Muslim who needs answers???

[eichenb2]

Not all Muslims are extremists. To say they are is like saying all Americans are rich, or all Blacks are ignorant, or all Catholics are drunks (have had someone use that one on me), or all Jews are the reason for a country’s problems (as in Hitler’s Germany) It is bigoted and ignorant to compartmentalize a complete race because of a few, no matter how many that “few” may be. It is not the Christian way and it is definitely not the Catholic way.

I cannot speak for others, but I specifically try not to label individual Muslims. My concern is the doctrine of Islam. The question is not whether all Muslims are extremists. The question is whether Islam is an extremist doctrine. By the way, Muslims are not a race. Muslims are from many, many races, nationalities, and language groups.

 

[sedonaman]

Did the pope apologize for the Crusades, or for the crimes and barbaric excesses committed by Christians during the Crusades?

This is an interesting question that makes the distinction between jus ad bellum and jus in bello; however, more to the point is what message the Muslim world actually received. My own perception was he apologized for the crusades, not the sins committed by the crusaders. I’ll bet anything the same message was received by the Muslim world because distinctions that fine are generally too complex even for the average American, much less for the uneducated Third World masses [never mind *al Jazeera].

If he apologized for the popes who actually called for the Crusades, I would agree that his apology was unjustifiable. The Crusades were a legitimate response on behalf of a Christendom reasserting itself as a force within the world, imho.

Agreed except for the second part. Islam did not spread by Muslims knocking on doors and handing out brochures on street corners. The Crusades were a response to 463 years of Islamic jihad against Christendom. See “The Crusades In Context” by Dr Paul Stenhouse at answering-islam.org.uk/Green/crusades-stenhouse.htm .

However, the war crimes and the excesses that occurred during these times were often un-Christ-like, and therefore an apology is a recognition of, and a repentance from, sins of our brothers in Christ. Pope John Paul, by apologizing for these sins, actually brings us a collective absolution through both his role as a priest, and as Vicar of Christ. He allays us of any further feelings of guilt for all that went wrong during these campaigns of our fellow Christians.

In all fairness, the concept of a just war had not even been in existence then as it is today; so I think you are judging the past by current standards. In addition to that, there isn’t a Christian alive who participated in the Crusades. Why are we guilty of the alleged war crimes committed by Christians 1,000 years ago??? Do you want future generation to shoulder the guilt of your sins? Where in the catechism is “collective absolution” discussed??? This is actually falling into the Muslim trap of guilt by association. Example: When Muslims became outraged over the Danish cartoons of Mohammed, they killed some nuns in Africa. Why? Because Islam doesn’t believe in the individual, only the society; so to Muslims, all Christianity is guilty of the “blasphemy” of the cartoons.

Unlike so many Muslims, who carry the weight of millenia of barbarity of jihad on the soldiers like an unyoke-able cross, our loads have been lightened through the absolution that comes from repentance.

You cannot get absolution for sins you didn’t commit [first year catechism]. I do not hold present Muslims responsible for the sins of their past. I do hold responsible those Muslim leaders today who manufacture grievances to promote terrorism and perpetuate aggressive warfare. Christian faux guilt has got to stop. Focusing on sins we didn’t commit conceals the truth about the motivation for the Crusades. It also is a form of multiculturalism because it concedes to Muslims that their beliefs are equal to ours. But then again, political correctness was invented to conceal/deny truth.

Personally, I do not understand JPII as condemning the Crusades themselves, but merely building bridges of peace by acknowledging that many un-Christ-like sins were committed by Christians during this age.

This bothers me too, because the very nature of Islam does not permit peaceful co-existence. Have the terrorist activities diminished since? No, because Islam does not compromise; it must dominate. That’s why wherever you have Islam you will have war. Islam without the “barbarity of jihad” would not be Islam.

 

[puppypatrol]

I cannot speak for others, but I specifically try not to label individual Muslims. My concern is the doctrine of Islam. The question is not whether all Muslims are extremists. The question is whether Islam is an extremist doctrine. By the way, Muslims are not a race. Muslims are from many, many races, nationalities, and language groups.

Yes I know that Muslims are not a race. Neither are Americans a race. The word “race” was used simply for the lack of a better one. An there are people out there that believe that Catholicism is pretty extreme as well.

Quote:
Personally, I do not understand JPII as condemning the Crusades themselves, but merely building bridges of peace by acknowledging that many un-Christ-like sins were committed by Christians during this age.

This bothers me too, because the very nature of Islam does not permit peaceful co-existence. Have the terrorist activities diminished since? No, because Islam does not compromise; it must dominate. That’s why wherever you have Islam you will have war. Islam without the “barbarity of jihad” would not be Islam

.

He was condemning, not the reasoning of the Crusades in and of themselves, but the way they were executed and the innocents that suffered because of it. Islam does not teach terrorism and not all Muslims are terrorists. Terrorism and Islam (Jihad) are not interchangable.

 

[Charlotte2008]

Walid

Ali Sina’s Faith Freedom site is great and there are a lot of debates on it. This is one with Naik faithfreedom.org/debates/NaikCampbellintro.htm

If you are in a Muslim country it will be blocked (they don’t want citizens to find out the truth). This is how you can by-pass the ban:-

Bypass any Ban :Faithfreedom.org is blocked in many Islamic countries. You can bypass any ban with a software created to help people in communist and Islamic countries to have access to free thought. You can download the software for free from their site **tor.eff.org If that site is also blocked send an email to sendtor@gmail.com and an automatic responder will send you the software.
**

 

[R_not]

Yes I know that Muslims are not a race. Neither are Americans a race. The word “race” was used simply for the lack of a better one. An there are people out there that believe that Catholicism is pretty extreme as well.

.

He was condemning, not the reasoning of the Crusades in and of themselves, but the way they were executed and the innocents that suffered because of it. Islam does not teach terrorism and not all Muslims are terrorists. Terrorism and Islam (Jihad) are not interchangable.

Actually jihad and islam are one. Jihad is a major part of a muslim’s duty. And the kind that is preached in the koran 97% of the time is the violent kind. the others, including the ‘inner struggle’ are the rest. The violent jihad is the most highly regarded and should explain to all of us why they celebrated after 9/11, or why the whole community celebrate after one of their shahid (martyrs) die killing non-muslims, etc.

Centrality of jihad in islam

History of jihad

From the mouth of an ex-PLO muslim:

Walid Shoebat Shoebat’s experiences with what he was taught in islam..
Select the program that says, Talking It Over, PART 1 December 13, 2008.

 

[sedonaman]

He was condemning, not the reasoning of the Crusades in and of themselves, but the way they were executed and the innocents that suffered because of it.

This point has already been addressed.

Islam does not teach terrorism …

Where have you been and what at have you been smoking? “In my own reading of the Koran, I began to note down invocations to violence. There are so many of them, however, that I abandoned this exercise after 50 or 60 or 70 pages.” – Cardinal George Pell of Syndey, Australia.

…and not all Muslims are terrorists.

I never said “all Muslims are terrorists.” But there are enough of them, and they are organized to make terrorism a serious problem. Only a small percentage of the people of the Soviet Union were communists, and look at the threat to peace they posed. Does every swallow have to return to Capistrano before we can say Spring has arrived? No. Nor do we have to wait until the day when every Muslim is a terrorist before we can say Islam is a problem.

Terrorism and Islam (Jihad) are not interchangeable.

There was a time when jihad was thought to be nothing more than a different kind of yoga. Do you know what a dhimmi is?

 

[Darryl1958]

This is an interesting question that makes the distinction between jus ad bellum and jus in bello; however, more to the point is what message the Muslim world actually received. My own perception was he apologized for the crusades, not the sins committed by the crusaders. I’ll bet anything the same message was received by the Muslim world because distinctions that fine are generally too complex even for the average American, much less for the uneducated Third World masses [never mind *al Jazeera

].

crusades-encyclopedia.com/apologyforthecrusades.html

I think the general consensus of most people who have studied his words is that he did not and even cannot have apologized for the crusades themselves. Doing so would relativize the moral teachings of the papacy, which is an untenable position for a pope to take.

That we receive his message through a media that simplifies and that Muslims receive his messages through the mouths of terrorists and el Jazeera that contort makes for a rather different reality that we need to be cognizant of. The medium in effect becomes the message that we must deal with. In that context, it is pragmatic to understand that his worlds above all had the intent of building bridges for peaceful co-existence. that is a good thing.

Agreed except for the second part. Islam did not spread by Muslims knocking on doors and handing out brochures on street corners. The Crusades were a response to 463 years of Islamic jihad against Christendom. See “The Crusades In Context” by Dr Paul Stenhouse at answering-islam.org.uk/Green/crusades-stenhouse.htm .

The second part never applied anything contrary to what you are saying. I think that you misunderstood it to be saying something different than it did.
For the most part, Islam spread by first conquering the lands of Byzantium and Persia, and then by making the Christian and Jews living there into second class citizens or dhimmitude. If the Koran was followed all other pagans were faced with the choice of either conversion or the sword, although enslavement especially of women and children had the same effect on subsequent generations.
As for the Christians and Jews, the net effect of the humiliations of dhimmitude was their eventual conversion in order to achieve a better life for themselves. Only the most saintly could resist for too long.

In all fairness, the concept of a just war had not even been in existence then as it is today; so I think you are judging the past by current standards.

Might not the same thing be said of Pope John Paul II too then?
Really though, I do not think that I am giving too harsh a judgment at all. When we realize that the crusading armies were newly converted from barbarian tribes, it should not come as much as a shock that they often acted like barbarians during their campaigns.

In addition to that, there isn’t a Christian alive who participated in the Crusades. Why are we guilty of the alleged war crimes committed by Christians 1,000 years ago???

The short answer is that we are not. The question is do we want to continue in our associations with these Christians, many of whom we may believe to be our brothers in Christ?
For me the answer would be yes. I am not prepared to toss these fervent Christians to the wolves and think that they are somehow less Christian than I. So, this being the case, the Pope absolves me of any guilt that I incur through my willingly choosing to be associated with these Christians. I may accept that their intent as being that of a Christian, though their methods were as often as not those of barbarians.
The pope’s words, properly understood, absolves me of any guilt incurred through my own choice to remain associated with the crusaders, and see them as my brothers in Christ.

 

[Darryl1958]

Do you want future generation to shoulder the guilt of your sins?

Many, many former Christians have left the Church as a direct result that they could no longer in good conscience be associated with a Church that has sinned so grievously. they choose not to condone the sins of Christianity by continued membership in the group.
What the pope’s apology is in effect saying to me is that is not necessary. We can share in his apology for the sins of our beloved Church and therefore no longer be associated with those sins. The popes words make clear that unity to the body of Christ, whcih is the Church, does not mean that we need to be in a position of defending the Chruch’s historic shortcomings.
This holds an important lesson for future generations as well.

Where in the catechism is “collective absolution” discussed??? This is actually falling into the Muslim trap of guilt by association. Example: When Muslims became outraged over the Danish cartoons of Mohammed, they killed some nuns in Africa. Why? Because Islam doesn’t believe in the individual, only the society; so to Muslims, all Christianity is guilty of the “blasphemy” of the cartoons.

You are getting the wrong message from what I am saying. Clearly as individuals we are responsible for our own individual sins only. It is also clear that as Catholics we define ourselves not only in terms of our individuality, but collectively as members of the same Body of Christ that includes a communion with saints that live in the same mystical union with us in Christ
over the past two millenia of Christianity.
The Crusading spirit of the Church has been slandered by other Christians since the Enlightenment. Rather than to romantasize it as a response to the slander and lies that have been perpetuated by other Christians, secularists, and Moslems alike, I prefer the pope’s response of apology for the excesses, and silence on the goodness of the Crusades themselves. It has the effect of leaving the past in the past rather than fighting the same battles on and on into the future.

You cannot get absolution for sins you didn’t commit [first year catechism]. I do not hold present Muslims responsible for the sins of their past. I do hold responsible those Muslim leaders today who manufacture grievances to promote terrorism and perpetuate aggressive warfare.

I do hold Muslims responsible for not having an honest appraisal of their own past, and engaging in a double standard of condemning the Christian for the shortcomings in our past, while glorifying the heroes of their own Islamic past for similar behaviors.
On the other hand, given what this thread has taught me about Muslims own worldview, in which different standards apply to Muslims and non-Muslims, I have a deeper understanding of how they may do this.
The thing is, when they hold Christians to a higher moral standard than they do their own fellow Muslims, given what we know through St Paul that the law of God being written on the hearts of all men, we can understand how pyschologically burdensome such duplicity must become to Muslims themselves. There is a disconnect with reality here, Where Islam is only ethically great to the extent that it is judged from a different and lesser standard than the one that Muslims apply to Christianity.
Muslims are yoked to their past in a way that Christians are not. The same barbarities that they are now condemning Christianity for are the same barbarities engaged in by Mohammed’s semi-barbaric Arab armies and Mohammed himself.Christians can honestly disassociate themselves from such behaviors as being contrary to Christ’s teachings. We need only follows the example of the pope to see that this is true. This is much more difficult for a Muslim to do when the truth of Islam is often justified in a worldview which understands the vast Islamic conquest as proof of the Divine in Islam.
By condemning the Crusades, they are in effect condemning themselves, inasmuch as they see Mohammed as the perfect example.

Christian faux guilt has got to stop. Focusing on sins we didn’t commit conceals the truth about the motivation for the Crusades. It also is a form of multiculturalism because it concedes to Muslims that their beliefs are equal to ours. But then again, political correctness was invented to conceal/deny truth.

This could not be addressing me. I am certain that I have no said anything that would elicit this kind of response.

This bothers me too, because the very nature of Islam does not permit peaceful co-existence. Have the terrorist activities diminished since? No, because Islam does not compromise; it must dominate. That’s why wherever you have Islam you will have war. Islam without the “barbarity of jihad” would not be Islam.

In truth, there is not just one version of Islam. Daniel Pipes is astute in pointing this out, as much as he is denigrated by most major Muslim organizations for his efforts. One has to only compare the Muslim generations in what is now Pakistan and their ideology formed by a British education with the ones being educate now in the madrassahs.
Islam can change, indeed has changed even during the span of our lifetime. It has radicalized, but before that it was secularizing.
My own view is that we must do everything that we can to ensure that the radicalized version of the Islamists fails, in order that a more tolerable vision of Islam may come to the fore.
Rest assured that to the extent that Muslims who advocate amputations condemn the barbarity of the Crusades, they are in effect condemning their own view of Islam. By echoing the words of JPII’s apology, they are implicitly accepting the superiority of the Christian ethic. They are thereby sowing the seeds of their own destruction.

 

[planten]

This point has already been addressed.

Where have you been and what at have you been smoking? “In my own reading of the Koran, I began to note down invocations to violence. There are so many of them, however, that I abandoned this exercise after 50 or 60 or 70 pages.” – Cardinal George Pell of Syndey, Australia.

**Quite un-necessary remark about a good post from PP. In your own reading of the Quran, you may be the odd one out. There are other people reading the Quran too. They do not reach the conclusion that you have drawn.

Remember that Islam does not start any war or game of terror. Show me where Islam (or Quran) has approved (started, initiated) any attack on any innocent, peaceful person. But if you disallow the defensive acts, moves of Islam then it means you want to perpetuate evil in the world. You are not ready to take up arms against any rebel or evil monger. I am sure you are wrong.**

I never said “all Muslims are terrorists.” But there are enough of them, and they are organized to make terrorism a serious problem. Only a small percentage of the people of the Soviet Union were communists, and look at the threat to peace they posed. Does every swallow have to return to Capistrano before we can say Spring has arrived? No. Nor do we have to wait until the day when every Muslim is a terrorist before we can say Islam is a problem.

**There is no need for you to pass any judgement. You are biased and not able to understand the good things. So even if you say that all Muslims are not bad, it has no value. You are attaching terrorism with the Muslims. That may be true due to some political matters. If you had not attacked the Quran with terrorism, I would have passed it off that Muslims were terrorists nowadays. But in your first paras, you have linked terrorism with Quran.

So I tell you that there is some terrorism in the Quran about the evil mongers. That is all. We are discussing religion here. Not what the Muslims or christians are doing in these days. Would you care to take responsibility for the bad deeds of the present day christians? I hope not. So why blame Quran or Islam !!**

There was a time when jihad was thought to be nothing more than a different kind of yoga. Do you know what a dhimmi is?

**Perhaps you do not know about a dhimmi. The nature of that tax was good for the people of the book. It protected them from any aggression and they could live peacefully in the area of activity of Islam. At the same time the majority christians would know that they should not harm any few muslims living amongst them.

There are many good points about the law for dhimmis. You are unaware of the complete history of those days when war was imposed on the muslims from every quarter, mostly from the nearby christian states. It was then necessary to find out about the alliance of the chistians and their villages whether they were friends or foes. It was necessary to make those who were willing as aligned and non-combatants.**

 

[Darryl1958]

yeah, I agree. The Crusades were justified in and of themselves. And to tell you the truth we put our morals on a time and people that we should not be doing such a thing. They did what they had to do to stop the barbarity of the muslim hordes who were torturing and murdering so many, subjugating others while humiliating them and burning Churches, Temples, etc.

If a few Crusaders got out of hand, do we really know if they just became like the ones they were fighting? And even with that in mind, the numbers of people the jihads killed far outweighed the numbers that the Crusaders killed that we cannot possibly condemn all the Crusaders for doing what they felt was right AT THAT TIME.

And look what we have now? jihad still going on - and I am not talking that ‘inner struggle’ with NO apology for ANY OF THE JIHADS. Oh, a letter from CAIR here and there - those people that are tied to Hamas and unindicted co-conspirators. **The excuses, the revised histories from muslims, and the complete ignoring of the fact that they DO NOTHING TO STOP THE VIOLENT jihadists that they tell us ALL THE TIME distort islam. **

Just this week they have been defending the pals who have been lobbing bombs at unarmed civilians on a daily basis for who knows how long and are wailing and whining that they are the victims WHEN THEY ARE NOT!

Iran’s proxies Hamas and Hizbollah in general receive great sympathy from the Islamic world, charitable donations rather than any condemnations.
It is unclear to me how those who are now condemning Israel for overkill had done anything to diffuse the situation during the years when Hamas was firing rocker after rocket into Israel’s civilian areas.
If criticizing Israel is how the Islamic world chooses to fight Hamas terrorism, it should come as no surprise that Islam and terrorism are so strongly associated in our understandings of Islam.

 

[sedonaman]

Perhaps you do not know about a dhimmi. The nature of that tax was good for the people of the book. It protected them from any aggression and they could live peacefully in the area of activity of Islam.

Your whole post is so absurd I’m still ROTFLMAO! Time limits responding to all your ridiculous attempts to re-write history, so I’ll address only your last comments about the jizya and dhimmis.

Here’s the scenario: The Christians are living their lives in there own land, and everything is fine. Muslim conquerors come in and take over their country, behead the men who fought them, enslave the women and children, and demand the rest to convert, die, or pay the jizya, depending on their status. The justification for the jizya is explained to be to “pay for their ‘protection’.” Suddenly the conquered “People of the Book” need “protection” from someone never identified. This “protection” costs money, hence the head tax on dhimmis. [Why the ordinary Muslim doesn’t need to pay for his protection as well is not explained, but it becomes obvious upon further examination.] The logical [as in **WESTERN logic] question then is, from whom do the “People of the Book” need to be protected since they didn’t need it before being conquered by Muslim armies? Why, the Muslim conquerors, of course, since they are the only ones now in a position to attack them. The ordinary Muslim doesn’t need to pay for his protection because he isn’t going to attack himself. This tax eventually becomes so burdensome that so many dhimmis flee to other lands that the tax base shrinks to a fraction, forcing Muslims to expand to other lands and conquer its peoples. That is why Islamic lands become barren: the productive people are forced out.

Face it, there is no difference between Muslims demanding jizya and a Mafia protection racket demanding extortion. Criminal mobsters take over a neighborhood and approach businesses for “protection” money. If the business didn’t pay, it was vandalized by the mobsters themselves. Once the extortion was paid, the vandalism stopped. If the extortion money ceased, vandalism recommenced. Do you not see the similar pattern: takeover of territory followed by a demand for “protection” money. If not paid, jihad ensues. If paid, jihad ceases. If payment ceases, jihad resumes.

At the same time the majority christians would know that they should not harm any few muslims living amongst them.

I’m so glad you brought that up. First off, the Muslims were not “few” among them; they were a majority because they were the conquerors.

If a dhimmi harmed a Muslim, the whole dhimmi community suffered, because Islam does not recognize the individual, only the community. So the whole dhimmi community is punished for the act of a single dhimmi.

There are many good points about the law for dhimmis. You are unaware of the complete history of those days when war was imposed on the muslims from every quarter, mostly from the nearby christian states. It was then necessary to find out about the alliance of the chistians and their villages whether they were friends or foes. It was necessary to make those who were willing as aligned and non-combatants.

You will note that there are some breast-beating Christians on this site who still shoulder the “guilt” for the Crusades that took place 1,000 years ago by people who are probably not even their ancestors; yet there is not a SINGLE Muslim or ex-Muslim here who will say that Islam has any responsibility for waging aggressive war. Why is that? I’ll tell you why: Because they don’t believe that Muslims are waging war at all against those who resist their aggression; they think it’s the non-believer who is the one waging the war, and therefore what the Muslims are doing is “defensive” because they have conjured up a command from Allah to conquer the whole world, and how dare anyone resist the will of Allah? In fact, to a Muslim, the mere existence of a non-Muslim is an act of aggression against Islam.

Like I posted several times before in this thread, Islamic logic is not the same as Western logic.

 

[planten]

Your whole post is so absurd I’m still ROTFLMAO! Time limits responding to all your ridiculous attempts to re-write history, so I’ll address only your last comments about the jizya and dhimmis.

Here’s the scenario: The Christians are living their lives in there own land, and everything is fine. Muslim conquerors come in and take over their country, behead the men who fought them, enslave the women and children, and demand the rest to convert, die, or pay the jizya, depending on their status. The justification for the jizya is explained to be to “pay for their ‘protection’.” Suddenly the conquered “People of the Book” need “protection” from someone never identified. This “protection” costs money, hence the head tax on dhimmis. [Why the ordinary Muslim doesn’t need to pay for his protection as well is not explained, but it becomes obvious upon further examination.] The logical [as in **WESTERN

logic] question then is, from whom do the “People of the Book” need to be protected since they didn’t need it before being conquered by Muslim armies? Why, the Muslim conquerors, of course, since they are the only ones now in a position to attack them. The ordinary Muslim doesn’t need to pay for his protection because he isn’t going to attack himself. This tax eventually becomes so burdensome that so many dhimmis flee to other lands that the tax base shrinks to a fraction, forcing Muslims to expand to other lands and conquer its peoples. That is why Islamic lands become barren: the productive people are forced out.

**Your post is all false. It was the nearby christian states under the major influence of the christian king Kaisar of Rome who assembled armies on the borders of the Islamic state of Madinah. Muslims had no power to face the armies of the Kaisar.

Are you trying to rewrite history? Next you will say that the pagans of Arabia (Makkah) were justified in persecuting the prophet and his men. Who are you?**

Face it, there is no difference between Muslims demanding jizya and a Mafia protection racket demanding extortion. Criminal mobsters take over a neighborhood and approach businesses for “protection” money. If the business didn’t pay, it was vandalized by the mobsters themselves. Once the extortion was paid, the vandalism stopped. If the extortion money ceased, vandalism recommenced. Do you not see the similar pattern: takeover of territory followed by a demand for “protection” money. If not paid, jihad ensues. If paid, jihad ceases. If payment ceases, jihad resumes.

This is all meaningless. You are drifting into other fields away from the topic..

I’m so glad you brought that up. First off, the Muslims were not “few” among them; they were a majority because they were the conquerors.

If a dhimmi harmed a Muslim, the whole dhimmi community suffered, because Islam does not recognize the individual, only the community. So the whole dhimmi community is punished for the act of a single dhimmi

.

** You are forgettingthat in some palces there were only a few muslims living in christian dominate d areas. They had to be protected. That protection was effected by Jizyah.
Your above para is also irrelevent. There was a good law which was being followed. It was the need of that time. It was war from all sides against the Muslims. So they had to make some sensible laws to protect every one, even the non-Muslims. You are ignoring all these things**.

You will note that there are some breast-beating Christians on this site who still shoulder the “guilt” for the Crusades that took place 1,000 years ago by people who are probably not even their ancestors; yet there is not a SINGLE Muslim or ex-Muslim here who will say that Islam has any responsibility for waging aggressive war. Why is that? I’ll tell you why: Because they don’t believe that Muslims are waging war at all against those who resist their aggression; they think it’s the non-believer who is the one waging the war, and therefore what the Muslims are doing is “defensive” because they have conjured up a command from Allah to conquer the whole world, and how dare anyone resist the will of Allah? In fact, to a Muslim, the mere existence of a non-Muslim is an act of aggression against Islam.

Those breast beating christians are very sensible and honest. We respect them. We all know about the ignorant Crusaders who killed many christians too not knowing that were christians. Do you know that Crusaders killed christians of Jerusalem in their Crusades? I hope you will soon learn about that too.

Like I posted several times before in this thread, Islamic logic is not the same as Western logic.

We are not worried about the western logic and western bad way of life. We may discuss religion, not east and west here.

 

[Charlotte2008]

We are not worried about the western logic and western bad way of life. We may discuss religion, not east and west here.

“Western bad way of Life”

Why do Muslims live in the West if they hate us and our way of life so much? You will never be able to take over as you seem to think you will. All of those that hate us should go back to a Muslim country and stay there. The West will always be Christian - that is why it is a good place to be. Fortunately Muslims are realising that Islam is evil and are leaving in droves (6 million a year in Africa and tens of thousands in Europe every year). Inshallah it continues!

 

[sedonaman]

It was the nearby christian [sic] states under the major influence of the christian [sic] king Kaisar of Rome who assembled armies on the borders of the Islamic state of Madinah. Muslims had no power to face the armies of the Kaisar.

This is absolute insanity. There was no “king Kaisar” of Rome. If you are referring to Julius Caesar, he was killed in 44 B.C., 700 years before Mohammed. Not only that, but the Roman Empire never reached as far as the province of Madinah. Contrast this map en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Madinah_Province with this map en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empire of the furthest extent of the Roman Empire in 117 A.D. But it doesn’t matter anyway because the Roman Empire fell in 450 A.D., two hundred years before the time of Mohammed. But that’s OK. I’m the one who is “wrong”.

Next you will say that the pagans of Arabia (Makkah) were justified in persecuting the prophet and his men.

What goes around comes around. What makes you so sure Mohammed was right and the pagans were wrong? Suppose the pagans thought Mohammed was persecuting them?

This is all meaningless. You are drifting into other fields away from the topic.

No, I’m not. I’m just illustrating how the depraved Islamic practice of jizya is by comparing it to a criminal extortion protection racket. There is almost a 100% comparison. Names and places are different, but it is the same racket. So, it is not “meaningless” to Western logic.

You are forgetting that in some palces there were only a few muslims living in christian [sic] dominate d areas. They had to be protected. That protection was effected by Jizyah.

Waitaminnit. Wait just one cotton-pickin’ minute. First you said the jizya was collected by Muslims to pay for the protection of dhimmis under their rule. Now you are saying the jizya was collected to protect Muslims???

It was war from all sides against the Muslims. So they had to make some sensible laws to protect every one, even the non-Muslims. You are ignoring all these things.

Oh, sure, of course it was “war from all sides against the Muslims” because Islam always has to be the victim, never the guilty. I’m not ignoring it. As I said, according to the Muslim mind, “war” is waged only against Muslims, never by Muslims. That is why you call non-Muslim lands the “House of War”. Once I understood this concept, I could see how Muslim rhetoric could make the absurd claims it does. In fact, it takes history and reverses it. If it was “war from all sides against the Muslims,” explain to me how Muslim armies got from Medina in 622 AD to the gates of Vienna in 1683 AD. But then again, I guess it was “war from all sides against the Muslims” if you believe the very existence of non-Muslims is an act of aggression against Islam.

We all know about the ignorant Crusaders who killed many christians [sic] too not knowing that were christians [sic].

Where do you dig up these ridiculous claims? And what proof do you have of this? Your imam told you? I would require a little more objective proof than that.

 

[planten]

This is absolute insanity. There was no “king Kaisar” of Rome. If you are referring to Julius Caesar, he was killed in 44 B.C., 700 years before Mohammed. Not only that, but the Roman Empire never reached as far as the province of Madinah. Contrast this map en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Madinah_Province with this map en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empire of the furthest extent of the Roman Empire in 117 A.D. But it doesn’t matter anyway because the Roman Empire fell in 450 A.D., two hundred years before the time of Mohammed. But that’s OK. I’m the one who is “wrong”.

**sedonaman, how innocent and uninformed you can be !!

The Kaisar was the title. not the name of the king of Rome. It was like the Pharoah’s of Egypt.

I won’t reply to all your post now. But I will ask you about the Kaisar mentioned in the bibleNT. Pharisees asked Jesus “Was it legal to give tax to Kaisar?” . Jesus replied “Give unto Kaisar what is Kaisar’s and unto God what is God’s”. I feel that you are not a christian. Otherwise you would have known all these things…

What do you say? Who was the Kaisar collecting tax from the Jews in the time of Jesus? And what would you call that tax which he was extracting from the Jews? Would that not be Jizyah too? They were Jews living under the Roman law area.**

 

[cleobanzj]

But in Islamic countries such as Afghanistan, is she permitted to get an education and earn anything for herself, or is she at the mercy of her husband and males in her family? Can she leave the house without a male escort to pursue her own interests?

In addition, if her husband, brothers, sons, father, uncles are all dead, what will become of her? Muslims will state that her brother in law will marry her, but what if there are no brothers in law? how will she take care of her necessities?

 

[puppypatrol]

**sedonaman, how innocent and uninformed you can be !!

The Kaisar was the title. not the name of the king of Rome. It was like the Pharoah’s of Egypt.

I won’t reply to all your post now. But I will ask you about the Kaisar mentioned in the bibleNT. Pharisees asked Jesus “Was it legal to give tax to Kaisar?” . Jesus replied “Give unto Kaisar what is Kaisar’s and unto God what is God’s”. I feel that you are not a christian. Otherwise you would have known all these things…
**

The actual quote is “Give unto Ceasar what is Ceasar’s and give unto God what is God’s” as in Matthew 22: 16 - 21
16And they sent their disciples to Him, along with the Herodians, saying, “Teacher, we know that You are truthful and teach the way of God in truth, and defer to no one; for You are not partial to any.
17"Tell us then, what do You think? Is it lawful to give a poll-tax to Caesar, or not?”
18But Jesus perceived their malice, and said, “Why are you testing Me, you hypocrites?
19"Show Me the coin used for the poll-tax.” And they brought Him a denarius.
20And He said to them, “Whose likeness and inscription is this?”
21They said to Him, “Caesar’s.” Then He said to them, “Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and to God the things that are God’s.”

Sad, so Sad…I am truly sorry you have such a hateful attitude in reacting to another Muslim having questions about other faiths. And to think I was defending Islam on another thread, and I still feel that way but there are some who make that tolerance difficult.

 

[Darryl1958]

Darryl1958:

Defending the indefensible is the heaviest weight of all. It is crushing the spirit of so many Muslims now even as we speak. Note at least two Muslims here who are severely questioning their continued allegiance to a religious system that is so seemingly incapable of extracting itself from the cruelties and primitive barbarities inherent to that system. Others engage in forms of apologetics in which they contradict each other, and the ugly truths that just keep popping up faster than they can hammer them back down contradict their arguments.

planten:

You are forgetting that in some places there were only a few muslims living in christian [sic] dominated areas. They had to be protected. That protection was effected by Jizyah.

sedonaman:

Waitaminnit. Wait just one cotton-pickin’ minute. First you said the jizya was collected by Muslims to pay for the protection of dhimmis under their rule. Now you are saying the jizya was collected to protect Muslims???

It is indeed a heavy load to defend the indefensible.
And once the rules of logic are dropped because they are too ‘western’, such irrationality cannot help but prevail.

 

[R_not]

Here is a son of a Hamas leader who has given an interview on Fox news. I think there will be a special over the weekend, but I am not sure when.

Mosab Hassad, left islam and tells of the torture that Hamas does - even to their own and to others.

It will be on Fox News by Bill Hemmert, Escape from Hamas. time? day? You will have to check the schedule yourself. It might be as early as tomorrow (Jan 3, 2009) at 10pm.

Hamas is in no way interested in peace with Israel under any circumstances. The Hamas Covanant (its “Constitution”) says:

“[Peace] initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement… Those conferences are no more than a means to appoint the infidels as arbitrators in the lands of Islam… There is no solution for the Palestinian problem except by Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are but a waste of time, an exercise in futility.” (Article 13)

I can’t believe that the UK is cutting off its associations with Israel. Talk about a bunch of ignorant ones who haven’t a clue. I wonder how they would feel if the Scottish lobbed bombs into their lands and aimed at schools and houses on a daily basis. I wonder what they would do…

 

[swariffin]

**sedonaman, how innocent and uninformed you can be !!

The Kaisar was the title. not the name of the king of Rome. It was like the Pharoah’s of Egypt.

I won’t reply to all your post now. But I will ask you about the Kaisar mentioned in the bibleNT. Pharisees asked Jesus “Was it legal to give tax to Kaisar?” . Jesus replied “Give unto Kaisar what is Kaisar’s and unto God what is God’s”. I feel that you are not a christian. Otherwise you would have known all these things…

What do you say? Who was the Kaisar collecting tax from the Jews in the time of Jesus? And what would you call that tax which he was extracting from the Jews? Would that not be Jizyah too? They were Jews living under the Roman law area.**

Nope, that was not Jizya. The tax collected by the Roman is almost like modern taxation. The Roman taxation was applied to all people doing business in the Roman empire including the Roman conquered region.