Islam does not hate christianity

One more time. I can do this all night. The Hadith is not a holy book to MOST Moslems!The Koran ONLY condones violence when you take it out of context like you so admirably demonstrated.Extremists are not being true to the text. They are twisting it to they own violent/worldly needs just like tons of Christians do all the time. No it is not. Your misunderstanding of Islam does but real Islam does not. I am sorry Faith but your position on this is not very strong. Reality overrides your belief. No. The extremists put more weight in the Hadith which define jihad more in the terms of what you fear so much. Just like how some Chrsitians now adays are worshiping the Left Behind series of books based on the bible but are not actually the bible. Now you are getting it I think. If you don't know then don't say most. Most do not follow the extreme teachings of the Hadith. The Moslem world is very big and even large places like Iran and Afganistan are pale in comparison. There may be. But speculation does not lead to outright generalization of a religion as one based on violence and hate like it seems to have been done in this thread. Almost all Moslems I know were very much afraid after 9/11. I know not a single one who expressed happiness in any form. And they have every right to be afraid. A cousin of mine was threatened with deportation. Another was detained by the FBI based on an "anonymous tip".The 10 second sound bites you get of a group of Arabs burning an American flag (which coincidently was footage taken from WAY BEFORE 9/11 in one case) does not represent the opinion of most Moslems.

---

By the way, for a fun second-term drinking game, chug a beer every time you hear the phrase, "...contentious but futile protest vote by democrats." By the time Jeb Bush is elected president you will be so wasted you wont even notice the war in Syria.
-- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

Gee, just like Christianity. No, Faith, that statement is completely bogus and without merit. You do NOT speak for most scholars. You have to provide some hard evidence to back up that statement.

Faith palters:

quote:

---

The motive is what makes it either murder or justice. When God does anything it is perfect justice and He explains His reasons for anyone who cares to find out.

---

Where can you find a definition of 'genocide' that takes motive into account? You quoted the definition yourself and yet you still don't understand it? "The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political or ethnic group." What part of that definition deals with motive?You are excusing genocide. You keep calling it "justice". Make no mistake, Faith, you are the one who is confused. There can never be any justification for genocide. Never.

quote:

---

And the execution of the Amalekites was just and fair...

---

Why do you keep justifying genocide? God ordered an entire race of people killed: men, women, elderly, handicapped, infant and suckling baby. All of them. An entire race. Check the definition of 'genocide' again because you clearly don't understand it. You keep confusing it with 'justice'.

quote:

---

quote:

---

My morality is one in which genocide is unacceptable under any circumstances whatsoever. It's what you might call a 'moral absolute'.

---

​

And from whence do you derive the authority to establish such moral absolutes? "YOUR" morality?

---

I dunno, I don't much worry about that. All I know is that according to my morality, genocide is wrong. It troubles me to encounter people like you who disagree.

---

Keep America Safe AND Free!

A few quick points...

quote:

---

But you prefer your self-righteousness to the righteousness of the God who made you so I leave you to your folly.

---

I often hear people say things like this as though I secretly believe in God and am purposely trying to defy Him. This is simply not the case. In my eyes, I'm not "preferring my own self-righteousness to the righteousness of the God who made me". I'm basing my view of morality entirely on my conscience - in other words, I don't consider the views a being that I don't believe to exist at all.I hesitate to say this (seeing your second quote, below), but think of it like this. Someone says to you that, under their belief system, Hitler was carrying out God's will through genocide. Would you not find it morally wrong anyway? If so, why? It was God's will, after all.Can you see, then, why you saying that your own God justified the slaughter does not justify it in my eyes?Furthermore, assuming that God does exist, creation of humankind does not make Him infallible - saying "the God who made you" does not lend him any more credit morally. If He does something clearly morally wrong to me and there is no better explanation than to say that it's right because He says that it is right, should his power override my own sense of justice? (I know, I'm being nitpicky, but the choice of words bothered me because it implied that God's righteousness was related to the power of creation.)

quote:

---

Anyone who would make such evil comparisons is frighteningly self-destructive.

---

You're either avoiding or missing the point. You said, "No, there are other evidences of God's love and goodness, tons of them, in the Bible and in our own lives." The point is that these are irrelevant - you can't prove that *everything* God does is good by pointing out examples of good things He does. Should we disregard an act that we see as inherently evil just because everything else someone does is good?In other words, evidences of goodness and love in a being don't prove that there are no evils or malices within it.{Edit: You know you should get some sleep when you type "disregard" as "discard".)This message has been edited by Morte, 02-24-2005 02:29 AM

quote:

---

If you know of a part of the Koran that specifically encourages the type of behavior of the likes of Bin Laden then please share them.

---

Thank you, but I have a great deal of experience with this and am always told that what I quote from the Koran is incorrectly translated, even when the translater is Muslim. A most recent experience involves the term 'nikah', and I was so wrong quoting the Muslim translater, I am still walking backward.As for hadith, I understand that Muslims accept a hadith as the word of Mahomet rather than Allah and, as you say, hadith equals radicals.==== The Hadith is a body of laws, legends and stories about Muhammad's way of life, (Arabic, Sunnah which includes his biography or the sira) and the sayings themselves where he elaborated on his choices or offered advice; many parts of the Hadith deal with his companions (Sahaba).=== From Wikipedia.

---

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
Hey, Albert, I agree!

Um, Buzsaw, I thought you already get the point back then? There is only One God, which is, God. If He chooses not to assign a name to Himself, and only reveals to us that He is God, the One ('Qul Huwa Allahu ahad'), then I have no problem with that.I thought only polytheists which had more than one god needs to assign names to their gods... Zeus, Loki, Amaterasu...Besides, I'm still inclined to think that 'YHWH' equals the Qur'anic 'Huwa' (like the one in the verse I quoted before), which literally just means 'He'.

Arabic is extremely difficult to translate correctly into English. I have a poem that my grandfather wrote that I have been trying to get translated for years. I have taken it to the professor at the university where I live and he basically told me that it is untranslatable. Not that he couldn't give me English words but rather that any translation would be of such poor quality as to nearly negate the purpose of the writing. He is native Egyptian and has been a professor of Arabic for something like 15 years. Yes you are correct. Glad to see someone who knows whats going on. The point I was also trying to make to buz and Faith is that while the Koran DOES talk about situations where violence should be used it is not the "Moslems are activly out to convert or kill you" type teaching that many believe is part of Islam for some reason.

---

By the way, for a fun second-term drinking game, chug a beer every time you hear the phrase, "...contentious but futile protest vote by democrats." By the time Jeb Bush is elected president you will be so wasted you wont even notice the war in Syria.
-- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

The name Palestine finds its root in Philistine, and the Philistines were not an Arabic people. (See Old Testament)
Google: Palestine FactsFrom Palestine Facts: Early History: The name "Falastin" that Arabs today use for "Palestine" is not an Arabic name. It is the Arab pronunciation of the Roman "Palaestina". Quoting Golda Meir:* The British chose to call the land they mandated Palestine, and the Arabs picked it up as their nation's supposed ancient name, though they couldn't even pronounce it correctly and turned it into Falastin a fictional entity. [In an article by Sarah Honig, Jerusalem Post, November 25, 1995]Hope that helps.
Ishmael and Isaac were brothers.....so much sibling rivalry.

Did you read this thread starting at this message? Message 44I am pretty tired of repeating myself on this to everyone who comes in here with this kind of attitude and handing out pro-Israel sources as objective.I don't care what someone says about how they think Palestinians got their name. The plain matter is my family was called Philistinis way before this supposed British influence. Granted, they had no NATIONAL identity because there was no concept of a nation. They did have a culture though and they were named by the region. Not knowing the concept of nationality dosen't illegetimize basing a new nationality
off of their former cultural identity. No. All it does is continue to propagate the misconception that Palestinians have no right to the land they called their home based on some illogical reasoning that they had no nation or national identity. It is hatred plain and simple and it does not help. Ahh, so lets continue to show how illegitimate Ishmael is by denying any of his decendents have any cultural identity all. While we are at it, lets write an apologetic history of the region based on a pro-Israel stance and fail to consult the people who ACTUALLY LIVED THERE!This message has been edited by Jazzns, 02-24-2005 07:49 AM

---

By the way, for a fun second-term drinking game, chug a beer every time you hear the phrase, "...contentious but futile protest vote by democrats." By the time Jeb Bush is elected president you will be so wasted you wont even notice the war in Syria.
-- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

There's always been a small minority of Christians in these nations, but they are oppressed, repressed and often severely persecuted. Voice Of The Martyrs has, in the past year reported the severe persecution of Christians in Iran whom they are lending aid to. I believe their website is The Voice of the Martyrs. Christians are not allowed to evangelize Muslims in many of these nations and if they do so it will be at great risk. In Andya's Indonesia alone, some 500 churches have been destroyed in recent years, Christians made homeless and some murdered, the government apathetic to their plight. Some 2 million Christians have been murdered in Sudan by central government forces and Muslim bands since 1990. The US and UN is finally beginning to take notice.

---

In Jehovah God's Universe; time, energy and boundless space had no beginning and will have no ending. The universe, by and through him, is, has always been and forever will be intelligently designed, changed and managed by his providence. buzsaw

Well, if someone comes to my door and tries to evangelize me, they better leave quickley or they too "will be at great risk". Really, why can't some people just keep their fricking mythological beliefs to themselves?!

Just for the record, Saudi Arabia doesn't allow the construction of Christian churches in the kingdom.

quote:

---

Unless you count Spain, Yugoslavia, and parts of Austria, Romania, and Hungary.

---

Well it is a fact that Muslims expanded into Europe, first to Spain, and much later the Ottoman Turks into the Balkans. But I thought Christianity also spread into Europe by lending the Roman Empire's hand?

quote:

---

But you raise a good point about Muslim religious tolerance. In Spain Jews lived quite tolerably under the Caliphs until Ferdinand and Isabella brought Christian rule and inquisition. Talk about your conversion by the sword!

---

Indeed, and this is a point us Muslims are always proud of. After the end of Muslim rule in Spain, Jews were oppressed. So some of them fled to North Africa--under Ottoman Turk rule at that time.The Ottomans were also tolerant of non-Muslims under their rule, so tolerant that many of their high officials were Christians and Jews!

Actually, it was even more than that. The Muslim caliph actually sent ships and paid to transport the Jews from Spain to his territories. The subsequent brain drain caused by the loss of the Jews in Spain was likely one of the big reasons that the standard of living and culture in Christian Europe fell so far from what it had been under Islamic Spain.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

So the fact that there were relatively few of them in comparison to the settlers justifies pushing a people aside for imperalistic purposes? Ever hear of the trail of tears?

---

I'm not going to defend all of Israel's dealings with the Arabs but I refuse the term "imperialistic" which is propaganda nonsense. The term was originated by Marxists and now used to point the finger at any victor in war and trump up "victim" status for the "oppressed." The Palestinians are suffering but that's not Israel's fault. There is nothing imperialistic about Israel. They simply want to run their own country in peace, and they have in fact gone farther than many think is in their own best interests to accommodate to peace efforts, efforts to establish a Palestinian state for instance. Always it is the Palestinians who refuse peace.

quote:

---

The NAME changed in 1967. People who were not Palestinians became the "Palestinian people." If your family has a legitimate claim to the title, the majority do not.

​

Even if it is true which I currently doubt, how does this make the incursion and the attrocites justified?

---

One thing at a time please. The great majority of the "Palestinians" do not have the longstanding residence in the land they claim. That's #1.#2 The claim of "atrocities" denies the terrorist activity in the Palestinian areas, tunnels under dwellings where weapons are smuggled in and stored for instance. These tunnels are known to be there by the Israelis who go out and bulldoze them closed. This attempt to keep their people from being murdered is called "atrocities" as part of the usual anti-Israel propaganda campaign. All the attacks on Palestinian areas are against terrorists and are scrupulously well aimed at the terrorists in order to avoid harming civilians. If the terrorism were to stop, all the Israeli defensive actions would stop. The Palestinians have had all kinds of opportunities to improve their situation. The Israelis would be very helpful to them, but they refuse, they continue their murders. They don't want a state, they don't want anything but Israel gone gone gone. They will never accept peace with Israel.

quote:

---

How is the adoption of a Philistini nationality where not had existed before a political agenda when no concept of nationality had even been known before? It is like saying you cannot be a homeowner if you just discovered that houses exist. It dosen't make any sense.

---

The majority of the people who claim the title do not deserve it, it is strictly a political maneuver, a deception in the service of Allah. I'll try to dig up some more quotes to this effect later.

quote:

---

If I have time I'll look into your sources. If they are anything like the place you retrieved your Koran quotes though I have reason to suspect that they are pro-Israel, pro-Imperialist like just about every other "history of Palestine" I have been refered to by people who hold the same position as you.

---

There are two sides to every story and I'm presenting the other side from the one that's obviously the most popular here. Facts are facts, if the quotes are true they're true, doesn't matter what the source is. Israel is not imperialist, that's ridiculous. I've been avoiding Christian sources because of the attitude toward "fundies" here but since there is a similar attitude to Jewish sources it probably makes little difference. I have a couple of good Christian books on the subject of Islam too. I can quote you from a book written by a Christian living in Israel, the true intentions of the Palestinians in the words of their leaders.