What about the Crusades?

Christian: [long post documenting events leading up to the Crusades]
Muslim: “Jesus [pbuh] was not crucified. Where is your evidence of that?”

Christian: [long post on historic sources documenting Christ’s crucifixion]
Muslim: “Jesus [pbuh] was placed on the cross but didn’t die on it. Crucifixion means death on a cross. Jesus [pbuh] died a natural death and is buried in India, along with his mother Mary [pbuh].”

Christian: [long post on the doctrines of the Ascension and Assumption]
Muslim: “We honor and love Jesus [pbuh], but Jesus [pbuh] is not the Son of God. God has no partners. Jesus [pbuh] never said he was the Son of God.”

Christian: [long post on the doctrines of the Trinity and the Conception by the Holy Spirit, followed by more about Jesus being the Son of God]
Muslim: “The Trinity is not in the ‘bibleNT’; the ‘bibleNT’ was corrupted by evil Christians, like Paul of Tarsus, who wanted to control the people.”

Etc., etc., ad nausium.
If this kind of discussion represents some form of “open inquiry” as to whether or not “Islam / the Qur’an promotes violence against non-Muslims,” then I can understand why you think my “attempts to dismiss the tactic as invalid in principle remains irrational and unjust” and why you fail to understand why I refuse to play this game.

The Muslim tactic of always shifting the topic to Christianity is an indication to me that they aren’t really secure or sincere in their beliefs about Islam or Mohammed. [Note that this is not the same as saying the truth of Islam is the implied premise behind most Muslim criticisms of Christianity.]

I’m not a conspiracy theorist, but Muslim tactics certainly raise my eyebrow.
 
That’s a disingenuous claim. …
Edwin
PS. New member schiack has just posted on-topic above. Whether it is true or not is beside the point which is, how does our Muslim friend planten respond? He asks schiack for a Christian prophet.
 
Shaikh without any known faith, has tried to write long posts. These posts have no value for me.
Then ignore them.
Shaikh has un-necessarily tried to enter the field about prophets. I wanted the name of the prophet of the Catholics. Shaikh has failed to give any name.
You have failed to give us any answers to our questions in the past. You should answer them first before asking questions of others.
I cannot say anything about the posts of Shaikh …
Then don’t.

P.S. Was this short enough for you?
 
Yes, wwolverine, I had seen that reply in that thread. Only you have replied and according to you, John the Baptist was the last Israeli prophet. Thank you for reply.

But you may not be right. I wonder, why all others are quiet on the subject.

I thank you for answering the question. I understand what you mean.
So now Planten is the one who is teaching me about Christianity? Wow nice, so the last Prophet and still alive is Planten? 🙂
 
So now Planten is the one who is teaching me about Christianity? Wow nice, so the last Prophet and still alive is Planten? 🙂
wwolverine, I did not try to teach you anything. I understood from your message that John the baptist was the last prophet. So was he your last prophet?? I wanted to know, who is your prophet?? Only youhave replied. All others are quiet. It means they are in trouble and they do not have any prophet.

Talking too much about Trinity without any prophet?? Is John the baptist the prophet for all the christians?? I hope not. But you can confirm or deny it. Try it.
 
I don’t see how a meaningful dialog leading to open inquiry and the fabled ‘common ground’ can happen if one side constantly shifts the discussion away from the topic.
Yes, this happens frequently. I agree that this is wrong. However, it’s also wrong for Christians to claim the right to restrict conversation to the merits of Islam without any comparison with Christianity. That’s what I mean by a disingenuous argument. Obviously some comparisons are valid and some aren’t, and some are relevant and some aren’t.
On this forum, it would seem, the typical “dialog” on Islam goes something like this:Christian: “Islam / the Qur’an promotes violence against non-Muslims.”
Muslim: “There’s violence in the Bible too. What about the Crusades?
The Crusades aren’t in the Bible, obviously, but other than that this is a valid response. There is violence in the Bible, and the Crusades did happen. If a *Christian *(as opposed to an atheist or a Buddhist or a pagan) is making this argument, then the Muslim is quite right to demand that the violence in both religions be examined at the same time, comparatively, so that the relative implications for each religion can be clearly and fairly seen.
Christian: [long post documenting events leading up to the Crusades]
Muslim: “Jesus [pbuh] was not crucified. Where is your evidence of that?”
And that’s the point where the Muslim poster (in your hypothetical example, but I’ve seen the kind of thing you are talking about) is genuinely getting off the subject. The question of violence in Christianity or the Bible is always relevant to a discussion between Muslims and Christians of the violence in Islam. But that doesn’t justify Muslims in dragging in ever other objection they may have to Christianity.

What baffles me is that you can’t see the difference between these two things. Whether or not Jesus was crucified is irrelevant to the question of whether the violence in Islam discredits it. Whether Christianity has comparable violence is relevant. If
  1. I argue “Islam is false because of X”; and
  2. The Muslim argues that X is equally true of Christianity; and
  3. I am a Christian; then
I need either to abandon the argument, abandon Christianity, or refute the argument purporting to show that X is equally true of Christianity.

Of course, if the Muslim says something like “Muhammad never waged aggressive warfare,” then I can refute that point without Christianity being an issue. But if my explicit or implicit argument is “Islam is false because of Muhammad’s actions,” then I open myself to relevant comparisons with my own religion.

For what it’s worth, the form in which I myself would defend the “violent Islam” argument would be something like this:

Although there is plenty of violence both in the Bible and in historic Christianity, the example and teaching of Jesus and the Church of the first three centuries has given Christians resources for overcoming the violent potential of our own tradition which do not appear to exist within Islam. Because of Muhammad’s status as the perfect example, and the fact that Muhammad was “his own Constantine,” or maybe even his own Charlemagne, the tendency to use violence in the cause of one’s religion seems more deeply rooted in Islam than in Christianity. This is *one *reason why I do not find Islam appealing or convincing as an alternative to Christianity, though it isn’t the only or even the most important one.

Edwin
 
Yes, this happens frequently. I agree that this is wrong. However, it’s also wrong for Christians to claim the right to restrict conversation to the merits of Islam without any comparison with Christianity.
I disagree with this. Obviously, one must compare something with something else, but in Islam’s case, why must it always be Christianity? [And the comparison is usually accomplished by dragging Christianity down to Islam’s level.] If we say, “Islam prescribes ‘X’, why can’t we judge whether ‘X’, and therefore Islam, is good/bad/justified by some universal standard like the Golden Rule? Otherwise, we get into a “Did-so! Did-not!” discussion, leading us nowhere.
The Crusades aren’t in the Bible, obviously, but other than that this is a valid response.
Not sure what you mean here.
There is violence in the Bible, and the Crusades did happen. If a *Christian *(as opposed to an atheist or a Buddhist or a pagan) is making this argument, then the Muslim is quite right to demand that the violence in both religions be examined at the same time, comparatively, so that the relative implications for each religion can be clearly and fairly seen.
If we insist on going down that path as an illustrative example, we must determine what we mean by, “There is violence in the Bible”. There is violence in probably every newspaper every day, but does that mean newspapers endorse violence? Cain killed Abel, but does that mean the Bible approves? As I have stated many times, the fact there is ‘X’ in the Bible does not justify ‘X’ in Islam. I think the only fair way to examine one or the other [or both] is to have each stand or fall on its own, based on some external objective, universal standard [like the Golden Rule].
And that’s the point where the Muslim poster (in your hypothetical example, but I’ve seen the kind of thing you are talking about) is genuinely getting off the subject.
Agreed.
The question of violence in Christianity or the Bible is always relevant to a discussion between Muslims and Christians of the violence in Islam.
As stated above, I disagree.
But that doesn’t justify Muslims in dragging in ever other objection they may have to Christianity.
Agreed, but the minute you allow the slightest digression, you open the door to the path to “Did-so! Did-not!”
What baffles me is that you can’t see the difference between these two things. Whether or not Jesus was crucified is irrelevant to the question of whether the violence in Islam discredits it.
I think I understand the confusion on this part. Perhaps it is because I was trying to think like I perceive that Muslims think and be brief at the same time. I guess there was too much space between the dots, so to speak.
Whether Christianity has comparable violence is relevant. If
  1. I argue “Islam is false because of X”; and
  2. The Muslim argues that X is equally true of Christianity; and
  3. I am a Christian; then
    I need either to abandon the argument, abandon Christianity, or refute the argument purporting to show that X is equally true of Christianity.
As I stated above, it would depend on how an objective, universal standard judges ‘X’.
Of course, if the Muslim says something like “Muhammad never waged aggressive warfare,” then I can refute that point without Christianity being an issue. But if my explicit or implicit argument is “Islam is false because of Muhammad’s actions,” then I open myself to relevant comparisons with my own religion.
Well, suppose a man said he was against adultery but was found to have committed it himself. Does that nullify his objection to adultery? Maybe, but maybe he is honestly convinced that adultery is wrong and just gave in to temptation. I will grant, though, that it leaves his stated position somewhat less convincing.
That’s why most Christians here have a problem with Mohammed and Islam.
If, to use your example, you tried to refute a Muslim claim that “Muhammad never waged aggressive warfare,” you could objectively refute that point without Christianity being an issue at first, but his next post would be about some Christian conqueror or other.
For what it’s worth, the form in which I myself would defend the “violent Islam” argument would be something like this:
Although there is plenty of violence both in the Bible and in historic Christianity, the example and teaching of Jesus and the Church of the first three centuries has given Christians resources for overcoming the violent potential of our own tradition which do not appear to exist within Islam. Because of Muhammad’s status as the perfect example, and the fact that Muhammad was “his own Constantine,” or maybe even his own Charlemagne, the tendency to use violence in the cause of one’s religion seems more deeply rooted in Islam than in Christianity. This is *one *reason why I do not find Islam appealing or convincing as an alternative to Christianity, though it isn’t the only or even the most important one.
Edwin
I agree with most of this, but don’t know what you mean by “the violent potential of our own tradition.” The first Christians, whom we derive much of our tradition, accepted violent martyrdom at the hands of their Roman persecutors in lieu of turning violent against them.

I would defend the “violent Islam” argument more this way:While there are undoubtedly plenty of Christians who broke Jesus’ commandment to love one another, their actions should not be confused with Christ’s message, which is valid. Because of Mohammed’s actions, this confusion is a lot harder to avoid when examining Islam and Mohammed.
 
I would defend the “violent Islam” argument more this way:While there are undoubtedly plenty of Christians who broke Jesus’ commandment to love one another, their actions should not be confused with Christ’s message, which is valid. Because of Mohammed’s actions, this confusion is a lot harder to avoid when examining Islam and Mohammed.
That is precisely a problem that Muslims, even well-meaning Muslims, have. If Christ had taken wives (even some as young girls), launched wars, owned slaves, sent threatening messages to neighboring countries, and Luke’s account of Acts was full of the apostles persecuting religious minorities and launching other wars and burning their own scripture to “formalize” it, Christianity would be a lot harder to defend. As it stands, they taught against all of that, and so it is easy to point to a Christian committing a terrible deed and say they are acting against the commands of Christ and the apostles. On the other hand, it’s harder for Muslims to say that a Muslim performing certain deeds is not following the ways of Mohammad.

As I pointed out in another thread (if it wasn’t this one) this leads to the common problem of the two-sided nature of some “nice” Muslims. They will condemn Osama bin Laden and acts such as 9/11, and yet they won’t condemn men like Sheikh Yassin and the blowing up of Israeli city buses. I even had one Muslim (and this was back in my Muslim days) tell me that Sheikh Yassin was a good Muslim and that Hamas was following the sunna. Again, with such standards as are present in the early days of Mohammad and his companions, it is harder to respond to violence and corruption than the days of Christ and his apostles.
 
I see that Catholics may be having an inherent theological wekness in their system. Therefore they feel threatened by Islam in the spiritual field. I see no possibility ever of any Muslim political victory over the western society.

Secular system is good as long as it gives.equal opportunity to all faiths and does not interfere in any faith matters. With the preent spread of different faiths, Secularism is the best. It should not be Atheism.

So, what is the danger??
The danger is that Islam considers all who are not muslim to be less than human. Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, Zoroastrian, Jew, Hindu, Jain, Sikh, Buddhist, Atheist. All are subject to the Jizya, and to death for resisting the Jizya by force, and to enslavement for resisting the Jizya by passive means.

Islam is incompatible with secularism; Turkey’s constant bouts with intolerance and the interference of the supposedly secular democracy by majority muslims have resulted in near-dhimmitude in practice under the civil law; even repairs are restricted upon Christian and Zoroastrian places of worship, and only muslim clerics are permitted to dress as clerics off the grounds of the places of worship. Catholic and Orthodox priests can be arrested for simply wearing their Cassocks on the street, even tho that is their expected and canonically encouraged mode of dress.

Islam prescribes death for the apostate who will not repent. It explicitly permits the taking of slaves, the raping of slave women, and the forced conversion of those who surrender.

Islam is, at its core, a socio-military system of domination and repression. It breeds hate and intolerance, even tho’ those are not part of the “core values,” by the very way it establishes that all who are not Muslim are opposed to Islam, and by the explicit permissions to use force to prevent conversion from Islam.
 
The danger is that Islam considers all who are not muslim to be less than human. Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, Zoroastrian, Jew, Hindu, Jain, Sikh, Buddhist, Atheist. All are subject to the Jizya, and to death for resisting the Jizya by force, and to enslavement for resisting the Jizya by passive means.

Islam is incompatible with secularism; Turkey’s constant bouts with intolerance and the interference of the supposedly secular democracy by majority muslims have resulted in near-dhimmitude in practice under the civil law; even repairs are restricted upon Christian and Zoroastrian places of worship, and only muslim clerics are permitted to dress as clerics off the grounds of the places of worship. Catholic and Orthodox priests can be arrested for simply wearing their Cassocks on the street, even tho that is their expected and canonically encouraged mode of dress.

Islam prescribes death for the apostate who will not repent. It explicitly permits the taking of slaves, the raping of slave women, and the forced conversion of those who surrender.

Islam is, at its core, a socio-military system of domination and repression. It breeds hate and intolerance, even tho’ those are not part of the “core values,” by the very way it establishes that all who are not Muslim are opposed to Islam, and by the explicit permissions to use force to prevent conversion from Islam.
Pray the rosary for them and start rosary groups that will pray for them. “Pray for your enemy”, is a direct order from Jesus. Real Christians will do this and should…asap.
 
In the aftermath of the haitian disaster, Israel has come in for a lot of praise for its relief efforts.
Here, here and again here you will find accounts of just how professional the Isaraeli Defence Force is when it comes to offering aid.

From that second link we can read
The field hospital established by the IDF is one of the most advanced and includes a medical lab, pharmacy and an x-ray center. Twenty-five life-saving surgeries and three births, one of which was the delivery of a 1.8 kilogram (4-pound) premature baby, have been carried out.
A Jewish explanation of what is being offered and why can be read here.

And what did our Muslim friends think of Isarael’s presence in Haiti?
Well according to Syrian TV the Israelis are there to harvest body parts. The Video title says
Syrian TV and Organ Transplant Experts: Israel Reminiscent of Shylock, Engages in Organ Trafficking in Haiti and Worldwide
Sick.
 
The danger is that Islam considers all who are not muslim to be less than human. Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, Zoroastrian, Jew, Hindu, Jain, Sikh, Buddhist, Atheist. All are subject to the Jizya, and to death for resisting the Jizya by force, and to enslavement for resisting the Jizya by passive means.
Aramis, Islam does not consider non-Muslims as less than human. But if any will vehemently oppose Islam and will come to fight Islam, then he/she will be less than human.

Also please do not mix up the deeds of Muslims with islam. Do not blame Islam for the bad deeds/ habits of present day Muslims.
Islam is incompatible with secularism; Turkey’s constant bouts with intolerance and the interference of the supposedly secular democracy by majority muslims have resulted in near-dhimmitude in practice under the civil law; even repairs are restricted upon Christian and Zoroastrian places of worship, and only muslim clerics are permitted to dress as clerics off the grounds of the places of worship. Catholic and Orthodox priests can be arrested for simply wearing their Cassocks on the street, even tho that is their expected and canonically encouraged mode of dress
.

You are supporting secularism. But here on the forum, many Catholics are accusing the secularism as something bad for their religion. Again do not judge Islam by the doings of Muslims.
Islam prescribes death for the apostate who will not repent. It explicitly permits the taking of slaves, the raping of slave women, and the forced conversion of those who surrender.
I challenge you to show me that apostates are to be killed. Show me from Quran. Again I request you not to be misled by the present day activity of so-called Muslims. They are not perfect… They are not even stable minded.
Islam is, at its core, a socio-military system of domination and repression. It breeds hate and intolerance, even tho’ those are not part of the “core values,” by the very way it establishes that all who are not Muslim are opposed to Islam, and by the explicit permissions to use force to prevent conversion from Islam.
That is only a shot from your head. I see that many christian governments from Europe invaded Afrika, Asia and Far east. They were very happy capturing the lands and preaching christianity under the umbrella of their military domination. That was for the last 200 or 300 years. Also may I remind you of your very old catholic Roman Empire???

Islam is basically non-political, same as Jesus who was accused of being the king of Jews. He denied it and said that his Kingdom was not of this world… We Muslims understand all the good teachings of Jesus and we strictly believe in those good teachings of Moses, Jesus and Muhammad. You need to learn more, better things.
 
And what did our Muslim friends think of Isarael’s presence in Haiti?
Well according to Syrian TV the Israelis are there to harvest body parts. The Video title says
Syrian TV and Organ Transplant Experts: Israel Reminiscent of Shylock, Engages in Organ Trafficking in Haiti and Worldwide
That’s just hilarious.

I remember one Muslim poster who used to be fairly active started a thread linking to an article “proving” that Israeli Jews engaged in the blood libel, which most people have recognized is false since the Middle Ages. The majority of people told him not to believe everything he read.

EDIT: Actually, this reminds me of an old Conan O’Brien sketch I saw a long time ago. He was doing Game Shows Around the World, and he showed a “Syrian” game show entitled “Blame the Jews Family Feud.” It showed a Muslim family who had to guess something bad about Jews, and they said, “They have an invincibility potion and won’t tell any one.” The host went, “Survey says…” and sure enough it was up there. 😃
 
J C, thanks for giving a reply. Yousay that Jesus is your prophet. That is good. But wwolverine did not think Jesus was the prophet for Cathplics or other Christians. Anyhow, your reply confirms my belief that Christians consider Jesus as prophet of God.

But it was recently being denied here on the forum. That is why i was asking that question. Now I feel that only you believe Jesus to be a Prophet. Others do not.

Thanks anyway. But you have considered John the Baptist as a last prophet. Then in same breath you think Jesus was also a prophet after John the Baptist.
 
I challenge you to show me that apostates are to be killed. Show me from Quran. Again I request you not to be misled by the present day activity of so-called Muslims. They are not perfect… They are not even stable minded.
4.89 They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing: But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah. But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and take no friends or helpers from their ranks;-

fatwas:

islamqa.com/en/ref/696/apostasy

islamqa.com/en/ref/811/apostasy

islamqa.com/en/ref/12406/apostasy

Absolutely a sign of a cult. Cults have to kill those that try to leave otherwise members would be leaving in droves as the TRUTH of GOD was found out.

Also a cult can not withstand criticism- so kill all those that cause mischief!!

5.33 The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;

Pray for Muslims they are caught in a violent death cult that will kill them if they try to leave it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top