IF Christianity were comparable to Islam (as SO many KEEP saying)
Auralae on July 14, 2007 at 4:10 AM

I was not comparing Christianity to Islam.
I am simply comparing the process of a Reformation and a reformer’s heart and how it takes time.

Note in your own life how changing any bad habit takes time… it’s a process that has to involve admitting there is a problem and then substituting the old habit with a new one, otherwise the person falls back into the old habit.

Hassan Butt has a new article that puts further emphasis on this.

One of the commentators says it very clearly, quoted here:

Hassan :Thank You. Your pauline conversion from your former jihadi persona has been published on the Drudge Report and hung upon by most every observer of the muslim terrorists’ onslaught on the unsuspecting West. We needed your insight into this mindset.Your intellect overcame your indoctrination. You recognized the need for a “Reformation” of Islam, just as Christianity evolved and overcame its propensity for violent inquisitional and crusading conversion to its supposed monopoply on the truth. Science shredded its
believability.Atheism and secularism supplanted rigid theology. America instituted separation of church & state.
Hassan , you have correctly identified the need for a new interpretation of the Koran. Many verses call for the
subjugation or, failing that, murder on non-believers- infidels. As with Judaism & Christianity , there is much love in Islam.People all come from the same basic ancestors -2000 humans 60,000 years ago-healing needs you out there Hassan. Do it.

wilfred knight, orange county, usa/california

and then another:

Hassan, you’re a brave boy – now all we need is a few hundreds of thousands more Muslims like yourself to come forward in the UK – and together, you might just start to make a difference :o) For the truth is very simple and you’ve pretty much hit the head of the cliche nail…it is time for the New Koran to be written.

David Downes, Chester, UK

Because Christianity has a historical record of killing people (not out of self-defense) one cannot debate the radicals on a broad scale in comparative religious theory for the purpose of State policy implementation.

The States’ policy of self-defense needs to be coupled with a policy of support for the true reformers so that it’s believers can vacate the “fight” mentality with a “flight” to reformation. And then from there, when you can trust that believer to not kill you, perhaps you (Auralae) can round up your religious troopers and discuss comparative religious theory.
That’s all I’m trying to say.

Or perhaps you would like to go into Mogadishu, Somalia now with your religious troopers and discuss comparative religion.
Be my guest.

How do you think, Robert Spencer, you would’ve addressed the radical Catholics as they killed, slaughtered, maimed, and butchered, the reforming Christians in those dark days?

The Catholics were simply responding to a “threat” of their old ingrained belief system!

Those radical Catholics were operating in the “fight” mentality, which they justified as similar to what YAHWEH in the Old Testament (or Torah) commanded the Jews to do with any Godless clan as they “possessed the Land” that was given to them. The radical Catholics were so sure of being the only “correct” Christian believer!!

I’m not sure how Robert will respond (or even if he will, as this is rather far back and he might not check it…I was only coming back to see what else might have been said) But I would respond by pointing out that there are literally dozens of passages that had to be totally ignored in order to put in place those policies from the top down–second, I would point out that the popes who inacted such policies were famous for their debauchery and their extreme noncompliance to anything even vaguely scripturally supported as “Christian” (just stroll through Galatians chapter five for a compare/contrast of the fruits of the Holy Spirit vs the flesh. I would also point out that those passages you refer to were all time/place/and even people specific! Allah is NOT.

I would also point out to you the stark differences between Christianity’s history with that of Islam’s: It took centuries for Christianity to become a state sponsored religion, and even more centuries for it’s leaders to become so corrupt and so far seperated from it’s own scriptural mandates that something like the Inquisition was possible…while in stark contrast Mohammed HIMself led the Muslim conquest–Islam’s borders have ALWAYS been bloody when they can afford it.

How would you, Robert Spencer, address href=”http://www.educ.msu.edu/homepages/laurence/reformation/Luther/Luther.htm”>Martin Luther who is known for his antisemitism,

Again, I don’t know what Robert would have said…but I would have pointed out Romans chapter 11 to start with:

18do not be arrogant toward the branches; but if you are arrogant, remember that it is not you who supports the root, but the root supports you.

19You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.”

20Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith Do not be conceited, but fear;

21for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either.

22Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God’s kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off.

23And they also, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.

24For if you were cut off from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these who are the natural branches be grafted into their own olive tree?

25For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery–so that you will not be wise in your own estimation–that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in;

26and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written,
“THE DELIVERER WILL COME FROM ZION,
HE WILL REMOVE UNGODLINESS FROM JACOB.”
27″THIS IS MY COVENANT WITH THEM,
WHEN I TAKE AWAY THEIR SINS.”

28From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God’s choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers;

29for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.

30For just as you once were disobedient to God, but now have been shown mercy because of their disobedience,

31so these also now have been disobedient, that because of the mercy shown to you they also may now be shown mercy.

32For God has shut up all in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all.

As I pointed out earlier–there are scads and scads of Christian scripture exhorting the believer to love, forgive, live peacably etc etc etc–one can not even shoot a murdering abortionist and be in compliance with OUR scripture (as many Christians have pointed out to those very misled AoG folks)

The Koran is completely different.

And yet the Protestant reformation which is alive and well today, is not antisemitic,(except for radical Protestants).

Now above are examples of radicals that really cannot be addressed in a civilized manner. They must be dealed with unrelenting forceful strength within every means and effective tools available.

I would point out that contrary to what you’re trying to say–Christians who have been misled, or have tried to twist scripture to support violence HAVE been dealt with in a civilized manner! We simply go back to those scriptures and point out that in no manner shape or form does Christ stand for violent conquest of any sort. Our scriptures never needed to be rewritten….and that’s where your main problem really lies

You’d like to see this guy get a wider platform–and that sounds great as far as it goes–but it’s not going to go very far at all precisly because of the differences between our scriptures. Those reasonable voices within Christianity, who were willing to die if need be to protest the Inquisition, or violence of any kind from the Church–those folks knew they were pleasing God because His Holy Word SAID so. This guy doesn’t HAVE that kind of backing.

Anyone disagreeing with the Pope has only to point out where scripture specifically forbids anyone calling their teachers “father” and point out the passages in three gospels where Jesus refers to anyone who listens to His commands and follows them as His brothers AND His Mother! (I asked a good catholic friend of mine about several of these scriptures…he’s a baptist now) There are several Catholic traditions that have absolutely NO basis in scripture (Mary’s immaculate conception comes to mind) IF Christianity were comparable to Islam (as SO many KEEP saying) as a Protestant I’d hate Catholics for twisting scripture etc–but instead, since I actually believe the scripture when it says that who so ever breaks the least of the commandments and even teaches others to do so will be least in the Kingdom of Heaven–I listen to that part about them still being IN the kingdom! I also listen to all those passages about God loving the whole world–enough to send Jesus to die for them ALL…and that part about His wanting EVERYONE to come to a saving knowledge of His Son. the list goes on and on and on–The Bible teaches that God loves all peoples–all nations: In Isaiah

He says, “It is too small a thing that You should be My Servant
To raise up the tribes of Jacob and to restore the preserved ones of Israel;
I will also make You a light of the nations
So that My salvation may reach to the end of the earth.”

According to Islam, Allah hates the unbelievers. (period)

Hassan’s article in The Observer:

My plea to fellow Muslims: you must renounce terror

As the bombers return to Britain, Hassan Butt, who was once a member of radical group Al-Muhajiroun, raising funds for extremists and calling for attacks on British citizens, explains why he was wrong.

Sunday July 1, 2007
The Observer

When I was still a member of what is probably best termed the British Jihadi Network, a series of semi-autonomous British Muslim terrorist groups linked by a single ideology, I remember how we used to laugh in celebration whenever people on TV proclaimed that the sole cause for Islamic acts of terror like 9/11, the Madrid bombings and 7/7 was Western foreign policy.

By blaming the government for our actions, those who pushed the ‘Blair’s bombs’ line did our propaganda work for us. More important, they also helped to draw away any critical examination from the real engine of our violence: Islamic theology.

Friday’s attempt to cause mass destruction in London with strategically placed car bombs is so reminiscent of other recent British Islamic extremist plots that it is likely to have been carried out by my former peers.

And as with previous terror attacks, people are again articulating the line that violence carried out by Muslims is all to do with foreign policy. For example, yesterday on Radio 4’s Today programme, the mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, said: ‘What all our intelligence shows about the opinions of disaffected young Muslims is the main driving force is not Afghanistan, it is mainly Iraq.’

He then refused to acknowledge the role of Islamist ideology in terrorism and said that the Muslim Brotherhood and those who give a religious mandate to suicide bombings in Palestine were genuinely representative of Islam.

I left the BJN in February 2006, but if I were still fighting for their cause, I’d be laughing once again. Mohammad Sidique Khan, the leader of the 7 July bombings, and I were both part of the BJN – I met him on two occasions – and though many British extremists are angered by the deaths of fellow Muslim across the world, what drove me and many of my peers to plot acts of extreme terror within Britain, our own homeland and abroad, was a sense that we were fighting for the creation of a revolutionary state that would eventually bring Islamic justice to the world.

How did this continuing violence come to be the means of promoting this (flawed) utopian goal? How do Islamic radicals justify such terror in the name of their religion? There isn’t enough room to outline everything here, but the foundation of extremist reasoning rests upon a dualistic model of the world. Many Muslims may or may not agree with secularism but at the moment, formal Islamic theology, unlike Christian theology, does not allow for the separation of state and religion. There is no ‘rendering unto Caesar’ in Islamic theology because state and religion are considered to be one and the same. The centuries-old reasoning of Islamic jurists also extends to the world stage where the rules of interaction between Dar ul-Islam (the Land of Islam) and Dar ul-Kufr (the Land of Unbelief) have been set down to cover almost every matter of trade, peace and war.

What radicals and extremists do is to take these premises two steps further. Their first step has been to reason that since there is no Islamic state in existence, the whole world must be Dar ul-Kufr. Step two: since Islam must declare war on unbelief, they have declared war upon the whole world. Many of my former peers, myself included, were taught by Pakistani and British radical preachers that this reclassification of the globe as a Land of War (Dar ul-Harb) allows any Muslim to destroy the sanctity of the five rights that every human is granted under Islam: life, wealth, land, mind and belief. In Dar ul-Harb, anything goes, including the treachery and cowardice of attacking civilians.

This understanding of the global battlefield has been a source of friction for Muslims living in Britain. For decades, radicals have been exploiting these tensions between Islamic theology and the modern secular state for their benefit, typically by starting debate with the question: ‘Are you British or Muslim?’ But the main reason why radicals have managed to increase their following is because most Islamic institutions in Britain just don’t want to talk about theology. They refuse to broach the difficult and often complex topic of violence within Islam and instead repeat the mantra that Islam is peace, focus on Islam as personal, and hope that all of this debate will go away.

This has left the territory of ideas open for radicals to claim as their own. I should know because, as a former extremist recruiter, every time mosque authorities banned us from their grounds, it felt like a moral and religious victory.

Outside Britain, there are those who try to reverse this two-step revisionism. A handful of scholars from the Middle East has tried to put radicalism back in the box by saying that the rules of war devised by Islamic jurists were always conceived with the existence of an Islamic state in mind, a state which would supposedly regulate jihad in a responsible Islamic fashion. In other words, individual Muslims don’t have the authority to go around declaring global war in the name of Islam.

But there is a more fundamental reasoning that has struck me and a number of other people who have recently left radical Islamic networks as a far more potent argument because it involves stepping out of this dogmatic paradigm and recognising the reality of the world: Muslims don’t actually live in the bipolar world of the Middle Ages any more.

The fact is that Muslims in Britain are citizens of this country. We are no longer migrants in a Land of Unbelief. For my generation, we were born here, raised here, schooled here, we work here and we’ll stay here. But more than that, on a historically unprecedented scale, Muslims in Britain have been allowed to assert their religious identity through clothing, the construction of mosques, the building of cemeteries and equal rights in law.

However, it isn’t enough for Muslims to say that because they feel at home in Britain they can simply ignore those passages of the Koran which instruct on killing unbelievers. By refusing to challenge centuries-old theological arguments, the tensions between Islamic theology and the modern world grow larger every day. It may be difficult to swallow but the reason why Abu Qatada – the Islamic scholar whom Palestinian militants recently called to be released in exchange for the kidnapped BBC journalist Alan Johnston – has a following is because he is extremely learned and his religious rulings are well argued. His opinions, though I now thoroughly disagree with them, have validity within the broad canon of Islam.

Since leaving the BJN, many Muslims have accused me of being a traitor. If I knew of any impending attack, then I would have no hesitation in going to the police, but I have not gone to the authorities, as some reports have suggested, and become an informer.

I believe that the issue of terrorism can be easily demystified if Muslims and non-Muslims start openly to discuss the ideas that fuel terrorism. (The Muslim community in Britain must slap itself awake from this state of denial and realise there is no shame in admitting the extremism within our families, communities and worldwide co-religionists.) However, demystification will not be achieved if the only bridges of engagement that are formed are between the BJN and the security services.

If our country is going to take on radicals and violent extremists, Muslim scholars must go back to the books and come forward with a refashioned set of rules and a revised understanding of the rights and responsibilities of Muslims whose homes and souls are firmly planted in what I’d like to term the Land of Co-existence. And when this new theological territory is opened up, Western Muslims will be able to liberate themselves from defunct models of the world, rewrite the rules of interaction and perhaps we will discover that the concept of killing in the name of Islam is no more than an anachronism.

All Muslims know that unjust violence, shedding innocent blood will be rewarded to them in kind. It is what they fear the most. That is why they hate getting caught.

Mcguyver on July 8, 2007 at 10:58 AM

The problem here is in the Islamic definitions of “justice” and “innocent.”

Connie on July 8, 2007 at 11:47 AM

Exactly, Connie. Very well said.
It is quite obvious from Robert Spencer’s Blogging the Qur’an and other commentators since 9-11 has brought the Radical/Islamic view to the forefront, that there are conflicting messages on what Muslims in general understand, believe and practice.

Besides doing a great job of blogging the Qur’an, writing a good book on the Islamic religion, and keeping us updated on all such pertinent issues, Robert also has been consistent with his message. For example: declaring Radical Islam as the problem, but not calling for it’s eradication.
also:

Actually, I have never said that “the essence of the religion [Islam] is war and slaughter.”

If you think I have, please provide the quote.

Robert Spencer on July 8, 2007 at 1:57 PM

So why my posting?

Let me explain:
These radicals are operating from a “Dark Age” mentality and come from a “fight or flight” history of survival.
As such

Morality is silly putty to the psychopath.

profitsbeard on July 8, 2007 at 5:12 PM

puts it into proper perspective.

Therefore we cannot address these radicals in a normal civilized manner of debate. They do not understand.

They fear what they set into motion, war. This is a “fight or flight” response.

How do you think, Robert Spencer, you would’ve addressed the radical Catholics as they killed, slaughtered, maimed, and butchered, the reforming Christians in those dark days?

The Catholics were simply responding to a “threat” of their old ingrained belief system!

Those radical Catholics were operating in the “fight” mentality, which they justified as similar to what YAHWEH in the Old Testament (or Torah) commanded the Jews to do with any Godless clan as they “possessed the Land” that was given to them. The radical Catholics were so sure of being the only “correct” Christian believer!!

How would you, Robert Spencer, address href=”http://www.educ.msu.edu/homepages/laurence/reformation/Luther/Luther.htm”>Martin Luther who is known for his antisemitism, quoted here:

Luther is also known for his writings about the Jews, the nature and consequences of which are the subject of scholarly debate. His statements that Jews’ homes should be destroyed, their synagogues burned, money confiscated, and liberty curtailed were revived and given widespread publicity by the Nazis in Germany in 1933–45. As a result of this and his revolutionary theological views, his legacy remains controversial.

And yet the Protestant reformation which is alive and well today, is not antisemitic,(except for radical Protestants).

Now above are examples of radicals that really cannot be addressed in a civilized manner. They must be dealed with unrelenting forceful strength within every means and effective tools available.

How would you, Robert Spencer, on the other hand, address Pope Benedict regarding his recent statement making it real clear that the Catholic Faith is the ONLY true Christian Faith? Obviously, the tactic here is quite different. Couldn’t it be debated with Pope Benedict in a civilized manner and thereby get him to admit that that kind of statement is exactly what induced, or led up to the killing of the Reformers?
But of course he is civilized, which is why a serious civilized debate works.

How would you, Robert Spencer, address the various moderate civilized Muslims. One of which Hassan Butt is showing all the signs of a reformed Muslim.

Hassan Butt is making statements such as: “the current text of the Qur’an is outdated and does not apply to todays world. It needs to be rewritten”. (Click on the Listen button)

Don’t you think that Hassan Butt needs an opportunity for a much broader influence?

Would you Robert Spencer consider giving him a blog on your website given his staunch reformed platform?

He could really be the “Martin Luther” of the Muslims! Hassan may not be all clear headed about the Jews (who knows, but it takes time for change of heart) as wasn’t Martin Luther, but who’s followers embrace the freedom of religion for Jews.

I say, unless Hassan Butt’s actions relapses, the time is now to strongly support and give him a larger platform.

We have a tremendous opportunity here for a great debate with and support for Hassan.

Title: Islamic concept of Al-Taqiyah to infiltrate and destroy kafir countries
Author: Dr. Walid
Publication: BHARATIYA PRAGNA
Date: JUNE 2000 VOLUME 2 NUMBER 6

Islamic concept of Al-Taqiyah to infiltrate and destroy kafir countries

All blood shed in the pre-Islamic days is to be left unavenged. The first such claim I revoke is that of Ibn Rabiah b. al-Harith b. Abd al-Muttalib, who was nursed among the Banu Layth and was slain by the Banu Hudhayl. His is the first blood shed in the pre-Islamic days with which I shall set an example.

This is from Mohammad’s last sermon? Wow, I must have a profound misunderstanding about the claims of Islam. As I understood it, Allah created the world, made mankind and established Islam from the beginnings of creation. That claim that Islam pre-dates every other religion is a necessary underpinning to the claims of Islam. Didn’t Mohammad claim that the Jews and Christians had gotten the “religion” wrong because of errors in their books and that he was sent to set the record straight by reasserting the ORIGINAL religion, Islam?

If that claim is true, then how can Mohammad then talk about “pre-Islamic days” as if they are days that are basically concurrent with Mohammad’s lifetime (and his “revelations”)? How can he abbrogate the claim of vengence for “Ibn Rabiah b. al-Harith b. Abd al-Muttalib, who was nursed among the Banu Layth and was slain by the Banu Hudhayl.” as a claim for a slaying that occured in the “pre-Islamic” days, and is therefore without a valid basis for vengence if Islam is the “orginal” religion given to man by Allah basically at the time of creation?

I have conveyed the Message, and have left you with something which, if you hold fast to it, you will never go astray; that is, the Book of Allah and the sunnah of his Prophet. Listen to my words, O people, for I have conveyed the Message and understand [it].

I’m glad he “understands” it, because it is so full of contradictions, revelations and abbrogations that I doubt anyone else does.

I had a similar experience.

I wasn’t able to post yesterday for some reason but did I want to say thanks again for your efforts. I’ve come to the conclusion that radicals muslims can find a way to justify anything.

aengus on July 8, 2007 at 7:08 PM

I hope you’re not a follower of any religion if you’re quoting Hitchens about the LDS church.

I’m sure we could find tasty little passages he’s written about Christianity, Judaism, and any other group that believes in a higher power as well – so, unless you are atheist or agnostic as well, I’d find a different source (or heck, you could even write your own biting commentary, if you’re feeling the creative juices flowing).

“Say, for instance, I was a Muslim in America. Could I call for the destruction of the American government and establishment of an Islamic state in America? No. So where is the freedom of religion? There is none.”
…
Islamic leaders in the U.S. largely have been careful to not assert publicly the Muslim belief that Islam ultimately will gain worldwide supremacy.

Of course they don’t. That’s so anyone suspected of being a Christian or exhibiting Christian sympathies who suggests there is reason to distrust Muslims can be roundly trounced and denounced for their religious bigotry.

Mojave Mark on July 8, 2007 at 5:16 PM

Not that I’m a Mormon, but I had to spend 2 weeks in the Salt Lake area for work and met and worked with a bunch of them. They were some of the nicest, most family-orented (and conservative) people I’d ever met. They were really a pleasure to work with. This was back in the late 90’s and it was very refreshing to hear a bunch of people in their 20’s and 30’s who were just as discusted with Clinton’s misadventures as I was (I was still living in Massachusetts back then).

Sure, you could draw similarities between Mohammed and Joseph Smith, but it’s the actions of their followers that dictate how we should judge their teachings. For instance, Mormons don’t go around flying jet airliners into skyscrapers. Just sayin…

infidelpride on July 9, 2007 at 12:50 AM

Just sayin’

Same “angel” visitation
Same “simpleton” prophet chosen
Same decree that the Jews and Christians have it ALL wrong
Same decree that Jesus is not God (ie 2nd person of the trinity)
Same decree that Christianity is an abomination
Same decree that the “prophet” gets to have lots of wives
Same unseen mysterious source material
Same decree that only the new religion’s followers will go to heaven
Same decree that hell awaits those new believers who apostacize from the new religion
Same doctrine that we have to earn our way to heaven instead of salvation by grace.
The list gets longer.

No one would suggest that Mormons and Muslims act the same, but you have to admit that the similarities between Mohammad and Joseph Smith are uncanny. One big difference in faiths is that Muslims believe in the existance of only one god whereas Mormons believe in the existence of a pantheon of gods. Where else but places like Hot Air can one even broach a subject like this?

Camps? I think they’ll pop up, seriously, in Europe first. Despite the fact that right now they’re just a bunch of Euro-weenies over there let’s remember something. Spain, Italy, and Germany were all fascist states at some point during the 20th century. I find it no stretch to see them going back to their fascists roots after a few nukes go off in major population centers. Fascism is much closer to European Socialism then we might think. It would be the neo-crusades with the Europeans leading the way (as unlikely as that may sound) to counter the current jihad Muslim culture.

I looked up Mohammed’s last sermon, and here is what it says: (al-Tabari, Vol IX, No. 1754)

“O people, listen to my words. I do not know whether I shall ever meet you again in this place after this year. O people, your blood and your property are sacrosanct until you meet your Lord, just as this day and this month of yours are sacred. Surely you will meet your Lord and He will question you about your deeds. I have [already] made this known. Let he who has a pledge return it to the one who entrusted him with it; all usury is abolished, but your capital belongs to you. Wrong not and you shall not be wronged. Allah has decreed that there will be no usury, and the usury of Abbas b. Abd al-Muttalib is abolished, all of it. All blood shed in the pre-Islamic days is to be left unavenged. The first such claim I revoke is that of Ibn Rabiah b. al-Harith b. Abd al-Muttalib, who was nursed among the Banu Layth and was slain by the Banu Hudhayl. His is the first blood shed in the pre-Islamic days with which I shall set an example. O people, indeed Satan despairs of ever being worshipped in this land of yours. He will be pleased, however, if he is obeyed in a thing other than that, in matters you minimize. So beware of him in your religion, O people, intercalculating a month is an increase in unbelief whereby the unbelievers go astray; one year they make it profane, and hallow it another [in order] to agree with the number that Allah has hallowed, and so profane what Allah has hallowed, and hallow what Allah has made profane. Time has completed its cycle [and is] as it was on the day that Allah created the heavens and the earth. The number of the months with Allah is twelve; [they were] in the Book of Allah on the day He created the heavens and the earth. Four of them are sacred, the three consecutive [months] and the Rajab [which is the month of] Mudar, which is between Jumada and Sha’ban.

Now then, O people, you have a right over your wives and they have a right over you. You have [the right] that they should not cause anyone of whom you dislike to tread on your beds; and that they should not commit any open indecency. If they do, then Allah permits you to shut them in separate rooms and to beat them, but not severely. If they abstain from [evil], they have the right to their food and clothing in accordance with the custom. Treat women well, for they are [like] domestic animals with you and do not possess anything for themselves. You have taken them only as a trust from Allah, and you have made the enjoyment of their persons lawful by the word of Allah, so understand and listen to my words, O people. I have conveyed the Message, and have left you with something which, if you hold fast to it, you will never go astray; that is, the Book of Allah and the sunnah of his Prophet. Listen to my words, O people, for I have conveyed the Message and understand [it]. Know for certain that every Muslim is a brother of another Muslim, and that all Muslims are brethren. It is not lawful for a person [to take] from his brother except that which he has given him willingly, so do not wrong yourselves. O Allah, have I not conveyed the message?”

I fail to see any reference to your citation above. The closest that it comes to is the last statements highlighted above, where it only orders Muslims to be gracious towards fellow Muslims: nowhere does he extend that consideration to Infidels.

P.S. Mojave Mark and others, can we avoid sliming Mormonism with the same brush as Islam? When the Mormons start trying to terrorize other people, use billions of unearned money in proselytizing worldwide with the goals of undermining other societies, set up governments in countries that persecute non-Mormons, etc, you may have a point. Until then, while people may have their individual reservations/prejudices about different faiths, none of them – not even Atheism or Scientology – deserve to be equated with Islam, since none of them have the supremacist underpinnings that we are going through with the Quran.

Go ahead, Dan. Blog the New Testament, going through what it says and adding in copious references to Christian commentators of all sects.

To take Riehl’s logic to its conclusion, anyone can take any text and twist it however one wants. Therefore, language and writing is inherently not understandable and essentially meaningless.

Note the difference…

Condemned I can handle.

Killed, I got a problem with.

There’s another similarity–revelation from angel–

“…which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!” Gal 1:7-9

Note the difference between “let him be condemned” and “kill the unbeliever.”