Military confiscates, destroys Pashto-language Bibles on Afghan base

maverick muse on May 19, 2009 at 4:58 PM

I think that plenty of peaceful Muslims have died at the hands of Christian Marauders in their time as well.

And it is funny for a Christian to talk about Cribbing from other religions….

Just to be fair, I am under no illusions that my faith was not once a polytheistic one too. One day, a guy just decided his sky god was THE G-d.

And I am glad he was right and that G-d blessed him greatly for it.

Squid Shark on May 19, 2009 at 5:04 PM

A crystal-clear example of “false fairness,” AKA moral equivalence. Oh, I’m sure if you look hard enough you can find an example or two of Christian marauders who killed peaceful Muslims. But you can’t be honest while pretending that Christianity and Islam have the same record on this count. The key difference between the two in this case is that Christianity only spreads through evangelism, while Islam was spread largely by the sword. Evangelism is a core value of Christianity. Jihad is a core value of Islam.

Neither should this be a surprise to you. Islam offers paradise and 72 virgins for martyrs. And by martyrs, they mean people who die while engaged in warfare against non-Muslims.

Martyr has a different meaning in Christianity. A Christian martyr is someone killed solely because he’s a Christian. If you’re put to death for breaking other laws, you can’t be called a martyr. If you die in battle against non-Christians, even in defense of your faith, you would still not be called a martyr. Hero? Maybe, under the right circumstances. But not a martyr.

Holy War is not part of the Christian religion.

These are well-known facts, but you seem strangely unable to notice them.

Your thinking seems very limited, as if you view all religions not your own as essentially the same, thereby missing all the differences.

Take your simplistic statement that Christianity and Islam “cribbed” from Judaism. It could be said that Islam “cribbed” from both Judaism and Christianity, since it had no connection to either until Mohammed began having his “visions.” But Christianity didn’t copy from Judaism. It grew out of Judaism. The first churches were in Judea, the first church members were Jewish, the founder was Jewish, His entire ministry took place in Judea (broadly interpreted to include Galilee and Decapolis), the first apostles were Jewish, etc. Even the famous “Apostle to the Gentiles” was an observant Jew of the tribe of Benjamin, a Pharisee, and a student of Gamaliel. And his M.O. wherever he went was to go first to the Jews and preach to them, and only then to preach to the Gentiles.

Christianity and Islam are two very different things. It’s foolish to assume that they must be essentially the same.

In fact, let’s compare Islam’s links to Judaism.

There aren’t any. The best argument you could make is point out that Mohammed called both Jews and Christians, “people of the Book.” I suppose you could also say that Mohammed recognized many Jewish prophets as prophets of God. But curiously, they never read any of the writings of these they call prophets. What is a prophet if not a messenger of God? What is the point of recognizing a messenger of God, and never reading his message? Does it not really indicate just lip service to them as prophets, and not true recognition of them as prophets?

By comparison, Christians often read Isaiah, Jeremiah, the Pentateuch, Amos, Obadiah, and the Psalms of David, among others. Why? Because they truly recognize them as prophets of God.

Your inability to face these simple truths means that many who you might well consider ignorant are in fact far ahead of you in understanding the nature of Islam, Christianity, and Judaism.

tom on May 20, 2009 at 12:06 AM

Loxodonta on May 19, 2009 at 11:26 PM

I won’t turn my back on my faith because of an interpretation of a general order. I’ve been asked by Afghani soldiers on both deployments about my religion. To act like I’m unwilling to talk about it is to deny God.

hawkdriver on May 20, 2009 at 12:07 AM

This aspect of the issue is all-too-rarely mentioned. Surely the orders against proselytizing are intended to refer to active proselytization. It’s certainly not appropriate for soldiers to actively go out and evangelize. But it would be just as wrong, in fact more wrong, to trample the religious freedom of soldiers by telling them they can’t talk about their faith at all, even if asked. Or that they can’t give a Bible to someone who wants it.

Wouldn’t the same principle apply as in political involvement? You’re not allowed to campaign for a politician in the military, but you’re not prohibited from speaking your opinion if asked.

tom on May 20, 2009 at 1:00 AM

tom on May 20, 2009 at 12:06 AM

A few marauders???????????? I would sugest you read up a smidge on the sacking of Jerusalem. And that would be just an archetypal example.

I figured you’d bring up the Crusades, but it’s an embarrassingly bad fit for your argument. The crusades were very much a defensive set of wars. Muslims were trying to overrun the Christian kingdoms of the Middle East, including the Eastern Roman Empire, Byzantium. It didn’t take a genius to see that they were planning to keep expanding.

No, they hadn’t attacked western Europe yet. But what kind of idiots would have just presumed there was nothing to worry about. The pattern was clearly set.

Islam spread as a result of the social and political unification of the Arabian penensula. Yes that is a result of Islam, of course. But was far more a result of the political situation than the religious one.

Since the social and political unification of the Arabian peninsula was created by their religious unification, I’m not quite clear on how you think this proves your point.

The only reason Christianity spread so easily by evangelism because it took advantage of the existing infrastucture of Rome.

Christianity certainly took advantage of the empire of Rome, which made travel much more feasible. But it was not in any sense protected by the Roman Empire, so it was a very passive sort of aid.

Finally, I agree, the concept of Greater Jihad is not something mirrored in the New Testament. But the idea of “Armed Conflict” or “Holy War” is more a construct of Hadith interpretation and the Tafsir Heretics like AQ take it to the extreme. Again as a result of the socioeconomic state that most of the Muslim world has gotten itself into.

Unfortunately, reading the Koran tells you very little of what Muslims believe. I actually read the Koran twice, but I’ve come to realize that to really understand Muslim teaching, you have to learn all the Hadith. Also, what one part of the Koran teaches, another will abrogate or set aside.

So saying that jihad comes from the Hadith rather than the Koran means basically nothing. It’s still part of Islam.
It has nothing to do with the socioeconomic state of Muslim countries, except as a partial cause.

As for Christianity “growing out” of Judaism, you crossed that bridge when Pauls cut the cord.

Also my copy of the Tanakh looks very different than yours.

Squid Shark on May 20, 2009 at 6:53 AM

Christianity is clearly not Judaism, but it clearly came from and has strong links to Judaism. And there is clearly no such connection between Islam and Judaism, or Islam and Christianity.

Which is my point. Just because you can describe Islam, Judaism, and Christianity as 3 great monotheistic world faiths, or even 3 “Abrahamic religions,” does not mean that all 3 are equivalent, or equally valid, or equally violent, or equally misinformed, or equally … anything. That is a fallacy repeated all too often, which leads to people ignoring real differences, while patting themselves on the back for their “fairness.”

tom on May 20, 2009 at 1:24 PM