OK Robert, let's think about this for 1 second. If you want me to agree that terrorists, of any faith, are bad, I'll do that. However you assertion is basically all muslims are militant, which this does not prove in the slightest any more than Hitler being raised a Lutheran makes all Lutherans Nazis.

You seem to have fallen into a logical trap that I would have thought you'd recognize, as it's simple enough to appear even on the SAT. Your reasoning seems to be:
most al Queda members are fundamentalist Muslims :: all fundamentalist Muslims must be terrorists

Yes, al-Queda is predominantly fundamentalist Muslim. That does not mean that Islam teaches violence. The extreme, mininformed, fundamentalists do not speak for the entire religion. I believe God is upset every time he sees such hatemongering rhetoric being preached by those who claim to represent him, be they Christian, Muslim, or Jew.

In fact your type of characterization is the type of rhetoric needed to induce the weaker minded of Christian faith to believe that retaliation against innocent Arabs or Muslims would be justified. Remember that there were many assaults on mosques by moronic "patriotic" "Christian" Americans in "retaliation" right after Sept 11, 2001 due to this same type of flawed logic.

Posted by: Patrick on October 14, 2002 03:15 PM

you assertion is basically all muslims are militant

I didn't say anything of the sort. I know that not all Muslims are militant (which is a relief since I work with Muslims...I can just imagine Amr screaming "Allah Akhbar" and killing all us infidels! This would be funny if you knew Amr.)

The most active terrorists in the world today are fundamentalist Muslims (that, and meat eaters). That is my point. Perhaps you can show me some Presbyterian terrorists? Or even white supremacists that are as active and kill as many people as the Muslim terrorists? Or maybe you can show me where Jerry Falwell's terrorist training camps are? Even the KKK isn't doing stuff this bad.

Posted by: Robert on October 15, 2002 10:15 AM

define "active", robert. there are lots of people operating around who could be classified as "terrorists". just because they are not actively blowing up buildings, it does not mean they are not undermining the very fabric of a civilised society.

i can think of a great example off the top of my head: the army of god. what do you think of those fundamentalist christian terrorists? i'm curious as to where you'd place them on your terrorist scale. and i will gaurantee that jerry falwell supports their principals.

i'm not trying to start a fight here. i just feel that your characterisations of islam lately have been incredibly biased. you really have seemed to lump every muslim into the category of "terrorist", and i don't feel that is fair in any way, shape or form.

how would you feel if you were lumped in with the army of god just because you believe abortionists are "baby killers"? do you consider yourself a terrorist? i didn't think so.

with that in mind, it might be wise for you to define your beliefs in more detail, as your posts of late have been all-encompassing and extremely speculative.

Posted by: anna on October 15, 2002 01:20 PM

I would have to define "active" as, well, a group who is actively doing things. Things like flying airplanes into building, ramming speedboats with explosives into oil tankers, and bombing nightclubs. Killing people. Maybe this will help. (I suppose next we'll have to define "is"?)

what do you think of those fundamentalist christian terrorists?

I honestly hadn't heard of them. Maybe that's because they haven't been flying planes into buildings or blowing up lots of uninvolved people. There is a difference between bombing a baby slaughterhouse or a den of sodomites and bombing a nightclub. Neither is acceptable, neither is right, but there is a difference. The former is perhaps a bit understandable because at least the victims of the terror are directly linked to the things the terrorists don't like.

Just so you don't go misconstruing my above statements, let me be real clear.

Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man. Genesis 9:6

The Bible teaches that homosexuals deserve to die for their abominatios, but it does not tell Christians to carry out the sentence. Anyone who unlawfully kills another must himself be killed. Even if they are a conservative born again Christian who kills someone who really deserves to die. It's not our place to carry out God's sentences. (And Romans 2 explains why).

i just feel that your characterisations of islam lately have been incredibly biased.

The Koran teaches Muslims to "slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush" until they "repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate" (Sura 9:5). A few verses later you read "Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection." (Sura 9:29) Call me biased if you want.

every muslim into the category of "terrorist",

Nope. But might near every terrorist that's actively blowing people up right now just so happens to be a Muslim. Go figure.

Muslims aren't necessarily violent. But ones that take the Koran seriously must be. The Koran teaches violence, and even overrules the objections of peaceful Muslims: "Fighting is enjoined on you, and h is an object of dislike to you; and it may be that you dislike a thing while it is good for you, and it may be that you love a thing while it is evil for you, and Allah knows, while you do not know." (Sura 2:216).

how would you feel if you were lumped in with the army of god just because you believe abortionists are "baby killers"?

It doesn't matter how I feel. The truth matters, not feelings. If the Bible taught me to hunt down and kill those who reject God, then it would be right to lump me in with those who took that part of the Bible seriously. I am responsible for what I believe. If the Bible taught terrorism (which it doesn't) then it would be fair to lump me in with terrorists. If Jesus said "persecution is severer than slaughter" (He didn't; Mohammed did) then I would be responsible for adhering to a religion that taught that - whether or not I liked or practiced that aspect.

extremely speculative

Is it extremely speculative to think that the Bali terrorists were Muslim fanatics? The Indonesians government is convinced it was Al-Qaeda. The only speculation of late was my guess that the Washington sniper is an Arab terrorist. And in that post I said "It's sheer speculation, but I bet this is an Arab terrorist." I clearly identified my wild speculation as such.

define your beliefs in more detail

1. Islam is defined by the Koran.
2. All Muslims that take their faith seriously must take the Koran seriously.
3. The Koran promotes violence against non-Muslims.
4. All serious Muslims must be militant and willing to practice jihad against non-Muslims.
5. Terrorism may not be a valid form of jihad (it doesn't seem to be from my research), but militancy is required by Islam so it doesn't much matter to me. And what we term "terrorism" may be a valid form of warfare to others (such as guerilla fighters). Terrorism is really the only hope you have of winning a war against a superior force. I am reminded of how the British thought the Americans were "cheating" during the American revolution because the American's wouldn't stand calmly in a block and trade shots with the British.

(Most of this is probably going to wind up in a post of its own later on this week.)

Posted by: Robert on October 15, 2002 04:25 PM

So government sponsored attempted-genocide is not admissible by your rules? Is that how you're going to rule out Milosovic and his "ethnic clensing" of all Muslims in Bosnia-Herzigovina by Christians?

How about the work of the Armenian Church, which has committed terrorist acts such as assassinating Turkish diplomats in the 1970s and 80s? This is the official state church of Armenia, and has accomplished such "Christian" acts as destroying the homes and reducing to a state of barely tented squalor of any Muslims living in Armenia or the lands they took from Aizerbaijan.

In order to be a Christian terrorist, must one operate strictly based on religious assaults? Al-Queda attacked America for mostly political reasons, which look very similar to the ones that Timothy McVeigh, a Christian who is on record as having attended church services during his military service and who took last rights as a Roman Catholic before his death, going to be excluded through some logical loophole you're now going to invent?

I'd like to point out that the Bible does explicitly tell you to beat your child with a rod in order to deliver him from hell, which is not so different than the Qur'an.

Proverbs 23:13
Withhold not correction from the child: for [if] thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die.

Proverbs 23:14
Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell.

I've only just finished Proverbs reading the bible cover-to-cover, so these are fresh in mind. If I must, I will find other examples.

So the Bible does explicitly tell you to assault your children in order to save them from the fires of hell if the child is disobediant. What's more is that slightly earlier, it also tells you to assault fools...
Proverbs 20:30
The blueness of a wound cleanseth away evil: so [do] stripes the inward parts of the belly.

So, by your logic, if someone literally believes the bible either there are inconsistencies in it, or you MUST do physical harm (although not kill) anyone who disagrees with the bible.

Again, obviously not all fundamentalists read this the same way. However if you read it in context, there is little question as to what it says.

So a "serious" Muslim must be a wife beater, and a "serious" Christian must be a child abuser.

You're right when you say that jihad does not include terrorism when read in context of the Qur'an. What annoys me in your posts, and in the US press, is not that everyone is so upset with the terrorists, but that they're never just terrorists, nearly never Terrorist affiliated with al-Queda, rarely Middle-Eastern terrorists, and so often Musim terrorists. It's not an issue when we have Christian murderers, Christian rapists, Christian thieves, like we do all over the place on our own streets. However it IS a big deal when it's a Muslim, and that is where I take issue. If you want to research the political views and biases of al-Queda and post them, we have no reason to quarrel. It's only when you start to claim that the problem is Islam that I shake my head in wonder, as you should clearly know better.

Posted by: Patrick on October 17, 2002 10:30 AM

It doesn't matter how I feel. The truth matters, not feelings.

My oh my. Did you just admit that you're a sheep to the Christian myth? Is conforming to books of stories really much easier than thinking for yourself?

Posted by: paul on October 17, 2002 12:52 PM

robert, as i stated, i was not trying to start a fight with you. i'm going to try and re-state my issues in a different way. maybe this will help you understand.

imagine you are a peace-loving muslim, if you will. peace-loving muslims are the majority of muslims. now, some fundamentalist freak decides to use your holy book to justify his jihad. how do you think muslims feel when they are slighted as a whole based upon a minority's actions?

as a christian, recognise that there are "terrorist" christian cells operating worldwide and in the US. they use the bible to justify their terrorism. now imagine you're on the other side of the world, and some muslim is writing terrible things about christianity as a whole based on the action of a few fundamentalist freaks. imagine that they're quoting little snippets out of your holy book and comparing them to the koran in order to "prove" that christianity is not a peace-loving religion.

that is exactly what you are doing, and i don't think that it's fair. i also don't think it's right for you to demonise an entire religion based upon the action of a few fundamentalists. i also think it's wrong for you to pick out a few passages from the koran and hold them up as representative of the entire belief system. how would you feel if someone started doing the same with christianity and the bible? would you laugh it off or chalk it up to sheer ignorance? or would it, perhaps, wound you deeply as you realised that someone was perpetuating a stereotype that might affect how other people woud treat you? do you even consider the effect your words might have, or are you so hell-bent on proving the superiority of christianity that you fail to see any value in islam?

for example, there are many bible passages which advocate beating children, or taking god's law into one's own hands. does that mean that every christian is a child abuser? of course not. there are a few koran passages that advocate violence, but does that make every muslim a participant in jihad? or course not. see, you are taking the comparison to the extreme, and in doing that you are perpetuating the same line of thinking as fundamentalists of other religions. by your standards, anyone who takes the koran seriously must be militant. ever asked a muslim if they feel that way?

now, you may say it's not the same because only fundamentalist muslims are out "blowing up buildings". if so, then you miss the point. it's not like there is a sliding scale of terrorism. terrorism is terrorism, whether it involves blowing up buildings or sniping abortion doctors. both actions are prompted by an extremist belief in some type of religion. but, do these type of actions speak to the religion as whole? should we condemn all christians based upon the actions of a few freaks? should we condemn islam based on the actions of al-quaeda? i will gaurantee you that believers on both sides will say no, that those actions are indefensible, and that they do not represent the majority of believers.

just as you would (hopefully) condemn the actions of the army of god or GOAL, don't you think most muslims actively condemn folks like al-quaeda? don't you think they are ashamed to be affiliated, however loosely, with those people? i'd hope that you'd be equally ashamed to be associated with any of the christian groups i've named, as they are all actively inciting hatred and terrorism.

that is all i'm asking you to consider when you condemn islam. terrorism is terrorism and there is no sliding scale (read: no difference in blowing up a "baby slaughterhouse" or running a plane into a building). and don't pretend that there is no value in islam simply because of a few selected passages.

Posted by: anna on October 17, 2002 01:00 PM

Patrick,

This is why I never got any sleep our freshman year!

Milosovic and his "ethnic clensing" of all Muslims in Bosnia-Herzigovina by Christians?

I love the way you choose your terms here. You could have referred to the ethnicities of those involved in ethnic struggles but you don't.

And what did the (mostly Christian) west do about this ethnic cleansing? Did we stand by and watch it? Did we have demonstrations in the street supporting it? Because that was a typical response of Arab Muslim nations after 9/11.

work of the Armenian Church

Don't know much about that. I do know someone who knows quite a bit about Armenia (having worked there with the Peace Corps), maybe I'll ask her.

Al-Queda attacked America for mostly political reasons

Really? Would that include keeping infidel troops in the Holy Land? Sounds religious to me. Perhaps you can point me to the bin Laden interview where he explains why they attacked us. Otherwise you are simply speculating and I won't bother to answer speculations.

Timothy McVeigh

Timothy McVeigh attacked America for religious reasons? Nonsense. Even if he did, how many churches and preachers celebrated it?

the Bible does explicitly tell you to beat your child with a rod in order to deliver him from hell, which is not so different than the Qur'an.

"Beating" you child with a switch is "not so different" from beating your rebellious wife? Good thing my wife is not rebellious I guess.

So the Bible does explicitly tell you to assault your children in order to save them from the fires of hell if the child is disobediant.

Yes, the Bible says to spank your children. So what? I believe there is a SLIGHT difference between one's wife and one's child.

it also tells you to assault fools...
Proverbs 20:30 The blueness of a wound cleanseth away evil: so [do] stripes the inward parts of the belly.

The context of this verse says nothing about fools. It also doesn't command you to beat anyone here, but simply says what the results of the beating will be. But let's assume, for the sake of discussion, that the Bible does tell us to beat fools. I believe that beatings would be an appropriate punishment for some crimes (remember the caning thing in Singapore?) But the Bible does not tell me to beat anyone.

either there are inconsistencies in it, or you MUST do physical harm (although not kill) anyone who disagrees with the bible.

I have yet for you to show me where I am individually commanded to beat those who disagree with the Bible. Or to show me inconsistencies on this issue.

So a "serious" Muslim must be a wife beater, and a "serious" Christian must be a child abuser.

It is quite possible to whip your child and not be a child abuser (although most kids don't think so). It is quite impossible to beat your wife and not be a wife beater.

they're never just terrorists, nearly never Terrorist affiliated with al-Queda, rarely Middle-Eastern terrorists, and so often Musim terrorists

They are not simply terrorists, as they are a specific type of terrorists. They are not like the IRA, for example. Who they attack, how they attack, and why they attack, are all different. They are not all affiliated with Al-Qaeda. They are not all Middle-Eastern Arabs - many are African.

But they do seem to all be active Muslims. Curiouser and curiouser.

when we have Christian murderers

For one thing, these terrorists are motivated by religion in ways that common criminals aren't. For another, these terrorists are a bit more devout than nominal Christians who are criminals. Show me the Christian criminal who prays multiple times daily, attends worship weekly, fasts, and reads the Bible regularly.

It's only when you start to claim that the problem is Islam that I shake my head in wonder, as you should clearly know better.

I don't know why you are refusing to recognize that the Koran teaches militancy and violence, when I showed you that it does. That is the problem - not race, not politics, not nationality, not anything else. The one common denominator is an adherence to a religion that is historically violent, founded by a violent man, militantly expansionist, and defined by a book that commands religious violence even over the objection of its adherents.

Posted by: Robert on October 17, 2002 01:08 PM

OK, I have to get some work done today, so this has to be short, but I can't let this dog sleep...

Having "infidel troops in the Holy land" is a good rhetoric to get fence-sitting Muslims to be complicit in acts of agression against America. However, bin Laden offered help to the US against Saddam Hussain during Desert Storm, which is hardly the type of propaganda you're trying to preach. The truth is that Islam and Christianity have cohabited in several areas for centuries. The Moors in Medieval Spain, the Holy land under Ottoman rule previous to WWI, the republic of Malta from the time of the Knights Templar to the present all are examples. In most cases it's been the Christians who were the aggressors, and always for essentially political reasons.

Logically, this leads to the thought process that, since bin Laden was at least complicit, and was a would be ally to the US in 1991, and attacked the US 10 years later, this is probably an attack motivated not by religion or morality, but by a changing political situation. Al-Queda is an evil organization, but it apears to be a political one with religious trappings meant as justification, not cause, for its actions.

Posted by: Patrick on October 18, 2002 08:43 AM

Al-Queda is an evil organization, but it apears to be a political one with religious trappings meant as justification, not cause, for its actions.

I've never talked to any Al Qaeda member or heard one interviewed. As far as I know, bin Laden is still denying that Al Qaeda committed the 9/11 attacks and certainly isn't discussing his reasons.

I am not clairvoyant, so I cannot discern the true motivations of people with the little bit information I have, especially considering that those people are of an entirely different culture. I can't even project my own logic and understanding onto them.

What I can do is look at some circumstantial evidence and make some guesses. Like the fact that terrorist-style jihad is preached in mosques all over the place and online. "Jihad" and "Mosque" are both distinctly Moslem. Not Arab, not Middle Eastern, but Moslem. Or I can look at the religious expressions used in the letters the 9/11 hijackers had. Or the ones uttered by bin Laden in many of his taped addresses. Or maybe I can look at the teachings of the holy book of the religion that the terrorists adhere to and see that it does command violence in some situations. And maybe I can start to use the pattern recognition capabilities of my brain.

The Moors in Medieval Spain...the Christians who were the aggressors

How did Moors get in Spain? That's right, the vile Christians drug them to Europe. We can probably blame the Crusades if we try really hard. Charles Martel was the worst. He oppressed a whole lot of poor defenseless Submitters To The Religion Of Peace at a place called Tours. (This just proves that Islam is historically militantly expanionistic.)

Posted by: Robert on October 18, 2002 10:10 AM

I stumbled upon this little chat and I had a question semi-related to the topic.

I know Robert had written this in his post:
The Bible teaches that homosexuals deserve to die for their abominations, but it does not tell Christians to carry out the sentence. Anyone who unlawfully kills another must himself be killed. Even if they are a conservative born again Christian who kills someone who really deserves to die. It's not our place to carry out God's sentences. (And Romans 2 explains why).

Can someone tell me what this means about Christians who have been, are, or may be drafted into the U.S. Military for the purpose to kill others who are their enemy?

I don't have a standpoint myself, but I am curious with all this religious talk to find out what others think.

Thank you.

Posted by: Rikki on October 20, 2002 08:36 PM

Can someone tell me what this means about Christians who have been, are, or may be drafted into the U.S. Military for the purpose to kill others who are their enemy?

I'm not sure quite what you are asking here, but I'll do my best to answer you anyway.

There are many occasions when a Christian is quite justified in taking another's life. For instance, God commands "by man shall his [a murderer's] blood be shed." That requires a third party to carry out the execution. Common sense tells us that God doesn't then hold the executioner responsible and require him to be executed, because that would cascade real fast and nobody would be left after the first murder!

Jesus commanded us to "render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's" and Paul writes of the civil government bearing a sword to execute justice. Jesus instructed His disciples to arm themselves, and saw to it that 2 swords were brought with Him while He prayed just before He was arrested and killed. Paul recognized that there are limits to the extent we can live peacefully with others when he wrote "As far as lies within you, live peacably with all men." Violence and Christianity are not antithetical, provided the violence is justified.

Violence is never justified as a means to convert others or cause them to recognize the supremacy of Christianity (this is different from, say, Islam).

But violence is justified as a means of defense or a means of carrying out justice. A Christian using violence must be acting in accord with the law and the order that God has ordained.

A Christian policeman is justified in legally and morally shooting a criminal. He is acting to defend himself and the rest of us. A Christian soldier is justified in going to war when he acts lawfully and under orders. (This presupposes that the war is justified; Christians have no business in wars of oppression.) A Christian man is justified in killing someone to protect himself or others. (I think vigilantism would be prohibited, but that goes against my Jacksonian values so I really struggle with that.)

Christian policemen, soldiers, and other armed citizens are not justified in using their positions to impose their own particular beliefs in contradiction to the laws of the land. God established government and expects us to obey it. We rarely have the right to disobey in any but the most extreme situations.

Hope this answers your question. I am glad to have you visiting and hope you come back often. Please let me know if this didn't address your question.

Posted by: Robert on October 21, 2002 11:44 AM

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?