Loss of Innocence

[malcolan]

LOSS OF INNOCENCE

INTRO:

A part of the definition for “innocence” from dictionary.com is:

a. Lack of worldliness or sophistication; naiveté.
b. Lack of knowledge or understanding; ignorance.

This is the innocence that I am thinking of as I write this. The time for being naive is past. We cannot afford to continue in our ignorance. What ignorance am I speaking of? Ignorance of the world around us, specifically, ignorance of what Islam is all about. Now before anyone accuses me of being a fanatic or an alarmist, let me say that I believe in freedom of religion as much as anyone, probably more than most. And like most people, especially Americans, I have viewed Islam as just another one of the world’s religions, which had no particular effect upon me. Though I understood that it was a false religion, and thus of satan, I saw no reason to give any of my time thinking about it. I stand as guilty of being naive as anyone does.

But that was before 9/11 and Bali and Madrid and London and Egypt, among many other acts of terrorism. I remember hearing the late Francis Shaffer say that “if we continued allowing Muslims to come into America, build their mosques, and spread their false religion; we would live to regret it because they would take over and force their religion upon us.” That is exactly what is happening in our world today. Some may deny it and claim that Islam is a religion of peace, but they are very naive and don’t understand what Islam is all about. Shaffer also said, "We no longer live in a Judeo-Christian culture, but a post Judeo-Christian culture." Let that sink in! He said that over 25 years ago and we can certainly see just how prophetic he was. Josh McDowell said, “We no longer live and minister in a post Judeo-Christian culture. We live in an anti Judeo-Christian culture. If you don’t grasp that, I guarantee you’ll be obsolete within a matter of months.”

Now am I saying that every Muslim is out to get you? No, many are content to live and let live in our western society, they cause no particular problems, though they view all non-muslims as infidels and of satan and not to be trusted or be friends with. What I’m speaking of is the very essence of their teachings and where they have come from. Has Islam taught a religion of love and compassion or has it taught that its followers should make converts by force? In a segment of 60 Minutes recently this statement was made by a Muslim cleric, “Islam and democracy cannot coexist.” I think that just about sums it up, they are simply mutually exclusive. There is no room for democracy in the Muslim world, though they certainly enjoy the freedom they have in the West to practice their religion. They are the fastest growing religion and culture in the world and if they continue at the rate they are going, they will be the majority in the West in the future. In that same segment of 60 Minutes it was said that at the present rate of growth, Spain would be a Muslim majority in 10 years. How far behind are we? Nederland has already begun making laws to protect themselves from this, should we do the same?

to be continued...

You can read current events here:
NY Times article 8/12/05 (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/12/international/europe/13cnd-london.html?hp&ex=1123905600&en=015ce5b831ca06d2&ei=5094&partner=homepage)

[malcolan]

MOHAMMED

I don’t think we can possibly understand Islam without looking at its founder. Mohammed, "the Praised One", the prophet of Islam and the founder of Mohammedanism, was born at Mecca (20 August?) A.D. 570. Mohammed's father was Abdallah, of the family of Hashim, who died soon after his son's birth. At the age of six Mohammed lost his mother and was taken care of by his uncle Abu-Talib. He spent his early life as a shepherd and as an attendant of caravans, and at the age of twenty-five married a rich widow, Khadeejah, fifteen years his senior. She bore him six children, all of whom died very young except Fatima, his beloved daughter.

On his commercial journeys to Syria and Palestine he became acquainted with Jews and Christians, and acquired a less than complete knowledge of their religion and traditions. It is said that he was a man addicted to prayer and fasting, and was subject to epileptic fits. When he was forty years old, he claimed to have received a call from the Angel Gabriel, and thus began his active career as the prophet of Allah and the apostle of Arabia. His converts were about forty in all, including his wife, his daughter, his father-in-law Abu Bakr, his adopted son Ali Omar, and his slave Zayd. By his preaching and teaching, Mohammed provoked persecution, which drove him from Mecca to Medina in 622; the beginning of the Mohammedan Era. At Medina he was recognized as the prophet of God, and his followers increased. He waged war against those he considered his enemies and would not convert to his new religion, and conquered several Arabian, Jewish, and Christian tribes. He entered Mecca in triumph in 630, became master of Arabia, and finally united all the tribes under one emblem and one religion. In 632 he made his last pilgrimage to Mecca at the head of forty thousand followers, and soon after his return died of a violent fever at the age of 63, in 633.

Mohammed was ruthless in his dealings with those who opposed him. He approved of assassination, when it furthered his cause; however barbarous or treacherous the means, the end justified it in his eyes; and in more than one case he not only approved, but also instigated the crime.

From all accounts it seems that Mohammed was at first sincere, but later, carried away by success, he practiced deception wherever it would gain his end. After the death of his first wife Khadeejah, he gave in to his evil passions. Some scholars attribute the alleged revelations to epileptic fits, or to "a paroxysm of cataleptic insanity". According to one author, the prophet was false even to the ethical traditions of the idolatrous people among whom he lived, and grossly violated the easy sexual morality of his own system. After this, it is hardly necessary to say that Mohammed fell very far short of the most elementary requirements of Scriptural morality. It is easy to conclude that the judgment of these modern scholars, however harsh, rests on evidence which "comes from the lips and the pens of his own devoted adherents. . .And the followers of the prophet can scarcely complain if ... the verdict of history goes against him".

When Aisha (the daughter of Abu Bakr, Mohammad's closest friend) was about 4-5 years old Muhammad started dreaming of a union with her and he wasted no time in realizing his dreams, in spite of the fact that the object of his dreams was a mere child. I don’t think that any of us would consider it "normal" for a 50+ year old man to dream of marrying a 4-5 old child, and then ask for her hand at age 6? Muhammad had over 9 wives and concubines, yet he wanted this little girl? When she was 6, Muhammad asked Abu Bakr, Aisha's father, for her hand. Abu Bakr thought it was improper, because, as he said "I am your brother"; Muhammad brushed aside Abu Bakr's reservation by saying that it was perfectly lawful for him to marry Aisha. So, Aisha was betrothed to Muhammad, and 3 years later, i.e. when Aisha was 9, the marriage was consummated. Muhammad was 53 then.

Much more could be said about Mohammed, but I think that this is probably sufficient to give us a good idea of what kind of man he was. How anyone could see this man as a prophet of God is beyond me. The new religion he founded has much more to do with power and control than it has to do with religion, from my point of view.

to be cont...
:(

[malcolan]

MOHAMMED’S SUCCESSORS

After Mohammed's death Mohammedanism aspired to become a world power and a universal religion. The weakness of the Byzantine Empire (the Eastern division of the divided Roman empire), the unfortunate rivalry between the Greek and Latin Churches, the schisms within the church (particularly of Nestorius and Eutyches), the failing power of the Sassanian dynasty of Persia, the lax moral code of the new religion of Islam, the power of the sword and of fanaticism, the hope of plunder and the love of conquest — all these factors combined with the genius of the caliphs, the successors of Mohammed, to affect the conquest, in considerably less than a century, of Palestine, Syria, Mesopotamia, Egypt, North Africa, and the South of Spain. The Moslems even crossed the Pyrenees, threatening to stable their horses in St. Peter's at Rome, but were at last defeated by Charles Martel at Tours, in 732, just one hundred years from the death of Mohammed. This defeat brought to a halt their western conquests and saved Europe.

In the eighth and ninth centuries they conquered Persia, Afghanistan, and a large part of India, and in the twelfth century they had already become the absolute masters of all Western Asia, Spain and North Africa, Sicily, etc. They were finally conquered by the Mongols and Turks, in the thirteenth century, but the new conquerors adopted Mohammed's religion and, in the fifteenth century, overthrew the tottering Byzantine Empire (1453). From that stronghold (Constantinople, capital of the Eastern region of the Roman empire) they even threatened the German Empire, but were successfully defeated at the gates of Vienna, and driven back across the Danube, in 1683.

ISLAM

Islam, an Arabic word which, since Mohammed's time, has acquired a religious and technical significance denoting the religion of Mohammed and of the Koran, just as Christianity denotes that of Jesus and of the Gospels, or Judaism that of Moses, the Prophets, and of the Old Testament.

Grammatically, the word Islam has the sense of "to resign", "to submit oneself" or "to surrender". Hence Islam, in its ethical and religious significance, means the "entire surrender of the will to God (Allah)", and its professors are called Muslimun (sing. Muslim), which is the participial form, that is "those who have surrendered themselves", or "believers", as opposed to the "rejectors" of the Divine message, who are called Kafirs, Mushriks, or pagans.

Historically, of course, to become a Muslim was to become a follower of Mohammed and of his religion; and it is very doubtful whether the earliest Muslims or followers of Mohammed, had any clear notion of the ethical and religious significance of the term, although its later theological development is consistent and logical.

According to the Shafiites, Islam, as a principle of the law of God, is “the manifesting of humility or submission, and outward conforming with the law of Allah, and the taking upon oneself to do or to say as the Prophet (Mohammed) has done or said.”

Muslims believe in one God (Allah, not the God of the Bible), omnipotent, omniscient, all-merciful, the author of all good, and in Mohammed as His prophet, expressed in the formula: "There is no God but God, and Mohammed is the Prophet of God." They also believe in the authority and sufficiency of the Koran.

[malcolan]

THE KORAN (Qur’an)

The sacred book of the Muslims, it is regarded as the revelation of God (Allah). Supplemented by the so-called Hadith, or traditions, it is the foundation of Islam and the final authority in dogma and belief, in jurisprudence, worship, ethics, and in social, family, and individual conduct.

The name Koran, or better Qur'an, from the Arabic stem Qara'a, "to read", "to recite", means the "Reading", the "Recitation", i.e. the "Book", par excellence. It is also called -- to select a few of many titles -- "Alkitab" (The Book), "Furquan" ("liberation", "deliverance", of the revelation), "Kitab-ul-lah" (Book of God), "Al-tanzil" (The Revelation). It consists of one hundred and fourteen suras or chapters, some being almost as long as the Book of Genesis, others consisting of but two or three sentences. It is smaller than the New Testament, and in its present form has no chronological order or logical sequence.

The Koran contains dogma, legends, history, fiction, religion and superstition, social and family laws, prayers, threats, liturgy, fanciful descriptions of heaven, hell, the judgment day, resurrection, etc. -- a combination of fact and fancy often devoid of force and originality. The most creditable portions are those in which Jewish and Christian influences are clearly discernible.

I won’t go into a long diatribe concerning this book that Muslims revere so highly. Much of it has nothing to do with religion. It is broken up into 6 periods of writing by Mohammed. I will simply mention a portion from the 6th period.

Sura 9 treats of the campaign to Tebuk (or Tabuk). It opens with the "release" proclaimed at the pilgrimage of the same year and declares the antagonism of Islam to all other religions. All but Muslims are excluded from Mecca and the rites of pilgrimage. Idolaters are threatened with slaughter and slavery. War is declared against Jews and Christians until they are humbled and pay tribute. This sura is called "the crusade chapter", and in the early campaigns was often read on the field before battle.

Some will tell us that the Qur'an teaches believers to take up arms only in self-defense. The truth is that if a country is perceived to be hindering the spread of Islam, Muslims are obliged to wage war against it. This would, of course, be a defensive conflict, since the hindrances came first. Here, then is another illustration of how essentially meaningless the concept of fighting only in self-defense has become.

Others will tell you that the Qur'an and the Bible are equally violent. But the Qur'an exhorts believers to fight unbelievers without specifying anywhere in the text that only certain unbelievers are to be fought, or only for a certain period of time, or some other distinction. The Old Testament, in contrast, records God's commands to make war against particular people only. That's one reason why Jews and Christians haven't formed terror groups around the world that quote these Scriptures to justify killing civilian non-combatants.

Jesus said: "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you"—Matthew 5:44

Mohammed said: "Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into the hearts of the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know."—Qur'an 8:60

[malcolan]

THE CRUSADES

One of the myths that is propagated by radical Muslims today is that they are justified in their war (read: terrorist activities) against Jews, Christians, Western society, and any other non-muslims in the world, is that it is in response to the long ago “Crusades.” It doesn’t matter that the last Crusade was 800 years ago, it sounds like a good excuse to them. What is the truth? Were the Crusades an unprovoked attack by Europe against the Islamic world? Were they fought to convert Muslims to Christianity by force? What was the real reason for the Crusades?

The conquest of Jerusalem in 638 was the beginning of centuries of Muslim aggression, and Christians in the Holy Land faced an escalating spiral of persecution. In reaction to this persecution of Christians, the Byzantines moved from a defensive policy toward the Muslims to the offensive position of trying to recapture some of their lost territories. In Islamic theology, if any land has ever belonged to the House of Islam, it belongs forever -- and Muslims must wage war to regain control over it. Is this what is going on in the land of Palestine today?

In 974, faced with a string of losses to the Byzantines, the Abbasid (Sunni) caliph in Baghdad declared jihad. Over the next ten years, thirty thousand churches were destroyed, and untold numbers of Christians converted to Islam simply to save their lives. The Christian empire of Byzantium, which before Islam's wars of conquest had ruled over a vast territory, was reduced to little more than Greece. The new emperor Alexius I Comnenus (1081–1118), swallowed his pride and appealed to Rome for help. And that is how the First Crusade came about: It was a response to the Byzantine Emperor's call for help. Urban, the Pope at the time, responded by doing all he could to raise an army of crusaders to fight against the Muslim invasion.

Absent from every report about Pope Urban's address at the Council of Claremont is any command to convert Muslims. It seems that the pope's only preoccupation was to defend Christian pilgrims and recapture Christian lands. When the Crusaders were victorious and established kingdoms and principalities in the Middle East, they generally let the Muslims in their domains live in peace, practice their religion freely, build new mosques and schools, and maintain their own religious tribunals. This was just the opposite of Muslim practice. What's more, the Spanish Muslim Ibn Jubayr (1145–1217), on his way to Mecca in the early 1180s, found that Muslims had it better in the lands controlled by the Crusaders than they did in Islamic lands…so that even Muslims preferred to live in the Crusader realms.

Many today claim that the Crusades accomplished nothing. But it is significant to note that the level of Islamic invasion into Europe dropped off dramatically during the era of the Crusades. The truth is that, arguably, Europe would have been almost totally controlled by Islam by the 12th century if it had not been for the Crusades.
So what did the Crusades accomplish? They bought Europe time, they also brought together armies that would not have existed otherwise. Pope Urban's call united men around a cause; had that cause not existed or been publicized throughout Europe, many of these men would not have been warriors at all. It is from Christian Europe, after all, no matter how reluctant the politically correct establishment is to acknowledge it, that most philosophical and scientific exploration, as well as technological advancement, have come. Christians believe in a coherent and consistent universe governed by a good God; Muslims believe in a universe governed by a God whose will is so absolute as to preclude coherence and consistency.

There are many today that will try to tell you that Christianity and Islam spread in pretty much the same way in it’s early years, but nothing could be farther from the truth. For the first three centuries of its existence, Christianity was outlawed. Not only was the religion not spread by violence, but the lists of Christian martyrs are filled with the names of people subjected to violence because they became Christians. In contrast, by the time of Muhammad's death, the Muslims faced no organized or sustained opposition, and yet continued to take up the sword for their faith. In the early days of Christianity, the Church sent missionaries to preach to non-believers and convince them of the truth of their faith. Today, many Muslims hotly deny that Islam spread by force, and point out that forced conversion is forbidden in Islam. While that may be true in a sense: What spread by force was the social and political culture of the Islamic system. As I said earlier, it is more about power and control that it is about religion.

[malcolan]

ISLAM: A RELIGION OF PEACE?

Is (as some will tell us) Islam a religion of peace that has been hijacked by a tiny minority of extremists and radicals? That is certainly a question that we are faced with often in today’s world.

For many years now, Islam has been putting forward to Westerners a peaceful, loving front. This false view of Islam has been spread all the more aggressively since the September 11 terrorist attacks. Muslim leaders in the United States and other Western nations had to push their efforts at hiding Islam's true nature into high gear, trying to counterbalance the impact made by the sight of Palestinians and other Muslims (some in America and other Western nations) cheering and celebrating the destruction of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Unfortunately, many liberal Christians in most of the mainline denominations have gone right along with these attempts at whitewashing Islam's image, either out of blind ignorance or ungodly sympathy for Mohammed's religion. False teachers even in many traditionally conservative Protestant churches have invited false teachers from Islam to present that religion to their congregants, and the image given is invariably that of a peaceful, loving, tender-hearted faith whose members are absolutely appalled at the violence committed by "a few fringe radicals".

There is a desperate need for education about Islam, especially among Christians. Not education IN Islam, but education ABOUT Islam, so that the people out there who know little or nothing about the religion can learn the truth about it, instead of being led astray by Islamic leaders and propagandists. People need to know that the image of Islam as a violent, intolerant, wicked religion is in fact true, and growing more so every day.

Sayyid Qutb, one of the twentieth century's foremost advocates of violent jihad had a very specific kind of peace in mind, "The peace which Islam desires is that the religion (i.e. the law of the society) be purified for God, that the obedience of all people be for God (Allah) alone, and that some people should not be lords over others."…In other words, Islam is a religion of the peace that will come when everyone is Muslim or at least subject to the Islamic state. And to establish that peace, Muslims must wage war.

So, to ask the question bluntly: Is Islam peaceful or violent? To answer bluntly: It is violent. It is a religion born out of violence, propagated through violence, and still accustomed to violence even today. This can clearly be seen by examining the teachings and record of Islam. There are the two primary means by which to judge the character of a religion on some question. You look at the established, recognised, plainly understood teachings of that religion, and then you look at the manner and methodology by which those most faithful to that religion carry out their adherence to their belief system. So how does the Muslim faith come out by using this test?

One thing that needs to be said before we enter a discussion on this point is that, we are not singling out Islam, per se, as the only belief system out there which provokes, encourages, or at least approves of violence against “unbelievers“. As history shows, just about every false religious system has, at some point or another, violence and terror staining its record.

Before we go any further, lest some of those who may want to use this as a reason to reject all religion, we need to say that the system built upon their particular religious beliefs (or lack thereof, as the case may be), the various forms of atheistic communism have been responsible for more death and destruction in one century alone than all the various religious systems during the entire millennium preceding combined.

The point I’m making here is, that man, by nature, is sinful. False religious systems, those which are not based upon and faithful to the strict teaching of the Bible, the Word of God, can do nothing to restrain the violent, covetous, and tyrannical nature of mankind. Islam, like the others, betrays this failure through its behavior. Neither man-made dogma nor man-made philosophy, of any kind, can regenerate and change the inner heart of sinful man. Where Islam goes further, though, than the other various false religious systems in the world is that its holy texts command and commend religiously-motivated violence against unbelievers. It‘s not just a matter of allowing it, or of turning a blind eye, the Qur‘an and other Muslim writings support and encourage the faithful to press violent jihad against non-Muslims.

Next time we will look at some passages from the Qur'an and see if they condone or promote violence.

[Omaar]

Malcolan

What religion are you?

What are your beliefs concerning God?

[malcolan]

Malcolan

What religion are you?

What are your beliefs concerning God?

Omaar,
I consider myself a Christian. What that means to me, can be found in a thread I started a while back. My views of what it means to be a Christian can be found HERE (http://forums.backpage.com/showthread.php?t=829)

[Omaar]

Malcolan

Let me say that I'm in no way an Islamic historian to verify or condemn what you've posted in this thread.



To call Islam a "false" religion or Satanic is a joke.

Our religion is actually more stable and reliable than Christianity because atleast you know our source and founder, the Koran is the same all over the world, and we are up front and honest about our beliefs.

Most of the Christians in the world have never even read a Bible but just believe because they were FORCED into the religion through slavery or colonization.
Homsexuality, alcoholism, drug use...all these vices are rampant in nations built upon Christianity but Islam restricts them.

You can't even pinpoint a founder of Christianity because Jesus didn't start the religion.
It was started in Rome by Constantine.

The original followers of Jesus practiced Judaism and never called themselves Christians.


If Satan is the author of confusion and Islam has only 2 main factions and one Holy Book while Christianity has hundreds of different demoninations that have historically fought one another, plus many different Bibles and beliefs...which religion appears the most Satanic?

The fact is, as Muslims we believe in worshiping the Creator and the Creator alone...no mediums, go-betweens, saints, or saviors.

Plain and simple.

Be not decieved.

[malcolan]

VIOLENCE AND THE QUR’AN

What does Islam teach as far as violence is concerned? As we look at the Qur'an, we see much taught about this subject. Muslim apologists will often point to Surah 2:190-193 as proof that Islam teaches only defensive warfare, but shuns offense.

"Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors. And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they first fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith. But if they cease, Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah; but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression."

These verses, it is said, teach Muslims to only fight against those who oppress or persecute Muslims, and only until the offenders have stopped oppressing Muslims. However, there is a catch to all this. The Qur'an also teaches Muslims to enter into exile in lands where Islam is not the dominant force, and to stir up trouble, so that this persecution will come as the people in those lands protect their religion, culture, and way of life.

"Those who believed, and adopted exile, and fought for the Faith, with their property and their persons, in the cause of Allah, as well as those who gave them asylum and aid,- these are all friends and protectors, one of another. As to those who believed but came not into exile, ye owe no duty of protection to them until they come into exile; but if they seek your aid in religion, it is your duty to help them, except against a people with whom ye have a treaty of mutual alliance. And remember Allah seeth all that ye do. The Unbelievers are protectors, one of another: Unless ye do this, protect each other, there would be tumult and oppression on earth, and great mischief." (Surah 8:72-73)

In this passage, “adopted exile” is translated from a word which has as its primary meaning the idea of containment or confinement, and can carry the connotation of being quarantined or compartmentalised. The idea we get from this verse seems to be as follows: adopt exile in a foreign land, voluntarily confining yourself in a non-Muslim society. Reject blending into the culture and way of life of the host country, and instead agitate for Islam. When opposition arises, join together, give aid and fight for Allah against the unbelievers, since persecution has arisen! It seems clear that what is claimed to be a defensive doctrine is in reality carried out in an offensive manner.

There are many other quotes from the Qur'an which exhort the followers of Mohammed to war:

"But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war; but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and pay Zakat, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft- forgiving, Most Merciful." (Surah 9:5)

This passage is found in a portion of the Qur'an dealing with the making and breaking of treaties with pagans (all non-muslims). In context, Muslims are encouraged to break treaties with pagans if it is to their advantage to do so, UNLESS those pagans have been completely faithful in the discharge of their treaty obligations. But, after the terms of the treaty are met (the forbidden months are past), Muslims are commanded to make war. The historical context is that in ancient times, both in Arabia and elsewhere, treaties were most often made for specific periods of time. During that time period, both parties were expected to be completely faithful in the discharge of their obligations under the terms of the treaty. After the treaty term had ended, all bets were off. Groups which had been allies for a period of time might then turn on each other in the most vicious manner after the treaty time ended, without any loss of honor for either side. Hence, the Qur'an tells Muslims that pagan or unbelieving groups with whom they do not currently have a treaty are open to the prosecution of offensive war.

Likewise, in Surah 9:73, Mohammed is commanded to press hard war against unbelievers,

"O Prophet! strive hard against the Unbelievers and the Hypocrites, and be firm against them. Their abode is Hell,- an evil refuge indeed."

Also,

"O ye who believe! fight the unbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you: and know that Allah is with those who fear Him." (Surah 9:123)
"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya (religion tax) with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." (Surah 9:29)

Each of these verses, in context, is dealing with waging offensive war against unbelievers for the purpose of spreading Islam. As with the previous verses, Muslims will often try to claim that these verses promote defensive warfare only, and that offensive war to propagate Islam is not taught in the Qur’an. They say this in the hopes that their audience will not know what the Qur'an actually says, or will be unaware of the context of these verses. A straight-forward reading of the appropriate surat and surrounding passages using a little common sense will show the offensive nature of these verses to the unbiased reader.

Many Muslim apologists still attempt to argue that these verses in the Qur’an are being taken out of context. Because of this claim, we should then investigate what orthodox Muslim expositors and scholars have to say on this, as they were often much less concerned about presenting Islam in a positive light to Western audiences. One of the earliest great Muslim legal scholars, Al-Tabari (839-923 AD), explained Surah 9:5 as commanding the death of infidels if they would not embrace Islam, lest they should enter Mecca. Al-Mahili (d. 1486 AD) also gives a clear indication of understanding Surah 9:5 offensively and aggressively:

"The chapter of Repentance was revealed to raise the level of security which the infidels enjoyed because Muhammad had earlier made a covenant with them not to kill them. After that, this verse was given (9:5) in order to free God and Muhammad from any covenant with the infidels. It gives them four months in which they will be protected, but by the end of the four months (the end of the grace period), the order comes: Kill the infidels wherever you find them. Capture them, besiege them in their castles and fortresses until they are forced to accept Islam or be killed.”

cont...

[Omaar]

Malcolan

You said:

The Qur'an also teaches Muslims to enter into exile in lands where Islam is not the dominant force, and to stir up trouble, so that this persecution will come as the people in those lands protect their religion, culture, and way of life.
I'm still waiting on the verse that actually instruct Muslims to do this.

Instead, you say:

In this passage, “adopted exile” is translated from a word which has as its primary meaning the idea of containment or confinement, and can carry the connotation of being quarantined or compartmentalised. The idea we get from this verse seems to be as follows:
Then go on to offer your own worst case scenario.....lol...

CAN
IDEA WE GET (who is we)
SEEMS

These all "seem" like words of conjecture and imposing of one's own interpretation and expectations on the meaning of the verse to me.

[Omaar]

Malcolan

This passage is found in a portion of the Qur'an dealing with the making and breaking of treaties with pagans (all non-muslims). In context, Muslims are encouraged to break treaties with pagans if it is to their advantage to do so, UNLESS those pagans have been completely faithful in the discharge of their treaty obligations. But, after the terms of the treaty are met (the forbidden months are past), Muslims are commanded to make war. The historical context is that in ancient times, both in Arabia and elsewhere, treaties were most often made for specific periods of time. During that time period, both parties were expected to be completely faithful in the discharge of their obligations under the terms of the treaty. After the treaty term had ended, all bets were off. Groups which had been allies for a period of time might then turn on each other in the most vicious manner after the treaty time ended, without any loss of honor for either side. Hence, the Qur'an tells Muslims that pagan or unbelieving groups with whom they do not currently have a treaty are open to the prosecution of offensive war.
If you know the context of the scripture, then why not quote the passage in it's proper context by posting the verse that comes immediatly after it?



Koran chapter 9:

5. Then when the Sacred Months have passed, then kill the pagans wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush. But if they repent and perform As-Salât , and give Zakât, then leave their way free. Verily, Allâh is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

6. And if anyone of the pagans seeks your protection then grant him protection, so that he may hear the Word of Allâh , and then escort him to where he can be secure, that is because they are men who know not.


Now if Muslims were really the blood thirsty savages you're attempting to portray them as, why would they be commanded to grant those same pagans they were trying to kill a few verses ago protection and move them to a secure environment?


Since this is a thread about Islam, I won't even get into the numerous Biblical verses in which the God you serve is accused of ordering entire cities of innocent women and children to be mercilessly slaughtered.

[malcolan]

continued from previous: Violence and the Qur’an

Another historically influential Muslim expositor, al-Baydawi (d. 1276 AD), gives a fairly typical understanding of the doctrine, commenting on Surah 9:29,

“Fight Jews and Christians because they violated the origin of their faith and they do not believe in the religion of the truth (Islam), which abrogated all other religions. Fight them until they pay the poll-tax (Ziziya tax) with submission and humiliation.”
The Islamic philosopher and historian, Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406 AD), said,

“In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the (Muslim) mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force. Therefore, caliphate and royal authority are united in (Islam), so that the person in charge can devote the available strength to both of them at the same.”

Modern Muslim scholars, historians, and exegetes have taken similar stances on jihad. Al-Buti reveals for us the following,

“The verse (9:5) does not leave any room in the mind to conjecture about what is called defensive war. This verse asserts that Holy War which is demanded in Islamic law, is not defensive war because it could legitimately be an offensive war. That is the apex and most honorable of all Holy wars”

He also says,

“You may wonder now: Where is the wisdom of forcing infidels and their associates to embrace Islam? How could the mind set of the twentieth century understand such matters? The answer is: We wonder where the wisdom is when the state forces an individual to be subjugated to its system and philosophy despite the freedom he possesses? How can it be reasonable for the state to have the right to subjugate its citizens to the laws, principles, and ordinances it enacts, while the creator of all does not have the right to subjugate them to His authority and to convert them from every creed or faith to His religion?”

He says further,

“This is the concept which professional experts of thought attempt to conceal from the eyes of Muslims by claiming that anything that is related to a holy war in Islamic law is only based on defensive warfare to repel an attack....It is no secret that the reason behind this deception is the great fear which dominates foreign countries (East and West alike) that the idea of Holy War for the cause of God would be revived in the hearts of Muslims, then certainly, the collapse of European culture will be accomplished. The mindset of the European man has matured to embrace Islam as soon as he hears an honest message presented. How much more will it be accepted if this message is followed by a Holy War?”

Saudi scholar al-Amin likewise points to the Qur’an for the justification of offensive holy war,

"God had made it clear to us that (we should) call for acceptance of Islam first, then wage war. It is not admissible to wage war before extending the invitation to embrace Islam first, as the Qur’an says. ‘We verily sent our messenger with clear proofs and revealed to them the scripture and the balance, that mankind may observe right measure, and he revealed iron, wherein is mighty power and uses for mankind and that Allah (God) may know him who helps Him and his messengers—Allah is strong, Almighty"’ (Surah Iron 57:25).”

This is especially notable for those who may remember that in the aftermath of the 11 September terrorist attacks, Saudi religious and political leaders, in the process of extending their condolences to President Bush, also extended an invitation to him to convert to Islam. Qutb, in a chapter entitled “Jihad in the Cause of God”, says this about those who believe that jihad is to be a defensive war only,

“They are ignorant of the nature of Islam and of its function, and that it has a right to take the initiative for human freedom. Thus wherever an Islamic community exists which is a concrete example of the Divinely-ordained system of life, it has a God-given right to step forward and take control of the political authority so that it may establish the Divine system on earth, while it leaves the matter of belief to individual conscience.”

Thus, while touting “freedom of individual conscience”, Qutb seems to be exposing the right of the “Islamic community” to take control of political authority, which would seem to hearken back to what was seen earlier with Surah 8:72-73. Qutb, it should be noted, was executed by Egypt’s Nasser government for attempting to overthrow the secular regime. Fattah adds,

“Islam has approved war so that the Word of God becomes supreme. This is war for the cause of God (Holy War). Muhammad, therefore, sent his ambassadors to eight kings and princes in the neighborhood of the Arab Peninsula to call them to embrace Islam. They rejected his call. Thus, it became incumbent on the Muslims to fight them.”

Pakistani Islamic authorities stand with their brethren on this issue. Fazlur Rahman notes the abundant discussion of jihad in the Qur’an, and rejects the modern interpretation of jihad as defensive war only. Maududi, likewise, rejects attempts to make a distinction between offensive and defensive jihad and views jihad as the means by which to overthrown all non-Islamic systems and replace them with submission to Allah.

The above are only a small sampling of what we could look at with regard to both the historic and modern orthodox Muslim positions on holy war. As we can see, the justification is often drawn directly from those verses which were quoted above, and which are often said to be “defensive only” or “taken out of context” by Muslim apologists. Thus, it should certainly be seen that offensive war for the specific purpose of spreading the Islamic religion is very much taught in the Qur’an.

(I am indebted to Timothy W. Dunkin and his work “Myths About Islam,” among many others, for much of what I’ve presented under “Violence and the Qur’an.” )

[malcolan]

THE GOD OF THE BIBLE VS. ALLAH

The statement that the God of the Bible and Allah are one and the same, is made by many who attempt to associate Christianity and Islam together in the spirit of ecumenism, with perhaps the eventual goal of unity between the two. Often, the claim is also made by Muslims, who seek to remove Christian opposition to Islam, often as a prelude to dawah, extending an "invitation" to accept Islam. To promote this, the superficial characteristic of monotheism is emphasised, while the vast differences between God and Allah are completely ignored.

The idea that the God of the Bible and Allah are one and the same could not be further from the truth. Emil Caner, a converted Muslim, now the Associate Dean of Southeastern College at Wake Forest and associate professor of church history and Anabaptist studies at Southeastern Theological Seminary, says, “Before beginning a dialogue about Christ, it is helpful to know what Muslims believe. According to Caner, the most common misconception about God stems from a faulty linguistic argument that says Allah and Jehovah are the same God because they both mean, in their languages, "deity." Instead, says Caner, it’s not a linguistic argument, but a theological one.”

What are the differences? To begin with there is the attribute of knowability, the idea that human beings may know God and enjoy a personal relationship with the Creator. God, as He is revealed in the Bible, allows Himself to be known and fellowshipped with on a personal basis by those who have trusted in Him through His Son Jesus Christ. John 17:3 says, "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." The Bible presents God as an all-powerful being who reveals Himself to man, and who encourages us to learn of Him and enter into an ever closer fellowship with Him. The Bible presents God who had a personal relationship with Abraham such that Abraham was called "The friend of God." The God of the Bible wants for mankind to come to Him, be cleansed of their sins, and enjoy this close personal fellowship. "Draw nigh unto God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded." (James 4:8)

Contrast this with the Quranic description of Allah as unknowable. Indeed, in Islam, it is considered blasphemous to "presume" that one can know God or claim any sort of close, personal fellowship with Allah. This theological view developed early in Islam, being espoused by al-Ghazali. Shehadi summarises al-Ghazali's teachings on this point,

"The end result of the knowledge of the `arifin ("the knowers") is their inability to know Him, and their knowledge is, in truth, that they do not know Him and that it is absolutely impossible for them to know Him."
This view is also understood among modern Islamic scholarship, where the statement of al-Faruqi is representative,

"He [God] does not reveal Himself to anyone in any way. God reveals only His will. Remember one of the prophets asked God to reveal Himself and God told him, "No, it is not possible for Me to reveal Myself to anyone. "...This is God's will and that is all we have, and we have it in perfection in the Qur'an. Islam does not equate the Qur'an with the nature or essence of God. It is the Word of God, the Commandment of God, the Will of God. But God does not reveal Himself to anyone. Christians talk about the revelation of God Himself - by God of God - but that is the great difference between Christianity and Islam. God is transcendent, and once you talk about self-revelation you have hierophancy and immanence, and then the transcendence of God is compromised. You may not have complete transcendence and self-revelation at the same time."

Allah is considered unknowable, transcendent, so exalted that he would never lower himself to deal with man on a personal level of friendship and fellowship. Allah is thus presented in the abstract, and ends up becoming little more than a mental exercise in theology.

Contd...

[malcolan]

Cont'd from THE GOD OF THE BIBLE VS. ALLAH

From the Bible we see the characteristic of God's personal nature. God, is a person, not a force. God has emotions, a will, an intellect, He reasons, He can be entreated, He speaks, and so on. As such, God deals with mankind on a personal basis, and this forms the basis of the fellowship that we have with Him. The God of the Bible has chosen to reveal Himself to mankind and to involve Himself in the affairs of mankind, dealing personally with the creations whom He loved enough to send His Son to die for. Thus combined, the personality of God and the desire for fellowship with His creations who are separated from Him by sin, these find their culmination in Christ's work on the cross. "Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ." (Romans 5:1) Through Christ's death and resurrection, man is able to trust in His sacrifice and be saved to a relationship of peace and fellowship with God. God has willed that man should come to peace with God through His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ.

In the Qur'an, Allah is a non-personal deity. He is a deity to which Islam considers it blasphemous to attribute personhood. Allah is taught to be so transcendent that to try to understand him as a personal being is to lower him to the level of a man and deny his godhood. Allah is presented in the Qur'an as being far-off and aloof, transcendent and impersonal, to be worshipped and feared, but never fellowshipped with or approached in a personal, familiar manner. Even when Allah is described as being "nearer to him than (his) jugular vein" (Surah 50:16), this is more a reference to Allah’s omnipresence than it is to his personal care or concern. These differences can be shown in the disparity between the prayers of Christians and those of Muslims. Christians are told to "pray without ceasing" (I Thessalonians 5:17) and can approach God at any time as His children, crying out to Him as a child would to a parent. Christians may cry "Abba [daddy], Father!" (cf. Romans 8:15) and know that their heavenly Father hears and cares about their needs and concerns. Muslims, on the other hand, are required to make ritual prayers five times in a day, prayers which are repetitious and memorised, perfectly designed for addressing and appeasing a transcendent force with no personal interest in its creatures. Additional prayers from a Muslim must still be addressed to an unknowable, impersonal being of whom there is no certain knowledge that he cares or takes notice.

God, as revealed in the Bible, is a God of love who cares for and desires the best for His creations. He is merciful, full of grace and compassion, and seeks to restore a humanity alienated from him by sin. "For God so loved the world that he sent his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16)

We are told in the Bible that God does not desire eternal death and destruction for any soul, but wants all to come to Him through Christ for forgiveness of their sins and to receive eternal life. It is God "Who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth." (I Timothy 2:4). God, in his great mercy towards mankind, has provided to mankind an advocate before His heavenly throne, Jesus Christ, who intercedes on behalf of the Christian before the Father, and who shed His blood to free lost and sinful mankind from the wrath of God against sin. "My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world." (I John 2:1-2) These verses illustrate the position and activity of Christ as both Saviour and Advocate. He is the propitiation for our sins, meaning that the shedding of His sinless blood in sacrifice for us satisfied the demands of God's wrath against sin, and that this act of grace was performed for the whole world, for every man, woman, and child who has lived and ever will live, “as many as will receive Him.” Likewise, He is the advocate, the one who stands before the throne of the Father and pleads His own righteousness on behalf of those who have trusted in Him as Saviour, if we sin.

This contrasts with the Quranic Allah, who hates sinners and has made no provision for their reconciliation to him. "..and Allah loveth not those that do wrong." (Surah 3:140) - "Contend not on behalf of such as betray their own souls; for Allah loveth not one given to perfidy and sin." (Surah 4:107) - "Those who reject Faith and do wrong,- Allah will not forgive them nor guide them to any way- Except the way of Hell, to dwell therein for ever. And this to Allah is easy." (Surah 4:168-169) - "And if they turn away, be assured that for some of their crime it is Allah's purpose to punish them. And truly most men are rebellious." (Surah 5:49) - "The Unbelievers will be addressed: "Greater was the aversion of Allah to you than (is) your aversion to yourselves, seeing that ye were called to the Faith and ye used to refuse." (Surah 40:10) As presented in the Qur'an, Allah is a vindictive deity who desires to afflict sinners, not save them. This understanding of Allah seems to be the orthodox Islamic position. Note this passage:

"This is the covenant which you make with Allah as soon as you recite La ilaha illallah, and in doing so you make the whole world your witness. If you violate this covenant, your hand and feet, the minutest hair on your body and every particle of the earth and of the heaven before which you made that false declaration, will render evidence against you in the court of Allah where you will be in the dock in such a helpless condition that not a single defense witness will be available to you. No Advocate or Barrister will be there to plead your case...." (S. Abul Ala Maududi, Fundamentals of Islam, p.27)

As demonstrated here, breaking the covenant made with Allah, which is the covenant to live and abide by Islamic law and practice, will result in being hauled before the court of Allah completely defenseless, with no hope of ever being either redeemed from your sin or of being saved from the wrath of Allah. Of course, the way in which this covenant is broken is by apostatising from Islam, not by committing some other gross or negligent personal sin. Indeed, the main thrust of the Quranic verses mentioned above seems to be the condemnation of those who "betray their own soul" and who were "called to the faith" and refused, essentially choosing to reject Islam.

The god of Islam simply does not reconcile with the God of the Bible who, while hating sin and the performance of sin, also loves sinners and seeks to turn them from their wicked ways. "But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." (Romans 5:8) This passage illustrates to us God's amazing love, His willingness to send His Son Jesus Christ to die in our place, to take the wrath against sin upon ourselves, even though we are all sinners. Further, God's attitude toward the damnation and punishment of sinners is shown in Ezekiel 18:23, "Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: and not that he should return from his ways and live?" While Allah may hate all who are not righteous and even seek their damnation, God loves them and has made abundant provision for them to receive forgiveness and eternal life through His Son, Jesus Christ. Truly, human beings go to hell in spite of the undeserved grace which God seeks to give to them.

I think from this that we can plainly see that the god of Islam and the God of the Bible cannot be one and the same. We worship a God who gave His all on Calvary for us, sinful people as we are. Allah, as the Qur’an tells us, is a vindictive god who cannot be known, but wants blind obedience or else he will zap you. Quite a contrast I would say, wouldn’t you?

[Omaar]

Which "God" of the Bible are we speaking of?

There are several.

You have Elohim, Yahweh, Jehovah, Adoni, Eli, Baal, Moloch, ect.....now Jesus and the Holy Spirit are also worshipped as gods.

Didn't God tell you in Exodus to serve HIM and Him only?

The Koran acknowledges only one God and Islam only acknowledges one Creator...Him who created the Heavens and the Earth.

[malcolan]

Which "God" of the Bible are we speaking of?

There are several.
...you're playing with semantics again. Allow me to clarify, for the benefit of all.

Elohim--God in the Hebrew scriptures

YHWH--Tetragammon representing the the name of God (proper noun) as was told to Moses. From this, some scholars have derived Yahwe, Yahveh, YHVH, Yahve, Wahvey, Jahvey, Jahweh, Jehovah, JHVH, and Yahweh.

Adonai--Used in Judaism as a spoken substitute for the name of God

Eli--"my God", (Matt. 27:46), an
exclamation used by Christ on the cross. Mark (15:34), as usual, gives the
original Aramaic form of the word, Eloi.

Baal--an idol, any of numerous local fertility and nature deities worshipped by ancient Semitic peoples; the Hebrews considered Baal a false god

Moloch--another idol, the god of the Canaanites and Phoenicians to whom children were sacrificed.

So, the God I speak of IS the creator of the universe, who sent his son to us so that we may enter into a relationship with Him (since our sinful nature would otherwise make it impossible to be in the presence of a Holy God).

And His name is YHWH, from the Hebrew verb "to be", expressed in the three tenses: (Past, Present and Future)
"I was, I am, I will be."
Or more completely: "I (always) was, I am (now) and I (always) will be"

[Wallis]

Omaar, I am curious as to how Moslems believe they will be "saved."

I acknowledge that Christians and Moslems, in particular, have been at odds with each other over several centuries. But at the same time, they have also been able to live with each other peacefully. Naturally, recent events have taken a down-turn with the peace thing, encouraging both sides to be at each other's throats instead of uniting against the evil that encourages this negative action from the sidelines.

Malcolan, you might want to investigate the warlike actions of God in the OT as well. He exhorted Joshua to annihilate whole populations in the invasion of Palestine.

Rather than concentrate our energies on the "hate factor," I encourage all people to not just turn their swords into plowshares but to bind themselves together with Love. Allah teaches love as well as the Christ.

To pit one's God against the other is ludicrous. "My God is bigger than your god" gets us as a people nowhere.

There is a great evil in the world that is laughing at we humans who enjoy dividing ourselves and literally wiping ourselves off the planet. Anyone--regardless of what faith they identify themselves with--who advocates murder and mayhem is evil. Period. They might not even be savagable as souls.

There is also a perception that it is the Christians alone fighting the bad guys who are mistakenly identified as Moslems. But it isn't the Christians fighting. It is a military force made up of all faiths that are fighting the bad guys. Moslems are accused of "not doing enough," but I maintain that this is a Western perception. One only has to look at what the Iraqi people are doing to retake their land through democracy is demonstrative that they are not going to cave in to this evil.

[malcolan]

Omaar, I am curious as to how Moslems believe they will be "saved."

I acknowledge that Christians and Moslems, in particular, have been at odds with each other over several centuries. But at the same time, they have also been able to live with each other peacefully. Naturally, recent events have taken a down-turn with the peace thing, encouraging both sides to be at each other's throats instead of uniting against the evil that encourages this negative action from the sidelines.

One of the main reasons for this lies in some of the basic fundamental principles taught in Islam.

Most of the Muslems I have met are good people who are just taught that to achieve salvation they need to please God by their works.

One of the ways that pleases God most, according to them, is to be a martyr by eliminating those who do not believe in God (infidels).

That is the lie (and therefore, of Satan).

Our love for them should be reaching out and replacing the lie they believe with the truth that Jesus has paid the price.

It is not what we do that saves us but what we believe and put our faith in.

In Business we talk about root cause analysis in crisis situation. The thought process is the same.

What makes our "enemies" the way they are?

It is the lie!

Who put that lie in them?

The real enemy - the devil.

How can we defeat this enemy?

In the spiritual, By prayer and through the Truth.
The Devil cannot bear the Truth which gives liberty to his captives.

[Wallis]

We do not "replace the lie" by attacking. Attacking only entrenches thoughts we think are wrong.

Think of it this way: I attack your belief in Christ because I think you're wrong. What do you do? Shields up; phasers on kill. There is no way that I am going to communicate with you. You are entrenched.

Even as Christ could not convince most of the Pharisees and Sadducees of their "errors," he did not attack them. He held up their actions and thoughts as examples of how not to follow God's Law. But at all times, he witnessed through action and love, not attack. You could cite the one time when he went in and trashed the temple by driving out the moneylenders et al, but then Christ had the authority. We Christians do not.

You also made an interesting comment: salvation comes through pleasing God through works. This is true for Jews, Buddhists, Taoists, Hindus, and a whole lot of Christians. James, the book of straw (as Luther called it), has one good point: faith without works is dead. This is not to say that if one does good works they have faith. Just the opposite: faith inspires one to do good works. God is going to ignore the good works in the end; it is Grace and Faith that saves.

I would surmise the 99 percent of Moslems would disagree with you that martyrdom pleases God in the sense of murder and mayhem. However, just as martyrdom is valued in the Christian world, so it is in the Islam world in this sense only: one dies for the faith under persecution. Think Stephen as he was being stoned for believing in the Christ.

The root of the crisis.

I personally believe that the Christian world has enough crisis roots for us to be worrying about than to pick on another religion. We have so many lies spread by countless wolves in sheep's clothing that are turning Christianity from the Prime Directive, which is to unconditionally love one another. I maintain that we Christians need to concentrate on these lies and leave all things else to God.

The Christian world seems to do very little in promoting its image. We modern Christians tend to think of spreading the message with the sword rather than witnessing through love. Think of the apostles as they set out on a herculean task of spreading the Good News. They brought no armies. They stood alone and did a lot of talking. But when people did not listen, they moved on. They realized that they could not convert people. Only the Holy Spirit can do that.

[malcolan]

SIN: CHRIST vs. ALLAH

In Islam, sin is not something with which Allah is especially concerned. In Islam, Allah is not presented as "holy", at least not in the sense in which Christians understand the idea. The term is used, certainly, but not in the same way as was traditionally understood by the Hebrews concerning Jehovah for thousands of years before Islam, and which was carried into Christianity from it’s beginning. According to Muslim theology, Allah has never provided a way for the sin problem of mankind to be dealt with so that man can be made clean in God's eyes. In fact, Islam does not even recognise that man is a sinner by nature (as odd as this conclusion may appear to anyone who reads the news). Instead, sin is considered to be a "mistake" which people make, and which Allah will forgive when asked (if one is already a Muslim). So yes, Islam does engender an element of seeking God's forgiveness for wrongdoing, just as Christianity does, BUT the differences are much more important than this superficial similarity. The Islamic teaching on getting right with Allah completely ignores true repentance. There is nothing said about making a complete change of life when a person gets right with God. There is nothing about making a conscious choice to avoid sin because that is what God wants and because we are to be holy as God is holy.

In Islam the primary sins which a person can commit and not receive easy forgiveness from Allah for seems to be apostasy from Islam and the refusal to convert to Islam. For these there is little remedy, they are considered moral reprobates and seen as "obviously" inferior. Indeed, it seems that the teaching of Islam on sin is more designed to assure that people do not reject Islam as a politico-religious system than to encourage them to keep themselves from sin. The Islamic teachings on apostasy/disbelief versus other sins appears to be more concerned with advancing Islam as a human system than on turning people towards Allah in any meaningful way.

In Islam, a person commits a sin, and can have this sin forgiven merely by asking, but then can go out and commit the same sin over and over again, each time asking for forgiveness, and having it given. This attitude is quite similar to the attitude exhibited through the confessional by many Roman Catholics. This is also one reason that we see so much violence and corruption in the Muslim world.

"For these, there is hope that Allah will forgive: For Allah doth blot out (sins) and forgive again and again." (Surah 4:99)

For the Christian, the God of the Bible is a holy God. By this we mean that God is completely and unalterably separated from sin. In fact, it is this complete holiness which lies at the very foundation of the necessity of the Christian Gospel. As the Bible tells us, "there is none as holy as the LORD..." (I Samuel 2:2) When the Bible says "none", it really means "none":

"For there is NONE righteous, no, not one: There is NONE that understands, there is NONE that seeks after God." (Romans 3:10-11)

"For ALL have sinned, and come short of the glory of God." (Romans 3:23)

These verses are directed to each and every one of us, individually. ALL of us are sinners, in thought, word, and deed, in attitude and action, by nature and by practice, and fall far short of the glory of God, which is embodied by His holiness, His complete separation from sin. It is this holiness that keeps all of us, sinners that we are, from being able to enter into God's presence in the condition that we are, and which keeps us from being able to enter into heaven when we leave this physical life.

But the Bible also tells us that God provided a way for us to be saved, for us to receive the gift of eternal life and eternal fellowship with Him, in a way that both upholds His holiness while simultaneously exercising His love for mankind, His creation. This is through Jesus Christ, very God yet very man, God incarnated in the likeness of sinful flesh, yet without sin, so that He could take OUR place and suffer God's wrath against sin.

"But God commended His love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ DIED FOR US." (Romans 5:8)

Jesus Christ, who is God, was completely sinless, and He came to earth to take our place, to provide the sacrifice in our place which was needed to propitiate (satisfy) God's wrath against sin. Whereas man cannot ever satisfy God’s holy nature because of our sinfulness, Jesus who is sinless, was able to do so, and faith in His sacrifice and in His resurrection (whereby He also defeated death and hell, and provides eternal life to sinner) is the requirement for the extension of God's grace of salvation to the lost sinner. Further, true repentance is necessary for a sinner to receive grace. It is not enough for a person to merely come to Jesus and say "I'm sorry". There must be a true, heart-felt attitude of repentance, of a desire to not only be cleansed of sin, but also to turn away from it and put it away from your life. Hence, we see the resolution of the seeming paradox between God's love for man and desire for man's fellowship and the fact that man is separated from God because of sin and is under God's wrath against sin.

Praise God, Jesus paid it all! Without His death and resurrection there would be no hope for us. Only through this can God pour out His mercy and grace upon us. There simply is no other way to be right before a holy God, except through the blood of Jesus Christ that was shed on Calvary.

[malcolan]

CONCLUSION:

We’ve looked at several aspects of Islam and it’s holy book, the Qur’an. I think it is safe to say that Islam and Christianity, or for that matter Islam and any other religion, cannot coexist peacefully along side each other for very long at a time, certainly not in our western culture. You’ll remember the quote by a Muslim cleric made on “60 Minutes” that I used in the beginning of this: “Islam and democracy cannot coexist.” Why can’t they? Simply because Islam teaches, that it is the followers of Mohammed’s duty to make converts, if necessary, by force. As Christians, the Bible teaches us that we should make converts with love. We are to love people into the kingdom of God. Can Muslims be saved? Certainly, they can come to Christ and be saved just like everyone else, but it is very hard for them. It is hard for anyone to leave one religion for another, it is especially hard when you know that all your family and friends will turn their backs on you and see you as non-existent at best, or kill you at worst. Should we still try to love them into the kingdom of God? Yes! But we should be ever aware of where they are coming from and how they feel about us. We cannot stick our head in the sand and pretend that just because we show them love that they will love us in return. To use a modern term, they are “brainwashed.”

Now this is all a personal responsibility and a choice as to how we should go about that. But what do you do when your very way of life is being assaulted? Do you just say, “I’m a Christian and we should just love them anyway, no matter what they do.” As an individual, I may have that choice, but as a responsible member of the society that I live in, do I? I think not. It is my responsibility as a Christian and a citizen of a free nation to do what I can to help protect people from those who would destroy our freedom and way of life. How do we do that? Well I certainly will be the first to say that I don’t have all the answers. One thing that we can do is support our nation’s leaders who are trying to do things to protect us. Sometimes that may mean giving up certain of our freedoms for the good of all. Now that sounds like a Christian thought to me! Sometimes we have to sacrifice for others, in this case for our friends and neighbors and fellow citizens, and that may mean making some hard decisions.

In a recent poll on “A Current Affair,” in Australia, the question was asked, “ Should Muslim clerics who preach against the values and culture of our nation be forced to leave the country?” The result was an overwhelming yes. YES 98% NO 2%

On a MSN internet poll an almost identical question was asked, “Should radical clerics who do not share the nations values be deported?” Again it was an overwhelming yes. YES 86% NO 14%

I reiterate, Islam is the fastest growing religion and culture in the world and if they continue at the rate they are going, they will be the majority in the West in the future. At the present rate of growth, Spain will have a Muslim majority in 10 years. How far behind are we? The Netherlands has already begun making laws to protect themselves from this, should we do the same?

What else can we do? I think one of the main things that we can do is to understand that Islam is much more than just a religion. We can be tolerant and accepting of other people’s religious beliefs, but Islam is another culture, another way of life, another type of civilization that has as it’s goal, and is determined to accomplish it, the subjection of the entire world and to rule it with Islamic law (Sharia). That is a very hard concept for us in the western democratic world to understand. We believe in freedom of religion, I certainly do. I believe everyone should have a choice to either receive Christ or to reject Him, but Islam is a whole different ballgame. We must never forget that we are in a war, a spiritual war, against the forces of evil.

There is still much that needs to be said and more will be said in the future I’m sure. As we see things happening around the world with regard to terrorism many of us will have something to say. It is my desire that what I have presented here over the last weeks will make all of us stop and think. Not only about what our commitment to Christ means, but also how we should view what is going on in the world.

God bless each and everyone of you.

[malcolan]

The following is written by a Muslim journalist soon after the 9/11 terrorist attack and is well worth the read:

Islam can't escape blame for September 11
By Amir Taheri, Wall Street Journal, October 24, 2001
Amir Taheri, an Iranian author and journalist, is editor of the Paris-based Politique Internationale.

"This has nothing to do with Islam," British P.M. Tony Blair recently told a delegation of Muslims at a meeting at 10 Downing Street, referring to the Sept. 11 [terrorist] attacks.

Mr. Blair was echoing a view, popular both in Europe and the U.S., that it is impolite, not to say impolitic, to subject Islam to any criticism. Yet to claim that the attacks had nothing to do with Islam amounts to a whitewash. It is not only disingenuous but also a disservice to Muslims, who need to cast a critical glance at the way their faith is taught, lived and practiced.

Even worse, the refusal to subject Islam to rational analysis is a recipe for further fanaticism. Unless we believe those who claim that the Sept. 11 was organized by Israel, we have to assume that Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda were responsible. And since there is no mechanism for excommunication in Islam, bin Laden and his gang have every right to describe themselves as Muslims.

Al Qaeda did not materialize out of thin air. Nor have they been operating in a vacuum. Bin Laden belongs to a prominent Yemeni-Saudi family that makes much of its Islamic credentials. He began his militant career in 1984 as a fund-raiser for Afghans fighting the communist regime in Kabul in the name of Islam. He had offices in a dozen Muslim countries, none of which regarded his activities as un-Islamic.

In 1993 bin Laden was divested of his Saudi passport but was warmly welcomed in Sudan where a fundamentalist regime is in power. Later, bin Laden was the star of an international conference of Muslim fundamentalists organized in Khartoum by the then-strongman Hassan al-Turabi. He was elected a member of the Supreme Council, whose task is to promote a radical brand of Islam throughout the world.

That gave him the right to call himself a "sheik" and issue religious fatwas, or edicts. Again, since there is no clerical hierarchy in Islam, there was no reason why bin Laden could not claim such authority.

Once bin Laden was forced to leave Sudan (under U.S. pressure), he was welcomed in his ancestral homeland of Yemen, another Muslim country. From there he went to Pakistan, the world's second most populous Muslim nation, where he was welcomed not only by the army but also by virtually all of Pakistan's Islamic parties, which continue to support him.

From Pakistan, bin Laden shifted to Afghanistan, where the Taliban had established what they claimed to be "the only truly Islamic government." The Taliban continue to shelter bin Laden to this day, even in the face of U.S. attacks.
To say that bin Laden has nothing to do with Islam and Muslims, therefore, requires a big leap of imagination.
There is more. All but one of the world's remaining military regimes are in Muslim countries.

With the exception of Turkey and Bangladesh, there are no real elections in any Muslim country.

Of the current 30 active conflicts in the world no fewer than 28 concern Muslim governments and/or communities. Two-thirds of the world's political prisoners are held in Muslim countries, which also carry out 80% of all executions each year.

Anyone familiar with textbooks in most Muslim countries would know the twisted view of the world they propagate and the hatred they promote.

Anyone who follows the media in the Muslim world would know that the verbal version of the Sept. 11 attacks is an almost daily fare. Go to the Internet and check the editorials of virtually any Muslim paper on Sept. 10 and see what they were saying about the West in general and the U.S. in particular.

Anyone listening to a sermon in virtually any mosque, including many in the West, would be shocked by the vehemence of the anti-Western, especially anti-American, sentiments expressed.

It is both dishonest and dangerous for Muslims to remain in a state of denial. And yet a state of denial is what we have.

When Iran's Khomeinists burned 600 people alive in a cinema, the whitewashers said that it had nothing to do with Islam. When the same gang took the American diplomats hostage in Tehran, again the whitewash party insisted that had nothing to do with Islam. And when the suicide bombings bloodied Beirut we were told that Islam had nothing to do with them.

The Muslim world today is full of bigotry, fanaticism, hypocrisy and plain ignorance -- all of which create a breeding ground for criminals like bin Laden.

The principal victims of these criminals are Muslims, who are prevented from developing a modern political culture without which they cannot reform their societies and rebuild their economies.

What I am saying is not meant as critique of Islam as a belief system; that's an issue for theologians. What is needed is a critique of Islam as an existential reality. The Sept. 11 tragedies should trigger a rethink of the way Muslims live Islam. We should start with condemning those attacks without "ifs" and "buts."

Sadly, the way we Muslims live Islam today is a far cry from the way our ancestors lived it in the golden age when Islam was a builder of civilization, not a force for repression, terror and destruction.

[Wallis]

Appreciated these last posts.

Just a couple of thoughts and feelings:

1. The Islamic community (at least those who enjoy some room for free speech and thought) has recognized that they have a mess to clean up.

2. It would be so wrong from a Christian perspective to attack the Islamic religion and/or community as a whole, lest we further entrench and encourage the extremists. What's that saying: you can catch more flies with honey than vinegar?

3. I believe that the best thing we Christians can do is pray for our fellow Islamic brothers and sisters of this world and fight the good fight right along side them.

The best way to fight an idea is with a better idea. The best way to convince others that the better idea is indeed better is by living that idea.

[Freedumb]

Catholicism is not Christianity. www.elevanjercito.com has a link on it The Bible & Roman Catholicism. I can't for the life of me figure out how Catholicism has creeped in and screwed up the perspective of so many educated Christians. Though they may have stopped muslims from advancing Catholicism is worse than Islam in the spiritual since. They do greater eternal damage and have spread confusion like a disease right under the noses of the "Christian elite".

[Wallis]

Freedumb,

Many Catholics would, of course, disagree with you and the particular site you included.

Christianity, in a nutshell, is a belief that the Christ died for the sins of mankind, opening the door to salvation. That belief, then, should be living within the breast of the believer, which should be reflected in thought, word, and deed: in other words, believers become Christ-like in life.

The reality of all Christian sects is the trapments, accouterments, and additional requirements that are tacked on to the Core Christian concept. While superfluous, these identifying traits have helped keep heretical (or anti-core) concepts from taking root within Christianity, although arguably not very well.

Rather than condemn a particular sect, such as Roman Catholicism, Christians are called--required, if you will--to accept Catholics as fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, even while rejecting Roman Catholic dogma, practices, and extra-core beliefs. Actions will always speak louder than words; and words will more often than not alienate the very people one is trying to witness to.