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.”

Squid Shark on May 19, 2009 at 6:47 PM

Squid,

Apparently Logan didn’t get backto you, and I’m really late to this thread, but here’s the Sura (i.e., verse from the Qur’an) that mentioned exactly what you requested:

“The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is : execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land : that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter” -Sura 5:33

Not enough? Well, most Imams, Emirs, Mullahs, etc. quote extensively from the Hadith…take your pick which Hadith you prefer:

“Ibn Abbaas said : The Messenger of Allah said, ‘Whoever changes his (Islamic) religion, kill him.’” – Al-Bukhary (number 6922)

“Abd-Allah ibn Masood said : The Messenger of Allah said : ‘It is not permissible to shed the blood of a Muslim who bears witness that there is no god except Allah and that I am the Messenger of Allah, except in one of three cases : a soul (in case of murder); a married person who commits adultery; and one who leaves his religion and separates from the main body of Muslims (the ummah).’” – Sahih Al Bukhary number 6484 and Sahih Muslim number 1676

Islamic schools (Madh’hab) of jurisprudence (Fiqh) are no different in their assessment of/judgment on apostasy. There are 2 forms of apostasy, ordinary and extreme. “Ordinary” just means there was no intent to harm Islam…apostates are given 3 days to repent or suffer any one or all of the following: imprisonment, torture, and execution. Under the “extreme” forms of apostasy, the apostate is given no waiting period to repent, but is immediately executed.

Three of the four Sunni Madh’hab, such as Shafi, Maliki, and Hanbali, state women should be given the same sentence as a man…no mercy for the “fairer” sex. Only the Hanafi Madh’hab grants some leniency on women. I have no knowledge if the 2 Shia Madh’hab (their jurisprudence is known as Ja’fari or Jaferi) are lentient on women or not, as my studies focused primarily on the Sunnis.

You may not like people quoting Robert Spencer or Ibn Warraq, but they quote the Qur’an and Hadith when forming their arguments.

I highly recommend you go to jihadwatch.org and read through his Blogging the Qur’an series…that will give you all the quotes you need or could ever wish to see.

I also recommend you read Leaving Islam by Ibn Warraq, who documents testimonies of apostates, as well as the Qur’an by topic…very interesting read.

Visit the Apostates of Islam site also, if you’re interested in a more updated location for ex-Muslim testimonies.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

The Bibles should not have been destroyed.

Loxodonta on May 20, 2009 at 1:47 AM

Agreed. Destroying them was an act of submission to Islam. No sense in anyone denying it.

My only point was without faith, people have no intrinsic requirement to behave any particular way.

hawkdriver on May 19, 2009 at 11:07 PM

Au contraire.

A man can do as he wills, but not will as he wills. Everybody acts not only under external compulsion but
also in accordance with inner necessity.
- Schopenhauer

ThereGoesTheNeighborhood on May 20, 2009 at 1:38 AM

The Bibles should not have been destroyed.

Wouldn’t a minimal respect for religion in general dictate that Bibles should not be gratuitously destroyed?

If commanders confiscated and destroyed personal weapons, wouldn’t people be outraged? Granted, these Bibles are in the language of Afghanistan, but does it truly make them just contraband, to be confiscated and destroyed?

If churches, while possibly misunderstanding the situation in Afghanistan, freely collected and gave money to send Bibles to Afghanistan, does the government, military or not, have the right to take the property of others and destroy it?

If true that the Bibles were destroyed, that clearly goes beyond the necessary authority that the military has to enforce General Order One, and I would certainly hope someone is held accountable.

For centuries having them over there and us over here worked out pretty well…except for the Christian Armenians of course, but that is ancient history to the Communists so they doesn’t really count as a negative towards Islam.

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.

Alluding that Islam and Christianity are in the same vein in terms of how it governs, instructs and molds it’s people is not only completely and utterly incorrect, but incredibly ignorant – even more so with the knowledge of modern events.

Well. No.

The reason why the Western societies are so much more humane is because they are largely secular. When people took Bible seriously, Europe had the Inquisition.

radiofreevillage on May 19, 2009 at 5:19 PM

Backwards. The Inquisition was at least in part an attempt to keep people away from the Bible. When people read the Bible for themselves, they tended to reject Catholic doctrines. This was actually recognized by Catholic and Protestant alike, though the Catholics considered the rejection to be heresy and apostasy.

The Bible is actually a very moderate book. This is due no doubt in part to the fact that it leaves many thinks up to careful interpretation.

For example, Islam is well known for very strict standards of modesty, often including requiring women to hide even their faces and arms. About the only thing the Bible says is that women should dress modestly.

Many hermits and priests — by no means all — believed that water and bathing was somehow unholy. But you could search the Bible in vain for a command to avoid bathing. It’s unfortunately a commonplace for some who claim to believe every word of the Bible to go way beyond it, and make up their own rules.

Even with all the preaching against alcohol in modern times, you’ll find no command that alcoholic drinks are always to be shunned. Yes, the Bible warns against alcohol in several places, but never just forbids it. Whether a Christian consumes alcohol depends on just how seriously you take the warnings.

In fact, the remarkable thing is just how many times people who identify themselves as Bible believers will go beyond what the Bible says. Many Catholics refuse to eat meat on Fridays (not a Bible command). Many Pentecostals believe women should never cut their hair (an interpretion of the Scripture that long hair is a glory to a woman, but not an actual command). And of course, you have the snake handlers, though somehow only in the Appalachian Mountains, who somehow convert a prophecy of miracles following the believers into a command that they MUST handle poisonous snakes.

Let’s just face it: the problem isn’t the Bible. The problem is the people.

So don’t go blaming the dark ages on “Biblical Literalism,” since the dark ages were a period of great Biblical ignorance, if anything.

And isn’t it curious how the Renaissance, the Protestant Reformation, and the Enlightenment all seemed to occur as the Bible became more widely available and more read than ever before? In fact, they track remarkably well with the Bible being translated into the vernacular languages of the people.

OH MY GOD I CAN’T BELIEVE THEY LET CHRISTIANS INTO AF-GHON-I-STON, RIGHT HERE ON THE BORDER OF POCK-I-STON! CLEARLY THIS IS A VIOLATION OF THE SEPARATION OF AMERICAN CHURCHES FROM MUSLIM STATES–ER, OF AMERICAN GOVERNMENT FROM MOSQUES–ER, IT’S A VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION, ANYWAY.

ON THE HEELS OF WHAT’S WIDELY BEING DUBBED AS “AMERICA’S SECOND ABU GHRAIB,” ARAB LEADERS ARE DEMANDING THAT THE AMERICAN COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF DENOUNCE THE BIBLE AND THROW IT UNDER THE BUS ALONGSIDE HIS FORMER PASTOR.

THE FOLLOWING MESSAGE WAS TAPED BY OSAMA BIN LADEN, WHOSE NEARBY CAVE WAS TAINTED WITH SOME OF THE SMOKE FROM THE BURNING INFIDEL PAPER: “WE ALLOWED THE AMERICAN CHRISTIANS TO COME HERE AND SPILL THEIR BLOOD FOR THE SAKE OF MUSLIMS WHO WOULD OTHERWISE HAVE BEEN TEMPTED TO STONE THE INFIDELS, AND THIS IS HOW THEY REPAY US?”

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

To me, that’s quite different. When asked about your faith, answer, explain. I would hope that’s not considered proselytizing.

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.

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.

Any ideas?

TexasDan on May 19, 2009 at 11:46 PM

No, sorry. Safety first in such matters, so keep it tight.

Take good care.

They are a military force for chrissakes not a bunch of Jesuits.

Squid Shark on May 19, 2009 at 3:35 PM

Uh, Jesuits don’t usually hand out Bibles — evangelicals do. (See: Mexico v. Texas.)

Can you share a link on the group that sent you?

Loxodonta on May 19, 2009 at 11:41 PM

I can’t post it here, and I’m not aware of a good method to contact you and be sure the link doesn’t end up broadcast far and wide. Any ideas?

As someone who did serve as a missionary to Muslims, I heartily agree.

TexasDan on May 19, 2009 at 11:30 PM

I’d like to read your story. Can you share a link on the group that sent you?

Those who want to proselytize to the Muslims, should volunteer to be missionaries, not members of the US armed forces. If you have volunteered to be a member of the US armed forces, then do your duty and obey orders.

Loxodonta on May 19, 2009 at 11:26 PM

As someone who did serve as a missionary to Muslims, I heartily agree. If you sign up for military service, you are doing an honorable thing, and you are bound to serve under the whims and restrictions of the military.

Also also, it doesn’t necessarily help the missions movement as a whole to have U.S. soldiers doing missions work. It’s waaaay to easy for that to get twisted in the minds of the locals into conversion at gunpoint, whether that’s even remotely the case or not.

hawkdriver on May 19, 2009 at 11:11 PM

I don’t rebuke people who are Biblical literalists, but as you know, most Christians, including Catholics, are not.

Getting back to this particular thread, proselytizing is best done with care to the needs of the moment. When a person has a broken leg, I don’t want a doctor proselytizing while setting the broken bone. I don’t want a dentist trying to save me from my Catholic beliefs while cleaning my teeth. And when people are hungry, I don’t want fire and brimstone raining down on them from the pulpit as they eat. I understand some think that practically every moment is a teaching moment for the Gospel, but I don’t.

So, as I posted earlier:

According to Tapper: Central Command General Order No. 1 specifically forbids “proselytizing of any faith, religion or practice.”

Those who want to proselytize to the Muslims, should volunteer to be missionaries, not members of the US armed forces. If you have volunteered to be a member of the US armed forces, then do your duty and obey orders.

There is no evidence me or other jews are decended from Abraham but I will take it.

Also the Ishmaelites were mentioned as being Arabs in non canonical, pre-christian jewish souces like the book of jubilees.

Additionally, Arabs and Jews are all Semetic and the same DNA testing that showed jews and in particular kohanim are all related showed jews are genetuclall related to Arabs as well.

Squid Shark on May 19, 2009 at 11:07 PM

Levitical ancestral records were kept for an awfully long time. Are there really none left? That may in fact be true, I just don’t know.

But Mohammad’s ancestry is still just his own claim, and it would bear double checking whether it’s made in the Koran or just the Hadiths. I know, for instance, that the Koranic account of Abrahams’s sacrifice of his son is not specific on which son is being sacrificed. The Hadiths do name the son, except they name both Issac and Ishmael, in rougly equal numbers of occurances. Modern day Muslims are all insistant that it was Ishmael, primarily because the teaching within Islam has been focused in this direction as a reaction to Judaism and Christianity.

Point is that there are no other historical references to Mohommad’s ancestry other than his own claims. Do Arabs in general believe themselves to be descended from Ishmael? I’ve not heard that they do. I’m perfectly willing to accept that God multiplied Ishmael as he said he would, and I’m sure at least some of his descendants live still in that region. But I’d be very curious to know if aside from Islam, as in prior to it, they traced their ancestry to Abraham or not.

As far as genetic relationship between Jews and Arabs, would the lost tribes not possibly fit in that equation as well somewhere?

Loxodonta on May 19, 2009 at 10:46 PM

We differ. I believe in the literal word. If I am able to dismiss the history and the miracles of the Pentateuch, what else am I not required to believe.