The Global War on Christians in the Muslim World - The Daily Beast

Allowing genocide should not be an option.

I hope you mean that for both sides equally.

The overwhelming majority of violent acts committed against Muslims come from their fellow Muslims. Any Genocide committed against Muslims will be from their fellow (but different sect) Muslims, not mainstream Christians.

Lawrence Wright, in his Docu-drama, "My Trip To Al-Qaeda", http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kchpZXpylX0 states that "many times more Muslims have been killed by their fellow Muslims than those killed on 9/11."

Radical Islam serves an agenda, and the only ones not expendible are the leadership. I am happy that the world proves this true:

"The graves are full of indispensible men." ~ Napoleon Bonaparte

It is so much easier for liberals to attack Christians than to deal with the egregious "sins" of muslims anywhere.

Wrong. What is easy is to point fingers and say that, "They're evil!!, They're scum!! They need to be wiped out!!! without first admitting our responsibility for their state of affairs. Nothing is black or white.

Again, I'm not justifying things. I'm just able to see them from different points of view.

When 9/11 happened, we all cursed Bin Laden and everyone in his family. There is not one American that didn't wish Muslims to be exterminated, including, I admit, myself. I was pissed and scared.

But then you gotta start looking at another perspective. Sure, Bin Laden was still an ass. No doubt about that. But it was the US in part that made him such an ass in the first place.

1970's Afghanistan

The Russians invade and of course the US being the nosy SOB's we can be get in there to supposedly "help" a young Bin Laden trying to defend his land. Of course what we really want is to get a foot in the door of the Middle East and all that oil.

After the dust settles and the Russians are gone, you would think we would have withdrawn and leave the Afghanis alone but noooooooo, we overstayed our welcome and Bin Laden got pissy with us too.

Again, am I justifying what he did? Of course not. But I said it before and I'll say it again. Nothing is black and white.

There is not one American that didn't wish Muslims to be exterminated,

you are joking, or trolling.

this is worse than using a comic book as a source, it's utter nonsense.

if I gave you a quarter, would you purchase a clue ?

ummm, excuse me....even in the midst of 9/11 I never NEVER wished for the extermination of the innocent with the guilty simply because they were Muslim. I absolutely ABHORRED how many Muslim Americans were treated after 9/11 and would take every opportunity to remind people to stop using the broad brush of condemnation. Something like you are doing now with this statement:

When 9/11 happened, we all cursed Bin Laden and everyone in his family. There is not one American that didn't wish Muslims to be exterminated,

That comment is tripe and I refuse to allow myself to be placed into that neatly, and FALSELY, labeled box. I will question aspects of extremism but NEVER have I condemned an entire people for the wrong doing of those within the population.

I need to stop now or I'll break the CoH, I'm -that- livid.

Bin Laden trying to defend his land

Bin Laden is Saudi Arabian, not Afghani; he was just as much a foreigner there as we were.

For the record, 9/11 only woke up those who were living in a cocoon; many of us were aware of the jihadi threat long before. Muslim persecution of Christians, Jews, and adherents of other religions in Muslim-controlled lands is not a new thing; nor is the doctrine of a Muslim-controlled world, by persuasion if possible, by force where necessary. Both originated with Mohammed.

I never wanted muslims eliminated - just the militants. They are apparently content in their delusions and I REALLY DON'T CARE - at least the majority don't go door to door or stand on street corners "preaching" (like certain "christian" nutcases) - but of course, I don't tell them my disdain for religion (all of them) in general.

the report stated.'kill the pagans [or infidels or unbelievers] wherever you find them' is often cited with no context."

having it in context is worse.

In every madrassa textbook reviewed, the concept of jihad has been reduced from its wider meaning of personal development to violent conflict in the name of Islam,

a wonderful bit of disinformation.

the idea of a jihad, as a personal struggle to better oneself, is from a weak hadithand is not supported in the theocratic Islamic community.(the ummah)

yes the hadith has been declared weak and false by others,

in no way can this hadith be used to compare jihad(fighting in the way of allah) and fighting against the nafs, the hadith is often mis-qouted to try to make the real jihad seem not that important,

for arguments sake even if this hadith were true the rasool only said it AFTER RETURNING FROM THE BATTLEFIELD OF BADR he didnt use it to abrogate or invalidate jihad like the way some modernists do!

so with this in mind it appears to be applicable only to those returning from their patrols in afghanistan or iraq or chechnya. (not guys coming back from the khanqa)

This hadeeth also contradicts clear verses of the Qur'an. Allah the Mighty, the Majestic, says, (Translation of the Meaning),

"Not equal are those of the believers who sit (at home), except those who are disabled (by injury or are blind or lame, etc.), and those who strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allah with their wealth and their lives. Allah has preferred in grades those who strive hard and fight with their wealth and their lives above those who sit (at home). Unto each, Allah has promised good (Paradise), but Allah has preferred those who strive hard and fight, above those who sit (at home) by a huge reward; Degrees of (higher) grades from Him, and Forgiveness and Mercy. And Allah is Ever Oft'Forgiving, Most Merciful."
Qur'an (4:95-96)

there are many comments, this is only one.

I suggest you read "Three Cups of Tea". What the person in this book has been and is doing is a good way to confront teachings of hate.

During the investigation, "60 Minutes" found that several of the principals of a number of the schools allegedly built and funded by CAI where empty or built by others, while several school principals said they had not received money from CAI in years.

The CBS report also alleges that the CAI spends more donor money discussing the buildings of schools in Afghanistan and Pakistan in the U.S. than it does on actually building them -- while one charity group alleges that donor money is being used to promote Mortenson and his book.

"In 2002, [Mortenson's] board treasurer quit, resigned, along with the board president and two other board members ... he said, in so many words, that Greg uses Central Asia Institute as his private ATM machine. That there's no accounting. He has no receipts," Krakauer told CBS.

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/cups-tea-author-accused-lies/story?id=13395978&page=2

kpr - is it a "weak hadith" to the Sunni, Shiite, or both?

The linked site is Sunni, I have never seen it classified in Sunni theology as anything other than da'if (weak) or Maudu (false)

Shiite have their own hadiths collections, but recognize many, if not all of the 'Sunni' classic hadiths, that do not contradict Shiite dogma.

a shiite source http://www.al-islam.org/anthology/translator.htm

The most famous and authoritative collections of Shi'ite hadiths are four works which, in terms of their importance for Shi'ism, correspond to the Six Correct Collections in Sunni Islam. These are al-Kafi fi 'ilm al-din (The Sufficient in the Knowledge of Religion) by Thiqat al-Islam Muhammad ibn Ya'qub al-Kulayni (d. 329/940), Man la yahduruhu al-faqih (For him not in the Presence of Jurisprudent) of Shaykh al-Saduq Muhammad ibn Babuyah al-Qummi (d. 381/991), Tahdhib al-ahkam (Rectification of the Statutes) by Shaykh al-Ta'ifah Muhammad al-Tusi (d. 460/ 1068) and al-Istibsar fi ma ukhtulif fihi min al-akhbar (Reflection upon the Disputed Traditions) also by al-Tusi.

the report stated.'kill the pagans [or infidels or unbelievers] wherever you find them' is often cited with no context."

the full and proper context of the verse of the sword (9:5), can be found here

the full and proper context of the verse of the sword (9:5), can be found here

How comical... Instead of pointing to another newsvine article where you point to Tafsir, why didn't you just point to an online version of the Qur'an? Shouldn't the Qur'an speak for itself? LOL I also find it interesting that you purposely started your quote of the Qur'an from ayat 2 instead of ayat 1 of Surah al Tawbah.

http://al-quran.info/?x=y#&&sura=9&aya=1&trans=en-ahmed_ali&show=both,quran-uthmani&ver=2.00

IMMUNITY is granted those idolators by God and his Apostle with whom you have a treaty.

(They can) move about for four months freely in the land, but should know they cannot escape (the law of) God, and that God can put the unbelievers to shame.

A general proclamation is (made) this day of the Greater Pilgrimage on the part of God and His Apostle, that God is not bound (by any contract) to idolaters, nor is His Apostle. It is, therefore, better for you to repent. If you do not, remember that you cannot elude (the grip of) God. So announce to those who deny the truth the news of painful punishment,

Except those idolaters with whom you have a treaty, who have not failed you in the least, nor helped anyone against you. Fulfil your obligations to them during the term (of the treaty). God loves those who take heed for themselves.

But when these months, prohibited (for fighting), are over, slay the idolaters wheresoever you find them, and take them captive or besiege them, and lie in wait for them at every likely place. But if they repent and fulfil their devotional obligations and pay the zakat, then let them go their way, for God is forgiving and kind.

If an idolater seeks protection, then give him asylum that he may hear the word of God. Then escort him to a place of safety, for they are people who do not know.

How could there be a treaty between idolaters and God and His Apostle, except those you covenanted by the Sacred Mosque? Therefore as long as they are honest with you be correct with them, for God loves those who are godly.

How (can they be trusted)? If they prevail against you they will neither observe pacts nor good faith with you. They flatter you with their tongues, but their hearts are averse to you, for most of them are iniquitous.

They barter away the words of God for a petty price, and obstruct (others) from His path. How evil indeed are the things they do!

They have no regard for kinship or treaties with believers, for they are transgressors.

But if they repent and are firm in devotion and pay the zakat, then they are your brothers in faith. We explain Our commands distinctly for those who understand.

If they break their pledge after giving their word and revile your faith, fight these specimens of faithlessness, for surely their oaths have no sanctity: They may haply desist.

Will you not fight those who broke their pledge and plotted to banish the Apostle, and who were the first to attack you? Are you afraid of them? If you are believers you should fear God more.

[Qur'an 9:1-13]

Ahh you see when you actually read it, it starts to make more sense and sounds EXACTLY like the US's stance on foreign policy does it not? I'm sorry, refresh my memory...

• what did we do to Japan and Germany after they broke their treaties with us and attacked us and our allies?
• What did we do to Libya after the dictator of the country ordered a terrorist attack on our allies?
• What did we do to Iraq when it broke its treaty with our ally Kuwait and invaded Kuwait?
• What did we do with Afghanistan when they broke their treaty with us by harboring people who attacked us?

Oh yeah, that's right... we "slayed [them] wheresoever [we] found them, and took them captive or besieged them, and laid in wait for them at every likely place." Didn't we? Are we not still doing that to this day?

IMMUNITY is granted those idolators by God and his Apostle with whom you have a treaty.

Doesn't sound so bad...wait, god and his apostle? Not one but both, like equals?

(They can) move about for four months freely in the land, but should know they cannot escape (the law of) God, and that God can put the unbelievers to shame.

Free for only 4 months? That's some kind of fuk'd up immunity...

A general proclamation is (made) this day of the Greater Pilgrimage on the part of God and His Apostle, that God is not bound (by any contract) to idolaters, nor is His Apostle. It is, therefore, better for you to repent. If you do not, remember that you cannot elude (the grip of) God. So announce to those who deny the truth the news of painful punishment,

Proclamation by god and his apostle that they are not bound to any contract? So, whatever suits them, when it suits them...So much for all the shenanigans over the first ayat.

Except those idolaters with whom you have a treaty, who have not failed you in the least, nor helped anyone against you. Fulfil your obligations to them during the term (of the treaty). God loves those who take heed for themselves.

Obligations during the term. 4 months? And this is on a stone tablet in heaven? Hate to be pounding that out by hand...and no white-out?

But when these months, prohibited (for fighting), are over, slay the idolaters wheresoever you find them, and take them captive or besiege them, and lie in wait for them at every likely place. But if they repent and fulfil their devotional obligations and pay the zakat, then let them go their way, for God is forgiving and kind.

When the 4 months are over, commence to whuppin' ass! But if they buy what mo's been selling, mindlessly pound their head on the floor, and give us the cash, then let them go on their merry little way!

In other words, fuk them dudes up, but if they want to be muslims, we down with that!

If an idolater seeks protection, then give him asylum that he may hear the word of God. Then escort him to a place of safety, for they are people who do not know.

Keep him surrounded with our mindlessly ritualistic bull@!$%# so he can finally believe in allah.

How could there be a treaty between idolaters and God and His Apostle, except those you covenanted by the Sacred Mosque? Therefore as long as they are honest with you be correct with them, for God loves those who are godly.

Mohammad knows he got the @!$%#ty end of the stick at hubadub-dubya, and now has to fix it. God loves those who are godly? That explains the first ayat...

How (can they be trusted)? If they prevail against you they will neither observe pacts nor good faith with you. They flatter you with their tongues, but their hearts are averse to you, for most of them are iniquitous.

I can't sleep with allah. He tosses and turns all night. Takes all the blankets, too...last verse was about "if they are honest" but now "how can they be trusted" and "flatter with their tounge, but hearts avers..." Sounds like allah is a little schizo...

They barter away the words of God for a petty price, and obstruct (others) from His path. How evil indeed are the things they do!

Mo just can get over the jew at medina selling him torah verses that he then changed the words of and claimed that THEY had changed the words...now projected on the pagans? Mohammad has either drank as many margaritas as I have, or he's fuk'n nuts...I'll take the curtain, monty...

They have no regard for kinship or treaties with believers, for they are transgressors.

What happened to that whole "if they be honest" crap...now it's just "they straight up fools, yo!"

But if they repent and are firm in devotion and pay the zakat, then they are your brothers in faith. We explain Our commands distinctly for those who understand.

All will be forgiven if you just join the darkside...and together we can overthrow the emperor and rule the galaxy forever!

If they break their pledge after giving their word and revile your faith, fight these specimens of faithlessness, for surely their oaths have no sanctity: They may haply desist.

But, if they join the darkside, and then figure out it's like a roach motel, engage in a little donnybrook...

Will you not fight those who broke their pledge and plotted to banish the Apostle, and who were the first to attack you? Are you afraid of them? If you are believers you should fear God more.

We had a treaty, 4 months were up so we jacked their lunch money. They decided they wanted a cut, so we took them in. Then their mommies wanted to know why they lost all that weight from not eating lunch...now we gotta do what we gotta do...

[Qur'an 9:1-13]

-Tafsir t-hund

Ahh you see when you actually read it, it starts to make more sense

I agree...and don't just pay attention to the bolded words.

sounds EXACTLY like the US's stance on foreign policy does it not?

Are you saying that islam has a political agenda or that the USA is now officially a religion? Because the US is run by humans, who are fallible whereas islam is run by a black rock that is supposed to know better.

How comical...

yes, we only disagree on who is the comic (LOL)

Instead of pointing to another newsvine article where you point to Tafsir,why didn't you just point to an online version of the Qur'an?

quoting one verse is called cherry picking, or taking it out of context.

Shouldn't the Qur'an speak for itself?

I believe it does.Quran 54:22 states the Quran is clear in it's meaning and easy to understand.

But We have indeed made the Qur'an easy to understand and remember

Quran 2;2 says there is not doubt that those who fear a black stone in the Kaaba ( a pagan temple) should follow the instructions revealed.

This is the Book; in it is guidance sure, without doubt, to those who fear Allah;

When it's says" kill the infidel where ever you find them". I take it seriously, as believing Muslims take it as the unchangeable word of 'allah',who they view as a super natural being.as opposed to the lifeless inanimate rock that it is.

LOL

If so many infidels (non-Muslim) were not dying over such utter nonsense, I would laugh my ass off as well. However as an infidel myself ,I find that is inappropriate.

I also find it interesting that you purposely started your quote of the Qur'an from ayat 2 instead of ayat 1 of Surah al Tawbah.

I did no such thing.what I did do, was link the tafsir of Ibn Kathir (verse of the sword). He started at verse two, not I.

here are many translations of the verses. (starting at one) http://www.islamawakened.com/quran/9/1/

There are two sections. Section one is the generally accepted translations. Your translation is not in that grouping however. Why is that ? Oh well, it doesn't matter.

You, for some reason choose one of the controversial, deprecated, or status undetermined translations, by Muhammad Ahmed - Samira. Interesting.

now, what you were complaining about is here

This is the ayah of the sword

[فَسِيحُواْ فِى الاٌّرْضِ أَرْبَعَةَ أَشْهُرٍ]

Mujahid, `Amr bin Shu`ayb, Muhammad bin Ishaq, Qatadah, As-Suddi and `Abdur-Rahman bin Zayd bin Aslam said that the four months mentioned in this Ayah are the four-month grace period mentioned in the earlier Ayah,

(So travel freely for four months throughout the land.) Allah said next,

[فَإِذَا انسَلَخَ الأَشْهُرُ الْحُرُمُ]

(So when the Sacred Months have passed...), meaning, `Upon the end of the four months during which

the four months in question passed, about 1400 years ago

We prohibited you from fighting the idolators,

Idolaters.... people not yet Muslim

and which is the grace period We gave them,then fight and kill the idolators wherever you may find them.' Allah's statement next,

[فَاقْتُلُواْ الْمُشْرِكِينَ حَيْثُ وَجَدتُّمُوهُمْ]

(then fight the Mushrikin wherever you find them), means, on the earth in general, except for the Sacred Area, for Allah said,

fight them everywhere on this earth, but Mecca

[وَلاَ تُقَـتِلُوهُمْ عِندَ الْمَسْجِدِ الْحَرَامِ حَتَّى يُقَـتِلُوكُمْ فِيهِ فَإِن قَـتَلُوكُمْ فَاقْتُلُوهُمْ]

(And fight not with them at Al-Masjid Al-Haram, unless they fight you there. But if they attack you, then fight them. )[2:191] Allah said here,

but if you must fight in Mecca, it's Ok

[وَخُذُوهُمْ]

(and capture them), executing some and keeping some as prisoners,

[وَاحْصُرُوهُمْ وَاقْعُدُواْ لَهُمْ كُلَّ مَرْصَدٍ]

(and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush), do not wait until you find them.

DON'T SIT AT HOME... go out and look for them

Rather, seek and besiege them in their areas and forts, gather intelligence about them in the various roads and fairways so that what is made wide looks ever smaller to them.

search them out,use all means at you disposal

This way, they will have no choice, but to die or embrace Islam,

This seems rather unequivocal,and certain in it's intent. Not a lot of wiggle room ?

As I am a Goddess worshiping Pagan, and am quite happy in my faith. This, the above verse, may generate great animosity from the remaining members of humanity, who "freely" choose to Disbelieve in the prophethood of a murderous antisemitic pedophile

I put forth the proposition, that this is in fact, a violation of my human rights, and a hate crime.

[فَإِن تَابُواْ وَأَقَامُواْ الصَّلَوةَ وَءاتَوُاْ الزَّكَوةَ فَخَلُّواْ سَبِيلَهُمْ إِنَّ اللَّهَ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ]

(But if they repent and perform the Salah,

if they convert to Islam

and give the Zakah,then leave their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.)

Abu Bakr As-Siddiq used this and other honorable Ayat as proof for fighting those who refrained from paying the Zakah.

These Ayat allowed fighting people unless, and until, they embrace Islam and implement its rulings and obligations.

One more time, I state clearly.I do not wish to become a Muslim !!!!!

Allah mentioned the most important aspects of Islam here, including what is less important. Surely, the highest elements of Islam after the Two Testimonials, are the prayer, which is the right of Allah, the Exalted and Ever High, then the Zakah, which benefits the poor and needy. These are the most honorable acts that creatures perform, and this is why Allah often mentions the prayer and Zakah together. In the Two Sahihs, it is recorded that Ibn `Umar said that the Messenger of Allah said,

«أُمِرْتُ أَنْ أُقَاتِلَ النَّاسَ حَتَّى يَشْهَدُوا أَنْ لَا إِلَهَ إِلَّا اللهُ وَأَنَّ مُحَمَّدًا رَسُولُ اللهِ وَيُقِيمُوا الصَّلَاةَ وَيُؤْتُوا الزَّكَاة»

(I have been commanded to fight the people until they testify that there is no deity worthy of worship except Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah,establish the prayer and pay the Zakah.)

I think this is pretty much self explanatory...is it not ?

This honorable Ayah (9:5) was called the Ayah of the Sword, about which Ad-Dahhak bin Muzahim said,

"It abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolator, every treaty, and every term.''

this ABROGATED all peaceful Qur'anic verses that came before. Article about Qur'anic abrogation

Al-`Awfi said that Ibn `Abbas commented:

"No idolator had any more treaty or promise of safetyever since Surah Bara'ah was revealed. The four months, in addition to, all peace treaties conducted before Bara'ah was revealed and announced had ended by the tenth of the month of Rabi` Al-Akhir.''

[وَإِنْ أَحَدٌ مِّنَ الْمُشْرِكِينَ اسْتَجَارَكَ فَأَجِرْهُ حَتَّى يَسْمَعَ كَلاَمَ اللَّهِ ثُمَّ أَبْلِغْهُ مَأْمَنَهُ ذَلِكَ بِأَنَّهُمْ قَوْمٌ لاَّ يَعْلَمُونَ ]

(6. And if anyone of the Mushrikin seeks your protection then grant him protection so that he may hear the Word of Allah (the Qur'an) and then escort him to where he can be secure, that is because they are men who know not.)

so that he may hear the Word of Allah and naturally, become a Muslim.

But what if he does not accept Islam ?

After all you have just read. Why would the CLEAR MESSAGE of the verse need to be repeated.

(I have been commanded to fight the people until they testify that there is no deity worthy of worship except Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah

truth is often self evident.

Free for only 4 months? That's some kind of fuk'd up immunity...

think about that... seriously... think about your comments before you post them please. You think 4 months is @!$%#ed up then you should write to your congressman/woman... because the US usually only grants 2 (TWO) months... in some special cases up to 6 (SIX) months...

The rest of your post is just as silly, ignorant and ill-informed as this first comment so I'm not even going to bother wasting time responding to it.

Quran 2;2 says there is not doubt that those who fear a black stone in the Kaaba ( a pagan temple) should follow the instructions revealed.

there you go adding stuff and making stuff up again... where does it mention the black rock in 2:2?

I did no such thing.what I did do, was link the tafsir of Ibn Kathir (verse of the sword). He started at verse two, not I.

So very wrong. By its very nature, TAFSIR IS THE INTERPREATION OF EACH AND EVERY VERSE OF THE QUR'AN by the interpreter. Anyone writing a tafsir CANNOT simply leave out an ayat. But you wouldn't know that, since you won't readily find that tidbit on google, know nothing about the religion outside of doing a google search.

this ABROGATED all peaceful Qur'anic verses that came before.

The Qur'an doesn't abrogate itself, it only abrogates the earlier books (torah and bible). You know that. I've already taught you that. If you still don't believe me, read what muslims scholars have to say...

http://www.mostmerciful.com/abrogation-and-substitution.htm

the problem you are facing is that you are ignorantly assuming that "ayatin" {transliteration] in the verse [2:106] means "The Qur'an". It does not... The same word is used in 2:145 and 2:11 for example.

Here is the transliteration of 2:106

Ma nansakh min ayatin aw nunsiha nati bikhayrin minha aw mithliha alam taAAlam anna Allaha AAala kulli shayin qadeerun

None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that God Hath power over all things? [Qur'an 2:106]

So it is saying none of our "ayatin" do We abrogate...

Walain atayta allatheena ootoo alkitaba bikulli ayatin ma tabiAAoo qiblataka wama anta bitabiAAin qiblatahum wama baAAduhum bitabiAAin qiblata baAAdin walaini ittabaAAta ahwaahum min baAAdi ma jaaka mina alAAilmi innaka ithan lamina alththalimeena

Even if thou wert to bring to the people of the Book all the Signs (together), they would not follow Thy Qiblah; nor art thou going to follow their Qiblah; nor indeed will they follow each other?s Qiblah. If thou after the knowledge hath reached thee, Wert to follow their (vain) desires,-then wert thou Indeed (clearly) in the wrong. [Qur'an 2:!45]

This verse is saying even if you were to bring to the people of the Book (christians and jews) all the "ayatin" together...

Sal banee israeela kam ataynahum min ayatin bayyinatin waman yubaddil niAAmata Allahi min baAAdi ma jaathu fainna Allaha shadeedu alAAiqabi

Ask the Children of Israel how many clear Signs We have sent them. But if any one, after God’s favour has come to him, substitutes (something else), God is strict in punishment. [Qur'an 2:211]

This is saying, ask the Jews how many clear "ayatin" we have sent them...

This is why, KPR, if you are going to try and claim to know what you are talking about, you really need to start studying the dialect of Arabic used in the Qur'an. "Ayatin" does not mean "Qur'an" even though your anti islamic website you find at Google U erroneously try to say it does without knowing anything about arabic. It means "revelations" or "signs from God", and the word is used throughout the Qur'an for this.

Secondly, again context plays a role since the Qur'an is a poem. And with poetry, you need to look at the lines before and after to understand the context. What is the line before 2:106?

It is never the wish of those without Faith among the People of the Book, nor of the Pagans, that anything good should come down to you from your Lord. But God will choose for His special Mercy whom He will - for God is Lord of grace abounding. [Qur'an 2:105]

And who is mentioned in the second verse after 2:106?

Would ye question your Messenger as Moses was questioned of old? but whoever changeth from Faith to Unbelief, Hath strayed without doubt from the even way. [Qur'an 2:108]

And what does 2:109 say?

Quite a number of the People of the Book wish they could Turn you (people) back to infidelity after ye have believed, from selfish envy, after the Truth hath become Manifest unto them: But forgive and overlook, Till God accomplish His purpose: for God Hath power over all things. [Qur'an 2:109

You see... in context this whole section is referencing Jews and Christians and questioning why muslims have different rules than the Jews and Christians do. Because the ayatin given to Jews or Christians is abrogated by the Qur'an! If you read the entire chapter instead of googling stuff, you'll understand the context and what the english interpreter of 2:106 was trying to convey, and if you learn arabic, you'll see for yourself the error of assuming ayatin only refers to the Qur'an.

there you go adding stuff and making stuff up again... where does it mention the black rock in 2:2?

"This is the Book; in it is guidance sure, without doubt, to those who fear Allah;" Quran 2:2 by Yusuf Ali

"allah" is the black stone in the kaaba, that is what they (Muslims) should fear. As I am not a Muslim, please don't expect me to conform with the dogma of Islam. That "allah' is a supreme being. I for one, will not "submit" to that assertion. It would be stupid of me to do so.I feel it would only give credence, to a already widely held delusion.

So very wrong. By its very nature, TAFSIR IS THE INTERPREATION OF EACH AND EVERY VERSE OF THE QUR'AN by the interpreter.

What would lead you to believe that I have claimed otherwise ?

Anyone writing a tafsir CANNOT simply leave out an ayat.

There are in fact no missing ayat in the tafsir of Ibn Kathir. ( you just made that up)

In the linked tafsir, the one under discussion (verse of the sword) Ibn Kathir used 2 - 6 on that page, if you click back you will find the "so called" missing ayat. I don't think you stupid, so please tell me, what is the purpose of the "mental masturbation" you are engaged in ?

Are you simply angered at your inability to intellectually or factually challenge my posts ?

But you wouldn't know that, since you won't readily find that tidbit on google, know nothing about the religion outside of doing a google search.

Back to unsupported psychic pronouncements. Care to share the Mass daily numbers.

Otherwise people may think you are just making @!$%# up, and are not in reality capable of the knowledge of a person's educational background .

The Qur'an doesn't abrogate itself, it only abrogates the earlier books (torah and bible).

What is the direction you pray in ? if it's not Jerusalem, there sure is abrogation in the Quran

You know that.

I know Muslims no longer pray in the direction of Jerusalem.

I've already taught you that.

I can be 100 % honest, when I say, I have never learned a thing from you. Nada, nothing, zero.

If you still don't believe me, read what muslims scholars have to say...

I know what Islamic scholars have to say, that is way I am certain you are not being truthful about abrogation in the Quran. another word for that, is lying.

When the Messenger migrated to Al-Madinah, he faced Bayt Al-Maqdis for sixteen or seventeen months, and then Allah directed him to face Al-Ka`bah in prayer. This is why Allah said,

﴿وَلِلَّهِ الْمَشْرِقُ وَالْمَغْرِبُ فَأَيْنَمَا تُوَلُّواْ فَثَمَّ وَجْهُ اللَّهِ﴾

(And to Allah belong the east and the west, so wherever you turn (yourselves or your faces) there is the Face of Allah (and He is High above, over His Throne)).

Ali bin Abi Talhah said that Ibn `Abbas said, "The first part of the Qur'an that was abrogated was about the Qiblah. When the Messenger of Allah migrated to Al-Madinah, which was inhabited by the Jews, he was at first commanded to face Bayt Al-Maqdis. The Jews were happy, and the Messenger of Allah faced Bayt Al-Maqdis for some ten months. However, the Messenger of Allah liked to face the Qiblah of Ibrahim (Al-Ka`bah at Makkah), and he used to look to the sky and supplicate.

not the full tafir, read more at

http://www.qtafsir.com/index.phpoption=com_content&task=view&id=321

after all, I could be talking it out of context (LOL)

the problem you are facing is that you are ignorantly assuming that "ayatin" {transliteration] in the verse [2:106] means "The Qur'an".

can you copy paste, my comment stating "ayatin" means the Quran.

I question your assertion, as I have never thought such a thing, let alone, posted it.

"allah" is the black stone in the kaaba,

Please show me who told you this trash so I can correct them. That is absolutely, 100% false. Not even remotely close to being true AT ALL. The Wiki article is more correct then you!

In the linked tafsir, the one under discussion (verse of the sword) Ibn Kathir used 2 - 6 on that page, if you click back you will find the "so called" missing ayat.

Ahhh... so you purposely left it out... or you left it out because of ignorance not realizing that it actually started on the page before?

Are you simply angered at your inability to intellectually or factually challenge my posts ?

There is nothing intellectual or factual about your posts. So how can I challenge them intellectually or factually you have none to begin with?

not the full tafir, read more at

http://www.qtafsir.com/index.phpoption=com_content&task=view&id=321

after all, I could be talking it out of context (LOL)

YOU ARE

http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3157&Itemid=578

From the first line from your Kathir Tafsir website...

If someone asks about the best methods of Tafsir, we reply that the best method is to explain the Qur'an with the Qur'an itself. What is mentioned in general terms in one place in the Qur'an, is usually explained in another place...

So one seeks the Tafsir of the Qur'an with the Qur'an itself and with the Sunnah. If one cannot find the Tafsir in the Qur'an or Sunnah, he should refer to the statements of the Companions, who were the most knowledgeable of Tafsir, for they witnessed the situations and incidents that we did not witness...

[Whoever explains the Qur'an with his opinion or with what he has no knowledge of, then let him assume his seat in the Fire.]

Abu Bakr As-Siddiq said, " Which land will carry me and which heaven will shade me if I said about Allah's Book that which I have no knowledge of? "

Basically it says EXACTLY what I've been saying all along. The best method of explainign the Qur'an is with Qur'an itself. But you wouldn't know that since you've never actually read the website outside of searching and cherry picking things you think are condemning, when they really aren't.

can you copy paste, my comment stating "ayatin" means the Quran.

I question your assertion, as I have never thought such a thing, let alone, posted it.

Hey if you copy and paste it... you are putting your name on it. Just because you didn't really read it to understand what you were saying (copy and pasting) isn't my problem. #5.5

If you have such a hard time understanding and remember what it is you post... maybe you should stop? This is now the second time I've caught you blindly copying and pasting without knowing (or understanding) what it is you are putting in your posts.

"allah" is the black stone in the kaaba,

Please show me who told you this trash so I can correct them. That is absolutely, 100% false. Not even remotely close to being true AT ALL.

If you go to an Islamic site and look up the name of Mohammad's father, who was in fact a pagan,( there was no Mohammad yet, so there could have been no Islam)

we can learn something from the meaning, or from the translation of his name "Abdullah".'

Abdullah (the slave of Allah)

Since Mohammad's dad was a pagan of the Quraysh tribe, he must have worshiped one, or more, of the many idols worshipped at Mecca,and housed in the kabba (a pagan temple)

one was just called "allah". In ancient Arabia, the deity of each tribe was respected according to the social status of that tribe. When the Quraysh clan ( Mohammad's) became the prominent one in Mecca, their rock, or stone idol, allah, was elevated, or moved up the ladder, to a supreme position in the Kaaba. Mohammad only expanded the concept in a grander, world wide scale, when he conquered Mecca, then all of Arabia.

The Kaaba marked the location where the sacred world intersected with the profane, and the embedded Black Stone was a further symbol of this as an object that linked heaven and earth.^[11]

Muhammad is credited with setting the Black Stone in place in the wall of the Kaaba. A story found in Ibn Ishaq's Sirah Rasul Allah tells how the clans of Mecca renovated the Kaaba following a major fire which had partly destroyed the structure. The Black Stone had been temporarily removed to facilitate the rebuilding work. The clans could not agree on which one of them should have the honour of setting the Black Stone back in its place.

The black stone (allah) was the most honored idol at this time.it was the only stone (rock) idol honoured in such a way.

They decided to wait for the next man to come through the gate and ask him to make the decision. That individual happened to be the 35-year-old Muhammad, five years before his prophethood.

before Mohammad became a prophet, the black stone was a rock, worshiped by pagan Arabs living in Mecca

He asked the elders of the clans to bring him a cloth and put the Black Stone in its centre. Each of the clan leaders held the corners of the cloth and carried the Black Stone to the right spot. Then Muhammad himself set the stone in place, satisfying the honour of all of the clans.^[12]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Stone

This particular idol, or stone was at this time (five years before the first revelation of Mohammad) once only the "lowly" tribal god of the Quraysh, and he or it ('allah') had three specific daughters at that time. The names of "al-Lah's" daughters can be found in the Quran.

al- Uzza, al-Lat, and al-Manat. 53:19-20

some pre-Islamic pagan traditions claim, Al-Lat as the companion, or wife of al-Lah (allah) not a daughter.

HAVE YOU, then, ever considered [what you are worshipping in] Al-Lat and Al-Uzza,

To read twenty, you must click next, in the upper right hand side of the page. ( just for you,wup)

When Muhammad and his "Ummah" started to cause too much trouble, eighty or so of his followers who had no protection, emigrated from Mecca to Ethiopia, or as it was known then, the Christian country of Abyssinia. Under increasing boycotts and pressure, Muhammad went through a time of weakness and compromised with the Meccan pagans by acknowledging the existence of three pagan goddesses alongside allah, known as, al-Lat,al- Uzza, and al- Manat.

This is the start of the famous" The satanic verses."

this is truthful, as an Islamic source of this claim of mine, can be found here.

How the Shaytan threw some Falsehood into the Words of the Messengers, and how Allah abolished ...

At this point many of the scholars of Tafsir mentioned the story of the Gharaniq and how many of those who had migrated to Ethiopia came back when they thought that the idolators of the Quraysh had become Muslims, but these reports all come through Mursal chains of narrationand I do not think that any of them may be regarded as Sahih. And Allah knows best. Al-Bukhari said, "Ibn`Abbas said,

I addmit it's not sahih, I highlighted it

﴿فِى أُمْنِيَّتِهِ﴾I

(in his recitation (of the revelation).) "When he spoke, the Shaytan threw (some falsehood) into his speech, but Allah abolished that which the Shaytan threw in.''

﴿ثُمَّ يُحْكِمُ اللَّهُ ءَايَـتِهِ﴾

(Then Allah establishes His revelations.) `Ali bin AbiTalhah reported that Ibn`Abbas said,

﴿إِذَا تَمَنَّى أَلْقَى الشَّيْطَـنُ فِى أُمْنِيَّتِهِ﴾

(when he did recite (the revelation), Shaytan threw (some falsehood) in it) "When he spoke, the Shaytan threw (some falsehood) into his speech.''Mujahid said:

﴿إِذَا تُمْنَى﴾

(when he did recite) "When he spoke.'' It was said that it refers to his recitation, whereas,

﴿إِلاَّ أَمَانِىَّ﴾

(but they trust upon Amani) means they speak but they do not write. Al-Baghawi and the majority of the scholars of Tafsir said:

﴿تَمَنَّى﴾

(he did recite) "Reciting the Book of Allah.''

﴿أَلْقَى الشَّيْطَـنُ فِى أُمْنِيَّتِهِ﴾

(Shaytan threw (some falsehood) in it) "In his recitation.'' Ad-Dahhak said:

﴿إِذَا تُمْنَى﴾

(when he did recite) "When he recited.''IbnJarir said, "This comment is more akin to interpretation.''

﴿فَيَنسَخُ اللَّهُ مَا يُلْقِى الشَّيْطَـنُ﴾

(But Yansakh Allah that which Shaytan throws in.) The meaning of the wordNaskh in Arabic is to remove or lift away. `Ali bin AbiTalhah reported that Ibn`Abbas said, "This means, Allah cancels out that which the Shaytan throws in.''

see, the word Naskh (abrogation) if it was not for that, you would be a goddess worshiper just like me.

'allah' abrogated the satanic verses.

And you claim there is no abrogation in the Quran. Elsewhere in this tafsir, Ibn kathir ( not the page linked above) it claims only "Jews" say that. are you a "Jew" out to discredit islam ? I have heard neo-con "zionist" Jews are some time known do that. (LOL)

Are you a zionist Jew ?

I'm a zionist pagan

http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2494&Itemid=77

Now this is from an Islamic site attempting to prove 'allah' is not rock

Yet, the prayer postures, as well as the circling around the Ka’bah coupled with kissing, both form the outward shell of the chaff, which preserves the grain. The grain of the Tawaf lies in the lofty meanings of the Pilgrim’s recitation and prayers, in the soul-stirring emotions surging in his heart -

such as his extreme love for Allah, his awe of Him, and his high hopes in Him. Examine, for instance, the words brimful of God's oneness, which the pilgrim utters. It is his regular formula, at the start of each round of the Tawaf, as he kisses, caresses, or points at the Black Stone, declaring: "(I begin) in the Name of Allah who is Most Great. O Allah! (I perform) believing in thee,

said while pointing at a black rock, or stone, referred to as "allah"

'allah' would seem to be a "object of worship" Muslims worship only one g*d. What do they call it ?

confirming Thy Book, fulfilling Thy Pledge, and following the Way of Thy Prophet, Muhammad - Blessing and peace upon him!"

http://www.islamworld.net/docs/black_stone.htm

I found this very interesting though

I turned the comment in to an article, and go in to more detail.you may like it.

Suspicious minds': in search of "al-Lah" ( the Islamic rock star )

If you go to an Islamic site and look up the name of Mohammad's father, who was in fact a pagan,( there was no Mohammad yet, so there could have been no Islam)

we can learn something from the meaning, or from the translation of his name "Abdullah".'

Abdullah (the slave of Allah)

Since Mohammad's dad was a pagan of the Quraysh tribe, he must have worshiped one, or more, of the many idols worshipped at Mecca,and housed in the kabba (a pagan temple)

one was just called "allah". In ancient Arabia, the deity of each tribe was respected according to the social status of that tribe. When the Quraysh clan ( Mohammad's) became the prominent one in Mecca, their rock, or stone idol, allah, was elevated, or moved up the ladder, to a supreme position in the Kaaba. Mohammad only expanded the concept in a grander, world wide scale, when he conquered Mecca, then all of Arabia.

LMAO! That was great! Complete fiction but great. I'm sorry but "cyberistan" is not an "islamic website. Nice try though...

Let me ask you something... What did the Arab Jews and christians at the time of, and before Muhammad (saw) call God? What do they still call "God" today? If you pick up any Arabic bible, what is the word used in it for "God" and "Father"?

The answer.... "Allah". Allah (swt) existed well before Muhammad (saw)... And he wasn't "a rock". He was always "the creator".

And for anyone interested (obviously KPR isn't). The black stone at the Ka'aba is a piece of stone from Heaven. While the Wiki article is somewhat correct, it is not the story I learned at the Masjids I attend. The story I learned is this...

When Adam and Eve were cast out of heaven and fell to earth. Some rock from heaven fell with them. Adam and Eve landed apart from each other. (Adam in North Africa and Eve in India). And so when traveling to reunite, Adam came across the rock and recognized it. He built a small makeshift temple around it and used it as a temple and settled in the area after reuniting with Eve. The temple stood for millennia, until the great flood of Noah's time destroyed it. But the black stone itself remained.

Allah (swt) told Abraham (as) to go with Ishmael (as) and rebuild the temple around the stone... which they did. That temple is the Ka'aba we know today. The record of it in historical archives dates back well before Jesus (as). Jews used to make a pilgrimage there. over time other religions started using the Ka'aba for their own pilgrimages and the Jews started sharing it with other religions, and some of these pagan religions started putting up their figurines and statues inside the Ka'aba around and on the black stone, until the time of Muhammad (saw).

That is the story I've been taught. The important thing here is, this is what is TAUGHT in islamic schools. This is not from some anti-islamic website nor is it from some christian historian trying to understand Islam on his own. To Muslims, the stone is a piece of heaven. It IS NOT Allah (swt) and it is NOT worshipped. We kiss or touch it during tawaf as a place marker to denote one full circle around the Ka'aba, because Muhammad (saw) did this.

Umar (ra) once kissed the black stone and said, “I know well that you are just a stone that can do neither good nor harm. Had I not seen THE Prophet (saw) kiss you, I would not have done so.” Umar (ra) made that statement because there were many people who were newly converted to Islam and he did not want them to get the impression that Muslims also revered stones as the Arabs revered and worshipped stone idols during the Period of Ignorance. Umar (ra) made it clear that he was following the Sunnah practice of the Prophet (saw) and that although the stone is blessed, it can do neither harm nor good.

LMAO! That was great! Complete fiction but great. I'm sorry but "cyberistan" is not an "islamic website. Nice try though...

here is what is on the web page of what you claim is not an islamic site.

BIOGRAPHY OF PROPHET MUHAMMAD (pbuh)

Dr. A. Zahoor and Dr. Z. Haq
(Copyright 1990, 1997, 1998 All Rights Reserved)

Books and E-Books
On Muslim History and Civilization

Prophet Muhammad (s) was born in 570 CE in Makkah (Bakka, Baca, Mecca). His father, Abdullah, died several weeks before his birth in Yathrib (Medinah) where he went to visit his father's maternal relatives. His mother died while on the return journey from Medinah at a place called ‘Abwa’ when he was six years old. He was raised by his paternal grandfather 'Abdal Muttalib (Shaybah) until the age of eight, and after his grandfather’s death by AbuTalib, his paternal uncle. 'Abdal Muttalib's mother, Salma, was a native of Medinah and he was born and raised as a young boy in Medinah before his uncle Muttalib brought him to Makkah to succeed him. Many years before Muhammad's birth, 'Abdal Muttalibhad established himself as an influential leader of the Arab tribe ‘Quraish’ in Makkah and took care of the Holy sanctuary ‘Ka’bah’. Makkah was a city state well connected to the caravan routes to Syria and Egypt in the north and northwest and Yemen in the south. Muhammad was a descendant of Prophet Ismail through the lineage of his second son Kedar.

Ka'bah is the first house of worship built on earth for the worship of Allah, the One True God. It was re-built (raised from the existing foundation) by Prophets Ibrahim (Abraham) and Ismail (Ishmael).Allah is the proper name of the One True God, creator and sustainer of the universe, who does not have a partner or associate, and He did not beget nor was He begotten. Unlike the word god, the word Allah does not have a plural or gender.

Un-Islamic really

here is the direct copy paste of your comment,from right above mine.

The highlighted sections raise a question regarding your truthfulness.

are you not a Muslim.

You can not calim that this is not an Islamic site. What is un-Islamic about it. (LOL) what part does not agree with standard Islamic dogma ?

When Adam and Eve were cast out of heaven and fell to earth. Some rock from heaven fell with them.

laughing my ass off. thank you for that !!!!

Adam and Eve landed apart from each other. (Adam in North Africa and Eve in India).

have you ever looked at a map ?

How did they find each other. The Himalaya's, The highest mountains in the world separate them. Or did one of them build an ocean going ship, and sail the seas ?

And so when traveling to reunite, Adam came across the rock and recognized it. He built a small makeshift temple around it and used it as a temple and settled in the area after reuniting with Eve. The temple stood for millennia, until the great flood of Noah's time destroyed it. But the black stone itself remained.

Allah (swt) told Abraham (as) to go with Ishmael (as) and rebuild the temple around the stone... which they did. That temple is the Ka'aba we know today.

I thought it was not allowed to idolize an object in Islam. Or have idols. Isn't kissing a rock, or dancing around one in worship idolatry? Kissing a rock is kissing a god, and the god has a name! Is that like a "pet" rock?

Glad I've kissed the Blarney stone...that is a pet rock of SIZE. And it is foundational!

and this exchange EXACTLY illustrates the problems with "mutational' religion - lack of agreement. I still say it reduces to "my mythical entity can lick your mythical entity"

Even if only 1% of Muslims actively support jihad, that's an army 15 million strong.

But the Qur'an itself, the holy book of Islam, contains over 100 verses calling for violence against Christians and Jews. To give just one example, Sura 9:5 says, "Slay the idolaters wherever you find them."

Are you kidding me? Have you guys read your own Bible and the atrocities committed in it by both God and his peeps.

You read Numbers alone and the Israelis are sent out by God to wipe out entire towns full of people combatants and non-combatants alike.

Married women and boys were slaughtered and young girls were kept to be raped.

The entire OT is an orgy of murder, slavery and rape mandated by God and you guys point the finger at only Quoran being violent?

somebody needs to tell bryan fisher he missed a couple lines from the Qur'an... lol

"Tell those who believe, to forgive those who do not look forward to the days of Allah: It is for Him to recompense (for good or ill) each people according to what they have earned." [Qur'an 45:14]

"Let there be no compulsion (forcing others) in religion: Truth stands out clear from error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy handhold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things." [Qur'an 2:256)

"Whether We shall show thee (within thy life-time) part of what we promised them or take to ourselves thy soul (before it is all accomplished),- thy duty is to make (the Message) reach them: it is our part to call them to account." [Qur'an 13:40]

"Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve." [Qur'an 2:62]

"On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our apostles with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land. [Qur'an 5:32]

"God does not forbid you from showing kindness and dealing justly with those who have not fought you about religion and have not driven you out of your homes. God loves just dealers." [Qur'an 60:8]

"Again and again will those who disbelieve, wish that they had bowed (to God's will) in Islam. Leave them alone, to enjoy (the good things of this life) and to please themselves: let (false) hope amuse them: soon will knowledge (undeceive them)." [Qur'an 15:2-3]

"If it had been thy Lord's will, they would all have believed,- all who are on earth! wilt thou then COMPEL mankind, against their will, to believe?" [Qur'an, 10:99]

"Say: 'Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger: but if ye turn away, he is only responsible for the duty placed on him and ye for that placed on you. If ye obey him, ye shall be on right guidance. The Messenger's duty is only to preach the clear (Message)." [Qur'an 24:54]

"Say : O ye that reject Faith! I worship not that which ye worship, Nor will ye worship that which I worship. And I will not worship that which ye have been wont to worship, Nor will ye worship that which I worship. To you be your Way, and to me mine." [Qur'an 109:1-6]

"And make not God's (name) an excuse in your oaths against doing good, or acting rightly, or making peace between persons; for God is One Who heareth and knoweth all things." [Qur'an 2:224]

Allah doth command you to render back your Trusts to those to whom they are due; And when ye judge between man and man, that ye judge with justice; Verily how excellent is the teaching which He giveth you! For Allah is He Who heareth and seeth all things. [Qur'an 4:58]

"So leave them to plunge in vain talk and play about, until they encounter that Day of theirs which they have been promised!" [Qur'an 70:42]

"And they say: "None shall enter Paradise unless he be a Jew or a Christian." Those are their (vain) desires. Say: "Produce your proof if ye are truthful." Nay,-whoever submits His whole self to God and is a doer of good,- He will get his reward with his Lord; on such shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve." [Qur'an 2:111-112]

"Quite a number of the People of the Book wish they could Turn you (people) back to infidelity after ye have believed, from selfish envy, after the Truth hath become Manifest unto them: But forgive and overlook, Till God accomplish His purpose: for God Hath power over all things." [Qur'an 2:109]

O you Messenger! Let not those grieve you who vie with each other in disbelief, be they of those who say with their mouths "We believe," but their heart are faithless; or of those among Jews, listeners to a lie, who listen to other people, but not to you. They pervert the words from their context and say, "If this is what you are given, take it; but if you are not given it, then beware!". But he whom Allah wishes to try, you have no authority with Allah for him. These are those whose heart Allah wishes not to purify. For them in this world is disgrace, and for them in the Hereafter is mighty woe. [Qur'an 5:40]

It is not required of thee (O Messenger), to set them on the right path, but Allah sets on the right path whom He pleaseth. Whatever of good ye give benefits your own souls, and ye shall only do so seeking the "Face" of Allah. Whatever good ye give, shall be rendered back to you, and ye shall not Be dealt with unjustly. [Qur'an 2:272]

Ye are the best of peoples, evolved for mankind, enjoining what is right, forbidding what is wrong, and believing in Allah. If only the People of the Book had faith, it were best for them: among them are some who have faith, but most of them are perverted transgressors. [Qur'an 3:110]

Not all of them are alike: Of the People of the Book are a portion that stand (For the right): They rehearse the Signs of Allah all night long, and they prostrate themselves in adoration. They believe in Allah and the Last Day; they enjoin what is right, and forbid what is wrong; and they hasten (in emulation) in (all) good works: They are in the ranks of the righteous. Of the good that they do, nothing will be rejected of them; for Allah knoweth well those that do right. [Qur'an 3:113-115]

As well as these videos...

http://youtu.be/DN7KRgvS9Cw

http://youtu.be/0WBuqJa5yPM

It's a nice dodge, larrs, that people use to justify their rejection of Jesus Christ. God said that "You will find Me if you search for Me with all your heart." I think He gave us a principle there. Whatsover we chase after with all our heart is what we will find, and it will fill us. If someone wants to hate the truth...for whatever reason...they will find all they need to justify their pursuit...even if it's a lie.

And that, by the way, I have come to understand is what is meant in Romans 2, that "God gave them over". This means that He removed His hand of protection, and allowed them to receive the desire of their heart. But that's not true across the board, and that's something I haven't got an answer on yet.

Andrew (not your real name. Maybe Ali?). The Old Testament is history. Christians follow the New Testament for behavior and guidance in 2012. I don't see, in 2012, Muslims following a New Koran in behavior and guidance in the middle east. Muslims are still in the middle AGES in their thinking. Too much Pride that is unwarranted in the behavior of Men in the middle east. Revenge! ULULULULULUL

And when a small Christian group does something unchristian, Christians denounce it. When Muslims terrorize they are NOT denounced, no fatwa issued, by other Muslims. So how can we believe in peace and tolerance on your side of the issue? Too much perceived blame by Muslims. That is Islam - pity me, I hit you and now you hit me back! That is what is seen by Muslim actions. We watch the actions but know the words are forked.

And when a small Christian group does something unchristian, Christians denounce it.

I call BS on that.

The Crusades, the Inquisitions and every Christian atrocity for the past 2,000 yrs has been done in the name of your NT Jesus and it was Christians themselves doing the deed not speaking out against it.

Your wonderful Christian Hitler massacred 6 million people and two different Popes made treaties with him instead of speaking out. They were glad he was eliminating the competition.

Evolved? Yeah right. If we ever let peeps like your hero Santorum in the White House, first thing he'll wanna do with all your support is blow up The Middle East.

let's be blunt gotme - "islam" isn't the problem any more than "zoroastrianism" is a problem. The PROBLEM arises when someone goes off half loony and not only decides how they interpret some particular tenet of any particular religion, but convinces OTHERS that their interpretation is "correct". THEN we have a problem. Recall any recent invasions by followers of ODIN? Maybe some from that Aztec guy or maybe an Inca guy? Nope, only the current crop of deluded followers of the latest flavor of the millennium (or past 2.5 millenniums, maybe).

BTW - somebody supports "frothy" santorum? The one kicked under the bus by Pennsylvania voters in 2005? THAT FUC KING IDIOT who seems to me to be dumber than BACHMAN? It takes a significant mental handicap to be that "devoted".

And andrew - the "real" total was closer to double that with the elimination squads on the eastern front. Jews were exterminated, Russians were vermin (vernichternt) as were mentally ill and mentally retarded. Just thin - we were concerned about Failin' palin being that close to the button - with ricky, I would try to find a place out of downwind of the fallout

This isn't true. It is centrally planned, coordinated and funded by Wahhabi/salafi groups within Saudi Arabia.

http://www.theglobalmail.org/feature/the-battle-for-egyptian-islam/34/

http://www.acus.org/egyptsource/anatomy-egypts-salafi-surge

http://www.islamist.com/index.php/world/1213-saudis-funding-salafis-to-split-islamic-vote-in-egypt

http://www.egyptindependent.com/node/616266

All your links are about Egypt, but that's only one instance. There is no doubt that certain groups are influential in certain areas; but Christians and adherents of other religions are targets wherever Islam has dominance or is striving for it. Nigeria, Pakistan, Indonesia, Somalia are all examples.

All your links are about Egypt,

True, I just did that because they are the most recent. If you dig, you'll find that all of this Islamic extremism traces back to Saudi Arabia.

http://criticalppp.com/archives/69085

http://www.tribune.com.ng/sun/front-page-articles/6254-boko-haram-confirms-al-qaeda-link-as-cameroun-stations-soldiers-at-nigerias-borders

http://www.criticalthreats.org/somalia/kahan-shabaab-rise-qaeda-network-august-9-2011

http://articles.cnn.com/2003-08-14/world/otsc.ressa_1_hambali-riduan-isamuddin-qaeda?_s=PM:asiapcf

Remember right after 9/11 when Bush said he was going to work with the international banking community to trace the money trails of terrorism and find who is funding it and who was responsible for it? Why do you think that quest went silent after a couple months? Sure, they locked a couple of bank accounts in Pakistan and southeast asia as well as a couple in Europe... but they never came out and said where all the money actually came from... because it came from, and continues to come from, within saudi arabia, our biggest ally and oil partner in the middle east.

You'll notice in one of the links above it talks about how money was being moved from Saudi Arabia to deobandi schools in India and Pakistan... but notice it never actually mentions where within Saudi Arabia that money was coming from. Why is that? I'm sure they can see. A bank transfer always has a bank of origin and an account of origin... but yet nobody ever mentions or follows the trail into saudi arabia...

our biggest ally and oil partner in the middle east.

Indeed. Our biggest mistake: the perfect practitioners of taqiyyah.

If you are referring to the Saudi Royal family... we call them Munafiqeen. Look it up.

I pray for the day Mecca is free from their tyranny, insha'allah.

So blogger, are you saying then that this is what Christianity deserves and the world should sit by and watch them being wiped-out?

No larrs. No one is saying that.

All BLOGER and me for that matter are saying is that you can't judge for being evil without taking a good hard look at the things Christianity has done to them as well.

Both sides are at fault and both sides need to get over themselves and realize that you have more in common than you have in differences instead of continuing the silly mantra of "my God is better than yours so I must kill you."

And besides, if anyone has the power to have anyone wiped out, Christians have it. If someone like Santorum, or Palin ever got in the White House, I have no doubt in the next five seconds after inauguration, one of them would grab the Football and wipe out The Middle East.

After all, that's what the Crusades were about 1000 yrs ago.

if both sides are at fault then why are you so aggressively criticizing the members of the religion being killed and not the ones currently doing all the killing today (you know, as opposed to 1,000 years ago when Muslims were still every bit as violent as they are today).

if both sides are at fault then why are you so aggressively criticizing the members of the religion being killed and not the ones currently doing all the killing today (you know, as opposed to 1,000 years ago when Muslims were still every bit as violent as they are today).

Christians are not targeting other religions today? Really now? Just 70 yrs ago, a Christian bastard murdered 6 million Jews. Just 15 yrs ago, another Christian bastard, Milosevic tried the same thing in Yugoslavia going after ethnic Muslims such as Albanians.

You gotta love the double standard.

Christians kill, they're not Christians. Muslims kill and ALL Muslims need to be wiped out.

Yet THAT is not what is happening, is it.

Put peeps like Santorum in charge and it will. Will you be happy then? When there are no more Muslims? Even women and kids?

While we are sittin' around and coming to some sorta "realization", Christians are being cleansed from entire regions of the world.

Well let's go in and save them, then take Israel away from the Jews and give it to these newly displaced, persecuted christians since Jerusalem is their religion's birthplace. Great idea!!!

Christians are not targeting other religions today? Really now? Just 70 yrs ago, a Christian bastard murdered 6 million Jews. Just 15 yrs ago, another Christian bastard, Milosevic tried the same thing in Yugoslavia going after ethnic Muslims such as Albanians.

You gotta love the double standard.

Christians kill, they're not Christians. Muslims kill and ALL Muslims need to be wiped out.

Exactly. Great post. You didn't mention all the christians performing genocide in Africa as well. That's been going on for decades and continues even now... and all the genocide christians did in central and south america for the last 400 years... to the point where 99% of the population in central and south america is christian. That only happens with a "convert or die" policy enforced by the missionaries and military invaders (Spain and Portugal).

take Israel away from the Jews and give it to these newly displaced, persecuted christians since Jerusalem is their religion's birthplace

How about we do Turkey instead, since that is the actual birthplace of Christianity, where Paul founded most of his churches. Jesus was a Jew, not a Christian.

How about we do Turkey instead, since that is the actual birthplace of Christianity, where Paul founded most of his churches. Jesus was a Jew, not a Christian.

Really? Didn't realize Christians didn't consider Jerusalem as their holy city... Remind me again what the purpose of the Crusades were? Did the Christian pilgrims back then go to Turkey, or Jerusalem? Christian Pilgrims now go to Turkey or Jerusalem?

http://www.gojerusalem.com/article_527/Jerusalem-A-Christian-Pilgrimage-Destination

http://www.sacred-destinations.com/israel/jerusalem-christian-sites

http://www.voanews.com/english/news/Christian-Pilgrims-Celebrate-Easter-in-Jerusalem-120567789.html

http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070618120851AAJqhDn

Hmmmm... looks like Christians would prefer Jerusalem...

And just to reference the crusades for accuracy...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades

The Crusades were a series of religious expeditionary wars blessed by the Pope and the Catholic Church, with the main goal of restoring Christian access to the holy places in and near Jerusalem.

Christians consider Jerusalem as their holy city because Jesus lived in Judea and died in Jerusalem. The religion, Christianity, was born in the churches Paul founded, which were predominantly in what is now Turkey.

The first church was in Jerusalem and originally headed by Jesus's brother James, but did not accept the theology (a triune God and Jesus as God's literal son, which is a Gentile convert corruption of the way Jews used the phrase "son of God") which evolved in the churches founded by Paul and eventually became what we know today as Christianity; they considered themselves to be Jews, not "Christians". It ceased to exist during the Roman persecution following Bar Kokhba's revolt. Christianity in the Holy Land at the time of the Crusades derived from the Pauline branch of early Christianity (which ultimately became the "official" version of Christianity when it sold out to the Roman Empire), not from the Jerusalem church which had vanished 1000 years before.

The first church was in Jerusalem and headed by Jesus's brother James, but did not hold to the theology (a triune God and Jesus as God's literal son, a Gentile convert corruption of the way Jews used the phrase "son of God") which evolved in the churches founded by Paul and eventually became what we know today as Christianity; it ceased to exist during the Roman persecution following Bar Kokhba's revolt. Christianity in the Holy Land at the time of the Crusades derived from the Pauline branch of early Christianity (which ultimately became the "official" version of Christianity when it sold out to the Roman Empire), not from the Jerusalem church.

That is very important and thought it was worth repeating...

Andy: I have not read all the post but what I have read I see no one calling for the wiping out of Muslims. We would just like them to stop killing people.

And I agree with that. I never said I don't. I'm saying that if we wanna reach some sort of understanding with them, we need to admit that our side is just as responsible, historically, politically and religiously speaking for the actions they have taken against us. This is not a one-sided conflict.

Everybody talks about Obama being an apologist. He's not. He's a realist. He recognizes that the US despite all its power has flaws that can be seen a mile away so he attempts to convert those admissions into a chance to open a dialogue instead of considering going to war with a country like say Iran which would take yet more American lives.

Islam is a violent religion, no denying that, but then Christianity has just as much to answer for. Islam adheres to the eye for an eye philosophy meaning you come after them, they come after you and the Western World through many centuries, in one form or another has come after them.

Again, I'm not justifying their action, I'm pointing a different perspective. Live and let live.

And I agree with that. I never said I don't.

yet you've been arguing against a straw man, trying to silence critics for a viewpoint nobody has even expressed.

I'm saying that if we wanna reach some sort of understanding with them, we need to admit that our side is just as responsible, historically, politically and religiously speaking for the actions they have taken against us. This is not a one-sided conflict.

just who is "our side" and how far "historically speaking" do we have to go back? remember that Yemeni mujahideen addressed mail bombs sent to a synagogue in the US to Crusaders whose names are long forgotten in the West. must we have to be unreasonably apologetic simply because they hold a grudge longer?

He recognizes that the US despite all its power has flaws that can be seen a mile away

you have to make a pretty unbalanced false equivalency to compare flaws in egalitarian, democratic nations to the human rights abuses rampant in the Muslim world.

Islam is a violent religion, no denying that, but then Christianity has just as much to answer for.

"just as much", again with the false equivalency. at any time in history that you can point to Christians behaving badly, you'll also find Muslims behaving badly, but when you find Christians behaving well, you still find Muslims behaving badly.

Islam adheres to the eye for an eye philosophy meaning you come after them, they come after you and the Western World through many centuries, in one form or another has come after them.

actually, Islam is ideologically regressive, it doesn't have an articulated system like lex talionis. "eye for an eye" in Judaism simply means that the punishment should not be excessive to the offense anyway, while Islamic punishments tend to be overly severe. Islamic jurisprudence is derived more from Arab tribal culture and traditions, so their cultural codes like the Arab system of "honor" are the predominate driving force. this is, for example, why they hold such longterm, persistent grudges even after the resolution of the original conflict, because a perceived dishonor can never be satisfied.

I'm saying that if we wanna reach some sort of understanding with them, we need to admit that our side is just as responsible, historically, politically and religiously speaking for the actions they have taken against us. This is not a one-sided conflict.

"We" are not responsible for what is contained in the quran. And to adress some of your other posts, the crusades were a result of a cry for help from the e. roman empire that had been getting it's ass handed to them for 400 years. The inquisition is the result of an 800 year example set by the allah-akbar moors...

Take the red pill...

So what is your solution oh wise one? Wipe them all out so that Christians prevail? That make you feel better? Then who's next? Hindus? Jews? Pagans?

larrrs, his interest is not in bashing Muslims. it is in bashing Christians. I've tried to reason with him, but he goes on about the Crusades and accuses Christians today of raping and pillaging, torture and murder, and if we're not doing it, it's that we're not doing it yet. It's your seed, my friend. Do what you will, only I affirm that one's beliefs must stand up to serious challenge, even the ridiculous challenge, or else it's not worth the believing. Problem is, we believe the Truth, and so it costs us very little to hold that position. The Truth stands on it's own. How much more frantic, more anxious and dismayed would we be if we held to that which is false, and challenged the Truth, as many do?

My concern is that in the attempt to play-down the massacre of Christians by islamists, he is actually attempting to also make it appear that we are here Muslim-bashing, and that pisses me off. It's really too bad that we can't discuss the situation and our opinions of it, without someone trying to turn it into something else.

Where have I played it down. I condemn murder of anyone who is discriminated against.

But again, the point I'm trying to make is that you guys bash the Muslims and think you're squeaky clean.

There are always two sides to every story, sometimes many more.

larrrs, I hate putting people in ignore, but I equate it with wiping the dust off my feet, if you know what I mean. There's just no reasoning with some people.

If Muslims are not killing Christians (like the Coptics in Egypt) in the name of their god, then why do they do it at all? Can't be to gain real estate, or seize food. The Coptics certainly aren't being obnoxious. I recall a current situation in India where a woman who is a Christian was falsly accused of defamiing Muhammed. Rioting that resulted in her arrest was a result.

I don't bash Muslims. I bash any governmental or religious system that denigrates women, converts by the sword, claims to be devout yet live wicked lives, and wouldn't know truth if it jumped out of the bushes in front of them. A cultural minister in France said this:

http://phyllis3324111.newsvine.com/_news/2012/02/07/10347342-french-interior-minister-says-not-all-cultures-are-of-equal-value?threadId=3340426&commentId=62298767#c62298767

He's rather got a point.

I bash any governmental or religious system that denigrates women

Christianity does that... check

claims to be devout yet live wicked lives,

Christianity does that.... check

and wouldn't know truth if it jumped out of the bushes in front of them.

Christianity does that.... check

Hypocrisy once again runs rampant. The Christian zealots think their religion is squeaky clean while they try to exterminate the others.

I recall a current situation in India where a woman who is a Christian was falsly accused of defamiing Muhammed. Rioting that resulted in her arrest was a result.

Ironic since India is a Hindu government and law. Muslims are a minority in India and nobody would ever be arrested in India for defaming Muhammad (saw). Are you sure it was India?

sorry... repost of above deleted. for some reason NV told me it couldn't post, when in fact, it did...

Are you sure it was India?

The incident Levi is recalling occurred in Pakistan. Surprise, surprise.

and as I mentioned above... it all links back to Saudi Arabia...

http://criticalppp.com/archives/69085

Sorry, folks, Pakistan. Just got off a harrowing 10 hour shift and was doing a little bit of vining before collapsing into slumber. I got lazy, and I apologize. Thank you for clearing that up for me.

Not to worry, Levi; that particular incident may have happened in Pakistan rather than India, but it is the incident itself, not the particular location, which is significant, and representative. In India (Kashmir) Muslims do the same sort of thing to Hindus rather than to Christians, but it all comes from the same source: "Fight the infidel wherever you find him."

In India (Kashmir) Muslims do the same sort of thing to Hindus

Actually, you have it backwards... the opposite is the truth.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/hindu-terrorism-charges-force-india-to-reflect-on-prejudices-against-muslims/2011/02/19/ABngFvR_story.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13170914

http://newsdesk.org/2008/08/hindu_and_musli/

http://www.countercurrents.org/sikand090810.htm

If it is not for lack of jobs or out of desperate poverty that many Kashmiri Muslims continue to dream of freedom from India, then what is it that drives them in what seems to be a never-ending war against one of the mightiest armies of the world, in which, so far, they have lost more than a hundred thousand of their own?

...the dominant Indian nationalist narrative has no space for a separate Kashmiri nation as a political entity. It demands that the Kashmiris must, even through force, recognize themselves as Indians and their land as an integral and indivisible part of India.

Another quote from the same article...

Over the years, I have had to suffer virulent harangues at the hands of scores of Hindus I met in Jammu who had only the choicest swear words for Muslims. In the course of a study of Hindu-Muslim relations in Doda, the only district in Jammu and Kashmir where Hindus and Muslims live in almost equal numbers, I have met with numerous self-styled Hindu sadhus—curiously enough, none of them were locals, almost all being from impoverished parts of Uttar Pradesh and Bihar—who, with some notable exceptions, uniformly thought of Muslims as impure, cow-slaying demons, and believed that Hindus ought to have nothing whatsoever to do with them. Most of them were bitterly critical of local Hindus who had enjoyed cordial relations with their Muslim neighbours for centuries. The problem of negative stereotypes about the religious ‘other’ in Kashmir is thus by no means a solely Muslim monopoly.

...Contrary to depictions in some sections of the Indian media, it is not that the Islamist project of the likes of Gilani and the Lashkar-e Tayyeba is widely shared by most Kashmiri Muslims. Not many of them, I wager, would want Kashmir to be ruled by the likes of the Taliban or even the Jamaat-e Islami. I personally know scores of Kashmiris, practicing Muslims, who vociferously insist that the radical Islamists’ version of Islam is not Islamic at all.

Christians don't hate these groups, they hate their sin as Jesus taught. Jesus loves sinners including gays and Muslims ( I left out women and blacks because it isn't a sin to be a woman or to be black). So our true stance as Christians is to hate the sin, and love the sinners, so that the gospel is preached and sinners repent of their sin and turn to Jesus and the redemptive work of salvation he completed for them. So please correctly state the Christian view next time, instead of filtering in your own presuppositions of what YOU think the Christian view is.

In that case, you would have to change your stance on gays too. Assuming you hate the sin as you say, then there is no reason to hate homosexuality which is genetic, therefore not a choice.

Oh and if you really wanna get down and gritty with it, the so called "sin" of homosexuality is not part of anything Jesus said. It is actually mentioned in the OT in Leviticus 18:22.

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

If anyone has twisted the message of Jesus is the so called Christians. I'm reminded of a passage from John 8: 2-11

² At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them.³ The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group⁴ and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery.⁵ In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women.Now what do you say?”⁶ They were using this question as a trap,in order to have a basis for accusing him.

But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger.⁷ When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stoneat her.”⁸ Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

⁹ At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there.¹⁰ Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”

¹¹ “No one, sir,” she said.

“Then neither do I condemn you,”Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”

You people are much like the Pharisees and nothing like the J-man. Even Ghandi said that he liked Christ but he didn't like Christians.

Another Bald faced lie Andrew,

homosexuality which is genetic, therefore not a choice

No it isn't genetic it is a choice. The only people who want you to think it isn't a choice are in the Political and Health care industries. You know, the ones that stand to profit substantially by legislation that promotes and cares/treats people who have a so called "genetic disability." That and the fact remains that people have a conscious which tells them that homosexuality is wrong, which they can't escape no matter how much medication doctors are willing to prescribe them.

Another lie,

the so called "sin" of homosexuality is not part of anything Jesus said.

It is said by Jesus through the Holy Spirit, and revealed through the Apostle Paul in his Epistle to Timothy, 2 Tim 3:2. Although the specific act of homosexuality isn't spoken of by Jesus in the gospels, the judgment associated with the action is more than once spoken of by Jesus referring to Sodom and Gomorrah and the destruction of both.

This may be true,

Even Ghandi said that he liked Christ but he didn't like Christians.

Yes, well it's possible Ghandi liked his own idea of what Christ was and not the same Jesus of the Bible. I wonder if he thought that Christians would be unlikeable if the person he liked (Jesus) were living inside each and every Christian. I guess he never realized that truth.

No it isn't genetic it is a choice. The only people who want you to think it isn't a choice are in the Political and Health care industries. You know, the ones that stand to profit substantially by legislation that promotes and cares/treats people who have a so called "genetic disability." That and the fact remains that people have a conscious which tells them that homosexuality is wrong, which they can't escape no matter how much medication doctors are willing to prescribe them.

Just because reality doesn't fit your dogma based hatred doesn't mean it's a lie. If you picked up a book other than the Bible instead of using them for propping up furniture you'd learn something.

It is said by Jesus through the Holy Spirit, and revealed through the Apostle Paul in his Epistle to Timothy, 2 Tim 3:2. Although the specific act of homosexuality isn't spoken of by Jesus in the gospels, the judgment associated with the action is more than once spoken of by Jesus referring to Sodom and Gomorrah and the destruction of both.

So it is your position that Jesus played a game of telephone with Paul? Is that what you're saying? Paul has nothing to do with Jesus. In fact, Paul wasn't even a speck in his mama's eyes when Jesus was alive or even crucified. What you follow is Paulinism or Paulinity not Christianity.

I swear these peeps needs some education.

The reality of it is that people have a conscience and that they know right from wrong, which is why homosexuality is wrong. As for,

So it is your position that Jesus played a game of telephone with Paul?

The Bible is very clear that the Apostle Paul was caught up to the third Heaven, the abode of God, when journeying on the road to Damascus (Acts 22). There was no need for a telephone because God can teleport you right into the third Heaven if he wants to. Also,

when Jesus was alive

It is more correct to use the phrase, "while he was on earth" because Jesus rose from the dead and he is still alive in heaven. As for what I follow, well....it clearly isn't your pseudo Christian views that I follow.

First of all, I'm not a Christian BUT if pseudo Christian views include:

1) being a good man,

2) taking care of my family and loving my wife and son more than life itself

3) accepting everyone for what actions they take to be a good man or woman, not just because they proclaim to be a good man or woman.

4) not automatically hating everyone for being different,

5) not wanting to exterminate said different people for not believing the way I do

then yeah, I guess I follow pseudo Christianity and damn proud of it.

With haters like you, I want no part of your Christianity. Jesus is spinning in his grave at how far off the narrow path you peeps have come in his name.

1) being a good man,

There is none that doeth good, no not one. You cannot be a "good man" apart from God since he is the source of everything good.

2) taking care of my family and loving my wife and son more than life itself

Taking care of your family is important, but there are different forms of love and only two kinds of Biblical love. "Greater love hath no man than this that a man lay down his life for his friend." This is what Jesus did for those who choose to believe in him and his work of salvation, those he calls friends. If this is the love you speak about it doesn't make you a bad person, but is further evidence of a creator and God of love that the love Jesus had for sinners, is the same type of sacrificial love you have for your family (I speak of a willingness to lay ones life down).

3) accepting everyone for what actions they take to be a good man or woman, not just because they proclaim to be a good man or woman.

Here's where man's perspective gets mixed with the world. Everyone has their own view of what a "good" man or woman may be. Since it is defined that there is none good, no not one, as stated in the Bible, it is impossible for a man or woman's own actions to be good apart from God. The actions one does are only good if they are according to God's will and word.

4) not automatically hating everyone for being different,

True believers don't hate anyone. The bible says to love your enemies, and fellow believers. Those that hate others have failed, as Christians often do in their walks or have no reality behind their beliefs. Christians are allowed to Hate sin, as God does or even have a righteous anger because of sin. It's doesn't mean they hate people, it means they hate the actions of people.

5) not wanting to exterminate said different people for not believing the way I do

I know of no reason, Biblically speaking, to exterminate people. Are there passages that a person can take out of context to justify it, yes. That doesn't mean that those who choose to profess those beliefs are loving their neighbour(s) or that those who commit that act are Christians.

My suggestion to you Andrew is to stop associating the world and what it does with what is "Christian" in your own eyes. You have a lot of misconceptions about what is truly Christian.

There is none that doeth good, no not one. You cannot be a "good man" apart from God since he is the source of everything good.

Sorry padre. Your preaching it is not gonna make it true. According to you, no one can be good if they don't follow Jesus, the problem with that is the story of Jesus is only 2,000 yrs old. There were still many good people way before he was a speck in his mama's eyes. Christianity or for that matter any religion holds no monopoly on morality.

Taking care of your family is important, but there are different forms of love and only two kinds of Biblical love. "Greater love hath no man than this that a man lay down his life for his friend." This is what Jesus did for those who choose to believe in him and his work of salvation, those he calls friends. If this is the love you speak about it doesn't make you a bad person, but is further evidence of a creator and God of love that the love Jesus had for sinners, is the same type of sacrificial love you have for your family (I speak of a willingness to lay ones life down).

Read above. I don't buy your 1,700 yr old version of Jesus and I am still a good man with a wonderful family and I'd die for them regardless of whether Jesus said so or not.

Here's where man's perspective gets mixed with the world. Everyone has their own view of what a "good" man or woman may be. Since it is defined that there is none good, no not one, as stated in the Bible, it is impossible for a man or woman's own actions to be good apart from God. The actions one does are only good if they are according to God's will and word.

See there you're contradicting the Bible.

Jesus never said that to be good you HAD to follow God.

He said that acts of good defined you as a good person. In other words, don't just talk the talk but walk the walk. And bashing Muslims while saying that Christians are all love and cuddles is NOT walking the walk.

Even Pope John Paul II had the balls to apologize for the Crusades as well as tons of other atrocities Christians have committed through the ages:

• The conquest of Mesoamerica by Spain in the name of the Church
• The legal process on the Italian scientist and philosopher Galileo Galilei, himself a devout Catholic, around 1633 (31 October 1992).
• Catholics' involvement with the African slave trade (9 August 1993).
• The Church Hierarchy's role in burnings at the stake and the religious wars that followed the Protestant Reformation (May 1995, in the Czech Republic).
• The injustices committed against women, the violation of women's rights and for the historical denigration of women (10 July 1995, in a letter to "every woman").
• The inactivity and silence of many Catholics during the Holocaust (16 March 1998)
• For the execution of Jan Hus in 1415 (18 December 1999 in Prague). When John Paul II visited Prague in 1990s, he requested experts in this matter "to define with greater clarity the position held by Jan Hus among the Church's reformers, and acknowledged that "independently of the theological convictions he defended, Hus cannot be denied integrity in his personal life and commitment to the nation's moral education." It was another step in building a bridge between Catholics and Protestants.
• For the sins of Catholics throughout the ages for violating "the rights of ethnic groups and peoples, and [for showing] contempt for their cultures and religious traditions". (12 March 2000, during a public Mass of Pardons).

True believers don't hate anyone. The bible says to love your enemies, and fellow believers. Those that hate others have failed, as Christians often do in their walks or have no reality behind their beliefs. Christians are allowed to Hate sin, as God does or even have a righteous anger because of sin. It's doesn't mean they hate people, it means they hate the actions of people.

And again I point out that you ignore the real world to uphold your dogma. Homosexuality is genetic, therefore, saying it's a choice and therefore a sin is insane. You are purposely hating a group of people for being different.

The same goes for women. How many atrocities are committed in the Bible's OT against women? Hundreds. Sure the NT treats them a little better but still as inferior, sometimes not even human for being women and based on an archaic idea that because supposedly a woman was responsible for the fall, all of them are. Hate? Oh yes.

I know of no reason, Biblically speaking, to exterminate people. Are there passages that a person can take out of context to justify it, yes. That doesn't mean that those who choose to profess those beliefs are loving their neighbour(s) or that those who commit that act are Christians.

Oh I'm sure that I'm taking something like this out of context..... NOT!!!

Numbers 31:7-18

They attacked Midian just as the LORD had commanded Moses, and they killed all the men. All five of the Midianite kings – Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba – died in the battle. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. Then the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder. They burned all the towns and villages where the Midianites had lived. After they had gathered the plunder and captives, both people and animals, they brought them all to Moses and Eleazar the priest, and to the whole community of Israel, which was camped on the plains of Moab beside the Jordan River, across from Jericho.

Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. "Why have you let all the women live?" he demanded. "These are the very ones who followed Balaam's advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.

Gee, God has the men, married and women murdered and I am sure that he just wanted to keep the young girls so the Israelis can feed them milk and cookies. Because men of God are so righteous including Moses.

Jesus never said that to be good you HAD to follow God.

All things work together for good to them that love God.... Rom 8. Right technically, Jesus said to follow him, but since he is God, following God means following Jesus.

You know the parable of the rich young ruler is an example of a person who was defined by his works. He said he had kept the law from his youth up and all he had to do was go sell all that he had, give it to the poor and go follow Jesus and he couldn't do it. Sad that he won't get to heaven on his own merit of good works.

you ignore the real world

And they that are of the world speak of the world ( 1 Jn. 4). Stop confusing what is in the world "Catholic Church" with what is Christian. They are not synonymous. Even Moses had his flaw which kept him from entering into the promised land of Canaan. You would do well to not assume you are right just because you've posted it.

Christianity or for that matter any religion holds no monopoly on morality.

That's the equivalent of saying there are many ways to Heaven and there are not. The Bible clearly says that Jesus is the way (and only way), the truth and the life...(Jn. 14:6). The bible also says, "There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the ends thereof are the ways of death" which is the way that you are on currently Andrew (Prov. 16:25).

The Bible clearly says that Jesus is the way (and only way), the truth and the life...(Jn. 14:6). The bible also says, "There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the ends thereof are the ways of death" which is the way that you are on currently Andrew

Nope, sorry, while I like Jesus's true message, not your perversion of it, I refuse to follow his supposed daddy who has committed and continues to commit so much evil in the world.

The guy is a filthy SOB and your own Bible shows him going after women and babies like they were monsters to extinguish.

If your God doesn't respect life, what hope is there for those who follow him who would cheer for the extermination of fellow human beings who don't "believe" including Muslims and me.

This seed just shows me more evidence of how evil Christianity can be. Muslims as just as bad so you guys deserve each other but at least they're upfront about it and don't hide their bigotry behind false platitudes of love and goodwill to the world.

supposed daddy who has committed and continues to commit so much evil in the world.

Evil is the work of Satan not God. God just allows Satan to commit evil....for now. As for,

God doesn't respect life,

The Bible says the Lord killeth and maketh alive again. Shouldn't the person who can raise the dead also have the power to allow people to die that ultimately he created in the first place? Whats to stop him from raising back to life people that he allows to die? He did it in the gospels, he can still do it today.

Evil is the work of Satan not God. God just allows Satan to commit evil....for now. As for,

It shows how well you have read the Bible. Your so called evil Satan only kills 10 people in your Bible.

How many does God murder? Not counting The Plagues of Egypt which show no numbers and some events here and there, the final count is a staggering 2, 270, 365 human beings including men, women and innocent children which is the worst of all, especially to me being a dad. And that's just in the OT.

Satan is a pussycat compared to God in terms of evil.

This issue is about Eternal Security not about death. Many deaths (way more than 10) can be attributed to Satan in the Bible. However, the number of people that have been misled by Satan are far greater than you could ever calculate. Basing an argument on how many people have died doesn't consider the eternal state of an individual soul. So the argument that death is all there is, isn't relevant. There are those that believe it is a blessing when the Lord takes one of his own home to Heaven to be with him because that person no longer has to suffer Satans attacks on them. There is also the fact that Satan has made many people go to hell through deception, lies and sin. When it comes to Evil, Satan definitely is the source because he is the prince of the rulers of these worldly kingdoms. Yet God abides and is faithful and good. Nothing can ever change that and your misleading of people to believe that God is something he is not, is a heresy.

Nothing can ever change that and your misleading of people to believe that God is something he is not, is a heresy.

I'm not misleading, just telling it like it is. You choose to ignore, that's on you.

Isn't Jesus supposed to return from the sky? And isn't Satan chained beneath ground? And isn't the Madi supposed to come out of a pit in the ground?

Andrew, I am only going to give you one warning. Any more comments pointed at bashing Christians instead of discussing the seeded article, will be deleted.

wow... you do realize how that reads right?

"anymore comments pointed at bashing christians instead of bashing muslims [discussing the seeded article], will be deleted."

I'm just letting you know. That probably isn't what you intended your post to mean... but that is how it comes across.

How is discussing Muslim atrocities committed against Christians, or in other words, Muslims persecuting Christians, considered to be bashing Muslims? Yes, let's speak the truth, always.

Is it every Muslim that persecutes Christians? Obviously not. Was it every Christian that went on the Crusades? Obviously not. And what do you suppose was the fruit of the Catholic church at that time? Martin Luther and the Protestant reformation. I'm still waiting for the Muslim version.

This seed has denigrated from the discussion of Islam persecuting Christians for their faith, to the level of discussing the validity of Islam and rants against Christianity. Commentary has been posted most excellently both pro and con...yet it can't be both ways. There are issues where the truth lies somewhere in the middle, but this is not one of them. It is very much either-or.

I read the placating commentary on Ahmadinejad's speeches and I think that the world must be going crazy, when they put off his rants and vows to eradicate Israel and the West, as "translational issues from Pharsi". It may take a teaspoon of English words to translate one word in Pharsi, but if he is saying in Pharsi "We call for the destruction of Israel!", and someone says "Oh, he's really not saying that. It's a mistranslation.." they are idiotic and false. Ahmadinejad speaks English, and he knows what he's saying.

And so it is, that Islam expects the world to look on the atrocities they commit in the name of Allah and the Quran, yet believe that this very Quran preaches peace and a belief in Jesus Christ, and lollipops for all the kids, and so on. Then if indeed the Quran preaches peace, and tolerance, and the honoring of Jesus Christ, then every Mullah, every Imam, every preacher of Islam is a charlatan and sicko crazy-person and Muslims are idiots for not being able to recognize that fact. YOU CANNOT HAVE A RELIGION LIKE ISLAM THAT IS PEACEFUL AND HAVE THE MURDER OF CHRISTIANS TAKING PLACE WITH IMPUNITY AT THE HANDS OF MUSLIMS!

They want us to believe a lie. Lies are for the liars, and deceptions are for the deceived. Truth is for those who are called by God and have been born again through faith in Jesus Christ.

And I could care less how you "read" it, as you seem to have determined how you "read" anything here that doesn't suite your own ideas.

Right back atcha... seem like you are accusing me of the very thing you are guilty of. Funny how that works, isn't it?

Andrew, I am only going to give you one warning. Any more comments pointed at bashing Christians instead of discussing the seeded article, will be deleted.

LOL the bias in this seed is insane. Christians can get away with anything but according to you peeps, Muslims need to be exterminated even if you Christians caused what is happening to you now.

More and more peeps are recognizing the evils of the Church whether they be Muslims or not. I hope one day in the future to never see a Church standing and free people loving others not because of which God they follow but for simply being human.

Muslim bashing and genocide is not the solution. It's just a way for you holier than thou frakkers to think you're superior to everyone else.

larrrs, you have a delete button. It's the little garbage can icon on the lower right, next to the up arrow and exclamation mark.

I keep hoping people are willing to discuss without throwing stones at each other, but apparently some are just too far gone for that.

I remember visiting an American Muslim website, and reading a lengthy article on how and why Islam is a religion of peace. I went back later that day to bookmark the site, and the article was gone and replaced with a rant against Israel.

And even so, I keep waiting for the truth about Islam, but all we get is some weak, anemic explanation that doesn't at all explain the absolute HYPOCRISY of words vs. actions. Religion of peace vs. burn a church and kill the pastor. Liars, that what they are.

I keep hoping people are willing to discuss without throwing stones at each other, but apparently some are just too far gone for that.

Oh please. Don't give me the "discuss" line.

All I have seen on here is "boo hoo, us poor Christians, we're victims of those evil, nasty Muslims but we're squeaky clean and have nothing to deserve it." No one proposes a solution, they just keep whining.

Jesus has a solution.

"Because wickedness will abound, the love of most will grow cold. But the one who endures to the end shall be saved."

Jesus has a solution.

Such a wonderful solution - Armageddon/Apocalypse/Revelations

The next verse...

and then the end will come.

Play nice kiddies or you'll upset your mythical sky daddy (whichever one you accept).

PEOPLE (of whatever religion) are killing PEOPLE (of whatever OTHER "heretical" religion) because they feel that it is justified by their mythical sky daddy (whichever one they accept) AND DOING SO IS PROPER (IN THEIR MINDS).

You folks DO REALIZE that THIS is what all of this exchange boils down into (or don't you?)

CUT TO THE CHASE FOLKS - get out of the TRIVIALITIES - the "Yeah verilys..." and the quotes from the book(s) of dogmatic assertions. Either you agree with people killing each other because they THINK (think being the operative and relative word) "something" told them to DO IT AND THAT JUSTIFIES IT. Think back 70 years or so - WHO ran those concentration camps? Good religious folks by and large. They just got caught up in the mood of the time, EH?

A eunuch is not a homosexual. They are castrated men, to keep the harem safe from other men usually.

Did I say an eunuch was a homosexual? No I did not. I said Jesus was giving an example of respecting different people, in this case an eunuch for being born that way (the way a gay man is) or being made a particular way by circumstances or someone choosing to be a certain way. It was an allegory. Look it up. It's in the dictionary.

in this case an eunuch for being born that way

you are as accurate with your grasp of what that word (eunuch) means as you have been with all of your comments. Let's call it with out a clue...shall we ?

A eunuch ( /ˈjuːnək/; Greek: Ευνούχος) is a person who (by the common definition of the term eunuch) has been castrated,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eunuch

made a particular way by circumstances

yes,being castrated is an unfortunate circumstance

Oy, the meaning of an allegory went right over your head didn't it? Well what can I expect from someone who probably uses any kind of real knowledge books to prop up furniture while thumping the Bible.

incredible!

love you

love you

Trekie - Me too, a trekie.

"Violence against any faith or religion is wrong"

This is Sooo correct.

"and yet even in a "civilized" nation like the US, there are repeated calls for violence against gays by leading political/religious figures."

This is incorrect. No one, let alone repeatedly, advocates violence on anyone, in the US.

"Thankfully, most of the supposed religious disputes in this country play out"

This is correct.

"in idiot rhetoric instead of suicide bombers but it's g etting worse."

"Idiot rhetoric" is incorrect. It is discussion and debate. As we do here on the vine. And I am sure that you are not inferring that the vine is nothing but "idiot rhetoric".

"Of course, the Right perpetually screams about a supposed war Obama is waging on Christians but has yet to offer any proof other than what they imagine."

To violate the Constitution by a mandate aimed specifically against Christians, is proof.

Love you, Trekie. Don't have to be on the Right to recognize wrong.