Not a Religion of Peace

of all the violence in the world the majority of the offenders are from persons who beleive Jesus is god, the lord !!!!! i would say 90% of the worlds problems comes from this group. just look into it

of all the violence in the world the majority of the offenders are from persons who beleive Jesus is god, the lord !!!!! i would say 90% of the worlds problems comes from this group. just look into it

of all the violence in the world the majority of the offenders are from persons who beleive Jesus is god, the lord !!!!! i would say 90% of the worlds problems comes from this group. just look into it

The difference is that our civilization is post enlightenment and the scriptures merely refer to historical events then and there, which no one considers 'immutable' or 'for all mankind- for all time' as the Koran does. The Muhammed worshippers are enslaved by the insane 'revelations' of a genocidal lunatic, pedophile, slave-master and serial rapist who fought his wars for 'booty which Allah made lawful to him', in other words, out of greed.

No other religious texts mandate world conquest and genocide on Jews and unbelievers.
Islam is worse than the vandals, it is the worlds biggest perversion in the guise of religion.

Unfortunately, this is a discussion that will never end. Only when the Lord comes to save "Israel" and "Rule and Reign" all Muslims will have no other option but to bow their knee and acknowledge that Jesus is the only God and Lord. The Muslim Alah is not blessed and is not God, buy a god of this world.

“The Grand Mosque and the holy city are forbidden to non-Muslims,” Col. Suhail Matrafi, head of the department of Expatriates Affairs in Mecca, told the Saudi daily Arab News. “The new fingerprints system is very helpful and will help us a lot to discover the identity of a lot of criminals,” he said.
Similar restrictions apply to the Saudi city of Medina. In a section entitled, “Traveler’s Information,” the Web site of the Saudi Embassy in Washington states that, “Mecca and Medina hold special religious significance and only persons of the Islamic faith are allowed entry.”
Highway signs at the entrance to Mecca also direct non-Muslims away from the city’s environs.

jim, whens the last time you were in a mosque in iran or saudi arabia?
were intelligent people in here- respect that enough to substantiate what you say-
the reasonable muslims who denounce violence are all over these boards, all over the internet- the media (sadly american media doesnt broadcast it- it makes dull copy) and the world

if it eases your anxiety, please let me assure you that i denounce personally hate-mongering from any quarter- muslim or other

peace to you

If Islam is such a peaceful religion, why are so many of their their religious leaders in Iran, Iraq, and Saudi preaching terrorism and violence in their Friday sermons? Where are the outraged Muslims who condemn their statements?

what i the world is your point?

IF the tamil tigers were mostly muslim?

what are you going on about? that makes no sense

Ras Mannan:

You forget that Hindu India sent its (mostly) Hindu troops to Sri Lanka to fight the Tamil Tigers alongside the Sri Lanka armed forces. We paid the price of fighting the Tamil Tigers. One of these terrorists killed our Primer Minister, Rajiv Gandhi which was a huge loss for India. I can bet you that if the Tamil Tigers were mostly Muslims, Islamic terrorists from Muslim countries would be fighting the Sri Lankan army and you would really end up with a divided Sri Lanka.

Chuck Colson is right about Islam being a violent religion. It was spread by the sword and it believes in aggressively converting or conquering "infidels". This infidel mentality has landed Muslims in their current predicament where the the rest of the world views them with suspicion. There is a negative image in the world regarding Islam--no question about it. This starts with the infidel philosophy which the Muslims have practiced for centuries. The philosophy is flawed. If you push me away by calling names and creating divisions, then the gap between you and me will increase. It's tautological. Therefore, I must conclude that the the Koran in wrong and it is a false prophet and a God that recommends divisions between man and man. No question about it.

actually- i dont think you even read the whole thing-

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Friday April 27th, 2007

20 Nation Poll Finds Strong Global Consensus: Support for Free Market System, But also More Regulation of Large Companies

Muslims Believe US Seeks to Undermine Islam

Majorities Want US Forces Out of Islamic Countries
And Approve of Attacks on US Troops

Most Support Enhancing Role of Islam in Their Society,
But Also Favor Globalization and Democracy

Full Report (PDF)
Questionnaire (PDF)

in-depth poll of four major Muslim countries has found that in all of them large majorities believe that undermining Islam is a key goal of US foreign policy. Most want US military forces out of the Middle East and many approve of attacks on US troops there.

Most respondents have mixed feelings about al Qaeda. Large majorities agree with many of its goals, but believe that terrorist attacks on civilians are contrary to Islam.

There is strong support for enhancing the role of Islam in all of the countries polled, through such measures as the imposition of sharia (Islamic law). This does not mean that they want to isolate their societies from outside influences: Most view globalization positively and favor democracy and freedom of religion.

These findings are from surveys in Egypt, Morocco, Pakistan, and Indonesia conducted from December 2006 to February, 2007 by WorldPublicOpinion.org with support from the START Consortium at the University of Maryland.

Large majorities across all four countries believe the United States seeks to “weaken and divide the Islamic world.” On average 79 percent say they perceive this as a US goal, ranging from 73 percent in Indonesia and Pakistan to 92 percent in Egypt. Equally large numbers perceive that the United States is trying to maintain “control over the oil resources of the Middle East” (average 79%). Strong majorities (average 64%) even believe it is a US goal to “spread Christianity in the region.”

“While US leaders may frame the conflict as a war on terrorism, people in the Islamic world clearly perceive the US as being at war with Islam,” said Steven Kull, editor of WorldPublicOpinion.org.

Consistent with this concern, large majorities in all countries (average 74%) support the goal of getting the United States to “remove its bases and military forces from all Islamic countries,” ranging from 64 percent in Indonesia to 92 percent in Egypt.

Substantial numbers also favor attacks on US troops in Iraq, Afghanistan, and in the Persian Gulf. Across the four countries polled approximately half support such attacks in each location, while three in ten are opposed. But there is substantial variation between countries: Support is strongest in Egypt, where at least eight in ten approve of attacking US troops in the region. A majority of Moroccans also support targeting US forces, whether stationed in the Persian Gulf (52%) or fighting in Iraq (68%). Pakistanis are divided about attacks on the American military—many do not answer or express mixed feelings—while Indonesians oppose them.

(THIS IS SPECIFICALLY TROOPS)

However, respondents roundly reject attacks on civilians. Asked about politically-motivated attacks on civilians, such as bombings or assassinations, majorities in all countries—usually overwhelming majorities—take the strongest position offered by saying such violence cannot be justified at all. More than three out of four Indonesians (84%), Pakistanis (81%), and Egyptians (77%) take this position, as well as 57 percent of Moroccans (an additional 19 percent of Moroccans say such attacks can only be “weakly justified”).

Attitudes toward Al Qaeda are complex. On average, only three in ten view Osama bin Laden positively. Many respondents express mixed feelings about bin Laden and his followers and many others decline to answer.

There is strong disapproval of attacks by “groups that use violence against civilians, such as al Qaeda.” Large majorities in Egypt (88%), Indonesia (65%) and Morocco (66%) agree that such groups “are violating the principles of Islam.” Pakistanis are divided, however, with many not answering.

But there is also uncertainty about whether al Qaeda actually conducts such attacks. On average less than one in four believes al Qaeda was responsible for September 11th attacks. Pakistanis are the most skeptical—only 3 percent think al Qaeda did it. There is no consensus about who is responsible for the attacks on New York and Washington; the most common answer is “don’t know.”

Most significantly, large majorities approve of some of al Qaeda’s principal goals. Large majorities in all countries (average 70 percent or higher) support such goals as: “stand up to Americans and affirm the dignity of the Islamic people,” “push the US to remove its bases and its military forces from all Islamic countries,” and “pressure the United States to not favor Israel.”

Equally large majorities agree with goals that involve expanding the role of Islam in their society. On average, about three out of four agree with seeking to “require Islamic countries to impose a strict application of sharia,” and to “keep Western values out of Islamic countries.” Two-thirds would even like to “unify all Islamic counties into a single Islamic state or caliphate.”
(THIS IS IN REGARDS TO MUSLIM COUNTRIES SELF DETERMINATION)
But this does not appear to mean that the publics in these Muslim countries want to isolate themselves from the larger world. Asked how they feel about “the world becoming more connected through greater economic trade and faster communication,” majorities in all countries say it is a good thing (average 75%). While wary of Western values, overall 67 percent agree that “a democratic political system” is a good way to govern their country and 82 percent agree that in their country “people of any religion should be free to worship according to their own beliefs.”

The surveys were conducted between December 9, 2006 and February 15, 2007 using in-home interviews. In Morocco (1,000 interviews), Indonesia (1,141 interviews), and Pakistan (1,243 interviews) national probability samples were conducted covering both urban and rural areas. However, Pakistani findings reported here are based only upon urban respondents (611 interviews); rural respondents were unfamiliar with many of the issues in the survey. In Egypt, the sample (1,000 interviews) was an urban sample drawn probabilistically from seven governorates. Sample sizes of 1,000 – 1,141 have confidence intervals of +/- 3 percentage points; a sample size of 611 has a confidence interval of +/-4 percentage points.
April 23, 2007
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1000+
1,141+
1,243+
1000+
~~~~~~~~~
4,375 TOTAL POLLED

out of a world population of

1,500,000,000 muslims- 4,375 have expressed opinions in a poll where the questions are controlled by the pollsters- and STILL overwhelmingly disageree with terrorism being islamic-

1.5 billion to 4thousand375

well done deb! you have proven conclusively that some muslims somewhere believe the US undermines islam , and wants our soldiers out of their countries.

and dont forget this little gem-
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
" Pakistan (1,243 interviews) national probability samples were conducted covering both urban and rural areas. However, Pakistani findings reported here are based only upon urban respondents (611 interviews); rural respondents were unfamiliar with many of the issues in the survey."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

here, HALF of the respondents didnt even know what the issues (or questions asked) were!

you really REALLY should read stuff before you post it

and id say my mood is much more aptly described as mildly bemused, as opposed to rancorous pleonasm.

deb- this was a poll of pakistan- egypt-morocco and indonesia- and a total of less than 5000 polled altogether-
and even in those overwhelmingly islamic countries- STILL 82% of the less than 5000 agree on religious freedom of worship-

SUPPORT FOR ATTACKS ON CIVILIANS
Morocco 2.6%
Egypt 7.8%
Pakistan 1.4%
Indonesia 1.3%

so your analysis that this represents all the muslims in the world opinion is so outrageous by any standards of scholarship - also your OWN article disproves what you surmise!

also you left out the part where many of those polled didnt even know what al-qaeda stood for to have an opinion-

so from a statistical analysis perspective- this is a laughabie interpretation by any standards-

the conclusions you reached arent at all the conclusions of the pollsters-

ill just reprint the whole thing and let people decide for themselves

Deb:

"Islam and Free Speech are diametrically opposite."

Why are so many people in the West unable to differentiate between cultural restrictions in the garb of religion and the view point of the unadulterated religion? Its a bit hard to expect the Mullah to tolerate dissent and free speech when the local dictator, Shah, Royal Sultan of a million concubines, persecutes people for voicing the slightest criticism of his policies.

To compare the events in societies and nation that either continue to be misgoverned and repressive or have only recently shed that yoke, to those in the West that went through the same phase hundreds of years ago is not an intellectually honest analysis.

And by the way, most conservative Christian organizations and groups do protest artistic endeavors that they believe are offensive or incorrectly portray their religion. They may not go burn down the Mall of America, and neither did any Muslim immigrants during the cartoon protest, but they do protest and quite vociferously. Tune into any conservative Christian talk show on the radio and TV and you will find the same sort of intolerance that you seem to ascribe to Muslims only.
The difference is that this country has an effective system of checks and balances, several hundred years of developing those systems, and effective means of enforcing them.

Deb:
"In my reading, precisely these views are very dangerous for USA and US citizens."

Thats sort of like putting the cart before the horse. So if a person believes that another is out to undermine and even potentially destroy him or her, he or she should not retaliate or express views supporting such action that would result in the minimization of such a threat?

If Muslims believe that the U.S is undermining them then why would they not want the U.S out of Muslim countries? Why would they not support attacks on U.S troops they believe are occupying Muslim countries?

It's all a question of context really. Apparently a large percentage of Muslims (based on this poll), correctly or not, believe the U.S is actively conspiring against them and within that context of being under attack I find the responses perfectly acceptable that attacks on U.S forces should continue and that the U.S should be driven out of the region.

Within the American context of the "War on Terror" a similar sentiment of "destroy the enemy" runs deep as well, with all the prerequisite chest thumping, hysteria and calls for "the enemies blood". To criticize those Muslims who view the U.S as a threat for expressing similar sentiments smacks of hypocrisy.

Now as far as "supporting Al Qaeda" is concerned, I would love if they also asked those people who supported it, what they actually thought Al Qaeda did in its "struggle" against the U.S. A majority do not even believe the group was behind the WTC attacks. Without understanding their impressions about Al Qaeda, only egregious conclusions, about their motivations behind supporting the group, can be drawn.

Islam and Free Speech are diametrically opposite. I think if Muslim population (typically Pakistani, Saudi Arabia and others like) increases inside USA, then we shall see something like:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/04/26/pakistan.burqa.reut/index.html

USA is used to having films in public theatres like "The Last Temptation of Christ" and "The DaVinci Code". These hit the bedrock of the Christian faith, and I am yet to see Christian groups killing non-Christians or liberal atheists. What would have been the fate of Sam Harris if he wrote the book END OF FAITH in a Muslim majority country ?

Victoria wrote:

"NOWHERE does it say muslims want to impose shariah law worldwide, or support al-qaeda"

It sure does say that majority (of Muslims) support the goals of Al Qaeda, and increase in attacks on US troops, because in the linked page we clearly find the following lines:

"Muslims Believe US Seeks to Undermine Islam

Majorities Want US Forces Out of Islamic Countries And Approve of Attacks on US Troops

Large Majorities Agree With Many Goals of Al Qaeda
But Oppose Attacks on Civilians

Most Support Enhancing Role of Islam in Their Society, But Also Favor Globalization and Democracy"

In my reading, precisely these views are very dangerous for USA and US citizens.

Since the link is not bogus (i.e. it is genuine), let the readers visit the link and decide for themselves.

Victoria:

Obviously you are a pathological case depicted by your penchant for rancorous verbiage.

Yes, I have stated that increased Muslim immigrantion could be potentially dangerous for USA. And they should not be here if they owe allegiance to Islam over US Constitution. I stand by what I wrote.

You, who wants to wave her Muslim flag (cresent preferred over stars and stripes) all the time to annoy others, is probably not an immigrant; so unfortunately my remarks would not apply to you or to Muslims like John Walker Lindh, Adam Yahyie Gadahn, unfortunately. (They are citizens by birth, like you.) Immigrants like Sami Al Arian, Mohamed Reza Taheri-Azar (naturalized US citizen) are of course under suspicion and should be swiftly deported back to their country of origin.

Get real !

"An in-depth poll of four major Muslim countries has found that in all of them large majorities believe that undermining Islam is a key goal of US foreign policy."

Winning hearts and minds indeed....

Perhaps I missed it (and I may very well have, being preoccupied with finals and all..), but was there extensive coverage of this poll in the U.S media like there is when a new poll comes out showing that Muslims support Al Qaeda (without showing information about what those Muslims think Alqaeda is and what it is responsible for)?

Any coverage of the thousands of people in the two largest cities in Pakistan protesting the pronouncements of enforcing Sharia Law by another Mullah thug? I hear all these people in the West decrying a lack of "show" from "moderate Muslims", yet their protests are barely mentioned. Lets make sure we headline the extremists though...

So is it not true then that the "push back" from "moderate" Muslims exists, indeed has existed all along, but it is just not sensational enough to headline and not violent enough to make for good television. I mean come on, no effigy burning, klashnikov firing, ransacking of public property..oh wait; its the "moderates", thats the kind of behavior they're protesting....

Muslims Believe US Seeks to Undermine Islam

An in-depth poll of four major Muslim countries has found that in all of them large majorities believe that undermining Islam is a key goal of US foreign policy. Most want US military forces out of the Middle East and many approve of attacks on US troops there.

Most respondents have mixed feelings about al Qaeda. Large majorities (3 in 10 polled)agree with many of its goals, but believe that terrorist attacks on civilians are contrary to Islam.
Most view globalization positively and favor democracy and freedom of religion.

These findings are from surveys in Egypt, Morocco, Pakistan, and Indonesia

Large majorities across all four countries believe the United States seeks to “weaken and divide the Islamic world.” On average 79 percent say they perceive this as a US goal, ranging from 73 percent in Indonesia and Pakistan to 92 percent in Egypt. Equally large numbers perceive that the United States is trying to maintain “control over the oil resources of the Middle East” (average 79%). Strong majorities (average 64%) even believe it is a US goal to “spread Christianity in the region.”

“While US leaders may frame the conflict as a war on terrorism, people in the Islamic world clearly perceive the US as being at war with Islam,” said Steven Kull, editor of WorldPublicOpinion.org.
. While wary of Western values, overall 67 percent agree that “a democratic political system” is a good way to govern their country and 82 percent agree that in their country “people of any religion should be free to worship according to their own beliefs.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
82% AGREE FREEDOM TO WORSHIP
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The surveys were conducted between December 9, 2006 and February 15, 2007 using in-home interviews. In Morocco (1,000 interviews), Indonesia (1,141 interviews), and Pakistan (1,243 interviews) national probability samples were conducted covering both urban and rural areas. However, Pakistani findings reported here are based only upon urban respondents (611 interviews); rural respondents were unfamiliar with many of the issues in the survey. In Egypt, the sample (1,000 interviews) was an urban sample drawn probabilistically from seven governorates. Sample sizes of 1,000 –

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

DEB, this is the article you cited-
NOWHERE does it say muslims want to impose shariah law worldwide, or support al-qaeda

you make conjectures that YOUR OWN ARTICLE DOESNT SUPPORT-

SUPPORT FOR ATTACKS ON CIVILIANS
Morocco 2.6%
Egypt 7.8%
Pakistan 1.4%
Indonesia 1.3%

Requiring Sharia Law in ISLAMIC COUNTRIES

Morocco 35%
Egypt 50%
Pakistan 54%
Indonesia 17%

Deb, you know as well as i, that if you post a link, most people will just assume it is validating your points, many times without even looking at it-

but YOU are posting a link that invalidates your posits-

first, this is a tiny poll of strictly muslim countries (1000 to 1300 people)

second- overwhelmingly even those polled favor democracy and freedom of religious worship

no where is eventual islamization of the planet even mentioned- you just made that up

and it is completely hilarious that you, as an immigrant, are telling other immigrants to GIT OUT AND GO BACK TO THEIR COUNTRY

you are like the archie bunker of this site
dont know who he is?
that means you havent been here very long
im born here, and ive never told anyone to GIT OUT

america love it or leave it- as i recall

mercy deb, next rant- dont provide the debunking material yourself, ok?
or do so- its too easy

OUT

I have repeatedly stated that Islam is a very barbaric and violent religion. Its goal is to spread the control of Islam to un-Islamic lands. Also, it advocates stricter control in those lands which is already majority Muslim (i.e. Islamic). The 9/11 events, followed by Iraq and Afghanistan war has gravitated the situation very badly. The thing that I see is Americans feeling guilty that they have a wrong perception of Islam, and appear apologetic to Muslims. This actually caves into the impossible demands of Muslims and Muslim countries. Maybe US Govt. would start doling out Federal $$$ for the annual pilgrimage to Mecca for Muslims living in USA. Call it political correctness and I call that appeasement of the minority (Muslims who are < 1% of the US population).

Despite being labelled as anti-Islam, anti-Muslim, anti-this, anti-that we still see visa applications from Muslims desiring to enter USA when, according to the general opinion of Muslims about USA and US foreign policies, USA is viewed as largely anti-Islam. Well, if that be so, why do you want to come here ? Why don't you stay back in your birth countries and serve Islam rather than living here in USA with deep-seated resentment ? Because of ever expanding Muslim presence, I have found that the once-cherished free-speech in USA is on its way to become a token museum piece. That of course, pleases followers of Allah, but not hard-nosed secularist sinners like me.

The general opinion in the Muslim world is that the Shariah law needs to be enforced and a support for Al-Qaeeda's general objectives and long-term goals which includes eventual Islamization of the planet, amongst many things. There is however, NO support for attacks on unarmed civilians and this is considered an act that is "haram" (forbidden) in Islam.

The appropriate website for the information is:

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/home_page/346.php?nid=&id=&pnt=346&lb=hmpg1

And, the blabber that columnists like Pamela Taylor and other pan-Islamists dish out are either reflective of their ignorance or they are plain obfuscators, here to promote the Islamic agenda of the Shariah in covert ways.

CHAUHAN

You say that Jesus was just a "simple saint" and then you say "he never really died on the cross" If Jesus lied about His core reason for coming to earth, how could we possible regard him as a saint.

Jesus said prior to His crucifiction:

"As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up; so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life.

"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

"For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.

"He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

"This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil."

Jesus
John 3:14-19

What did Jesus save us from? Our natural proclivity for sin. "For all have sinned and come short of the Glory of God" and "The wages of sin is death."

Paul could not create the story of Christ as we know it, although he did explain a lot of the mystery about the Grace of God's love.

The things that happened to Jesus did not take place in secret. He did not come stumbling out of a cave claiming to have heard from the Angel Gabriel.

Christ's life, ministry, crucifiction and resurrection all happened out in the open in the light of day and were witnessed by the masses. Any untruths could have been easily quashed according to eyewitness accounts.

He did bear our sins. He did rise from the dead. He does sit at the right hand of God and He will come again.

These are the facts and every person born into this world must deal with them.

P.S. When Jesus cried "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me" He was quoting scripture in accordance with prophecy. The scripture comes from Psalm 22, written 700 years before His birth. Read the passage. It details in specifics the agony Jesus would endure on the cross, even down to the soldiers casting lots for his garments.

It is a shame that Mr. Colson is claiming to know a lot about Islam while it appears he know very little about the essence of the religion itself.

His remarks about the violent history of Islam mixes religion with politics. Doesn't Christianity have a violent history too? Didn't the church/pope encourage and call for many violent crusades that killed many Christians and Muslims? In fact many scholars argue that the real reason behind the crusades was the violent destruction of the eastern church in order to guarantee the dominance of the Pope in Rome. None the less, the is not an indication of the violent nature of Christianity itself. In the same way, Islam is a religion that calls for peace and harmony with others. In fact, the Quran only allows use of force in self defense and in retaliation of aggression. Of course some men use that to explain unacceptable acts of violence but that exists in all religions and is not a proof of the religion itself being violent.

Another false claim is that Islam does not respect pluralism. In fact Islam clearly accepts Christianity and Judaism while the opposite is not always true. Also, under the rule of the Islamic empire many other faith lived and flourished securely including Hindus and others.

As for the fourth comment about the particularly violent factions that uses Islam to justify their violent actions, well it is by no means a proof of the religion being violent and it is no different than a Christian, a Jew or a Hindu trying to reinterpret the teaching of his/her faith to justify any violence he/she might be ready to commit. It just proofs that theses individuals are violent not the religion itself.

Finally, the very meaning of the word Islam is to surrender. In other words to surrender yourself to god the creator. The Quran calls numerous times in its text for the individual to be kind to his fellow human and to practice acts of generosity in their daily lives. This is the true spirit of the religion and core of its message not the violent words of the few that falsely claim to represent it.

Anonymous wrote:
"Jesus as God's Son who was crucified and raised from the dead so that they can be saved".

Can you prove he was son of God or raised from the dead[when he never really died on the cross]?
How can he save any one, when he couldn't save himself.
His last cry," Why have you [God]forsaken me"
Shows that he was just a simple saint later created by Paul to be the son of God.
He Saved people from what?

Using theology one can claim anything ;even claim the the Sun goes around the Earth.
Chauhan

Chuck,

Thanks for being bold enough to speak the truth even though what you are saying is not PC. It is refreshing to hear the truth from someone who is well known. We have too many cowards in our country that will not speak the truth or hold to their convictions. I pray that all Muslims would see Jesus as God's Son who was crucified and raised from the dead so that they can be saved.

Good idea. Why doesn't On Faith invite Robert Spencer to contribute? Or Irshad Manji? Or Ayaan Hirsi Ali? Or many others to counter all the nonsense that people like Pamela Taylor come up with.

Well, well, well. It took Newsweek and the Washington Post long enough to pose the one existentially big religious question of our time to this generous forum. As it turns out, Chuck Colson and Raymond Ibrahim may independently and separately agree on this point: in comparing Christian theology and ethics with Islamic theology and ethics and then comparing Christianity's history with Islam's history, one can only come to the conclusion that "it is the Crusaders —- not the jihadists —- who have contradicted their religion.":

http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/ibrahim040607.html

For some reason, I'm not surprised that Jihad Watch director Robert Spencer hasn't contributed his response to this latest "On Faith" topic, using some of the most important discoveries he has made in his quest for 'The Truth About Muhammad...' such as the Battle of Badr, the adultery accusations against Aisha, the jihadi raid against the Jews of Khaybar, and the jizya for dhimmis in Muslim lands. (I like to call that last concept the Islamic version of income redistribution.) As for Christianity, Jesus could have been the most evil man who ever lived -- and I would not be surprised to learn that there are SOME people who actually believe such an assertion -- and NOTHING about Jesus' life would tell us anything about Muhammad's life. Can we start cleansing ourselves of this political correctness now... BEFORE President Armageddon pushes "the button," if you all catch my drift?

Wow, what a collage of junk. We have everyone quoting from the Bible, old and new, clearly out of context and using it to crucify Christianity itself. Well, let me give you all a quick lesson on Christianity. It is to be Christ-like. So if your life is not exactly like His, you are not His follower. Let me use a Scripture to clarify: 1 John 2:4 He who says "I know HIM" and does not keep HIS commandments is a liar and the truth is not in him. Now, we all have free will. It is my will to post her, not God's will. God's will is clearly illustrated in the Bible. No other place. For the people who say they "heard from God", well, we can hear from many places. Ourselves, others, God, Satan, demons. So if it does not line up with Scripture, you did not hear it from God. So it is my will to post here, not His. Just as it is my free will to bomb abortion houses, not God's. Just as it is President Bush's free will to invade Iraq, not God's. BTW, the Revelation references are to the "Locusts" that sting men for 6 months. Not to you or I. Get it right if you are going to quote it.

BIBLE : TORTURE NON-BELIEVERS.

(i) Torture non-believers, but don't hurt trees

723. "4. And it was commanded them that they should not hurt the grass of the earth, neither any green thing, neither any tree; but only those men which have not the seal of God in their fore heads. "
- Revelation, 9/4
According to Holy Bible, the value of a man's life is less than that of the grass, and the trees!

(ii) Don't kill non-believers, but torture them

124. "5. And to them it was given that they should not kill them, but that they should be tormented five months; and their torment was as the torment of a scorpion, when he striketh a man."
-Revelation, 95

The problem with all monotheistic religions is that they are inherently supremacist and intolerant. To see their adherents pointing fingers at each other would be funny, except for all the carnage.

A quick point that I wanted to make about Chucky Colson: Isn't this a guy who served a prison sentence for his role in Watergate? This guy was the Chief Counsel for Nixon. He is one of the guys who tried to undermine our democracy here in the U.S.

And isn't he someone who has now made it his life's work to reduce the violence in what he would term "a Christian Nation"?

Those violent criminals he is trying to rehabilitate in prison aren't Muslims. They are Christians. Now some of you will say that these criminals aren't "true Christians". But Muslims could claim the same thing.

Deb Chatterjee,

Your response was a very good one. Since I am not familiar with the religious text in Hinduism, I can not refute what you are stating here. I will take your word. And I will say that as far as I have seen, no radical Hindu quotes directly from his/her holy book to justify their violent actions.

It is sad that Islamic radicals quote the Quran to justify their violent actions. But I still maintain that Christian radicals do the same thing in justifying violence or condemning anyone who opposes their belief that Jesus Christ is the literal son of god.

Can you fathom how a group of people believe that Gandhi is condemned to Hell because he did not proclaim Jesus Christ as his lord and saviour?

Or that little babies that never made it to baptism due to unforeseen death are now burning in hell?

What kind of people hold such crazy beliefs? The answer is people no different than nuts hiding in caves promising 72 virgins to suicide bombers.

i would like to make note that i just finished my afternoon prayer- so that is my state of mind in this composition-

also this happens 5 times a day, so at least 5 times a day i have this reasonable attitude(however i am inclined to believe the reason overlaps from prayer to prayer)

Muslims comprise the most diverse population of any grouping on the planet, yet people still persist in believing fox news perceptions-

id say the proof is in the pudding-

witness the very apparent examples on these boards-

where do you see angry and abusive muslims here?

do you see muslims name calling and castigating others?
acting impolitely, judging others, slandering others?

id say there is a disproportionate amount of reasonable response to overt aggression here-

and yet it doesnt strike anyone as indicative of islamic manners and behavior?

while i see a preponderance of verbal violence against muslims-

is this verbal violence and abuse answered back in reciprocal manner?

there are even those who mislead others by using arabic names, and then propagating outright hatred and vitriol-

has anyone seen a corollary malice in return?

or even anger?

if islam is filled with out of control emotional and anger filled adherents, why dont we see any evidence of it here?

people respond with outright irrational emotions controlling their every word- but the muslims remain reasoned.

it is a phenomenon that certainly deserves mention and attention.

peace all

Anonymous,

The post about 'Brightenment' is under my signature. Sorry for the mix-up.

Anonymous,

Your point of April 24 at 2:56 a.m., whther Islam is capable of Enlightenment.

I shall amaze you by saying that what is happening in the Muslim world these days is not just Enlightenemtn but 'Brightenment'. I agree that it is still tenuous, but it is fast gaining ground and bcoming consolidated and self-aware.

What is 'Brightenment'? That is a movement that The Brights (in part led by Daniel Dennnett) sought to launch, but then they became fundamentalist atheists rather than spiritual agnostics or spiritual seekers-after-truth (what Muslims would call sufis). In the spirit of Jala-ud-Din Rumi, Omar Khayyam, Allama Muhammad Iqbal and other luminaries, the Muslims who are behind the Brihtenment movement re-read (not revise) the Quran in light of current and announced scientific and technological developments, question themselves whether there really are irreconcilable differences with not only verifiable facts but with 'the known knowns, the unknown knowns, the known unknwons, and the unknown un knowns'. They seek to define the limits of the knowable and gauge the extent of the unknowable.
It seems to me (but I don't exclude the possibility that I am dismissed as crazy or a heretic) that these Sufis are ready to explore the concept of God as the Ultimate Consciousness, and are ready to use artificial intelligence and quantum computing concepts and methods to settle whether this modern concept of God actually contradicts the hundred names of Allah that Muslims have always been taught to recite in adoration of their Creator.

It appears that many of the arguments on this page deal with history of violence in religions. I'd like to point out that Mr. Colson was primarily addressing the beliefs and secondarily mentioned the history of violence in Islam while admitting that Christians had been violent in the past as well. He didn't condone either side.

If we're really trying to understand what the beliefs are of a religion, we should look at what the scriptures say, rather than argue that Muslims blow things up or Christians act like morons. This was brought up to be an intelligent discussion, not a finger-pointing, religion-bashing spree.

Since it's been addressed very little, and since I actually care to have an answer rather than proselytize, could someone please address what the Q'ran actually says about violence towards non-believers?

I've also heard of a rule that you use when studying the Q'ran that whatever is dated later in the scriptures trumps earlier writings. What, then, is the latest scripural reference about violence, in context?

Robert,

I am awfully sorry, but you cannot make accusations without substantiating them, as I do with the arguments I put forth. I substantiate my arguments by source (most often secondary, mocern historians of excellent repute, at other times primary historians who, like Xenophon and Thucidides and Ibn Khaldun, Al Biruni and Ibn Battuta, accompanied generals in their campigns [ many of these being defensive or counter-offensive]), by numbers (200,000 tents -- in modern terms households -- Kharakanids who converted in one single collective gesture) and by dates.

Please do the same or else I shall just stop the exchange. You are of course entitled to your opinion, and I am not trying to convert you or even deliver The Message to you (there are others better qualified than me to do that). I am just telling the truth the way the authorities I quoted would be telling them to you if they were participating in this debate.

I wish you all the very best and God Bless!

BigD:

Sorry bro, I would have to do some more research. But for now, yea, let's go with the broad approach.

Robert wrote:

"They don't burn efigees of Bush. Instead they burn efigees of Richard Gere for jokingly kissing a Bollywood star on camera."

I agree with you. But, such actions cannot be justified by quoting any religious text (in the Hindu tradition) that have been considered as canonical. Islamic radicals do quote the Quran to show directly that their actions are religiously valid.

at least Jacob is agreeing with you.

now lets hear another angry/profane response!

Russel D -

So you are talking in a broad sense then. Common beliefs held by many religions. Not anything specific that Jesus taught - like a quote or something?

This would be a very funny debate were it not a symptom of what causes people to kill each other.

The magical beings that I believe in are better than the magical beings that you do. And I will kill you if you do not believe in the beings that I believe in.

What idiocy!

This is the 21st Century people! Get a grip. Go read a book on Physics.

Jacob:

You Da' MAN!

Anon:

What, hard to believe? Comedy?

I laugh everytime I read the Bible. Thas Funny S**t right there!

To Chuck,

Thanks for having the courage not to be politically correct and to speak the truth. Muhammed was a violent man,many of his actions and teachings were violent, and the religion he founded has expanded mostly through violence.
Although Jesus was not a violent man, many of his followers were violent, and much of Christianity expanded through violence.

It seems to me that those people who point out the violence in the history of Christianity, are incapable of understanding the violence associated with the spread of Islam. They need to read some history books on the spread of Islam. Half of Europe and Asia was conquered by Muslim armies until they were pushed back. Buddhism was entirely wiped out from India, the place of its birth, because of the Muslim conquests.
As an American I acknowledge the violence perpetrated by successive American governments against other peoples over several hundred years. To the Muslims of the world - you also need to acknowledge the violence perpetrated by your regimes on one another and on non-Muslims. No group has clean hands. Take responsibility for the unclean hands of the group of which you are a part.

Jesus, a "notable Christian advocate". Core teachings from Buddism. Viable.

Where else can you go to get comedy this good?

To anonymous:
You pretty well summed up what I think is the case:
"

I think the question shouldn't be whether Islam is a violent religion or not, but rather if it is capable of something akin to "The Enlightenment".

As much as some Christians have fought against it, the Enlightenment is what separates us from our medieval forbearers. It is also what seems to separate us from our Muslim contemporaries

Another question would be whether Islam is capable of any sort of critical analysis or introspection. Frankly, any religion that can't stand even the mildest criticism of its founder lacks any claim to intellectual honesty."

BigD:

For starters, love your fellow man, peace, nonviolence.

I am not sure which text would have that ine there, as the texts are guarded, but the sect of Buddhism that I have been around for the last 20 some odd years follows some of the teachings of the Lotus Sutra. I am sure you can google it.

Russel D -

Which core teachings of Christianity come from Buddhism? Can you give me any sources that cite them in Buddhist tradition before Jesus? I really am just curious not saying you are right or wrong.

I'd like to chime in on the little conversation between Believer and Norrie:

Norrie said Buddha was more enlightened than Jesus. Believer said no. Who is right? Who is wrong? Hard to tell, but if you look into the past, there is a viable theory that Jesus studied Buddhism before becoming a notable Christian advocate. In fact, some of the core teachings of Christianity come from Buddhism. Hmmmmm, coincidence?

Glen, Islam may limit freedom of speech, but that is not different than Christianity. Do not confuse a secular government from religion.

Christianity at its core, is no less violent or radical than Islam. It certainly is more rigid.

Example: Only recently has the church changed its position on where dead babies go if they have yet to be baptized. Until recently, they did not go to heaven because they were sinful. One of your revered saints said that they went to HELL.

Now, 2000 years later, your christian leader says that they go to heaven after all. Now sending unbaptized babies to hell isn't exactly my idea of a peace loving and humane faith.

Mohamed Malleck, Let me just say that I do not intend to be malicious towards your faith. I respect your view points and feel that you are very articulately sticking it to the radical Hindu here.

But I have to point out the truth in history. Mohammad was a great man and a prophet for the arabs. But they did conquer lands with the sword with the intent on converting these people to islam. If you converted, you were spared but given second-class citizenship and in some cases were made to slaves. This is a fact. History can't be altered. You can try to explain it away, but truth be told, Islam and Christianity have very violent histories triggered by their leaders. And I'm sad to say that Mohammad was one of those leaders.

Deb Chatterjee, oh yes and radical Hindus are nothing like radical muslims. They don't burn efigees of Bush. Instead they burn efigees of Richard Gere for jokingly kissing a Bollywood star on camera.

Truth is your faith is just as crazy as Christianity and Islam. Radical Hindus are some of the most violent people in the world. It is simply a FACT.

Also, when you start telling people to watch something on Fox News to confirm your point, then people really do figure you out quite easily.

I think the question shouldn't be whether Islam is a violent religion or not, but rather if it is capable of something akin to "The Enlightenment".

As much as some Christians have fought against it, the Enlightenment is what separates us from our medieval forbearers. It is also what seems to separate us from our Muslim contemporaries

Another question would be whether Islam is capable of any sort of critical analysis or introspection. Frankly, any religion that can't stand even the mildest criticism of its founder lacks any claim to intellectual honesty.

This is the problem with efforts to encourage dialogue in this nation: dialogue must be a two way street. Burning down embassies and rioting in the streets over something as silly as danish cartoons doesn't inspire a great deal of confidence in Islam's committment to peace, tolerance, freedom, etc.

Ras Mannan:

I have NO bad personal experiences with Muslims. But, that does not mean I shall not hate the ideology/doctrine.

Just as, conversely, you (probably) don't hate Hindu beliefs/traditons, but must hate the bloody murders that Mr. Pirbhakaran is orchestrating to get a separate Hindu state within Sri Lanka. I don't support terrorism to achieve such objectives.

Its that simple.

Jacob

Respectfully, you are speaking rubbish on Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists in Sri Lanka and my country. I live there. Deb Chatterjee and you do not. Respectfully do not comment on the violence in Sri Lanka anymore.

for scholars only.
those who they suckled and fed at the school of father and son who spared and spelled his son blood all over the world for the sin of mankind are in serious need to wash their bloody ideaology befor coming to the table of dialogue.

Human beings are simply a violent species of animal. We use religion among other ideas as justification/excuses for our greed and violence.

Religious people of all stripes and varieties from all parts of the world at all points in history turn to violence to get their way.

The main reason that Western/American judeo-christians are not more violent to one another is our level of material comfort. I.E., we all have something to lose.

Sadly, it is that simple.

richt on chuck.

Deb Chatterjee

One day, you must share with us your personal experiences with Muslims that makes you hate them so much. My personal experiences with them makes me detest the murderous Hindu Tamil Tigers, even if I am a Buddhist.

Mohamed Malleck wrote:

"It might very well be that we may, soon enough, go back to India where my brother-in-law has a very flourishing medical tourism business. But then again, we may not because Canada is the most civilized country in the world, more civilized than India, even though that Hindu-majority country (most of them not Deb Chatter-type of Hindu) has as its most prominent power-broker a Catholic, foreign-born lady, as its Prime Minister a member of the minority Sikh population, and as its President a Muslim who is among the topmost scientists in the world.

If we do go back to India, I realise that Deb Chatter will be, very, very angry. But then again, he has to decide what he wants. may be the proble is with him rather than with Muslims and even less with Islam!"

No, even if you compulsively mis-spelt my last name, out of anger that you cannot refute my evidences on Islam and violence :-)), you would probably not go back to India. There are these Hindu nationalist parties (BJP), Shiv Sena who have an extreme and unfair bias against Muslims.

Also, Canada is the country where sometime ago a radical group of Muslims stated that they wanted to storm the Canadian parliament, kill the ministers and Prime Minister Stephen Harper and broadcast those killings. Earlier in Ontario, Muslims wanted the Sharia law tabled as an agenda for elections. That's Canada - grossly pan-Islamic than India. Yes, you would be probably more happy in Canada compared to India.

Good luck to you ! (Don't spread lies and get your groove back.)

It is a fact that there is no real freedom of religion or speech, as we know it, in an Islamic country. Today it was reported by the AP that three Christians had their throats slit because they distributed Bibles in Turkey. Fox is reporting the arrest of over 300 women in Iran for violating the Islamic dress-code. These sort of things happen almost every day in the Muslim dominated nations around the world. The radicals may be the minority but it only takes a small minority to control the movement. And the radicals have justification in the words of their prophet for what they do. The minority is and will remain in control of Islam as long as the so-called moderate Muslims and Christians pretend that the radicals are not in control. It does not matter if, as some say, that the terrorists ignore what some moderates think are the principles of Islam. As long as they have control, which is in fact the case in Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and pretty much all the Islamic nations around the world (is there one where they don't control?), then does it matter what the moderates think, does it? Besides, the moderates don't seem to want to stop the so radicals or change the system. The radical elements grows and the silent majority of Muslims does nothing.

Chuck. Here is what you have said in your article.

"As a Christian I believe we should be constantly working for peace and hoping for peace in order to further the spread freedom and democracy"

Ask yourself this question: Is what your government doing in Iraq, Afghanistan and soon in Iran spawns freedom and democracy as you know it or does it spawn hate?

Then please explain to us here what do you mean by freedom and democracy. May be we can find common ground because finding common ground is the first move towards peace.

However it seems to me you fit Jesus' description of the one who sees the speck in his brother's eye but ignores the log in his own eye.

Tell me : How many Muslim soldiers have roamed The West in the last 200 years? Then tell me : How many Western soldiers have roamed Muslim countries in the last 100 years? Lets not forget Crusaders and where they came from some 1000 years ago. Your president actually used that word when calling for invasion of Iraq/Afghanistan. Msy be you should work on Christians first and let us work on Muslims.

But offcourse it is easy to barge in with blazing guns and bombs on false pretenses and when people fight you back in defense of their lands and honour, you turn around and accuse their religion. Their upbringing. How dare they, fanatics. They should just put up with our war-mongering and surrender their rights to us because we can define freedom and dmocracy better than them.

May be also you can tell me who armed Saddam to his teeth and joined him in his war against Iran for 8 years?

You seem to suffer from amnesia. Yesterday's events mean nothing to you. So, all I do is pray that you find the light in your own heart and see that we are ONE . We are perfect as we are and there is enough for all of us. No need to ship democracy to another country. Please keep it for yourself. No need to fear shortage of oil to run your suv's. We can't drink the bloody stuff, so naturally we will sell it to you. I said sell it, not give it away. Why/ coz we need to live as well as you do, but you seem to want a situation of us and them. master and slave. That is separation my dear man not inclusion. May peace of Christ be upon you. Salam alaikum.

Robert,

In reply to your post of 5:46 p.m.

I appreciate your politeness, but you are as wrong (but I hope not as malicious) as Cal Thomas and Chuck Colson. Islam is the exact opposite of violent. But the creed is not naïve either. About the spread of Islam, let me quote for you. “ Most important of all in its ( reaction to the advent of the new Faith) permanent effects ( of conversions to Islam) was the wave of invaders from the east – from the Altaic peoples of the great Asian steppes……..In 960, an event of quite different significance took place – the conversion of the Kharakhanids, a Turkish dynasty beyond the frontiers of Islam, with their people. Hitherto, conversion to Islam had been of individuals or groups of individuals, Now, for the first time, a whole free Turkish people, numbering according to an Arabic chronicler, 200,000 tents, embraced Islam, forming the first Muslim Turkish kingdom in the land beyond the Jaxartes ….” This is from the book (p. 88 second paragraph paperback version, Penguin 2001) by the authoritative scholar of Eastern Civilization, Bernard Lewis The Middle East. Bernard Lewis, as you no doubt know, is the Professor of Near Eastern Studies Emeritus at Princeton University.

I could quote from Edward Gibbon, from Arnold Toynbee, from Justin Marozzi, from Flora Lewis (Bernard’s late wife), from Peter Turchin, from Felipe Hernandez-Armesto author of the superb Millenium, from even more primary chroniclers such as Ibn Battuta, Ibn Khaldun, Al Biruni, etc. All are coherent with what has been quoted above, most even more eloquent, in particular Flora Lewis but also Peter Turchin.

[I should add, as an aside that, since 9/11, Bernard has become almost Islamophobic. Flora must be turning in her grave]

Now, naturally, in spite of all the empirical evidence, you may still choose to beleive that Isalm is the most violent religion on earth and Muslims should be sent back to their country of origin.

Beleieve me, I did all my university education, up to the PhD in Canada from 1970 to 1976. Ofcourse, I then went back to my country where I served in public service for eight years before going international where I served three different international organisations until January 2006 when I came to settle in Canada where my wife is a practising gynaecologist.

It might very well be that we may, soon enough, go back to India where my brother-in-law has a very flourishing medical tourism business. But then again, we may not because Canada is the most civilized country in the world, more civilized than India, even though that Hindu-majority country (most of them not Deb Chatter-type of Hindu) has as its most prominent power-broker a Catholic, foreign-born lady, as its Prime Minister a member of the minority Sikh population, and as its President a Muslim who is among the topmost scientists in the world.

If we do go back to India, I realise that Deb Chatter will be, very, very angry. But then again, he has to decide what he wants. may be the proble is with him rather than with Muslims and even less with Islam!

Mohammed Malleck wrote (out of desperation) from Canada:

"You'd like a genocide against Muslims just like they did in Gujrat, right?"

Genocide in Gujarat ????? Excuse me ! Did you not know its precdessor, the Akshardham Temple massacare - where Lashkar-e-Tayiba (LeT) terrorists entered and started to kill the praying devotees, till the temple guards started shooting and killed the Muslim terrorists ?

And, despicable as it is - blot on the Indian democracy, the Gujarat scenario was provoked by Muslims. A train (Sabarmati Express) coming from Ayodhya, was burnt down by Muslim radicals (SIMI members) and the ensuing carnage followed. It is unfortunate, but nothing unusual; Islam always had bloody borders.

And, by the way you seem to be spreading lies and slander. Where in my post, from where you quoted, does the word "genocide" or physical harm is implied. Call for curtailing Muslim immigration is nothing bad. Islam and Western style democracy are at diametrical odds. One needs to choose between the two. In this case I suggested that we reduce Muslim immigration. And you are interpretating that as "genocide" ? Perhaps you are hell-bent on "taqiyya" ?

Robert wrote:

"US is the greatest recipient of muslim immigration."

Yes. Apart from being the beneficiary, USA is thus open to home-grown Muslim terrorism. Just watch some videos on Fox News by Steven Emerson and you will see what's it is to be the "greatest recipient".

Why are people like Chuck Colson considered important enough to print nonsense in an important news publication? I am thankful that there were responses pointing out this nonsense, but how many people read this kind of stuff and believe it. This reminds me of the hate broadcast and published in Rwanda and Bosnia to make people hate their neighbors and relatives.

Norrie -

I am begining to wonder if you post anything on here but hatred for Christians.

FYI - The Catholic Church does not say the Pope is not human and capable of making mistakes. He is only infallable when it comes to very specific teachings of faith and morals not in all his actions.

Mohamed Malleck, truth be told Islam is a very rigid and perhaps even violent religion. But what Christians don't understand that it is no more rigid or violent than Christianity. You could argue that its history is less violent and rigid than Christianity.

The problem is that Muslims get very defensive when Christians and Jews with agendas attack their faith. This is understandable.

Someone should tell Deb Chatter that the best way to keep muslims out of the US is for our government to stop meddling and undermining these people in their own homelands.

If you allow them to have stability in their homeland, they would prefer to stay among their own people.

Lastly, our government couldn't survive without the hardwork and brain-power of these immigrants. The dilemma for US is how to balance the legal and illegal immigration of low-wage and uneducated christians from mexico and other 3rd world countries with the legal immigration of educationally superior muslims and hindus from asia.

You need this brainpower here. US is the greatest recipient of muslim immigration.

First, Islam is marked with a history of violence, including a thousand-year struggle with the West.
--- Struggle or co-existance? I never heard of a thousand years war, perhaps a 100 yr christian war. Mankind is marked with violence genius. To suggest Islam has been in constant war with humanity is an illogical and biggoted statement that holds no substance.

The Second reason is the Quran itself. I have read enough of it to be satisfied that it does call for violence in a number of areas.
--- So he read 'enough', what is enough, 1 or two chapters? Perhaps non-muslim commentary on the Quran? Is he an expert of sorts? Violence in Quran, sure, why not, there is violence in humanity and it was addressed in the Quran in many ways.

The third reason is that Islam does not respect pluralism. It is a theocratic religion. Like any other autocratic regime, a theocracy will use violence if necessary to suppress dissent -- and then some.
--- It's not so theocratic as westerners believe it is. Leaders are required to be just to their inhabitants, religiously. There are plenty of ways to suppress dissents, ie apartheids, segregation, communism, etc.

The fourth reason is a particularly virulent strain of Islamic radicalism known as Islamo-fascism.
-- What a waste of breath. He just loves to pull adjectives out. By saying Islamic radicalism he is not saying that Islam itself condones recent militan activity. Rather he uses his emotion and lack there of to clump the two together without any real attempts to define it.

In the light of this, is peace possible? As a Christian I believe we should be constantly working for peace and hoping for peace in order to further the spread freedom and democracy, not the spread of theocracy.
--- I didn't know CHristianity and democracy went hand in hand, or that Jesus wanted democracy. Freedom and democracy are two seperate entities and concepts.

ALl and all this guy is an unitelligent Islamophobe/Bible thumper. Kudos!

Curious Cat,

I have every reason to feel proud, very very proud, very --- no, no you will not get me to say superior -- not defensive.

But maybe you can still choose to become a Muslim. However, msy warn you it is a religion that demands much discipline and that fills you with confidence so you can respond to a question as if it was an honest question.
Shall we say that that should be our last excange?

Deb Chatter

Here you are again spewing hatred.

You'd like a genocide against Muslims just like they did in Gujrat, right?

Cannot compete on other grounds?

You know what Chuck?

Shut up.

You don't know what you are talking about. You are uninformed (at least you admit it) and AS SUCH ARE UNQUALIFIED TO COMMENT.

Remeber Chuck... "remove the mote from thine own eye before you remove the speck from another's"

Hello! I replied earlier to your question about Mecca and Medina and why non-Muslims are not allowed there but for some reason it never got posted, sorry about that. From what I know non muslims are not allowed to enter these areas because they are meant to be a spiritual sanctuary place for all muslims. If non muslims were to attend these areas it would turn into nothing but tourism. When you are a foreign muslim and you are going to Mecca or Medina your soul begs for forgiveness and peace of mind. The Muslims have the right to forbid people that will disrupt this process of worship.

Eric:

The Holy Bible states: “As for my enemies, who do not want me to reign over them, bring them here and kill them in my presence.” (Holy Bible: St Luke 19:26) and “Do not think that I came to send peace on Earth. I did not come to send peace, but a sword.” (Holy Bible: Mathew 10:34).

Yes, Muslim, Hindu, or atheist can quote these verses from Bible and misrepresent the Bible as Rev.Colson and other similar "true" believers do by quoting out of context verses from the Qur'an. From my point of view, all holy books are to be read with the idea that it is a guidance for peace and love between people.

Norrie,

Notice that I said "Pit my Savior's deeds against Buddha..."

I knew that you could argue that Buddha or Confuscious is more "enlightened" than Jesus. That argument is fraught with subjectivity and biased by our own particular beliefs. But, I do not know of any people that Buddha healed. I'm unaware of Buddha raising people from the dead. I'm not familiar with Buddha submitting to a cruel, undeserved execution specifically to set mankind free from the eternal prison of their own sin.

"Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends.
"You are My friends if you do what I command you.
"No longer do I call you slaves, for the slave does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all things that I have heard from My Father I have made known to you."

Jesus
John 15:13-15

Mr. Chuck Colson:

Thanks for writing the obvious truth, while many authors try to remain politically correct.

There should be a political movement inside USA to calibrate immigration policies so that Muslim population should be controlled.

Otherwise, in the next 50 years we shall see rise of influence of the barbaric Sharia laws only to devour the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution.

Believer,

"Match my blessed Savior's life against that of Mohammad. Pit my Savior's deeds against Buddha or Confusious. Balance the sum total of my Savior's words, deeds and everlasting influence against any person throughout history."

The Buddha was more enlightened than Jesus.

To Mohamed MALLECK,

You got me wrong...it was genuinely out of curiosity that I had asked this question and was not trying to attack your faith. You got all defensive and now I really feel like I want to know why. So, your point is well taken. But the question still remains: WHY not all people of other religions/beliefs! I don't see that being done by ANY OTHER FAITH. And, honestly, your explanation seems kind of lame: akin to delusions of persecution!

Is there a religious explanation anyone? The question in dicussion was: Why are non-mulsims not permitted to enter Mecca and Medina? Anyone? Victoria? You post senisble posts, I like your thinking! Anyone else?

-- Still curious

Mr. Carlson,

I do agree that the Quran does read as a violent book some times. But then again I know a few christians who believe that under no circumstances should any person ever take the life of another person. Yet I also know christians who believe that God sanctions the killing of other people during war.

My point is, I think its how individuals decide on how to apply any religion to their own belief systems, and behaviors.

And yes there are radical islamic groups. But I just don't think that its right to apply their actions to all people who believe in Islam. When ever I hear a hardcore christian preaching "at me", I have to remember that he/she does not represent all christians. And no. I am not equating a holy roller to a Islamic Terrorist.

Curious Cat,

The decision not to allow non-Muslims to enter very well-delimited areas around Mecca and Medina is that of the Saudi Rulers and maybe before that the Ottoman rulers.

It is a very wise decision considering how Muslims' tolerance and peaceability is abused by others.

Please read my posting to Paul Sunstone at 11:38 a.m.

But, allow me now to ask you a question that will partly and indirectly answer your own question. You are aware that Salman Rushdie became a darling of the West and even of Hindu Indians (before that he had been their nemesis because of his book Midnight's Children) after he wrote Satanic Verses. You probably yourself got excited over the clamour that the episode of Khomeini's fatwa gainst Rushdie caused.
But, did you bother to find out what are the 'satanic verses'?

Eps! Honest, don't duck!

OK, so you did bother to find out and are aware that they are two "verses" that had been scripted on papyrus before the defitive compilation of the Quran in its present form by Caliph Othamn around the year 860 and that were attributed to Revelation (just as the quip "Western Civilizaion? That would be a good idea" has almost always been ATTRIBUTED to Mahatma Gandhi although no record exists to substantiate the claim that he had made such a remark). The verses seemed to acknowledge the deity of a polytheistic Arabian tribe as an Islamic Prophet or possibly even 'deity', and had been 'inserted' in one of the compilations of the Quran at a time when that tribe's ruler had switched from being a ferocious enemy of the Muslims to being an ally. The tribe as a whole converted to orthodox Islam and all repudiated the polytheistic deity.
The contention raged for some time whether orthodoxy had, at any time, ackowledged the verses as being part of the Quran. Apparently, the verses had never been uttered by Muhammad p.b.u.h., but he may or may not have been aware that one or more of the compilers of the Quran may have inserted them in one of the verses. These verses were, at the time of Othman's definitive compilation of the Quran, declar3d to be satanic and excluded in the definitive version.
The diabolical use by non-Muslims of such historically accurate events and honest rendition of the Faith's evolution (many other diabolicaldistortions of Islamic teachings can be enumerated and substantiated) has cautioned Muslims to be careful about letting non--Muslims near the places and symbols that they hold most sacred.
Please note that, even if one assumes, as does Rushdie in his NOVEL (he does not claim that his writings depicted historical facts) that the insertion of the verses had Muhammad's p.b.u.h approval, it would indicate majestically the glorious eclecticity of Islamic teachings. But, of course, people of illwill would,instead, see in it Islamic opportunism to win over an ally. This malevolence is what led Khomeini to give his fatwa, but at no time would any true Muslim have actually killed Rushdie. I am not saying that they would refuse to use means that would scare the hell out of him that he could really be killed. However, actually killing him would not have happened any more than the actual development of nuclear bombs by Iran as long as the there continue to be progress, however slow, on the requirement of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty that ALL countries should disable their nuclear arsenals, simultaneously as those countries that do not belong to the 'nuclear club' are seen to stay away from manufacturing nuclear weapons and alowed to develop nuclear research for peaceful purposes.

This was a long answer, but I hope that it answers, at least partly your question.

Betty, if you are still around on this blog as well, please take note.

I'm really glad I got to read a 'scholars' account on one of the greatest and most important religions man kind has ever whitness, thank you Charles W. "Chuck" Colson.....Not. Such a pathetic marginalization and poorly written and researched article that is based on emotional whims and finger pointing. He says that Islamic theocracy only uses violence to 'suppress dissents', but what of Communism, socialism, capitalism, fake democracy, etc? And he says " I have read enough of it to be satisfied that it does call for violence in a number of areas" but gives no clarification about what he read. Because he is a pathetic writer and 'scholar'. You can't merely pick up a Quran and read it's translations, that is not studying. You have posses a full understanding of time/place/circumstances etc when attempting to apply any part of the Quran. But christians like Colson are so easily quote their scripture without any knowledge of Time /place/circumstances etc. The world is violent and was created violent in order for mankind to create peace. The Quran addresses violence and need for violence b.c that is the real world. The real world is not peace folks, get with it.

Paul Sunstone,

I refer to your post of 22 April at 8:54 p.m.

You write " I suppose anytime you have a religion that divides the world into "Us versus Them", and claims it's the only path to god, you have a religion that enables and facilitates violence. Judaism, Islam, and Christianity all do that, and all three are more violent than most other religions."

Where do you get the idea that Islam divides the world into "Us versus Them" and claims it's the only path to God?

Chapter 2 of the Quran, Al Baqara, towards the end (I am quoting from memory) exhorts the believers: Say "I believe in God, in the angels, in the books that have been revealed to prophets before Muhammad (p.b.u.h.), in the prophets that God has sent to all peoples with His message. [The true believers say] We make no distinction between one another of God's messengers.We hear and we obey. We seek Your forgiveness, O Lord; unto You do we all return. ....Allah does not burden anyone with a hardship in excess of the courage and stamina He has given him to bear it. And each one is rewarded according to the good that he has done; each one is held to account for every ounce of bad deed that he has done" Swadaq'Allah-ul-'Adheem -- Allah's Word is Most full of wisdom.

If you consider that "Us versus Them" and a claim that Islam is the only path to God, then, indeed, no dialogue is possible.

Before ending, I just checked: the quotes are from Surah 2 verses 285, 286.

An unrelated question, just out of curiosity, to anyone who can answer it (especially muslims, since I think you MAY be able to answer it):

Why are non-muslims not permitted to enter the holy cities of Mecca and Medina?

How does WaPo allow such radical fundamentalists post. I thought this was supposed to be a discussion about faiths and understanding religions better. This guy is clearly out with an agenda.

"The Second reason is the Quran itself. I have read enough of it to be satisfied that it does call for violence in a number of areas."

What an arrogant prick! To think he can comment on the whole religion reading "just enough" of The Book...

And "Concerned The Christian Now Liberated" seems to have the same stupid posts everywhere... write something with substance or stay away from this forum.

AND HERE GOES -- PREAMBLE TO THE INVASION OF IRAN.

WAPO EAGER ACCOMPLICE

DAVID IGNATIUS, FARID ZAKARIA WILLING FOOTSOLDIERS.

I put my trust in my beloved Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. He willingly accepted unwarranted violence, pain and death on my behalf so that my shortcomings and proclivity for evil (see sin)could be forgiven and erased simply by believing and placing my faith in his ability to save me.

Match my blessed Savior's life against that of Mohammad. Pit my Savior's deeds against Buddha or Confusious. Balance the sum total of my Savior's words, deeds and everlasting influence against any person throughout history.

If you were completely honest with yourself, and you carefully compared the focal points of each of the world's religions, then I'm confident that my Savior would become your Savior too.

"I am the Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end."

Jesus
Rev. 22:13

Madavvat young man. Don't talk me down. I am a Sri Lankan Buddhist who see violence for many years in my country. You are theoretical and discussing everything as a student. I am still living through the anger and violence of the Tamil Tigers. I mean what I say about Jihadist. He does not reduce anything to an academic discussion here to impress anyone. Just the thoughts of someone really going through, experiencing and learning from life and it shows in his posts.

Phantom

Mavaddat was a Bahai and now an atheist I think. He said so in another thread. But let him speak for himself here or to correct me on this.

Mavaddat,

Hi there. From reading a post of your on one of the other threads I see that you and your family fled Iran with the revolution. Am I correct? If so, and from some of your postings it seems so (I'm not sure if I've accurately inferred this), are you then Muslim?

I am a Christian Pastor and we've had one or two low grade "run ins" but nothing serious or noteworthy. I'd like to chat to you if you don't mind.

Ras, that's very sweet.

Mavaddat

You are so convulated. I like Jihadist better.

This question itself shows a popular fallacy in thinking about religion: that religion somehow gives us our values. But it doesn't. At least, it does not exclusively give us our values.

I think there is a theo-ethical balance that happens in the mind of every believer where they justify what they do by appealing to their religion (i.e., they choose what parts of their religion to emphasize based on their goals), and they also choose what goals they have based on their religious ideals.

So it goes both ways. From all those violent Muslims, some Muslims are violent because of Islam, some are Muslims because they want to be violent, and most are a mix of both.

Paul Sunstone

You said : "Islam is relatively more violent than, say, Taoism or Confucianism. But so are Christianity and Judaism more violent than Taoism and Confucianism."

Reading the history of China would help. And mainland Southeast Asia too - Cambodia, Loas, Vietnam and Tahiland.

I would not dare to presume any religion's adherents would not turn to violence, regardless of what their Holy Texts says. It is not the faith, it is the believers/adherents of the faith. Man will always justify violence whether they are believers or not, whether their faith cordone or condemn it for any reasons.

The reason Islam and Christianity seems more violent than other faiths is because both faiths transcends more borders and peoples in the world
Most Hindus are in the Indian sub-continent. Most Confucians and Toaists are in China and quite violent in their own domains.

Aslo, religious minorities can't afford to engage in violence against a numerically superior group. The human cost is high. The thing is, how do we protect religious minorities' rights and from vilifications and persecutions, be they in Muslim or non-Muslim states.

Islam is relatively more violent than, say, Taoism or Confucianism. But so are Christianity and Judaism more violent than Taoism and Confucianism.

I suppose anytime you have a religion that divides the world into "Us versus Them", and claims it's the only path to god, you have a religion that enables and facilitates violence. Judaism, Islam, and Christianity all do that, and all three are more violent than most other religions.

Speaking of violence, keep in mind that Jerusalem was a Christian city when the Crusades wandered into town and killed the inhabitants. But you see, they were the wrong kind of Christian, Orthodox. So the Latin Catholics slaughtered all these other Christians they could find. What a great tribute to the Gospels of Jesus. Kill them all and let God sort them out--coined by a medieval Bishop, not an imman. By all historical counts, Christianity is the most violent religion, not Islam. Of course, all religions are frauds, but that's another matter.

"Christians have also participated in religiously motivated violence; when they do so, however, it is against what is professed to be their belief."

Oh, well that makes it all right then...

What a pinheaded thing to say. The Bible, like the Quran, is open to interpretation, and can be used to justify anything.

Andy: I hear you about all the attacks. I don't know if you are right about the constant talk pro/against christianity, so lets find out.

I would like to issue this non-scientific challenge to anyone who wants to play. Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to count "challenges" to a faith system posted in this week's boards.

Go to each board. Read each post. Record the number of challenges to a faith or non-faith.

A reasonable challenge to a faith system or an outright bash job will both count the same. Multiple challenges in the same post count as one post. However if someone bashes, say, Zues worshipers in 5 different posts, it counts as 5 seperate challenges. Record the following information to the best of your ability:

1) Number of posts that challenge Christianity and Islam equally (close to a 50/50 split)

2) Number of posts *primarily challenging Islam

3) Number of posts *primarily challenging Christianity

4) Number of posts *primarily challenging another religion or belief system (name belief system if you have time)

5) Number of posts *primarily challenging atheists.

6) Number of posts *primarily challenging all people and all belief/non-belief systems

If a post is just a defense of whatever faith or lack there of without a counter attack, do not record it. If a post is not a challenge, don't record it.

*I said "primarily" because if someone rants for 3 paragraphs about how Zues worshipers are the worst people in the world then at the end throws in their "tolerant" disclaimer saying "oh yea, christians are bad too", it counts as challenging Zues worshipers, not a 50/50 split.

* Do not count any posts entered after I have entered this one. It will skew results. :)

Use your best judgement when recording. I'm not sure this excercise is even possible, I'm making it up as I go along. But maybe someone will want to try.

Please report back your results!

Good Luck!

Talk about a disconnect from reality!

Mr Colson says Islam is a violent religion while Xianity is one of peace. He says Xians aren't trying to promote theocracy in our counrtry.

Does he not bother to take stock of our Christian-in-Chief, GW Bush? Bush is the man who called for a "crusade" against terrorism. Bush is the man who said quite publicly that he "consults a higher Father" when deciding whether or not to go to war. Bush has a scheduled phone call every Monday with Xian leaders across the country who give him advice on what to do. Bush is - at best - playing with theocracy by assuming a religious mantle for himself and his party while encouraging the funding of religious programs with federal tax dollars. Bush and his RW echo chamber use terms like "Islamo-facist" to describe people who practice a particular religion. You speak of Xians working to spread democracy while our Christian-in-Chief guts our Constitution and blatantly rescinds our civil liberties.

Sorry, Chuck, but by any definition of the word, your religion is spreading violence and theocracy just as surely as any other. The difference is that you reside in a country where the majority of the population lives under the false belief that, "it can't happen here," while the daily headlines scream the truth that it IS happening here.

Eric

Nowhere does the New Testament advocate violence against non-believers. That is supposed to be taken care of by God after non-believers die.

But that was not enough for early theologians. Thus, you will find calls for burnings etc. against heretics and apostates in the writings of St. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, two of the most influential shapers of Christian theology. Both are frequently cited by panelists here. Of course, there is also the fact that violence against non-believers has been frequently practiced.

I am not trying to single out Christians. I think all monotheisms that make claims of Absolute Truth give rise to violent tendencies. How can they not?

"And also, when was the last time a Muslim state waged war against another state just because the other state is non-Muslim?"

The constant warmongering between Pakistan and India? The Palestinian "state" vs Israel? The Arab states vs Israel? Somalia vs. Ethiopia? Sunni Muslims (Saudi Arabia) vs Shiites (Iraq/Iran- non Muslim as per the Wahhabis) )

From CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/02/03/iraq.cleric.ap/index.html
"Al-Sistani was apparently referring to Abdullah bin Jabrain, a key member of Saudi Arabia's clerical establishment, who last month joined a chorus of other senior figures from the hardline Wahhabi school of Sunni Islam that regards Shiites as infidels.
Bin Jabrain described Shiites as "the most vicious enemy of Muslims."

Mavaddat

I was resorting to sarcasm too re revolutionaries. We all have to be wary of Muslim "fundamentalists". Only problem is, Muslims in Indonesia and Malaysia call themselves proudly Muslim fundamentalist in subscribing to the Five Pillars of Islam and not as interpreted by the west as per the Christian fundamentalists. Muslims in Indonesia and Malaysia call such western defined fundamentalists or literalists or inerrantists as bigots or fanatics.

As for Muslim scholars, in Sunni Islam, as you very well know, anyone who reads up and spout out the Suras and Hadiths do call himself an alim. We have no certification system like Shiite Islam except for the professional Kadis and Muftis appointed by the state. There are ulema associations in Indonesia and Malaysia and quite open too in membership that includes everyone from doctors to biologists and astronomers.

Osama and Said Qutb got popular support because Muslims see the truths in what they said about the governments they are against. But certainly Muslims recognize their methods caused them problems even when some Muslims see them to be less effete than their own governments in asserting sovereignty, in governance and delivery of services to the public. I had a Saudi Arabian friend who tells me that many Arab governments are regarded by their public to be "whoring" their countries to western political, economic and security interests.

I'm sorry to hear that your family and you had had to escape Khomeini's Iran. I just hope Sunni Islam never goes down that road in Indonesia and Malaysia and most unlikely to. But Iran as a country among the Middle East states, seems to have more respect from Latin America to Asia because it is seen to be not a "stoodge" of any western power.

John:

Speaking (or rather writing) as a Christian I would like to say that my the most honest, intelligent, thoughtful and thoroughly decent person that I know is an athiest. We do not agree on the idea of a God of course, but I am honored that he is my friend and has been for many years.

Otherwise, your words are foolish and unworthy of my time.

We Christians have slaughtered, abused, tortured and enslaved plenty in our time. We have no room to talk in such broad strokes.

Such a sad, ignorant post.

Considering the definition of fascism employed by many of the anti-"theocrats" was invented by Theodore Adorno, a communist, and communists are about the only people worried about phantom fascism, I worry about people like that.

Secularists and atheists have their own blind obedience to popular culture and the spirit of nihilism. More people have perished at the hands of militant atheists than at the hands of any other. All I have to do is look at the consequences of the French, Russian, Mexican, Cuban, Chinese, Spanish, etc., revolutions to see hundreds of millions who have been murdered in the name egalitarianism and atheism.

Atheists are gutless to critically examine the consequences of their own beliefs.

Mavaddat,

Where does the New Testament advocate violence against non-believers?

Thanks

Mark.

I think that may be partially correct. While Islam is the predominant religion in those areas I don’t think it is Islam itself. It is the groups and governments that need to take responsibility.

We could even extend this to Iraq and Afghanistan where America has become involved. Being that Christianity is the predominant religion here can one surmise that Christianity is violent as well. We have heard comments like “God will help us in our fight against evil.”

If Jesus were alive and was the defense secretary do you think his answer would have been to go to war? Similarly Islam’s base concepts are non violent. As people have posted there are violent passages in most religions but that just means.

I think the problem lies more in freedoms or lack there of in those countries. Freedom is what allows a religion to evolve. Christianity went through its dark times and has evolved.

My question to Muslims is this just part of the maturation of a religion in certain regions of the world? I don’t see Muslims in America being any more violent that their country men.

I would love the Muslims to chime in here.

H. Abaza,

Uh, what now?

Chuck;
Since not every body seams to believe you, why should not you do another test; Invade Iran or Saudi Arabia, or Indonesia or even all of them to have a larger statistical sample, bomb them with all types of weapons or burn them, and then see if they will response violently.

I see a lot of speculation and history in these postings but one thing seems to be unmentioned. In todays world there is sectarian violence in the Middle East, Indonesia, Phillipines, Balkans, Chechnea, India-Pakistan, the list goes on. The only common denominator is Islam.

I understand the perspective, some of the panelists touched on it. But after reading the same demeaning stuff about the same religion 500 times it just gets old. Soon enough the faith defenders will be in here and we'll just get back and forth stuff on (again) christianity.

I guess I was just hoping to read up on some thoughts on Islam, because I want it to be a peaceful religion, but I don't know if it is one or not.

I want to start by answering Andy first.

“Is it possible for you all to get past the christophobia and actually discuss Islam (or any other religion for that matter) for just this one single week?”

I think we fall back to Christianity because that is what most of the people on this forum have been exposed to. I myself have limited reading on the Islamic faith.

As an ‘independent’ when it comes to religion. My most in depth spiritual reading and thus influence is the Conversation with God series and Dr. Wayne Dyer. I have read mostly what others have said, studied, theorized and occasionally looked at the actual scriptures of a particular faith. Some may say that gives me to shallow a view to form a real opinion on a particular religion. That may be true.

However I have developed my own spirituality and my own beliefs. One conclusion I have come to is that religion is merely a tool. If we use it properly it can bring great harmony, joy and peace to the world. If it is abused then great tragedy befalls us. All scripture comes through an imperfect filter, humans.

As Luke posted if you just looked at Revelations you would have a different view of the Bible. Similarly if you focus on the more ‘violent’ passages in the Koran then it yes it could be construed as violent. It is how we use it and how it is interpreted.

As Andrea said Bishop Tutu’s response was outstanding. He gets it. He is connected to his God. You may use religion to bring people together or to tear them apart.

My belief is if your belief or religion promotes or inspires love, unity, compassion, peace, freedom and understanding then you are moving closer to God. That is what God is.

If your religion inspires separation, hate, fear, guilt, blind obedience, violence then you have missed the meaning of your religion. All scripture is imperfect as it comes through a filter, humans. That does not necessarily render it wrong it just means use your own judgment to use the pieces that you observe to work.

You can not force others to conform. You must simply be what you want to create. If you want peace, be peaceful. If you want love be loving. If you want understanding then seek to understand. I believe it was Gandhi who said “there is no way to peace, peace is the way”

Well since Christians such as Chuck like to make accusations about other faiths, it takes a little comparison to put things in perspective Andy.

Is it possible for you all to get past the christophobia and actually discuss Islam (or any other religion for that matter) for just this one single week?

Ba'al,

If you haven't already, Bishop Tutu has an amazing response to this question.

Christianity spawns violence too. To deny this is to deny history, even recent history (Oklahoma City, Waco, and of course the slaughter and rape of tens of thousands of Muslims in Bosnia by Christian Serbs).

The Old Testament glorifies genocide. To deny this is to not read the text. St Augustine also calls for forced conversions, and Aquinas calls for burning atheists and heretics.

There is strong strain of theocracy in certain Christian elements in this country. James Dobson's group, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson are not shy about stating their goals in this regard.

There are Christo-fascists too in the so-called Christian Identity, Christian Reconstruction, and Dominionist movements in the United States. They are scary people.

Chuck Colson is a very black pot indeed.

That's OK. In the deep, dark pit of atheism, I'm really happy being a workaholic, and I have tons of great books and good friends. I'm not up to date on wrestling, but I thought Virgil was also Papa Shango, the dude who made the Ultimate Warrior toss his cookies at Wrestlemania that one time. Seems heaven doesn't like testosterone-filled homophobic freaks either. Back on topic, I think that many religions could be seen as violent based on the actions of it's followers. Look at the Bhagavad Gita, however, and you find the complete opposite. It takes place during one of the greatest wars of it's time, and Krishna telling the warrior (archer?) Arjuna to fight in this battle...yet it's adherents are completely peaceful. Food for thought, I suppose.

By the time were done, I'm gonna have you all wearing gold-plated diapers, baby!

Don't ask.....

Wasn't Virgil the bodyguard of The Million Dollar Man in WWE some years ago? Frightening if he was waiting up there for people. YIKES!

Luke,
I'm stuck in the middle of Ex-Lutheranism and Agnosticism. And I'm engaged. Sorry, hun. We'll always have "On Faith."

Russell,

"And in the end, they are promised a multitude of virgins waiting for them in Heaven."

I heard it was "Virgils," but that may have just been a joke I heard once.

Andrea, are you an atheist? Can atheists get married? If so...ya know...I have a good job!

Chuck,

I guess the only part of your post I can really agree with is, "As a Christian I believe we should be constantly working for peace and hoping for peace in order to further the spread freedom and democracy, not the spread of theocracy."

Luke,

Ya'll gonna make me lose my mind.

All I know is that I'll take a suicide bomber over the iron maiden any day...unless that Iron Maiden is chock-full of some Bruce Dickinson!

While I have not been a very devout reader when it comes to Islam, I have found that the religion has the same types of people as its followers, yet go about it in very different ways.

You've got the "regulars" as I like to call em, the ones who adhere to the religon and its beliefs, yet are friendly, cordial, and do not push their beliefs onto others. I would say that both sets of believers for the two religions are basically the same in that aspect.

Then there are the "wild cards". These are the ones who seem to think that they are always right, never faulter, and say it's our God's way or the highway. Yet this is where the two sets of followers differ. The "wild cards" of Christianity today do push beliefs onto others, yet they use guilt, bereavement, and damnation to threaten others, with the promise that they will sit beside Jesus in Heaven. The "wild cards" of Islam also push beliefs onto others. Yet they seem to adhere to the violence of the Koran as justification, and gladly use it to push thier agendas. And in the end, they are promised a multitude of virgins waiting for them in Heaven.

All I am saying is that there is good and bad in both religions. Cut people some slack and get over yourselves. Not every Muslim is gonna kill you because you don't believe, and not every Christian is gonna damn you to Hell because you don't believe.

Two sides of a coin, two sides of a coin.

You realize, Chuck, that by stating that you have read enough of the Quran to say that it "calls for violence in a number of areas" doesn't say much for your opinion. It would be the equivalent to reading the Book of Revelations and assuming the Bible is all about how everyone is going to burn in agony for eternity, and how God's breed of justice is brutal and hateful. The "virulent strain" of Islam of which you refer certainly doesn't represent everyone - it would be the equivalent to saying that all bacteria are bad because of meningitis (of which there is both viral and bacterial), ignoring the cultures found in yogurt. You are actin' a fool up in here, up in here.

Chuck,

Your attempt to dismiss the violence done in the name of Christianity by suggesting that it was not in accord with the "true" Christianity is just as ridiculous (or sane) as those who try to dismiss the violence done in the name of Islam by suggesting that it is not in accord with the "true" Islam.

The New Testament is, at best, ambivalent and vague about how much violence that can be done to 'heathens', and clearly supportive and encouraging of violence toward unbelievers, at worst. From where I sit, the situation is no better for Islam.

Andrew, I don't care what Oscar Wilde thinks, sarcasm is just delicious.

Jihadist, I find your division between "lay revolutionary" and "legitimate Muslim scholar" rather arbitrary. It seems to me that those who call themselves "legitimate Muslim scholar" have appropriated this title for themselves as arbitrarily as Said Qutb or Osama bin Laden. Having the popular support of a community for your particular interpretation does not make your interpretation any more or less "true." Thus, although Said Qutb and Osama may not have such popular support, they certainly do draw their motivation and rationale for violence from their holy scriptures regardless of what we or the majority of the Islamic world wants to say about what "true" Islam is. Or at least, that's what the situation seems to be from my biased eyes. (I am an Iranian refugee who had to escape with his family from the hands of the Iranian Islamic fundamentalists during the revolution in '79.)

Yes, thank you Chuck!

Remember when those Muslims fire-bombed Dresden, or when they vaporized Nagasaki and Hiroshima? True savages indeed!

There there Mr. Colson,

Of course. Of course. Now, shall I hold the Qur'an in one hand and the "sword of Islam" in another and scream, "Give me liberty or give me death!" against foreign occupation, oppression and tyranny, the latter two even if by suppressive governments?

Surely you do remember that in the last century, the most deaths and violence are perpetrated by Muslims during WWI and WWII? Oh, wait, that was not it. It was the fascists and Nazis.

How convenient for my grandparents' generation to have the Holy Book as a source of strength and unifying force against the so-called "tolerant" Dutch who even without the Qur'an to "guide" them are quite capable of such relentless atrocities in colonized Indonesia. It was deaths and violence for independence from colonization from Algeria to Indonesia. And it will be deaths and violence still until there is no illegal occupation, oppression and corruption. Too, too bad Muslims are not taught to turn the other cheek in the face of oppression but to seek justice eh?

And by the way, Said Qutb is not a legitimate Muslim scholar or member of the ulema. He is a lay reveolutionary.

Anyone in the west who takes Said Qutb and Osama/Al Qaeda seriously is certainly reading the Qur'an as Osama and Said Qutb did to rationalize and justify the violence as surely Mr. Colson did to justify Islam is a religion of violence for his own reasons.

Gird up, Muslims and Muslimahs, another incoming from missionary man to save us all................ :)

"And yes, Christians have also participated in religiously motivated violence; when they do so, however, it is against what is professed to be their belief."

But encouraged, directed, and sometimes commanded by the Vicar of Christ on Earth, the infallible Pope.