hat is a ridiculous thing to say obvioulsy…but I think you know that…so I’ll just comment that we have a right to defend ourselves and you can’t turn the other cheek if you’re dead.

Do Muslims have the same right?

I’m not saying Christians have to be peaceful, or that Christianity is the same as or worse than Islam. I’m just saying don’t call it the religion of peace when all it does is preach peace, and few Christians actually put that into action.

Of course Bush is the head of a secular state, and he doesn’t have much choice when responding to an attack. But he does say he believes God meant for him to be President, and his favorite philosopher is Jesus. I wonder what would have happened if he had used His teachings after 9/11, and declared a moratorium on killing by Americans.

If we’re going to end the cycle of violence, someone has to start.

But his question was not only legitimate, he hit the nail on the head whereas you glanced off without even knowing it.

If Christianity is a religion of peace, why are Christians not peaceful?

B26354 on August 26, 2007 at 8:19 PM

That is a ridiculous thing to say obvioulsy…but I think you know that…so I’ll just comment that we have a right to defend ourselves and you can’t turn the other cheek if you’re dead.

CCRWM on August 26, 2007 at 9:16 PM

Uh, dude.

That’s all very cool and all (”I’ll just comment that…”), but what did JESUS say?

Where was his advocating of a military strategy vs. turn the other cheek?

I’d say Christianity makes allowances for reality while trying to hold onto a religion that doesn’t conform to it… as none do.

Hopefully, Islam will make similar allowances one day and stop cutting of people’s heads.

But anyway. For you to defend an attack on militant Christianity by giving your opinion, completely ignoring the teachings of your savior, is too funny.

Christoph on August 27, 2007 at 11:21 AM

Thanks for posting that video. Just finished watching, and boy…does this guy hit the nail on the head. That last 30 seconds I don’t believe to be a “jab” at America….he’s just pointing out that Europe needs to show the US that they do have a spine, and can fight Islamification on their own.

This week continues a sura that lays out details of the proper behavior and treatment of women under Islam:

Wife-beating exists in all cultures, but only in Islam does it enjoy divine sanction. Amnesty International reports that “according to the Pa…

That’s gotta disappear off of YouTube pretty soon, it makes too much sense.

You guys got the techno mojo… you should download it pronto.

It’s like watching Christopher Hitchens or Mark Steyn on a tear, but… better.

You gotta blog this or at least watch it.

Epistemology of God and His Providence? Soteriology?

Yes, but probably not in the way you might expect. Sura 18 tells a fantastic story that is the foundation of Sufi mysticism. The later suras are full of arresting images, but they are mostly just warnings of the impending Judgment.

Of course, at this rate, it will be awhile before we get to either. I am going at the rate I’m going because I believe there is pertinent material that needs to be brought out in these early Suras, but they are more concerned with laws than later ones.

A question for you, Robert Spencer. This koran strikes me as terribly inbred and myopic. Does this koran ever leave its minutia of earth bound legalism – ala leviticus – to deal with a more eternal epistemology of God Himself and His providence into the affairs of individuals and nations? (The old testament book of Malachi is a good example.)

Or does this koran remain confined to human aspirations, human instruction and human dealings with other humans – unless or until a reference to allah or mohammed be invoked for ‘divine motivation’?

locomotivebreath1901 on August 26, 2007 at 10:38 PM

I sure hope Mr. Spencer makes it back to this thread and answers your question, because now that you’ve ask it, I’m very curious in that regard also.

locomotivebreath1901 on August 26, 2007 at 10:38 PM

I am with LocoBreath here. I have been wondering this from day one really, but as long as the question has been posed, I will also ask. Does the Quran ever deal with spiritual matters? Does it have a soteriology beyond ’submit’? Or should we just be patient and wait for those things in later Suras?

Krykeee. This chapter on women reads like stereo instructions: “Operation & repair of the human female.” My guess is teet sucking at BestBuy is no sub for consumer’s report. Haram!@

A question for you, Robert Spencer. This koran strikes me as terribly inbred and myopic. Does this koran ever leave its minutia of earth bound legalism – ala leviticus – to deal with a more eternal epistemology of God Himself and His providence into the affairs of individuals and nations? (The old testament book of Malachi is a good example.)

Or does this koran remain confined to human aspirations, human instruction and human dealings with other humans – unless or until a reference to allah or mohammed be invoked for ‘divine motivation’?

Just wondering. I feel like I’m slogging through mud here.

George W. Bush is President of a secular state and acts as such. He does not act in the name of Christendom, nor does he provide detailed theological proofs of how his actions are inspired by Christ.

Supporters of Sharia and Jihad do act in the name of their religion, and they provide ample justification from their Prophet’s revelations, sayings and example.

There’s no valid comparison to be made.

JetBoy on August 26, 2007 at 8:09 PM

Most of the suicide bombings in Iraq are directly targeting Muslims. So according to those guys it seems that killing other Muslims is very ‘justified’.

Good post this week Robert. Your new book is in the mail and I’m hoping to start reading it Thursday.

If Christianity is a religion of peace, why are Christians not peaceful?

B26354 on August 26, 2007 at 8:19 PM

That is a ridiculous thing to say obvioulsy…but I think you know that…so I’ll just comment that we have a right to defend ourselves and you can’t turn the other cheek if you’re dead.

Saddam’s game was total provocation, and he played it with the wrong US President.

Bush is a Christian. So why didn’t he use Christ’s prescription for dealing with enemies (love them; turn the other cheek)?

If Christianity is a religion of peace, why are Christians not peaceful?

So suicide is OK, according to the Koran, as long as you take out some infidels with you? And is it justified to “take out” Muslims who may be in the vicinity, knowing the bomber will kill them as well…saying, is collateral damage acceptable?

Mr. Spencer, you said:

As I noted in the article, the Arabic is اضْرِبُوهُنََّ, idriboohunna. This is, literally, “strike them,” from the root daraba, strike or beat. Daraba can mean “go away from,” as Bakhtiar has it, only with the preposition 3an, عن, which does not appear in 4:34.

Does this preposition not appear in any translation in 4:34?

JetBoy, you and I must be on the same wavelength. We asked Mr Spencer essentially the same questions.

HeIsSailing on August 26, 2007 at 7:03 PM

After reading back through the thread, I guess we do see the same things here. I too am waiting to read 9:111, which will explain much we’re told.

You mean like invading a sovereign nation without provocation?

That would depend on your definition of “provocation”.

After invading Kuwait and having to be forced back into Iraq, Saddam unleashed a genocidal wave of attacks against innocent civilians in Iraq. This was the same man that randomly shot Scuds at Israel and was giving out cash prizes to families of suicide bombers. The USA and allies set up no fly zones to protect the people of Iraq from air attacks launched by Saddam. The US pilots flying these mission were being lit-up and fired upon by Saddam’s forces on a regular basis. Saddam also played a losing game regarding WMDs, and his refusal for inspectors to have full access for searches, as per the peace treaty. Add to all of this, the other agreements of surrender that were broken by Saddam, and it’s a tough case for crying no provocation. Saddam’s game was total provocation, and he played it with the wrong US President.

Re representations of any living being being prohibited in Islamic law: Sho nuf.

Thank you Robert. I have really learned a lot because of your efforts. I will pray for your continued success and safety.