Islam does not hate christianity

You are asking people to condemn the actions of the Israelis on the basis of hearsay and emotion and it is totally one-sided. Really, it would be far better if you left your family out of this altogether because it does nothing but bring emotion into a discussion that requires dispassionate argument and real evidence, which your family's situation is not. Who knows, if the whole story were presented your family might be shown to be in the right, but the whole story is not getting presented here, not even a smidgen of the other side's point of view, and this is unfair argumentation. Is that an objective argument there or just an emotional outburst? See how you make this into a battle of emotion? You tell us "no reason" but you don't know that. Would you execute a person for a crime on the basis of an emotional witness' accusation? Be careful, that's how miscarriages of justice occur all the time. That's all you're doing here, making emotional accusations, proving nothing. I'm not in a position to prove anything with nothing but your feelings for facts, and you are proving nothing whatever. This discussion is completely worthless as it is all nothing but your emotional assertions, and I'm going to end it. No more discussion of Palestine from me. It's gone way off topic anyway.{edited to clean up quote codes)
This message has been edited by Faith, 02-27-2005 15:20 AMThis message has been edited by Faith, 02-27-2005 15:24 AM

quote:

---

jar writes:
So you agree that prophecy can be transmitted through an intermediary such as an angel?

​

To which Faith replied:

​

No, not until I've reread the books of Daniel, Revelation and Zechariah to check out whether it was ever the case in the Bible, or until somebody produces a Bible quote clearly showing that an angel did actually give prophecy as well as explain it.

​

Faith, have ever read ANY of the Bible? It's beginning to sound like you're just like most Fundamentalists and Literalists and have never even read the Book you're quoting. Who, may I ask, spoke to Joseph relating the birth of what he believed to be a bastard?

---

Good point, the birth of Jesus was announced by angels. My focus was on the Old Testament and it was on prophecy of future events.

quote:

---

Then jar asked:

​

If so, is the Christian GOD the same person as the Jewish GOD?

​

to which Faith replied:
Yes.
So again I ask, "Do you agree that prophecy may be transmitted through beings other than GOD (if you do not agree then Jesus is nothing but a bastard) and that the GOD of Christians is the same GOD as the GOD of the Jews?

---

I still need to study the scriptures more carefully to see if this is really prophecy or if the announcement of a fulfillment of prophecy is something else. Have you memorized every word in the scriptures? Neither have I. I've read the entire Bible but since it has come up I don't know in a given case whether a prophecy was given to an Old Testament prophet by an angel or in all cases merely explained by angels. The great majority of OT prophecy was given direct from the mouth of God to the prophet.

quote:

---

And this really is on topic as you will find when we work through this.

​

Please excuse my slowness but I'm just an old man and can't handle big ideas and concepts. I'm afraid I have to break them down into little pieces to get my old mind to fathom them.

---

I'm not so young myself.This message has been edited by Faith, 02-27-2005 15:35 AM

quote:

---

Faith, I asked you what YOUR problem was with Islam, not what those websites problems were. I believe it is against forum guidelines to supply only bare links with no input from yourself.

---

OK, I'll go through them later and give my own input on them.

quote:

---

The Qur'an only said that violence is allowed in defense. Period.

---

But what is defined as "defense" may cover a lot of ambiguous ground.

quote:

---

2:178 is about retaliating. This is allowed in Islam.

---

But what is considered to be provocation may cover a lot of ambiguous ground.

quote:

---

2:190 is 'fight those who fight you'. Defense.

---

But "those who fight you" may be defending themselves in the first place but it could still be called fighting you right?Also isn't there quite a bit of leeway about what "fighting you" means? Simply saying a word against Mohammed can be provocation to war.

quote:

---

2:193 and 2:216 is about fighting against oppression. That's a reason.

---

And fighting against oppression may be without concern whatever for the causes of the oppression, right? Say, the Palestinian refugee situation was caused by the Arab states but blaming Israel and fighting Israel is just fine anyway, right? Say, the "occupation" is perfectly legitimate but if it causes oppression then it's okay to fight the "oppressors." And by the way, the jargon of "oppressor and oppressed" comes from Marxism.Just wanted to have a more complete answer to the above than I gave before.

NOTICE: I am no longer responding to posts about the Palestine-Israel conflict. It became a battle about unprovable personal experience and feelings and I don't want to play that game. If somebody wants to try to collect the objective aspects of it in another thread maybe I'll join you.

quote:

---

The next thing you will hear is that they don't believe in Jesus but this other weird guy called Isa who did miracles and stuff...

---

"Isa" is the legitimate Arabic equivalent of "Jesus", but "Allah" is not the Name of God. If it were ALWAYS used only in its generic or at least popular sense as "God" (which, as I understand it, is not linguistically or historically correct in any case) there would not be a problem, but when it is used as God's Name it is false. [Edit: He is not the same God in any case because he does not have the same character and attributes as the true God who reveals Himself in the Bible and nowhere else.]And of course they don't believe in Jesus as they believe wrong things about Jesus.This message has been edited by Faith, 02-27-2005 17:58 AM

On this forum we speak English, in which language the generic word for God is "God." For an English-speaking Muslim to call God "Allah" instead of "God" is to use a name for God, NOT the generic as is so often claimed.[Edit: And again, the Muslim God is not the Biblical God because he does not have the same character and attributes as the Biblical God.]Time for you to concede something. LONG PAST time as a matter of fact. You should also concede that your personal experience does not amount to an argument as it is only the testimony of a witness in a case in which the other side has no representation.This message has been edited by Faith, 02-27-2005 18:26 AM

quote:

---

Isn't that exactly what he's said? That if it makes Israel look bad, it's always a lie?

​

I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt - some things are said for emphasis rather than to be taken literally. I try to pick my own word choice carefully to be sure that I don't imply something I don't mean to (especially online, where - as you'll often see here, most notably in the Rrhain/holmes chains - people tend to pick apart everything you say and occasionally even add a meaning that it was quite clear you weren't trying to express). However, I realize that not everyone does this and I slip up myself quite often anyway.

---

Thank you VERY much. The nitpickers around here who pounce on every casual phrase and would "make a person an offender for a word" are getting to me.

quote:

---

I try to pick my own word choice carefully to be sure that I don't imply something I don't mean to

---

Excellent advice, and necessary in this place, that's for sure.I'm going through the posts one by one as I can get to them and am not ignoring the rest of your post, though since it is about Israel I don't know if I will answer it, as it's off topic and I said I was no longer answering those. However, since it is on the objective side of the issue I may get back to it.

quote:

---

If you follow up on stuff like this you ALWAYS find out it's a lie.

​

Oh, always? You followed this one up? Or did you just assume that, since Israel cannot err, they must be blameless?

---

See Morte's post on this. You are making an issue out of a mere exaggeration for effect --I shouldn't use the term "always" I admit, but your jumping on it is a red herring, a total waste of time. You are misrepresenting me by claiming I think Israel is blameless as I've said otherwise.I was unable to find the reference I thought I remembered about the girl. What I have found suggests a soldier got out of hand, was being held accountable for murder by the IDF, but was then freed because of a lying witness. A single soldier's misbehavior is not the fault of all Israel, especially when steps were taken to bring him to justice. When do the Palestinians bring their terrorists to justice at all by the way?

quote:

---

I don't trust the media

​

No, it's clear that you trust nothing except the Bible and Israel, which you trust absolutely; any evidence that contradicts either of those can be summarily dismissed.

---

That's an ad hominem, sir, which I thought was out of bounds on this site. Though I exaggerate for effect at times, and hope I can stop doing it, you are over the top with exaggerations and misrepresentations.

quote:

---

Let me pose a question - could Israel, in your opinion, ever go to far? Or is there no tactic that Israel could adopt that you would not support in the name of their own security?

---

I'm sure they HAVE gone too far in some circumstances. All I'm doing is answering the absurd TOTAL smear campaign against them that says they never do anything right, they are nothing but evil murderers without any redeeming moral qualities, there are no just reasons for one single thing they ever do. Their side is NOT heard in the media or from any of you except in the briefest and most unsympathetic way, while the Palestinian side is played up with discussions of the pathetic circumstances of each of the victims, all the while ASSUMING perfidious Israeli behavior without the slightest interest in the Israeli side of the story. Lots of denunciations, accusations, fingerpointing, emotional carrying on. How often do we see lingering reports on the experiences of the victims of the suicide bombers as we do the endless reports on the Palestinian victims? No, it's always the Palestinians are "oppressed" they are ALWAYS the victims, their atrocities are always justified by their suffering from "occupation." It's all a put-up and until this is recognized there will never be a way to find out where Israel may commit excesses.[edit: I did it again. READ "ALWAYS" TO MEAN THAT THIS IS THE HABITUAL TYPICAL GENERAL TREND AND DON'T TAKE IT LITERALLY FOR CRYING OUT LOUD.]Now I answered another one about the Israel-Palestine flap and I don't want to answer any more.This message has been edited by Faith, 02-27-2005 20:25 AM

quote:

---

You do, after all, fly off the handle at the slightest suggestion that Israel is culpable for some pretty bad deeds. Like in this post, for instance. The slightest hint that Israel might have done something bad and off you go.

---

Slightest hint? No, lists of heinous crimes given without any regard to the other side.

quote:

---

A single soldier's misbehavior is not the fault of all Israel, especially when steps were taken to bring him to justice.

​

He wasn't brought to justice, though. They let him go. They cleared him of all charges. No steps were taken to bring him to justice by Israel.

---

Yes, well I understand that you are judge and jury here and disagree with his being cleared but he was cleared by a legal process and that's justice whether you like it or not. They found the witness to be lying. That's grounds for clearing him whether you like it or not.

quote:

---

It's that side of the story I've repeatedly asked for, but which you won't provide. What's the Israel side of the Iman Al-Hams story? What was the oh-so-reasonable security interest that meant a 13-year-old girl had to be shot 15 times?

---

It was apparently one Israeli soldier who went nuts, had nothing to do with Israeli policy, as I already said.

quote:

---

Faith, I'd really like an answer to the following questions:
Are there any information sources which are critical of Israel that you accept as reliable? If so, what are they?

​

Are there any information sources supportive of Islam or the Palestinians that you accept as reliable? If so, what are they?

---

I don't have such a rule. I deal with each point as I see it.

Re: No more discussion of Palestine from me
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hardly. Apples and oranges. Many witnesses are always better than one, but if they're all on one side of an issue that's unjust. You always have to hear both sides of a story. In this case we're being asked to condemn the Israelis without considering their side of the story at all. We're asked to take the (one in this case) witness' word for it that there was "no reason" for their action. In fact it is DEMANDED that we take the witness' word for this. The testimony is highly emotional and prejudiced and if we don't agree with the single testimony from this one side we are casting a foul light on the witness' family and so on and so forth. This is classical lynch mob thinking. THIS IS WHY WE HAVE COURTS OF LAW. You CANNOT just hear one side of a story and judge people on that basis.

quote:

---

So let me get this straight.
As a Christian, you believe that violence against innocents in response to violence of related individuals is justified?

---

Straw man. Misrepresentation.

quote:

---

You think that destroying the homes of more people is going to make already pissed off people stop being pissed off?

---

I haven't judged the wisdom of Israel's tactics at all. There may be better ways of stopping the terrorism, I don't know, but that is their aim, to stop the terrorism and that's a reasonable objective. Actually, there is probably not a better way as the terrorism is ideologically generated, is ultimately not about the political situation. Israel has apparently taken the position that force is the only thing that will deal with the terrorism and they may be right, that's a judgment call. There does seem to be an attitude among Muslims that if the opponent doesn't respond with force they're weak and fair game, and that provokes MORE terrorism, not less.

quote:

---

Here is a great idea! In order to make people not want to blow us up, lets attack their women and children! In fact, lets make it a policy! Surely they will see the light of peace! Homelessness IS the path to enlightenment after all!

---

Straw man. Total misrepresentation. Total disregard for the Israeli side of the story and complete misrepresentation of what I've said here.Again, as I say above, there is good reason to think that force works better -- not perfectly but better -- in this situation despite all this kind of rhetoric. The peace efforts have accomplished nothing. In fact the terrorism has often escalated at just those times. This is an ideologically driven war.

My point has been that the ISRAELI side of the story is not heard. ASK THEM for heaven's sake, don't ask me!

quote:

---

On this forum we speak English, in which language the generic word for God is "God." For an English-speaking Muslim to call God "Allah" instead of "God" is to use a name for God, NOT the generic as is so often claimed.

---

quote:

---

This's a very well thought out point, Faith, and soundly refutes the bogus argument that Allah is not the proper name of the Muslim God.

​

You've certainly done a masterful job of setting the record straight in this thread, imo. Keep up the good work and when this thread's finished, I hope to see more of your good stuff elsewhere. Your effort here is much appreciated!!

---

Thanks Buz. I'm glad you're here for encouragement as nobody else is going to acknowledge any good points I make.

quote:

---

Straw man. Misrepresentation.

​

No. First off, how can a question be a strawman? A strawman is a claim based on a misconstruction of the argument. Since I am making no claim it cannot be a strawman. I was responding to buz when he said.

---

Sorry, I answered out of turn. But it is a straw man. You certainly are making a claim, as in "Do you still beat your wife?" that's no question. But I'll leave you and Buz to sort out the rest since it wasn't my place to answer.