Syria becoming a major disaster and potential terrorist hotbed.

[cjppjc]

Re: Syria becoming a major disaster and potential terrorist hotbed.

If there is one thing God knows nothing about, it is religion.

[jiimbergin]

Re: Syria becoming a major disaster and potential terrorist hotbed.

Thank you Raz.

+1

[ddn3f]

Re: Syria becoming a major disaster and potential terrorist hotbed.

Thank you Raz.

[astonas]

Re: Syria becoming a major disaster and potential terrorist hotbed.

Christianity did spread through coercion and violence in the medieval and colonial periods, but not in the first few centuries.

This isn't quite right. Once Constantine adopted Christianity as the religion of the Roman empire (a convenient chance to consolidate his power) the blood started to flow. Not only was Constantine himself a nasty piece of work (murdering his family, including wife and children, to prevent possible challenges to his power) but his antecedents were also more than happy to purge the pagan old guard from any positions within the vast Roman beaurocracy. This was the very obvious "hint" that led the majority of the empire to convert so quickly. Pagans simply weren't allowed to have influence any more. Often on pain of death.

The decision to place words or ideals above people's temporal lives in importance (a concept shared to varying degrees by the Abrahamic religions) means that when push comes to shove, and it is time for one or the other to end, it is people's lives, and not the words of God, that will be ended.

And it is frequently in some leader's best interest to see to it that things come to a violent head. There is always some agenda that can be advanced by expoloiting the idea that there are things more important than human life, and applying that concept to an annoying political obstacle. This is true no matter how good, or well-intended, the words or ideals initially were. It's not so much a commentary on any theoretical, "pure" religion as it is on the way any religion inevitably interacts with human nature to create disastrous consequences.

The peaceful historical exceptions occur when an ideological religion is sufficiently weak as to not pose a threat to real power (~<10% adoption, as before Constantine), or is so dominant as to go essentially unchallenged (such as the large fraction of the west identifying itself at least nominally as Christian today). It is in such times that the inherent danger of de-prioritizing the temporal existence appears inoccuous, even beneficial.

[Raz]

Re: Syria becoming a major disaster and potential terrorist hotbed.

Please point out to me where the God of the Muslims commands human sacrifice. The point was that there are all sorts of examples where the Old Testament shows clearly - even after millenia of 'smoothing' - clear acts of violence explicitly asked by the Christian God.

YOU were the one who implied that the Old Testament revealed human sacrifice of “unbelievers”.

(“ ... a reading of the Old Testament leads to many of the sameconclusions you point at for Muslims. There's murder, there's human sacrifice,there's genocide, slavery, and all sorts of terrible things done to unbelievers there.)

Given the context of your reply it was only logical to assume you were indicting the God of Israel as demanding humans be sacrificed as an act of worship to Him. When one reads the Pentateuch – all five of the books – there emerges the story of God taking tribes of ignorant,uneducated slaves and using them to displace a diabolically evil people from the land of Canaan. Genesis is the book of beginnings;Exodus is the book of redemption;Leviticus is the book of atonement and holiness. Numbers is the book of testing. Deuteronomy is the book of obedience.

Preaching centered exclusively upon the grace and love of God as revealed in Christ would have little effect upon a people with NO knowledge of God or holiness. One can’t teach Calculus to First Graders but only to High School and College students who have first learned Algebra and Geometry.
As the NewTestament says: “But in the fullness of time God sent forth His Son …” (Galatians 4:4-5).

Canaanite worship of their “gods” Baal and Moloch was nothing less than monstrous as it involved child sacrifice. After the fall of the Ottoman Empire and British archeologists had free access to the excavation sites of the Levant some ofthem actually became physically ill at the discoveries they made, such was the level of depravity of these people. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moloch#Biblical_texts

It is a misconception that the Triune God is totally pacifist and would never sanction death for anyone.
The concept of blood-guilt and capital punishment is revealed in the Old Testament – and the New (Romans 13:3-4). All killing is not murder just as all sex is not rape. Primitive human societies couldn’t survive the assault of such levels of depravity with no way to eliminate those who are completely given over to it. There were no prisons as we know today and the Law of Moses only offered three outcomes: acquittal, restitution or death.

As to a“millennia of smoothing” – The Exodus took place in approximately 1430 B.C, some 2,000 years before Muhammad, and Muhammad lived almost 600 years after Christ. When reading the Quran, the Sira and Hadith it would appear Muhammad was quite a regression in theological terms, certainly so to the atheistic mind which assumes there is no creator god of any kind whatsoever and sees all holy books as simply literary products of specific cultures that are progressive in nature.

And since you're such a student, please explain these passages:

1) Exodus 13:2

Consecrate to me every first-born that opens the womb among Israelites, both man and beast, for it belongs to me.

How exactly do the first born 'belonging' differ from the second born? It seems clear there is something beyond merely being 'with God'.

“… since you're such a student”. Your insulting tone doesn’t help your argument. There are plenty of bigots to slay, c1ue, but I’m not one of them. Having read a LOT of theology and ecclesiastical history I’ve simply let the evidence take me where it leads. Forgive me for being so blunt because I do respect you, but this is the reason I asked you to spend some time studying the sources.

“Consecration”in the Sacred Scriptures means “to set apart”, to “sanctify” from a common use to a sacred use. The chapter immediately before this one, Chapter 12, is that of the Passover: where God kept His vow to Pharaoh that He would smite every first-born male of Egypt, both man and beast, if Pharaoh would not release the Hebrew slaves.

God “passed over” the first-born of the Hebrews when they placed the blood of the paschal lamb above the door and the window frames. Since God specifically delivered the first-born of the Hebrews they were to be dedicated to Him and to His service in a sacred way. This is the first hint or beginning of the Aaronic Priesthood as later God allowed the redemption of the first-born males of the other tribes but retained those of the Levites for the priesthood (Numbers 3:12-13). The first-born of the animals were set apart to be sacrificed to God.

*Note: For Orthodox Christians the sacrifice of the Passover lamb is fulfilled in the death of Christ. (Hebrews 9:12).

In ancient societies the first-born was given privilege concurrent with special responsibility. They were given a double-portion of the father’s inheritance (but not always the mother’s), yet were responsible for keeping the land within the family and to some extent the protection and sustenance of their younger siblings.

The firstborn's service to the Jewish people

Originally, the firstborn of every Jewish family was intended to serve as a priest in the temple in Jerusalem as priests to the Jewish people but they lost this role after the sin of the golden calf when this privilege was transferred to the male descendants of Aaron. However, according to some, this role will be given back to the firstborn in a Third Temple when Messiah comes.^[10] Until this time, they say, a firstborn son still has certain other roles. Besides receiving double the father's inheritance and requiring a pidyon haben, a firstborn son is supposed to fast on the Eve of Passover^[11] (see: Fast of the Firstborn) and in the absence of a Levite, a Bechor washes the hands of the Kohen prior to blessing the Israelites (see: PriestlyBlessing).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bechor#The_firstborn.27s_service_to_the_Jewish_peo ple

2) Leviticus 27:28-29

Note also that any one of his possessions which a man vows as doomed to the Lord, whether it is a human being or an animal, or a hereditary field, shall be neither sold nor ransomed; everything that is thus doomed becomes most sacred to the Lord. All human beings that are doomed lose the right to be redeemed; they must be put to death."

Wow, that sure sounds awfully militant.

Indeed it does. I can’t find any English translation that uses the word “doomed” in verse 28. Twelve translations use the word “devoted”, two translated it as “set apart” and one translated it as“dedicated”. The word in verse 28 means "consecrated" and has nothing to do with human sacrifice. Verse 29 refers to warfare with the people of Canaan that God commanded to be totally destroyed for their wickedness. It could also refer to those judged guilty of a capital crime.

The Hebrews disobeyed and kept spoils of war, including at various times some of the Canaanite women; this along with the natural corruption infecting every human being eventually led them to adopt some of the very same perversions and wickedness they found in the land of the people they conquered. This was not however, an open-ended command to destroy or subjugate all people in this world who did not believe or submit to the God of Israel, wherever they might be found.

3) God didn't command it, but he apparently had no problem accepting human sacrifice: Judges 11:29-40

He most certainly DID have a problem with it! (Exodus 13:13;Exodus 34:20; Numbers 18:15).

In each of these God commands the redemption of every consecrated son. He doesn’t offer it as an option – He commands it. And human sacrifice is cursed and condemned here: Deuteronomy 12:31:“You must not worship the LORD your God in their way, because in worshiping their gods, they do all kinds of detestable things the LORD hates.They even burn their sons and daughters in the fire as sacrifices to their gods”.And here: Deuteronomy18:9-12: “When you enter the land the LORD your God is giving you, do not learn to imitate the detestable ways of the nations there. Let no one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in the fire...Anyone who does these things is detestable to the LORD, and because of these detestable practices the LORD your God will drive out those nations before you”.Psalm 106:38: “They shed innocent blood, the blood of their sons and daughters, whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan, and the land was desecrated by their blood”. Jeremiah 19:4-5:“For they have forsaken me and made this a place of foreign gods; they have burned sacrifices in it to gods that neither they nor their fathers nor the kings of Judah ever knew, and they have filled this place with the blood of the innocent. They have built the high places of Baal to burn their sons in the fire as offerings to Baal - something I did not command or mention, nor did it enter my mind”.


At that time the Spirit of the LORD came upon Jephthah, and he went throughout the land of Gilead and Manasseh, including Mizpah in Gilead, and led an army against the Ammonites. And Jephthah made a vow to the LORD. He said, "If you give me victory over the Ammonites, I will give to the LORD the first thing coming out of my house to greet me when I return in triumph. I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering."

"So Jephthah led his army against the Ammonites, and the LORD gave him victory. He thoroughly defeated the Ammonites from Aroer to an area near Minnith – twenty towns – and as far away as Abel-keramim. Thus Israel subdued the Ammonites. When Jephthah returned home to Mizpah, his daughter – his only child – ran out to meet him, playing on a tambourine and dancing for joy. When he saw her, he tore his clothes in anguish. "My daughter!" he cried out. "My heart is breaking! What a tragedy that you came out to greet me. For I have made a vow to the LORD and cannot take it back." And she said, "Father, you have made a promise to the LORD. You must do to me what you have promised, for the LORD has given you a great victory over your enemies, the Ammonites. But first let me go up and roam in the hills and weep with my friends for two months, because I will die a virgin." "You may go," Jephthah said. And he let her go away for two months. She and her friends went into the hills and wept because she would never have children. When she returned home, her father kept his vow, and she died a virgin. So it has become a custom in Israel for young Israelite women to go away for four days each year to lament the fate of Jephthah's daughter."

There are numerous rabbinical commentaries upon this scripture,and while a famous Orthodox Rabbi in Jerusalem maintains the consensus is Jephthah only gave her to lifetime service of God as a virgin, it seems nearly impossible to conclude other than he actually slew her as an “offering” to God.

Jephthah disobeyed God in keeping this “vow” and was cursed as a result. The God of Israel is not to blame for this, but only Jephthah.

I agree with the following assessment of the incident by this Orthodox Jewish layperson:

“There is no "offering" of virginity. I think that it mentions that she had not known a man to show her innocence and that she would never know the joy of motherhood. The portrayal of the sacrifice of Jepthah’s daughter shows a clear pattern of moral decline illustrated in the book of Judges, and that moral decline forms an integral and interconnected part of the story of Jephthah as a whole. Moreover, as part of this whole it reflects an important theme stressed elsewhere by the history: when Israel sacrifices like foreigners do, it will act like foreigners, as well. This is why the story of Jephthah’s sacrifice is followed immediately by the story of the tribe of Ephraim, which acts just like the Ammonites, the foreign nation in this account, by invading Gilead.

Jephthah was not thought of as a righteous man.

A very very condensed version of the story. 1 Jephthah was the son of Gilead by a prostitute. 2 Jephthah's father Gilead also hadsons by his wife, they drove Jephthah out of their household and hisinheritance. 3 So Jephthah fled fromhis brothers and settled in the Tob country and led what is referred to as Menof low character to go out raiding with him.
4 Some time later, the Ammonites went to war against Israel. 5 And when the Ammonites attacked Israel, the elders of Gilead went to bring Jephthah back from the Tob country. 6 They said to Jephthah, "Come be our chief, so that we can fight the Ammonites."

He tells the king of the Ammonites, God took away the land of the Emorites and gave it to Israel, now YOU say you possess their lands? Do you not hold what YOUR god Chemosh gives you? We hold on to everything that the God of Israel gives us to possess. He tells him that Israel has been inhabiting and possessing all those lands for three hundred years, if they belonged to your people why did you not try to recover them in all this time? He tells him that Israel has done him no wrong and asks God , the true judge to decide today between the Israelites and the Ammonites. The King of the Ammonites ignored that whole message and still declares they are going to fight to get their land“back“

So next thing Jephthah makes a vow to God, “ If you deliver the Ammonites into my hands, whatever comes out the door of my house to meet me on my safe return shall be the Lord’s and shall be offered up as a burnt offering “
Israel goes to battle and wins.. Next, Jepthah has to come to grips with the severity of making a vow to God that was rash and void of understanding of righteousness.


When his daughter came out to greet him, instead of acting horrified at his own vow and violating it to save her life, he blames her for the whole tragedy!

‘She was his only child; he had no son or daughter except her. When he saw her, he tore his clothes and said “Alas, my daughter! You have brought me very low; you have become the cause of great trouble to me. For I have opened my mouth to the Lord, and I cannot take back my vow”. (Opened his mouth without thinking of the consequences!) His pride for saving face was apparently of greater value than his own daughter.

When Jephtah’s daughter heard of her father’s vow, she responded with dignity and showed great restraint, painting a picture of the example of an obedient daughter:

“My father, if you have opened your mouth to the Lord, do to me according to what has gone out of your mouth, now that the Lord has given you vengeance against your enemies, the Ammonites”.’

It is hard for modern women to come to terms with the fact that she did not ask for her life, but so honored her father's pride and position that she only asked that she be granted time with her friends. She wished to mourn the fact that she would never become a mother, never know the joy to hold her own childin her arms.

Jephthah is heavily criticized in both the early oral stories collected in the Midrashim as well as by later Rabbinical sages for going through with his vow. The permission to nullify a vow is given in theTorah in specific instances, and this instance was one of those. It is used as an example of how being over zealous can lead one to incorrect action; you cannot be pious at someone else's expense!

And it came to pass at the end of two months, that she returned unto her father, who did with her according to the vow which he had vowed; and she had not known man.

And it was a custom in Israel, that the daughters of Israel went yearly to lament the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite four days in a year. (Judges11:38-39)

Well said.

Now to wax theological: Only one human being has ever lived without sin and that is Christ.The offering of a human sacrifice to God in the Old Testament is totally incompatible with the concept of atonement and substitution. Animals are innocent before God as they are without sin; even an animal that was to be sacrificed was to be “without blemish “(Exodus12:5). Human beings are not sinless and therefore cannot be sacrificed as an offering to God; not to mention that it’s murder.

*Note* It seems to be the dominant opinion of the Eastern Orthodox Church that the animals who have suffered in this life will also be resurrected and restored when the earth itself together with the redeemed among mankind will be resurrected and restored. There is no clear teaching, however, in these matters among the Patristic writings.

4) More human sacrifice: 1 Kings 13:1-2 on onward

At the LORD's command, a man of God from Judah went to Bethel, and he arrived there just as Jeroboam was approaching the altar to offer a sacrifice. Then at the LORD's command, he shouted, "O altar, altar! This is what the LORD says: A child named Josiah will be born into the dynasty of David. On you he will sacrifice the priests from the pagan shrines who come here to burn incense, and human bones will be burned on you.

He [Josiah] executed the priests of the pagan shrines on their own altars, and he burned human bones on the altars to desecrate them. Finally, he returned to Jerusalem. King Josiah then issued this order to all the people: "You must celebrate the Passover to the LORD your God, as it is written in the Book of the Covenant." There had not been a Passover celebration like that since the time when the judges ruled in Israel, throughout all the years of the kings of Israel and Judah. This Passover was celebrated to the LORD in Jerusalem during the eighteenth year of King Josiah's reign. Josiah also exterminated the mediums and psychics, the household gods, and every other kind of idol worship, both in Jerusalem and throughout the land of Judah. He did this in obedience to all the laws written in the scroll that Hilkiah the priest had found in the LORD's Temple. Never before had there been a king like Josiah, who turned to the LORD with all his heart and soul and strength, obeying all the laws of Moses. And there has never been a king like him since.

The pagan priests executed here were offering human sacrifice – child sacrifice. They were the vilest of murderers and should have been executed.
God commanded such “worship” to be destroyed and the participants destroyed with it.

5) More fun for with unbelievers: Ezekiel 21:33-37

As for you, son of man, prophesy: Thus says the Lord GOD against the Ammonites and their insults: A sword, a sword is drawn for slaughter, burnished to consume and to flash lightning, because you planned with false visions and lying divinations to lay it on the necks of depraved and wicked men whose day has come when their crimes are at an end. Return it to its sheath! In the place where you were created, in the land of your origin, I will judge you. I will pour out my indignation upon you, breathing my fiery wrath upon you, I will hand you over to ravaging men, artisans of destruction. You shall be fuel for the fire, your blood shall flow throughout the land. You shall not be remembered, for I, the LORD, have spoken.

The place from which you copied and pasted this is not very careful to be accurate: there are only 32 verses in the 21^st chapter of Ezekiel!

This scripture deals with the Ammonites who were enemies of the Hebrews. They weren’t simply “unbelievers”: they made war upon the Israelites. One of the main reasons the Israelites asked God to give them a King was so the twelve tribes could be united to fight off the Ammonites.They were also worshipers of Moloch and engaged in child sacrifice. That was the situation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammon

So, now that we've established that there are also inflammatory passages in the Bible, what was your point again?

The point was – and is – that while these records of God’s dealings with the Hebrews and their dealings with these people (Canaanites, Ammonites, Moabites, etc.) do indeed involve violence, it is restricted to a specific group of people in a specific place at a specific time. It certainly doesn’t apply to all people and all nations of the earth in perpetuity.

Islamic jurisprudence (Fiqh), however, divides all of the earth into categories or“houses”, the two main ones being: Dar al-Islam (House of Peace) and Da ral-Harb (House of War, and sometimes refered to as House of the West).

One of the final revelations of Allah is found in Sura 9:29: "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." The People of the Book refers to the Christians and the Jews. This verse is among those that abrogate earlier verses in the Quran.




This seems quite a contrast with the Hebrew conquest of Canaan where the Israelites were never given an open-ended, perpetual command to conquer and subjugate every human on earth who didn’t worship their God. God was concerned with forming one specific people into a nation through which He would use to redeem ALL of mankind. God will never force anyone to believe in Him or follow Him.The wicked who were in the land of Canaan were to be displaced - driven out. Their conversion was not an immediate concern. The redemption and forgiveness for all of mankind would be brought to consumation when far into the future God Himself would enter space and time as a human being - a thousand years into the future.

I'd say that your studies don't seem to have encompassed reading about those Muslims who don't conform to your dichotomy above: that Muslims are either fanatic (faithful) or apostate/faithless/apathetic. To me this seems a highly artificial division which demeans every Muslim as either fanatic or apathetic, when in reality there are many (most?) in between.

Here is some of what the moderate Muslims talk about:

http://www.islamfortoday.com/khan08.htm

If I didn’t like or respect you and cared more about winning some type of “contest” I would say that you apparently have expended little or no time studying Islam, Judaism, Christianity or anything else theological and really don’t know what you’re talking about.

But I have more respect for you than that.

The people at IslamforToday seem to be sensitive souls who don’t accept forcing their faith upon others. But they certainly do not appear to be believers of Islam in any historical sense.

Look carefully at “their” Shahadah in the lower right corner of their declaratory page: (sorry for the small size)

IslamForToday.com
promoting thetheology of Islam

IslamforToday.com - Shahadah.gif

Their's says: "There is no god but God, and Mohammed is a messenger of God"

The Shahadah actually says, “There is no god but Allah, and Mohammed is the Messenger of God”.

This reveals that while they might well desire to “reform” Islam they do not hold the traditional Muslim faith that Muhammed is the “perfect man”, the “seal of the prophets” and the sole and singular deliverer of and guide for their faith. Like many liberal christian’s who ignore certain teachings of Christ (chastity, for example) which they find too difficult to apply to their own lives, these reformers either rewrite or ignore the clear, obvious and historical exegesis of the Quran, Sira and Hadith. But from outward appearances at least it would seem their motivation is far more noble than that of self-proclaimed christians who ignore the teachings of Christ.

In other words they attempt to create a *new*, improved Islam regardless of standing in opposition to the historical understanding of most of the greatest of Islamic scholars and jurists like Ibn Juzayy and Ibn Kathir. They do, however, have my sympathy and I also wish them every success in supplanting the Islam of Muhammad with something far more benign.

Perhaps then you can explain that Islam/Muhammad condone lying under exactly 3 instances:

(1) a man’s speaking to his wife to make her happy;
(2) lying at times of war;
(3) and lying in order to reconcile between people.

The part which Robert Spencer fixates on, and with whom you seem to share many views, is 2). Follow the chain: militants say there is always war with unbelievers (wrong), since there is war then you can lie to unbelievers (also wrong). A beautiful example of finding a way to justify what is wanted, but hardly a precept of Islam.

More damning, however, is that 2) is also found in the Bible:

And Jael went out to meet Sisera, and said unto him, Turn in, my lord, turn in to me; fear not. And when he had turned in unto her into the tent, she covered him with a mantle. And he said unto her, Give me, I pray thee, a little water to drink; for I am thirsty. And she opened a bottle of milk, and gave him drink, and covered him. Again he said unto her, Stand in the door of the tent, and it shall be, when any man doth come and enquire of thee, and say, Is there any man here? that thou shalt say, No. Then Jael, Heber's wife, took a nail of the tent, and took an hammer in her hand, and went softly unto him, and smote the nail into his temples, and fastened it into the ground: for he was fast asleep and weary. So he died.

Judges 5:24-26

Apparently it is perfectly fine for Jael to lie to Sisera in that time of war with the Canaanites.

The book of Judges takes its name from the 12 military leaders that rose up to defend and deliver the Hebrew nation from the death of Joshua to the establishment of the monarchy. They were a loose confederacy with no real government and best described as a time when “Every man did what was right in his own eyes” (Judges 21:25). (That certainly described Jephthah!) The Hebrews forsook the Lord (Judges 2:13) and the Lord forsook the people (Judges2:20-21). It was a time of anarchy.

Of course it is acceptable to lie to one’s enemy in wartime. The question is: what war and for what purpose? To subjugate nations that haven’t attacked you? (And in some real sense didn't we do that to Iraq?)

You’ve pointed out “violence” in the Old Testament. So what? There’s plenty of “violence” in Chicago but I fail to see how that connects to the ancient Hebrews or the God of Israel or even Islam.

None of that was ever in question. The question was: is Islam fundamentally violent through its teachings, examples and historical record in a way that can’t be directly compared with Torah or Rabbinical Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity and other great religions of the world?

Were any of those I just listed spread throughout the world by massive military conquest?

Are any of them beset today with numerous groups of murderous radicals attempting to overthrow governments in various countries?

It’s interesting that practically every Muslim in our world today that’s proclaiming Islam to be a “religion of peace” lives in or speaks from a free, pluralistic nation; we don’t seem to hear that from Muslims in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Yemen or other places where no other worship is permitted or where these other religions are harassed and persecuted.


As to taqiyya: Some people wish to look at an oak tree and see apples instead of acorns. They see what they want to see in spite of all evidence to the contrary, for deeds are far more important than words. Raz and Spencer are not the only ones who understand the reality of Islam being in a perpetual state of war with the unbelieving world.

War Is Eternal

That Islam legitimizes deceit during war is, of course, not all that astonishing; after all, as the Elizabethan writer John Lyly put it, "All's fair in love andwar."[24] Other non-Muslim philosophers and strategists—such as Sun Tzu, Machiavelli, and Thomas Hobbes—justified deceit in warfare. Deception of the enemy during war is only common sense. The crucial difference in Islam, however, is that war against the infidel is a perpetual affair—until, in the words of the Qur'an, "all chaos ceases, and all religion belongs to God."[25] In his entry on jihad from the Encyclopaediaof Islam, Emile Tyan states: "The duty of the jihad exists as long as the universal domination of Islam has not been attained. Peace with non-Muslim nations is, therefore, a provisional state of affairs only; the chance of circumstances alone can justify it temporarily."[26]

Moreover, going back to the doctrine of abrogation, Muslim scholars such as Ibn Salama (d. 1020) agree that Qur'an 9:5, known as ayat as-sayf or the sword verse, has abrogated some 124 of the more peaceful Meccan verses, including"every other verse in the Qur'an, which commands or implies anything less than a total offensive against the nonbelievers."[27] In fact, all four schools of Sunni jurisprudence agree that "jihad is when Muslims wage war on infidels, after having called on them to embrace Islam or at least pay tribute [jizya] and live in submission, and the infidels refuse."[28]

Obligatory jihad is best expressed by Islam's dichotomized worldview that pits the realm of Islam against the realm of war. The first, dar al-Islam, is the"realm of submission," the world where Shari'a governs; the second, daral-Harb (the realm of war), is the non-Islamic world. A struggle continues until the realm of Islam subsumes the non-Islamic world—a perpetual affair that continues to the present day. The renowned Muslim historian and philosopher Ibn Khaldun (d. 1406) clearly articulates this division:

'In the Muslim community, jihad is a religious duty because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and the obligation to convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force. The other religious groups did not have a universal mission, and the jihad was not a religious duty for them, save only for purposes of defense. But Islam is under obligation to gain power over other nations".[29]

Finally and all evidence aside, lest it still appear unreasonable for a faith with over one billion adherents to obligate unprovoked warfare in its name, it is worth noting that the expansionist jihad is seen as an altruistic endeavor, not unlike the nineteenth century ideology of "the white man's burden."The logic is that the world, whether under democracy, socialism, communism, or any other system of governance, is inevitably living in bondage—a great sin, since the good of all humanity is found in living in accordance to God's law. In this context, Muslim deception can be viewed as a slightly less than noble means to a glorious end—Islamic hegemony under Shari'a rule, which is seen as good for both Muslims and non-Muslims.

This view has an ancient pedigree: Soon after the death of Muhammad (634), as the jihad fighters burst out of the Arabian peninsula, a soon-to-be conquered Persian commander asked the invading Muslims what they wanted. They memorably replied as follows:

“God has sent us and brought us here so that we may free those who desire from servitude to earthly rulers and make them servants of God, that we may change their poverty into wealth and free them from the tyranny and chaos of [false] religions and bring them to the justice of Islam. He has sent us to bring his religion to all his creatures and call them to Islam. Whoever accepts it from us will be safe, and we shall leave him alone; but whoever refuses, we shall fight until we fulfill the promise of God.”[30]

Fourteen-hundred years later— in March 2009—Saudi legal expert Basem Alem publicly echoed this view:

“As a memberof the true religion, I have a greater right to invade [others] in order to impose a certain way of life [according to Shari'a], which history has proven to be the best and most just of all civilizations. This is the true meaning of offensive jihad. When we wage jihad, it is not in order to convert people to Islam, but in order to liberate them from the dark slavery in which they live.”[31]

And it should go without saying that taqiyya in the service of altruism is permissible. For example, only recently, after publicly recounting a story where a Muslim tricked a Jew into converting to Islam—warning him that if he tried to abandon Islam, Muslims would kill him as an apostate—Muslim cleric Mahmoud al-Masri called it a "beautiful trick."[32] After all, from an Islamic point ofview, it was the Jew who, in the end, benefitted from the deception, which brought him to Islam.

Treaties and Truces

The perpetual nature of jihad is highlighted by the fact that, based on the 10-year treaty of Hudaybiya (628), ratified between Muhammad and his Quraysh opponents in Mecca, most jurists are agreed that ten years is the maximum amount of time Muslims can be at peace with infidels; once the treaty has expired, the situation needs to be reappraised. Based on Muhammad's example of breaking the treaty after two years (by claiming a Quraysh infraction), the sole function of the truce is to buy weakened Muslims time to regroup before renewing the offensive:[33] "By their very nature, treaties must be of temporary duration, for in Muslim legal theory, the normal relations between Muslim and non-Muslim territories are not peaceful, but warlike."[34] Hence "the fuqaha [jurists]are agreed that open-ended truces are illegitimate if Muslims have the strength to renew the war against them [non-Muslims]."[35]

Even though Shari'a mandates Muslims to abide by treaties, they have a way out, one open to abuse: If Muslims believe—even without solid evidence—that their opponents are about to break the treaty, they can preempt by breaking it first. Moreover, some Islamic schools of law, such as the Hanafi, assert that Muslim leaders may abrogate treaties merely if it seems advantageous for Islam.[36] This is reminiscent of the following canonical hadith: "If you ever take an oath to do something and later on you find that something else is better, then you should expiate your oath and do what is better."[37] And what is better, what is more altruistic, than to make God's word supreme by launching the jihad anew whenever possible? Traditionally, Muslim rulers held to a commitment to launch a jihad at least once every year. This ritual is most noted with the Ottoman sultans, who spent half their lives in the field.[38] So important was the duty of jihad that the sultans were not permitted to perform the pilgrimage to Mecca, an individual duty for each Muslim. Their leadership of the jihad allowed this communal duty to continue; without them, it would have fallen into desuetude.[39]

In short, the prerequisite for peace or reconciliation is Muslim advantage. This is made clear in an authoritative Sunni legal text, Umdat as-Salik, written by a fourteenth-century Egyptian scholar, Ahmad Ibn Naqib al-Misri: "There must be some benefit [maslaha] served in making a truce other than the status quo: 'So do not be fainthearted and call for peace when it is you who are uppermost [Qur'an 47:35]."[40]

More recently, and of great significance for Western leaders advocating cooperation with Islamists, Yasser Arafat, soon after negotiating a peace treaty criticized as conceding too much to Israel, addressed an assembly of Muslims in a mosque in Johannesburg where he justified his actions: "I see this agreement as being no more than the agreement signed between our Prophet Muhammad and the Quraysh in Mecca."[41] In other words, like Muhammad, Arafat gave his word only to annul it once "something better" came along—that is, once the Palestinians became strong enough to renew the offensive and continue on the road to Jerusalem. Elsewhere, Hudaybiya has appeared as a keyword for radical Islamists. The Moro Islamic Liberation Front had three training camps within the Camp Abu Bakar complex in the Philippines,one of which was named Camp Hudaybiya.[42]

Hostility Disguised As Grievance

In their statements directed at European or American audiences, Islamists maintain that the terrorism they direct against the West is merely reciprocal treatment for decades of Western and Israeli oppression. Yet in writings directed to their fellow Muslims, this animus is presented, not as a reaction to military or political provocation but as a product of religious obligation.

For instance, when addressing Western audiences, Osama bin Laden lists any number of grievances as motivating his war on the West—from the oppression of the Palestinians to the Western exploitation of women, and even U.S. failure to sign the environmental Kyoto protocol—all things intelligible from a Western perspective. Never once, however, does he justify Al-Qaeda's attacks on Western targets simply because non-Muslim countries are infidel entities that must be subjugated. Indeed, he often initiates his messages to the West by saying,"Reciprocal treatment is part of justice" or "Peace to whoever follows guidance"[43]—though he means something entirely different than what his Western listeners understand by words such as"peace," "justice," or "guidance."

It is when bin Laden speaks to fellow Muslims that the truth comes out. When a group of prominent Muslims wrote an open letter to the American people soon after the strikes of 9/11, saying that Islam seeks to peacefully coexist,[44] bin Laden wrote to castigate them:

“As to the relationship between Muslims and infidels, this is summarized by the Most High's Word: "We [Muslims] renounce you [non-Muslims]. Enmity and hate shall forever reign between us—till you believe in God alone" [Qur'an60:4]. So there is an enmity, evidenced by fierce hostility from the heart. And this fierce hostility—that is, battle—ceases only if the infidel submits to the authority of Islam, or if his blood is forbidden from being shed [i.e., a dhimmi, or protected minority], or if Muslims are at that point in time weak and incapable. But if the hate at any time extinguishes from the heart, this is great apostasy! ... Such then is the basis and foundation of the relationship between the infidel and the Muslim. Battle, animosity, and hatred—directed from the Muslim to the infidel—is the foundation of our religion. And we consider this a justice and kindness to them.”[45]

Mainstream Islam's four schools of jurisprudence lend their support to this hostile Weltanschauung by speaking of the infidel in similar terms. Bin Laden's addresses to the West with his talk of justice and peace are clear instances of taqiyya. He is not only waging a physical jihad but a propaganda war, that is, a war of deceit. If he can convince the West that the current conflict is entirely its fault, he garners greater sympathy for his cause. At the same time he knows that if Americans were to realize that nothing short of their submission can ever bring peace, his propaganda campaign would be quickly compromised. Hence the constant need to dissemble and to cite grievances, for, as bin Laden's prophet asserted, "War is deceit."

Implications

Taqiyya presents a range of ethical dilemmas. Anyone who truly believes that God justifies and, through his prophet's example, even encourages deception will not experience any ethical qualms over lying. Consider the case of 'Ali Mohammad, bin Laden's first "trainer" and long-time Al-Qaeda operative. An Egyptian, he was initially a member of Islamic Jihad and had served in the Egyptian army's military intelligence unit. After 1984 he worked for a time with the CIA in Germany. Though considered untrustworthy, he managed to get to California where he enlisted in the U.S. Army. It seems likely that he continued to work in some capacity for the CIA. He later trained jihadists in the United States and Afghanistan and was behind several terror attacks in Africa. People who knew him regarded him with "fear and awe for his incredible self-confidence, his inability to be intimidated, absolute ruthless determination to destroy the enemies of Islam, and his zealous belief in the tenets of militant Islamic fundamentalism."[46] Indeed, this sentence sums it all up: For a zealous belief in Islam's tenets, which legitimize deception in order to make God's word supreme, will certainly go a long way in creating"incredible self-confidence" when lying.[47]

Yet most Westerners continue to think that Muslim mores, laws, and ethical constraints are near identical to those of the Judeo-Christian tradition. Naively or arrogantly, today's multiculturalist leaders project their own worldview onto Islamists, thinking a handshake and smiles across a cup of coffee, as well asnumerous concessions, are enough to dismantle the power of God's word and centuries of unchanging tradition. The fact remains: Right and wrong in Islam have little to do with universal standards but only with what Islam itself teaches—much of which is antithetical to Western norms.

It must, therefore, be accepted that, contrary to long-held academic assumptions, the doctrine of taqiyya goes far beyond Muslims engaging in religious dissimulation in the interest of self-preservation and encompasses deception of the infidel enemy in general. This phenomenon should provide a context for Shia' Iran's zeal—taqiyya being especially second nature to Shi'ism—to acquire nuclear power while insisting that its motives are entirely peaceful.

Nor is taqiyya confined to overseas affairs. Walid Phares of the National Defense University has lamented that homegrown Islamists are operating unfettered on American soil due to their use of taqiyya: "Does our government know what this doctrine is all about and, more importantly, are authorities educating the body of our defense apparatus regarding this stealthy threat dormant among us?"[48] After the Fort Hood massacre, when Nidal Malik Hasan, an American-Muslim who exhibited numerous Islamist signs which were ignored, killed thirteen fellow servicemen and women, one is compelled to respond in the negative.

This, then,is the dilemma: Islamic law unambiguously splits the world into two perpetually warring halves—the Islamic world versus the non-Islamic—and holds it to be God's will for the former to subsume the latter. Yet if war with the infidel is a perpetual affair, if war is deceit, and if deeds are justified by intentions—any number of Muslims will naturally conclude that they have a divinely sanctioned right to deceive, so long as they believe their deception serves to aid Islam "until all chaos ceases, and all religion belongs to God."[49] Such deception will further be seen as a means to an altruistic end. Muslim overtures for peace, dialogue, or even temporary truces must be seen in this light, evoking the practical observations of philosopher James Lorimer, uttered over a century ago: "So long as Islam endures, the reconciliation of its adherents, even with Jews and Christians, and still more with the rest of mankind, must continue to be an insoluble problem."[50]

In closing, whereas it may be more appropriate to talk of "war and peace" as natural corollaries in a Western context, when discussing Islam, it is more accurate to talk of "war and deceit." For, from an Islamic point of view, times of peace—that is, whenever Islam is significantly weaker than its infidel rivals—are times of feigned peace and pretense, in a word, taqiyya.

Raymond Ibrahim

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Ibrahim

An article Ibrahim wrote on taqiyya that was commissioned and published by Jane's Islamic Affairs Analyst on September 26, 2008 was later characterized by another author in Jane’s as “well researched, factual in places but whose interpretation of taqiyya is ultimately misleading. It appears to be a polemical piece interspersed with cherry-picked citations from the Quran, the sayings of the Prophet and secondary works”.

Raymond Ibrahim is the son of Egyptian Coptic Christians. He has a rather “close” experience of Islam that almost all of us will never have. Based upon the experiences of two Coptic families from Egypt that I personally know – (and have known for years, having spent many hours with both in my home and in Liturgy) – it is the record of history that has “cherry picked” the Quran, Sira and Hadith for Raymond Ibrahim – not the other way around.

All in all, your views on Islam thus far seem far more a product of Islam as an unwanted competitor to your own Christian views rather than a serious attempt at scholarship or understanding.

You clearly attribute the worst of motives to me. I actually thought better of you than this.

Orthodox Christians know for a certainty that we will never live in this world and see the majority of people share our faith.

We have the very words of Christ Himself to rely upon: “Wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it.
But small is the gate and narrow is the road that leads to life, and few there be that find it”.(St. Matthew 7:13-14).

[Polish_Silver]

Re: Syria becoming a major disaster and potential terrorist hotbed.

I don't think consecration would have meant sacrifice in the case of children. It could have meant that for animals.
In general, consecrate means "to declare sacred" or to "dedicate for a special purpose".

In the old testament, and ancient cultures generally, the first born son was the most important.
So it could have been a power grab by the priests, to have the first born sacrificed, but I really doubt it.

The situation is complicated by the fact that the Hebrew traditions were evolving, from poly-theism to monotheism,
and from animal sacrifice to moral demands and personal piety. If you go back far enough, Jahweh had a female consort. So at one time there could have been a tradition of human sacrifice, which was repudiated by another tradition later on. And the traditions were probably competing with each other for some time. The text represent the perspective of one strand of the tradition, and may have been edited by the copying scribe to "clean it up" for his audience.

[Polish_Silver]

Re: Syria becoming a major disaster and potential terrorist hotbed.

Great job on the old testament. There are passages where human sacrifice is criticized, and others where it seems to be welcome. But I do see a difference between Islam and Christianity, in that, there are no accounts of Christ participating in battles, naming swords, etc. People tend to view the founder as a model for behavior. And they are perhaps more willing to imitate a military leader than a crucified one. Christianity did spread through coercion and violence in the medieval and colonial periods, but not in the first few centuries. Consequently the new testament does not use the idea of coercion. The only threats are of divine punishment or exclusion from the community.

[c1ue]

Re: Syria becoming a major disaster and potential terrorist hotbed.

Please point out to me where the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob commanded human sacrifice to Himself as an act of worship. The incident with Abraham and Isaac was a test of Abraham's faith, and God immediately called a halt when He saw that Abraham so believed in His power that he was actually willing to go through with it.

Please point out to me where the God of the Muslims commands human sacrifice. The point was that there are all sorts of examples where the Old Testament shows clearly - even after millenia of 'smoothing' - clear acts of violence explicitly asked by the Christian God.

And since you're such a student, please explain these passages:

1) Exodus 13:2

Consecrate to me every first-born that opens the womb among Israelites, both man and beast, for it belongs to me.

How exactly do the first born 'belonging' differ from the second born? It seems clear there is something beyond merely being 'with God'.

2) Leviticus 27:28-29

Note also that any one of his possessions which a man vows as doomed to the Lord, whether it is a human being or an animal, or a hereditary field, shall be neither sold nor ransomed; everything that is thus doomed becomes most sacred to the Lord. All human beings that are doomed lose the right to be redeemed; they must be put to death."

Wow, that sure sounds awfully militant.

3) God didn't command it, but he apparently had no problem accepting human sacrifice: Judges 11:29-40

At that time the Spirit of the LORD came upon Jephthah, and he went throughout the land of Gilead and Manasseh, including Mizpah in Gilead, and led an army against the Ammonites. And Jephthah made a vow to the LORD. He said, "If you give me victory over the Ammonites, I will give to the LORD the first thing coming out of my house to greet me when I return in triumph. I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering."

"So Jephthah led his army against the Ammonites, and the LORD gave him victory. He thoroughly defeated the Ammonites from Aroer to an area near Minnith – twenty towns – and as far away as Abel-keramim. Thus Israel subdued the Ammonites. When Jephthah returned home to Mizpah, his daughter – his only child – ran out to meet him, playing on a tambourine and dancing for joy. When he saw her, he tore his clothes in anguish. "My daughter!" he cried out. "My heart is breaking! What a tragedy that you came out to greet me. For I have made a vow to the LORD and cannot take it back." And she said, "Father, you have made a promise to the LORD. You must do to me what you have promised, for the LORD has given you a great victory over your enemies, the Ammonites. But first let me go up and roam in the hills and weep with my friends for two months, because I will die a virgin." "You may go," Jephthah said. And he let her go away for two months. She and her friends went into the hills and wept because she would never have children. When she returned home, her father kept his vow, and she died a virgin. So it has become a custom in Israel for young Israelite women to go away for four days each year to lament the fate of Jephthah's daughter."

4) More human sacrifice: 1 Kings 13:1-2 on onward

At the LORD's command, a man of God from Judah went to Bethel, and he arrived there just as Jeroboam was approaching the altar to offer a sacrifice. Then at the LORD's command, he shouted, "O altar, altar! This is what the LORD says: A child named Josiah will be born into the dynasty of David. On you he will sacrifice the priests from the pagan shrines who come here to burn incense, and human bones will be burned on you.

He [Josiah] executed the priests of the pagan shrines on their own altars, and he burned human bones on the altars to desecrate them. Finally, he returned to Jerusalem. King Josiah then issued this order to all the people: "You must celebrate the Passover to the LORD your God, as it is written in the Book of the Covenant." There had not been a Passover celebration like that since the time when the judges ruled in Israel, throughout all the years of the kings of Israel and Judah. This Passover was celebrated to the LORD in Jerusalem during the eighteenth year of King Josiah's reign. Josiah also exterminated the mediums and psychics, the household gods, and every other kind of idol worship, both in Jerusalem and throughout the land of Judah. He did this in obedience to all the laws written in the scroll that Hilkiah the priest had found in the LORD's Temple. Never before had there been a king like Josiah, who turned to the LORD with all his heart and soul and strength, obeying all the laws of Moses. And there has never been a king like him since

5) More fun for with unbelievers: Ezekiel 21:33-37

As for you, son of man, prophesy: Thus says the Lord GOD against the Ammonites and their insults: A sword, a sword is drawn for slaughter, burnished to consume and to flash lightning, because you planned with false visions and lying divinations to lay it on the necks of depraved and wicked men whose day has come when their crimes are at an end. Return it to its sheath! In the place where you were created, in the land of your origin, I will judge you. I will pour out my indignation upon you, breathing my fiery wrath upon you, I will hand you over to ravaging men, artisans of destruction. You shall be fuel for the fire, your blood shall flow throughout the land. You shall not be remembered, for I, the LORD, have spoken.

So, now that we've established that there are also inflammatory passages in the Bible, what was your point again?

The vast majority of Muslims are nominal - just as most Christians are - and their "faith" is more cultural than real. Where are all these "moderate" Muslims? Why aren't they out in numbers decrying the violence done to the innocent Christians of Egypt, the Sudan and elsewhere? There are two reasons: (1) they know what their holy books say and what their Imams teach and really don't have a problem with it, and (2) they're afraid of the true believers (radicals) and don't want to be killed themselves.

I'd say that your studies don't seem to have encompassed reading about those Muslims who don't conform to your dichotomy above: that Muslims are either fanatic (faithful) or apostate/faithless/apathetic. To me this seems a highly artificial division which demeans every Muslim as either fanatic or apathetic, when in reality there are many (most?) in between.

Here is some of what the moderate Muslims talk about:

http://www.islamfortoday.com/khan08.htm

I believe that moderate Muslims are different from militant Muslims even though both of them advocate the establishment of societies whose organizing principle is Islam. The difference between moderate and militant Muslims is in their methodological orientation and in the primordial normative preferences which shape their interpretation of Islam.

For moderate Muslims Ijtihad is the preferred method of choice for social and political change and military Jihad the last option. For militant Muslims, military Jihad is the first option and Ijtihad is not an option at all.

Ijtihad narrowly understood is a juristic tool that allows independent reasoning to articulate Islamic law on issues where textual sources are silent. The unstated assumption being when texts have spoken reason must be silent. But increasingly moderate Muslim intellectuals see Ijtihad as the spirit of Islamic thought that is necessary for the vitality of Islamic ideas and Islamic civilization. Without Ijtihad, Islamic thought and Islamic civilization fall into decay.

For moderate Muslims, Ijtihad is a way of life, which simultaneously allows Islam to reign supreme in the heart and the mind to experience unfettered freedom of thought. A moderate Muslim is therefore one who cherishes freedom of thought while recognizing the existential necessity of faith. She aspires for change, but through the power of mind and not through planting mines.

Moderate Muslims aspire for a society – a city of virtue -- that will treat all people with dignity and respect. There will be no room for political or normative intimidation. Individuals will aspire to live an ethical life because they recognize its desirability. Communities will compete in doing good and politics will seek to encourage good and forbid evil. They believe that the internalization of the message of Islam can bring about the social transformation necessary for the establishment of the virtuous city. The only arena in which Moderate Muslims permit excess is in idealism.

And I would insist that they explain, clearly and without word-dancing, Taqiyya.

Perhaps then you can explain that Islam/Muhammad condone lying under exactly 3 instances:

(1) a man’s speaking to his wife to make her happy;
(2) lying at times of war;
(3) and lying in order to reconcile between people.

The part which Robert Spencer fixates on, and with whom you seem to share many views, is 2). Follow the chain: militants say there is always war with unbelievers (wrong), since there is war then you can lie to unbelievers (also wrong). A beautiful example of finding a way to justify what is wanted, but hardly a precept of Islam.

More damning, however, is that 2) is also found in the Bible:

And Jael went out to meet Sisera, and said unto him, Turn in, my lord, turn in to me; fear not. And when he had turned in unto her into the tent, she covered him with a mantle. And he said unto her, Give me, I pray thee, a little water to drink; for I am thirsty. And she opened a bottle of milk, and gave him drink, and covered him. Again he said unto her, Stand in the door of the tent, and it shall be, when any man doth come and enquire of thee, and say, Is there any man here? that thou shalt say, No. Then Jael, Heber's wife, took a nail of the tent, and took an hammer in her hand, and went softly unto him, and smote the nail into his temples, and fastened it into the ground: for he was fast asleep and weary. So he died.

Judges 5:24-26

Apparently it is perfectly fine for Jael to lie to Sisera in that time of war with the Canaanites.

All in all, your views on Islam thus far seem far more a product of Islam as an unwanted competitor to your own Christian views rather than a serious attempt at scholarship or understanding.

[Jill Nephew]

Re: Syria becoming a major disaster and potential terrorist hotbed.

"There is no greater love for our fellow man than to respectfully speak the truth."

Thank you for that. Maybe that intention of accountability was the beginning of the Christian faith in reaction to the Old Testament - i have no idea, i wasn't there. But maybe?

[flintlock]

Re: Syria becoming a major disaster and potential terrorist hotbed.

Violence begets violence. You can't win by using violence when your opponent does not fear death unless you yourself seek that also.

I think the problem does not lie with religion but culture and people. Malaysia is also a Muslim state, but you don't find violence among the Muslim people in Malaysia.

On the other hand, the Thais who are Buddhist can be really violent. You don't always see people armed with only machetes and stones going against tanks but that happens in Thailand.

The same with Bangladesh. Why isn't Muslim Bangladesh like Pakistan or Afghanistan? Bangladeshis are peaceful people on the whole.

Raz is missing on this point in my opinion.

Anyway, talking about violence, we all know that the fanatical acts that killed the most number of people are definitely not by Muslims. Some examples, Mao, Hilter, Stalin, Mongol (Genghis era), etc.

Good point. Some of the most violent men in history followed no religion. Some people merely need the slightest permission from a higher authority( be it Nazi party, Koran, Bible,etc) to unleash the evil that is already in their hearts.

[jiimbergin]

Re: Syria becoming a major disaster and potential terrorist hotbed.

If questioned I would ask them if what I said about the teachings of the Quran and the deeds of Muhammad as stated in the Hadith are accurate.
If they said no, then I would expect clear evidence to be presented as to why I mistated or misinterpreted them, based upon the historical record.
And I would insist that they explain, clearly and without word-dancing, Taqiyya.

If they said I was accurate, or mostly accurate, then I would ask if they were true believers and practitioners of their faith - and why.

If they would criticize the teachings of the New Testament and the deeds of Christ I would attempt to defend the Orthodox Faith.
I would not disrespect them as individuals but would explain why I believe their faith to be false.

There is no greater love for our fellow man than to respectfully speak the truth.

+1

[FrankL]

Re: Syria becoming a major disaster and potential terrorist hotbed.

What, exactly, am I missing? The "point" we were discussing was whether or not Islam and its teachings were fundamentally violent.

I explained why most Muslims don't act out those teachings.

Any religion can be interpreted (or explained) in different ways, including violent interpretations. Which kind of interpretation predominates is (imo) due to political and societal factors of the time, for institutionalised religion serves more purposes than mere spiritual ones.

Mind you that (as an agnostic) I'm a firm supporter of religion, as I think it fulfils a basic need in human society that, once removed, opens the gates for societal diseases on a massive scale like egocentricism, narcissism, consumerism/materialism and loss of empathy for fellow members in your community. Religion can be good societal glue and a great source of spiritualism.

Right now, the western world is poisoning itself by buying oil from countries like Saudi Arabia that actively export and sponsor Salafism/Wahhabism to the west and to other Sunni muslim countries. Our thirst for oil might in a way be comparable to the US addiction to China's treasuries appetite. Bad habits need to be weaned off before it's too late...

[Raz]

Re: Syria becoming a major disaster and potential terrorist hotbed.

What do you say to your fellow iTulip members who are Muslim and well respected members of our community?

If questioned I would ask them if what I said about the teachings of the Quran and the deeds of Muhammad as stated in the Hadith are accurate.
If they said no, then I would expect clear evidence to be presented as to why I mistated or misinterpreted them, based upon the historical record.
And I would insist that they explain, clearly and without word-dancing, Taqiyya.

If they said I was accurate, or mostly accurate, then I would ask if they were true believers and practitioners of their faith - and why.

If they would criticize the teachings of the New Testament and the deeds of Christ I would attempt to defend the Orthodox Faith.
I would not disrespect them as individuals but would explain why I believe their faith to be false.

There is no greater love for our fellow man than to respectfully speak the truth.

[EJ]

Re: Syria becoming a major disaster and potential terrorist hotbed.

What, exactly, am I missing? The "point" we were discussing was whether or not Islam and its teachings were fundamentally violent.

I explained why most Muslims don't act out those teachings.

What do you say to your fellow iTulip members who are Muslim and well respected members of our community?

[Raz]

Re: Syria becoming a major disaster and potential terrorist hotbed.

Violence begets violence. You can't win by using violence when your opponent does not fear death unless you yourself seek that also.

I think the problem does not lie with religion but culture and people. Malaysia is also a Muslim state, but you don't find violence among the Muslim people in Malaysia.

On the other hand, the Thais who are Buddhist can be really violent. You don't always see people armed with only machetes and stones going against tanks but that happens in Thailand.

The same with Bangladesh. Why isn't Muslim Bangladesh like Pakistan or Afghanistan? Bangladeshis are peaceful people on the whole.

Raz is missing on this point in my opinion.

Anyway, talking about violence, we all know that the fanatical acts that killed the most number of people are definitely not by Muslims. Some examples, Mao, Hilter, Stalin, Mongol (Genghis era), etc.

What, exactly, am I missing? The "point" we were discussing was whether or not Islam and its teachings were fundamentally violent.

I explained why most Muslims don't act out those teachings.