Why aren't all three Abrahamic Faiths held to the same standard?

reply to post by babloyi


Ah, but see, true Christians are those who obey Christ's command to love one's enemy, where true Muslims follow Mohammad's command to strike off the heads of the infidels.

Christians denounce atrocities done in the name of God and Christianity all the time. When's the last time you saw a group of Christians gathered around in mobs chanting that the crusades and inquisition were a good thing?

I've studied up on Islam and I've read the Quran. I understand what it's about. Those peaceful Muslims are what Christians would call luke-warm, Muslims in name who believe in Allah and attend worship services but fail to adhere to the teachings of their holy book. Am I biased? Of course! Christians are cutting open babies and sticking explosives in them in order to blow up unsuspecting people trying to check on the baby.

Comparing Muslim attrocities to the US attacks? Go ahead, The American government and armed forces are perpetrating evil at every turn and should be held just as accountable. Islam has carried out 18587 (reported and confirmed) deadly terror attacks in the name of Allah/Islam since 9/11. That's the number of attacks, not dead bodies. Total casualties are far higher. Last month alone there were at least 783 dead bodies at the hands of Muslim extremists. thereligionofpeace.com

reply to post by Mykahel

I've studied up on Islam and I've read the Quran.

You mean you have "studied Islam" and "read the Quran" on anti-islamic websites that propagate falsehoods, lies and ignorance about Islam and the Quran.

reply to post by babloyi

reply to post by Mykahel

 

"Killing more people every year than the Spanish Inquisition"?! What kind of absurd comparison is that? Why not do something a little closer to home?
From 2001 to 2005 (including only the War in Afghanistan and the War in Iraq), the US killed approximately 12780 CIVILIANS in Iraq and Afghanistan, and these are using the lower limits, and counting ONLY the direct deaths (i.e. only those directly killed from bombings, not those who then died from their injuries or indirectly due to the US attacks). Counting those could bring the figures up to over 20,000 civilians.
(Sources www.iraqbodycount.org... and pubpages.unh.edu... )

This will be way out of the league of any figures you can get on Muslim killings, and even then, they will probably be majority killing military personnel.

Quoting this for truth.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


Actually, I own a Quran which I have read and re-read and took an undergraduate class studying the history of Islam, its development, and the cultural values of those areas that adhere to it. I reference thereligionofpeace.com because they've hit the nail on the head. Don't pretend to know how I formed my conclusions, it shows your own ignorance.

reply to post by Mykahel

Actually, it was a pretty good guess, considering how all your information about Islam is absolutely contrary to the truth. Where did you do this "undergraduate class"? At a seminary?

reply to post by Mykahel


I've made note of the website you quoted in your previous post. Its clear thats where you have been getting your information on the Quran from.

So dont try and make it look like you "know" what the Quran teaches.

reply to post by babloyi


It was at an accredited college. But nothing I have said about Islam has been contrary to what the Quran teaches, or what radical Muslims are doing across the globe.
As far as thereligionofpeace.com, I used their website for the numbers. My knowledge of Islam and my opinions of the religion, including their book, were formed long before I found that website.

edit: As far as the Iraq body count is concerned, from what I can tell the language is very shady and you'll notice that the deaths are definitely the result of violence, but it does not point the finger directly at the American government for every death. Would there be less violence in Iraq if American troops were bombing them? Definitely. But the militant Muslim sects are just as guilty of killing civilians, actually using them as body shields and such.

reply to post by Mykahel

I love how people use the "human shield" excuse. As if consistent and regular use of people as human shields is a thing done by muslims, and it totally justifies bombing them "Well it is their own fault that we bombed them, because the bad guys use them as human shields". If you have evidence of consistent and regular use of "human shield" tactics by Iraqi insurgents, please provide them, or else don't make excuses. The only major "Human Shield" tactics used in the Iraq war were from the western-based (headed by a white ex-marine and veteran who had nothing to do with Islam) TJP group, who in the end only had about 80 westerners in Baghdad, and of the locations they were "protecting", none were targeted by the the US anyhow, and they were never in any danger.

And are you sure you looked properly? The Iraqibodycount website specifically categorises and separates the deaths by the US-led forces and the Iraqi insurgents. This is why I continually question your statements...your statements about Islam are totally wrong, you get your statistics from a biased website that conflates the numbers, invents incidents and includes actions taking place in war-zones, includes actions with nothing to do with Islam, and provides no sources ("Sources will be provided on request"...why not have the sources right there?), and you make blanket assumptions on all muslims ("Those who do these bad things are not REAL Christians. Those who don't do these bad things are not REAL Muslims" ).

I think everyone, regardless of religion, thinks of the greater good. God (Allah, Yahweh, etc.) pretty much represents good. I think the divergence came about because of other factors like culture, environment. In other words, the means in which we want to express our concept of the greater good creates conflict among people of different people, especially, ironically, within the Abrahamic religions.

reply to post by babloyi


Ok, I'm done with you because your continuously missing the point.

I have repeatedly, stated that not all Muslims are violent people. I know that the extremist portion is the smaller percent. But the fact is that the religion itself (those things taught by the quran) is excessively violent. Have I EVER said that America's response by killing more civilians was the right thing to do? NO. In fact I said American soldiers are just as guilty at shedding innocent blood. But you seem to miss the point that every day people are hacked to death by Muslims for offending them, or even something as simple as converting from their faith.

Which, by the way, they could accuse anyone of. Nobody converts to Islam, they revert. Muslims believe everyone is born a Muslim and so if you start following another religion (even if you never actually were a Muslim) you have committed apostasy and the punishment is death.

Go ahead, keep your head buried in the sand. Hopefully you wont do anything there to offend your Muslim neighbors. You're actually saving them the time of having to bury you themselves, since its still a practice to bury somebody up to their waist and then stone them for things like adultery....
and splash their wives faces with acid if they disrespect them....
and execute their children for dating somebody other than the person they were arranged to be married to...
or flog somebody for wearing clothing that made a man lust (even if it was VERY modest)...
and lets not forget all the churches they like to burn down.

cifwatch.com...
www.israelnationalnews.com...

The Abrahamic faiths are held to the same standards, its just that Jews and Christians don't go around burning down mosques as part of their daily routine.

The three faiths differ in this way.

The Jews knew their God, and have his word, but they refused to accept the Messiah.

The Christians believe in God as do the Jews but accepted the Messiah.

Islam has nothing to do with the first two, not do any of it's teachings, and was created to replace the first two. Sure, they have some Bible names they flaunt, but it's all about dying and killing the infidel.

reply to post by Fromabove

The Jews knew their God, and have his word, but they refused to accept the Messiah.

The Christians believe in God as do the Jews but accepted the Messiah.

Islam has nothing to do with the first two, not do any of it's teachings, and was created to replace the first two. Sure, they have some Bible names they flaunt, but it's all about dying and killing the infidel.

The Jews believe in God, but reject and insult the messiah.
Chrisianity, turned the messiah into God.

Islam believes in God....and accepts the messiah for who he is.... a man....not God as christians see him.

reply to post by Mykahel

But I'm not missing the point at all. You yourself keep going on about how the religion itself is evil, but the people are mostly nice, then you turn around and give examples of things people do that are bad.
My point always WAS that you seem fairly ignorant about the religion itself, and this point is getting proved again and again, because you keep bringing up examples of acts people do that have nothing to do with the religion itself.

Originally posted by Mykahel
The Abrahamic faiths are held to the same standards, its just that Jews and Christians don't go around burning down mosques as part of their daily routine.

The Abrahamic faiths are certainly NOT held to same standards, and your statement right there is a perfect example of how you are totally unaware of that fact. Jews and Christians don't go around burning down mosques?
Not only do they burn them, they smash them, damage them, vandalise them and terrorise them.
articles.kwch.com...
www.cbc.ca...
sacramento.cbslocal.com...
www.theherald.com.au...
www.worldbulletin.net...
www.nbcwashington.com...

And these articles aren't even MENTIONING the hundreds of acts of racist and bigoted graffitti that mosques are targeted with regularly.
And if you're going to claim these are some sort of 6 separate isolated attacks, you might want to see this:
translate.google.com...
Which explains how such attacks are actually on the rise.

reply to post by babloyi


I'm sorry, I couldn't resist.

Your first link to violence against a mosque was not violence at all. The article clearly says that an investigation has never determined the start of the fire. In fact, many of the local Christian churches actually offered to let the Muslims use their buildings for their services and prayer meetings. Thanks for pointing out such a wonderful example of Christian hatred towards Muslims.

The second link says that the building was torched by Jewish extremists. The mosque also happened to be UNUSED. In addition, the Israeli government has condemned the crime and is seeking those responsible so that they can be reprimanded.

Third incident was obviously an act of hatred towards Muslims, But we know nothing about the people who did it. So you are right, Muslims are being targeted by some people, but then again, every people group comes under attack sometime by someone. The difference is that Muslims (at least those ones obedient to the commands to kill the infidels) are often the ones perpetrating the violence.

The report by Newcastle Herald shows another attack against Muslims (or at least their property) but again the men are unidentified. One man had a large cross on his neck, but that proves absolutely nothing.

worldbulletin report: again, the attackers have not been identified. Slurs against them? "Go home foreigners." Yeah, that's equatable to "Slay those who insult Islam" and "Butcher those who mock Islam." angrywhitedude.com...

Your last link from NBCwashington shows yet again that the vandalism was done by unknown persons, whom the investigation has determined likely to be teenagers who were drunk. The conclusion was that the vandalsim was NOT the result of a hate crime, even though CAIR stepped in and is trying to make a big deal out of it and get the FBI involved. Anything to further push their agenda. Interesting how once again the local Christian community also condemned the attacks against the mosque.

Good job making your point. I can definitely tell from you posts that Muslims suffer attacks just like every other people group and that Christians often respond by trying to help out those Muslims who have been the victims of those attacks.

edit: I also noticed how none of those incidents resulted in the physical harm of a human being, and only vandalism of property. Yes, vandalism is wrong, but loss of property doesn't compare in the slightest to loss of life.

reply to post by Mykahel

It is wonderful how again and again and again you keep looking out for excuses for these acts of violence instead of condemning them, It just keeps proving my point, it is so hilarious.

So a mosque that gets anti-islam threats and then is burnt down later has nothing suspicious. And it is okay to target mosques if you are a jewish extremist, and the mosque is unused. And a man who attacked and terrified children at a mosque had a large cross tattoo, but that proves nothing, he was probably a buddhist. And since it was drunk teenagers (probably) who vandalised a mosque, it is okay.

I wonder if you even read what you write. Excuses excuses excuses, and not a single condemnation for any of the actions. If the situation was reversed (which it has been on occasion), you'd be all blanket condemnation with "Look at these evil muslims doing evil islammy things! And the silent majority muslims don't even condemn them!"

You are the one who brought up mosques being burnt down by christians and jews, so that is what I talked about. You want to go on about physical harm to muslims?
I am sure you read in the news about this dude who went on a rampage and slaughtered 16 innocents, including women and children?
Or the recent viral video about Kony, who leads a militant christian terrorist group?
But perhaps you didn't know about this:
www.herald.ie...
or this: www.london24.com...
or this: www.bbc.co.uk...
or this: www.examiner.co.uk...
or this: www.thisisderbyshire.co.uk...
or this: www.aljazeera.com...
or this: www.thejerusalemfund.org/ht/a/GetDocumentAction/i/32678

Heck, you don't even have to be muslim to be the target of anti-muslim christian bigoted hate. Remember a guy named Anders Breivik?
The ignorance and stupidity of these people shows through in that they can't even differentiate who they are wanting to attack. They even go after Sikhs:
latimesblogs.latimes.com... www.leftturn.org...

Originally posted by Mykahel
I can definitely tell from you posts that Muslims suffer attacks just like every other people group and that Christians often respond by trying to help out those Muslims who have been the victims of those attacks.

You still didn't learn, then, unfortunately. The corollary is also true: everyone (including christians and jews) propagates attacks, and also that Muslims often respond by trying to help victims of attacks (including christians and jews).

edit on 15-3-2012 by babloyi because: (no reason given)

reply to post by babloyi


Yeah. You're right. I don't get how vandalizing an empty building is the same as blowing up a church and killing 20+ people as a result.

I guess it wasn't clear that I also condemn the vandalism and attacks against Muslims, so here, I'll say it clearly so you'll understand.

"It is wrong to vandalize ANYBODY'S property and is even worse to attack or kill ANYONE."

I'm not going to bother reading your last set of links. I doubt you read them. I doubt you read the first set, otherwise you wouldn't have linked to so many stories where the vandalism was condemned by the Christians and Jews, nor would you have linked to a mosque burning down when there has been no conclusion as to what caused it and the Christian community reached out to help so tremendously.

As far as Christian and Jews being the ones to instigate attacks and the Muslim community reaching out to help, they're the exception, not the rule. Also, you claim my website links are biased. Like any link provided by anyone isn't?

Lastly, I find it kind of odd that you yourself haven't condemned any of the attacks I've mentioned against Christians. If you have, I sure haven't noticed it. I guess its ok to blow them up though so long as they don't prevent random drunk kids from spraying graffiti on Muslim property.

I decided to add one more comment before I take my leave of this thread. I wish that more Muslims were like this man. Here is a Muslim who understands the Quran and what it teaches yet maintains his faith in his god. If you haven't checked out any of the other two links I posted, please read this one. I've read yours, even if I came to different conclusions based on what I read than you did.

www.familysecuritymatters.org...

edit: As noted at the bottom of his article, he is apparently now an ex-Muslim (unless he simply means he is no longer a Muslim in the traditional sense). It's also my understanding that at some point the author has been accused of plagiarizing another person's work. Even if the accusations are true (it's not been proven that I'm aware of) and his credibility is shot, he still points out the violence in the Quran and how the Muslim world views it, if they have even read their Quran.

reply to post by Mykahel

Originally posted by Mykahel
Yeah. You're right. I don't get how vandalizing an empty building is the same as blowing up a church and killing 20+ people as a result.

Oh, so you moved your goalposts back from "burning down mosques" (which I showed you examples of) to "physical harm on muslims" (which I again showed you examples of), and now to "blowing up a mosque and killing 20+ people"? I could provide more links, but I get the feeling that you wouldn't read them either. Seems odd I am doing so anyway, because YOU are the one who has been making unsubstantiated claims so far, and I am the one who has been providing links to disprove them. How many recent examples can you find of muslims "blowing up a church and killing 20+ people as result"?

Originally posted by Mykahel
I guess it wasn't clear that I also condemn the vandalism and attacks against Muslims, so here, I'll say it clearly so you'll understand.

"It is wrong to vandalize ANYBODY'S property and is even worse to attack or kill ANYONE."

Of course it is. I wasn't seriously suggesting that you condone these attacks. I was just trying to explain a point:
Just because muslims don't spend every second breath condemning violent attacks so as to satisfy some bigoted assumption of complicity, doesn't mean they condone them. They condemn them as well.

Again I say, perhaps you missed my second post in this thread where I linked to hundreds and hundreds of high profile muslim "leaders of the community" and organisations that spoke out and condemned terrorism? I say again, there is no majority that is condoning the violent actions of extremists through silence. This is a myth.
Or at the very least, it is no different from any other group. Which brings this back to my original question: Why aren't they all held to the same standard?

Originally posted by Mykahel
I doubt you read the first set, otherwise you wouldn't have linked to so many stories where the vandalism was condemned by the Christians and Jews, nor would you have linked to a mosque burning down when there has been no conclusion as to what caused it and the Christian community reached out to help so tremendously.

As far as Christian and Jews being the ones to instigate attacks and the Muslim community reaching out to help, they're the exception, not the rule.

What, so it doesn't count if a christian burns down a mosque if another christian (in only one of the links, I don't know where you got the "overwhelming" idea) helps to set it up again? What has the fact that others jumped in to help have to do with anything? All it shows is what I've been trying to say all along.
There are all sorts of people, who do all sorts of good and bad things, regardless of what religion they are.

It is a fairly weird claim to make that I don't read the links I myself provide. Perhaps you are applying assumptions based on your MO on me? i.e. that you go to anti-islam websites, copy their links and paste them here?

Originally posted by Mykahel
Also, you claim my website links are biased. Like any link provided by anyone isn't?

You ask about unbiased websites. If you notice, all my links were actual news articles from generally well respected news sources, not ONE website with an obvious agenda, regular errors (erring to the side of more numbers) and bigotry flowing out of the pages.

The second link you provided is also an example of a biased and compromised source (the bigotry of the viewpoint that the only good muslim is a person who isn't a muslim is another issue).
Familysecuritypolicy.org has had its share of controversies because of their bigoted and extreme views. It's contributing editors are associated with the racist EDL party, they've had dozens of absurd articles (such as one which called for making Bush president for life and removing all arabs from Iraq and replacing them with Americans), some of which had such a huge backlash that they had to be removed. It is a front for the Center for Security Policy, which has funded several other racist and bigoted organisations, and with members in relatively high positions who have been linked to instances of providing classified information to Israel, receiving payments from Israeli weapons manufacturers, bribery, and pedaling islamophobic misinformation with the view towards miltaristic interventionism in the Middle East for the benefit of Israel. It was (along with several of its fronts) referenced heavily as the inspiration for Anders Brevik's attack. This is a group so right-wing that other conservatives are tired of it for constantly attacking it.
So yeah, biased.

Originally posted by Mykahel
Lastly, I find it kind of odd that you yourself haven't condemned any of the attacks I've mentioned against Christians. If you have, I sure haven't noticed it. I guess its ok to blow them up though so long as they don't prevent random drunk kids from spraying graffiti on Muslim property.

From my general posting history, you can clearly see how I have always condemned such acts of violence (and from your posting history, I can clearly see that you have always made excuses for Christian acts of violence. Congratulations on breaking the mould). HOWEVER, the difference here in this thread is that I wasn't making excuses for them.
They do bad things, that is undeniable. So do other groups. WHY AREN'T THEY HELD TO THE SAME STANDARD?

reply to post by babloyi

Dear babloyi,

I'm glad this thread surfaced again, I reread it and I'm grateful for the link to the words of people condemning violence. They were good to see. One of the scholars that was in you list said this:

Abd al-Hakim Murad, British Muslim scholar:
“This is a decadence that is profound. And that it happens in the holy land is particularly worrying. Near the muqadsāt, where we are particularly required to conform entirely to the adāb of the Shari’ah. This is a deep subversion.

And as for those who think that for reasons of masfahah that the door can be opened there, but somehow that door will remain closed elsewhere in the world, that this door can be opened because the Palestinians are so oppressed and somehow it’s going to help them, but of course we keep it closed in Chechnya and Kahsmir and certainly in London, that logic doesn’t seem to have worked too well.

That rage, that desire to self annihilation, to lash out and the men, women and children, whoever in the vicinity, is now becoming a global epidemic. And the ‘ulama who opened the little door now see these legions rushing through it in every place don’t know what to do about it. That door has to be closed. Islam is too good for such practices, for such baseness, for such wild expression of futility and despair and vindictiveness.”

Interview, December 16-18, 2005, London-Leeds-Manchester

That's what I want, too. Find a way for the words calling for non-violence to be turned into a way to close that door. I can believe that Islam can be seen as a peaceful religion. But some of the followers . . .

With respect,
Charles1952