Islam does not hate christianity

Faith, that last comment was totally uncalled for. jazzns has not argued from emotion, but from personal experience. Now, that means that jazzns KNOWS what he/she is talking about. I've followed this thread because it looked interesting and so far you have provided very little support for your position other than biased opinion.For what its worth, I started off with a position sympathetic to the Israelis, but the more I've learned of the situation and the events, the more I've come to realise that, while there may be wrongs on both sides, the Palestinians have been oppressed by the Israelis and their war machine. Now this is just unsubstantiated opinion based on news reports over the last 20 years or so, but my view is at least as valid as yours.On top of that, Israelis seem to have a reputation of shooting anything that moves and I can't find any excuses for this type of actionBBC NEWS | Middle East | Aid worker killed 'by Israeli soldier'I also point you in the direction of this sitehttp://www.sabra-shatila.be/english/Can you still claim that all Israeli action is justified?

Faith, you sayNowhere in my post did I accuse you of defending the supposed Israel-committed atrocoties of the Sabra and Shatlia incident for the very simple reason that I'm well-aware of the fact that the atrocities were committed by Christian Phalangists. However, I think you'll find if you dig a little deeper that the Israeli Defence Minister of the time, one Arial Sharon was up to his neck in it. If you'd even bothered to look at the link I posted, you would have noticed two little sentences in it which say Doesn't that give you quite a big hint that I'm aware that Phalangists were responsible? Or do you think I post links to websites I've not read myself?Now, if you continue reading the site you find the following These sentences follow straight after the previous two with no other sentences in between. The the whole point I was making, which has sailed over your head, plop onto the wall, is that the Israeli Army knew what was going on, watched what was going on and did not one thing to stop it.Now have a look at the top of the article where it explains that Sharon can't be indicted as long as he is Prime Minister of Israel. I take that to mean that he can be indicted once out of office.Now, why indict Sharon? Have a look at this sitehttp://www.indictsharon.net/To summarise the pertinant points, Sharon sent the Phalangists into the camps which had been surrounded by Israeli troops and tanks. He even says so himself in his autobiography. The Israeli forces did everything they could to assist the Phalangists, such as shelling the camps and providing flarelight during the night. The Knesset set up an inquiry headed by Mr Yitzhak Kahan which eventually decided that Sharon, as Minister of Defence was personally responsible for the massacres. Now, that decision wasn't made by anti-Israelis, it was made by the Israeli Parliament!!!!!!! Biased yes, but biased in favour of Israel.For the sake of completeness, I suggest you familiarise yourself with the Kahan Commission Report, especially page 104. You can read the whole thing, in all its unedifying glory herehttp://www.mideastweb.org/Kahan_report.htmYou can also check out the Jewish Agency For Israel site which gives an overview and interpretation of the report - you'll find it hereThe Jewish Agency for Israel - U.S.Even viewing the Israeli players sympathetically, the JAFI site acknowledges that action was taken against various Israeli politicians and military men and accepts that they were "indirectly" responsible for the massacres as they stood by and did nothing, even worse that they sent the Phalangists in, knowing that they hated Palestinians and that the outcome was sadly predictable.Now, I really don't think that my previous post showed any of the "usual tones of moral indignation" and you might be better to use your energy in actually learning something about the subject before you attempt to assign moral indignation to someone's presentation of cold facts.This message has been edited by Trixie, 02-26-2005 16:52 AM

I understand that you have many posts to deal with, not the least of which is a sincere apology to jazzns for some of the rather rude and callous remarks you've made. I'm choosing to believe that you really didn't mean them the way they've come across, but however its happened, an apology might just help a bit.One of the reasons you have so many people arguing against your posts is that you make assertions based on your opinion, without evidence to back them up, then when someone presents evidence which shows you to be wrong, you resort to name-calling and suchlike. An example is your "moral indignation" jibe at me and your latest Why do you always assume that you're the only person on here that knows the "truth". Have you stopped to consider that maybe others actually have a valid point? Have you even done any searching on these other points of view? Don't just disregard them and keep parroting your opinions as "facts". For example, a little hunting around would have saved you much time and effort in using that book as evidence, can't remember the name of it, can't be bothered looking back through the thread to find it, but you know the one I mean.Can I say that I've met many Muslims in all walks of life and I've discussed their beliefs with them and your descriptions of Islam bear no resemblance to what they actually believe. I once thought like you until I decided to find out for myself and stop listening to hysterical scare-mongering. Incidentally, the impetus for my inquiries was the Lockerbie bombing and every Muslim I spoke to expressed their condolences and utter shame that people of their faith had done this thing which went against all the teachings in the Koran.Now, I'm no expert in Islam, I haven't read the Koran, but then reading the Koran wouldn't tell me the real interpretations and beliefs of Muslims, just like the Bible doesn't give me any idea of the interpretations and real beliefs of Christians.A question for you. Some Christians believe that when they go to Mass, the bread is truly becomes the Body of Christ. Does that mean that we can extrapolate and say that all Christians believe this? Some Christians believe that the Pope is God's representative and is a direct successor to St Peter. Does that mean that we can extrapolate and say that all Christians believe this? You see, this is what you're doing to Muslims. You're extrapolating from a very few and applying it to all.Funnily enough, Islam at least acknowledges that Jesus existed and that He was important, something that the Jewish faith doesn't. That puts Islam closer to Christianity than Judaism. At the end of the day, all three faiths have the same God.

So why do you have such a problem with Islam?

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.

Thanks for that Faith, but I don't need a running commentary on the web sites, I just wanted to hear exactly what it is you have against Islam. To be quite frank, I find that many stories in the Old Testament are pretty bloodthirsty and advocate violence against other faiths, but only if you take the whole thing literally.I am assuming that you see the Bible as the inerrant Word of God, rather than a record written by fallible man? To be honest, stories like the slaughter of the Amakelites I see as man's attempts to justify what he has done by claiming "God told me to". I believe Peter Sutcliffe used the same tactic. Unfortunately for him, the courts didn't believe him.Yu will find encouragement to violence in the Bible and in the Koran if that is how you choose to interpret them. Snag is, you really have to interpret both in the same way to reach a valid conclusion. At the moment you seem to be judging the Bible by one standard and the Koran by another standard.If I'm not really understanding your position, then please enlighten me.