Muhammad's Sword !!!

[michel]

good to see you back and on form i will read your posts ,and as you rightly say TT these debates can go round in circles

That is the danger with long threads............

No need to apologize dear Michel, you just missed my post, that's all.

Regarding Islam, i think you are just expressing yourself and i know that you are not trying to put down my religion or somthing.

Keep Cool as usual for the sake of RF and RFrs.

I am sorry, that sounds very patronising.

No, I am not trying to 'put down' Islam, and I am 'cool'. I was simply making the point that Christians over much of the world (in Muslim Countries) are not 'encouraged' to follow and to practice their chosen faith, although, we, in the West, have no problem accepting Muslims and recognising that they have the right to follow their own Faith.

 

[TashaN]

No, I am not trying to 'put down' Islam, and I am 'cool'. I was simply making the point that Christians over much of the world (in Muslim Countries) are not 'encouraged' to follow and to practice their chosen faith, although, we, in the West, have no problem accepting Muslims and recognising that they have the right to follow their own Faith.

Yes, now you can go on ...

You can say somthing like ...

We christian, we, we .... but Muslims .....

Therefore, Islam is (...) and GREAT PEACEFUL christianity is (...)

Is that your point? or i didn't get it yet dear Michel?

The problem is that you think christianity is the reason for what is happening in the west today and they are responsible for it directly which is totally wrong.

If the church was still controlling your country so you would be backward overthere and your fellow citizens would be another copy of the famous Crusades.

Two things which the church used to do, persecuting good scholars who might say scientific facts which may contradict the bible (remember, the earth is flat ) and the other thing is, preaching and selling heaven for the wariors in the holy wars to gain more money and lands.

It's all about secular system, which used to take the good stuff whether in Islam, Christiany, or from any faith and put it as a system for all but not about christians or christianity as you think. You can talk about the west as you like but to say that the west today is a result of your super religion, so i really feel sorry to disappoint you, It's not about christianity.

If it was Christianity which role the country they would allow no one to practice anything. You just can't see it Michel.

 

[Ulver]

If it was Christianity which role the country they would allow no one to practice anything. You just can't see it Michel.

I think the ideas of the Enlightenment are perhaps part of the root reasons for the difference between what is considered the "West" and the "Middle-East" approach to dealing with Religion with it's subjects.

I personally detest any governemnt with an official religion, which many Middle-eastern countries do and still some European ones.

The real issue is that Religion and Politics equally corrupt one and another. It creates a seat of far too much power.

 

[michel]

Yes, now you can go on ...

You can say somthing like ...

We christian, we, we .... but Muslims .....

Therefore, Islam is (...) and GREAT PEACEFUL christianity is (...)

Is that your point? or i didn't get it yet dear Michel?

The problem is that you think christianity is the reason for what is happening in the west today and they are responsible for it directly which is totally wrong.

If the church was still controlling your country so you would be backward overthere and your fellow citizens would be another copy of the famous Crusades.

Two things which the church used to do, persecuting good scholars who might say scientific facts which may contradict the bible (remember, the earth is flat ) and the other thing is, preaching and selling heaven for the wariors in the holy wars to gain more money and lands.

It's all about secular system, which used to take the good stuff whether in Islam, Christiany, or from any faith and put it as a system for all but not about christians or christianity as you think. You can talk about the west as you like but to say that the west today is a result of your super religion, so i really feel sorry to disappoint you, It's not about christianity.

If it was Christianity which role the country they would allow no one to practice anything. You just can't see it Michel.

Please don't put words in my mouth; what I said was :-

I was simply making the point that Christians over much of the world (in Muslim Countries) are not 'encouraged' to follow and to practice their chosen faith, although, we, in the West, have no problem accepting Muslims and recognising that they have the right to follow their own Faith.

which the post I made earlier in this thread clearly identified some Muslim Countries as being somewhat intollerant of foreingers being allowed to follow their other faiths.

No more no less.

Two things which the church used to do, persecuting good scholars who might say scientific facts which may contradict the bible (remember, the earth is flat ) and the other thing is, preaching and selling heaven for the wariors in the holy wars to gain more money and lands.

What happened historically has no bearing on this topic; I was saying what is happeningNow.

If it was Christianity which role the country they would allow no one to practice anything. You just can't see it Michel.

That is a half baked assumption on your part; it is a pure fabrication that you cannot substantiate by backing up your statement with any 'proof' of any Christian majority Country denying others their faith.

America would be a good country to use in this fictitious argument of yours. As a member of this forum, you cannot fail to have noticed that atheists, agnostics, and members of other faiths are allowed to persue the faith of their choice in the US (whilst there is a very obvious slant towards Christian fundementalism). Q.E.D

And please syop addressing me as "Dear Michel" Michel will do just fine; "Dear Michel" sounds rather condescending and patronising.

 

[TashaN]

What happened historically has no bearing on this topic; I was saying what is happeningNow.

You better check out the OP again.

That is a half baked assumption on your part; it is a pure fabrication that you cannot substantiate by backing up your statement with any 'proof' of any Christian majority Country denying others their faith.

Spain, when they persecuted the Muslims and the Jews once they got the chance to role the country !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

America would be a good country to use in this fictitious argument of yours.

Sorry Michel, America is not a christian country. It's a secular one. That's why atheists, agnostics, and members of other faiths are allowed to persue the faith of their choice as you said, and that have nothing to do with christianity but with a country called America.

And please syop addressing me as "Dear Michel" Michel will do just fine; "Dear Michel" sounds rather condescending and patronising.

As you wish, Michel.

 

[michel]

You better check out the OP again.

From The Times:-http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1052-2362630,00.html

The Times September 18, 2006
Why the Pope was right
William Rees-Mogg
Benedict did give offence — but no great religion should be immune from difficult questions


JOURNALISTS SHOULD NOT criticise Pope Benedict XVI for his lecture at Regensburg. He has done only what every sub-editor on the Daily Mail does every day. Confronted with a long and closely written text, he inserted a lively quote to draw attention to the argument. We all do it. Sometimes the quote causes trouble, but more often it opens up an argument that is needed.
The question is not whether the quotation from the Byzantine emperor Manuel II Palaeologus is offensive: it is.


The question is whether the emperor is justified in what he said. His main thrust was at least partly justified. There is a real problem about the teaching of the Koran on violence against the infidel. That existed in the 14th century, and was demonstrated on 9/11, 2001. There is every reason to discuss it. I am more afraid of silence than offence.
The Pope’s actual quotation is not just a medieval point of view. It is a common modern view; even if it seldom reaches print; it can certainly be found on the internet. “Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and then you shall find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”
Is it true that the Koran contains such a command, and has it influenced modern terrorists? The answers, unfortunately, are “yes” and “yes”.
The so-called Sword Verse from Chapter 9 must have been in the emperor’s mind: “So when the sacred months have passed away, Then slay the idolaters wherever you find them.
“And take them captive and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in every ambush.”
This does shock many Muslims: extremists are angered by the implied criticism of those who quote it, while moderates who cannot disavow the terms of the Koran prefer more evasive interpretations. The shock it creates shows the importance of the doctrine.
One man who does not question the meaning of the verse is Osama bin Laden. His attitude is discussed at some length in Chapter 14 of an excellent new book, The Qur’an, a Biography, by Bruce Lawrence, who is the Professor of Islamic Studies at Duke University, North Carolina. Lawrence observes the use of this verse as a central argument for jihad in Bin Laden’s manifesto in 1996; that was a declaration of war against native and foreign infidels.
Lawrence makes several relevant points. Bin Laden selects only those verses that fit his message, and then cites them exclusively for his own purposes. He ignores both their original context and also the variety of historical differences between committed Muslims about how to apply their dicta. He collapses the broad spectrum of Koranic teaching into a double requirement: first to believe; and then to fight.
Lawrence also draws attention to the qualifications that surround the Sword Verse; particularly that those infidels who repent should be allowed to go free: “For God is most forgiving; most merciful.”
It is impossible to reconcile the consistent Koranic teaching that God is most merciful with suicide bombing, which is indiscriminate and murders faithfuls and infidels alike.


It is a mistake to think that all the major religions are identical: they have real differences of doctrine that have real impacts on human society. What is true, however, is that no religion shall survive for more than a generation or two unless it has a substantial element of truth in it. The diabolical cult of Nazism lasted for only one generation. It is natural for Christians of different denominations to love what they have in common without ceasing to be aware of their differences.
A Christian should also rejoice in the positive spiritual values of the other major religions. It is natural for a Christian to feel enriched by Judaism, which was the religion of Jesus; or by Platonism, the philosophy of the opening chapter of St John’s Gospel and of St Augustine. Yet Christians also find spiritual truths in Buddhism, Confucianism, Daoism, Hinduism, Sikhism and Islam itself. There is a significant link between aspects of Islamic Sufi mysticism and the Christian mystical tradition.
When one lists these religions it becomes obvious that there are two problems: violence and the influence of reason, both of which Pope Benedict identified in his lecture.

 

[michel]

Part 2.
Violence is a fault from which no major religion has historically been free. St Patrick’s conversion of Ireland is sometimes given as a unique example of the conversion of a nation without the loss of a single life. It is one of the great scandals that so many persecutions have taken place in the name of Jesus.

This has been more or less true of all the great religions: human beings are the most savage of beasts, and they will kill each other in any cause, however noble.
Yet nowadays Islam is the only major religion in which violence is a serious doctrinal issue. It is true that tribalised Roman Catholics and Protestants in Ireland have only recently stopped killing each other and vengeful Sikhs assassinated Indira Gandhi in India, but neither the Catholic nor the Protestant churches believe in terror; nor do the Sikhs.
A significant proportion of the Islamic community does believe that suicide bombers are martyrs carrying out a religious duty. Suicide bombing causes Islamophobia. There are varying degrees of authority and uniformity in different religions; rather low in most cases. This pluralism has its own virtues, but in Islam they are outweighed by the disadvantages. Those imams who preach al-Qaeda’s view of the duty of jihad are not required to answer to any authority, even the authority of reason.
Islam has only partially experienced the modern process of enlightenment and reform, which was, after all, resisted by a number of pre-Vatican II Popes. Pope Benedict will have done Islam a service if he has started a debate within Islam and between Islam and the critics.

Spain, when they persecuted the Muslims and the Jews once they got the chance to role the country !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

?? From Wikipedia:-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_persecution_by_Muslims


The Qur'an and hadith serve as Sunnah (Sunnah is what the Prophet said (i.e. Hadith), did, and approved of. It does not include the Qur'an. The Qur'an stands on its own - so 'Qur'an and Sunnah' is generally referenced), the model for conduct, for Sunni and Shi'a Muslims in all matters of life, and thus Muslims are compelled to consider the way these texts describe the historic treatment of non-Muslims, as their guidelines. This makes the authorised version of Muhammad's life, known as the sirah, and the collection of his sayings - the hadith - of paramount importance, except for the minority of Muslims who reject Sunnah, and accept the Qur'an alone.
A number of verses in the Qu'ran are viewed by some Muslims as calls to suppress things outside of Islam, in particular portraying certain groups as being disliked by God. Most Muslims see these verses as simply describing Allah's feelings toward non-believers, although a small minority view these as being a call to an anti-non-Muslim jihad. The Qu'ran explicitly prohibits persecution, but a very few claim that the later appearance of the more antagonistic verses is an abrogation of the former, implying God changed his mind.
Several sura present a less than positive picture of Judeo-Christian religions - At-Tawba:30 states that their understandings of certain historical genealogies are inaccurate and deluded. Sura 3:118 continues the theme claiming that such persons desire to harm you severely and hatred has already appeared from their mouths.
Some go further, reflecting Islamic views on the subject of religious idols - Sura 9:5 explicitly states slay the idolaters wherever ye find them. However, it goes on to say if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free.Sahih Bukhari:5.59.522 however condones marriage between Muslim men and non-Muslim women, describing the marriage between Mohammed and Safiya bint Huyai bin Akhtaq, whose husband had been killed in a preceding battle.
Missionary activity was historically an important matter, and several sura address the issue, in particular, An-Nahl:125 - Call to the way of your Lord with wisdom and fair admonition, and argue with them in the kindest way - and Al Imran:20 - If [non-Muslims] turn away, your duty is only to convey the Message - advocate gentle and non-violent discourse rather than forcing conversion. Indeed Yunas:99 actively condemns forced conversion - If it had been your Lord's will, all of the people on Earth would have believed. Would you then compel the people so to have them believe?
With regards to converts from Islam, conservative interpretations read Al Imran:85 - Of such the reward is that on [apostates falls] the curse of Allah, of His angels, and of all mankind, and its more extensive counterpart in the Sunnah - Sahih Bukhari:9.83.17 - The blood of a Muslim ... cannot be shed except ... for ... one who reverts from Islam ... as supporting the death penalty, known as murtadd. (A murtadd is an apostate, not the death penalty) However, unlike the holy books of many religions, the Qur'an contains an explicit instruction that people should not be forced to obey religious rule - one of the most celebrated passages amongst moderates and liberals is al-Baqarah:256 - Let there be no compulsion in religion

 

[michel]

Part 3.
Following on with the following headings (which I invite you to read)

Persecution during Muhammads reign;

Persecution in the early Caliphate

Persecution of Hindus in the Moghul Empire

Persecution of Christians in the Ottoman Empire

Persecution of liberal and secular Muslims in South Asia

Persecution of secularized Muslims in the West by Islamists

Persecution of those converting away from Islam

And from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Islam

Islam is frequently criticised as being intolerant of and suppressive of criticism, and especially of apostasy. Ibn Warraq has collected and published stories of the reported mistreatment of Muslim apostates at the hands of Islamic authorities.[25]

Decision of a Fatwa committee on the case of a convert to Christianity: "Since he left Islam, he will be invited to express his regret. If he does not regret, he will be killed pertaining to rights and obligations of the Islamic law."



Apostasy in Islamic law

Main article: Apostasy in Islam
Bernard Lewis summarizes:

The penalty for apostasy, in Islamic law, is death. Islam is conceived as a polity, not just as a religious community. It follows therefore that apostasy is treason. It is a withdrawal, a denial of allegiance as well as of religious belief and loyalty. Any sustained and principled opposition to the existing regime or order almost inevitably involves such a withdrawal.[26]



However, the question of the correct penalties to be imposed under Islamic law for apostasy is a highly controversial topic that has been passionately debated. There are widely-held exceptions to the death penalty punishment, and a minority of Islamic scholars advocate a lesser penalty altogether. In general, though, the four Sunni schools of Islamic jurisprudence, as well as Shi'a scholars, agree that a sane adult male apostate must be executed. A female apostate may be put to death, according to the majority view, or imprisoned until she repents, according to others.[27]
Some contemporary Islamic jurists from both the Sunni and Shi'a denominations together with Qur'an only Muslims have argued or issued fatwas that state that either the changing of religion is not punishable or is only punishable under restricted circumstances.[28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35] For example, Grand Ayatollah Hossein-Ali Montazeri argues that no Qur'anic verse prescribes an earthly penalty for apostasy and adds that it is not improbable that the punishment was prescribed by Muhammad at early Islam due to political conspiracies against Islam and Muslims and not only because of changing the belief or expressing it. Montazeri defines different types of apostasy. He does not hold that a reversion of belief because of investigation and research is punishable by death but prescribes capital punishment for a desertion of Islam out of malice and enmity towards the Muslim community.[36] However, these minority opinions regarding punishment for apostasy have not found broad acceptance among their peers in the ulema.
Abdul Rahman, an Afghan convert to Christianity who made international headlines when he was arrested and threatened with execution. Kabul, March 23, 2006


William Montgomery Watt, in an interview in response to a question about western's view of the Islamic Law as being cruel, states that "similar punishments are found in the Old Testament... In Islamic teaching, such penalties may have been suitable for the age in which Muhammad lived. However, as societies have since progressed and become more peaceful and ordered, they are not suitable any longer."[37]

 

[michel]

Pt4.
Modern treatment of accused apostates

Today, many Muslim countries make apostasy from Islam a crime punishable by death, including Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Sudan, and Yemen. Other Muslim countries specify lesser punishments.[38]
The recent case of Afghan Abdul Rahman has achieved particular notoriety. In early 2006, Rahman was arrested and held by Afghan authorities on charges that he converted from Islam to Christianity, a capital offense in Afghanistan. Many Muslim clerics in the country pushed for a death sentence, but after international pressure (including a public statement by U.S. Secretary of State at the time Condoleezza Rice) he was released and secretly given asylum in Italy.[39][40]
In 1993, an Egyptian professor named Nasr Abu Zayd was divorced from his wife by an Egyptian court run by Islamic radicals on the grounds that his controversial writings about the Qur'an demonstrated his apostasy. He subsequently fled to Europe with his wife.[41] Another Egyptian professor, Farag Fuda, was killed in 1992 by masked men after criticising Muslim fundamentalists and announcing plans to form a new movement for Egyptians of all religions.[42]

Modern treatment of critics

German professor Christoph Luxenberg feels compelled to work under a pseudonym to protect himself because of fears that a new book on the origins of the Qur'an may make him a target for violence.[43] Hashem Aghajari, an Iranian university professor, was initially sentenced to death because of a speech that criticised some of the present Islamic practices in Iran being in contradiction with the original practices and ideology of Islam, and particularly for stating that Muslims were not "monkeys" and "should not blindly follow" the clerics. The sentence was later commuted to three years in jail, and he was released in 2004 after serving two years of that sentence.[44][45][46]
In recent times fatwas calling for execution have been issued against author Salman Rushdie and activist Taslima Nasreen.[47]
See also Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy

Sorry Michel, America is not a christian country. It's a secular one. That's why atheists, agnostics, and members of other faiths are allowed to persue the faith of their choice as you said, and that have nothing to do with christianity but with a country called America.

Fair enough, quote me a Christian Country then, to repudiate the points I have made - your choice.

 

[TashaN]

Fair enough, quote me a Christian Country then, to repudiate the points I have made - your choice.

How about the bible itself?

Can you bare the violence in it?

Do you want me to quote what the bible teach about killing children and women, incest, etc, Michel?

Are you brave enough to handel what i gonna post?

I didn't want to reach to this point but your posts speaks by itself that you want me to compare between Islam and Christianity, is it?

Just say yes and i'll start it right away.

 

[Snowbear]

Christians don't deny there are examples of violence in the Bible, especially the Old Testament. What does it have to do with the conversation here? Why do you want to post them? Is this another attempt to show that since there is violence in the Bible, it's OK that some Muslims use the Quran and Islam to justify violence in modern times?

What Michel seems to be pointing out though, is that modern Islamic countries do not tolerate apostacy from Islam or criticism of Islam. He's not denying that there are examples of violence and killing in the Bible - in fact, there was a lot of blood shed in the Old Testament!! What he's asking for is that you back up your claims with an example of a modern "Christian Country."

Your offer to spout examples of violence in the Bible is just another red herring attempt to divert the conversation because you don't seem to want to answer the questions asked or address the points made.

 

[TashaN]

What he's asking for is that you back up your claims with an example of a modern "Christian Country."

Your offer to spout examples of violence in the Bible is just another red herring attempt to divert the conversation because you don't seem to want to answer the questions asked or address the points made.

I don't know any christian country except the Vatican and by the way, countries and nations rise and fall and the only thing remain is the source, THE SCRIPTURES.

You frankly confessed that the bible has a bloody history including killing the children and women, etc. Nevertheless, in the Quran we don't have such a thing.

That means, if any muslim country have done somthing so it's not because of Islam but rather, it's because they astray from the real teaching of Islam.

My point is, if Christianity was in charge so killing would be a tiny little thing in the law of that particular country but they get rid of that and became secular countries because they want to get rid of the hatred and killing preached in the bible.

I don't want to turn the conversation but he asked for it, not me.

I'll wait for his answer.

 

[michel]

I don't know any christian country except the Vatican and by the way, countries and nations rise and fall and the only thing remain is the source, THE SCRIPTURES.

You frankly confessed that the bible has a bloody history including killing the children and women, etc. Nevertheless, in the Quran we don't have such a thing.

That means, if any muslim country have done somthing so it's not because of Islam but rather, it's because they astray from the real teaching of Islam.

My point is, if Christianity was in charge so killing would be a tiny little thing in the law of that particular country but they get rid of that and became secular countries because they want to get rid of the hatred and killing preached in the bible.

I don't want to turn the conversation but he asked for it, not me.

I'll wait for his answer.

And here it is!

Like snowbear has said, there is no denying the historical bloodshed in the name of
of the Christian religion; and as far as you comment about none such parallel in the Qu'ran concerning mentioning violence is concerned, I trashed that by a rather lengthy post way back in this thread, which showed verses the meaning of which were crystal clear.(Ifd your memory needs a jolt, I will numerate the posts for you).

As snowbear has said, you seem to shimmy, as pleases you, between the past, and now, and get out of any criticism by changing the subject in point (ie wether we are talking past, or Now).

My friend is right in how he interprets the meaning of my post; the Qu'ran advocates violence (as does the bible); historically, both followers of Islam and Christians have shed blood in the name of religion, but now, it would seems that whilst Christianity turns the other cheek, Islam tends to enjoy giving a good kick in the other cheek.........

You cannot deny the violence instigated by muslims (whether or not they represent their faith is immaterial)...if they do not represent the spirit of Islam, I would have thought that every true Follower would remonstrate against the terrorists, instead of taking their side by refusing to denounce terrorists to the authorities in the West, as well you know (from pervious threads) is the case.

I repeat my last question to you; show me a Christian Country that preaches war (in the name of Christianity) agaist Muslims
............It's up to you. And please, don't take the focus of the thread from past to future, back to past, in order to evade answering questions and commenting on posts simplty because you know you have nothing to offer in rebutall.

 

[AbuQuteiba]

And here it is!

Like snowbear has said, there is no denying the historical bloodshed in the name of
of the Christian religion; and as far as you comment about none such parallel in the Qu'ran concerning mentioning violence is concerned, I trashed that by a rather lengthy post way back in this thread, which showed verses the meaning of which were crystal clear.(Ifd your memory needs a jolt, I will numerate the posts for you).

As snowbear has said, you seem to shimmy, as pleases you, between the past, and now, and get out of any criticism by changing the subject in point (ie wether we are talking past, or Now).

My friend is right in how he interprets the meaning of my post; the Qu'ran advocates violence (as does the bible); historically, both followers of Islam and Christians have shed blood in the name of religion, but now, it would seems that whilst Christianity turns the other cheek, Islam tends to enjoy giving a good kick in the other cheek.........

You cannot deny the violence instigated by muslims (whether or not they represent their faith is immaterial)...if they do not represent the spirit of Islam, I would have thought that every true Follower would remonstrate against the terrorists, instead of taking their side by refusing to denounce terrorists to the authorities in the West, as well you know (from pervious threads) is the case.

I repeat my last question to you; show me a Christian Country that preaches war (in the name of Christianity) agaist Muslims
............It's up to you. And please, don't take the focus of the thread from past to future, back to past, in order to evade answering questions and commenting on posts simplty because you know you have nothing to offer in rebutall.

True muslims do remonstrate against terrorists. Just because we choose not to hand them over to the authorities in the West does'nt mean they're not punished here. People who preach terror are improsined, and beaten here, in the Gulf. Furthermore, just because you don't see true muslims getting up rallying, like idiots, against these people (which btw never doeas anything) does'nt mean we're not fighting it in our schools, in our universities etc.

A Christian country? We believe, Islam, that a muslim country is one who use's the sharia Law FULLy (by saying fully, i mean that there is no country in the world today that does this.) Which country in the world does this with Christianity? Christianity is turning the other cheek? Yeah, i'm sure. Bush, the Christian, is doing a great job of turning the other cheek

 

[michel]

True muslims do remonstrate against terrorists. Just because we choose not to hand them over to the authorities in the West does'nt mean they're not punished here. People who preach terror are improsined, and beaten here, in the Gulf. Furthermore, just because you don't see true muslims getting up rallying, like idiots, against these people (which btw never doeas anything) does'nt mean we're not fighting it in our schools, in our universities etc.

A Christian country? We believe, Islam, that a muslim country is one who use's the sharia Law FULLy (by saying fully, i mean that there is no country in the world today that does this.) Which country in the world does this with Christianity? Christianity is turning the other cheek? Yeah, i'm sure. Bush, the Christian, is doing a great job of turning the other cheek

So, if I am to understand your post correctly, you are saying :-

Islam, that a muslim country is one who use's the sharia Law FULLy (by saying fully, i mean that there is no country in the world today that does this.)

That there is no muslim Country that follows Islam 'Fully' ?

Christianity is turning the other cheek? Yeah, i'm sure. Bush, the Christian, is doing a great job of turning the other cheek

The trouble with debating is that you need to get your facts right; The reason for the war in Iraq was never - in any part- fought to promote Christianity, nor was it fought in the name of Christianity - as I am sure you well know; yet another red herring.

The war in Iraq was fought for many reasons; (unfortunately, the politicians would have had us believe that there were WMD's being stockpiled) - that they have never been found may or may not fully prove the belief that there were some.

The war was also fought to rid the world of a tyrannical dictator and despot who treated the people over which he governed with brutish and bullying tactics. It is recognized that he has tortured and killed thousands of his own countrymen (most of whom were probably foolish enough to criticize him).

Is the world better because Saddam Hussein is no longer free ? - At the moment, it would appear that the answer is no.......and why is that ? Because the vacuum of power is being greedily fought for by shiites and Summis who want to rid the world of each other; there is, in essence, a Civil war.

Economic reasons ? No doubt there was an element of Economic reasoning in the part of America (and, by collusion) on the part of Britain, for the war - the rescue of a tenuous hold on Oil.

Not for one moment has anyone ever used the word Christian to describe the purpose of the war; can the same be said of the Muslims ? I have heard the word "Fatwa" used rather a lot lately.......

I am afraid that if you are going to throw stones, it would be best not to do so in a greenhouse.
</IMG></IMG>

 

[AbuQuteiba]

So, if I am to understand your post correctly, you are saying :-
That there is no muslim Country that follows Islam 'Fully' ?



The trouble with debating is that you need to get your facts right; The reason for the war in Iraq was never - in any part- fought to promote Christianity, nor was it fought in the name of Christianity - as I am sure you well know; yet another red herring.

The war in Iraq was fought for many reasons; (unfortunately, the politicians would have had us believe that there were WMD's being stockpiled) - that they have never been found may or may not fully prove the belief that there were some.

The war was also fought to rid the world of a tyrannical dictator and despot who treated the people over which he governed with brutish and bullying tactics. It is recognized that he has tortured and killed thousands of his own countrymen (most of whom were probably foolish enough to criticize him).

Is the world better because Saddam Hussein is no longer free ? - At the moment, it would appear that the answer is no.......and why is that ? Because the vacuum of power is being greedily fought for by shiites and Summis who want to rid the world of each other; there is, in essence, a Civil war.

Economic reasons ? No doubt there was an element of Economic reasoning in the part of America (and, by collusion) on the part of Britain, for the war - the rescue of a tenuous hold on Oil.

Not for one moment has anyone ever used the word Christian to describe the purpose of the war; can the same be said of the Muslims ? I have heard the word "Fatwa" used rather a lot lately.......

I am afraid that if you are going to throw stones, it would be best not to do so in a greenhouse.
</IMG></IMG>

Yes, I believe there is no "muslim" country in the world that follows the Sharia fully.

Oh ok, the war in Iraq was'nt to promote Christianity (Who ever braught up the war in Iraq anyway???) I was talking about Bush, and the Bush administration's actions in general. Oh, so you're talking for Bush now? I bet Bush forgot all the reasons you gave, and you had to remind us. I guess you forgot the reasons Bush gave for the war 1)fighting terrorism 2)Nuclear weapons underground. Did he find them? No. Will he find them in Iran after he starts a war there (soon enough)? Probably not. And in the end, it came down to him saying : "The war in Iraq was caused by a mistake made by intelligence".

Yes, the same can be said about Muslims. Which war in the world today is being faught for the promotion of Islam?? If you're going to reply by saying the terrorist acts is the war promoting Islam. I say: "If you believe for one second that the acts of "muslim" terrorists is for the spreading and promotion of true Islam, then the acts of Bush, and the Bush administration are acts to promote true Christianity".

speak for yourself.

 

[Smoke]

Can you please post # 169 in this link below.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?p=600276#post600276

You said:

The mission of the Prophet Muhammad(S) was to free people from tyranny and exploitation by oppressive systems. Once free, individuals in the society were then free to chose Islam or not. Prophet Muhammad's(S) successors continued in his footsteps and went to help oppressed people.
​

The Muslims "liberated" the nations they conquered the way Germany "liberated" Poland. Who was oppressing the Banu Qurayzah before Muhammad ordered the men slaughtered and the women and children enslaved? Were the women of the Banu Mustaliq being oppressed by their husbands? Was that why Muhammad and his followers enslaved them? Who was oppressing the Banu Nadir or the people of Khaybar? The Muslims fought for power, for booty, and to spread their religion. For early Muslims, the main source of income was booty; for later Muslims, it was the jizya.

It's been ten days, and nobody has answered my question: What do the Qur'an and the hadith say about non-Muslims who refuse to accept Muslim rule?

 

[michel]

Yes, I believe there is no "muslim" country in the world that follows the Sharia fully.

Oh ok, the war in Iraq was'nt to promote Christianity (Who ever braught up the war in Iraq anyway???) I was talking about Bush, and the Bush administration's actions in general. Oh, so you're talking for Bush now? I bet Bush forgot all the reasons you gave, and you had to remind us. I guess you forgot the reasons Bush gave for the war 1)fighting terrorism 2)Nuclear weapons underground. Did he find them? No. Will he find them in Iran after he starts a war there (soon enough)? Probably not. And in the end, it came down to him saying : "The war in Iraq was caused by a mistake made by intelligence".

Yes, the same can be said about Muslims. Which war in the world today is being faught for the promotion of Islam?? If you're going to reply by saying the terrorist acts is the war promoting Islam. I say: "If you believe for one second that the acts of "muslim" terrorists is for the spreading and promotion of true Islam, then the acts of Bush, and the Bush administration are acts to promote true Christianity".

speak for yourself.

Nuclear weapons underground. Did he find them? No.

That doesn't mean that there aren't some, still hidden. Besides, chemical weapons were found.

"The war in Iraq was caused by a mistake made by intelligence".

I am not so sure that it was a mistake; there is evidence that the British and Bush administrations were warned that the intelligence was beingblown up out of proportion. But that still has nothing to do with Christianity, which was the point you so badly tried to make.

Oh ok, the war in Iraq was'nt to promote Christianity (Who ever braught up the war in Iraq anyway???) I was talking about Bush

You asked about Bush; what war has Bush been involved in, other than the war in Iraq ??

Yes, the same can be said about Muslims. Which war in the world today is being faught for the promotion of Islam??

I call terrorism (guerilla warfare) a war....don't you ? And that war is aimed at anyone who has done anything that isn't pro-Islam (isn't it ?) QED.

If you are going to debate, please do so intelligibly; I am getting tired as answering red herrings and preposterous arguments.

 

[Smoke]

Oh ok, the war in Iraq was'nt to promote Christianity (Who ever braught up the war in Iraq anyway???) I was talking about Bush, and the Bush administration's actions in general. Oh, so you're talking for Bush now? I bet Bush forgot all the reasons you gave, and you had to remind us. I guess you forgot the reasons Bush gave for the war 1)fighting terrorism 2)Nuclear weapons underground. Did he find them? No. Will he find them in Iran after he starts a war there (soon enough)? Probably not. And in the end, it came down to him saying : "The war in Iraq was caused by a mistake made by intelligence".

Yes, the same can be said about Muslims. Which war in the world today is being faught for the promotion of Islam?? If you're going to reply by saying the terrorist acts is the war promoting Islam. I say: "If you believe for one second that the acts of "muslim" terrorists is for the spreading and promotion of true Islam, then the acts of Bush, and the Bush administration are acts to promote true Christianity".

Bush and Blair are both Evangelical Christians, and Bush's most fervent supporters in the U.S. are Christians. Christianity has often been violent and oppressive. No doubt about it.

It seems to me, though, that this is an attempt to divert attention from Muslim violence and oppression. The sins of Christianity don't excuse the sins of Islam.

 

[michel]

Bush and Blair are both Evangelical Christians, and Bush's most fervent supporters in the U.S. are Christians. Christianity has often been violent and oppressive. No doubt about it.

It seems to me, though, that this is an attempt to divert attention from Muslim violence and oppression. The sins of Christianity don't excuse the sins of Islam.[/quote]

So do you believe (in all honesty) that the war on Iraq was fuelled by religious motivation ?