All the criticism of the Muslim faith inflames religious prejudices. Now, even Christians who are liberal in their faith cannot say good things about the Muslim religion without turning other Christians against them. It is the same with Muslims who can no longer defend their faith in public for fear of being labeled right wing and marginalizing themselves among even the most liberal Muslims.

Suppose, Muslims see their society as a vast civilization with a glorious history and culture. Suppose they identify with it and feel pride in it.

Then suppose Jews and Christians come and take part of their domain, bring in troops, bomb their cities, take over their governments and threaten ones they have not yet invaded. And all this is done on the excuse that we have to kill all their terrorists, that is, the ones who most effectively resist!

Most Muslims have adopted and adapted into the secular world. They live much like you and I. Islam is being criticized because its Scriptures promote the killing of “infidels.” That is because both Islam and Christinaity are Jewish faiths. It is even in the New Testament even though most Christians do not practice it---neither do most Muslims. For thousands of years, it was largely ignored in the same way we have ignored the same thing in the Christian Scriptures. In the Old Testament, in Numbers 35:1921 and elsewhere, adulterers are to be stoned to death. In Luke 19-26,27, non-believers are to be brought before Christ and slaughtered.

A religion is not what its scriptures say but what the people do!

Charles, http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com

muslims always have a point, to my mind, their preachers (other than the terrorist preachers) are probably the best of all the religions.

muslims always have a point, to my mind, their preachers (other than the terrorist preachers) are probably the best of all the religions.
Are you saying all other religions are inferior???

I think he means that they are more effective. Myself, I have only been in one Mosque where I bowed down with the others and heard the Immam speak. (I have the nerve to do that sort of thing even being an atheist!). The immam spoke on the subject of how depleated and put down Islam is and has been. That was the general topic. In that mosque, he spoke in English. In others I have been in were not in service althought I saw the glass partition separating the women.

I would say that the speech was more like a speech and right on subject. But that might be because they do not consider themselves a clergy. They think of themselves just as lay people volunteering to speak. In The Unitar5ian Universalist Churches, this is also what happens. There is less of the "hollier than thou" attitude.

charles, http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com

Most khutbas are like that; general commentaries on religion or a point of interest in society. They are rarely preachy in tone or nature.

Its true, the Imam that spoke at Eid Al Fatir (end of Ramadan) was a volunteer, who was studying at uni at the same time. The person who gives the sermon at my school for the friday prayer (an informal gathering of friends) always differs.

I just think they are so much more inspiring than the mumbling quoting of a bible that you experience at most christian churches - or alternatively, christian vicars priest or whatever try to be all new anad inspirational and try to apply things to a modern theme from the bible, which is always cheesy and annoying.

Imams don't change their religion to suit us, they just speak with more sense, devotion, and persuasion

All the criticism of the Muslim faith inflames religious prejudices. Now, even Christians who are liberal in their faith cannot say good things about the Muslim religion without turning other Christians against them. It is the same with Muslims who can no longer defend their faith in public for fear of being labeled right wing and marginalizing themselves among even the most liberal Muslims.

Suppose, Muslims see their society as a vast civilization with a glorious history and culture. Suppose they identify with it and feel pride in it.

Then suppose Jews and Christians come and take part of their domain, bring in troops, bomb their cities, take over their governments and threaten ones they have not yet invaded. And all this is done on the excuse that we have to kill all their terrorists, that is, the ones who most effectively resist!

Most Muslims have adopted and adapted into the secular world. They live much like you and I. Islam is being criticized because its Scriptures promote the killing of “infidels.” That is because both Islam and Christinaity are Jewish faiths. It is even in the New Testament even though most Christians do not practice it---neither do most Muslims. For thousands of years, it was largely ignored in the same way we have ignored the same thing in the Christian Scriptures. In the Old Testament, in Numbers 35:1921 and elsewhere, adulterers are to be stoned to death. In Luke 19-26,27, non-believers are to be brought before Christ and slaughtered.

A religion is not what its scriptures say but what the people do!

Charles, http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com

You do not know true Christianity. And your twisting of a parrable is most underhanded.

True Christians do not take part in war.

I have read you posts and your referance to the "people of the Book" and likewise your use of the parable to give a false impression of Christianity.

You are a muslim, come out and give us your real name why don't you.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

I just think they are so much more inspiring than the mumbling quoting of a bible that you experience at most christian churches - or alternatively, christian vicars priest or whatever try to be all new anad inspirational and try to apply things to a modern theme from the bible, which is always cheesy and annoying.

Imams don't change their religion to suit us, they just speak with more sense, devotion, and persuasion

Hey, Most of them are ordinary people with ordinary lives, who see the world just as you and i do, but it differs from country to country. You might have been lucky and just gone to a better mosque. Islam as a whole, has some aspects that need to change but not as fluidly as or as wide ranged as christianity.

not sure whos side your on :bugeye:

All the criticism of the Muslim faith inflames religious prejudices. Now, even Christians who are liberal in their faith cannot say good things about the Muslim religion without turning other Christians against them. It is the same with Muslims who can no longer defend their faith in public for fear of being labeled right wing and marginalizing themselves among even the most liberal Muslims.

Chuck, where do you see this marginalization occuring? I've never observed this one yet.

Suppose, Muslims see their society as a vast civilization with a glorious history and culture. Suppose they identify with it and feel pride in it.

Okaaay. (Let's not forget that other civilizations, religious and secular alike, feel the same.)

Then suppose Jews and Christians come and take part of their domain, bring in troops, bomb their cities, take over their governments and threaten ones they have not yet invaded. And all this is done on the excuse that we have to kill all their terrorists, that is, the ones who most effectively resist!

Well, does this explain the hostility of the religion from its onset to the present day? Who was bombing islam in the 8th century?

Most Muslims have adopted and adapted into the secular world. They live much like you and I.

Yes.

Islam is being criticized because its Scriptures promote the killing of “infidels.” That is because both Islam and Christinaity are Jewish faiths. It is even in the New Testament even though most Christians do not practice it---neither do most Muslims. For thousands of years, it was largely ignored in the same way we have ignored the same thing in the Christian Scriptures. In the Old Testament, in Numbers 35:1921 and elsewhere, adulterers are to be stoned to death. In Luke 19-26,27, non-believers are to be brought before Christ and slaughtered.

Ah. You have misunderstood the parable, or else your source has done and you have uncritically posted same. Seriously: read it.

A religion is not what its scriptures say but what the people do!

Precisely. And it is this that is the problem.

You do not know true Christianity. And your twisting of a parrable is most underhanded.

True Christians do not take part in war.

I have read you posts and your referance to the "people of the Book" and likewise your use of the parable to give a false impression of Christianity.

You are a muslim, come out and give us your real name why don't you.
All Praise The Ancient Of Days

What parrable are you referring to? Isn't the Bible supposed to be "the inerrent World of God?" You think I should interpret it other than what it directly and clearly says? Myself, I think it should be read and interpreted just as it says. If I were like you, I would only list good sections of the Bible and ignore the abysmal faults, but I am not like you. I am an atheist and not prejudiced by ANY religion, Christianity or Islam, Judiasm Hinduism or any other.

Oh, by the way, I give my real name. It is just that way on my drivers license and birth cirtifiuate. Unlike others, I do not hide in here!

[QUOTE=GeoffP;1600352]Chuck, Well, does this explain the hostility of the (Muslim) religion from its onset to the present day? Who was bombing islam in the 8th century?

Ah. You have misunderstood the parable, or else your source has done and you have uncritically posted same. Seriously: read it. [QUOTE]

What hostility? The empire of our Christian civilization invaded and covered some 90% of the Globe until the last half century. The Leaders and states of Islam never conquered and ruled more than a third of the world. The Ottomans conquered the Balkins, but the Castilians invaded and conquered Spain. All of SouthEast Asia became Muslim peacefully.

How could anyone have bombed anyone in the 8th century??? No one had bombs or planes then!

Don't write to me about parables. I take what I read literally. You should also. Don't tell me what the Scriptures MEANT. They mean just what they say.

charles, http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com

What hostility? The empire of our Christian civilization invaded and covered some 90% of the Globe until the last half century.

I think you have overstepped the bounds of reasonable history. Christian expansion in the 8th century - which is when the islamic invasions began to occur - had not expanded so far as a tenth or twentieth of the globe. Yet, they were still invaded from without by islamic armies at the behest of one Caliph or another (most particularly Umar, who was actually 9th century as I recall). In particular, the Assyrian Christian, Zoroastrian Persian, Christian Coptic and North African, Christian Spanish, Balkan, and Eastern Roman kingdoms and Empires were invaded and occupied during this period by islamic armies. No civilizational response was initiated by the Christian civilization until 970 AD with the first preaching of...Urban II (?? think it was him). This is much later, as you may note: 10th century. Meanwhile, the eastern and central Christian kingdoms had been conquered as early as the 7th century. That's 300 years of difference.

The Leaders and states of Islam never conquered and ruled more than a third of the world. The Ottomans conquered the Balkins, but the Castilians invaded and conquered Spain.

?? I assume you mean they reconquered Spain from the islamic invaders and occupiers. Look up "Reconquista".

All of SouthEast Asia became Muslim peacefully.

Hmm...is Pakistan considered part of SouthEast Asia? Malaysia and Indonesia are making up for their presumed pacifistic leanings these days, of course.

How could anyone have bombed anyone in the 8th century??? No one had bombs or planes then!

Correct! A breakthrough. America and England were not bombing dar-al-islam in that period; ergo, you cannot justify islamic political aggression on that basis in that period and up until the present.

Don't write to me about parables. I take what I read literally.

:bugeye:...you are aware, I suppose, that the Bible itself calls them parables. I think even Jesus calls it a parable.

Unless you think the following is really just direct advice about home lighting?

"No one after lighting a lamp puts it in a cellar or under a bushel, but on a stand, that those who enter may see the light." (Luke 11:33)

Maybe Mark 4: 3-9 is also, thereby, about wise agricultural strategy? Have you ever read Harry Potter? Do you believe there is really an academy called "Hogwarts"?

You should also.

No, because that would be foolhardy in the extreme. It is frankly impossible to regard that parable as a call to "round up people for slaughter" without grossly distorting the message. You realize that you're trying to defend literalism here?

You do not know true Christianity. And your twisting of a parrable is most underhanded.
WHAT is True christianity?

True Christians do not take part in war.
could you DEFINE True Christian for us.

We should have a "Preach Off", that way after all those who preach will be

judged on their sermons. Let us see who really is "The Best Damn Preacher

In THe World" contest.:)

The Leaders and states of Islam never conquered and ruled more than a third of the world. The Ottomans conquered the Balkins, but the Castilians invaded and conquered Spain. All of SouthEast Asia became Muslim peacefully.


This is so historically inaccurate I don't know where to begin but islam and muslims have enough nonsense to contend with here now so I will restrain myself and just say this is false. If you want to delve deeper into this we could do it in the history subforum.

I llived in Southeast Asia for five years and know a little about the area and about Islam! On my webpage I have a history of Islam. Included is a bibliography. I don't know what you have been reading, but you seem very critical without being at all specific. Perhaps this has been a bad day for you and I should ignore it. . .

charles, http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com

All the criticism of the Muslim faith inflames religious prejudices. Now, even Christians who are liberal in their faith cannot say good things about the Muslim religion without turning other Christians against them. It is the same with Muslims who can no longer defend their faith in public for fear of being labeled right wing and marginalizing themselves among even the most liberal Muslims.

Suppose, Muslims see their society as a vast civilization with a glorious history and culture. Suppose they identify with it and feel pride in it.

Then suppose Jews and Christians come and take part of their domain, bring in troops, bomb their cities, take over their governments and threaten ones they have not yet invaded. And all this is done on the excuse that we have to kill all their terrorists, that is, the ones who most effectively resist!

Most Muslims have adopted and adapted into the secular world. They live much like you and I. Islam is being criticized because its Scriptures promote the killing of “infidels.” That is because both Islam and Christinaity are Jewish faiths. It is even in the New Testament even though most Christians do not practice it---neither do most Muslims. For thousands of years, it was largely ignored in the same way we have ignored the same thing in the Christian Scriptures. In the Old Testament, in Numbers 35:1921 and elsewhere, adulterers are to be stoned to death. In Luke 19-26,27, non-believers are to be brought before Christ and slaughtered.

A religion is not what its scriptures say but what the people do!

Charles, http://HumanPorpoise.Simpleton.com
What a load of PC CRAP, and completely contrary to the real world.


Wanted: a Muslim Reformation
National Post (Canada)
Sept 26, 2003

No religion has a monopoly on violence. Christianity has the Spanish Inquisition and the bloody excesses of the Crusades...."

But it will Not do to take the Politically Correct course and Lump all Religions in the Same basket, at least not insofar as our own era is concerned. Christian civilization underwent a Reformation in the 16th century, embraced the Enlightenment with its intellectual and theological pluralism, separated Church from State and encouraged scholarship and democracy. Judaism has followed a similar process -- as have, more recently, the faiths of the far East. Islam, on the other hand, is still struggling with this transition. And if there is to be peace in the Middle East and an end to terror worldwide, Muslims must accept that their faith is overdue for a doctrinal overhaul.

[..........]
Christianity still has its fanatical, bigoted elements. But those Christians who advocate the slaughter of non-believers make up an almost imperceptibly tiny fraction of the faithful. Much is made of the intolerant pronouncements of high-profile evangelists. A few deranged anti-abortion snipers aside, however, this is just talk. Even terrorists that claim to be part of the Christian world-- such as Spain's Basque extremists and America's Timothy McVeigh-- typically do not operate under any sort of religious aegis.

By contrast, a large minority of the world's one billion Muslims still adhere to militant interpretations of their faith, including the Wahabi sect of Sunni Islam, centred in and spread by Saudi Arabia. These interpretations all embrace as a central tenet the duty of jihad -- which, despite whitewashing efforts in the West, continues to mean what it has meant since the 7th century: the slaughter or forced conversion of non-Muslim "infidels." With few exceptions -- such as old-school Palestinian terrorists who cling to Marxist rhetoric -- Muslim terrorist groups all explicitly take Islam as their inspiration. Osama bin Laden is a Hero to Hundreds of Millions of Muslims, and al-Qaeda continues to receive financing from a wide array of Muslim charities.
Christians kill. Jews kill. Hindus kill. But no other faith group on the planet has embraced random slaughter in anything approaching the manner of radicalized Muslims.

The mainstream Arabic media is shot through with the most extreme sort of Hatred...
"Muslim advocacy organizations in the West, including Canada's own Canadian Islamic Congress, typically reject the claim that there is a problem with contemporary Islam, preferring to lay the world's problems at the feet of Israel and U.S. foreign policy.

Indeed, any Critical Scrutiny of their Religion is decried as "Bigotry"..... But it is evident these commentators are putting pride of faith above Truth.
The celebrations in the Islamic world on Sept. 11, 2001...."

Original link expired, The full article can now be found here:

http://www.jewishtoronto.com/content_display.html?ArticleID=85448

I llived in Southeast Asia for five years and know a little about the area and about Islam! On my webpage I have a history of Islam. Included is a bibliography. I don't know what you have been reading, but you seem very critical without being at all specific. Perhaps this has been a bad day for you and I should ignore it. . .

charles, http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com

I was not being specific because I don't personally have a problem with muslims but rewriting of history irks me. In this enviornment any correcting of your misconceptions will most likely be construed as me attacking muslims. I think whitewashing of history is detrimental. If you want to find voices critical of what europeans did during the crusades and colonial times for example you will find many of the most vocal critics in europe. I would dare say that the majority of western scholars would tell you that the crusades and the colonial period were wrong I doubt you will hear the same type of opinion from the majority of muslim scholars regarding historical muslim transgressions. That bothers me but in the current atmosphere I have a difficult time expecting any such thing, maybe later. Muslims have a sordid history of aggression just like christian europeans doubtfully any better or worse. The height of it was just earlier than christian europes. Even the crusades were a belated response to 400 years of muslim expansion.

As for conquest of southeast asia at the very beginning
Ibn Kathir remarks in al-Bidaya wa n-Nihaya, "The Muslims invaded India during the days of Mu'awiya in the year 44 A.H and [great] events transpired then. And [likewise] the mighty and magnificent King Mahmud b. Subuktikin the ruler of Ghazna invaded the lands of India at the turn of the fifth century. He entered India and killed, took captive, [and] enslaved [many]. He took [muc] booty. He entered as-Sumanat (*) and destroyed the great al-Budda which they worship and he stripped it of its jewlery. He then returned [to Ghazna] safe, [Divinely-]aided, and victorious."

There are plenty of descriptions of the muslim conquest of the indian subcontinent that don't paint a pretty picture.
In the words of William Durant in his "story of civilization".

The Mohammedan conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history.

Now before anyone accuses him of being anti-islam he also said this of muslim Spain

William Durant, an American historian, wrote that Islamic Spain was an honor to mankind.

I think both of these are probably exaggerated but islams entry into south east asia was certainly not peaceful.

Read about Aurangzeb, Tamerlane and numerous others. I gotta go to bed.

The oldest mosque in India is from the time of the Prophet; the oldest Muslim populations (in South, East and West India) are not associated with any conquerors. Not unusual for Western historians to base Eastern history on limited information. e.g. Mills 'famous' history of India written without laying a foot in the land.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juma_Masjid,_Palayam

religions stupid full stop we would be a lot better without it. I'm sick of christians and muslims oposing it on me..

religions stupid full stop we would od a lot better without it. if not i'm sick of christians and muslims oposing it on me..

hwtavree

He based his work on muslim historys.

Not unusual for Western historians to base Eastern history on limited information. e.g. Mills 'famous' history of India written without laying a foot in the land.
He based his work on muslim historys and devoted his life to it.

Hmm and these Muslim historians were working under kings? Had no political or social bias? One of the most famous historians is Ibn Ishaq who devoted his life to studying oral traditions about the Prophet and even he included a disclaimer that his work should be taken with a grain of salt since he had no way of verifying the truth.

e.g.
There are numerous early references to Islam in non-Islamic sources, many have been collected in historiographer Robert G. Hoyland's compilation Seeing Islam As Others Saw It. One of the first books to analyze these works was Hagarism authored by Michael Cook and Patricia Crone. Hagarism concludes that looking at the early non-Islamic sources provides a much different and more accurate picture of early Islamic history than the later Islamic sources do, although its thesis has little acceptance. For some, the date of composition is controversial. Some provide an account of early Islam which significantly contradicts the traditional Islamic accounts of two centuries later.

In her book Meccan Trade And The Rise Of Islam, Crone states:

If one storyteller should happen to mention a raid, the next one would tell you the exact date of this raid, and the third one would furnish you even more details. Waqidi (d. 823), who wrote years after Ibn Ishaq (d. 768), will always give precise dates, locations, names, where Ibn Ishaq has none, accounts of what triggered the expedition, miscellaneous information to lend color to the event, as well as reasons why, as was usually the case, no fighting took place. No wonder that scholars are fond of Waqidi: where else does one find such wonderfully precise information about everything one wishes to know? But given that this information was all unknown to Ibn Ishaq, its value is doubtful in the extreme. And if spurious information accumulated at this rate in the two generations between Ibn Ishaq and Waqidi, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that even more must have accumulated in the three generations between the Prophet and Ibn Ishaq

Hmm and these Muslim historians were working under kings? Had no political or social bias? One of the most famous historians is Ibn Ishaq who devoted his life to studying oral traditions about the Prophet and even he included a disclaimer that his work should be taken with a grain of salt since he had no way of verifying the truth.

e.g.

Didn't I say I thought his statements were probably exaggerated? Since there are no firsthand witnesses around today and hindu/non-muslim sources are practically non-existent, it was about the only material there was to work with.

I made no claim that Inda was taken over peacefully by Islam! It was a bloody conquest! Apparently you consider SE Asia as including India. My Atlas and I consider it separate; it is between the Near Easy and SE Asia.
I did mention Indonesia but not India . . .

charles, http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com

muslims generally are very peaceful people the imams which are equivalent to priests or rabbis like to preach peace you can't label 1.5 billion muslims terrorists and think they're all out to bomb everything because its not true i like muslims have no problem with i have a problem with the taliban and al'qaida which is a relatively small number of muslims i mean come on 1.5 billion people in one faitth are not all going to be terrorists

muslims generally are very peaceful people the imams which are equivalent to priests or rabbis like to preach peace you can't label 1.5 billion muslims terrorists and think they're all out to bomb everything because its not true i like muslims have no problem with i have a problem with the taliban and al'qaida which is a relatively small number of muslims i mean come on 1.5 billion people in one faitth are not all going to be terrorists

That is one long sentence;)
I don't think that anybody thinks, believes, or has said that that all 1.5 billion muslims are terrorists. Trouble is that the very small percent of muslims that are, kill an awful lot of people.

Hmm and these Muslim historians were working under kings? Had no political or social bias? One of the most famous historians is Ibn Ishaq who devoted his life to studying oral traditions about the Prophet and even he included a disclaimer that his work should be taken with a grain of salt since he had no way of verifying the truth. e.g.

Verifying "the Truth?" Please explain to me what that means? No historian has compiled "the Truth." All historians try to do and usually succeed is to make a MORE ACCURATE accounting of what happened than others.

So, I accept what the best historians have to say about the history of Islam and that should be good enough for anyone.

charles, http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com

I made no claim that Inda was taken over peacefully by Islam! It was a bloody conquest! Apparently you consider SE Asia as including India. My Atlas and I consider it separate; it is between the Near Easy and SE Asia.
I did mention Indonesia but not India . . .

charles, http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com

Ok, just a misunderstanding then, no probs. ;)