World leaders promoting tolerance; but what do you really know about Islam?

A little while back a poster mentioned that it was politics that was driving violent acts. Since I'm not familiar with Islamic politics, would some one explain this article posted on the 30th?

A couple who had an adulterous relationship has been stoned to death in the town of Aguelhok, says a spokesman for the radical Islamic group controlling northern Mali.

Sanda Abou Mohamed, a spokesman for the group Ansar Dine, told The Associated Press on Sunday that the couple was executed according to Sharia law.

A resident of the northern city of Kidal, who had spoken to witnesses in nearby Aguelhok, said the man and woman were buried up to their necks and were then pelted with stones until they died earlier on Sunday.

The resident requested anonymity because he feared for his safety.

news.ninemsn.com.au...

reply to post by CoolerAbdullah786


Thanks for posting. Im glad to see you don't advocate violence in this instance.

This is in reponse to my.mind question of westerners that have been killed from fatwas, etc. and your question of rather many groups defended this process or not.

I will ask for your forgiveness in this, but its late, so I don't have the best sources for this, but I will mainly use the Wilipedia page on this. (Also, it seems to be extremely hard in finding information about specific groups that approved of or condmned this)

To the question of support, here are some groups that did support this.

In Britain, The Union of Islamic Students' Associations in Europe issued a statement offering its services to Khomeini...

Meanwhile in America, the director of the Near East Studies Center at UCLA, George Sabbagh, told an interviewer that Khomeini was "completely within his rights" to call for Rushdie's death

en.wikipedia.org...

Just a couple mentioned. And these are people in western countries. But whats seems as disturbing is this, the people who oppsed the death sentence;

According to Bernard Lewis, a death warrant without trial, defence, etc. violates Islamic jurisprudence. In Islamic fiqh, apostasy by a mentally sound adult male is indeed a capital crime. However, fiqh also:


... lays down procedures according to which a person accused of an offense is to be brought to trial....


Muhammad Hussan ad-Din, a theologian at Al-Azhar University, argued "Blood must not be shed except after a trial [when the accused has been] given a chance to defend himself and repent".[39] Abdallah al-Mushidd, head of Azhar's Fatwā Council stated "We must try the author in a legal fashion as Islam does not accept killing as a legal instrument

In other words, he should have been tried, then if found guilty could be severely punished. But to think that even the more moderates are claiming this man should be tried for writing a work of fiction seems crazy.

In addition to this, many people Ive seen on videos in debates or have read that seem to be moderate Muslims seem to not want to condemn this death sentence, instead chosing to criticize Rushdie for his percieved offense.

As far as Sunnis supporting, I found this article from this year, and while clearly condemning the death sentence and outlying good reasons why it is not in line with Islam, he mentions this is a rare instance where Sunnis and Shias agree.

The greatest misinterpretation of the recent times has been the Iranian Ayatollah’s fatwa to behead Salman Rushdie. Funny how Shia-Sunnis never unite, but they are united in their support for this coward and ghastly act.

voices.halabol.com...

As to people actually dying;

A man using the alias Mustafa Mahmoud Mazeh accidentally blew himself up along with two floors of a central London hotel while preparing a bomb intended to kill Rushdie in 1989.[26]
Hitoshi Igarashi, the Japanese translator of the book The Satanic Verses, was stabbed to death on 11 July 1991. Two other translators of the book survived attempted assassinations.[27]
Ettore Capriolo, the Italian language translator, was seriously injured in a stabbing the same month as his Japanese counterpart.
Aziz Nesin, the Turkish language translator, was the intended target in the events that led to the Sivas massacre in July 1993, which resulted in the deaths of 37 people.
William Nygaard, the publisher in Norway, barely survived an attempted assassination in Oslo in October 1993.
In Belgium, two Muslim leaders who opposed Rushdie's death penalty were shot to death.
Two bookstores in Berkeley, California were firebombed.
Five bookstores in England were firebombed.
Twelve people died during rioting in Bombay.

en.wikipedia.org...

Despite all of these horrifice deaths of innocents, almost no one from the Islamic community seemed to condemn these actions.

As far as it being lifted, the source mentions it was attemted to have been lifted but actually has been reinstated, and the threats continue as the above source already mentioned protests in India over this this year, and now evena state sponsered Iranian video game where you get to carry out the death sentence.

newsfeed.time.com...

The reason I started posting this in the first place is that I understand the extreme bias of the mainstream media I am forced to go to for information on this. So I was hoping that perhaps you all had other sources, because Im truly hoping this didnt have the mainstream support it seems to.

reply to post by charles1952

Very interesting wording. Almost, if I may say so, cunning and sly. Which individual is being held accountable for a suicide bombing, or stoning, or church destruction, or killing? No one is, outside the actor. You're defending something that isn't being attacked. I predict you'll win.

I hate to be repetitive, so I'll try to streamline this. People are concerned about a group, a society, a culture, a religion. A religion dedicated in large part to conquering, in whichever manner is most effective, the world for Allah. We have seen murderers of families celebrated in the streets, governments rewarding the families of suicide bombers. Religious rules which would be unspeakable anywhere else, are imposed on populations. African countries are invaded with Allah's name being the prominent battle-cry.

Forgive me, for I may be a little emotional. But where are the efforts to prevent this? Where is the compensation for the victims? Why is this not condemned from every mosque in the world? Why are other Muslims not turning the violent ones in? Why aren't the killers and destroyers punished, ostracized, something?

You speak about an individual's soveregnity. You mean, if they subject themselves to all of the Islamic rules, don't you? Are they free to leave, say what they want, scrawl a cartoon on the ground, criticize their leaders, criticize their religion, date who they want, when they want to?

I may have said too much. I'd love to have a discussion, but a discussion requires something from both sides. I don't care to be so upset and I would love to have it explained why I shouldn't be. But no more condescension, insults and evasions, please.

Astonishingly incisive and enlightened commentary. Thanks for your continuing efforts. I haven't yet had chance to read many of the comments in this thread, so I don't know what your thoughts are regarding my input, but hopefully one of the open-minded critics will get through to some of the deluded, deceptive and evasive people - or just as good, will get through to those who would otherwise be suckered by their preferential treatment (flattery and brotherly joviality) directed at those who agree with them, in order to be seen as 'tolerant', in the spirit of eternal optimism. I imagine that one of them will chime in saying I am issuing similar flattery and brotherly joviality for those who support my argument. Thing is, I am not defending the actions of violent, depraved people, and instead am criticising the 'religion' which allows and even encourages such things to spawn. I therefore support anyone whose sense of morality is not corrupted by adherence to a perverse set of instructions in both 'holy text' and the 'wisdom' of the clerics issuing myraid fatwas in support of depravity.

I'm amazed at the sheer bloody-mindedness of the defenders of Islamic doctrine, who claim that everyone who perpetrates violence on behalf of Islam is doing so because of:

a) Politics (blatantly false in a million different examples)
b) Cultural reasons (whatever the hell that means - what justifications are involved in cultural violence?)
c) Misinterpretation of the Koran (strange that such a vast proportion of Islamists misinterpret -not strange on realising the scriptures 'open to misinterpretation' are in fact very explicit in their meaning...)

As you and others have pointed out clearly, time and again, why are the perpetrators being hailed as heroes in many Islamic quarters? And why are the 'moderates' not going out of their way to condemn and remove the infection of evil from among their ranks?

I've restrained myself from too much involvement so far, because:

a) It's a disgusting set of images and reports to subject one's senses/ soul to when investigating...
b) I wanted to see what the key arguments against my initial criticisms were before I counter.
c) I have a wonderful life, despite many practical and health problems - and I consider myself blessed to live in a culture where I can freely walk my dogs, enjoy nature, enjoy culture, converse and love, have fun with my wife, kids and friends, and worship God in absolute spiritual freedom and joy. Taking too much time over the works of darkness has a negative impact on the quality of one's own life.

However, I see it as a responsibility of my faith and liberty to 'expose the works of darkness', and will provide a full counter to all the points raised in defence of the actions of fundamentalist Islamists (and the doctrine, plus religious teaching, leading to these behaviours).

I will add a note of caution. There are malign spiritual forces with a vested interest in promoting ignorance of the facts concerning Islam. Their methods are varied, but severe nightmares are at the top of the list. Faith in the one who overcame at Calvary enables us to overcome the Adversary.

reply to post by FlyInTheOintment


I will be happy to properly explain the nature of the spiritual warfare at some future point in some future thread.

For now, suffice to say that the demons of Hell are not happy when their works are being called into question publicly.

** redacted - because any talk of spiritual warfare is likely to be misinterpreted. **

Originally posted by FlyInTheOintment
reply to post by FlyInTheOintment

 

I will be happy to properly explain the nature of the spiritual warfare at some future point in some future thread.

For now, suffice to say that the demons of Hell are not happy when their works are being called into question publicly.

** redacted - because any talk of spiritual warfare is likely to be misinterpreted. **

edit on 30-7-2012 by FlyInTheOintment because: (no reason given)

REALLY!?!? So who exactly are these demons of hell? Anyone I know? The old "they are all agents of Lucifer" trick. Ridiculous!

reply to post by Grambler

That is why I am concerned. Regardless of what Islam techniquely says, a large group that claims to be operating in the name of Islam are doing some things that I find quite appaling. And many people claim we need to respect these cultures that advocate this.

Very well put.

When we see Muslims revolting against those who commit horrendous act in the name of Islam, then I could start believing that these large numbers of moderates exist, but all I see is a rain of accusations of bigotry.

The Arab Spring has only resulted in religious extremists gaining more power.

reply to post by FlyInTheOintment

Dear FlyInTheOintment,

It only makes sense to me that, when a problem is identified, people should study it seriously and without illusions. Ignoring problems, hoping they will go away, is not my favorite approach. So, good for you for joining in the examination of a problem affecting the world.

Notice how the only comment made recently from TRGreer, or whoever else is involved in saying there is no problem, is something you didn't want to make a big deal about and had nothing to do with the discussion of the last several pages? That doesn't make progress.

But, the spiritual warfare? Absoulutely right that it's there, but it doesn't get mentioned very often. Perhaps, as the stones are hitting your head, you're not paying close attention to the spiritual aspects of your executioners. Although, Steven did it when he was stoned. That was an amazing story. I wouldn't mind going out that way. Heck, it would be a great honor and privelege.

But, if we get into the spiritual warfare side, I'm sure we'll be led down some side track. Unless, of course, they've given up and we can have the thread to ourselves.

Sorry, everybody, I'm feeling a little snippy today.

With respect,
Charles1952

But, if we get into the spiritual warfare side, I'm sure we'll be led down some side track. Unless, of course, they've given up and we can have the thread to ourselves.

It appears they have given up. Too bad.
It give me mixed feelings. On one hand, it's nice to know that it is not possible to defend the indefensible and they have given up trying. On the other hand, I'm sorry we couldn't work through this to some conclusion, even if it required some difficult and painful work.

Addressing, again, the issue of whether atrocities are encouraged and committed by just a few nutty extremists and heretics, comes this article: dailycaller.com...

Islam strictly prohibits homosexual behavior, with penalties in some Middle Eastern countries ranging from imprisonment to death. But according to one Muslim cleric who cited a sheik’s fatwa, jihadis who want to smuggle explosives in their rectums can — and should — accept being “sodomized” to make room for the mini-bombs.

In a video originally broadcast on the Shia Muslim Fadak-TV channel in Great Britain, and posted on YouTube in June, a cleric refers to a Yemeni al-Qaida terrorist named Ibrahim al-Asiri who helped his younger brother Abdullah prepare for a 2009 suicide bombing aimed at Saudi Crown Prince Nayef bin Abdul-Aziz.

The older brother’s chosen method of attack: a small bomb inserted into the younger Abdullah’s rear end. Abdul reportedly passed security checkpoints after persuading Saudi police that he was a repentant militant who wanted to surrender to the prince personally. Once inside the prince’s office, he blew himself up. But the prince — then the Saudi interior minister — survived until his June 2012 death of natural causes. He was 84.

In the video, as first reported by the New York-based Gatestone Institute, the cleric tells the story of a Wahhabi student who asked a sheik for permission to follow in Abdul al-Azira’s footsteps and carry out a rectal suicide mission.

“Sodomy is forbidden, and not permitted,” the cleric replies on video, according to a translation The Daily Caller has obtained, “but jihad takes priority because it makes Islam dominant. And if the dominance of Islam cannot be achieved except through sodomy, then it is OK”

That last is the significant point. Any law of Islam may be broken to make Islam dominant in the world.

A response to the more significant criticisms of my argument:

Special Note: The primary purpose of the thread was to encourage critical thinking - to encourage people to seek a revival of Truth, Justice and real Equality, over and above the moral whitewash and political sellout that is currently promoted as ‘Tolerance’.

Tolerance is an important moral principle, but not at the expense of a real critical assessment of what, precisely, one is being encouraged to tolerate. When the society within which we live is at real risk of harm from internal factors bound up within a ‘criticism-free zone’ of free speech, freedom of religious expression - and of course, the overriding buzz-word ‘tolerance’ - the risk to our society is increased by a widespread failure to understand precisely what we are being required to tolerate as acceptable behaviour.

A massive part of the role of the UK security services should be, and most likely is, to keep tabs on where, when and by whom, the preaching of fundamental tenets of Islam is taking place. This would be done so as to determine whether specific groups are more likely to apply the fundamental teachings on Jihad from the Koran. British society is considered an enemy of Islam, in the true and fundamental application of the Koran’s teaching. Likely boosted by historical persecution of ethnic minorities by suspicious post-Empire/ post-War Britons, the segregation of Islamic societal groupings within the UK is now overtly willful and self-driven by the Muslim community. While the segregation may originally have been partly driven by harassment of immigrants, again, this comes back to the teachings of the Koran, wherein Muslims are fairly comprehensively instructed to form intimate societal bonds only with other Muslims.

I am not saying that many Muslim families do not seek integration – they surely do. However, the majority appears to seek segregation, and over the course of time, specific towns, or boroughs within a city, have become almost entirely Muslim ‘territory’. An openly Christian family could not live within such a community because of the risk of serious persecution, much of which is well-documented, but is a risk generally avoided by most potential victims (because they perceive the risk, and move to another area before overt persecution becomes an issue)...
Well-publicised clashes have occurred over the years when the original populations of such an area have responded violently to being ‘forced out’ of their hometowns… Such issues have also led to the growth of decidedly non-ethical far right groups, who willfully seek opportunities to harass and persecute ethnic minorities, but particularly Muslims, because they are perceived as trying to overthrow the nation from within, by means of population growth/ urban colonization.

However, in spite of the violent and twisted minorities who act out a rightwing policy of hatred, a Muslim family can usually quite comfortably live within a typically British (Christian/ atheist/ agnostic) community without fear of persecution. The British heritage is largely nominal Christianity, and as a result, most Britons have a roughly ‘Ten Commandments’ attitude to fairness & justice issues, and nowadays, are largely naturally tolerant of other cultures.

Recently we have seen a massive increase in calls to ‘tolerance’ from our leaders, who are faced with the growth of so-called ‘radical Islam’ (actually what is being described as ‘radical’, is simply a fundamental application of the teachings in the Koran - so it would properly be known as ‘fundamentalist Islam’)… The growth of radical/fundamentalist Islam is a real threat to the UK, and our leaders are simply trying to avoid an overspill reaction to the perceived threat, the risk being that of aggression towards Muslims who are in fact moderate in practice. The problem is, that people are now so biased towards politically correct notions of ‘tolerance’, that they are being blinded to the actual nature of the doctrine in the Koran, which plainly demands violence and aggression towards non-Muslims from all quarters of the globe.

My argument is not against ‘moderate Islamists’, who are essentially living (bravely) in disobedience to the violent commands of ‘Allah’ as spouted in the Koran, but is rather against the actual doctrine itself, and against those members of the Islamic populace who believe that it is acceptable to apply this doctrine to everyday life, wherever in the world they find themselves.

I was under no illusions when compiling the OP of this thread. I was fully aware it would generate some angry responses, but it was not my intention to overly aggravate people. I accept that the very matter of criticising a well-established religion will generate a great deal of angst.

Criticism of religion is not new to ATS. I have lost count of the number of threads I see which criticise the predominant Western faith, Christianity. Some of these threads have the appearance of well-argued logic, and can be hard to answer effectively. In the past I have steered clear of getting entangled in such threads, as the majority of those who compile them and participate in them are well-entrenched in their views, often (sadly) rightly so – as a result of their observation of the hypocritical, judgmental, patronising or downright dimwitted nature of Christians within or influencing their sphere of activity.

One thing that is clear is that far fewer people (on ATS as a microcosm, and in society at large) are prepared to engage on a project of criticism of Islam. The reasons for this are multiple. Some of the more obvious include the basic fact that many Westerners are not acquainted with the text of the Koran, or the lifestyle and beliefs of practising Muslims – both moderate and fundamental. As a result, most Westerners would not be inclined to embark on a program of study with the intention of better understanding the roots of a religion which generates (in many cases, where fundamentalist Islam is practiced widely) what can only be described as brutal, savage behaviour on the part of what the West terms ‘Radical Islamists’ all around the world. Not all Muslims are alike, and not all Muslims display the negative behaviours mentioned, but I address these criticisms to those who take such instruction from the Koran that directly leads to the behaviours noted. This behaviour is not limited to the Muslim interaction with non-Muslims – it includes staggering acts of brutality against other Muslim men who are considered blasphemers because they choose to ignore the commands of violence in the Koran, and all too often (in fact, incredibly often), Muslim women and children too.

This general trend of aggression cannot be denied – it is coupled with what can only be described as socially enforced subjection of women, and totally unjust execution of women for what should be seen, in light of a certain, specific revelation around two thousand years ago, as forgivable offences. Brutal non-lethal attacks on women are widespread in the Middle East, including such horrors as the occasion when two Imams decided to throw a very strong acid into the face of a woman who refused to close down her beauty salon business. They told her it was inappropriate for a Muslim woman to be engaged upon such a project, and threatened that they would ‘ruin her face’ – and then carried out their threat. In fact, in the case I mention, the lady concerned was recently denied justice. After seven years of zero movement, her legal case against the Imams has been dismissed out of hand, without fair hearing, and the two perpetrators – while it is acknowledged that they carried out the attack – were considered by the presiding law enforcement officials to have been acting in a way deemed justifiable under Sharia law.

These patterns of behaviour make it hard for almost anyone in the West (apart from brutalised and depraved psychotics) to relate to the behaviour, to understand it even - and leave most of us with even less idea of how to address it.

My argument therefore, is not against Muslims in general, but is against the fundamental application of the instruction of the Koran, which culminates in a brutal, unforgiving society, and produces many, many people with the proclivity to kill indiscriminately, and for whom to be killed in executing such attacks is considered a high honour, to be rewarded by a supposed God – allegedly the same God who inspired Jesus to give His beautiful Sermon on the Mount, where he emphasised the need for people to display qualities such as mercy, brotherly love and peacemaking - indiscriminately, 600 years prior to the ‘revelation’ of Allah. Almost all of the brutality of Islam is perpetrated with the express intention of spreading the ‘authority’ of their ‘religion’, either within the bounds of a predominantly Islamic society, or externally towards other people groups. A primary aim in either case is to inspire fear, increasing the likelihood of submission by moderate Muslims & non-Muslims alike, when confronted with fundamentally applied Islam.

I do not need to provide specific evidence of the facts, though if pressed, I will (and in a particular future project, currently in progress, I most certainly will) – that the Islamic faith has generated countless suicide bombers, along with many more of their ilk, who embark on similarly brutal types of Jihad warfare, who are prepared to indiscriminately kill and maim men, women and children – all those who do not share their belief system, or who represent a nation or creed that is essentially opposed to the fundamental application of the teachings of the Koran.

...In any case, the evidence is widely available, and in the West we only receive a trickle of the data through our mainstream news networks on the attacks that are being perpetrated on a daily basis all around the globe.

Someone raised the point at an early stage of response to my OP – that the body count of the attacks listed in the OP for the thirty days in question was likely to be lower than that of the body count of Muslims in the War on Terror over the same period. Two objections spring to my mind when contemplating such a comment.

Firstly, the very idea that we should use ‘body count’ as a means to determine the relative morality of what is going on is ludicrous.

In an ideal Jihadist world, each individual attack would take out many thousands. Their aim is indiscriminate killing and maiming of those who represent opposition to fundamentalist Islam, and publicity for their cause. The thinking is thus: The more people they kill, the better; the more fear they inspire, the better. It really is that simple. The resources, geographical location and freedom of operation available to the Jihadists in the planning phases of their endeavours are the ONLY factors that result in a restriction to a ‘low’ body count in most cases.

What should be specifically noted, regarding the morality of the wider fundamentalist Islamic populace, is the frequency of, geographic dispersal of and sheer number of attacks perpetrated, on an ongoing basis. In many nations where Islam is the predominant or only state religion, subversive methods of Jihad – such as suicide bombing, remote-detonated IEDs etc - are culturally acceptable forms of warfare operations, an acceptable means by which to terrorise people into the fear of their cause, and by which to satiate the bloodlust that goes hand-in-hand with fundamentalist Islam.

A quick point about the oft-quoted justification: To claim that these attacks are all in response to Jewish aggression in Palestine is a false argument, and blatantly so. Many of the attacks are perpetrated against nationalities that have absolutely nothing to do with the Israelis, and have never shown any support for their foreign policies. In addition, the modern 'Palestine problem', which afflicts both Palestinians themselves, many innocent and blameless, entangled in a web of evil that chokes them - and the Israelis, to a slightly muted degree, owing to their larger population/ means of protection, WAS ENTIRELY PREVENTABLE by Arab nations.

Similarly, to claim that the majority of attacks are in response to the War on Terror is an equally false argument – many of the nations targeted have nothing to do with the US-led attacks on Iraq or Afghanistan, or the drone attacks in Pakistan.

To address the second criticism inferred by the overtone of certain comments: that by posting critically about Islam, I somehow prove myself a supporter of the War on Terror, all I can say is that is emphatically not the case. The War on Terror is a debacle in the truest sense of the word. Strategically flawed in many ways, I am almost entirely convinced that it was started by Western puppet-masters who utilised the atrocity of a false flag attack, to provide the necessary impetus for their pre-planned campaign against several prior-targeted Islamic states. 9-11 was either allowed to happen, or it was specifically designed to meet the needs of the ‘problem’. However, this is not the topic of the thread; we have a whole forum dedicated to that matter.

One thing I will say briefly is that there is a possibility that the whole War on Terror, and the precursory 9-11 attacks, are/ were a particularly unswerving & morally bereft example of ‘end justifies the means’ warfare. Perhaps the threat from fundamentalist Islamic regimes was duly noted, and a plan hatched to enable a strategic minimisation of the threat at a nation-to-nation level. It could be that the PTB consider that ‘minor’ guerrilla casualties, in a possibly unending and messy campaign against ‘Terror’ are far better for the West in the long term, than out-and-out warfare perpetrated by a nuclear-empowered Islamic caliphate, which would by nature be fundamentally opposed to Christians, Jews, Atheists and the Western World in general.

The supreme irony of the War on Terror, is that it has promoted the cause of the fundamentalist Islamists, and the ongoing campaigns against Egypt and Libya, via provocation of the Arab Spring, provided the necessary power vacuum for the momentum of a growing Islamic Caliphate movement, led by the Muslim Brotherhood, to swoop in and take the place of formerly less (externally) hazardous regimes.

I do not support this War on Terror, but acknowledge that it is quite possible that the people behind it were ‘well-intentioned’ - in their own minds - despite operating in a moral vacuum and utilising thoroughly evil tactics to achieve their goals.

The thrust of my argument against Islam (not Muslims) is that one must be under no illusions that there have been many, many examples throughout the long history of Islam, which clearly demonstrate that there are some fundamental problems with the doctrine of the Koran. No other religion, when applied in its true form, according to the doctrine laid out in the pages of its Holy Book, has generated so many examples of culturally acceptable violence, or is bound by the terms of its ‘faith’ to make a commitment to brutal warfare, telling its followers that warfare is their obligation, ‘whether you like it or not’, as is literally stated in the Koran.

Not surprisingly, a great number of fundamentalist Islamists do seem to enjoy the warfare, believing as they do that God will reward them with a paradise of hedonistic bliss, where they will be the possessors of unending wine, catamite-esque servants tending to their every need, and fornication/ debauchery with their 72 wives, all eternally young and beautiful, all completely at the disposal of the martyred Islamist… This would be no ‘Heaven’ for any woman.

I need to make a quick note regarding such issues as the ‘Crusaders’ and the ‘Spanish Inquisition’. Some people, in my original thread, claimed that Christians are just as bad as fundamentalist Islamists when it comes to the promotion of warfare against people groups not sharing their beliefs. The activities of those involved in the Crusades, and the Inquisition – and many other activities of the Roman Catholic Church of the Middle Ages, even up to and including today in some ways, were/ are not those prescribed in the fundamental doctrine of Christianity.

Their actions constituted a false expression of Christianity, with the exception of some aspects of the Crusaders’ motivations, which are too complex to discuss in this thread.

The basic tenets of Christianity as related to the society we live in/ the authority of the state, and to warfare are these:

Society/State:

‘’…give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and give to God what belongs to God.”

‘’Show respect for all men; love the church brotherhood. Reverence God. Honor the Head of State.’’

[The last bit, re: honoring the authorities – this is not a commandment to be adhered to if you live in a place like North Korea, or the ‘democratic’ Republic of Congo. In such instances, civil disobedience, peaceful protest & especially argument in favor of religious freedom is a moral obligation, wherever possible. Sadly, in almost all such instances, martyrdom for the sake of Christ – and many other religious principles - is a common occurrence…]

Towards the downtrodden:

[from the parable of the Good Samaritan]

…‘’Which was a neighbor to him?’’
…’’The one who displayed kindness?’’
…’’Go and do likewise.’’

[IE – Show kindness to all people who are in need, regardless of ethnicity or creed, and act charitably without self-interest, as far as it is within your power to do so…]

Warfare/ Disputes:

‘’If possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone’’

[Christians are not, as many misunderstand, called to face brutal oppression of either their community or their city/ region/ nation with endless turning of the cheek. It is permissible to act in warfare as an absolute last resort, in order to protect the inherent and fundamental right that any human being has to exist, to live, and to continue in the pursuit of progress – by procreation, social advance, technological development & spiritual refinement - so long as they do not, in turn, seek to oppress others following a victory. As Lao Tzu said, the attitude of a victor in battle should be that of a person attending a funeral; by that he meant ‘dignified, respectful, and supportive to those who mourn’.

Turning the other cheek, therefore, is most applicable in the microcosmic disputes that afflict all folk from time to time (petty arguments, unjust treatment by officials, etc). At the macrocosmic levels of human experience, turning the other cheek can be specifically inspirational when individuals or groups are enabled to ‘triumph’ in the spiritual sense, defiantly & yet forgivingly gracious in the face of goading, harassment, torture and even death, when facing instances of persecution specifically relating to their cherished beliefs.]

Overall, from this simple and non-exhaustive analysis, we can conclude that if applied in the true and correct sense, the doctrine of Christianity, including the teaching of Jesus, as laid out in the New Testament, is non-violent, respectful and tolerant of others.

However, the same cannot be said of Islam, and much of the ‘fruit’ that has grown from the ‘seed’ of centrally-important doctrines in the Quran, Hadith & Sunnah, is the brutality seen both now and in the past, widely evident in family, community and national activities. Of particular concern are the instances of legislation drafted by fundamentalist Islamists which are essentially Sharia Law, and the cultural pressure within many Muslim communities (whether supported by legislation/ Islamic government or not) to conform to such Sharia tenets as have been consistently justified by a multitude of clerics, even back to Mohammed himself.

Coming six hundred years after Christ walked the earth, a ‘new revelation’, supposedly of the same heritage of Jews and Christians, appears via one man, Mohammed. Followers were taught to obey – to absolutely obey - the doctrine supplied by this one man, apparently revealed to him by an angel of heaven, named as Gabriel.

There are several specific reasons as to why the entity which spoke to Mohammed cannot be the same angel Gabriel who is mentioned many times in the Biblical record, but for now I will focus on one particular point, involving the record in the New Testament book of Luke. Luke was a physician, and was known as a meticulous compiler and editor of available material when deciding what should be included in his gospel record of the life and works of Jesus.

In Luke 1:26-35 we are told of the way in which God announced the birth of Jesus to Mary, soon-to-be wife of Joseph, his earthly mother. The angel told her specifically that the child would be known as the ‘Son of God’, and the ‘Son of the Most High’ - he announced that His incarnation would take place by miraculous means:

The Birth of Jesus Foretold

26 In the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a village in Galilee, 27 to a virgin named Mary. She was engaged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of King David. 28 Gabriel appeared to her and said, “Greetings, favored woman! The Lord is with you!”

29 Confused and disturbed, Mary tried to think what the angel could mean. 30 “Don’t be afraid, Mary,” the angel told her, “for you have found favor with God! 31 You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you will name him Jesus. 32 He will be very great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his ancestor David. 33 And he will reign over Israel forever; his Kingdom will never end!”

34 Mary asked the angel, “But how can this happen? I am a virgin.”
35 The angel replied, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the baby to be born will be holy, and he will be called the Son of God.

In the above passage, Gabriel is quoted naming Jesus the ‘’Son of God’’, and the ‘’Son of the Most High’’. If you do not believe in angels, this is where you need to draw out of the thread, as this is one of the key points I am trying to make in this (incidental, but theologically important) distinction between Christianity and Islam.


In Islam, in the Koran – allegedly revealed to Mohammed by the same angel, Gabriel - there are specific verses that overtly, and repeatedly, deny the divine nature of Jesus as the Son of God. I won't incorporate them here, as they are tiresome and require great explanation which is not necessary in this part of the scheme of things. However - in brief, here is the crux of the 'Gabriel problem' of Islam:

Why would the same angel, who announced the Messiah - the Saviour of Mankind, the Son of God, a man who grew up to be a righteous teacher with miraculous power, who specified the nature and purpose of his death ahead of time, and who referred constantly to God as his Father, who told his disciples to refer to God as their Heavenly Father – why would that same angel then return 600 years later, teaching very specifically that God is unknowable, that Jesus himself never died on the cross, therefore was never raised from the dead, therefore could not be considered the redeemer of Mankind - and that if men consider that Jesus is God’s son, that belief is to be considered a heretical blasphemy, punishable by death for anyone who dares to convert to Christianity from the new, and allegedly (according to Gabriel/ Mohammed/ Allah) the 'only true religion' of Islam…???

Those who were Christians at the time of the appearance of Islam, who had received the gifts of the Holy Spirit (such as the ability to pray in unknown tongues, to heal by prayer and the laying on of hands, to exorcise demons in the authority of Jesus, to predict events which were to come about in the lives of themselves and fellow believers by the gift of prophecy - etc), would have been mightily surprised to learn that God had changed His mind, and had decided that Jesus was not their means of redemption, and not the source of their ‘living water’ (a term to describe the indwelling and life-giving power of the Holy Spirit).

After careful inspection of the doctrine, they would have determined what I, and many other Christians (relatively few of whom are likely to voice their opinions) have determined. They would have determined that Islam was a clever counterfeit, based heavily upon principles similar to the original revelation to the Jews, but loaded with specific elements which taught against Christ, and against the possibility of coming to a ‘living’ faith in & a straightforward ‘Father/Child’ relationship with God through Christ. The living faith, literally miraculous in many ways [another topic - for another thread - is the reality and occurrence, in times ancient and modern, of miracles] and the doctrine that supports it, as taught to - and accreted through living experience by - Christian believers, which has been the consistent experience of true Christians down the centuries, was known by them, and demonstrated in their lives to be, that Faith by which Man could actually receive knowledge, blessing and comfort from God, and the transforming power of His indwelling Spirit

These Christians, confident in their real and living faith, understanding the realm of the spirit-worlds (but not neglecting earthly practicalities), would realise that this new religion was purposely designed by a deceiving spirit – the master deceiver himself, His Infernal Eminence, Satan - to mimic the tenets of the original Judaic laws. Amidst the seemingly righteous instructions contained within the pages of the Koran, were very specific and subtle deceptions, instructions which were designed to create hateful, warmongering people, who were brutal in both daily living and corporate practices – these instructions, when examined in the proper light of an understanding both of the Jewish faith and the Christian faith, are revealed to be almost entirely contrary to the actual instructions and covenants of God (as revealed in the form of a Law, or more properly translated, a Way of Life). Islam specifically denied that their Messiah had come to redeem them from their sins, or to enjoin them through Christ to the ineffable God Above All Things.

NOTE - Christians are essentially Messianic Jews by adoption, though very few of them realise the fundamental importance of their adoptive connection with Judaism.

We are taught in Christianity that we can recognise the nature of the ‘spirit’ of a message, by the fruit (the actions and philosophies) that it generates in the lives of those who follow its teaching. Specifically, when it comes to discerning the spiritual intent of a particular group, the attitude of the ‘spirit’ behind it towards Christ is examined. Is the spirit of the message ‘in-line with’ the Nature of Jesus as He had been revealed to the disciples, apostles and early church congregation…?

A true Christian therefore seeks to live their personal and corporate life according to the ongoing development of the TRUE ‘fruits of the Spirit’:

Galatians 5:22-23

22 But the Holy Spirit produces this kind of fruit in our lives: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, and self-control. There is no law against these things..!

The above is our aim as Christians. Nowhere in the doctrine of Christianity is there any mention of institutionalized warfare against people of other creeds, races or colours, for the purposes of expanding an ‘Empire’ throughout the globe, until nothing is left but the faith group you stand for… In Christianity there is no mention of the brutal subjection of women, no allowance given for the practice of bigamy, the use of one’s own slave girls in prostitution for personal profit, the right to marry girls as young as six years old and have intercourse with them at least as young as nine years old (Mohammed himself did this last one when he was 51 years old…) All of these archaic, negative, morally defective and downright perverse behaviours are openly stated as lawful to a Muslim, even explicitly encouraged as ‘morally commendable, good behaviour’ in Islam. Similarity to the stricter tenets of Judaism is no accident - this is willfully so, in order that confusion and false perceptions will reign over the legitimacy of the original Abrahamic/ Mosaic & Christological revelation.

Islam is an usurper, the ‘great pretender’, a mish-mash of Biblical tales and truly hardcore spiritual twisting of the original Mosaic Law, presented via only one man, whose moral calibre was disgraceful, and whom has been revered as (with absolute, unavoidably conclusive, supremely horrendous irony) ‘the most perfect human who ever lived’ by generations of Muslims.

Some examples of specific 'antichrist' teaching from the spirit of Islam:

** Jesus taught that His arrival heralded the passing away of the old ways of the Law, that He was the fulfillment of the Law, and that nobody had any right to kill a woman caught in adultery, as all were equally guilty before God.

- - 600 years later, while the spirit of Islam denied the divinity of Jesus, it specifically contradicted his teachings; one example being that women caught in adultery should be stoned to death. If a woman accused of adultery wanted to prove she was raped, she needed four [male only] witnesses to testify on her behalf that they had seen the act, and that it was not consensual. Hmm.....

** Jesus taught that people who devote their lives to peacemaking are considered blessed, and are to be known as Sons of God. He also taught that the Kingdom of God belonged to those with the heart and soul of an innocent child, and that great punishment awaited any who hurt or perverted the innocence of a child. He taught equality between men and women, and indicated that faithfulness in marriage was the ideal for which we are to strive. Fidelity and sexual self-control were ideals lifted up as commendable. Contrary to popular misconception, He did not condemn homosexuality, and though He revered and taught the Torah, the Way of Life, which does indicate the condemnation of homosexuality – He doubtless understood, and as the metaphysical Lord of Creation still does understand, the position that many men find themselves in, regarding their naturally uncontrollable feelings towards other men. Christians down the ages have taken minor passing comments [the meaning of which is often ambiguous anyway] by some of the followers of Christ to be unbreakable commands of God regarding sexual practice – really, the question is open to the prompting of the Holy Spirit. Nobody has the right to convict anyone of personal sin and guilt before God; matters of such intimacy are a matter between an individual and God, not between men who would rather see one way promoted over another. Family, marriage and the raising of children is the ideal for which we are biologically ‘designed’, and Jesus openly supported it… However, everyone is a unique expression of genetics, circumstance, beliefs held by family members, later adapted according to personal reflection upon the prevailing (or otherwise) attitudes in society. God is merciful & understanding, beyond what any of us can comprehend. He cares for all, and loves all – but sometimes requires a change from us in our material expression of our lifestyle, not limited to sexual practice, but also including religious pretensions/self-righteousness, and the matter of the hoarding of wealth/ power. All of these factors can negatively affect our spiritual development, significantly.

- - 600 years later, entirely in opposition to the bulk of Judaism and the explicit message of Christ & the apostles, the spirit of Islam taught that unrepentant murderers and warlords (who were allowed to indulge in paedophilia, a devilishly significant crime against the innocence of childhood, if not the most significant crime that a human can commit) who killed Christians, Jews and Pagans, would be rewarded by God for their murdering & paedophilia in a hedonistic paradise where debauchery, and (by intimations almost too obvious for words, yet vehemently denied by any Muslim) catamite boys – and, of course, the unhampered, unfettered and unending, utter domination of a myriad of women – even more than the 72 virgins, as is most oft-quoted. All would be entirely willing, ever-compliant and never-jealous…

*** *** ***

I maintain that something fundamental is seriously wrong with the fundamental doctrine of Islam, which allows such gross material perversions and calls it ‘spirituality’ - and that the resulting inversion of morality has become endemic in much of the Islamic world. REMEMBER - The Moderate Muslim community is to be admired for their commitment to what amounts to disobedience to ‘Allah’.

There is no way that the fundamental application of any ‘religion of peace’ having true association with Jesus Christ, would generate wave after wave of suicide bombers, or that it would tolerate and even encourage paedophilia in nation states where the religion is applied to daily life and law-making. It is entirely antithetical to Christ's nature, an abhorrence of inappropriate association. Christ would not/ does not approve of Mohammed's ways - or the fact that He was name-dropped, as an admirer of Mohammed..! Ridiculous.!

Islam, in my humble – yet relatively well informed, theologically – opinion, is a deliberate deception, spawned by the one known in Christianity as Satan. It is cleverly disguised as being similar in tone to the original nature of Judaism, yet denies particular aspects of the irrevocable covenants of Judaism, denies the divinity of Christ, and denies the purpose of His ministry as the fulfillment of Messianic prophecy – that purpose being? To redeem Man, so that Man could renew his fellowship with the Creator.

Islam denies that such fellowship is possible, and paints God as an eternally angry and judgmental tyrant. Judaism revealed that God was stern in judgment when His covenant was disobeyed – but He planned a new covenant, wherein subjection to the Laws of the Torah (Way of Life) was annulled by the death of Christ. In Christ, a new covenant was given – mercy was given. The grace of God was revealed, and Man was invited to fellowship with the Most High. The Adversary was defeated – Satan was disarmed in the lives of all who believed. To accept the terms of the new covenant was a matter of simple faith, not adherence to complex Laws as with the original covenant (though even an attempt resulting in partial maintenance of observance of the more important of the Laws, with the right humble attitude, brought on the favour of God in a person’s life, and still does).

At the cross of Calvary, Jesus said: ‘’It is finished’’. The overall war against sin, death and Satan was won - in the lives of all who believed, those promised victories could be fulfilled.

600 years later, the one known to Christians as 'the Adversary', 'the Father of Lies', 'the Accuser' and a 'murderer from the Beginning' planted a false religion to undermine the work of Christ, and to yoke with despicable brutality the lives of millions upon millions of Muslims - and the non-Muslims who refused to comply with 'Islam'. Specifically, this old serpent, the 'Devil', spawned a 'spiritual' environment so despicable, that anyone who leaves it is considered worthy of disinheritance, exile, torture & even painful, lingering death, by the majority of the world's Muslims in history, and by a devastatingly worrisome proportion, even in the twenty-first century.

Such efforts at creating this horror of a 'religion', are in fact logical when we consider this spiritual entity's indiscriminate hatred towards all mankind... It's not just the Muslims who suffer - and many, many do - it's everyone by proxy.

The curse of Islam is the subject I will attempt to more comprehensively address in one of my upcoming threads. REMEMBER: Moderate Muslims are not being criticised. The comments of disgust are solely aimed at the doctrine of Allah/ Gabriel/ Mohammed, which specifies brutal, despicable things; and, towards those non-discerning/ downright evil people down the centuries who have applied - with gusto - the perversions taught by those same three. An unholy trinity, if you will.

I'm not saying Christians are perfect now, or that they have acted with continued righteousness throughout the murky history of the last two thousand years - and neither am I saying that there do not appear to be any significant issues of uncertain morality present in the history of Judaism; however, I will comprehensively address the various issues of general and academic contention with each religion, in my upcoming thread series 'Taking down the Satanic Strongholds'. I will be equally thorough in taking down negative Christian and Jewish behaviour as I have been in preparing my case against certain Islamic behaviours.

Regardless,there will be a specific, and considerably weighty conclusion, which naturally - by the application of analysis and logic - demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt, that my conclusion regarding Islam is absolutely correct.

The Islam conclusion will hold true, no matter what your ultimate opinion of Judaism and Christianity is.

In the first part of that series, my aim will be to clarify and present the true essentials of each Abrahamic faith (as I aim to show more convincingly, there two genuine Abrahamic faiths, and one counterfeit/ illegitimate).
I intend to smooth out the rough patches, in terms of failures in commonplace comprehension with regards the overall message presented in Judaic/ Christian scripture (caused by various means not limited to, but certainly vastly consisting, propaganda from the anti-religion crowd). In addition, to raise to new heights of understanding, the very positive but oft-overlooked (or misunderstood) specific elements of doctrine of each of those genuinely symbiotic faith groups.

I intend to highlight - in proper, edifying context - some of the scholarly critiques often overlooked by practitioners/ lay-defenders of Judaism and Christianity, and critiques totally ignored (or blanket-condemned without the application of logic) by their iron-willed counterparts, the Islamist apologists.

FITO

reply to post by FlyInTheOintment

Dear FlyInTheOintment,

WOW! The work you've put into your analysis is more than awesome. I can see it laid out as the text in a college seminar for a quarter.

I truly wish there were some here to question or discuss it but, if you'll forgive me for saying so, I think it will scare most (if not all) away. In implying that Islam is a Satanic perversion of Christianity, our Moslem members will either ignore your posts, believing it will die, or condemn them with such rhetorical violence that a discussion will be impossible.

For those who are not followers of Allah, and again forgive me, the depth and length of your presentation may be intimidating. My limited experience here leads me to believe that a point or two (or perhaps three) in any thread may be the most that can be hoped for. Of course you can steer the discussion to additional points later in the thread.

The distinction of "fundamentalist" Muslims is important. There is a question in my mind concerning the number of Moslems in Western countries are trying to assimilate versus the number that are trying to spread Islam from within. CAIR and ISNA are the two organizations that jump to mind. (Oooops, add the Muslim Student Association.)

Anyway, again, nice work.

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by The Old American

Originally posted by samsamm9
Did ATS become a haven for Anti-Islamic propaganda ?
This is getting really old dude.

No more so than it has anti-Christian or anti-Jewish propaganda. I would submit that it's time for an honest discussion about Islam, what it is and isn't, and not be afraid to speak out against, or for, it, since people have no problem in ATS slamming Christians and Jews, while singing "Kumbaya" about Islam, who is currently responsible for quite a bit of murder and mayhem in the world right now.

/TOA

Pity that those who sling the No-True Scotsman argument against Christianity don't apply this to Islam. Faulty logic.

What it comes down to is that Europe is being colonized by Islam, and if Europe does not take action Islam will succeed in the colonization of Europe.

The only ultimate solution will be to break up these Muslim communities, and remove them from the country.