Speaking before Al-Azhar and the Awqaf Ministry on New Year’s Day, 2015, and in connection to Prophet Muhammad’s upcoming birthday, Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, a vocal supporter for a renewed vision of Islam, made what must be his most forceful and impassioned plea to date on the subject.
Among other things, Sisi said that the “corpus of [Islamic] texts and ideas that we have sacralized over the centuries” are “antagonizing the entire world”; that it is not “possible that 1.6 billion people [reference to the world’s Muslims] should want to kill the rest of the world’s inhabitants—that is 7 billion—so that they themselves may live”; and that Egypt (or the Islamic world in its entirety) “is being torn, it is being destroyed, it is being lost—and it is being lost by our own hands.”
The relevant excerpt from Sisi’s speech follows (translation by Michele Antaki):
I am referring here to the religious clerics. We have to think hard about what we are facing—and I have, in fact, addressed this topic a couple of times before. It’s inconceivable that the thinking that we hold most sacred should cause the entire umma [Islamic world] to be a source of anxiety, danger, killing and destruction for the rest of the world. Impossible!
That thinking—I am not saying “religion” but “thinking”—that corpus of texts and ideas that we have sacralized over the centuries, to the point that departing from them has become almost impossible, is antagonizing the entire world. It’s antagonizing the entire world!
Is it possible that 1.6 billion people [Muslims] should want to kill the rest of the world’s inhabitants—that is 7 billion—so that they themselves may live? Impossible!
I am saying these words here at Al Azhar, before this assembly of scholars and ulema—Allah Almighty be witness to your truth on Judgment Day concerning that which I’m talking about now.
All this that I am telling you, you cannot feel it if you remain trapped within this mindset. You need to step outside of yourselves to be able to observe it and reflect on it from a more enlightened perspective.
I say and repeat again that we are in need of a religious revolution. You, imams, are responsible before Allah. The entire world, I say it again, the entire world is waiting for your next move… because this umma is being torn, it is being destroyed, it is being lost—and it is being lost by our own hands.
Note: It is unclear if in the last instance of umma Sisi is referring to Egypt (“the nation”) or if he is using it in the pan-Islamic sense as he did initially to refer to the entire Islamic world.
Wow, he is right, of course. On the other hand, he might need to realize that the whole of the Koran is evil, and that Islam is plain wrong and can’t just be reformed, but must be thrown out entirely.
But what he is saying is a good start. Too bad that it might only get him killed, and that the likes of ISIS won’t listen to him.
It is definitely a brave and daring step in the right direction. It is a promising sign that he shows an awareness of the need to reform Islam. It seems like it might be easier to reform it than totally abandon it. His words are very strong and direct.
President SiSi did not say that Islam needs to be reformed; he clearly
states that the mindset of those who are propagating Islam needs to be
reformed and we all knew this before he mentioned it. Cultural mores and
customs have become interwoven with the clean and clear teachings of
our Prophet Muhammad(May the Peace of Allah be upon Him). There is
nothing in the Quran when understood correctly that promotes killing and
hate. So President Sisi is stating that those who are involved with
this murderous mentality have undoubtedly received inaccurate
interpretations of the Quran.
“There is nothing in the Quran when understood correctly that promotes killing and hate. ”
Apart from verses such as Sura 5:33 which justify murder, mutilation and crucifixion, that is. ISIS just love that one.
All we need is more liars like you…. and that version of the Koran that comes without the exhortations to murder non-Muslims! LOL….
Darn, I forgot who gave a true English translation of the Qu’Ran but might find it on search. Came out about 1 1/2 to 2 years ago. I even downloaded a copy from the late 1700’s by our forefathers who hated it even then.
Your prophet, not mine.
So tell me why on earth there is no published proper interpretation of the quran? I am sick and tired of hearing how the ‘issues’ we see are through misinterpretation of the quran.
There is no such thing as a “proper” interpretation, you take from the text what you want, there is plenty of violence and punishment in the bible, some Christians oppose the very existence of gays because of a line in Leviticus, other Christians do not because they choose not to practice those parts. That’s what interpretation means.
If it can be so wildly misinterpreted then it must be gobbledygook.
Gobbledygook cannot be misinterpreted – it’s by definition meaningless.
No, that’s what “lie” means.
Anyone can read a text in its proper context and determine what the author intended.
You neglect the commentary and scholarship tradition in all religions that re-interprets, explains away or otherwise nullifies troubling texts.
Great. Cite some for us.
Perhaps you’ll quote Islam’s great exegete Ibn Kathir, who explains in his tafsir that even disbelief is considered “waging war” against Allah.
(Wait a minute. Better not do that.)
Perhaps you’ll note that no major school of Islamic jurisprudence, Sunni or Shia, rejects offensive warfare against non-Muslims on religious grounds.
(On second thought ….)
Perhaps you’ll note how truly moderate Muslims like the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama’at — who reject offensive warfare against non-Muslims, as far as I can tell — are persecuted as apostates even in modern, moderate Islamic states like Indonesia.
(Uh oh.)
I know! You’ll refer to the nearly one and one-half millennia of love and good deeds, like slaughtering 80 million Hindus in conquering the western portion of Greater India. Or beheading Christian schoolgirls in Indonesia. Or the Armenian Genocide. Or Islam’s institutionalized child rape.
Maybe you should just tell the truth.
I have to admit at this point, that there are no readily accessible sites on the internet that point to commentary that mitigates these. The doctrine of ‘innocents’ seems particularly dicy. I hope for Islam’s sake that these texts are reinterpreted wholesale and in the near future.
And for our sakes, too.
In Islam, even disbelief is considered “warring against Allah,” so no non-Muslim is “innocent.”
Everything you say here matches my knowledge base.
Try to New Testament also. Romans to start
Christians don’t rely on “a line in Leviticus” (which was written for the Hebrews at that time). The New Testament speaks against homosexual behavior but does not “oppose the very existence of gays.”
The devil changes him mind a lot.
He confuses weak minds like those who embrace the “idea” of Allah.
But really these followers are step in step with the devil himself.
There’s probably no one book w/ the proper interpretation because there’s no equivalent of a Pope that can lay the law down for everybody in its sect. No one person speaks for Islam which is both good and bad. But like Judaism (which also has violent passages that have been basically been made obsolete BY JEWISH SCHOLARS), Islam also has a commentary tradition that makes the violent stuff ‘inoperative’ in our time and place. The problem is there’s a fundamentalist wing has lots of energy, financing and coercive power.
some might say that 1 text, this outrageously misinterpreted, this frequently, by this many, with this type of violent outcome, must be a bunch of complete and utter nonsense
Exactly – the Koran is a mass of contradictory statements.
THE BIBLE IS A MASS OF CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS
Thank you, satan.
moderate muslims and terrorists read the same Koran
Moderate Muslims don’t understand what they read.
You know this how? The only acceptable answer is you’ve talked face to face with a moderate Muslim cleric and successfully challenged his scholarship.
Learn Islam for non-Muslims and Muslims.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/023-violence.htm
https://www.facebook.com/notes/knowledge-is-power/in-islams-own-writings-muhammads-massacres-and-sex-slaves/523705024374034
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kkDUlpWliQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PT7kArq4-S8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dlXCrpKTt0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zd9lIuUjPs0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvlWU_Gf4Fw (Oh Allah please make inbreeding Haraam)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONhVB9kIzKI&s= (Islam, 1400 years spread by murder-by Dr Bill Warner)
Law of Abrogation in Islam and why it is one of the most important matters to understanding Quran, Islam and Muslims
http://www.islamreview.com/articles/quransdoctrine.shtml
http://www.inquiryintoislam.com/2010/06/what-is-abrogation-in-islam.html
http://the-koran.blogspot.sg/2008/07/abrogating-abrogated-verses-in-quran.html
http://islamqa.info/en/105746
Pedophilia by Muhammed – Muhammed’s marriage to a baby girl
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHR39yzcYXw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ms9NrdiJHRA (Islamic Sexuality A Survey Of Evil)
Inbreeding by Muhammed – Muhammed and Zaynab (his first cousin and adopted son’s former wife)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgKIq0BB2Zc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsrE-aNlSw0
Muhammed Raping Sex Slaves
https://www.google.com.sg/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1C1FDUM_enSG478SG478&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=muhammed%20raping%20women%20sex%20slaves
General and Historical Information on Islam
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
http://www.islamreview.com/articles/quransdoctrine.shtml
http://www.jihadwatch.org/
http://www.faithfreedom.org/
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=764
http://www.historyofjihad.org/albania.html?syf=contact
http://www.al-rassooli.com/blog/
http://crossmuslims.blogspot.sg/2010/03/muhammad-and-adoptions-mahomet-et-les.html?showComment=1420174166530#c5904662748747946010
http://freearabs.com/
http://www.arabatheistbroadcasting.com/program/magazine
http://islamqa.info/en/105746
http://www.inquiryintoislam.com/2010/06/
http://www.clarionproject.org/
http://www.barenakedislam.com/2015/01/02/the-lion-of-egypt-president-abdel-fattah-al-sisi-doubles-down-on-his-call-for-a-total-reformation-of-islam/
You are so wrong about the Koran not promoting killing and hate; there are far too many examples – the book is spilling over with them. Ending a verse with “Allah is merciful” does not cancel out what was written before that last sentence.
Any religion containing written doctrine giving license to the sin of lying (taqiyya) is not to be trusted. Pure logic calls into question the concept of “moderate” Islam. Assume for a moment that, in our legal system, it somehow becomes okay for Muslims to lie under oath, but not for Christians. I am not a genius, but I am smart enough to recognize that a court following such a rule would quickly lose its rightful authority as an objective arbiter of the law. Is it not entirely likely that “moderate” Muslims are merely Muslims in the minority, embedded agents within communities not otherwise given to acceptance of Islam? Is it not possible that these people, deep within their hearts, secretly hate the American society which has embraced them, and secretly embrace a long term plan to overwhelm the rest of us? I have read enough of the Quran to be convinced that this could absolutely the case. There can be no “moderate” Muslims if you understand the Quran. It is just like pregnancy. One is either pregnant or not…no gray area!
I will take it one step farther. One cannot be a devout Muslim AND a loyal US citizen. Devout Muslims are knowingly invoking taqiyya when reciting the oath to become US citizens. Thus their false oath should be considered null and void. Doubt me? Fine, provide proof. I think you’ll be shocked.
How many people are righteously murdered in the Christian/Jewish Bible? How many people does it call for their murder? Why are Christians and Jews not running rampant in the land doing so? Interpretations and religious institutions evolve while keeping the same text.
Or people tend to do what their texts say, and you’re utterly and demonically clueless and confused.
I bet you could get your point across without the name-calling. It might even allow people to listen to you.
“utterly and demonically clueless and confused” was more descriptive than name-calling, and it was intended to spur adam’s pride.
This seemed necessary since in adam’s other posts, he falsely equates the Bible with Islam’s core texts, blames Islam’s victims for defending themselves against it, and smears Christianity, and he created his Disqus account specifically for this article in which he spreads his obfuscation.
All of which indicates strongly that he is not an honest person.
What do you believe is the proper tone for someone intentionally, willingly, knowingly retailing lies that will end up getting a lot of innocent people killed? Is a stronger tone appropriate then? How do you get someone like that to wake up? Would you equivocate with Hitler? Muhammad?
I apologize to you for the harsh tone in one of my earlier responses; your comments there were consistent with the murderous lies spread often by Islam’s apologists and their Useful Idiots, but you have shown yourself to be a fair and honest person.
Tell me a bit more about the head-choppings.
Oh, and the bits about telling lies if they favor the religion.
Don’t think you have read an unredacted version of the Qu’Ran as it is very clear in stating all “infidels” must die. Stop reading what the muslims give out as the real translation. It isn’t.
Some say only the Arabic version of the Quran is inspired and correct. That’s a little narrow-minded and profiling isn’t it?
Headline: “Majority of World Does Not Speak Arabic!”
Your so-called Allah is very unjust and NOT peaceful, wouldn’t you say?
NO they haven’t silly.
The devil, satan, the prince of the air, the evil one is controlling the minds of people who embrace islam.
2 Corinthians 4: 4.
clean and clear teachings of our Prophet Muhammad […] inaccurate interpretations
Do you refer to his teachings on genocide and religious tolerance?
“the Messenger of Allah […] would say: ‘Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war. […] When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. […] Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. […] If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them […]'” (Muslim Book 19, Number 4294)
“fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war) […]” (Qur’an 9:5).
“Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued” (Qur’an 9:29).
Perhaps you’re talking about his wisdom regarding child rape:
“Narrated ‘Aisha: that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death)” (Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64 and 65).
I know! You’re talking about his admonitions against anti-Semitism:
“Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews” (Muslim Book 41, Number 6985).
As for “inaccurate interpretations”? You must be thinking of Islam’s great exegete Ibn Kathir’s forceful demonstration of just how wrong today’s jihadists are when they kill non-Muslims solely for their being non-Muslim.
Here is one famous passage regarding how non-Muslims should be treated, followed by his authoritative explanation of it:
“The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter […]” (Qur’an 5:33).
Ibn Kathir says of this verse: “‘Wage war’ mentioned here means, oppose and contradict, and it includes disbelief, blocking roads and spreading fear in the fairways. Mischief in the land refers to various types of evil.” So, Muhammad requires execution, crucifixion, or cutting off hands and feet from opposite sides for “disbelief.”
You’re right. We should listen to Muhammad, just the way he intended.
And the decent will oppose his vile bloodlust and depravity.
“Allah’s Apostle said, ‘[…] I have been made victorious with terror […]'” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220).
Sisi may be an authoritarian, he is not an authority to be quoted.
There is something broken in Islam that permits it to veer into unabrogated violent jihad. “Authorities,” as you use the term cannot change it, because if they did then they too will be killed. Look at Ustadz Mahmoud Mohamed Taha, whose execution was validated by the Ulema in KSA. If it cannot be changed by authorities, it must be changed by authoritarians !
If you change the Quran and Hadith then it would no longer be Islam. The whole idea of changing a fascist ideology is so ridiculous it’s laughable.
Islam must be eliminated as Nazism was, period.
Do you think enough Muslims would embrace this effort? It would be an uphill battle.
If they do they embrace futility.
Eventually. But it will take time because right now the extremists are better financed and better armed (and run some governments)
One day Jesus Christ will eliminate the existence of islam.
He is coming!
Have you actually talked with a Muslim person face to face about Islam?
Many times.
And the tradition of commentary to essentially nullify barbaric text never came up?
Nullify this:
“The infidels should not think that they can get away from us. Prepare against them whatever arms and weaponry you can muster so that you may terrorize them. They are your enemy and Allah’s enemy.”
-Qur’an, 8:58
“I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them”
-Qur’an 8:12
You can’t make anything disappear as if it had never existed. Equally nobody can nullify the barbaric text in the koran. If you believe that, you also have to explain why allah would have revealed to mohammad that this was what he wanted, if it then had to be nullified once it had been written down in the koran. Nobody should forget this. This is the allah who you, as all followers of islam, keep telling everybody, is the creator of the universe, all knowing and all powerful, To anybody with even the minimum of rational capability it seems pretty dim of allah. So dim that he cannot have been the creator of the universe.
No, the real message of the koran is in those very barbaric texts. And the main part of that message is that it is the duty of muslims to spread islam by all means, and to subjugate non-muslims, and if necessary to destroy them.
So non-muslims, and that it includes Jews and Christians, be aware that if muslims can nullify you, they will, and they are extremely ruthless in the process.
And, non-muslims be ready to defend yourselves, your civilizations, your families and your descendants against the muslim followers of the barbaric texts of islam.
I am not Muslim. But you could make the same argument about violent and harsh sections of the Jewish Bible. And yet, Jews do not follow the text for “an eye for an eye” nor do they subscribe to capital punishment for adultery or Sabbath violations. That’s the way religions work – problematic texts get explained away and, essentially nullified as far as current practice is concerned.
Oh! First time i’ve heard the news that Nazism is eliminated. Thanks!
You’re welcome.
I have always believed that the Egyptians are more normal and peaceful than the nutcases in Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan. ISIS is like a political disease that boiled over in states that have not joined the 21st Century. Nobody fights over religion any more except the Muslim nutcases. They have to grow up, work hard, have babies, and support their families. Their priests are as nutty as a forest of coconut trees.
Yeah, sprinkle your favorite aftershave cologne on a turd and that is how one plans to reform islam.
NO! Islam must be eradicated from existence.
One day Jesus Chist will do this. The Bible tells us how all things end.
Christians WIN
Christians don’t win. Jesus Christ wins.
There are many Muslims in this world just waiting for an organised, coherent restructuring of Islam, to do what Judaism and Christianity have done and that is ignore those text in their books of worship that demand violence and to make this part of their legal system > Naturally all such attempts within Islam over the last 1200 years or so have ended up with the death of the proponent. But Sisi is not so easily killed and he had almost all of the Egyptian army behind him( unmolested by his predecessor unlike Turkey’s army). So he could well be the right person to remove the blood demands of the Koran. I have long suggested destroying all copies of the Koran . But if a peaceful lasting alternative could be found them I am totally for it. However my prediction is for an avalanche of fatwas demanding Sisi’s death.
Christianity has no text that prescribes violence. Jesus and His Apostles taught “love your enemies.” The Old Testament texts of YHWH prescribing warfare by the Israelis against the Canaanites are temporary, indigenous to that time and place only and are a narrative of events that took place. In contrast, the example of the life of Muhammad and the Islamic texts present violence against the unbeliever as prescriptive, necessary and ongoing.
Context…the scripture must always be understood in context.
Exactly. When Paul advocates the use of the “sword” in Romans Chapter 13, the legitimate use of violence is via the government and the just rule of law. This would also apply in the U.S. to the citizenry via the Second Amendment, as the “militia” is rightly seen as the means of the people protecting themselves. You see, the political foundations of the U.S. are largely a Protestant, Calvinist, and especially Puritan foundation. Christians are not to wage wars of conquest to advance the gospel. Thus, the Crusades, as I perceive them, still were just wars because they were wars to protect the innocent from the abuse and intrusion perpetrated by Muslims.
Then you have no idea what happened during the Crusades. Read a book.
The Crusades were a RELATIVELY minor counter attack compared to the 500 or more incursions and major battles and raids accompanied by killing, torture, rape, sex slavery, extortion and abuse perpetrated by the Muslims throughout the Middle East, North Africa and Europe from Muhammad through the dissolution of the Ottomans in the typical Koranic, Mohammaden fashion. Even anti-militarists like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison had no choice but to attack the Barbary pirates who were operating under the Caliphate due to the war, aggression, kidnapping, extortion, ransoms and the perpetration of slavery and sex slavery against Westerners in typical and thoroughly Islamic and Mohammaden fashion. What I do know is that I do not pay attention to leftist, Islamic revisionist history. We need another Crusade, especially to keep out all Islamic immigration in the West and the destruction of jihadists EVERYWHERE.
Also, the wars in the OT were about territory, not spreading their religion or killing non-believers.
If you change the Quran and Hadith then it would no longer be Islam. The whole idea of changing a fascist ideology is so ridiculous it’s laughable.
Islam has 1400 years of blood on its hands, eliminating the savageness of its texts would be like eliminating the truth. If you came from an area Islam has destroyed maybe you could see that, if not then better keep your opinions to yourself.
Islam must be eliminated as Nazism was, period.
A brave man! And he might be killed for his honesty & bravery … but should be admired.
They’ll kill him for his honesty.
Sisi asked them to leave Islam because it can’t be changed. He said it without saying it.
No, the idea IS to change Islam, update it to stop the killing of anyone who disagrees with the current interpretation of Islam. “Current interpretation of Islam” seems to be whatever the guys with the swords, knives and guns say it is.
“… the idea IS to change Islam, update it …”
Ha! Good luck with that.
Sure they said the same thing during the crusades, it takes a long time, but sure give up and keep doing the nothing you’re doing.
Research the crusades idiot. Your so wrong
There are no “interpretations” of Islam. Islam is Islam. It tells Muslims to kill, simple as that. If you change the Quran and Hadith then it would no longer be Islam. The whole idea of changing a fascist ideology is so ridiculous it’s laughable.
Islam must be eliminated as Nazism was, period.
“Ein Volk! Ein Gesetz! Ein Prophet! Ein Ummah! Sieg Allah! Sieg Allah! Sieg Allah!”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YGR2RYNIW8
Mein Kampf, 6th most popular book in Palestine:
http://www.palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=655
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mein_Kampf_in_the_Arabic_language
You can buy it, off the shelf, from Muslim newsagents in Edgware Rd, London.
“I never left”, Adolf Hitler.
You will moan with him in Hell one day, too.
I was being sarcastic. Lighten up, do 😉
Then Christianity must be eliminated also, for the same ideas of ‘conversion to the True Faith’ are shared by both.
Christianity has evolved. Islam can and will likewise evolve – or perish.
Christianity, as explained in the Bible, does not advocate killing non-believers or forcing conversions. The latter, in fact, is impossible. Conversion must be an individual decision to believe. You can’t force belief.
Then why is the history of the world filled with many many people murdered in the name of Christianity. Impossible? Grow up and read a book.
You created this Disqus account specifically for this article. What are you trying to hide? Were you banned for the kind of nescience you’re vomiting here?
Anyway, you ought to take your own advice and “grow up and read a book.” Quite a few, actually.
You’re judging a religion by what some of its followers do. That can be instructive, but it isn’t determinative.
When a Christian murders, rapes, lies, or steals, are they representing Christ and His religion? No, of course not. How do we know? Because we can read what Christ preached and practiced and know that He hates such evil.
When a Muslim beheads Christian schoolgirls in Indonesia, “grooms” underage girls in the UK, or slaughters 80 million Hindus in India, do such atrocities represent Muhammad and his religion or not? They do, absolutely. How do we know? Because that is exactly what Muhammad preached and practiced as recorded in Islam’s own “sacred” texts.
Please, do your homework. And start thinking for yourself.
It is, of course, unwise to judge a religion–or a philosophy, for that matter–by the behavior of its followers. In his exchange with atheist Robert Blatchford, G.K. Chesterton wryly observed that saying, “Christians persecuted; down with Christianity” is like saying, “A Confucian stole my hairbrush; down with Confucianism.” He adds, “We want to know whether the reason for which the Confucian stole the hairbrush was a reason peculiar to the Confucians or a reason common to many other men.”
Quite. A religion must be judged by what it contains. If it contains evil doctrines, as does islam, we must judge it to be evil. If muslims follow the evil doctrine of islam, we have no alternative but to judge them as evil too.
You’re an idiot. Maybe you should read a book. The crusades were in part because Muslims were killing Jews.
And Christians, and Druids, and dogs. Muslims migrated to Europe to conquer and create the Caliphate. They destroyed anything that wasn’t sharia. This helped bring in the Dark Ages.
Please read my other posts to get an idea of my overall perspective here.
But I have to disagree with your claim that Muslims ‘helped bring in the Dark Ages.’ The truth of the matter is that, if anything, it was Islamic scholarship that helped to get the West OUT of the Dark Ages. This is because while our ancestors were reading goat entrails (I exaggerate) it was the Muslim world that had kept alive the classical tradition–Aristotle, in particular–which was a necessary condition for the Renaissance ever to have occurred when and as it did.
But Islamists are now doing their dead-level best to usher in a new, perhaps darker, Dark Ages. Perhaps Light is our best defense.
Nonsense. The idea that there was an age of islamic scholarship is one of the many myths created by muslim “historians”. You see, islam is not only morally bankrupt it is also intellectually bankrupt, so could not have created anything of real value in this area. They mainly stole their ideas from other civilisations and groups, and then claimed credit for them. What muslims often do are the equivalent of the English attempting (which they don’t) to claim credit for the stupendous mathematical capabilities of the Srinivasa Ramanujan.
Many of the claims made by muslims for islamic scholarship do not stand up to even the simplest scrutiny. Mathematical algorithms were in use a millennium before al-Khwārizmī existed, and most of his ideas were stolen from Indian and Greek mathematics.
Muslims kept Aristotle alive and that is about it. They did little to take it forward except by accident. The Renaissance had to sift through and discard much of the rubbish that muslims had introduced into the Aristotelian texts.
And of course the most outrageous claim is that of trying taking credit for the Renaissance. Funnily enough it was the Renaissance which takes the credit for the success of the Renaissance.
The Renaissance was not dependent on the pre-existence of islamic scholarship. It is also just as valid to claim that the Renaissance would have occurred much earlier if so many of their resources had not been directed at defending themselves against the muslims.
Muslims are very good at making claims which do not stand up,. But refuting them all would waste far too much time. So I will just repeat my original assertion. Islamic “scholarship” (except in islamic dogma) has always been, as it is now, nothing more than a myth. And it is a myth founded on the desire of the muslims to fool the gullible into believing that (evidence notwithstanding) islam has something valuable to offer Humanity.
Though I am no friend of Islam, I believe that in your contempt for all things Islam you are overlooking an important part of intellectual history. The most shining example of Islamic scholarship from the period I have in mind is Averroes. But there was also a lively Islamic philosophical movement–influenced by Aristotelian philosophy.
Here’s an SEP article–always helpful–on Islamic influences on the Latin West.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/arabic-islamic-influence/
Flat-out lie.
Maimonides lamented that no one was more hateful to Jews than were Muslims. (He called them “Arabs.”)
If any progress was made, it was in spite of Islam, not because of it.
Not even close. Dark ages were brought about by the Barbarians, the Goths etc. Islam didn’t even reach France of England.
No, the “barbarian” kings who ruled over the pieces of the former western Roman Empire considered themselves Roman. Pretty much all of Roman culture remained intact; Visigoth kings went so far as to have the visage of the emperor of Constantinople imprinted on their coins.
What brought on the “Dark Ages” — dark to us because relatively little in the way of written records from the time exist — was the rise of Islam. Muhammad’s hordes ruled the Mediterranean, cutting off the supply of papyrus from Egypt, thereby making literacy and written communication a luxury. They raided the coasts, raping, enslaving, and pillaging, driving Europe inland and killing trade. And they conquered Spain, parts of Italy, and little-by-little devoured Asia Minor and eastern Europe.
(You do know that it took Spain eight hundred years to get their country back, don’t you? I wonder where Spain got the idea to use the force of the state in matters of religion.)
Basically, Christendom was under siege for centuries.
And the reason Islam didn’t reach France (or England) is because Charles Martel (“The Hammer”) and his fellow Christians stopped the Islamic invasion of western Europe at the Battle of Tours in the eighth century, just as Jan III Sobieski, the king of Poland, and his forces saved Europe at the Gates of Vienna in 1683. September 11, 1683.
I’ve never encountered the idea that Muslim conquest choked off trade and gave rise to the Dark Ages. Something for me to look into.
.”And they conquered Spain, parts of Italy, and over the centuries devoured Asia Minor and eastern Europe.”
Gotta disagree with you about Spain. I do not celebrate the Christian re-conquest. The Golden Age was during the Moorish Conquest. And from my own Jewish POV, Jews never had it so good in Spain. Spain was better than the rest of Europe. There was a rich artistic and intellectual life there. Toward the end of that era Jews were being forced to convert (revokation of Dhimmi status, a status that was miles ahead of Christendom). But when the Christians took over it got even worse resulting in the Inquisition. I don’t buy the idea that the Franciscan and Dominicans order took their inquisitorial cues from Islam. Anyway the first inquisitions were Pope-directed and targeted at other Christians (and most Islamic oppression is currently directed at other Muslims. Witness the death tolls in Syria and Iraq). But the supercessionist tendencies in Christianity did not need any Muslim encouragement. Built into the standard theology of Christianity even now is the idea that ONLY thru Christ can salvation be attained. So back then, anybody who was not a believer but was living a good and comfortable life was looked upon as a threat to that view.
What was “golden” about that age, apart from what Muslim propaganda claims about it? And if it was “golden,” was the because of Islam or in spite of it?
What did Maimonides say about Islam? Here is Moses ben Maimon in his own words:
“Remember, my coreligionists, that on account of the vast number of our sins, God has hurled us in the midst of this people, the Arabs [Muslims], who have persecuted us severely, and passed baneful and discriminatory legislation against us … Never did a nation molest, degrade, debase, and hate us as much as they . . .
Although we were dishonored by them beyond human endurance, and had to put up with their fabrications, yet we behave like him who is depicted by the inspired writer: “But I am as a deaf man, I hear not, and I am as a dumb man that openeth not his mouth (Psalm 38: 14).
Similarly our sages instructed us to bear the prevarications and preposterousness of Ishmael in silence . . .
We have acquiesced, both old and young, to inure ourselves to humiliation . . .
All this notwithstanding, we do not escape this continual maltreatment which well nigh crushes us.
No matter how we suffer and elect to remain at peace with them [Muslims] they stir up strife and sedition . . .” (Iggeret Taiman, Epistle to Yemen, edited by A S Halkin; translated by B. Cohen, New York, 1952),
“The crusades were in part because Muslims were killing Jews.”
Wow, you’re gonna have a show a source for that. The Crusaders didn’t give a rat’s a** about Jews (to put it mildly), and in fact used the Crusades to kill Jews on their way to Jerusalem.
It’s false that the Crusaders, in general, used the Crusades as an opportunity to slaughter Jews.
It did happen, but rather than being mandated, it was condemned.
The Crusades are considered a turning point after which Jew hatred became fashionable in Europe. Islam was not enlightened by 20th or 21st century standards re treatment of Jews (Dhimmi status etc), but it was the Christian nations that massacred them and kicked them out. Country after country.
The Crusades are considered a turning point after which Jew hatred
became fashionable in Europe. True, there were enlightened clergy like Saint Bernard, and rulers like Richard the Lion Heart but the seeds were sown by leaders and local preachers (kind of like we now see in too many mosques). Islam was not enlightened by 20th or 21st
century standards re treatment of Jews (Dhimmi status etc), but it was
the Christian nations that massacred them and kicked them out. Country
after country.
Christ is Jewish. The Apostles are Jewish. Nearly all the first Christians were Jewish. The Bible is Hebrew/Jewish. Traditional Christian liturgy is basically Jewish.
Anti-Semitism is anti-Christianity.
Having said that, do you have a source or two, or is that merely a repetition of anti-Christian/anti-Catholic propaganda?
(And you’re exonerating Islam.)
“Christ is Jewish. The Apostles are Jewish.”
This is all true. But the original Christians observed Jewish law. When that changed there was a true split. Nevertheless, I have always found it perplexing that Christians (Catholic and Protestant) have so often hated Jews. Mostly for daring not to convert to Christianity and denying Jesus’s divinity. There are plenty of examples in the past of of anti-Jewish liturgy in
the Church. As late as 1960s Catholics were calling Jews
“Christ-killers”. (Martin Luther pulled a Mohammed – at first he courted Jews but when they wouldn’t convert to HIS version of Christianity, he became rabidly anti-Jewish). BTW, the word “antisemitism” was coined in Europe in the 19th century and it’s definition (as defined by antisemites themselves) has always been solely hatred of Jews. Re Muslims, I’m not exonerating anybody. I’m just telling history. Islam was better to Jews in the past. That is no longer true. Most of the antisemitism is coming from Islam these days. I have to add though that they are using stereotypes, blood libels and fake books (like Protocols of the Elders of Zion) that originated in Christian Europe.
A comment on Luther: he did expect that once the Jews of Germany heard the true Gospel they would convert. When they didn’t, his response wasn’t a tantrum — as horrific as it was — Luther was advocating the application of Deuteronomy 13.
Written by Moses. (Did Moses “hate Jews”?)
His last sermon records his sentiments regarding the Jewish people (consistent with the rest of his writings): that Christians should show Christian love to and pray for the Jewish people.
As for Jews under Islam, will you take Maimonides’ word? He observed regarding Islam’s treatment of Jews:
Remember, my coreligionists, that on account of the vast number of our sins, God has hurled us in the midst of this people, the Arabs [Muslims], who have persecuted us severely, and passed baneful and discriminatory legislation against us … Never did a nation molest, degrade, debase, and hate us as much as they . . .
[Although we were dishonored by them beyond human endurance, and had to put up with their fabrications, yet we behave like him who is depicted by the inspired writer: “But I am as a deaf man, I hear not, and I am as a dumb man that openeth not his mouth (Psalm 38: 14).
Similarly our sages instructed us to bear the prevarications and preposterousness of Ishmael in silence . . .
We have acquiesced, both old and young, to inure ourselves to humiliation . . .
All this notwithstanding, we do not escape this continual maltreatment which well nigh crushes us.
No matter how we suffer and elect to remain at peace with them [Muslims] they stir up strife and sedition . . .]
-Maimonides, victim of Islam in conquered Spain[, Iggeret Taiman (Epistle to Yemen), edited by A S Halkin; translated by B. Cohen, New York, 1952]
“Never did a nation molest, degrade, debase, and hate us as much as they ….”
Muslims, not Christians.
While you picked a germane quote from Maimonides, I really have to set you straight on Martin Luther. He didn’t just quote Deuteronomy. He wrote a book called “The Jews and Their Lies”. There is the usual European anti-Jewish claptrap, supplemented by murderous rage. (he even brings up that old chestnut “blasphemy” by which he means “After all I did for them against the Pope, they still don’t except Jesus as divine. My feelings are so hurt”) .
The following is but just one of many instances of his venom. But he really is in a fit of pique. (link below the quote)
“What shall we Christians do with this rejected and
condemned people, the Jews? Since they live among us, we dare not tolerate their conduct, now that we are aware of their lying and reviling and blaspheming. If we do, we become sharers in their lies, cursing and blasphemy. Thus we cannot extinguish the unquenchable fire of divine
wrath, of which the prophets speak, nor can we convert the Jews. With prayer and the fear of God we must practice a sharp mercy to see whether we might save at least a few from the glowing flames. We dare not avenge
ourselves. Vengeance a thousand times worse than we could wish them already has them by the throat. I shall give you my sincere advice:First to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians,
and do not condone or knowingly tolerate such public lying, cursing, and blaspheming of his Son and of his Christians. ”
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/Luther_on_Jews.html“
You’re not reading carefully, ben.
I did not write that Luther was “quoting” Deuteronomy 13; I wrote that he was applying it.
Of course, what Luther wrote was horrific. As far as I know, all Lutherans reject it — and every misrepresentation of it, such as that done by the National Socialists — as they should. But Luther was no proto-Hitler.
Below is the full text of Deuteronomy 13. Did Moses hate Jews?
And from Luther’s final sermon, his last words on the proper Christian attitude to the Jewish people: “We want to treat them in Christian love and pray for them…”
Here’s Deuteronomy 13 from the English Standard Version (highlights mine):
13 “If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder, 2 and the sign or wonder that he tells you comes to pass, and if he says, ‘Let us go after other gods,’ which you have not known, ‘and let us serve them,’ 3 you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams. For the Lord your God is testing you, to know whether you love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul. 4 You shall walk after the Lord your God and fear him and keep his commandments and obey his voice, and you shall serve him and hold fast to him. 5 But that prophet or that dreamer of dreams shall be put to death, because he has taught rebellion against the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt and redeemed you out of the house of slavery, to make you leave the way in which the Lord your God commanded you to walk. So you shall purge the evil[a] from your midst.
6 “If your brother, the son of your mother, or your son or your daughter or the wife you embrace[b] or your friend who is as your own soul entices you secretly, saying, ‘Let us go and serve other gods,’ which neither you nor your fathers have known, 7 some of the gods of the peoples who are around you, whether near you or far off from you, from the one end of the earth to the other, 8 you shall not yield to him or listen to him, nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him, nor shall you conceal him. 9 But you shall kill him. Your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. 10 You shall stone him to death with stones, because he sought to draw you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. 11 And all Israel shall hear and fear and never again do any such wickedness as this among you.
12 “If you hear in one of your cities, which the Lord your God is giving you to dwell there, 13 that certain worthless fellows have gone out among you and have drawn away the inhabitants of their city, saying, ‘Let us go and serve other gods,’ which you have not known, 14 then you shall inquire and make search and ask diligently. And behold, if it be true and certain that such an abomination has been done among you, 15 you shall surely put the inhabitants of that city to the sword, devoting it to destruction,[c] all who are in it and its cattle, with the edge of the sword. 16 You shall gather all its spoil into the midst of its open square and burn the city and all its spoil with fire, as a whole burnt offering to the Lord your God. It shall be a heap forever. It shall not be built again. 17 None of the devoted things shall stick to your hand, that the Lord may turn from the fierceness of his anger and show you mercy and have compassion on you and multiply you, as he swore to your fathers, 18 if you obey the voice of the Lord your God, keeping all his commandments that I am commanding you today, and doing what is right in the sight of the Lord your God.
I don’t consider him to be applying it really. Perverting it so it was absolutely unrecognizeable or using it as en excuse,perhaps. This section of Deuteronomy applied to Israelites in their land, concerning wayward Israelites who were trying to lead others astray. Back in that time Israelite was a people, a geographic entity. There
was no separation of church and state. In Europe there was, even if
only nominally. BUt Luther was not directing his venom towards wayward Christians (which would have been like the original Inquisition). He was directing it at Jews. Jews were not trying to lead Christians astray, merely trying to live their own lives as they saw fit.
I am not defending Luther’s tirade, nor his violation of his own Two Kingdoms theology.
But he was applying Deuteronomy 13; Luther echoes also Moses’ “kill … burn … no pity” and the reason why: “For the Lord your God is testing you, to know whether you love the Lord your God.”
“Luther did see the Jewish people as part of God’s people” If this is true, the specific way that Luther saw this, after 1000 years of de-facto separation of Judaism and Christianity, indicates a disordered mind. According to your description, he would be seeing Jews (1,000 years after the split) as just a smattering of false prophets within the body of “God’s People”. I’m also interested in how he decided what parts of the Hebrew Bible get thrown out (Kosher laws, Saturday Sabbath etc) and which get kept (murderous elimination of ‘false prophets’ etc).
“Luther did see the Jewish people as part of God’s people” If this is
true, the specific way that Luther saw this, after 1000 years of
de-facto separation of Judaism and Christianity, indicates a disordered
mind. According to your description, he would be seeing Jews (1,000
years after the split) as just a smattering of false prophets within the
body of “God’s People”. I’m also interested in how he decided what
parts of the Hebrew Bible get thrown out (Kosher laws, Saturday Sabbath
etc) and which get kept (murderous elimination of ‘false prophets’ etc).
St. Paul — a self-proclaimed “Hebrew of Hebrews” and a Pharisee — himself warns Gentile Christians to avoid arrogance toward his fellow Jews, since Gentile believers are “grafted into” the natural plant. He expressed also his deep desire that unbelieving Jews would repent and put their faith in the Messiah.
Luther never “threw out” any of the Old Testament works; dietary laws, Sabbaths, capital punishment for inciting apostasy were part of the Mosaic Covenant, which was fulfilled in Christ.
The eternal moral laws — the Ten Commandments, the Golden Rule — remain, but the ceremonial and civil laws for Israel are not binding on believers in Christ — whether Jew or Gentile.
Acts shows some of the struggle the early Church had in working this out; Paul’s letter to the Galatians and the letter to the Hebrews add much clarity.
I assure you, the crusaders weren’t trying to rescue jews. They were busy killing jews too.
wrong, google how the crusades were started, the turks and muslims over took jerusalem, that’s why. Good try
Wrong, you need to read past the first sentence that Google returns. Christianity at the time was still bound up in the “Jews killed Jesus” meme (some parts STILL are), and jews were being massacred from early on in the first crusade in 1095/96 starting in France and Germany. Do some searching yourself about what Godfrey of Bouillon (one of the Crusade leaders) said of the Jews, the Mainz massacre etc.
Then you need only read the massacres of jews that happened in England as part of the third crusade.
These massacres were condemned and in some cases prevented by some leaders, but other leaders endorsed and encouraged them. If you owe money to bankers who happen to be jewish, it’s a great way to eliminate debt.
Wrong
When someone pits the argument “Wrong” versus historical fact, historical fact wins every time.
Google “Mainz Massacres”.
Wrong, I can find as many facts supporting me as you can supporting you
You don’t understand logic in the slightest, do you?
You’re trying to prove a negative – that something never happened. I merely have to find one instance that it did happen to prove you’re wrong.
I’ve found several historically proven dates and places where it did.
It’s called “proof by counterexample”. There’s even a page on it in wikipedia.
The only “fact” you can muster is the word “wrong”.
Sorry, you lose.
Or, I shall put it even more simply: for me to be “wrong”, you have to disprove historical fact. No amount of “they didn’t kill jews here” and “they didn’t kill jews there” will disprove that the crusaders killed jews in Mainz and England and many other places.
Good luck with that.
Did the leaders who endorsed them cite any Biblical text to justify them?
I suggest reading:
en.wikipediA.Org/wiki/Rhineland_massacres
for a taste of how thoroughly nasty just part of it was. Google searching can probably find some more specific candidates.
But, no matter:
Being deemed responsible for the crucifixion (Matthew 27:23-25) tends to more than adequate to justify the things they said (and some ignorant twits still say), without needing more specific/explicit “kill the jews” references.
Deuteronomy is full of nasties for unbelievers. While Deuteronomy is old testament, and Jesus explicitly made the old testament mostly obsolete in terms of “law” during and after him, that has been ignored or given lip-service by various “christian leaders” through the centuries since, and there are bits of Luke which are pretty jew-threatening too, for example, Luke 23:28-31.
But the texts you cite don’t say that Jews should be persecuted or that it is a religious requirement like “kill the infidels.” All of the books of the New Testament were written by Jews except two. There is no textual support in the Bible for Jewish persecution and anyone who did it was acting contrary to true Christianity. I would also be surprised if there were any basis for Jewish persecution in the Old Testament–ie, the Hebrew Bible.
The words in Matthew can, were, and in some cases still are, interpreted as a religious incentive to at least persecute if not kill jews.
To treat it as anything else would be to accept King Henry’s Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?” as not being a subtle hint that he’d like Thomas the Becket assassinated.
That is an extremely harsh verdict on Mathew – and completely unjustified.
It’s a harsh verdict on how something that Matthew wrote can and has been interpreted, not on Matthew. It’s an indictment on the Inquisition and the Conquistadors and similar groups even now. Not Matthew.
If Matthew had meant it to be interpreted as _some_ people interpret it, the authors of the New Testament would be completely invalidating Christianity’s message as sheer hypocrisy, wouldn’t they? But I don’t believe they were hypocrites, and I don’t believe that the message is that foul either.
The second reason to bring this up is to provide a counterpoint to similar charges placed against Islam. You cannot raise such charges against one religion, without necessarily having to explain similar issues with your own.
After all, Islam, Judaism and Christianity are the _same_ religion. All three have the same set of prophets (except Islam has Mohammad). They’re just three different sets of most-authoritative prophets. Just three distinct points of divergence of their respective creeds from the same core faith.
The indictment is against the interpreters – and the anti-Semitic interpretation you suggest is obviously a misuse of the scripture. That should be enough to condemn those who misuse Mathew. Christians don’t have to defend misuse of the text as you suggest they must do.
There should be, but like Christians shouldn’t have to defend misuse of the text, _neither_ should Muslims. Muslims are no more responsible in general for ISIL, or Charlie Hebdo, or … than Christians are for the Rev. Jim Jones, Torquemada, Adkisson, the Army of God, or McVeigh.
Deuteronomy is full of nasties for unbelievers […] bits of Luke […].”
That is completely false.
The mandates for capital punishment in Deuteronomy were part of the Mosaic Covenant into which Israel entered voluntarily, and they applied only to the people of Israel.
As for the New Testament, only the illiterate and the anti-Semite can read it and conclude that Jew-hatred is anything but an abomination.
Jesus is Jewish. The Apostles were Jewish. The Bible is Hebrew/Jewish. Nearly all the first Christians were Jewish. Early Christian worship was Jewish.
So, you can’t hate Jews without hating everything about Christianity, including the Son of God Himself.
Besides that, Jesus commands His people to love even their enemies. And the Scriptures make clear that both Jew and Gentile killed Christ. More than that, that He died voluntarily for the sins of the world.
His blood is on all of us.
“you can’t hate jews without hating christianity and the son of god himself”. Well, that may be true and perfectly logical to those who think logically, but it didn’t stop about 1500 years worth of christians hating jews, christian leaders (and I don’t mean mere Kings or Presidents, but high priests and ministers) preaching and directing the massacre of jews, etc, etc., did it?
And no, it’s not just Catholicism. It’s Luther, it’s Calvin, and much of which followed in the various protestant creeds.
The Mainz massacres weren’t perpetrated just by soldiers. There were also “volunteers” and civilian _christian_ mobs.
Matthew’s condemnation of the jews as responsible for Jesus’ death may not have explicitly called for the persecution of jews, but it was and still is a pretty powerful incitement to some.
Today all too many people have a Disney version of Christianity. It never was. Jesus isn’t Bambi. The truth is actually rather more inspiring.
This is an article about Islam. Your comments trying to equate Moses with Muhammad are perverse and false. Deuteronomy’s commands for capital punishment had nothing to do with the world outside of Israel, unlike Islam’s mandates to war against all who refuse the “invitation” to convert.
Your broadly brushed smears against Christianity over the anti-Semitism of some — who spent centuries under Islamic oppression, by the way — have nothing to do with the religion itself.
Your conclusion is an odd non sequitur. And offer something in support of your slander against St. Luke.
A small-time and clumsy apologist for Islam?
This is getting hilariously funny, to some I’m a christian bigot, to others I’m jewish hasbara, and now I’m a pro-muslim apologist.
I think I have it dialed in perfectly thank you.
Would a muslim apologist volunteer at the local Anglican church?
Thought not.
I’d worry about slandering St. Luke if St. Luke actually wrote it, and it wasn’t so packed full of contradictions with other parts of the new testament.
Jesus’s message is far more inspiring if you manage to divest yourself of the fallacy of taking every word in the new testament literally.
Perhaps, then, you should revise your argument.
If it walks like a Muslim apologist or one of their Useful Idiot dhimmis (you left that out), and sounds like a Muslim apologist or one of their Useful Idiot dhimmis, and quacks like a Muslim apologist or one of their Useful Idiot dhimmis, then it’s a Muslim apologist or one of their Useful Idiot dhimmis.
Besides that, you’re not telling the truth about Christianity. Perhaps you’re not one of those, either.
Not telling the truth about christianity? You mean that Luke’s geneology of Jesus isn’t completely inconsistent with Matthew’s?
Hint: it entirely contradicts Matthew’s.
Luke doesn’t even manage to be consistent with himself, let alone with Matthew or Mark.
Indeed, most scholars don’t think anybody named “Luke” actually wrote it, it being cribbed from Mark, the Q and L sources. Even Luke’s existence (whether he wrote it or not) is primarily acribed to a book of Paul’s, which most scholars now believe wasn’t actually written by Paul.
Most religious historians tend to discount Luke these days, preferring to stick closer to people who might actually have personally witnessed anything they wrote about, it being very doubtful with Luke, because Luke was written after 60AD, some think as late as 110AD.
Where’s Q? Where’s L? You can’t pick-and-choose.
Your “scholars” are frauds making up fictions out of whole cloth. (They tried that nonsense with Moses, too.)
You’re stuck in the Seventies.
Have you actually read Luke? Acts?
No one of any intellectual integrity discounts Luke, though many without it throw around slander easily enough.
And there are no “contradictions.” Different points-of-view. Different information. But no factual contradictions.
Name one.
Let’s see how honest you are: Tell us what bearing Quirinius has on Luke, and then we’ll talk.
Yes, I’ve read Luke. Acts. Mark. Matthew. Before you were born.
If you knew the bible as much as you say you do, then you’d _know_ there were many contradictions in the new testament, and you’d know at least one of the proposed answers to the major contradictions, and you’d also then understand why I brought it up.
You don’t think Christians have noticed these contradictions? Of _course_ they have, they’re not so blind to their own faith as you. There are many competing explanations for each and every one of the contradictions – from the great christian thinkers and scholars, through religious history scholars. Which you’d know, if you actually knew anything about our holy book.
No actual contradictions? Please explain why the genealogy of King David to Jesus according to Matthew 1:1–17 is entirely different from the genealogy of King David to Jesus according to Luke 3:23–38.
A different genealogy cannot be a difference of viewpoint or opinion,
it’s a hard contradiction. Secondly, it’s an important question, if Jesus is supposed to have been the King of the Jews as was foretold for the Messiah.
As for Quirinius, that’s part of another one of the contradictions. Where Luke in Luke 2:1–7) said Jesus was born during the census of Quirinius (historically placed in 6/7AD), but both the gospels of Luke and Matthew say that Jesus was born during the reign of Herod, who died in 4BC. There’s a slight problem of a difference of 10 years. They both can’t be true. This apparent contradiction has been known for centuries, and there are many different arm-waving rationalizations.
So, you offer our (assumed, on your part) age difference as an argument. Then my (alleged, by you) biblical illiteracy.
Then you offer a non-contradiction obvious to anyone who’s actually read the Scriptures honestly, rather than merely in order to mutilate it. (If you’ve read them at all.)
Finally, you prove beyond doubt your utter ignorance of (actual) Biblical scholarship outside of the “Jesus Seminar.” (If that’s not a misnomer, then nothing is.)
Your genealogical “contradiction” is actually evidence of independent authorship. Matthew, who was writing to a primarily Jewish audience, traces Christ’s ancestry from the father of the Hebrews, Abraham, to David, to the Babylonian Exile, to the Messiah. Naturally, he emphasizes those figures and events of extra import to a Jewish audience.
Luke, on the other hand, was writing for Theophilus specifically and a Greek audience in general. So, he emphasizes Christ’s shared ancestry with the entire world, tracing backward from Christ to Adam, the father of all, both Jew and Gentile, and then to God.
As for Quirinius, the evidence does not indicate that Luke erred, as you and your coreligionists so desperately hope. (Besides the obvious translation issues of proconsul/governor) Vardaman found microletters on the Lapis Venetus placing Quirinius as proconsul of Syria and Cilicia c. 12/11 B.C.
Santiago wins hands down – every spurious assertion made by Chris is refuted, Thanks for your patience closing off all of Chris’s rabbit-trails.
Thank you, Paul.
“So, you offer our (assumed, on your part) age difference as an argument.” – pretty hypocritical coming from you after dismissing everything I said as being a Dhimmi, a muslim apologist.
Just over there someone is calling me anti-muslim (for quoting a Hadith from a high respected collector of the hadiths that all Sunni accept, which quotes Aisha herself as to how old she was when her marriage to Mohammed was consumated), and someone else was calling me jewish Hasbara for refusing to demand their extermination.
So you’re calling the explicit contradiction in Luke versus Matthew’s geneology as proof of its being accurate? For example, where Matthew says Joseph’s father is Jacob and Luke says Joseph’s father is Heli ONLY means the the authors were different?
You’re seriously trying to convince us of such nonsense?
Do I have to remind you of the obvious: one’s grandfather is determined by facts, and not the teller of the tale? Christianity has been having problems with this contradiction since the 4th century, and there’s literally dozens of different Christian theories trying to explain the discrepancy away, ranging from one talking about maternal bloodline versus paternal, first-born husband vs actual parenthood etc. Your explanation isn’t even the most popular one.
From a strictly prophetic perspective, this particular bit of the tale is one of the most important of all – for Jesus could not be the King of the Jews nor the Messiah without direct descendence from King David. Yet, the two chroniclers and authorities of his genealogy disagree _completely_ with the descendence.
[We won’t even try to explain how someone who is supposedly the result of a virgin birth to Mary consummated by God, could _possibly_
be male-descended from anyone.]
Non-biblical sources are of no help either – there are only two absurdly brief historical references for the existence of Jesus at all, and none at all on his geneology. Outside of the Judaic, Christian and Islamic holy works, he essentially didn’t exist at all.
Do you know what the real answer is? One that the majority of Christianity has adopted for centuries?
Even Eusebius, a Church thinker from the 4 century who resignedly wrote “each
believer has been only too eager to dilate at length on these
passages.” in his “History of the Church” got the real answer 1600 years ago.
It’s really simple: “it’s not supposed to be taken literally”.
As for Quinarius, you’re playing word games. Luke’s literal meaning is “this was the first census taken, while Quirinius
was governor …”, Governor he said, and governor he meant. Quirinius did not become governor of
Syria until well after Herod’s death, and the census associated with his governorship (during which Luke said Jesus was born) is 10 years after Herod’s death ended Herod’s reign, during which Luke also said Jesus was born.
The answer to this contradiction is the same as the first answer I gave – it’s not supposed to be taken literally.
Here’s a pretty well researched discussion of these and other contradictions in the New Testament:
infidelS.Org/library/modern/paul_carlson/nt_contradictions.html
I draw your attention to G, “Conclusions Reached So Far”.
Those conclusions are correct – but it doesn’t matter.
The one mistake that you and many other Christians make is insisting upon the infallibility of the detail of the bible. It’s a similar mistake that many secularists make – that the lack of infallibility makes any difference. The conclusions that the secularist writes in the aforementioned section G are true. But so what?
It’s not the details stupid, it’s the message, and only the faith in that message, that matters.
Only the “stupid” dismiss fact in service to fantasy. Only the “stupid” confuse infidels.org for something resembling intellectual integrity. Only the “stupid” reject Luke in order to misinterpret Luke. Only the “stupid” think that name-calling is a sufficient substitute for empiricism.
If your religion isn’t literally, actually true, then it isn’t worth anything at all.
Absurd ad hominems? I distinctly remember you being the first with you insisting I was a dhimmi, a Muslim apologist.
If I were a muslim apologist, would I have nailed him to the wall about Aisha?
Congratulations, you’ve found the second of the common rationalizations of the inconsistency between Luke and Matthew on Jesus’ genealogy. Unfortunately, Africanus’ explanation falls flat on its face for the very same reason. The “Uterine birth” theory is, in a nutshell, a women’s first husband dies, and by hebrew custom and tradition, becomes the wife of the first husband’s brother, and the resulting offspring are deemed by custom to be the offspring of the deceased husband.
The problem with that is obvious: this would mean that Jacob (via Matthew) and Eli (via Luke) were brothers, and would have the same father.
The father of Jacob according to Matthew was Mathan, and the father of Eli was Melchi according to Luke.
Oops.
Oh, okay, perhaps another level of uterine birth – but Mathan’s and Melchi’s father weren’t the same either. Another? All the way back to David?
That’s ridiculous, I thought these guys lived longer than that.
Another theory is a bit more logical – Luke was giving Mary’s genealogy/Matthew giving Joseph’s, and Eli was Mary’s father. But other sources pretty consistently say that her father was Joachim, and everybody agrees that the Hebraic tradition NEVER includes women in genealogies.
Then of course there’s the problem that Matthew’s genealogy include 4 women. And did you notice what they all had in common?
And then there’s another, that Matthew was giving Mary’s genealogy and Luke Josephs’s.
One of my favourite minor imperfections is Matthew’s abject insistence that Jesus’s triumphant return to Jerusalem was riding two donkeys…
Simultaneously.
Er what?
He really meant it too, because he says that in three verses. Meanwhile, Mark, John and Luke say only one donkey. But how could this be?
Simple: in Matthew’s zeal to force Jesus’s tale into consistency with prophecy, coupled with his poor understanding of Hebrew, meant he mistranslated Zechariah 9:9. In other words, the tale was created from the prophecy, and not from real events.
A major blunder.
Now, let’s talk about the truly major imperfections:
Precisely which books belong in the bible? Do the Apocrypha? Gospel of Thomas? I and II Clement? The Gospel of Judas? The Gospel of James? The Gnostics? The Shepherd of Hermas? The Gospel of the Pseudo-Matthew? How about the story of Jesus and the dragons? How can the book be “perfect” if Christians can’t even agree which books belong in it?
If the bible was truely perfect, there wouldn’t be possible to interpret it in so many bizarre directions, all the way from Khoresh, thru Sun Myung Moon, the Solar Temple, Jonestown, Roman Catholic, Coptic, Ethopian, Calvinist etc.
So, if you insist that for the meaning to be true, the book must be perfect, I’m very much afraid you’re up the proverbial creek without a paddle.
Some of your earlier comments were consistent with what Muslims and their Useful Idiots often state.
As for the genealogies, Africanus states that one was by nature, the other by law.
With regard to Hebrew tradition and women, you must know that Christ doesn’t care about obeying merely cultural norms (refer to Christ’s interaction with the Samaritan woman at the well, for one example.)
The Old Testament canon was pretty much set by the time of Christ; even though the Apocryphal books were included, they were not considered inspired. Jerome doubted the canonicity of some of the Apocrypha, and while Luther did not reject them completely, he did move them to the end of his translation to be an appendix, noting that though the works were useful and edifying, they were not inspired. The rest are just frauds.
And it’s not the Bible’s fault if the deceitful and the deranged misuse it. Anyone who can read can understand what it says. On some subtler points, a little more study may be necessary, but that doesn’t mean that there’s anything wrong with the Texts themselves.
Crusaders were killing other Christians also (the first fall of Constantinople).
None of which negates the fact that the Crusades were called as a centuries-late response to Islam’s jihad against eastern Christianity.
Oh, so, “you persecuted people hundred of years ago who didn’t even have the same religion, language, let alone any familial connection” is an adequate justification?
When the Crusaders killed some of the descendent’s of those christians too?
Oh please.
The crusades were nothing more than a religiously justified war to grab some land, resources and kill off some people.
I’m not denying the evil Crusaders committed. I’m pointing out that what it seems you’re implying is false.
Whatever else the Crusaders might have done, they were not killing only Jews — they warred also against their fellow Christians — and they did not go (originally) to steal and murder.
The first Crusade was called by Pope Urban II in defense of eastern Christendom under siege for centuries by Islam.
I’m sure that it’ll come as a great consolation that Pope Urban II publicly said the first Crusade was “originally” to “defend” eastern Christendom, whereas instead, it seems to have been more an attempt to preserve access to religious sites for western Christendom, and it immediately went downhill from there.
Such as in the 4th Crusade, where these rescuing western Christendom “saved” eastern Christendom by massacring them all in Constantinople. Where Pope Urban II said that all sins were forgiven to Crusaders no matter what they did?
If the Muslims were so bad, why were the Crusaders allying themselves with Muslims against other Christians during the 5th Crusade?
You’re all over the place.
-The first Crusade was called (centuries too late) to defend Christianity against Islam. That is an unalterable fact.
-There’s nothing wrong with preserving access to religious sites conquered by the most vile ideology in the history of Man. (You’re implying essentially that it was selfish/self-serving/wrong for the West to liberate France from Nazi rule.)
-No one’s defending Crusader attacks against Jews and Christians.
-Pope Urban’s assurance of salvation was not for attacking innocents; it was for going to defend their fellow Christians against Islam.
-The pope’s promise of forgiveness was anti-Christian, unbiblical, and Islamic, frankly. That does nothing to negate the purpose for the first Crusade, however.
-Spanish kings allied with invading Muslim rulers. FDR allied with Stalin. Reagan supported Saddam. Circumstances change. People serve their own self-interests (as they perceive them). None of that negates “kill the pagans wherever you find them” (Qur’an 9:5) or fourteen hundred years of rape, slavery, and slaughter in service to the genocidal pedophile Muhammad.
– The defence of christianity was a pretext. In reality, the Byzantines were at peace with the Muslims and able to practice their religion. As were the jews.
– Don’t believe me? Look up the The Umariyya Covenant.
– Of course, the last time the Byzantines were in control of Jerusalem, they massacred the jews.
– If Crimea was invaded just to protect the Russians, that would have been a lie. Oh, right, that was the reason given.
– Most vile ideology in the history of man? Oh, I can think of some a lot worse than Islam in that period. The Byzantines in Jerusalem for example, along with the Khymer Rouge, Stalinism and Nazism more recently.
– The Pope’s pardon was for _anything_ they did, no matter who was the victim. Freedom to rape and pillage anybody/anything you wanted. Nice job if you can get it.
Either you’re lying intentionally, you need a new dictionary, or you need to ask for a refund from whomever fed you so much nescience.
The Byzantines were not “at peace” with Islam; the eastern Roman Empire was devoured slowly over the centuries until at last Constantinople — with the Hagia Sophia, the greatest church in Christendom — fell to Muhammad’s hordes in 1453.
Here is one account of Black Tuesday, The End of the World. And it has nothing to do with “peace”:
“[…] the great church of Hagia Sophia was filled
to capacity. Thousands of people were moving towards the church.
Inside, Orthodox and Catholic priests were holding liturgy, the last
Christian service after almost 1,000 years. People were singing hymns,
others were openly crying, others were asking each other for forgiveness
[…].
“Bands of Ottoman soldiers began now looting. Doors were
broken, private homes were looted, their tenants were massacred. Shops
in the city markets were looted. Monasteries and Convents were broken
in. Their tenants were killed, nuns were raped; many, to avoid dishonor,
killed themselves. Killing, raping, looting, burning, enslaving, went
on and on […].
“The great doors of Hagia Sophia were forced
open, and crowds of angry soldiers came in and fell upon the unfortunate
worshippers. Pillaging and killing in the holy place went on for hours.
Similar was the fate of worshippers in most churches in the city […].
“Thousands
of civilians were enslaved, soldiers fought over young boys and young
women […] the invaders broke the heads of those women who resisted on
the floor of the churches and they raped them dead. The famous icon of
Apostole Loukas was totally destroyed.
“The sultan asked for the
young sons of Duke Loukas Notaras. Their father refused and Mehmed was
ready to take their heads. Notaras asked him to kill him after his sons
so that he was sure that they were dead and not disgraced from the
pervert sultan.
“And this is what happened.”
Treaties between Muslims and their conquered dhimmi subjects were made in order to offer every advantage to Islam and to constantly remind the non-Muslim of his subjugated status. Here’s the Pact of Umar, consistent with Muhammad’s commands to make them “feel themselves subdued” (Qur’an 9:29):
After the rapid expansion of the
Muslim dominion in the 7th century, Muslims leaders were required to
work out a way of dealing with Non-Muslims, who remained in the majority
in many areas for centuries. The solution was to develop the notion of
the “dhimma”, or “protected person”. The Dhimmi were required to pay an
extra tax [. . .] The Pact of Umar is supposed to have been the peace
accord offered by the Caliph Umar to the Christians of Syria, a “pact”
which formed the patter[n] of later interaction.
We heard from ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn Ghanam [died 78/697] as
follows: When Umar ibn al-Khattab, may God be pleased with him, accorded
a peace to the Christians of Syria, we wrote to him as follows:
In the name of God, the Merciful and Compassionate. This is a
letter to the servant of God Umar [ibn al-Khattab], Commander of the
Faithful, from the Christians of such-and-such a city. When you came
against us, we asked you for safe-conduct (aman) for ourselves, our
descendants, our property, and the people of our community, and we
undertook the following obligations toward you:
We shall not build, in our cities or in their neighborhood,
new monasteries, Churches, convents, or monks’ cells, nor shall we
repair, by day or by night, such of them as fall in ruins or are
situated in the quarters of the Muslims.
We shall keep our gates wide open for passersby and travelers. We shall
give board and lodging to all Muslims who pass our way for three days.
We shall not give shelter in our churches or in our dwellings to any spy, nor [h]ide him from the Muslims.
We shall not teach the Qur’an to our children.
We shall not manifest our religion publicly nor convert anyone to it. We
shall not prevent any of our kin from entering Islam if they wish it.
We shall show respect toward the Muslims, and we shall rise from our seats when they wish to sit.
We shall not seek to resemble the Muslims by imitating any of their
garments, the qalansuwa, the turban, footwear, or the parting of the
hair. We shall not speak as they do, nor shall we adopt their kunyas.
We shall not mount on saddles, nor shall we gird swords nor bear any kind of arms nor carry them on our persons.
We shall not engrave Arabic inscriptions on our seals.
We shall not sell fermented drinks.
We shall clip the fronts of our heads.
We shall always dress in the same way wherever we may be, and we shall bind the zunar round our waists
We shall not display our crosses or our books in the roads or markets of
the Muslims. We shall use only clappers in our churches very softly. We
shall not raise our voices when following our dead. We shall not show
lights on any of the roads of the Muslims or in their markets. We shall
not bury our dead near the Muslims.
We shall not take slaves who have been allotted to Muslims.
We shall not build houses overtopping the houses of the Muslims.
(When I brought the letter to Umar, may God be pleased with him, he added, “We shall not strike a Muslim.”)
We accept these conditions for ourselves and for the people of our community, and in return we receive safe-conduct.
If we in any way violate these undertakings for which we ourselves stand
surety, we forfeit our covenant [dhimma], and we become liable to the
penalties for contumacy and sedition.
Umar ibn al-Khittab
replied: Sign what they ask, but add two clauses and impose them in
addition to those which they have undertaken. They are: “They shall not
buy anyone made prisoner by the Muslims,” and “Whoever strikes a Muslim
with deliberate intent shall forfeit the protection of this pact.”
from Al-Turtushi, Siraj al-Muluk, pp. 229-230.
And here is Pope Urban II’s call for the first Crusade. The “absolution” was in exchange for going to defend eastern Christendom, not for doing evil. Fulcher recounts:
your brethren who live in the east are in urgent need of your help, and
you must hasten to give them the aid which has often been promised them.
For, as the most of you have heard, the Turks and Arabs have attacked
them and have conquered the territory of Romania [the Greek empire] as
far west as the shore of the Mediterranean and the Hellespont, which is
called the Arm of St. George. They have occupied more and more of the
lands of those Christians, and have overcome them in seven battles. They
have killed and captured many, and have destroyed the churches and
devastated the empire. If you permit them to continue thus for awhile
with impurity, the faithful of God will be much more widely attacked by
them. On this account I, or rather the Lord, beseech you as Christ’s
heralds to publish this everywhere and to persuade all people of
whatever rank, foot-soldiers and knights, poor and rich, to carry aid
promptly to those Christians and to destroy that vile race from the
lands of our friends. I say this to those who are present, it meant also
for those who are absent. Moreover, Christ commands it.
“All who die by the way, whether by land or by sea, or in battle against the pagans, shall have immediate remission of sins.
You need to do your homework.
Santiago, I stand in awe. When you revise history to suit your purpose, you don’t stop at minor fibs, you go for the full-on lie.
Goebbels would be so proud of you.
To anyone else following this thread, Santiago would have you believe that the Crusades were a “few hundred years late” rescuing the poor eastern byzantine Christians from, for example, the 1453 invasion of Constantinople, when in reality, it’s a few hundred years too _early_. The last Crusades were in the 1200s, and one of the last crusades included the massacre of eastern christians in Constantinople by their “supposed saviours”, the western Christian crusaders, not the Muslims.
Constantinople was under control of the Byzantine Christians from their beginnings until 1204. Early on Constantinople was much beset by a variety of would be invaders, not just muslim – Varengian, RusKiev, western Christian, Persian, various barbarian armies, etc. But it survived, and in the century before 1204, it was very prosperous, fairly tolerant of differing religions, and on moderately good terms with most of its neighbors including the Muslims: The cross-roads of trade between the west and east.
In 1204 the Western Roman church, not the Muslims, sacked and looted Constantinople, massacring whatever Byzantine Christians they could catch. Saving them from the Muslims? No, it was outright conquest, looting and extermination of fellow Christians.
Venice, in particular, but other Roman Christian centers are FULL of byzantine Christian antiquities stolen from Constantinople during the 4th Crusade. The half century of western reign over Constantinople resulted in the depopulation of the city, destruction of many buildings, and the starvation/homelessness of the Byzantine Christians that they hadn’t managed to kill off more directly.
Sir Steven Runciman, historian of the Crusades, wrote that the sack of Constantinople is “unparalleled in history”. He was referring to 1204, NOT 1453.
As bad as the 1453 sacking of Constantinople was, the looting was of relatively short duration and the christians were allowed to not only keep their lives, but their faiths, and the first thing that happened is that the city was rebuilt. Christians and Jews were encouraged by the Muslims to repopulate the city. Meanwhile, 250 years earlier, the Holy Roman Christian empire tried its darndest to exterminate them completely.
“Goebbels”? That’s ironic.
You’re taking comments from different posts completely out of context and then claiming that I lied.
Are you experiencing a diabetic episode? Some type of dysphasia? Or are you merely a shameless and pathological liar?
Which is it?
Islam began its jihad against eastern Christianity in 634, conquering Jerusalem in 637. The first Crusade wasn’t called in 1095, a period of over 400 years.
That’s what I call “centuries late” and you call “revision.”
As far as I can tell, I never referred here directly to the Sack of Constantinople. I did reject Crusaders warring against the innocent.
And no, the Sack of Constantinople, as lamentable, evil, and abominable as it was, does not, in any way, ameliorate, extenuate, nor negate Islam’s eight hundred year war against the Christian East.
You should be ashamed of yourself. You can’t even lie well.
I should be ashamed of myself? What about the history of the eastern church, who by a succession of wars, conquered much of the mediterranean, invading north africa, egypt, arabia, turkey, bulgaria, serbia and elsewhere and forcibly converting them?
And when the empire seemed to be settling down and getting along with its neighbors, what happens? The 4th crusade happened at the hands of the western church, which so severely damaged the eastern church that it finally fell in 1453 after 1000 years.
Who caused the persecution of the christians in the middle east? The eastern church by military expansionism.
Who destroyed the christians in the middle east? The western church precipitated its destruction.
I should be ashamed of myself? What about the history of the eastern church
That’ s a non sequitur.
And false. Christianity spread throughout the Roman world in its first few centuries not by the sword, but in spite of it.
You are aware that before Constantine, being a Christian was often fatal, aren’t you?
I agree that Christians warring against anyone except in self-defense is evil.
Jews never had it so good at they did in Spain when the Muslims were in control. When the Christians took over, the Inquisition started and all of the sudden Jews were dying.
wrong, google how the crusades were started, you might learn something
I asked you to provide a source because you are the one that made the claim that one of the reasons for the Crusades was to help Jews. By the way, taking Jersusalem away from Muslims is not a sufficient answer since Jews were treated worse under Christian rule than under Muslim rule up until the 20th century . So again, please provide a link. If you’re feeling really ambitious you could even provide a quote.
Jews were treated worse under Christian rule than under Muslim rule up until the 20th century
There is no defense for “Christian” anti-Semitism, but the idea that Islam was better for Jews is absurd.
Ask Maimonides.
And yes, I gave your ‘advice’ a shot and did google it. Found nothing to support your claim.
Pope Urban II, 1095.
Maimonides.
Maybe because the person claiming to do those evil things misrepresents
Christianity because they really represent the devil…the deciever, evil one named Satan.
Because the devil (otherwise known as catholics) became obsessed with traditional bullshit that has nothing to do with God or Jesus or grace or forgiveness!
Adam then consider that they were not Christian to begin with. When it became political i.e. Romanized, then what developed out of that was not Christian. Christians are to follow peace with all men, and Blessed are the peacemakers. Christianity was founded on the blood of those martyred (killed) for their faith, and Islam from it’s beginning was founded on by the sword of it’s followers shedding the blood of those who refuse to believe. IN Islam a Muslim must seek your conversion, and if you turn it down he is then obligated to kill you (It’s in the Koran). IN Christianity I am to preach the gospel. If you choose not to believe it I move on to someone else and so on and so on. I, as a Christian, cannot decide who should live or die, I cannot pass judgment like this. If a person does not wish the life of the gospel, then it is between them and God. In Islam the Muslim has the right to decide if you will live or die.
Would you make a similar argument that Russia and China are not really Communist since Karl Marx would not have approved of either country’s government?
You people have obviously no done any research in the history of religion. The Catholics were fighting the Muslims even back during the Crusades. Stop with your lies!!!!!!!!!!!
I have read a book–the Bible. I have searched the words of Jesus and his disciples and apostles and can’t find any reference to killing non-believers or forcing people to convert (an impossibility, given the requirement of belief). Anyone who kills “in the name of Christianity” is not acting according to the true tenets of the faith, which are found in the scripture.
Typical muddled propaganda from someone with very limited thinking capability. I would ask you to provide a detailed argument for your assertions, but that would be a waste of time.
Simple answer to your question is: The Holy Spirit of God has not reached down into their souls, so there is no everlasting change in their thinking. Thus, they have not been born again; they are not Christians; they will not go to heaven unless they repent.
Conversion has little to do with the individuals will.
The Holy Spirit of God reaches down into man’s soul, creating an everlasting change in his thinking.
I will not venture into the swamp of arguing about what various religions USED to say or advocate. I will only focus on the modern world, as that is all my family and I have to live in. So, debate this if you will. In the modern world, there is NO OTHER religion other than Islam that wants to kill me and my family simply because we are not them. Dispute that please.
Sure, ignore history at your peril, you say in the world, but you look very narrowly, and if you ignore history you ignore the solutions to the problem. The fact that other religions used to advocate so is important BECAUSE they changed and the religious institutions of Islam CAN change too, but if you want to fight your holy war go ahead, ignore history and perish like the rest of them. DISPUTE THAT
No extant major world religion commands the rape, enslavement, and slaughter of all who refuse the “invitation” to convert except Islam.
And the reason for that is that no extant major world religion’s foundational texts command the rape, enslavement, and slaughter of all who refuse the “invitation” to convert except Islam’s.
You can’t “reform” Islam until you “reform” the eternal and unchanging word of Allah.
Good luck with that.
The ONLY way Islam can be revised or be renewed is by our Holy God coming into the middle of it, shedding His light in the souls of the people who once embraced the lies of Islam.
Jesus Christ is their only hope for an everlasting change of heart.
You’re not helping, Bryant Hill. A strong Judaism is good for everybody. The same for a truly strong (not bullying) Islam. The more Christians push Muslims to convert, the more they will act as if their back is to the wall.
We are not trying to get Islam to convert, they are trying to get us to convert and it’s not going to happen. We will not be involved in killing the Jews! That is what they want from us!
I was replying specifically and ONLY to what Bryant Hill said.
He’s asking them to embrace Jesus as Christ. (see his quote below).
“he ONLY way Islam can be revised or be renewed is by our Holy God coming into the middle of it, shedding His light in the souls of the people who once embraced the lies of Islam.
Jesus Christ is their only hope for an everlasting change of heart.”
That’s proselytizing. For the record I think that to the extent Islam embraces a sense of supremacy, it is prevented from being a force for good in the world
But Christian sense of supremacy hasn’t kept it from being a force for good in the world?
Islam wants the basest of man’s motivations to rule us.
Not because of a sense of superiority.
The way they treat their women is an indicator of what really ails them……………..
Christian sense of supremacy has led to wholesale murder. Thankfully, except for certain parts of Africa, Christianity has gotten over itself. But supremacy is the disease. Islam is more affected by it these days.
Christianity is the foundation of our modern notions of Liberty, justice, equality, and human rights.
And Christianity in Africa is in an existential struggle against Islam.
Perhaps you need to “get over yourself” and begin actual study.
Wow, you think that everywhere in every country Christianity is the bastion of human rights? Uganda with its rabid anti-gay legislation is an example of Christianity not getting over itself in that particular country. Must it be all or nothing with you?
“Christianity is the foundation of our modern notions of Liberty, justice, equality, and human rights.”
Actually, Judaism is more a foundation than Christianity. Christianity does get some credit for not jettisoning those concepts from the ‘Old Testament’.
You’re not reading.
Try again.
Christianity embraces both the Old and the New Testament. Judaism get the credits too. But it is the Christians in the USA and Europe who used Christianity as the foundations of their Western civilizations.
NO, we get those from the Enlightenment.
The church was opposed to it.
Christian Supremecy led to the genocides in the new world, mass killing of pagans in Europe, the destruction of Classical western Philosophy schools and the Dark Ages .
NO, we get those from the Enlightenment.
The church was opposed to it.
Christian Supremecy led to the genocides in the new world, mass killing of pagans in Europe, the destruction of Classical western Philosophy schools and the Dark Ages.
All arguments only the misinformed, the historically illiterate, or the perverse can make.
From where do you think that the Enlightenment got them?
There is an often vast distinction between Christianity and those who claim to practice it.
As for “Christian supremacy”? You’re confusing the rule of kings for Christ’s teachings. There is nothing in anything He said or did which can be used to justify any of the (supposed) atrocities you flaunt.
And those crimes? Lies.
It is true that European kings participated in theft, murder, and conquest, but disease is responsible for what you call “genocide,” the Dark Ages — the nature of which you gravely misunderstand — were imposed on Europe by Islam, and it was Christians who preserved, not destroyed, many of the works of Antiquity.
I missed this one, beninabox.
When Islam is “truly strong,” it is much worse than “bullying.” Think more along the lines of “genocidally anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, anti-pagan, anti-Hindu, anti-Buddhist, anti-woman, anti-prepubescent-little-girl,” etc.
Neither do Muslims rape, enslave, and slaughter those who refuse the “invitation” to convert because Christians want them to convert instead.
They kill out of “religious” duty, just as the genocidal pedophile Muhammad preached and practiced.
I’m using ‘strong’ in a different sense. It seems to me one of the great problems with Islam is an extremely fragile ego and pathological insecurity. Its world collapses if one person leaves the faith or an unflattering picture of Mohammed is published. I consider that extremely weak. I think the whole slavery thing can be overcome – the Pentateuch has regulations on slavery but Jews haven’t practiced it or condoned it in millenia.
You are right about Islam’s “ego.” It’s that way because Muhammad was that way, and Islam is Muhammad.
I understood your “truly strong”; my point was that Islam can never be “strong” except in the genocidal, behead-the-men-and-rape-and-enslave-the-women-and-children sense.
Are you saying if there was no Islam no woman would be enslaved or raped or children as one puts it raped or people being beheaded you think the world would be clean ?
That’s an absurd deflection.
The point is that Islam kills.
But you said it and you cannot answer it Islam does not kill its the distortion like yourself that allows many to feed what you want altered please and if one was to read the bible Mr MATA MORANUS you would see it has the worst killing fields of all time in its writings .But then one like yourself who firmly believes he is a non believer in anything tends to hang where mainly religion is .Wow .
Illiterate Pumkin. You’ve read neither the Bible nor Islam’s “sacred” texts.
Yes, there are violent acts recorded in the Bible, but most of those are merely records of human depravity. Some of the rest are Divine judgments for great evil. And the remaining part were commands for capital punishment under the Mosaic Covenant for the people of Israel only, an agreement into which the Hebrews entered voluntarily.
On the other hand, Qur’an, the ahadith collections considered most reliable traditionally by Muslims, and sira boast about the genocidal pedophile Muhammad’s progression from well-intentioned-but-delusional zealot to anti-Semitic, mass-murdering, child-raping demoniac.
There is no comparison.
you been shouting out Gonzales too long bro
Insensate. Bravo.
So nicely put, well said! Agree there is NO comparison bro!
There would be MUCH less of it.
Yes…this is a weakness of the Muslim
http://www.answering-christianity.com/age3.htm
A link to an absurd — and false — tu quoque?
Not very artful, Art.
First, nowhere in the Bible do you see commands given either requiring or endorsing child rape. Second, Delaware is not a god. Third, what evidence do you have that Delaware was endorsing child rape at all? Fourth, your own “sacred” texts brag about Muhammad’s raping poor, little, prepubescent ‘Aisha beginning when she was only nine-years-old:
“My mother came to me while I was being swung on a swing between two
branches and got me down. My nurse took over and wiped my face with some
water and started leading me. When I was at the door she stopped so I
could catch my breath. I was brought in while Muhammad was sitting on a
bed in our house. My mother made me sit on his lap. The other men and
women got up and left. The Prophet consummated his marriage with me in my house when I was nine years old” (Tabari 9:131).
“Narrated ‘Aisha [Mohammed’s six-year-old “bride” and nine-year-old
sexual “partner”]: ‘Allah’s Apostle said (to me), “You were shown to me
twice in (my) dream [before I married you]. Behold, a man was carrying you in a silken piece of cloth and said to me, ‘She is your wife, so uncover her,’ and behold, it was you. I would then say (to myself), ‘If this is from Allah, then it must happen.'”‘” (Bukhari Volume 9, Book 87, Number 139 and 140).
“Narrated Aisha: The Prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six
(years). We went to Medina and stayed at the home of Bani-al-Harith bin
Khazraj. Then I got ill and my hair fell down. Later on my hair grew
(again) and my mother, Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a
swing with some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her,
not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and
made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when
my breathing became alright, she took some water and rubbed my face and
head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw
some Ansari women who said, “Best wishes and Allah’s Blessing and a good
luck.” Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the
marriage). Unexpectedly Allah’s Apostle
came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at
that time I was a girl of nine years of age” (Bukhari Volume 5, Book 58, Number 234).
“A’isha […] reported: Allah’s Apostle […] married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house when I was nine years old” (Muslim Book 8, Number 3310).
“Narrated ‘Aisha: that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death)” (Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64 and 65).
“Narrated ‘Ursa: The Prophet wrote the
(marriage contract) with ‘Aisha while she was six years old and
consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death)” (Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 88).
“Narrated Hisham’s father: Khadija died three years before the Prophet
departed to Medina. He stayed there for two years or so and then he married ‘Aisha when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consum[mat]ed that marriage when she was nine years old” (Bukhari Volume 5, Book 58, Number 236).
What kind of monster are you?
And if one reads it contents correctly and to the time of ages back then one would see that Jesus himself was given through god to Mary only herself when she married Joseph around 12 .Also Moses wives were of one aged 11 do not keep alienating the Islamic area if one wants to go down the path of all the scriptures … But is this not now where its not condoned of girls having underage sex in the western world with men given the pat on the back
You’re making things up. Where do the Scriptures mention Mary’s age? Moses’ “wives” or their ages?
You’re trying to equate Moses and Joseph/God with Muhammad. You owe them, English, and mankind an apology.
Stop with the craven tu quoque. The genocidal pedophile Muhammad began raping poor, little, prepubescent ‘Aisha when she was only nine-years-old. Your authoritative texts brag about it.
Qur’an and Sunnah are not part of “the Scriptures,” but a demon’s how-to manual on the annihilation of Man.
Me making up your kidding yourself please i owe English apology i am English i owe nothing than to be born here and that i live on a land that stole from others Shut up please . My whole point in being here is to laugh and joke cause most of what comes out of the gobs of many just like yourself is utter Bullshite of ignornace .You will pay not by me or others but by the hand of God 🙂 i look forward to it .
Me making up your kidding yourself […] i owe nothing than to be born here and that i live on a land that stole from others Shut up please […] utter Bullshite of ignornace
🙂
Go back and play with your maracas
Doubling down on illiterate and nescient?
So, what exactly about Muhammad appeals to you? Is it the genocidal anti-Semitism or the child sex slavery?
You spend too much time on here and read such bollocks i could ask you the same thing why you observe porn and nudity .
Stupidly trying to duck the question of why you defend a genocidal pedophile doesn’t resolve anything.
Answer the question.
Your maracas are fading in the distant
MUSLIM LIES they call it “Taqqiya!” so as to strengthen iSLAM.
Then out come the knives?
Absolutely no comparison between the two.
Never has been, never will…………..
Can you be more precise. Because Christian supremacism has led to widepread killing and persecution in the past. There is less of that now, and that’s because there’s less supremacism in Christianity. Islam has to go thru the same growing up process.
You’re confusing human lust for power for religious doctrine in order to defame Christ.
Which is tragically ironic, since it is the genocidal pedophile Muhammad who fused them together in his “religion.”
That “growth” in Christianity to which you refer is merely a return to the Biblical texts. Because Muhammad is Islam, it cannot “grow up.” Any return to its texts is a return to “kill the pagans wherever you find them” (Qur’an 9:5).
You and Bryant both make good points.
Jews also believe in a messiah—they just didn’t accept that Jesus was the one (tho some are starting to believe). I have an illustration I shared with a pastor recently, and he asked me to share it further. Christians and Jews walked together for some millennia, but the road forked at Calvary, and we went our separate paths like the letter Y. My hope and belief—and I see some signs it may be happening—is that our separate paths will curve and eventually come together and form the symbol ankh, that ancient symbol the Egyptian pharoahs used, which carries the meaning of eternal life.
Where islam fits in this picture I can’t say.
Where islam fits in this picture I can’t say.
Islam’s raping, mutilating, and detonating the picture.
Personally, the more I see of islam, the more I’m inclined to believe that it is the physical manifestation of Satan’s evil in this world. I’m old enough to have watched world events from WW2 forward. As a child, I “hated” the Germans (tho that’s a large part of my ancestry) and the Japanese. Later I was able to live among the Japanese and travel in Germany. I’ve learned by observation and experience that generally, the common people (and that includes most of us) don’t hate wildly. I learned to love the Japanese—it came very easily once I was there. Same for the Germans. It’s not the people—it’s the few in power—who are evil and brutal. I would say that likely also applies to the great majority of muslims today, but the few who are radical and purely evil threaten the lives of the rest, so the rest stay silent—except for a brave few.
Whether the majority of present-day muslims will ever become part of my imagined ankh I cannot even speculate about today. That leaves me to loathe those like Jihadi John who just beheaded a second Japanese and to pray for the hordes who are misinformed and misguided by evil teaching.
I don’t doubt that many Muslims are Muslim-in-name-only, their ancestors having been conquered by Islam’s hordes at some point in the distant past.
The problem is that we can’t count on the apostates, heretics, and hypocrites. And judging by polls, too many Muslims do know what their religion teaches and support it.
When someone who grew up in Iran but came to America as a teenager drinks alcohol, eats pork, never attends mosque, and even baptizes his two sons becomes enraged at merely quoting Muhammad, then you realize the corrupting and corrosive effect Islam has even on those of whom their families would say, “He’s no Muslim.”
Agree! Islam doesn’t worship the Almighty GOD ABOVE but the “Allah = Satan” below!
“Make a tree good and its fruit will be good, or make a tree bad and its fruit will be bad, for a tree is recognized by its fruit.”
Matthew 12:23
There is only ONE TRUE GOD! That is the Almighty GOD of Judaism and the Christians!
The rest are false gods, such as the “Satanic verses” and writings of evil, false prophet, paedophile Mohammad!
That’s the reason why iSLAM doesn’t fit in the picture.
it doesn’t matter buddy ,they(muslims never change) will continue to behave this way…only Lord Jesus can change them.
according to christianity he could not save him self from his fathers death sentence, even after he put his head on the ground and begged his father to save him he had to pay for his other fathers or was it his son? adam’s sin.
I always get confused at trinity
Art, the artless and lying Muslim apologist.
So, is it Muhammad’s genocidal anti-Semitism or his demonic pedophilia which you admire so much?
just check it out:https://carm.org/what-trinity
That would be the obliteration of Islam.
It is impossible to “renew” it and have it live.
Hasn’t He already done that?
Moron,Jesus is the only way to the ONLY God, the alpha and omega God,the beginning and the end. No other name is given that we might be saved except the name of Jesus. Jesus died on the cross for our sins, nobody but Jesus can forgive, He purchased our tickets to heaven by His she’d blood.All other “religions” are from the pit of hell to confuse mankind and lead them astray from what was done on the cross!
Moron
That’s quite a Gospel presentation you have there.
Perhaps you should try reading.
You’ll attract more flies with honey, Matt, than with vinegar. Jesus didn’t demand that people love and follow Him—He invited, and people responded because He promised them life everlasting. Attacking others isn’t going to win you friends or converts.
Flame “You’ll attract more flies with honey, Matt, than with vinegar.” Nailed it!
It’s amazing how many true believers don’t understand that. Mostly because they are so convinced that they are right and correct that they don’t see any other viewpoint as having legitimacy. Therefore they cannot ‘stoop to’ puting themselves in another person’s shoes (they might get ‘contaminated’ somehow).
I’m confused, is this a typo? is jesus the only way to alpha omega God or is he God? so God has beginning and end?
nobody but Jesus can forgive but he could not forgive him self or his father or son? Adam? not even his father forgave him after begging him with his head on the ground to save him he still put him to death for his again was it father or son adam’s sin, this is all confusing
Said the religious zealot extremist…
“And they entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and with all their soul, but that whoever would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, should be put to death, whether young or old, man or woman”
2 Chronicles 15:12-13
Is that supposed to be a refutation of something I wrote?
If so, then you ought to read a little more carefully. And honestly.
You’re citing a reference to a decision by human beings regarding their own people, not a command by God to rape, enslave, and slaughter all who refuse the “invitation” to convert.
Please, be honest.
The truth is religion is a con job. The truth is there is no real difference between what a “prophet” writes and what others write, the Torah and Bible are less than 25% complete after all the editing they’ve gone through. The purpose of the quote was to point out there is precedent for going on the offense in other religions as well. Difference being between then and today is the developed world does not function tribally anymore, as many of the areas Islamic extremists come from do.
the Torah and Bible are less than 25% complete after all the editing they’ve gone through
Only someone completely ignorant of Biblical scholarship can make such a claim. It’s clear that you don’t understand how the Bible we possess today came to be. (And the Torah is part of the Bible.)
there is precedent for going on the offense in other religions as well
Not in the Bible. Produce one command from either the Old or New Testaments commanding the rape, enslavement, or slaughter of all who refuse the “invitation” to convert, as in Islam.
The closest you can get is the command to Israel in the Conquest of Canaan. As horrifying as that was, it was a one-time command, against one, limited target, and in Divine judgment for great evil.
And Israel suffered the same fate for the same depravity.
So, no, your attempt at equating Islam and any other major extant religion — especially Christianity/Judaism is inapt at best, depraved at worst.
*shrugs* Perhaps you are right that the documents are more complete than I suspect, I haven’t spent my career looking into it so I’m no expert. While I recall experts that say otherwise but that’s not the point, the point is that both in the sacred texts and the relation of those texts to what con men have said is the issue.
Depraved… sorry bub, not seeing the depravity. Either satan has ahold of my soul or you’re seeing demons. As far as Christianity goes, I actually think Jesus of Nazareth sounds pretty cool – being the first communist is a heck of a brag – but the issue with Christianity (and modern Judaism for that matter) has been the tendency for religious leaders to use their influence to wage wars of purification/genocide. The Crusades & Inquisition are easy examples, but how about the attempts by the Vatican to erase Protestants during and long after the reformation leading to the 100 Years War? Or Russian Orthodoxy’s tendency to attack other towns simply for their religion? Hell, we could even point out how Hinduism and Shinto have been commodified a whole lot in order to reach a material goal.
Now, if you want a thorough history lesson (because that’s my jam, not scripture) I’d love to discuss it with you further.
I gave you the benefit of the doubt with “inapt, at best”; I did not accuse you directly of being depraved. (Though, if you’re going to perseverate in error that destroys souls and lives, you might want to rethink your position. And motivation.)
I agree with you completely that men will use any pretext to justify their sin; I do not agree with your inclusion of the Crusades and the Inquisition.
Yes, Crusaders warred against innocent Christians and Jews, and yes, it is immoral to use the force of the state in matters of conscience, but the first Crusade was called centuries-late in defense of eastern Christendom against Islam. And the Inquisition? Whatever abuses existed, they were carried out by the state, a state that was freeing itself from eight hundred years of Islamic oppression.
How in the world can those who profess a God Who demands, “Love your neighbor as yourself” devolve to such depravity? It’s possible that typical human lust for power is the only reason. But I wouldn’t be surprised if almost a millennium under “Whoever leaves his [Islamic] religion, kill him,” and, “kill the pagans wherever you find them” had something to do with it also.
I love history. What would you like to talk about?
http://www.answering-christianity.com/jihad_in_bible.htm
So, you misrepresent the Biblical texts and then call “religion” a “con job.”
That’s ironic.
The equivalent of “ALLAH” in the Qur’an is SATAN in the Bible!
Only “Almighty God’s words are eternal and forever. O LORD, YOUR word is settled in heaven.” Psalm 119:89
The writings of evil false prophet Muhammad is causing all this misery of the people in the Muslim countries. So evil that Muslims are risking their lives to flee from their countries and so desperate to live in Christian established countries! The Europeans want to receive only a few but don’t want to welcome so many of them!
In the last days and when they die, the deceived of ISLAM will burn in hell for all eternity!
The bible teaches the child of God how everything ends in this lifetime.
YOU LOSE!
DISPUTE THAT!
Christ’s command to love our enemies and bless our persecutors is at the wellspring of Christianity; not the result of change over the centuries as you seem to imagine.
If professing Christians preach violence and hatred, then we have but to compare what they are saying to what Christ said in order to determine whether their brand is authentic. They are clearly condemned by the very words of the one they profess to follow.
With Islam this is no straightforward matter, as its founder advocated thin gs that would curl your toes.
What the world needs to know is whether these Islamic terrorists are to Islam what Westboro Baptist Church is to Christianity, or whether the many peaceful, liberty-loving Muslims correspond to Christianity’s Unitarians, who have essentially discarded orthodoxy.
But like I have said many times, you could stand a non conforming Muslim and a radical Muslim in front of us and we would not know the difference until until one of them started trying to whack off our heads. The only option we have is to reject the whole of Islam.
Perhaps. And I, of course, do “reject the whole of Islam”–at least with respect to its core tenets–in the sense that I do not believe any of them to be true (i.e., to state what is actually the case). I do not believe in Allah. I do not believe that Muhammad was a divinely appointed prophet.
But I think there is at least an in principle distinction between Islam and Islamism, just as there is a distinction between science and scientism.
And, unlike various conservative pundits, I do not have an in principle objection to the assertion that the terrorists do not represent Islam. The assertion is certainly not countered effectively merely by pointing out, as one writer recently did, that “ISIS” has “Islamic” in its name. Westboro Baptist Church professes Christianity, but there is nothing Christian about them. I expect that Fred Phelps heard, if he heard anything at all, “Depart from me, I never knew you” from the one he claimed to be serving.
I am a philosophy professor, but for several years I was pressed into service teaching what was essentially a Religious Studies course–a survey of World Religions, with an overview of their respective beliefs and customs. I noted that the textbooks–all written by Western Religious Studies scholars (and selected by the department and not by me)–went out of their way to portray Islam in the best possible light. Muhammad, our students learned, was the liberator of women, and Islam is the most ‘color blind’ of faiths. Further, we are mistaken in thinking that the basic understanding of ‘jihad’ is ‘holy war.’ No, it refers to the ‘inner struggle’ of conscience and faith in the heart of the believer. I always thought the authors seemed over-anxious in their portrayals, and wondered why they did not address more directly and fully the reasons that many today have for suspecting otherwise about the religion of Muhammad.
But I am not an Islamic scholar, and so I am incapable of settling the disputes between those theologians of Islam who claim that the core teachings are peaceful, and those who are whacking heads in the name of the prophet.
MuDdLe said “But I think there is at least an in principle distinction between Islam
and Islamism, just as there is a distinction between science and
scientism.” That’s a very insightful distinction and parallel, Thanks!
The essential difference is that even the moderately hostile atheist knows that it’s safe to mock, denigrate, and antagonize Christians, but don’t be even factually critical of Islam.
Anyone who can read can survey the two religions’ foundational texts. The New Testament emphasizes Christ’s commands to love even one’s enemy, to forgive, to show kindness. But even a cursory reading of Qur’an and Sunnah show the genocidal pedophile Muhammad’s malevolent hatred of all things decent, good, and beautiful.
You don’t have to be a scholar to see that Christianity is the foundation of Western Civilization’s modern notions of Liberty, equality, and justice but that Islam demands of its adherents the continual jihad (“struggle”) to make the world Islam by any means necessary, including violence.
There is no moral equivalence between “Love your enemies” and “kill the pagans wherever you find them” (Qur’an 9:5).
That would also be true of a Unitarian and a member of the Jonestown Church – you wouldn’t know which was which until they started serving koolaid.
In ancient religion and in case you forgot, Catholicism during the Crusades was fighting Islam even then. There was never another religion that killed off members of other religious organizations simply because they would not convert. I know what you people say about Hitler supposedly being a Christian but that is a lie. No true Christian would ever kill a Jew!
“There was never another religion that killed off members of other religious organizations simply because they would not convert.”
You’ve got to be kidding! Christians throughout history have been quite eager to kill Jews who would not convert to Christianity. Jews massacred in England and then expelled. Jews executed in Spain and then expelled. The list is actually quite endless. Martin Luther wanted Jews killed because they didn’t buy what he was selling.
The point is, adam,that Islam has not exsisted isolation for the last 1500 centuries. Islam existed on the same planet as the other the world’s religions. But unlike Islam, those faiths have in fact evolved and changed as humanity has evolved(although with many setbacks). The reason for this is found in it’s sacred text. The Qur’an leaves far less room for interpretation than the other great religious books.
Simple but effective argument, if I may be so bold.
A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. (Leviticus 20:27 NAB)
The old law, before Yahushua died. No more killing in the name of God remember? Yahushua said this!
Tell that to the Crusaders, the Conquistators or the Inquisition.
So God used to advocate killing in his name, but since he sent his son to die for us, he has changed his ways. That’s a comforting thought.
The “old law” didn’t advocate forced conversions or killing non-believers so that the whole world would become Jewish. Wars were fought over territory, not religion, per se. Jesus didn’t say, and didn’t have to, no more killing in the name of God (ie, to show the dominance of one religion over another) because that was never a part of the Jewish religion.
You are right on, Larry. I have studied many of the world’s religions, both from a historical viewpoint and for what they teach today. Islam is THE ONLY philosophy of life (at least of any prominence) where there are demonstrable instructions for its adherents to go out and kill anyone who dares not believe as they think we should. Yet within their own ranks, they don’t fully agree, so they kill each other also.
Yes, there were times—many centuries ago—when adherents of Christianity tortured and killed people for not believing what the current ruler happened to believe, but Jesus’ mandate to “love thy neighbor” has at least taken hold to the point that we are not actively going after each other. And now that Hitler is gone, I think there is at least balance in relations between Christians and Jews.
Only islam insists on this radical violence.
Larry wake up, no muslim country is trying to kill you or change the way you live, tell me in modern world we live in give me one non muslim country that was invaded by muslim country? how many muslim countrys were invaded by bad intelegence WMD, natural resources etc? where do muslims in USA or any other modern country protest in front of churches, schools, or christian events? burn churches? do you hear muslims shout, go back home? talk bad about others religion? in modern USA almost on every major muslim event or gathering you have hundreds of christians with bibles protesting using foul language, shauting go back home, take obama with you lol, you r going to hell, pedofiles etc. even in front of mosques, the other day I was at muslim school 100’s protesting yelling using foul language in front of little muslim kids, so many mosques burned down and drive buys going on in USA? even at grocery stores muslims get harassed and disrespected? planty of media coverage on qurans getting burned?
tell me which leaders of muslim countries give speeches about coming to non muslim country’s and kill and change their laws and way of life, u hear western leaders all the time pushing to change muslim country’s laws, new world order, democracy, pushing for liberated muslim women in hijab to become sexist slaves, get naked, flash and look sexy to get accepted, get am naked and abuse them by using them as sex slaves in commercials and news paper adds like women in bikinis in front of cars for sale with print test drive her now? become sexually assaulted every 2 mins like in USA, who is trying to kill who and who is trying to change whose way of life?
ISIS
Agree.
Typical atheist comment! But your ignorance you claim as strength! Jesus said the greatest commandment is to love others as you love yourself.
The self hating Muslums can only make war and death on all nations. Is Israel the problem with the Muslims killing and kidnapping in the Philippines? Sisi is the bravest man in our time. Obama is a Lilliputian and will bow to any third world despot.
Don’t be absurd, Heidi. It is from Christianity that our modern notions of Liberty, equality, justice, and human rights are derived.
The problem with Islam isn’t that its adherents believe their religion is true and want others to be part of it; it’s that they’ll rape, enslave, and slaughter all who refuse their “invitation” to convert.
Please, don’t throw out the Christ Child with the bathwater. Or throw the genocidal pedophile prophet’s dirty bathwater on the Baby.
You are making a common but fundamental mistake about islam. Islam is substantially different from Christianity. islam cannot be changed and it is irrational to believe that because Christianity changed, islam will change.
Men may change the way they view God, but He remains the same.
When I am unfaithful, He remains faithful.
He is my rock of salvation, redeemer and friend.
By sprinkling perfume over a turd, Islam changes.
@ Heidi
“Then Christianity must be eliminated also, for the same ideas of ‘conversion to the True Faith’ are shared by both.”
How filth like this enrages me. You liar.
There are ZERO open-ended commands in the Bible for Christians (or Jews) to commit violence against unbelievers. That’s why there are no Christians or Jews committing such acts, all over the world, on a regular basis, in obedience to any such commands.
“Christianity has evolved. Islam can and will likewise evolve – or perish.”
Nonsense. Christianity has no need to “evolve” because it doesn’t teach anything that it needs to evolve from or into.
Take your moral equivalence elsewhere.
You don’t know the ramifications of your post, but one day you will.
It will be too late for you when you find out.
Bryant Hill wrote to Heidi: “It will be too late for you when you find out.”
What in the blazes are you talking about?
heidi you do not understand or may have never read the gospel. it is very clear that two greatest commands are to 1) love God and to 2) love your neighbor as yourself. As love cannot be forced, for that is not love, it must be freely chosen.
We are not killing people to make them convert, you are ignorant!!!!!
That is a grave logical error and an incredibly inapt — and false — moral equivalence.
When a Christian rapes, murders, or enslaves, they violate Christ’s religion. When a Muslim rapes, enslaves, or butchers non-Muslims, they fulfill Muhammad’s.
There is no comparison.
If you can’t distinguish between a faith that preaches and proselytizes—”spreads the word”—the principle of love thy neighbor in order to effectuate conversion, and one that has slaughter and genocide as a central precept, you need to study up a little more. I have seen only one religion in the world that spreads itself by the sword, and the idea of Jihad is conspicuously absent from the Gospels.
Jesus never forced anyone to follow Him, violence is not part of His teaching.”Love your enemies do good to them that hate you”.
Where are all the bloodthirsty priests calling for killing of non-believers? There is no comparison.
If Islam does “perish” it will only because millions of non-Muslims pushed back against their forced conversion to Islam and those non-Muslims had to resist, fight and sometimes die to stop their forced conversion to Islam. Read the Koran. It explains it better than I can.
Really? Where in the New Testament does it prescribe forced conversion? Answer: nowhere.
Christianity doesn’t have the commands to commit acts of violence toward non-Christians in its source document – the New Testament – to begin with.
Don’t look now, but Nazism is still around. And Communism. Etc.
Yes, you are correct to say.
All these people have a special reservation in Hell one day.
Yes they will!!
Yes, there definitely is a place in Hell for them.
Lies, all religion is interpretations. That is to suggest that pikcing up the Quaran makes one person kill another. Religious institutions and interpreters do that. The Jewish and Christian bible calls for killing, and of course it still goes on, but the calls don’t come from leading institutions like the Vaitcan anymore. most stopped murdering homosexuals and adulterers and others not of our religion, but it was because of a change in interpretations, not in the texts
You’re such a shameless liar.
Christ commands His people to love even their enemies. Murder is a sin.
Please, do your homework.
WE must recall the book of Proverbs my brother when it tells us not to argue with fools.
“We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the
knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ ….” –St. Paul
That is the most stupid comment I’ve read in a while. Think before you speak libtard.
Adam, don’t BE ignorant. Picking up a Bible doesn’t make a person a Christian either.
WHAT IS YOUR POINT?
It is the CONTENT between the covers that one puts in their minds that one embraces.
ISLAM: The Qur’an teaches, HATE, EVIL, FEAR, RETRIBUTION, etc., etc.
CHRISTIANITY: The bible (God’s word teaches LOVE, PEACE, ENDURANCE, PATIENCE, KINDNESS etc., etc.
Embrace the teachings of Islam & you will become evil.
Embrace the Lord Jesus Christ and He will teach you to love.
No, Adam, it changed because Christ died for the sins and told us that the killing had to stop. That is the difference between the old and new covenant. NO MORE AN EYE FOR AN EYE. Do you people actually read the bible? Judging by your responses, it sounds like you are only going by some idiot says here.
Can you point to where the “Christian Bible” calls for killing? I found a lot of references in the New Testament of Christians being killed for their faith, but none about Christians killing non-believers (or anyone else).
Doesn’t Islam have a commentary tradition? It’s those traditions that have kept Jews and Christians from enforcing their most violent texts. I think the problem is that literalists (those that don’t have respect for commentary and oral tradition) have the arms and the zeal and are trying to take over Islam. That’s what Al Sisi is talking about.
Naziism was not eliminated. The CIA and the Catholic Church helped exfiltate the bulk of the leaders outside the obvious ones, and most of the money and scientists, to the USA and Argentina. CIA also used the gold captured in Philippines to re-fund fascists in Italy, Japan, and Germany. Nazism itself went underground, and the Nazi hydra is alive and well and in some cases (Ukraine) resurfacing and trying to cause a new world war. Islam also has its own internal rift between Sunni and Shi’ites that is far deeper and more dangerous than any conflict between Islam and other religions (most of whom are also dogmatic and dangerous less Buddhism and the Quakers). “Live and let live” is a mind-set that is most likely to flourish when the West stops its predatory capitalism, its support for dictators at taxpayer expense (41 of the 42, by the way), and ethical evidence-based decision-support enables future-oriented hybrid governance. All hard to do. Keep trying.
Absolutely.
I assume with a comment like that your gay ?
Actually, there are hundreds of “interpretations” of Islam, in different languages and with different annotations depending on which sect and region the interpretation was done. Turkey, for example, has interpreted their al Quran with a mindset of peace, tolerance and acceptance of those with other beliefs. In contrast, Saudi Arabia’s interpretations are generally influenced by strict, radical and intollerant Wahhabism.
Just as the inquisition had to cease for Christianity to survive, there must be change in Islam or it will end up in the dust bin of history after a massive loss of life.
As happened more than once to islam. They never learn anything and the Qu’Ran calls for it. Their cult creed was set by founder Mohammed, a murderer, rapist, antagonist, and plain stupid, and before him the Saracens. We can’t fight with guns but only with weapons of real mass destruction: nuclear bombs, agent orange better yet, etc. They are like cockroaches or ants, you have to deal with them seriously!
That’s not true. “Current Islam” is determined from what the texts plainly state. It’s because of those texts that the “guys with the most swords, knives, and guns” have the swords, knives, and guns.
There WILL be one in charge of all Muslims. He will rise up out of the sea, having 7 heads and 10 horns. It’s just a matter of time.
How do you update Islam without whitewashing the truth about Muhammad’s life? You can’t. Are you going to say he was a man of peace who rejected violence? Are you going to say he was chaste having consummated a marriage with a 9-year old?
In Christianity, you can always go back to Jesus Christ and learn from the perfect moral example mankind has ever known…because He’s God incarnate.
Might?
or is this a large scale taqiyya…i pray its truthful
Unless Sisi tweets soon something along the lines of, “P.S. I was only kidding. #IslamIsPeace #InfidelsMustDie,” I don’t see how it could be anything but a principled stand for humanity.
Sisi is a muslim. All muslims follow islam in which the destruction of non-muslims is divinely (and in islamic terms irrefutably) ordained. Either Sisi is not aware of this, or he is not telling what he believes. In either case, he is a menace to any non-muslim individual non-muslim society, and to the future of the human race.
It’s almost entertaining how non-Muslims think they are such experts on what Islam really is. How is that not like a Muslim telling you what Christianity is? Everybody thinks they’re right. You’re not special. Maybe you could speak to an actual Muslim. Believe it or not (sarcasm) there are Muslims in the US who are not trying to kill you and if you listened you’d find out what *they* think their religion teaches.
First, you should read what I say, instead of just inventing something of your own. Yes, it is a lot easier to refute the distorted versions of the my arguments you make, but that has nothing to do with rational debate.
I can see quite easily what islam is. It reveals its evil doctrine in its texts, especially the koran. Have you read it? If you have. it must be that you haven’t understood it.
Considering the ignorance, incoherence, superstition and irrationality that lays at the heart of islam, muslims are the most unreliable of witnesses, and they are certainly no value as authorities.
Muslims throughout history have been destroying non-muslims in accordance with teachings of islam. That is why islam was invented. They certainly didn’t “achieve” such “success” by revealing their destructive intentions until they were ready. So those muslims in the US have not killed me yet (although muslims have killed many other US citizens – you may have heard of 9/11 and others), that doesn’t mean they won’t kill me in accordance with the teachings of islam when they are good and ready, because that is what allah will reward them for.
And that is allah, the sadistic psychopathic bully who promises to torture all non-muslims for eternity.
You see, I know what islam teaches, and an incoherent opinion like yours on this topic, provided by a dimwit ignoramus has zero value.
You say you know what Islam teaches, but unless you have spoken to a living breathing Mulsims, you don’t. Do you think all Muslims in the US are part of some great sleeper cell just waiting to KILL US ALL?
Remember it was Sisi who ousted the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. I believe he puts his country before his religion and has proven his sincerity by his actions to date.
He’s already infinitely more qualified to be an American president than the obfuscator for jihad in the White House.
Get out our country you fucking spic
Another eloquent Democrat.
Nothing screams intellectual integrity like profanity and racism.
I know that books and reading and facts are anathema to you, but you ought to do your research, stress a few brain cells by thinking critically, and then reexamine why you’re such a nescient and craven wretch.
And find out what a nom de guerre is and who Santiago Matamoros was, vile slave.
Big boy using big words. Wow your tough. Grow up
“Is it possible that 1.6 billion people [Muslims] should want to kill the rest of the world’s inhabitants—that is 7 billion—so that they themselves may live? Impossible!”
How is it impossible?
ALL non-Christian ideologies are deicidal, suicidal, and genocidal. No world empire has ever sought to defend the rights and liberties of those outside of their own community (umma) unless it has been in self-interest or self-preservation.
Islam (dar al-Islam) has its subjugation of the world outside of Islam (dar al-Harb) incorporated into its Qur’an: the only way for the imam’s to change their teaching is to change the Qur’an, and that–according to the text and tradition of islam–no Muslim can ever do.
It’s impossible that all infidels will sit still and allow Muslims to kill them. That’s what’s impossible Einstein.
No need for the pejorative second sentence, and I agree with the first sentence…
No need for unemployed English Majors to show their useless skills on a thread about muzzies killing everyone.
I agree. To whom are you referring?
“ALL non-Christian ideologies are deicidal, suicidal, and genocidal.”
How about Buddhists?
The argument (syllogism) would run:
Jesus Christ claimed he is exclusively the way, the truth, and the life;
All other ways lead to death;
Buddhism is another way:
Therefore, Buddhism leads to death (it is deicidal, suicidal, and genocidal).
Now the ball is in the court of the ulema of Al-Azhar who were in the audience.
Any liberal or reform-minded intellectual is very swiftly branded by the Ulema as un-Islamic. Although the ulema routinely condemn the terrorist actions of Jihadists, they never have risen to such swift condemnation of ISIS as un-Islamic. The reason that they don’t condemn them them as un-Islamic is because the sacralized medieval texts that Sisi has rightly cited as valued in Al-Azhar are the same texts that ISIS follows.
Will the Ulema now swiftly brand President Sisi as un-Islamic?
It must be noted that the July 3 revolution was a movement of the Egyptian people to oust Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood and repudiate radical Islam despite its still-tenacious hold on Egypt. Sisi and the military joined the people in this cause. July 3 was not a military coup as is frequently described in the western media and the US Congress.
Cudos for President Sisi! He has issued a challenge, a vision, and a call for an Islamic Reformation. He has taken a risk in doing so. I feel that he speaks for the majority of Muslims in Egypt and around the world.
Will the so-called “silent majority” of Muslims support him? Will Al-Azhar respond affirmatively? Will they brand Sisi as un-Islamic?
Will Muslims and non-Muslims world-wide support him?
I hope so.
You are an educated person, respect from Egypt. I think our Pres words will only be applicable in Egypt, for Islamic radicalization is very profitable for the elites that are tearing our world apart.
Who are the “elites who are tearing our world apart” and why is “Islamic radicalization … very profitable” for them?
Marxists that control the U.S are behind the radical Arab Spring.
Just unbelievable, hope people take him seriously, G-d bless him.
wow…just wow
A couple of articles that might help explain this.
Middle East Online, Egypt’s Third Way: A Blend of Islamism and Militarism (Aug. 2, 2013) This article describes then-General Al Sisi as a religious conservative with close ties to Saudi Arabia. It also quotes key portions of his thesis, written in
2006 while attending the U.S. Army War College, including his focus on religion in politics and belief that democracy would only successfully take hold in the Middle East if it sustained the religious base. Furthermore, it indicates that he pushed the notion of the ‘concept of El Kalafa’, which involves obedience to a ruler who consults its subjects. I think that he is pushing this need for obedience by this proclamation.
Foreign Affairs, Sisi’s Secret Islamism: The Rhetoric and Reality of Egypt’s New President (May 26, 2014) This article digs further into Sisi’s ideals, beyond the heavily edited and prerecorded television interviews published. It mentions Sisi’s
potential ties to the Salafist Al Nour party, his devout upbringing, and that he has never disagreed with the Muslim Brotherhood on doctrine – only in who should rule. It further confirms that Sisi intends to draw heavily upon Islam to legitimate his new regime, quoting a leaked interview where Sisi indicates that he was inspired to run for the presidency by a “religious vision in which he was wielding a sword inscribed in blood with the words “No God but God and Muhammad is the prophet of God”
I think that his demands for obedience from the ikhwan is related to his attachments to the Salafis who want to give their support to a strong leader. Therefore, this is not a real call for an Islamic reformation. Instead, it is a call for a movement away from the ikhwan and to the Salafis. Not anything to be hopeful for or anything promising. Sorry guys
Agreed. Anyone who in any way associates truth with Islam is not to be trusted.
Interesting post. But perhaps it pertains to the old El Sisi. Anwar Sadat was a devout Moslem and pan-Arab Nationalist but underwent a dramatic personal moral change when he lost the Yom Kippur War into a pro-Western secularist and made peace with Israel. Perhaps after the disastrous year of Morsi and the Moslem Brotherhood rule something similar happened to El-Sisi?
Yours is also an interesting and thought provoking post, but I think that
it conflates two separate ideas. The first idea is whether or not he will be willing to work with the west and seek to ally with us seek our aid through his oppression of those who appear to be our enemies, like the brotherhood. Can he be a new Sadat, for example. (As an aside, I would say that its no so easy to kill Sisi, look what happened to Sadat !)
The second idea has to do with the reality, nature, and extent of his calls for reformation. The fact that we may have optimism for the first idea, does not necessarily mean that we should be optimistic of the second. Prior to the elections, the Al-Nour Party, the political wing of the conservative group Salafi Da’awa, and the elders of Salafi Da’awa released statements, saying that “a “majority” of its members supported Al-Sisi.
They did not protest the ouster of Morsi, and they are philosophically opposed to the brotherhood (the MB follows the teaching of their religious leaders, the Salafis make their own understanding through personal readings fo the Koran, but they want to have a strong political leader that they will follow as long as he is sufficiently right-guided) and according to a recently released article including an interview from an Egyptian security source, Al-Nour is no less radical than ISIS. “They are just pragmati c; they are pretending to be otherwise for now but once empowered they would act exactly like ISIS does,” said the source. This source, who asked for his identity to be withheld, argued that “the one thing one should not forget from the experience of [assassinated president Anwar] Sadat is never to get
into an alliance with Islamists; he did and they turned around and
killed him.” http://www.copts-united.com/English/Details.php?I=1287&A=17154.
The Salafis are extreme in different ways than the brotherhood, but
this does not mean that they are less extreme. The Muslim Brotherhood
has been crushed, but the Salafis are stronger than ever. Tthe Alexandria Dawa’s Nour Party, which won the overwhelming proportion of Salafi votes in the 2012 parliamentary election, offers unquestioning support to the regime of Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, Egypt’s new strongman president. It is a strange – political Islam supporting secular authoritarianism. Perhaps there are real factions vying for power about the nature of the relationship of the government to the Salafis is, which will of course determine the nature of the very important outcome of the reformation discussed. If it is reformed to the liking of the Salafis we will have a worse situation altogether, if it is reformed
in a way that is against the Salafis, we have another Sadat
(assassinated reformer)
jjjj
This is a reply to a response to my comment that has since been deleted. Where did it go ? If the author happens to read it, it is for you…..Yours
is also an interesting and thought provoking post, but I think that
it conflates two separate ideas. The first idea is whether or not he
will be willing to work with the west and seek to ally with us seek
our aid through his oppression of those who appear to be our enemies,
like the brotherhood. Can he be a new Sadat, for example. (As an
aside, I would say that its no so easy to kill Sisi, look what
happened to Sadat !)
The
second idea has to do with the reality, nature, and extent of his
calls for reformation. The fact that we may have optimism for the
first idea, does not necessarily mean that we should be optimistic of
the second. Prior to the elections, the Al-Nour
Party, the political wing of the conservative group Salafi Da’awa,
and the elders of Salafi Da’awa released statements, saying that
“a “majority” of its members supported Al-Sisi. They did not
protest the ouster of Morsi, and they are philosophically opposed to
the brotherhood (the MB follows the teaching of their religious
leaders, the Salafis make their own understanding through personal
readings fo the Koran, but they want to have a strong political
leader that they will follow as long as he is sufficiently
right-guided) and according to a recently released article including
an interview from an Egyptian security source, Al-Nour is no less
radical than ISIS. “They
are just pragmatic; they are pretending to be otherwise for now but
once empowered they would act exactly like ISIS does,” said the
source. This source, who asked for his identity to be withheld,
argued that “the one thing one should not forget from the
experience of [assassinated president Anwar] Sadat is never to get
into an alliance with Islamists; he did and they turned around and
killed him.”
http://www.copts-united.com/English/Details.php?I=1287&A=17154.
The Salafis are extreme in different ways than the brotherhood, but
this does not mean that they are less extreme. The Muslim Brotherhood
has been crushed, but the Salafis are stronger than ever. Perhaps
there are real factions vying for power about the nature of the
relationship of the government to the Salafis is, which will of
course determine the nature of the very important outcome of the
reformation discussed. If it is reformed to the liking of the
Salafis we will have a worse situation altogether, if it is reformed
in a way that is against the Salafis, we have another Sadat
(assassinated reformer)
Al-Sisi has yet to realize that being a good person and being a good Muslim are two different things. So, too, having a good country and having a Muslim country are two different things. He wants so badly to identify goodness with Islam. But what’s going on in the Daesh is opening everyone’s eyes.
What is going on with Daesh is not too different to what was/is going on with zionists or US adventurers.
So you are equating Israelis and Americans to ISIS? Really? I think you are wrong and slanderous. God bless the only tolerant, classically liberal, libertine, benevolent, peaceful, democratic, nation in the Muslim world: ISRAEL.
I think you are wilfully ignoring the history of both US and zionism. However let me point out that you probably do not know the meaning of libertine. To say that zionists are tolerant is akin to saying that Al Capone and the Mafia are God fearing, charitable and honourable people who strive to keep their word. Zionism is a racist creed as exemplified by the apartheid being practised in the zionist state.
I purposely used the term “libertine” to emphasize that Israel, unlike the abusive, authoritarian Islamic world, is a secular society. Homosexuals, transsexuals, adulterers, drunks, drug users, etc. are not punished by ecclesiastical police as it often occurs in the Islamic world. Liberal is one thing. Libertine is another. I am a conservative Protestant Evangelical Christian who understands that God hates sin, but loves sinners. I would prefer to live among libertines over the most evil of the evil….pharisaic, authoritarian, hypocritical Muslims.
Wow! You’re an awesome troll!
The funny thing is, that I don’t think he’s trolling. It is not SIsi, but it is him and people like him that make his religion a laughingstock. Remember, they say that the IQ of Muslims averages around 81.
https://www.questia.com/library/journal/1P3-2018704731/the-comparison-of-mean-iq-in-muslim-and-non-muslim
81 may be enough to post on the internet, but it does not mean that they can think critically. There you have it.
You just destroyed all the fun I was planning to have.
Poking a moron is beneath me.
Now that was dumb. Phew, so dumb it stinks. Get away from us.
I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: “Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed:
And on the pedestal these words appear:
‘My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!’
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.”
Sisi type thinking is making the Islamic world the laughingstock of the world. But hey, do not despair. Look on the bright side. It has made Sisi the darling of the zionist world.
Yes. Because I read about the atrocities in Syria and Iraq right now and tell myself, “We gotta have more of that!”
Yes we definitely need more acts like the 2002 Mecca girls school fire when the Mutaween would not let 15 young girls escape the burning building because they were not “properly covered”. Because I don’t see how anyone could possibly have a problem that.
You’re right because al Sisi is the problem, not Muslims who believe that it’s better that a female should die at King Saud University in 2014 than her virtuousness be potentially violated by 2 male paramedics. Because that it what ought to be considered “right thinking” in your Islamic world, right?
You’re right, we ought to uphold the sort of Islam that leads to the Beslan hostage crisis in Russia. Because separatist warlords guided by your kind Islamic principles think that killing school children is an appropriate method for endearing the all of us to the Islamic world you wish to protect from al Sisi.
but hey….zionist.
moron.
A system that kept the Jewry alive and allowed them to prosper and live in peace through centuries while others were busy trying to cook their goose does not need reforming. Judaism and Jews do. For a start Jews could be taught how to express gratitude.
A quintessential example of nonsensical reasoning. One who sees in all problems and evils the hand of the Jew, even the actions of Muslims against Muslims. As death pervades the earth and unimaginable evils are committed in the name of Allah you wrap yourself in antisemitic foolishness. When some Islamist guts your children for the crime of not being Muslim enough, maybe you will see the error of your ways. Islam is on a collision course with the world and it is Muslims that will pay the highest price for it. Of course, non-Muslims will face the wrath of those like you as well. People who wrap themselves in self-righteous ignorance,, blind to the evil they commit.
Notice you have not much to say relevant to the post you are responding to.
I responded to you, as for the post I have responded to that on my own web site. http://theconservativemind.net
Well, he’s engaged in a battle of wits with an unarmed man. He’s got to be gentle.
Whisky. Tango. Foxtrot. Over.
Al-Sisi just schooled you about your own problems, and that’s a Jewish issue?
Oh. Right. And shaking hands with a Christian will cause your penis to shrink, right?
Like I said: moron
Actually, no.
Muslims acting like Muslims is making the Islamic world the laughingstock it is.
And the darling of the Egyptian people and all secularized Middle Easterners
I would have been really happy as a Muslim who awaits such reformation to hear such words from the head of the state, but the problem is that Sisi is a dictator who makes all the oppressing decisions to block all kinds of opposition to his system. A corrupt judiciary, violent police, poor economy and overall totalitarian system is pushing more people to violence and terrorism. Even if his views on Islam are more liberal and he is really into reformation, his political decisions and silence over corruption in Egypt push more people into adopting violent-Islam. That doesn’t make sense, injustice is the sole source of terrorism, you cannot preach peace while you oppress people!
I understand your point but disagree when you say terrorism is caused by poverty. It is not, many terrorist came from rich or up middle class background, they were into proper Islamic world view.
Caused by injustice .. not poverty 🙂
Please familiarize yourself with the term “competitive authoritarianism”.
And, let’s revisit your words: ” A corrupt judiciary, violent police, poor economy and overall totalitarian system is pushing more people to violence and terrorism.” I’m quite certain that many Egyptians (maybe the Coptics) would say that you are describing the Muslim Brotherhood. That you can ascribe it to the current regime in Egypt in no way solidifies your implicit assertion that al Sisi’s post coup government is worse that the “democratically elected” Morsi government. It is folly to believe that just because the machinations of democracy are in motion that totalitarianism is absent.
Both were dictators .. I’m not saying Muslim Brotherhood were better, I’m saying that injustice and oppression are the fuel for terrorism and violence.
Muslims will find injustice where they can. It’s how they justify their brutal violence and inhumanity to their fellow man.