jmog;460288 wrote:You stated it was taken out of context only after other people explained the verses to you.

It also wasn't Jesus who said "bring them here...", Jesus was telling story where the guy in the story said that.

It would be like you telling a friend about the Manson family and then someone else saying you agreed with what they did because you were telling the story.

What is it about things "taken out of context" do you not understand?

The point that several have made here is that there are passages from both the Qur'an and the Bible that fit the bill.

There are far too many people that actually believe that the Muslim religion promotes violence. They stake their claim by citing the same "taken out of context" phrases.

Footwedge;460647 wrote:What is it about things "taken out of context" do you not understand?

The point that several have made here is that there are passages from both the Qur'an and the Bible that fit the bill.

There are far too many people that actually believe that the Muslim religion promotes violence. They stake their claim by citing the same "taken out of context" phrases.

What part of the fact that you meant to show it as "see, the Bible promotes violence too", then when someone showed you that you were wrong only THEN did you change your tune to "see, the Bible can be taken out of context too" do you not understand?

I understand "out of context" as I deal with it all the times with regards to people who have no stinking clue what the Bible really says and just spew stupid stuff. But your original post did not say a thing about "taking it out of context", you said that they were quotes by Jesus promoting "utter violence against anyone who doesn't follow him".

You even stated you could find many more quotes from the New Testament actually promoting violence against non-believers, you did NOT say that you could find many verses that could be taken out of context.

You only changed your tune when you looked retarded with your 2 passages you did list.

FWIW, this is from a review of Norm Geisler and Abdul Saleeb's book Answering Islam, written from a Christian perspective on how to respond to Islamic beliefs.

http://www.amazon.com/Answering-Islam-Crescent-Light-Cross/dp/0801064309/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1282680794&sr=8-1

In the wake of September 11, many will want to know if Muslim militancy is an integral part of Islam or an aberration of it. The authors provide a close inspection of the concept of jihad, or holy war. The authors contend that there are plenty of Koranic texts which appear to justify acts of violence and aggression. Indeed, it seems to be an essential feature of Islamic teaching, as found in the Koran and the hadith, or oral tradition of Islam. Both lend support for armed attacks on non-believers.

The authors point out that such justification for holy war is not comparable with what appears to be the Old Testament equivalent. This order to fight was limited in both time and place, while the Islamic version appears to be universal and timeless. Warfare in the New Testament is clearly spiritual in nature, and church and state have their separate spheres ("Render onto Caesar..."). But Islam knows no such distinction. Thus political power and religious authority are seen as one by most Muslims. Here, and in many other areas, Islam differs radically from the Christian faith.

An old interview with Geisler: http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-nwsl/crn0072a.txt

I am no expert on the Quran, but the two authors know more than I do (one being a former Muslim). They would contend that "out of context" is not an argument one can use in defending Islam from being called "violent".

Some of you act like the people who commit these acts of terrorism are just some isolated, misguided fools who have misconstrued Islam and its true meaning.

You conveniently forget that these actions are being coordinated by a very sophisticated and worldwide network that launders money, sells drugs and any number of other activities on a par with the best mafiosos, anywhere, to accomplish their goals.

While they aren't a majority of Muslims, they are a significant number of people all with a single purpose and working in concert to achieve their goals.

As for the topic at-hand: it all comes down to whether a group and a spiritual leader who claim to want interfaith compassion and understanding are willing to take a step back, and bow out gracefully to prove they are truly about what they claim. Pushing forward on this does exactly the opposite of what they have said they stand for.

ptown_trojans_1;460297 wrote:Here is something provocative and interesting:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/08/23/americas_first_muslim_president?page=full

There are similar rays of hope for Muslim Republicans. Former Bush administration solicitor general Ted Olson, who lost his wife Barbara on 9/11, declared on Aug. 18 that "people of all religions have a right to build ... places of religious worship or study, where the community allows them to do it under zoning laws ... we don't want to turn an act of hate against us by extremists into an act of intolerance for people of religious faith." New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, an up-and-comer in the national conservative movement, recently warned against "overreacting" to the threat of terrorism and painting "all of Islam" with the brush of terrorism. "We have to bring people together," he said. Let's hope that thoughtful voices such as Governor Christie, and not those who rely on mistrust and fear, win the day.

Let us also hope that Muslim Americans step up to the plate to squelch the extremists who have painted, tainted, and hijacked their religion of peace.

believer;460799 wrote:Let us also hope that Muslim Americans step up to the plate to squelch the extremists who have painted, tainted, and hijacked their religion of peace.

Amen, brother! I have always wondered what the reason is or was for Muslims coming in to, first Western Europe and then into the US. Is it the dollar and a better life for their family? Or is it to spread "the word"? American Muslims are too silent for me. I don't like the "hesitance" to denounce what happened. IMO, they are using our country and our Constitution not to benefit themselves and become American citizens, but to be able to push their agenda. (Now I will go bang my head into the wall a few times to prepare myself for the Liberal responses! . )

For 99.9% of Muslims I guarantee they moved here for the same reasons anyone moves here.

I Wear Pants;460844 wrote:For 99.9% of Muslims I guarantee they moved here for the same reasons anyone moves here.

So their women don't have to wear burkas??

I Wear Pants;460844 wrote:For 99.9% of Muslims I guarantee they moved here for the same reasons anyone moves here.

You "guarantee"? Really? How interesting you guarantee for the 99.9 percent

BRF;460831 wrote:Amen, brother! I have always wondered what the reason is or was for Muslims coming in to, first Western Europe and then into the US. Is it the dollar and a better life for their family? Or is it to spread "the word"? American Muslims are too silent for me. I don't like the "hesitance" to denounce what happened. IMO, they are using our country and our Constitution not to benefit themselves and become American citizens, but to be able to push their agenda. (Now I will go bang my head into the wall a few times to prepare myself for the Liberal responses! . )

BRF;460928 wrote:You "guarantee"? Really? How interesting you guarantee for the 99.9 percent

I can't guarantee anything, but for the majority of the muslims I have met (and I have met hundreds), it is all about money. My grandfather moved here from Lebanon in the 1950's and lived the American dream. He didn't spread any "word". Started his own business, paid his taxes and lived out his days a happy man. I can only speak for my family and those we interact with, I'd say 90% are American patriot muslims.

As I have stated earlier in this thread, I claim no religion as my own (father is muslim, mother is christian). As long as no one infringes on another persons rights, I have no problem with what religion they practice and how they practice it. I can tell there is some posters on this thread that do care and are not tolerant of others beliefs (not pointing anyone out). I find that very sad and disturbing.

Do I believe there are muslims in this country that hold ill-will towards the US govt.? Absolutely, but there are just as many non-muslims (such as myself) that have the same feelings. Do I believe there are some muslims that support groups like Hamas and the likes of Hamas? I do, but I think there are also non-muslim groups that support groups that have an agenda against the US govt as well.

Footwedge;460124 wrote:Apparently you never heard of the Irgun or Lehi groups....or the IRA. Or the KKK. As a Christian, I'm not blind to the fact that Christian terrorism has a long, long history.

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

Just went to the news and found the following terrorism attacks related to Islam over the recent past:

1. 32 killed. http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Africa/2010/0824/Somalia-s-Al-Shabab-Does-suicide-attack-mark-the-launch-of-a-new-offensive

2. Thousands of civilians murdered. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36820196/

3. Too many to count...hundreds if not thousands of people killed. http://www.adl.org/israel/israel_attacks.asp

4. Thousands of dead and injured. http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index.html#Attacks

I'm not going to deny there are other terrorist organizations in the world. The IRA in the 70's and 80's, the KKK in the early and middle 20th century, and dozens of militias acting as terrorists throughout the history of the African continent to name a few. But none of them compare to the death, injured, maimed, and brutalized by the Islamic terrorists in the past 20 years in terms of volume.

As has been stated by other posters, when the peaceful and majority of followers of Islam stand up and start to take down/denounce/imprison their own radical terrorists, then we can expect better from the religion of peace for all of mankind. However, it isn't happening, and by their silence, they are either too scared to speak up...and what's that say for the rest of us infidels?...or they condone it with their silence. Either option is none too pleasing.

Yes, we are at war with RADICAL Islam, American Muslims would like to build this mosque legally. So, I don't see how you can relate the Japanese building a cultural center at Pearl Harbor to American Muslims building a mosque. The RADICAL segment that we are at war with do not represent American Muslims, therefore, I don't see the issue.

I am relating Muslim Americans to Japanese Americans following a 'dastardly' attack upon their countrymen by people remotely associated with their religion or ancestry. The analogy is quite valid because the country of Japan in attacking Pearl Harbor DID NOT represent the Americans of Japanese ancestry. Had these Japanese Americans decided to build a Japanese cultural near Pearl Harbor during wartime, I doubt it would have been well received.

The point I was trying to make (including Hiroshima) is simply that people who suffer an attack have sensitivities, and that those who are unfortunately are even remotely associated with the attackers should be mindful of that and do nothing to provoke those sensitivities. Radical Islam is part of Islam....and not an insignificant part at that. It is a highly organized, well funded group with a large following. Rightly or wrongly, it is guilt by association, and it is human nature that is not unque to red-neck Americans. That is why it is not wise to build a splashy cultural center a stones throw from ground zero 9/11.

The Lord's Resistance Army has massacred thousands using CHILDREN as soldiers (and human shields), and forced over 400,000 people from their homes. Many of those displaced are now missing people, and are likely dead. Just one of the African ones - several others are very similar. As I said earlier - stop the naivete. A single Christian terrorist organization, put into power by AMERICAN CHRISTIANS, has forced nearly half a million people to be homeless, and slaughtered thousands.

If the Christian right is going to continue crying about the silence of moderate Islam, then the LEAST they can do is claim the responsibility for putting these monsters in charge. If your church has donated anything to Ugandan causes in the last 15 years, you've likely helped put them in power. I can say for certain the Assemblies of God churches did as an entire denomination.

GeneralsIcer89;461152 wrote:The Lord's Resistance Army has massacred thousands using CHILDREN as soldiers (and human shields), and forced over 400,000 people from their homes. Many of those displaced are now missing people, and are likely dead. Just one of the African ones - several others are very similar. As I said earlier - stop the naivete. A single Christian terrorist organization, put into power by AMERICAN CHRISTIANS, has forced nearly half a million people to be homeless, and slaughtered thousands.

If the Christian right is going to continue crying about the silence of moderate Islam, then the LEAST they can do is claim the responsibility for putting these monsters in charge. If your church has donated anything to Ugandan causes in the last 15 years, you've likely helped put them in power. I can say for certain the Assemblies of God churches did as an entire denomination.

I have followed a lot of the stories on The Lords Resistance Army, and as a Christian they sicken me. To answer your other statement, no, myself nor my church has ever donated money to Uganda. We stick, for the most part, to single missionaries, not whole "causes".

Also, lets be clear...

1. The LRA has switched "allegiance" a few times. At first they were "Christian", then they switched to "Muslim", then they were "mystics" and believed in invoking spirits, then they switched back to a combination of "Chrisitan" and "mystics". They haven't exactly stuck to any one religion.

2. They were not "setup" and funded in some major way by knowing churches. You won't find a church today (to my knowledge) that still donates to the LRA.

3. They have been called a terrorist organization by the US and any church that knows the situation for YEARS. The US even tried to help the local government to erradicate them back in 2009 (might have been 2008).

4. Over the years their totals of deaths don't even come close to radical Muslim terrorists, but that doesn't make either one "better" than the other, they are both dispicable.

Where the money comes from:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-august-23-2010/the-parent-company-trap

That was hilarious.

Also frightening.

The "moderate" myth and Imam Rauf:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/244545/inventing-moderate-islam-andrew-c-mccarthy?page=1

A quote from Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi's book goes back to what Belly was trying to say about Islam being more than a religion. And this guy is labeled a "moderate".

It is also worth understanding why Qaradawi says Islam and secularism cannot co-exist. The excerpt from his book continues:

As Islam is a comprehensive system of worship (Ibadah) and legislation (Shari’ah), the acceptance of secularism means abandonment of Shari’ah, a denial of the divine guidance and a rejection of Allah’s injunctions. It is indeed a false claim that Shari’ah is not proper to the requirements of the present age. The acceptance of a legislation formulated by humans means a preference of the humans’ limited knowledge and experiences to the divine guidance: “Say! Do you know better than Allah?” (Qur’an, 2:140) For this reason, the call for secularism among Muslims is atheism and a rejection of Islam. Its acceptance as a basis for rule in place of Shari’ah is downright apostasy.

And of course, Imam Rauf agrees with the guy:

The sad fact, the fact no one wants to deal with but which the Ground Zero mosque debate has forced to the fore, is that Qaradawi is a moderate. So is Feisal Rauf, who endorses the Qaradawi position — the mainstream Islamic position — that sharia is a nonnegotiable requirement. Rauf wins the coveted “moderate” designation because he strains, at least when speaking for Western consumption, to paper over the incompatibility between sharia societies and Western societies.

Qaradawi and Rauf are “moderates” because we’ve abandoned reason. Our opinion elites are happy to paper over the gulf between “reformist” Islam and the “reformist” approval of mass-murder attacks. That’s why it matters not a whit to them that Imam Rauf refuses to renounce Hamas: If you’re going to give a pass to Qaradawi, the guy who actively promotes Hamas terrorists, how can you complain about a guy who merely refuses to condemn the terrorists?

jmog;461183 wrote:I have followed a lot of the stories on The Lords Resistance Army, and as a Christian they sicken me. To answer your other statement, no, myself nor my church has ever donated money to Uganda. We stick, for the most part, to single missionaries, not whole "causes".

Also, lets be clear...

1. The LRA has switched "allegiance" a few times. At first they were "Christian", then they switched to "Muslim", then they were "mystics" and believed in invoking spirits, then they switched back to a combination of "Chrisitan" and "mystics". They haven't exactly stuck to any one religion.

2. They were not "setup" and funded in some major way by knowing churches. You won't find a church today (to my knowledge) that still donates to the LRA.

3. They have been called a terrorist organization by the US and any church that knows the situation for YEARS. The US even tried to help the local government to erradicate them back in 2009 (might have been 2008).

4. Over the years their totals of deaths don't even come close to radical Muslim terrorists, but that doesn't make either one "better" than the other, they are both dispicable.

In the larger massacres, sure, but the LRA kills people daily, too. I don't think you'll find accurate death totals, as there hasn't exactly been coverage of this. I'd estimate the daily death toll adds up pretty quickly, however. The actual Ugandan army has been guilty of similar acts. As for the funding, it mostly came out of the churches that support Pat Robertson. Those have all shifted gears to help put their current government, as well as policies, in power. You know, the one that thinks hanging gays, banning miniskirts, and allowing those who oppose the government to be raped and have their homes desecrated, among other things. In the case of the church my family forced me to go to, they had a Ugandan children's choir come in to sing, and the children's choir had pipelines to the LRA back in the mid-90s. They traveled throughout the States, and got *plenty* of money from doing so. All of the images they portrayed were propaganda designed to garner support. They had another Ugandan kid's choir back several years later, and that group had a pipeline directly to the current government, and their message was all about the "new Christian values" in Uganda, which were praised by Bush and many megachurch leaders. Those "values" that were praised have decimated human rights in Uganda, unless of course one is a Christian. It's nothing but a violent theocracy.

GeneralsIcer89;461666 wrote:In the larger massacres, sure, but the LRA kills people daily, too. I don't think you'll find accurate death totals, as there hasn't exactly been coverage of this. I'd estimate the daily death toll adds up pretty quickly, however. The actual Ugandan army has been guilty of similar acts. As for the funding, it mostly came out of the churches that support Pat Robertson. Those have all shifted gears to help put their current government, as well as policies, in power. You know, the one that thinks hanging gays, banning miniskirts, and allowing those who oppose the government to be raped and have their homes desecrated, among other things. In the case of the church my family forced me to go to, they had a Ugandan children's choir come in to sing, and the children's choir had pipelines to the LRA back in the mid-90s. They traveled throughout the States, and got *plenty* of money from doing so. All of the images they portrayed were propaganda designed to garner support. They had another Ugandan kid's choir back several years later, and that group had a pipeline directly to the current government, and their message was all about the "new Christian values" in Uganda, which were praised by Bush and many megachurch leaders. Those "values" that were praised have decimated human rights in Uganda, unless of course one is a Christian. It's nothing but a violent theocracy.

I'm going to take your word for it on all this stuff, because A) I've never heard of the LRA or the situation in Uganda and B) you've posted zero links. If all that's true it's an outrage and should be condemned by our government and churches everywhere.

That said, the point has been made that violence and "killing the enemy" are nowhere advocated by Jesus, his apostles, the New Testament, or the early church leaders. So the violence of the LRA is at odds with Christianity as defined in the Bible. The point has also been made that terrorism, violence, sharia law, etc., while not practiced by a majority of Muslims, seems to be expressed in several portions of the Quran, and the quotes aren't taken out of context and seem to be universal in nature. Several links in this thread have questioned Imam Rauf's views on sharia, his refusal to condemn Hamas, etc., and why those are sufficient reasons to question the NYC/Ground Zero mosque.

We've settled the "all religions have fringe fanatics and radicals" about 1000 times in this thread, and the Ground Zero mosque goes way beyond that into the very nature of Islam.

People like Ahmad Rashad and Kareem Abdul Jabbar should be water boarded

Haha

Footwedge;462005 wrote:People like Ahmad Rashad and Kareem Abdul Jabbar should be water boarded

Let me ask this then...why don't we hear from them regarding the daily terrorist attacks made in the name of their religion around the world? Where is their voice in condemnation of their fellow Muslims murdering and maiming in the name of Allah? I heard some words from them the week after 9/11, but nary a thing since. I love Kareem and I still think he was the best of all time. Did Michael have 7 footers leaning on him all night, shoving, pushing, kicking, etc? Who's the all time scoring leader again? But I digress.

Until the Muslims start condemning their own, I have to believe they are either living in fear of the extremists or support it in some fashion. There is no other explanation.

I'm sorry...where are they again?

jhay78;461570 wrote:The "moderate" myth and Imam Rauf:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/244545/inventing-moderate-islam-andrew-c-mccarthy?page=1

A quote from Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi's book goes back to what Belly was trying to say about Islam being more than a religion. And this guy is labeled a "moderate".



And of course, Imam Rauf agrees with the guy:

So you've suggested that adhering to Sharia law in repudiation of democratically created laws is the mainstream and that muslims, even moderate ones, will abide by this and act in ways incompatible with western society. Why don't you just come out and say that as a general rule we should at first look at muslims skeptically and probably just look to avoid Islamic presence generally in the U.S. because it's incompatible with our values? I mean you read websites that endorse the idea that Islam comes from the devil. This is an anonymous message board. Why not just admit that nothing, not even Rauf condemning Hamas in public (because it doesn't necessarily reflect what he privately believes), is going to convince you that this guy is a decent guy?

This isn't about the Mosque really for you is it? Why not just admit that you think Islam is incompatible with our values? Why skirt the issue?

BGFalcons82;462041 wrote:Let me ask this then...why don't we hear from them regarding the daily terrorist attacks made in the name of their religion around the world? Where is their voice in condemnation of their fellow Muslims murdering and maiming in the name of Allah? I heard some words from them the week after 9/11, but nary a thing since. I love Kareem and I still think he was the best of all time. Did Michael have 7 footers leaning on him all night, shoving, pushing, kicking, etc? Who's the all time scoring leader again? But I digress.

Until the Muslims start condemning their own, I have to believe they are either living in fear of the extremists or support it in some fashion. There is no other explanation.

I'm sorry...where are they again?

Probably living in fear if they have any sense.

BGFalcons82;462041 wrote:Let me ask this then...why don't we hear from them regarding the daily terrorist attacks made in the name of their religion around the world? Where is their voice in condemnation of their fellow Muslims murdering and maiming in the name of Allah? I heard some words from them the week after 9/11, but nary a thing since. I love Kareem and I still think he was the best of all time. Did Michael have 7 footers leaning on him all night, shoving, pushing, kicking, etc? Who's the all time scoring leader again? But I digress.

Until the Muslims start condemning their own, I have to believe they are either living in fear of the extremists or support it in some fashion. There is no other explanation.

I'm sorry...where are they again?

How do you know what is said and not said? Especially around the globe? After 9-11, Only the Palestinians and one Islamic country (I forget which one) did not publicly decry the events of 9-11. Even the evil Mullahs from Iran, made public announcements that the terrorists acts were despicable.

This whole argument that Muslims haven't been vociferous in denouncing terrorism is so ridiculous it defies description.

Here's a link that destroys your feebly weak argument.

http://www.muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.php