Islam Vs Christianity Debates: Me & Peter J Deer

Wednesday, May 28, 2008

Me & Peter J Deer

This section is for me and PeterJDeer to discuss some of the topics that are tossed around at
YouTube . However it's not limited to our discussions, you may all feel free to post your comments into it.

25 comments:

Peter Deer said...: Hello and Allah-u-Abha!

To those who might be viewing this conversation other than the author with whom I am already acquainted, I am an American Baha'i come here to discuss Islam with the author of this blog.

While the fairly clear anti-Islamic sentiment and even the poisoning of the well at the very beginning of the page give the impression of a rather hostile discussion environment, I shall endeavor to answer your questions to the best of my ability.

So where shall we begin?; May 28, 2008 at 11:48 AM
Not So Political said...: Hi Peter: thanks for joining in. Let's look at the last discussion we were having on the YouTube. You were trying to say that Quran preaches equality for women. If that is true then how come women are more persecuted in countries where Islam is the primary religion? Why do Genital Mutilation exist? Why is it allowed to beat your wives, lightly or any other way?; May 28, 2008 at 1:23 PM
Peter Deer said...: How is it a Christian complains of 'genital mutilation?' Was not Christ Himself a circumcised Jew?]

Female circumcision is not commanded in the Quran, and is in fact a tradition which predates Islam in the Arabian peninsula.

In regards to why it is practiced prominently in countries where Islam is the primary religion, it bears noting that with a couple exceptions the countries where Islam is the primary religion are close together. There is a far stronger argument for it being cultural and geographical than religious.

As for the role of women I do not hear you complain from the Men's point of view "Why should I have to serve my wife? Why should I be required to provide for her and serve as her guard and protector?"

A thing to consider in regards to Islam is that it is an ancient religion, and the time in which it was introduced the laws of Islam were conducive to advancement and progress of humanity, much in the same manner that in the time of Moses the Pentateuch was an appropriate set of laws for the time, but Christians for good reason do not stone adulterers or slaughter bulls upon altars.

I am aware that in Islam that the gender roles of men and women are different in the world, clearly applying men to the role of provider, guardian, and authority, and women to head of household and educator. But men and women regardless are all servants and children of God, and are equally responsible to God under Islamic law.

I cannot help but notice that most of your concerns regarding Islam seem to be concerns regarding your perceptions of Islamic culture and that the things you bring up do not vary from the things commonly brought up by anti-Islam critics. Once again I ask you, would it be fair to judge Christ by the actions of, say, Charlemagne?; May 28, 2008 at 9:03 PM
Not So Political said...: 1) Foremost, Christians must remember that we are not bound by the Old Testament Laws. If that were the case, we would be offering up birds and sheep to sacrifice at an altar, we would be forcing rapists to marry their victims, and we would be denying those who were blind, lame, or having a flat nose from approaching the altar of God. Would Christians even consider following those Old Testament laws? Of course not, we respond to non-believers who question that by saying that Jesus was sent to change the law and offer us a new covenant with God.

Further, the circumcision of Jesus' time was quite different than the circumcision of today. Circumcision was merely a cutting of the tip of the extra tissue at the end of the foreskin, not the complete amputation of the entire foreskin. Most of the foreskin was retained, protecting the glans of the penis. As Christian churches developed, the practice of infant circumcision was abandoned by Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox churches. The Ecumenical Council of Florence even condemned the practice in the winter of 1442.

2) A hadith from the Sunni collections. One narration states that "a woman used to perform circumcision in Medina. Muhammad said to her, 'Do not cut severely as that is better for a woman and more desirable for a husband.' this is the document that is used to justify FGM in various Islamic countries. In retrospect, now where in the Bible (New Testament) you would find a way to prescribe this practice. My point is that if there is such a verse then people will use it to justify their deeds, if there wasn't anything like this mentioned in the Hadith or perhaps it clearly stated that it is only meant for men, then perhaps it would not be misused.

3)In Christianity men are not to "serve their wives" they are both to love and respect each other.
In the eyes of Christ they are both equal:
GAL 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Ephesians 5:
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church— 30 for we are members of his body. 31 "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." 32 This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

Here Christ is not saying that we should be providing and serving her as her guard and protector, rather he is saying that he wants us to love our wives like we love ourselves. The relationship between the two is of love and respect and not of servitude which you are suggesting.

4) "The laws of Islam were conducive to advancement...." Yes the Christians don't follow the laws of the Old Testament and if you notice even the Jews don't follow their old laws of Moses. However, when you talk to a Muslim, he quite proudly says that the "Islam is the same as it were 1400 years ago as it is relevant for all time" They STILL follow the same barbaric and irrelevant laws to this day.

4) Peter: religion has the power to change culture in any time period. If Islam is so strong on it's own then it would dictate the "Islamic Culture" and not the other way around. For example, if you say stone an adulteress is a cultural thing rather than a religious thing then why can't true Islamic people stop it and voice against it. Show people the right way. Which is what Christ did, he gave us a new way to live and to follow otherwise we too would be living like we did 2000 years ago. You cannot separate culture with religion, especially when one says that "this culture exists because of the religion"

I am aware of the atrocities that Christians have committed in the name of Christ however they were wrong and are condemned today. You will never find a Christian saying the "Crusades were a good thing", but you see Muslims all the time saying "911 was a good thing that happened to America, now they know how it feels like" or this "Yes, there are many Muslim terrorists but they have a good reason to do what they do, have you seen how the Palestinians are treated" Where is this ideology of revenge coming from? Simple answer Quran and Islam. They still believe in "Eye for an Eye" concept; May 29, 2008 at 6:13 AM
Peter Deer said...: That the laws of Judaism have been superseded by the laws of Christianity does not mean that the laws of Judaism were not God's law.

Indeed, many Christians distance themselves from the laws of the Old Testament, daunted by the task of attempting to reconcile laws for an ancient time with modern ways of thinking. And yet some such as yourself condemn the teachings of Islam, saying that they cannot be legitimate because of what they perceive as harsh laws and ordinances, and when they are reminded that the very roots of their own faith contain laws far harsher they fall back on the defense that those laws had been abrogated.

Indeed, when the comparisons are made to Judaism, just as Peter denied association with Christ you shall see Christians shrink away from associating with Judaism.

Indeed, you are in an uproar about the thief having his hands cut off, but do you defend Judaism when people are in an uproar about putting to death those who curse their parents?

It seems that many Christians, who desire greatly to attack Islam as an enemy of God, feel that if God's Word gets in the way that it is acceptable collateral damage.

You have spoken negatively of a male authority in Islam, but did not Genesis 3:16 say "Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee."

For those familiar with biblical history this passage, among others, has been considered justification for the repression of women for thousands of years. And similarly, Timothy 2:9-12, which calls for women to be silent, shamefaced, and sober, and not to usurp the authority of men. In both the Gospel and the Tanakh you see these passages which I have cited.

You said to me on the YouTube channel "If Quran is the infallible word of God then why are there two interpretations of it?" And yet, there are thousands upon thousands of different sects of Christianity, all who feel their distinct interpretations of the Bible are correct as opposed to the others.

Indeed, did not the Catholics interpret Matthew 16:18-19 as confirmation of papal infallibility? Clearly by the very existence of the protestant movement it can be said that not all Christians share that interpretation.

So I ask you now, why is it that you do not hold to your own standards of judgment in regards to Christianity? By your logic, the Bible cannot be the Word of God.

Back to the topic of love of one's wife, if it is in regards to that I can certainly provide you with similar passages from Islamic texts. Surah 30:21 considers love between a husband and wife to be one of the signs of God. 3:195 affirms that neither the good deeds of men or women will go unaccounted for. Or 16:97 "Whoever works righteousness, man or woman, and has faith, verily
to him will We give a new life that is good and pure, and We will
bestow on such their reward according to the their actions." 4:124 "And whoso doeth good works, whether of male or female, and he (or she) is a believer, such will enter paradise and they will not be wronged the dint in a date- stone."
and of course "The most perfect believers are the best in conduct and best of you
are those who are best to their wives."

Certainly, anyone who rationally observes the teachings which advocate justice and selflessness it is clear that the authoritative roles bestowed upon men in the Pentateuch, the Gospels and in the Quran that men are to be the guardians and trustees of women, not their oppressors. But as the abuses of the past of all three, as well as your own interpretation of Islam will show, human fallibility and individual passion cause people to justify their own modes of thought with scripture divorced from its meaning, context, and the very laws and ordinances with which it shares a common binding.; May 29, 2008 at 5:03 PM
Not So Political said...: Peter: Yes they were superseded, and I am not saying that the laws of the Jews were not God's law, but they were for the Jews ONLY. With Christ's coming a New Testament for formed.

Jesus personally gave us the new commandment: Love God. Love your neighbor.

In this, he was anticipating his perfect and atoning sacrifice, which would accomplish what no law ever could.

The old law …. all of it … ceased to exist once Jesus gave us the NEW and BETTER covenant in his blood.

Under the NEW COVENANT, we have the BEATITUDES, which do indeed promise BLESSINGS and REWARDS for laudable behavior.

The Beatitudes are to the new covenant what the law was to the old … only better.

So that begs the question: Which laws are you following? Precisely how does following an obsolete set of laws obtain grace? Why are you not instead seeking ALL the blessings and rewards promised by Christ, in the Beatitudes?

Jesus went on to found the authentic Church, to serve as the infallible guide for every generation of Christians, until the end of time … and to act definitively, as the primary distributor of all his grace, peace, and forgiveness.

The church eventually readopted and readapted the Ten Commandments … to be used as a guide to the spiritual realities and Christian morality of the New Covenant.

But the fact remains: People continue to sin almost constantly, and the law provides no remedy for sin, other than judgment. It never did.

Fortunately for us … God does.

God saves by the grace of the cross, which is freely available to all.

Not by any law.

If Jews follow the old laws then I (Christians) don't agree with them either. As they clearly don't understand the way to salvation, which by the way is through Jesus ONLY.

By the way, do Jews really do put people to death for cursing their parents in this day and age?

I know the story of Adam and Eve and this was the punishment of God for Eve for disobeying him and if you keep reading you will notice he didn't make life easy for Adam either. He punished him as well. These were the words of God which the Jews and the Christians believe. It's history, it's what happened. Muhammad however had his revelations from Angel Gabriel and not directly from God which leaves room for a whole lot of doubt, especially if they contradict what Christ said.

And what repression of women are you talking about? Was it after Christ? And was it by the hands of Christians? There is far more repression and oppression committed by Muslims then any other religious group combined.

Yes there are different denominations of Christians but none of them prepare their youth to battle the "kafirs". They all believe in Christ's deity, they differ of rituals and practices, but are same when it comes to Christ. Islam on the other hand denies Christ.

The question I have is that yes the abuses have happened in the past in all three religions, but home come they happen now primarily in Islam?

I watched a programme recently where there was a Muslim woman advocate of the Women rights and a Imam who were debating the Sharia Law. They were discussing why Muslim men need 4 wives? If the relationship between a man and woman in Islam is of love then how come he can marry 3 other wives? Does he love them equally? Is he not going against the rules of marriage institution prescribed in the Quran, which you have quoted to me? I know that you are not a Muslim but can you marry 4 women and claim that you love them all equally?

Mohammed said, "I was shown the Hell-fire and that the majority of its dwellers are women."

With regard to the reason for that, Muhammad was asked about it and he explained the reason.

It was narrated that ‘Abd-Allaah ibn ‘Abbaas said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “I was shown Hell and I have never seen anything more terrifying than it. And I saw that the majority of its people are women.” They said, “Why, O Messenger of Allaah?” He said, “Because of their ingratitude (kufr).” It was said, “Are they ungrateful to Allaah?” He said, “They are ungrateful to their companions (husbands) and ungrateful for good treatment. If you are kind to one of them for a lifetime then she sees one (undesirable) thing in you, she will say, ‘I have never had anything good from you.’” (Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 1052)

Another response from Muhammad:

It was narrated that Abu Sa’eed al-Khudri said:

“The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) went out to the Musalla on the day of Eid al-Adha or Eid al-Fitr. He passed by the women and said, ‘O women! Give charity, for I have seen that you form the majority of the people of Hell.’ They asked, ‘Why is that, O Messenger of Allaah?’ He replied, ‘You curse frequently and are ungrateful to your husbands. I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religious commitment than you. A cautious sensible man could be led astray by some of you.’ The women asked, ‘O Messenger of Allaah, what is deficient in our intelligence and religious commitment?’ He said, ‘Is not the testimony of two women equal to the testimony of one man?’ They said, ‘Yes.’ He said, ‘This is the deficiency in her intelligence. Is it not true that a woman can neither pray nor fast during her menses?’ The women said, ‘Yes.’ He said, ‘This is the deficiency in her religious commitment.’”

This hadith can be found in:-

SaHeeH Bukhari: 29, 304, 1052, 1462, 3241, 5197, 5198, 6449, 6546 (FatH Al-Bari's numbering system)
SaHeeH Muslim: 80, 885, 907, 2737, 2738 (Abd Al-BaQi's numbering system)
Sunan Al-Tarmithi: 635, 2602, 2603, 2613 (AHmad Shakir's numbering system)
Sunan Al-Nasa'i: 1493, 1575 (Abi Ghuda's numbering system)
Sunan Ibn Majah: 4003 (Abd Al-BaQi's numbering system)
Musnad AHmad: 2087, 2706, 3364, 3376, 3559, 4009, 4027, 4111, 4140, 5321, 6574, 7891, 8645, 14386, 27562, 27567, 19336, 19351, 19415, 19425, 19480, 19484, 20743, 21729, 26508 (IHya' Al-Turath's numbering system)
Muwata' Malik: 445 (Muqata' Malik's numbering system)
Sunan Al-Darimi: 1007 (Alami and Zarmali's numbering system)

I've read this Hadeeth when I started researching Islam a year ago, and I found it to be the strongest evidence that men and women are not equal:

Let's say we have two classes in a certain school, they both have the same number of students, and that number is a huge number. Say we gave them both a test. The majority of Class A passed the test while the majority of Class B failed. If both classes have the same mental capabilities, same degree of education, same test, same incentives then they should get very close results. Else, it means that something was not right. That either Class B are not as well educated as A, or that B's exam was harder, etc.... Thus the examiner isn't a fair examiner.

The above applies to the Hadeeth. If both men and women are equal then the number of men relative to women in hell should be almost equal too. If not, then it means that either women are more subject and tempted by sin (a harder exam), or that they don't have the same opportunities men do (less level of education). Which in the end indicated that God either wasn't fair in testing them, or he wasn't fair in creating them.

Add to this observation that there are naturally more boys are born than girls (about 5% more), i.e. more men than women have lived on this earth (even though they die younger), then this issue becomes even stronger.

Even though it seems quite clear what Muhammad meant, a possible objection could be raised from the English translation. What is the meaning of the word "majority" in the Arabic? Is it possible to interpret it as 50.1% to 49.9% or does the Arabic indicate a vast difference in numbers?

The word in Arabic is "akthar", and is usually used when there's a great difference in size, number, etc... That Hadeeth is understood by all Sheikhs and taken for granted that it means the "vast majority". I even once heard someone saying that it means two-thirds of the people of hell are women. From the context, it is impossible to interpret it as 50.1% to 49.9%.

Another reason for that is that Mohammed "saw" with his eyes the vast difference, he didn't do a survey, and God didn't tell him the number. So if the difference is seen then it cannot possibly be just a 1% or 2% difference.

I did a further search and this Hadeeth appears lots of time. I found another Hadeeth in Bukhari which says something along the line of "the general public of hell's dwellers are women". The Arabic phrase used makes it very clear that Mohammed is talking about a VAST majority here.

Volume 7, Book 62, Number 124:

Narrated Usama:

The Prophet said, "I stood at the gate of Paradise and saw that the majority of the people who entered it were the poor, while the wealthy were stopped at the gate (for the accounts). But the companions of the Fire were ordered to be taken to the Fire. Then I stood at the gate of the Fire and saw that the majority of those who entered it were women."

This hadith is found in

SaHeeH Bukhari: 5196, 6547 (FatH Al-Bari's numbering system)
SaHeeH Muslim: 2736 (Abd Al-BaQi's numbering system)
Musnad AHmad: 21275, 21318 (IHya' Al-Turath's numbering system)

The Arabic word used for "the majority" here is 'Aammah (or 3ammah), and it indicates beyond any shred of a doubt (in Arabic) the *vast majority*. You see, I don't think that "the majority" is a good translation. The translation for 3amah that I found was "the general public". So Mohammed was actually saying that the "general public" of the people of hell are women.

Number of occurrences in Bukhari (both Hadeeths): 11 times
Number of occurrences in Muslim (both Hadeeths): 6 times
Number of occurrences in Ahmad (both Hadeeths): 27 times
Total number of occurrences (of both Hadeeths in ALL nine books): 53 times

Based on it being reported in many of the authentic books and also by many different chains of narrators, it is not possible to argue that this hadith is not authentic in its essential meaning.

So how can you argue that women and men are created equally in Islam when they clearly are not.; May 30, 2008 at 6:27 AM
Not So Political said...: On side note I do have a question on your religion. I must admit that I don't know much about it and actually I didn't even know it existed. Many of my Muslims reject it as wrong and misguided.

On youtube, you told me that Baha'ullah is the second coming of Christ.

Taken literally, of course, the biblical prophecies of Christ's return do not fit Baha'u'llah. The Bible speaks of Jesus Himself returning in the skies before the entire world in a cataclysmic fashion to judge the living and the dead (e.g., Matt. 24). By contrast, Baha'is recognized as the "Christ" another person (Baha'u'llah) who came into the world in relative obscurity through natural means (i.e., conception and birth).

How, then, can the Baha'is claim that Bah'u'llah fulfills the
biblical prophecies of Christ's return? They can do this only by
insisting that the literal meaning is to be ignored. According to
Baha'i doctrine, Jesus' description of His second coming in the
Bible should be understood spiritually rather than literally. That is, the text of the Bible is said to have some symbolic meaning
which is contrary to the ordinary meaning of the words used.; May 30, 2008 at 8:29 AM
Peter Deer said...: You might actually want to start a separate conversation if we're going to specifically discuss biblical prophecy regarding the return of Christ. It's a rather lengthy topic.

I'm still taking little bits at a time and working on a response to all your points in the previous post however, thank you for your patience in this regard.; May 30, 2008 at 1:30 PM
Peter Deer said...: Back on topic.

You are in great danger of pronouncing judgment against the Word of God, as you set standards for one and withhold them from the other.

You say the law of Judaism was destroyed by Christ. But Christ instead said “Think not that I come to destroy the law, or the Prophets.” You shrink away in shame from that which God had revealed unto Moses, and rather than defend it you choose instead to take notes from those who would do so and use similar tactics in your attack on the Quran.

You ask which laws I am following. I follow the Kitáb-i-Aqdas.

You ask “do Jews really do put people to death for cursing their parents in this day and age?” I know of no instances where they do. But as Leviticus 20:9 will show you, that is what God had commanded of Israel. “For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.”

You are dodging the issue, but I remind you again of what we are speaking. You have claimed that the laws of Islam are harsh, and because of their harshness you have scoffed at them and dismissed them as not possibly the Word of God. But when I present you with the Law of God which Jesus followed, which was harsher, you flee from approaching the issue.

You speak also of how Muslims have oppressed more than any religious group combined, but last I checked the Muslims never held any inquisitions, never held literal witch hunts, and never slaughtered entire ethnicities of people as the Christians did in my country. And it wasn’t until the twentieth century that husbands in Christian society finally started being charged with rape if they raped their own wives, and laws allowing them to beat women with any stick thinner than their thumb (that’s where the term “rule of thumb” comes from) and it wasn’t until right before the turn of the century that women were allowed to vote. Do not delude yourself; Christianity has been just as much used to justify abuse and oppression as Islam.

And you delude yourself further thinking that Christians do not raise their kids to the concept of “holy war”. I have heard even recently ministers calling for their congregations, with children in the audience, to prepare to fight a holy war of Armageddon against the “antichrist” of Islam. If you are familiar with Jerry Klein’s 2006 radio experiment, people in America were even calling for similar steps to be taken against Muslims as Germany took towards the Jews in the 1930’s. There is a strong culture in western Christianity today of conflict with Islam.

And yet, you would certainly argue that that is not what Christianity is about, but you would gladly hurl that accusation at Islam. Did not Christ say “he who has no sin”? Certainly even you cannot deny that Christianity is far from sinless. But still you cast judgment, despite “judge not lest ye be judged”

Moving on once again to your commentary of Hadith, though if you don’t mind in the future I’d prefer we stuck to the Quran, as its authenticity and accuracy of transcription are not disputed, and also because it means I don’t have to search through a hundred volumes to find the context of your excerpts. Nevertheless, I shall respond as best I can to your current selections.

Yes it is certain that by that passage that what Muhammad is saying is that many women freely judge their husbands unjustly, and that this injustice shuts them out from God. I’ll quote Christ again “judge not, lest ye be judged.” Oh it can certainly be said that there have been husbands who have mistreated their wives horribly, but as men are endowed with strength over women how many more it is that do not. Muhammad is warning women against being ungrateful and thinking evil thoughts against their husbands. Indeed, did not Christ say “Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts? For whether is easier, to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee.” And when a woman judges her husband unjust, “For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.”

And certainly while you speak truthfully that men and women are equal you would not suggest that they are identical in all fashions, would you? You would not try to put your left foot in your right shoe, or your right hand in your left glove would you? The same is true for men and women.

Indeed, menstruation is a clear example of this. Men have no equivalent to menstruation biologically, where part of them sloughs off and dies inside of them and leaks out. On the other hand, girl infants are generally hardier and more likely to survive things like infections, and women statistically live longer than men. Our anatomy, our hormonal chemistry, our development and our personalities are different.

Certainly, the difference in roles is a test to anyone who is seeking the path of truth and a test in the resolve of those who already walk that path. But it is hardly grounds for casting aside God’s bestowals.; May 30, 2008 at 3:36 PM
Not So Political said...: Wrong Peter I am not pronouncing any judgement against the Word of God, I say very clearly that Islam is not the Word of God otherwise you wouldn't have such things in it or the prophet who is supposed to be role model for this religion wouldn't be murderer, rapist, etc. How can you trust "word of God" from a guy who says that he didn't get it from God but from his Angel Gabriel? However, prophets before him spoke to God directly or rather God spoke to them directly.

I am glad that you quoted this bible verse, it's my favourite. He didn't come to destroy the Law, yes that's right, if he had he would have purposely led his life against it, i.e had commited murder, etc.

First of all, what I say about the Law of Moses is not original with me. I am just repeating what Jesus, Paul, and whoever wrote the book of Hebrews had to say. “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.” (Matt 5:17) “Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.” (Gal 3:19) “If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron? For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.” (Heb 7:11-12)

What does Jesus mean by “to fulfil” the law? What is the difference between abolishing and fulfilling? Jesus explained it in part in Luke 16:16-17. “The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it. And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.” The law had a term limit, and that limit was the coming of the kingdom of the Messiah, which was announced by John. After the “seed should come,” it had no more standing. Perhaps we can find a parallel example. If I borrow $10 from Les, I have an obligation to that debt. If I pay the money to Les, then I fulfill the debt. If Steve comes to me, while I owe Les, to ask that I pay him $10, I have no obligation to do so. The debt is not to him. If I loan him $10 after I paid Les, my obligation is to Steve, not Les.

And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. (Heb 10:11-14)

Jesus fulfilled the Law by paying the debt that the sacrifices under the Law could not pay in full. Paul even argues (Gal 4:4-5) that Jesus had to be born under the law so that he could save those who were also under it. Once Jesus died on the cross, the law was fulfilled. Its purpose was complete. Its time expired. We are no longer under obligation to a law that is no longer in force.

In keeping with what Jesus had said, he fulfilled the law. In doing so he did not destroy the law. (The King James Version uses the unfortunate mistranslation of “abolish” for “destroy.”) To destroy the law would be to end the law before its time. Jesus did not come to utterly destroy the Law of Moses. It was not his purpose or intent to do away with the law without fulfilling its term. While he lived on earth he kept the Law of Moses. Unlike anyone else, he kept it perfectly. If he were come to destroy the Law he would not have kept the Law. He would, rather, have gone out of his way to violate it. Instead he made sure to meet all of its terms.

When I tell people I am not under the Law of Moses, including the Ten Commandments, the next logical question is whether that means I think I can covet my neighbor’s wife or steal or kill. There are at least two responses to this ridiculous question.

The first response is that there are certain things that God considers sinful, regardless of any specific code of law. He didn’t need to have given the Ten Commandments for Cain to know that it was wrong to kill his brother Abel. Long before the giving of the Law a Pharaoh of Egypt knew it was wrong to take Abraham’s wife for his own. (Gen 12:13-20) Some of these are expressed in the Ten Commandments. Some are not.

The second response is related. Just because I am not subject to the Law of Moses doesn’t mean I am not subject to another law of God. If God has forbidden something separate from the Law of Moses, and under the law of Christ, then I am obligated to obey it, even if it is also under the Law of Moses. When a person in the United States breaks a law they are entitled to a trial by jury. Trial by jury was invented by King Henry I of England, and expanded by the great Henry II. Does the American citizen who commits a crime have the right to a jury trial because it is an essential part of English common law? No. When the United States won its independence from England it also won its independence from English law. An American jury trial is based on American law. Since the eighteenth century Americans have been freed from British law. When Christ fulfilled the Law of Moses he brought us into another law. (Heb 7:12, see above) If that law includes loving God and man, not stealing, not committing adultery, and any other thing that was part of the Law of Moses, it is not because it was part of the Law but because it is part of the Law of Christ.

Included in the Ten Commandments is a law that God never gave to anyone else before or since, the Sabbath. The only people that were ever required to keep the Sabbath were the Jews. Part of the Law of Moses established clean and unclean animals. Under that part of the law, it became wrong to eat pork. Why? Because God said so. There is no other reason that some animals should be singled out as unclean. These are part of what the rabbis consider unexplainable laws. They are so simply by decree of God. Just because it was part of the Law to the Jews doesn’t mean it is part of the law to me.

The state of Texas has no personal income tax. As a New Mexico resident, could I argue that I did not owe any income tax to New Mexico or the United States Government because of the Texas law? I would probably end up in jail. Laws that apply elsewhere don’t necessarily apply where I live.

Laws that were given to the Jews, and the Jews only, are not binding on those of us who are not and never have been Jewish. To try to make them binding on most Christians merely shows a lack of understanding of the principle of law. Paul said I should not condemn Jewish Christians for keeping Sabbath. At the same time he said they should not condemn me for not keeping it. “Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.” (Col 2:16-17) I can not judge anyone who keeps these things, but they were a shadow, and not to be bound on me.

If anyone chooses to eat pork, or observe Sabbath, or hold a Passover Seder I would be wrong to prevent it. My objection to Sabbatarians and those who mistakenly tell me Jesus told me not to eat pork comes only when they try to bind those things on me. If they rely on the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, they don’t need to go to the Law of Moses for authority for anything. But as long as they continue to rely on Christ and not on keeping law, they have the right to observe things out of the law. And non-Jewish Christians have a right not to observe those things.

As for the Jews, even the Jews don't follow all of these laws. You said you know of instances where they do follow putting people to death for cursing, please give me some news article, or some evidenc to prove this, as I have many Jewish friends and none of which prescribe to this law anymore nor have heard anyone applying them.

Yes, Christians throughout history have commited attrocties in the name of Christ, but their number is finite. Meaning, if you were add them up, it say come for argument sake come to 10 million. However, muslims the number is infinite, meaning it's 10 million and counting. If Christians in today's day and age wanted to oppress or irradicate Islam or every other religion from the face of the earth, how long would it take them to accomplish them their diabolical plans?

I will later on will give you a number of all the attrocities Muslims have commited in the 'past' and reasons why some of these crusades took place. (I am not saying crusades were a good thing) but if they hadn't happened Europe today would all be under Islam not by peace I might add.

Peter, I am not delusional, however you are when you say "Christians are calling for Holy War with the Muslims" I have never heard such a thing. And if this exists, how many Christians do you see blowing up bulidings, killing innocent civilians. I would have agreed with you if you had said that Christians invented the concept of 'Holy War' as they did with their inquistions and crusades, but since then we have come a long way. Muslims, not so much.

On side note, Christians are fed up in general, when a Muslim immigrant comes to their country which is constitutionally Christian and then says "America is so polluted and is full with sin" "Only fix is to impose Sharia law" and then screams "Death to America" in streets. Muslims kids even in America grow up to hate America! why because those ideals have passed onto them by their parents, who moved from their countries because they were being oppressed and had no opportunities under the Islamic umbrella, but now want America to be under the same umbrella. Kids in US, Canada and Europe are taught to think for themselves so we don't have to instigate them at all, they believe what they see, not what they hear from their churches or their parents.

Equality, would you say to a woman marine, that she can't be a marine because she is biologically different? No you won't. That's inequality. Will you say to a woman she can't be a doctor, an engineer, etc. because she is a woman? Well Islamic countries do just that under their version of the Islamic law passed onto them from Muhammad.; May 31, 2008 at 7:08 AM
Anonymous said...: I agree with Notsopolitical on this one:

Christianity does have numerous shameful islands in its history. The Crusades and some of the early missionary tactics of the Europeans prior to the 19th Century are such. Within the same time period, the extent to which some sections within Christendom used texts from the Old Testament to rationalize slavery and the barbarous treatment of indigenous people groups, along with their own wives and children, are also regrettable. However, in regard to atrocities committed in the name of and/or justified by the sayings of a deity/alleged holy writ, to this very day Islam excels Christianity and all other organized religions. Historically, when it comes to evil incited by religious fervor there are far more dissimilarities than there are similarities between Islam and Christianity. For your convenience I will list some of them:

1. The Old Testament of the Bible and the chapters of the Koran written in Mecca have something in common, their use as a primary guide to establish religious policy were nullified/abrogated by later revelations. The difference is that the harsh injunctions of the Old Testament were made obsolete by the mercy-based teachings of Christ in the New Testament. On the other hand, the peaceful and conciliatory portions of the Koran that Mohammad wrote while in Mecca were nullified by the harsher and more militant texts that he conjured while in Medina. In other words, the Bible’s New Testament’s mercy replaces the Old Testament’s cruel legalisms. The Koran’s merciful Mecca texts are replaced by the intolerant and harsh ones that were written in Medina.
2. Within the aforementioned context, the Christian groups that committed atrocities were acting in direct opposition to the express commands of Jesus and the Apostles of His Church. The doctrines of the New Testament do not provide justification for barbarisms toward any person or armed conflict to expand the Christian cause. The Medina portions of the Koran and the Hadith provide terrorists and Muslim clerics/Jihadists throughout the world with continual justification for every form of inhumane acts.
3. Jesus forbade His disciples to use armed force as a means to propagate Christianity. The Crusades that ran from 1095-1464AD were the result of Church-State policies that were contrived from an errant Old Testament model. The New Testament does not support the concept of the clergy having a primary influence in dictating civil policies. The terror of the Crusades lasted less that 400 years and ended after the Protestant Reformation in the 15th Century. On the other hand, the later writings, sayings and actions of Mohammed encouraged his followers to pillage Arabian tribal cities while he lived and entire nations after his demise. We must not forget that it was the Muslims who started Jihads against other nations early on in their history. Charles Martel turned them from taking France in 732AD. El Cid drove the Muslim hoards away from Spain and Portugal in the 11th Century. In part, the Crusades were a backlash against the Muslims for their attempts to overrun European Christendom from the 8th – the 11th Centuries. And as we all know, militant Jihad, unlike the Crusades, is still being waged today.
4.Unquestionably, there are isolated aberrations of authentic Christianity in the world today. However, unlike those of Islam, these do not draw financial and manpower support from throughout the world. When the Protestants and Catholics of Ireland were at odds one with another, the clergymen of other Western nations did not incite their young men to join the fight and they did not solicit funds to finance the hostilities from their parishioners. Not so with Islam. Its wars and terrorism are supported in every way from Muslim groups around the globe as they are incited to do so from the Mosques that naïve democratic policies overly protect.
5. When it comes to slavery and other human rights violations it is interesting to note that not one Islamic nation has ever instigated the initial international investigations of such. On the contrary, slavery is still alive and well in more than a few Muslim countries. We don’t have to look any further than the Sudan to see how Arab Muslims view non-Arab Muslims and Christians. Around the world the chief initiators of investigations into human rights violations are Western Democracies. Among those in violation, Muslim dictators are often found at the head of the lists.
6. For those who claim that Allah is also the God whom Christians worship, I would like to direct you to a book by G. J. O. Moshay. It is titled, "Who is this Allah" and is published by Bishara Publishers, Box 741702, Houston, TX 77274. It utilizes Middle-Eastern historical references to prove that Allah was a false deity that was worshipped by Arabian polytheists prior to the birth of Islam. It renders ludicrous the assertion that Allah and the Christian God of All Creation are identical.; May 31, 2008 at 11:54 AM
Peter Deer said...: I'm going to try and respond to both of yours in one comment so forgive me if it takes a while to finish in between my normal correspondences and daily tasks. I shall do my best to reply swiftly.; June 1, 2008 at 8:51 AM
Peter Deer said...: Thank you for your patience, with your leave I shall jump right in.

If you intend to keep making not-so-subtle accusations of rape and murder then I insist that you substantiate them with evidence. Your accusations are no less foul than those the Jews levied at Christ. If you have proof of your claim, produce it.

You imply that all the prophecies of the past came directly from God through no angel. But let’s look at what the Bible actually says, shall we?

Exodus 3:2 - And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed.”
Luke 1:11-16 And there appeared unto him an angel of the Lord standing on the right side of the altar of incense.
And when Zacharias saw him, he was troubled, and fear fell upon him.
But the angel said unto him, Fear not, Zacharias: for thy prayer is heard; and thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John.

And Gabriel is even mentioned specifically speaking to Daniel on the banks of Ulai (Daniel 8:16)

So allow me to quote you here: “How can you trust "word of God" from a guy who says that he didn't get it from God but from his Angel Gabriel?”

While scoffing at Muhammad you scoff at Moses in the same breath. While saying you do not trust the Quran, as it was given by an angel, by the same standard you could not trust the Ten Commandments themselves.

And even the quote you used yourself! “…and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.” How is it that you do not see this?

It has been said "As oft as an Apostle cometh unto you with that which your souls desire not, ye swell with pride, accusing some of being impostors and slaying others."

Luke 16:16-17 also explains much else, such as how the Law of Christ could be abrogated.

You speak of there being no reason for the laws except for “God said so” but God has reasons for everything, clearly. And some of the reasons (eating pork, which comes from an animal which wallows in and eats from the same area where it defecates, is not a good idea in a time before the invention of meat thermometers) while they may seem illogical and unexplainable to the people of the past, make much more sense in hindsight.

And yet, the Jews still cling to this law, unwilling to accept Christ, blind to the fact that they continue to get their news from yesterday’s newspaper. The Christians can hardly be said to be different.

Your comment on the finite atrocities committed by Christians is patently naive, as well as your conservative ten million estimate, which I assume was just your estimate of the death toll and not the other people harmed by Christian persecution.
It was only last year that an abortion clinic was burned down in Albuquerque, and even in 2006 there was an attempted suicide bombing by a Mr. David McMenemy of an abortion clinic. There are instances of violence against homosexuals, violence using religion to justify racism. And need I remind you of Abu Ghraib, where American Christians desecrated Qurans and tortured Muslims? I don’t recall any instances of them desecrating Bibles, do you?

And I challenge you to produce this ten million figure from any reputable source, both on the Christian side and the Muslim side. Find me a verifiable and accurate source claiming “ten million and rising!” on the part of Muslims, and “only ten million!” on the part of Christianity.

And yet, regardless of this, you continue to make this ludicrous and hypocritical accusation, as though stating over and over again “Muslims have committed atrocities” is evidence of the illegitimacy of their religion.
And you state again, “How many Christians do you see killing innocent civilians and blowing themselves up.” In response, I ask how many Christian countries have recently been invaded by Muslim countries. I guarantee you, if this country was under an Iranian occupation, you bet there’d be some bombs, and I doubt only people in uniform would get hit by shrapnel.

And you speak furthermore out of blatant prejudice, saying that American Muslim kids hate America. They said the same about Japanese American kids too, if you recall.

As for your brief statement on whether I’d say a woman can’t be a marine, or a doctor. I might not, but Timothy might. I am not saying men and women aren’t equal and aren’t both capable in most regards, but to be so absurd as to declare them absolutely identical in all regards is sure blindness.

To Anonymous, welcome to the conversation. I shall begin addressing your points.

First and foremost, where in the Quran does Muhammad say “I hereby abrogate and replace the laws I have written prior”?

You will find that the concept of part of the Quran abrogating another part is not supported explicitly by Quranic text, and is almost universally used by persons, either in attempts to discredit it or in attempts to justify misdeeds with it, who desire to convey that the teachings of the Quran are as they see it and not as it says, much the same as “Christians” who use Leviticus as justification for their abuses, or non-Christians to point out what they perceive to be discrepancies or contradictions in the Word of God.

Certain individuals even within the Muslim community have promoted this, but based on very little, and there is little to no consensus on what was abrogated or replaced, meaning even Quranic scholars have not found firm evidence of abrogation. I see little evidence to support your deduction. Furthermore, there is not even a clear distinction between which Surahs are Meccan and which are Medinan, almost all hypotheses on which are which are based on the length of the Surah and the inclusion of Fawatih, so your claim, far from airtight, is nigh baseless.

You also say that the “crusades” aren’t being waged today. And yet, even our president called the Iraq war a “crusade.” England took the land where the Palestinians had been living for centuries and made it a country for European and American Jews, ironically fulfilling the very objective of the Crusades, to take Jerusalem from the Muslims. In Arras and Plumstead Muslim graves were desecrated, with 148 in Arras alone, and in Ceuta a Muslim Sanctuary was burned down. Even the Dutch Parliament voted in favor of banning people from wearing Burqas in public.

According to ABC news, Gallup polls show 40% of Americans admit to being prejudiced against Muslims and 39% believing that Muslims should carry identification cards.

You speak also of “isolated aberrations.” I speak of preachers on the television speaking in front of crowds of thousands. I speak of shepherds whose flocks include senators, congressmen, and presidential hopefuls. I speak of the Pope, the leader of the largest Christian denomination in the world. I am interested to know your definition of “isolated.”

And you speak of the Muslim world as though it is united behind terrorism and violence, which is preposterously false. The Muslim world draws on the power of nearly a third of the population of the world. Do you really think that if they were united, they’d be using suicide bombers and makeshift explosives? Not even one percent of the Muslims of the world are fighting us, or else that would be an army of one hundred and twenty million.

To put that in perspective, the largest army in the world is seven million. Thank God that the isolated incidences in Islam are more "isolated" than your definition!

You speak of slavery, but in accordance with Islamic laws on slavery, if the slave asks to be set free you not only have to set him free but also give him money to live on (Surah 24), and as far as stating the religions of persons in power that have committed atrocities, need I remind you that the list of supposedly “Christian” rulers who have done so as well is just as long and bloody, and that even my country used the Bible to justify slavery.

And how is it that you speak of slavery in this manner, knowing full well that the Old Testament advocates slavery too? And please, don’t give me this “it was just for the Jews” thing, unless you can give me a definite definition for the word “Jew.” It certainly cannot merely mean persons from Israel, Abraham Himself was Mesopotamian, and thus the first Jew was, in fact, Persian. In fact it could be said that He became one after accepting God’s covenant, which would suggest the biblical definition would be religious rather than ethnic, as the etymology of ‘Israelite’ suggests, meaning ‘he who struggles with God.’

And I am astounded how you can dismiss so casually four hundred years of Church-funded oppression, slaughter, and religious fanaticism and yet be mad about a half century of terrorism. This to me seems nothing other than patent hypocrisy.

And indeed, just as the New Testament does not support the spreading of religion by arms, neither does the Quran, but rather forbids aggression and compelling others to believe, and clearly stipulates that even those who attack you should be shown mercy. Indeed, a classical story shows a Muslim who is attacked and has his hand cut off by a pagan, the pagan flees behind a tree and when the Muslim goes to strike him proclaims “there is no god but Allah!” and Muhammad ordered him not to take revenge, even though he had lost his hand to that man.

You speak of women and children and innocents slaughtered, but Islam forbids such things, even in war, something certainly the west cannot claim to have upheld, as the millions of civilians slaughtered by so-called “Christian” countries in the Axis countries, in the Middle East, and in Africa and South America, and Southeast Asia can attest.

Funny how you never hear about the six million Vietnamese and Cambodians who died, and yet it’s all over the news when any two-bit celebrity dies, or when some Iranian cleric gets mad at America. Vietnamese and Cambodian children still die today from until-now unexploded shells and mines. Christendom is still in the sword business, there isn’t a market for plowshares.

And I am aware of the oft-repeated pagan moon God theory. And yet the same can be said for Elohim. Were you aware that the Arabic language is based off of Hebrew and Aramaic? Even more interesting, the etymological roots of the word Allah come from the words Alaha (Aramaic) and Elohim (Hebrew) and possibly El (also Hebrew). The word Allah does not have a plural form in the Arabic language, as it is intended as the singular God at its root.

So yes, the word Allah does predate Islam, and yes it was used by Pagans, but before either of those it was used by the people who spoke the same languages as Christ and worshiped the same God as Christ, specifically Semitic Jews and Christians.

As for pagan roots, I find it absolutely astounding that a Christian would have the nerve to make such an insinuation. Where do you think the Easter bunny came from? What about Christmas, for that matter? Isn’t it interesting that all paintings of God look like Zeus? And didn’t the Egyptian pagans have ritual cleansing and holy bread as well?

If you look closely, Christianity is chock full of Pagan tradition. If you choose to disbelieve in Islam because of that, then you would be hypocritical to continue believing in Christianity. If you see that despite that that Christianity is a divine religion, then you would be hypocritical to say that for that reason Islam is not.

And if the issue is polytheism, you should familiarize yourself with the Shahada. “There is no God but God, and Muhammad is His Messenger.” Islam is not polytheistic and never has been.

I apologize for the length of that response and the time it took to answer, and I thank you for your patience.; June 2, 2008 at 8:24 AM
Not So Political said...: Proof of rape – Muhammad married a 6 year old and consummated the marriage at 9. And since at 9 girls are not mature enough to give consent, then it’s a rape. Unless, you want to argue like many Muslims I talk to that Arab girls in that time period matured earlier.
Proof of Murder – What was the reason for killing “Quraiza tribe Jews” All 700 of them? Here is a summary of the 7 terrorist murders committed upon Muhammad's requests or efforts:

1) Ibn Sunayna, a Jewish man who was murdered because he was simply a Jew
2) Abu Afak, a 120-year-old man, murdered while he slept
3) Asma Marwan, mother of 5 children, murdered while she slept
4) A slave woman, mother of two children, murdered while she slept
5) A one-eyed shepherd, murdered while he slept
6) A very old woman, literally ripped in half by Muslims who captured her on a raid.
7) A slave girl, who was murdered because she poked fun at Muhammad.

Make no mistake about it: Muhammad was a terrorist. Today's Muslim terrorists follow his actions. Like prophet, like followers; today's Muhammadan terrorists commit their acts based upon what Muhammad did.

I apologize for my mistyping. I meant to say was ‘only from God’. I didn’t mean that ‘all’ prophecies came from directly from God. However, in Muhammad’s case all of his revelations came from an Angel and he never claimed to have spoken directly to God. In contrast Jesus spoke to God on many occasions and directly he didn’t need a mediator.
What Moses learned at the burning bush was in agreement with what God had previously revealed to Abraham and the other patriarchs. They had been told that Israel would spend about 400 years in slavery in Egypt and would leave as a nation. Moses was told that he was the one that God would use to bring Israel out of Egypt. God was moving forward with His age-old plan of redemption. Not only does the message at the burning bush agree with God's previous message, but it agrees with what is revealed later through all the various prophets and ultimately though Jesus Himself. The books of the Bible give a clear and consistent message through many different human writers, who penned the Scriptures over 1500 years.
What Mohamed learned in his vision contradicted the message of the Bible while at the same time claiming that the Koran presented the message of the same God of the Bible. Also problematic is the fact that the message of the Koran changed as it was being delivered during Mohamed's lifetime. Some early passages were abrogated by later passages.
Luke 16: "The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John. Since that time, the good news of the kingdom of God is being preached, and everyone is forcing his way into it. 17 It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law. 18 "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
Simply stated, the passage says that Jesus came to fulfill the whole law (moral and ceremonial) and that none of the law would be abolished until it was fulfilled. Jesus fulfilled the “law” by his sacrifice and he gave us New Laws to follow.
I am not saying that “God says so” so we don’t have to follow the “laws of moses”, I am saying that these are no longer binding to Christians because of what Jesus did for us and because he gave us “HIS” laws to follow.
I know the medical reason why eating Pork is unhealthy, and you are right that without proper care it could be a dangerous meal. But, it would be the same for any kind of meat if it wasn’t properly prepared. Jews are spiritually blinded people. Jesus is constantly talking to them when he says “what goes inside the man is not what makes him unclean but what comes out of him…” but they fail to see the relevance of this profound statement. Please keep in mind that they didn’t believe he was the messiah that was foretold in the Old Testament. If they did they would be listening and following ‘his’ laws.
Your comment on the finite atrocities committed by Christians is patently naive, as well as your conservative ten million estimate, which I assume was just your estimate of the death toll and not the other people harmed by Christian persecution.
It was only last year that an abortion clinic was burned down in Albuquerque, and even in 2006 there was an attempted suicide bombing by a Mr. David McMenemy of an abortion clinic. There are instances of violence against homosexuals, violence using religion to justify racism. And need I remind you of Abu Ghraib, where American Christians desecrated Qurans and tortured Muslims? I don’t recall any instances of them desecrating Bibles, do you?

As for the atrocities committed by Muslims please go to this site http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/ and scroll to the bottom to see a list of crimes in the past 2 months. It is not ludicrous to think that Muslims are doing this because of their teachings of Islam and thus Islam is and illegitimate as they come. Oh by the way I don’t by any means support the occupation of America in Iraq. There is no reason or right why US has to police the world. But that doesn’t change the fact that Muslims ARE committing these heinous crimes in the name of their religion.

You talk about Abu Ghrab prison. How is that a Christian atrocity? I don’t think you quite understand what kind of violence I am talking about here. When a group or an individual claims that I am going to fight and destroy the “infidels” in the name of “Allah” that is a crime that is religiously motivated. When the president of Iran comes on the podium and says that “we will wipe out Israel from the face of the Earth and that is what Allah wants us to do” that is not a prejudice, or misunderstanding the nature of Islam.

I said before and will say it again, Christians have committed crimes throughout history but they pale compared to the crimes Muslims have committed throughout history and are still committing it. Let’s look at the flip side, compared to Muslims, Christians have contributed (positively) to the societies and the world.
You talk about crusades but just in India alone destruction of temples, oppression and forced conversion of the Hindus, especially around the urban areas all over India, were common phenomenon during the Islamic rule. The Bahmani sultans in central India made it a rule to kill 100,000 Hindus a year. In 1399, Teimur killed 100,000 Hindus IN A SINGLE DAY, and many more on other occasions. There were defenseless people who never revolted against their Muslims rules or spoke against Islam. Persian ruler Nadir Shah invaded of India (1738-39) and killed an estimated 200,000 people in Northern India alongside plundering and looting. The Islamic assault on India started in the early 8th century, on the order of Hajjaj, the ruler of present-day Iraq. Starting in 712 the raiders, commanded by Muhammad bin Qasim, demolished temples, shattered sculptures, plundered palaces and killed vast numbers of men. It took three whole days to slaughter the inhabitants of the city of Debal followed by taking their women and children to slavery, including the taking of young women as sex slaves. After the initial wave of violence, however, bin Qasim tried to establish law and order in the newly-conquered lands, and to that end he even allowed some degree of religious tolerance. But upon hearing of such humane practices (contrary to the Koranic doctrine), his superior, Hajjaj from Baghdad objected, writing:
"It appears from your letter that all the rules made by you for the comfort and convenience of your men are strictly in accordance with religious law. But the way of granting pardon prescribed by the law is different from the one adopted by you, for you go on giving pardon to everybody, high or low, without any discretion between a friend and a foe. The great God says in the Koran [47.4]: "0 True believers, when you encounter the unbelievers, strike off their heads." The above command of the Great God is a great command and must be respected and followed. You should not be so fond of showing mercy, as to nullify the virtue of the act. Henceforth grant pardon to no one of the enemy and spare none of them, or else all will consider you a weak-minded man."
In a subsequent communication, Hajjaj reiterated that all able-bodied men were to be killed, and that their underage sons and daughters were to be imprisoned and retained as hostages. Muhammad bin Qasim obeyed, and on his arrival at the town of Brahminabad massacred between 6,000 and 16,000 men.
No one probably ever heard of such a stunning message of peace, which considers killing just one person (be it innocent or not) tantamount to killing the entire humanity? Now the doubters should not have any more skepticism about Muslim's claim that "Islam is a religion of peace". The unjustified criticisms of and spitting venoms at Islam by the hateful Islam-bashers got to stop now.
But are the bashers of Islam going to stop? Well, poison is in the blood of bashers of Islam and they will find their excuses anyway to spit their venom. Here is one such excuse: Prophet of the Islam, the greatest man ever and messenger of peace, on one occasion killed 700 surrendered people (grown up men of the Jew tribe Banu Quraiza) and had captured the women and children as slaves (including young pretty women as sex-slaves). The story is available at the following link: The reason for Muslims' attacking Banu Quraiza tribe is outlined in the following hadith narrated by the Prophet's beloved wife Aisha:
Volume 5, Book 59, Number 443: Narrated 'Aisha: When the Prophet returned from Al-Khandaq (i.e. Trench) and laid down his arms and took a bath, Gabriel came and said (to the Prophet), You have laid down your arms? By Allah, we angels have not laid them down yet. So set out for them." The Prophet said, "Where to go?" Gabriel said, "Towards this side," pointing towards Banu Quraiza. So the Prophet went out towards them.
Now, howsoever valid the reason for attacking and killing the Quraiza tribe Jews might have been, can easily raise the question: since Muhammad killed 700 people on that occasion, did not he kill the whole of humanity 700 hundred times on that single occasion?
My point is that the reason why we see these atrocities committed by Muslims around the world is because of their role model, Muhammad. It becomes very easy for them to justify their actions based on what Muhammad did in his lifetime. The sugar coated view of Islam you present, doesn't exist.; June 2, 2008 at 12:32 PM
Peter Deer said...: In regards to the early maturity, insofar as Aisha narrates herself as having begun her menstrual cycle, I think there is strong evidence that they did indeed mature physically earlier. As of the “age of consent” you are incorrectly using twentieth-century American legal terminology in regards to seventh century Arabia to call a violation of modern age taboos “rape,” when in fact adulthood in that time both in eastern and western societies was considered to begin at puberty. You intentionally use the word “rape” to give the false image of forcible sexual intercourse with an unwilling partner, quite aware of the connotations of the word, to further increase the stigma against Muhammad and Muslims. This is a low and vile form of slander, a patently underhanded tactic.

Further in your tactics is using accusations as evidence for other accusations. I asked you to substantiate your claims with evidence, not merely embellish them further. Give evidence for your examples, the legitimacy of their sources, and the context of the events, not just assertions. What do you understand about Hadith, who wrote the Hadith, who narrated the Hadith, who compiled the Hadith, and whether or not that Hadith is authentic?

As for the Quraiza tribe who made a pact with the Meccans and betrayed Muhammad with intention to kill him and all the Muslims, and waged war against the Muslims, you are absolutely right that the men who participated and refused to repent were executed. In western society we’ve executed people for treason and conspiracy too, but I’ve never heard either Lincoln or Washington called “murderer” for it, and they didn’t even give them the opportunity to repent. Washington even had one half of those who rebelled against him execute the other half, if you weren’t aware.

Once again, what I desire are verifiable sources of information and evidence, not just repeated accusations, and if you are going to judge the executions of Islam as being brutal terrorist executions then I require an answer for Leviticus, and how that is more acceptable by those standards.

If I may ask, did you mistype when you said “How can you trust "word of God" from a guy who says that he didn't get it from God but from his Angel Gabriel?” You have not answered to the fact that by this logic the Ten Commandments themselves are not to be trusted. You say “it agrees with what is revealed later through all the various prophets and ultimately though Jesus Himself.” With the exception that Jesus abrogated the laws of Moses. You also say “The books of the Bible give a clear and consistent message through many different human writers, who penned the Scriptures over 1500 years.” But you do not include the generations where the old testament was carried by oral tradition, not writing at all. It does not address how the New Testament has countless different translations and interpretations.

And you continue to assert that the passages were abrogated, and once again I will tell you that I see no evidence to support your claim. By far the majority view among Muslims, one I disagree with in fact, is that not only is the Quran not abrogated but will never be abrogated. You once again continue to make assertions regarding the Quran without providing any evidence to support it.

And once again you continue to repeat over and over what so-called Muslims have done, even when faced of the hypocrisy in the face of what Christians have done.

As for the “sugar coated” version of Islam, my version of Islam is according to the Quran, not the abrogated-Quran-mixed-with-bits-of-Hadith-and-examples-of-bad-Muslims Islam you seem to feel is “real” Islam. If you consider a non-violent Islam “sugar coated” then the Muslim friends who have risked their lives to stop the oppression of Bahá’ís do not exist. The Muslims who have lived peacefully with Christians and Jews for over a thousand years don’t exist. The over a billion Muslims who have never fired a gun or blown up a bomb “don’t exist.”

Just because you close your eyes to its existence does not change that it exists.; June 6, 2008 at 3:51 PM
Peter Deer said...: And in regards to your question concerning Muhammad, I reply to you, how is it the same God which commanded "thou shalt not murder" also commanded Moses and the Israelites to stone those who committed blasphemy? You continue to hold Islam to a standard to which you do not hold other divine faith, and call your judgment fair. How strange this is.; June 6, 2008 at 4:03 PM
Not So Political said...: Muhammad was 52 and Aisha was 9 when they married and sexually consummated their marriage. Muhammad followed an Arab custom in marrying a child who had her first menstrual cycle. This action must be questioned, regardless of it being a cultural norm, because Muhammad's action and teachings on marriage established an Islamic precedent: a girl is judged an adult following her first menses, and is eligible for marriage and sexual relations. Thus Muslim men are allowed to marry and have intercourse with young girls who have happened to have an early first menstrual cycle.

What is more critical than Muhammad's single action with Aisha is that he taught that a girl is considered an adult following her first menstrual cycle. He also taught that his followers were to follow his "sunnah" or lifestyle. Thus today, throughout much of the Mideast, girls as young as nine are often married by men old enough to be their grandfather.

Proof you wanted:

Bukhari vol. 5, #234 says:

"Narrated Aisha: The prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six. We went to Medina and stayed at the home of Harith Kharzraj. Then I got ill and my hair fell down. Later on my hair grew (again) and my mother, Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became all right, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said, "Best wishes and Allah's blessing and a good luck." Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah's messenger came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age." Does it appear like she was "mature" in this?

More Proof:

Islam teaches that female puberty begins when the menses is started. From Bukhari, volume 3, Book of Witnesses, chapter 18, page 513:

"The boy attaining the age of puberty and the validity of their witness and the Statement of Allah:

"And when the children among you attain the age of puberty, then let them also ask for permission (to enter)." Quran 24:59.

Al Mughira said, "I attained puberty at the age of twelve." The attaining of puberty by women is with the start of menses, as is referred to by the Statement of Allah:

"Such of your women as have passed the age of monthly courses, for them the prescribed period if you have any doubts (about their periods) is three months... [65:4]

My understanding of the above is that Islam considers that when a child "attains", or begins, "puberty", then he / she is considered an adult. Hence the validity of the witness.

Muhammad followed a cultural norm in marrying and having sex with a young girl. After all, she was considered an adult. Not only did he do that, but he taught his followers to do as he did. Therefore is acceptable for Muslim men to marry and have intercourse with girls who have had their menarche. Muhammad established this cultural practice as a precedent in Islam.

I add that there are other primitive cultures that allow girls to marry following their menarche. But that does not make it right or in the best interests of the child. Some cultures killed baby daughters for various reasons. Cultural norms do not make an action morally right.

From reading Aisha's accounts in the Hadith and Tabari's history, it is obvious that she raised no objection in marrying Muhammad. She was still playing with her dolls. It all happened so quickly that she didn't know what was going on. This is not surprising. As stated, the brain's ability to be maturely cognitive occurs well after age 9. At age 9, Aisha was barely able to comprehend the world around her. She knew that Muhammad was someone special, she knew that her father loved him. She went along for the ride. Literally. In fact, before the wedding ceremony, Muhammad had her sit in his lap! One could only wonder what he was thinking. So because Aisha raised no objection does not make it right. She was too young to truly think and decide for herself.

And what about all the other little girls in the Islamic world who are not "fortunate" enough to marry a celebrity like Muhammad? Do they really have a choice? Are their voices heard? According to what is documented, many are not. Many little girls become severely depressed following Muhammad's "Sunnah" in the Islamic world.

Some Muslims insist that Muhammad should not be judged by our culture today. But what we are dealing with goes far deeper than cultural practices. Muhammad established a cultural "norm". This practice of taking young girls continues to exist in the Muslim world today. Culture is important.

Muhammad had the ability to change and shape the culture of the people who followed him or submitted to him. He ordered his followers to not bury alive their baby daughters, he forbid the use of alcohol, he mandated inheritance rules for male and female, he instituted slavery as an Islamic norm. If this topic dealt with Muhammad alone, (for example, only he was allowed to have 11 wives), then I wouldn't judge him so harshly. But he proclaimed himself as the final prophet of God. He taught his followers to follow his lifestyle, i.e., to have their culture centered around his way of life. If it was good enough for Muhammad to take a young girl, then it is okay for Muslim men today to do this.

Just because an action is a cultural norm, does not make it morally right. In Muhammad's culture it was morally acceptable for him to do what he did to Aisha. The people of Muhammad's time, both his followers and enemies, did not think it was wrong for Muhammad to do this. But it is no longer morally acceptable to continue this barbaric practice. Today, we know better.

Take for example smoking cigarettes. About 50 years ago, 50% of all American males were smokers. It was culturally acceptable to smoke. It was a sign of being "cool, tough, with-it, etc.". However, that has changed. From science, today we know that smokers are addicted to the drug nicotine. From science, we know that smoking causes cancer and other illnesses. Praise God, our culture regarding smoking has changed, and is continuing to change. What was once culturally acceptable is now becoming culturally un-acceptable. We have learned, and changed.

In the same way, just because Muhammad's culture accepted marrying and having sex with girls following their menarche, does not make it absolutely morally right. In the light of today's science, we know it is morally wrong to do this to young girls. Muhammad should be condemned, not for what he solely did to Aisha, but because he instituted this evil practice as part of Islam's culture.

Quran 33:21. Ye have indeed in the Messenger of Allah an excellent exempler for him who hopes in Allah and the Final Day, and who remembers Allah.

What kind of example was he in allowing child abuse? Was there any wisdom in what Muhammad allowed? Were there any lessons to be learned from allowing this type of child abuse? Was God's in any of this? Did Muhammad's people and culture benefit from establishing this practice? Of course not. Muhammad proclaimed himself as a guide and a light for his followers. Yet through his actions alone, thousands, if not millions of Muslim girls have been subjected to this harmful practice. Where was the light? Where was the guidance? Where was the wisdom? It was nothing more than a cultural practice, instituted by Muhammad as part of Islam. It turns out to be destructive. But because it was good enough for Muhammad, it is good enough for Muslims; many of their female children suffer as a result.

I am not saying Muhammad was a pedeophile or a pervert. But I am saying that what he did was wrong, and worse, he established it as an acceptable act. He may not have committed misconduct according to his cultural norms, but since he claimed to set up his "sunnah", i.e. "lifestyle", for all his followers, we can judge him accordingly. Muhammad instituted a convention of sexual misconduct, i.e. allowing girls, who were not truly ready for marriage, to be taken.

He may have not known better, but he should not be excused for setting up a system that institutionalizes child abuse. He proclaimed that his lifestyle was the one to be emulated, and in part, he bears the judgment for this child abuse in the Islamic world today. Girls at age 9 are not mature enough, either physically, emotionally, or mentally, to be put into those type of "marriage" situations. Shouldn't he be found guilty according to his own words and actions?

With respect to Quraiza tribe do you think that the mass genocide of an entire clan is justified just because they "had intention to kill him"? You are talking about a prophet of God here. Neither Washington or Lincoln claimed to get revelations from God, so please don't even try and compare them. Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 280
One wonders why Muhammad who claimed to be the messenger of Allah and in contact with him needed the judgment of a human. Yet this most cruel verdict was precisely what pleased him and he "accepted his judgment saying that Sa‘d had adjudged by the Command of Allâh."

It's interesting how you think me passing judgement on Muhammad's marriage to Aisha is not justified because it happened in the 7th century and is not comparable to our 20th century, yet you are quick to use Lincoln and Washington in defense of Muhammad's actions. If that's not hypocrisy then I don't know what is.

Ten Commandments were written by God and given to Moses by God not by any of his Angels. There is no question of mistrust here. Jesus didn't abrogate the laws of Moses he fulfilled them. New Testament does have many translations, yes that is true but that doesn't change the meaning or the message of the Book. Talk to any Bible scholar and they tell you that no matter what version of the Bible they are reading the ultimate message remains the same and unchanged. Old Testament which is essentially the Torah, was it to change over time, would have received heavy condemnation by both the Jews and the Christians.

More on the abrogation of the Quran later....

By the way I never said Muslims were bad, but Islam is. I have many Muslims friends and none of them have thoughts of blowing up stuff. More on that later as well.

For your last comment please check the definition of "Murder" versus "Punishment" God is not giving mixed messages here but two different messages.; June 8, 2008 at 6:57 PM
Not So Political said...: In regards, to your comment about the "Good Muslims". I don't disagree that they "do exist". But they are good not because of Islam or Muhammad, but because they are good people. For example I have Muslim friends that drink, gamble, smoke (don't eat Pork though) but have never blown anyone up or scream death to Jews and Christians. Have always helped others and have lived their lives responsibly. Their habits (listed above) make them a "bad Muslim" but they are still a "good person". As for the "Bad Muslims" they exist because of Islam. Because they mention Islam and the Quran when they commit any crimes as though they want to legitimize their actions.; June 10, 2008 at 5:18 PM
Peter Deer said...: k folks I'm back, I'll be reading this and posting my reply soon.; June 12, 2008 at 8:24 PM
Peter Deer said...: If absolute emotional maturity were a prerequisite almost all marriages would be “rape” by your criteria.

I see very little in your arguments other than a basic denial of her ability to judge for herself based on more modern conceptions of sexual maturity which frankly do not apply in this regard. You generally use a fallacious appeal to prejudice and ridicule as the main component of your argument, in order to justify your use of an emotionally charged word to slander the name of someone in order to perpetrate a negative stigma about adherents of that religion and discredit the character of the founder. It’s one of the lowest and filthiest devices politics has ever engineered.

Your accusations of immorality on the part of Muhammad are based entirely and unequivocally on your own opinions. As for the dispensation of Muhammad, and whether the laws proscribed in it are appropriate, that ended on May 23, 1844. Islam is no longer applicable to society today. Just the same as it is no longer appropriate to burn bulls on altars or stone people who curse their parents, it is no longer appropriate to marry at that age.

And back on that topic, you continue not to apply the same standards of divinity to the Prophets you do recognize as the ones you use to condemn the Prophet you do not. I want to hear what you have to say in this regard. Why do you call Muhammad immoral and not fit to be a Prophet and still recognize Moses?

And I find it interesting that you absolutely adhere to the Sunni point of view on Islam.

You call me a hypocrite for using Lincoln and Washington as an example of why your judgments are hypocritical? Oh do explain that one to me. It would seem that you really don’t know what hypocrisy is.

As for “mass genocide” that’s a nice emotionally charged word but if it were “mass genocide” it would hardly have been productive in that end to leave the women and children alive and only execute the men who had fought and attempted to kill the Muslims and refused to repent. Or did you forget that Muslims are forbidden to kill a man who repents for his actions, even so far as if someone attacks a Muslim, and immediately repents a second afterwards they are forbidden to seek revenge?

And you quote these, copied and pasted, but let’s face it you are not a student of Hadith, you do not read Bukhari on your spare time; you copied and pasted these from somewhere that was posting things to help people who wanted to defame Islam.

As for the term “fulfillment” as opposed to “abrogation” say what you want, but the very definition of abrogation is “to abolish by formal or official means; annul by an authoritative act; repeal.” The fulfillment means that the laws were replaced, and were no longer applicable. This is why Christianity does not follow all of the laws of Judaism; they no longer apply.

And you are absolutely right that there is a difference between murder and punishment. But I’d like to hear your explanation. What is the difference between putting someone to death for violating the Law of God and committing murder?

As for suicide bombers being “good Muslims” suicide, murder, waging war on those who have not attacked you and the killing of women, children, or the elderly are all things forbidden explicitly in the Quran. Explain to me how then that “suicide bombing” makes people “good Muslims.”

Because that sure as Hell isn’t what the Quran has to say about it.; June 13, 2008 at 8:36 PM
Not So Political said...: - Based on your criteria, if the girl has had her first period she is eligible for marriage? Please do share this ensight with your female friends and see what they think.

- She did not know what was going on. One day she was playing with her friends and the next day she was married to 54 year old man. Even if this was a norm in those days, I would say it's still quite unbecoming of the "messenger of God", who had the power to change this "norm" if he so wished but didn't.

- She was playing with dolls, playing with her friends on swings. I am not saying this but she herself is narrating. What are the modern conceptions of sexual maturity? How are they different from the conceptions from the primitive time? And why is Muhammad who is a founder of a religion and a messenger of God, powerless to change these norms? I don't have to slander Muhammad, he did it himself when he married a 6 year old, and consumated at the age 9. If he did it to help poor Aisha (which you claimed earlier) then why not wait till she was in her teens, or older?

- You are right that these are my opinions, I never said that they weren't. Me along with many others share this opinion of Muhammad. "As for the dispensation of Muhammad, and whether the laws proscribed in it are appropriate, that ended on May 23, 1844. Islam is no longer applicable to society today." That's interesting, so can I call this "your" opinion then? As according to very Muslim in the world Islam is applicable for all time. We are to follow Muhammad and his lifestyle. Please check with your Muslims friends prior to making such bold statements on their behalf.

- Why do I believe in Moses and not Muhammad? Simple, everything that he said came true. What Moses learned at the burning bush was in agreement with what God had previously revealed to Abraham and the other patriarchs. They had been told that Israel would spend about 400 years in slavery in Egypt and would leave as a nation. Moses was told that he was the one that God would use to bring Israel out of Egypt.

- What Mohamed learned in his vision contradicted the message of the Bible while at the same time claiming that the Koran presented the message of the same God of the Bible. Also problematic is the fact that the message of the Koran changed as it was being delivered during Mohamed's lifetime. Some early passages were abrogated (made void) by later passages.

- Moses, didn't use violence in spreading God's message. He gave up his wealthy lifestyle for the people. On many occasions he spoke DIRECTLY to God, no mediators required and God spoke back to him.

- "Sunni Point of View". Hey why not after all they are in huge numbers (about 85%), The word "Sunni" in Arabic comes from a word meaning "one who follows the traditions of the Prophet." So what if I use their point of view, that issue is that their point of view exists and thus compells it's followers to follow the traditions laid down by Muhammad.

- "Hypocrisy" you slam me down when I bring Aisha and Muhammad incident saying "As of the “age of consent” you are incorrectly using twentieth-century American legal terminology in regards to seventh century Arabia..." So I am not to compare the two because they irrelevant based on the time period but you do the same? "....In western society we’ve executed people for treason and conspiracy too, but I’ve never heard either Lincoln or Washington called “murderer” for it, and they didn’t even give them the opportunity to repent." By the way my response to that was, that neither Lincoln or Washington claimed to be "the messenger's of God" by no means are we required to emulate their lifestyle.

- Question, why do men had to repent? They didn't agree with Muhammad's ideology, his newly found religion, so they didn't repent. Who made Muhammad "the king" and all of the people his "subjects"? Once again, does not fit the profile of a God's messenger does it? When Moses warned the Pharoh to let the Israelites go he didn't say "if you don't I will unleash hell on you". God punished the Egyptians on their behalf. He let God be the judge and the jury. If Muhammad wasn't getting the acceptance that he craved why didn't he leave them alone. No prophet prior to Muhammad had spread his message through violence.

- Regardless of where I copied and pasted them from, it still does not change the fact that these verses and stories and history exists. Whether you want to believe in them or not is irrelevant, Muslims around the globe DO. By the way how much of the Bible have you read in your spare time?

- Jesus fullfilled the law. Christ did not here suggest that the binding nature of the law of Moses would remain forever in effect. Such a view would contradict everything we learn from the balance of the New Testament record. Just because you misinterpret the words and the intent of this passage doesn't make it so.

- the word rendered “abolish.” It translates the Greek term “kataluo,” literally meaning to “loose down.” The word is found seventeen times in the New Testament. It is used, for example, of the destruction of the Jewish temple by the Romans (Matthew 26:61; 27:40; Acts 6:14), and of the dissolving of the human body at death (2 Corinthians 5:1). The term can carry the extended meaning of “to overthrow,” i.e., to “render vain, deprive of success.” In classical Greek, it was used in connection with institutions, laws, etc., to convey the idea of “to invalidate.”

- It is especially important to note how the word is used in Matthew 5:17. In this context, “abolish” is set in opposition to “fulfill.” Christ came “...not to abolish, but to fulfill.” The meaning is this. Jesus did not come to this earth for the purpose of acting as an opponent of the law. His goal was not to prevent its fulfillment. Rather, he revered it, loved it, obeyed it, and brought it to fruition. He fulfilled the law’s prophetic utterances regarding himself (Luke 24:44). Christ fulfilled the demands of the Mosaic law, which called for perfect obedience, or else imposed a “curse” (see Galatians 3:10,13). In this sense, the law’s divine design will ever have an abiding effect. It will always accomplish the purpose for which it was given.

- If, however, the law of Moses bears the same relationship to men today, in terms of its binding status, as it did before Christ came, then it was not fulfilled, and Jesus failed at what he came “to do.” On the other hand, if the Lord did accomplish what he came to accomplish, then the law was fulfilled, and it is not a binding legal institution today. Further, if the law of Moses was not fulfilled by Christ, and thus remains as a binding legal system for today, then it is not just partially binding. Rather, it is totally compelling system. Jesus plainly said that not one “jot or tittle” (representative of the smallest markings of the Hebrew script) would pass away until all was fulfilled. Consequently, nothing of the law was to fail until it had completely accomplished its purpose. Jesus fulfilled the law. Jesus fulfilled all of the law. We cannot say that Jesus fulfilled the sacrificial system, but did not fulfill the other aspects of the law. Jesus either fulfilled all of the law, or none of it. What Jesus' death means for the sacrificial system, it also means for the other aspects of the law.

- "Explain to me how then that “suicide bombing” makes people “good Muslims.”" You should be asking those Muslims who are ready to lay their lives and the lives of other innocent people this question not me. I am sure you will get a very enlightening answer quoted and backed up by Quran in all instances. Ask thousands of Imam and Muslims cleric's around the world who sell this stuff you the young generation of Muslims and claim it as "God's Will".; June 16, 2008 at 12:44 PM
Not So Political said...: One other point I would like to add to why I believe in Moses. As Christians we are required to believe in Moses. Christ himself confirm his authenticity in John 5 46-47 "If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me."
- Miracles that Moses performed are important in confirming Moses as a true prophet but they are not the primary cause, rather secondary. - Although I can say that all Moses and other prophets performed miracles, but Muhammad did not.
- Moses was a prophet that God himself was revealed to, however in Muhammad's case God never revealed himself to him, rather his angel Gabriel.
- Whatever Moses prophesied about came true.; June 16, 2008 at 6:35 PM
Peter Deer said...: Once again, you seem to feel that appealing to prejudices counts as a valid, not fallacious argument.

And by the way, pointing out that you do not apply modern standards to all historical figures is not hypocritical; applying modern standards to one historical figure and not others, on the other hand, is.

You also do not seem to know the definition of “slander.” The fact that Aisha was young when she was married is an established fact. You don’t have to elucidate that fact further by pointing out that she did things that children do. It’s not a disputed fact that she got married as a child. But it is evidenced that this marriage did not take place because of pedophilia, as demonstrated by His not knowing her before the marriage, the marriage being proposed to Him, and His refusal to associate with her until she physically matured, something that a pedophile would not have done.

But as to what His motives were for not waiting longer, neither you nor I know of a certainty. But that certainly does not stop you from speculating without any insight on the matter to promote your accusations.

And telling me to “ask my Muslim friends” what they think about the Bábi dispensation is like saying “ask your Jewish friends what they think about this ‘Jesus’ fellow being their messiah.” Argumentum ad populum is entirely and absolutely fallacious, and yet you insist on using it at every opportunity.

As for the argument that everything that Moses said came true, frankly there is really very little account of the life of Moses aside from Biblical sources. And yet, you certainly would not accept as legitimate accounts of the life of Muhammad from the Quran as being definitively accurate. And you further accuse Muhammad of “spreading the faith through violence.” And yet, the Pentateuch commanded the stoning of blasphemers. One of the plagues of Egypt was to kill the first born son of anyone who didn’t participate in the ritualistic smearing of lamb’s blood over their doors.

And as to the “hey why not?” on the Sunni POV? So by that logic, I should judge all Christianity under the assumption that the Christian standpoint is that the Pope is capable of being infallible? Argumentum ad populum again, numbers are not evidence of correctness.

As for your question about repentance, if they didn’t believe that treachery, betrayal, and attempted murder of an entire religious minority was something that they should have repented for, then why is it any wonder that they were put to death? I suppose you feel that the Nuremberg trials were “mass murder” as well?

And now you’re arguing semantics on the word “abolish” versus “destroy.” But the fact of the matter is, when Christ came, the Mosaic Law in the form Moses gave did not apply any longer. The origin of this particular issue was that the Law “differed” and it cannot be said that the Laws of the Christian dispensation and the Mosaic one are identical in all fashions, quite the contrary. But you fail to apply that to both Christianity and Islam, choosing instead to only apply it to one and not the other.

As for your statement on suicide bombing, it’s a blatant dodging of the question and invoking argumentum ad populum for the umpteenth time. Christians have claimed that slavery, murder of homosexuals, bombing of abortion clinics, persecution of scientists and the banning of scientific education from schools were all “God’s Will” too, but that is not what I am asking. I am asking how in a religion that specifically and clearly forbids suicide, specifically and clearly forbids the murder of innocents, children, women, or the elderly in war, can ever in any sense be said to support suicide bombing. How is it that you have the nerve to say what makes someone a “good muslim” when you do not even know what Islam teaches?; June 17, 2008 at 3:15 AM
Not So Political said...: The accepted version of the Aisha story states that Muhammad dreamt about being offered a gift in the shape of a covered bundle, which when he uncovered it, turned out to be the baby Aisha, who was the daughter of his best friend, Abu Bakr. He took this to mean he was meant to marry Aisha, and accordingly negotiated an engagement with her when she was six years old, apparently with some resistance by his best friend who initially found the alliance a little incestuous (as close friends in Arab cultures consider each other brothers). The deal was that Aisha would marry Muhammad, move in with him and he would be allowed to consummate the marriage when Aisha reached menarche. This happened when she was 9. There are hadiths that describe Aisha’s journey (in her own words) to her husband’s home, who was almost half a century older than her, and her emotional distance from the events that were taking place, which she obviously didn’t have much understanding of. It is also quite clear from reading Aisha’s narratives that she was a child playing with dolls at the time of the marriage.

I never said Muhammad was a Pedophile, Pedophilia is a common charge against Muhammad, but Muhammad was not a pedophile — and although I recognize that he could still possibly have behaved like one in one instance in a lifetime, he did not do so in Aisha’s case. If Aisha had NOT developed secondary sexual characteristics when Muhammad “consummated his marriage” with her, he would be guilty of that aberrant behavior. Yes, she was unusually young. But she was inescapably pubescent and the word ‘pedophile’ is simply inaccurate. Also, his relationship with her lasted into her adulthood and was evidently the most sexual as compared with the rest of his wives. He was moved by her youth — but not by her childishness. The problem does not lie in Muhammad’s sexuality and what forms it took, although a moral case can certainly be made on that basis alone.

The moral crime really lies in Muhammad’s role as a setter of precedent. With Aisha’s early initiation into sex and marriage, he set the precedent for all future followers in all ages that the onset of menstruation marks sexual readiness in girls: this is a medically, socially and psychologically harmful position to hold. That’s Muhammad’s moral crime, of which he was of course completely unaware, not being the prophet of God. And that’s what Muslims have to face and refute: a prophet of god setting a harmful precedent.

- You were saying that the laws of Muhammad do not apply anymore, to which I said that is "your" opinion and not of the Muslims. I would imagine that they would have a better understanding of their religion then a "baha'i" NO Muslim that I spoken to says that what Muhammad did or commanded us to do is no longer relevant. You were making a very bold statement when you said that "Islam is no longer applicable to society today" which I find strange coming from a defender of Islam.

- As for Moses there is verifiable proof what Moses said came true both in Torah and the Bible so can you say there is very little evidence? Clearly, you haven't read the evidence. This was regarding the Muhammad not fit for being in the office of the prophethood, what did he predict in the name of God that came true?...Nothing. Moses and other prophets after him had verifiable and tangible signs of miracles, given to them by Almighty, what did Muhammad have? ... Nothing!.
He is not a true Prophet by any account except for one... "'coz he said so"

- The plagues you are referring to was carried by the Angel of God not by Moses's army.

- There is a fair split between the Catholic's and the Protestant's. Not the case is Sunni's and other sects of Islam. And by the way the Pope is not Infallible, even Catholics agree on that (including the recent Pope)

- Can you give me some evidences as to what the tribe did that was so terrible that they should have been killed? Evidences please.

- Yes the laws don't apply to Christians after Christ, but not because he threw them out but because he "fulfilled" them. So you are trying to say is that when Christ came, and gave us new laws is the same as when Muhammad came and gave us new laws?. I am interested to know how ca you apply the same logic to Muhammad's laws?

- "I am asking how in a religion that specifically and clearly forbids suicide, specifically and clearly forbids the murder of innocents, children, women, or the elderly in war, can ever in any sense be said to support suicide bombing." Perhaps, but it leaves a huge room for intrepretation for the definition of "innocents". The suicide bombers don't think that they are killing "innocent" people. These individuals think "the martyr is not dead, but lives on." Religion is the factor that creates the bravery in the suicide bomber to be a martyr. And religion makes him highly sensitive to the issue of justice which they think they are doing when they kill these people.

- Are suicide bombers principally motivated by religious conviction?

Answer: Yes, it is their only conviction. They don't act to gain a territory or to find freedom or even dignity. They only follow Allah, the supreme judge, and what He tells them to do.

- Do all Muslims interpret jihad and martyrdom in the same way?

Answer: All Muslim believers believe that, ultimately, Islam will prevail on earth. They believe this is the only true religion and their is no room, in their mind, for interpretation. The main difference between moderate Muslims and extremists is that moderate Muslims don't think they will see the absolute victory of Islam during their life time, therefore they respect other beliefs. The extremists believe that the fulfillment of the Prophecy of Islam and ruling the entire world as described in the Koran, is for today. Each victory of Bin Laden convinces 20 million moderate Muslims to become extremists.

- "Christians have claimed that slavery, murder of homosexuals, bombing of abortion clinics, persecution of scientists and the banning of scientific education from schools were all “God’s Will” too," can you please give examples where any of these were sanctioned by Christians groups or Church of any kind? or is it because most of these crimes were committed by Caucasians and hence you assume these are Christians?

- Oh by the way is the word "fallacious" you new found favorite word? If I had nickle every time you used it I would be rich :) "argumentum ad populum" is another one. Let me guess English major?

- Another point, you are here defending Islam and Quran, hence I assume you too believe in the same principle(s) that Muslim's stands for. You were making a bold statement on behalf of the Muslims so I asked you to check with Muslims before you say that the laws from Muhammad's time no longer apply. Or perhaps since you are quite knowledgeable in Quran, you can find me a verse or two that says that. As an example I would encourage you too read Hebrews 10. For Christians, salvation is through Christ and not by following "The Laws".; June 19, 2008 at 4:47 AM
Anonymous said...: a false prophet will always claim to perform false miracles like ur Jesus did.
A true prophet like Gandhi,Mandela etc never claim o perform any miracle.; November 3, 2008 at 2:41 AM

Islam Vs Christianity Debates

Search This Blog

Islam Vs Christianity Debates Headline Animator

Islam Vs Christianity Debates

My Links

Blog Archive

Followers

Visitors

Wednesday, May 28, 2008

Me & Peter J Deer

25 comments: