Islam

[MaineShark]

How many murders-in-the-name-of-religion have Christians carried out, and how many have Muslims?  I can think of an easy 12 million by Christians, in the span of only a few years, not too long ago.

And what murders would those have been?

Oh, there was this guy named Adolf somthing...

Joe

[Caleb]

How many murders-in-the-name-of-religion have Christians carried out, and how many have Muslims?  I can think of an easy 12 million by Christians, in the span of only a few years, not too long ago.

And what murders would those have been?

Oh, there was this guy named Adolf somthing...

Joe

???

I must have missed something.  What Christian issue was Adolph fighting for?  Adolph was an occultist.  The Churches there ended up largely supporting him, but that was because of the religion called nationalism, not because of any Christian issues.

[MaineShark]

Oh, there was this guy named Adolf somthing...

???

I must have missed something.  What Christian issue was Adolph fighting for?  Adolph was an occultist.  The Churches there ended up largely supporting him, but that was because of the religion called nationalism, not because of any Christian issues.

Hitler was baptized Roman Catholic, and maintained that he was a Catholic, at least as far as 1941.  He repeatedly refers to himself as a Christian throughout his written works and speeches, and often claims to be doing God's work.  Look at an SS belt buckle...

He was certainly every bit as much a "Christian" as the "Muslims" that blow up school busses are, if not more so.

Is it any wonder that the Ba'ath Party is based on Nazi principles?

Joe

[Caleb]

I asked what Christian value he was defending, not what religion he nominally professed.

Here's a good article on the religion that Hitler actually practiced. http://www.livingstonemusic.net/hitlerandtheoccult.htm

[KBCraig]

It doesn't even matter if Hitler had been a foursquare, Gospel-thumping evangelical. WWII and the Holocaust simply were not a Christian crusade against non-Christians.

It was evil, and murderous, and racist, and nationalistic, and xenophobic. But it wasn't a religious crusade.

[penguins4me]

Joe, I am not going to waste space addressing personal attacks, nor "arguments" without any merit, references, nor details. Nor am I going to waste time trying to compare Islam to any other religion.

What I believe I have done, however, is show that Islam, on its own so-called merits, using its own canonical literature, not only glorifies violence, but states that there is nothing holier than committing physical violence to further the cause of Islam... and that the mainstream media completely ignores these facets and facts in order to falsely promote Islam as a peaceful religion.

[MaineShark]

It doesn't even matter if Hitler had been a foursquare, Gospel-thumping evangelical. WWII and the Holocaust simply were not a Christian crusade against non-Christians.

It was evil, and murderous, and racist, and nationalistic, and xenophobic. But it wasn't a religious crusade.

I tend to consider someone who murders members of a religious group, specifically because they are members of that religious group, to be acting because of religion...

Joe, I am not going to waste space addressing personal attacks, nor "arguments" without any merit, references, nor details. Nor am I going to waste time trying to compare Islam to any other religion.

Yeah, it's really hard to argue when you have absolutely nothing to support your case, isn't it?  It's much easier to just accuse everyone else of doing the same thing, regardless of truth, and then act all hurt when someone calls you on it.

What I believe I have done, however, is show that Islam, on its own so-called merits, using its own canonical literature, not only glorifies violence, but states that there is nothing holier than committing physical violence to further the cause of Islam... and that the mainstream media completely ignores these facets and facts in order to falsely promote Islam as a peaceful religion.

You can believe that the sky is pink with green polka-dots.  Doesn't make it so.  All you have done is demonstrate bigotry.  And shown why it is so much nicer to live in the Free State, where folk like you are shunned.  Of course, I get killed by those murderous Muslims several times each day, but that's just my own fault for being Jewish, so I don't hold it against them!

Joe

[KBCraig]

It doesn't even matter if Hitler had been a foursquare, Gospel-thumping evangelical. WWII and the Holocaust simply were not a Christian crusade against non-Christians.

It was evil, and murderous, and racist, and nationalistic, and xenophobic. But it wasn't a religious crusade.

I tend to consider someone who murders members of a religious group, specifically because they are members of that religious group, to be acting because of religion...

Just because they were murdered because of their religion, doesn't mean Hitler did it because of his religion.

You said the holocaust was a Christian slaughter of Jews and others. That statement is untrue, and unfounded.

Kevin

[MaineShark]

Just because they were murdered because of their religion, doesn't mean Hitler did it because of his religion.

You said the holocaust was a Christian slaughter of Jews and others. That statement is untrue, and unfounded.

According to Hitler, he did it in large part because of his religion.

So, by penguins4me's logic, that makes all Christians culpable.

Of course, no sane person holds all Christians culpable for the acts of a few madmen ofer the ages.

But, then again, no sane person holds all Muslims culpable for the acts of a few madmen, either.

Joe

[penguins4me]

Be that as it may, Joe, you have not rationally nor logically addressed a single claim I have made, and precious few, if any, claims made by anyone else.

For example,

I asked what Christian value he was defending

It doesn't even matter if Hitler had been a foursquare, Gospel-thumping evangelical. WWII and the Holocaust simply were not a Christian crusade against non-Christians.

And your counter-"argument" is:

According to Hitler, he did it in large part because of his religion.

... which amounts to a "nuh-uh!".

Then there's my assertions (in super-executive-summary style):

1. Islam mandates violence against non-muslims (caveat: many/most muslims do not practice true Islam)
2. Recorded history (see reply #38) shows a constant, continual pattern of violence from followers of fundamental/true Islam (that list only includes news-making attacks against American/cans, and doesn't include violent acts in/against African, Asian, European, nor even Middle Eastern sites/peoples - a more complete list would be far too long to enumerate here)
3. The vast majority/all major news sources gloss over the actions of true/fundamentalist muslims in favor of "apostate" muslims for reasons unknown.

[KBCraig]

According to Hitler, he did it in large part because of his religion.

If you bother to look, you'll see that Hitler created his own religious outlook, which he conformed to match his world outlook. He was contemptuous of Christianity, and blamed it for the downfall of the Roman Empire (an institution he admired and sought to emulate). He lamented that Germany and Europe were of Christian heritage, considering it a weakness. He wished that they held the "Japanese religion", which worships central power. He even preferred Islam, because it strengthens, rather than threatens, a strong government.

I hesitate to bring Wikipedia into such a serious debate, but there is an excellent collection of footnotes here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_religious_beliefs

Kevin

[MaineShark]

Be that as it may, Joe, you have not rationally nor logically addressed a single claim I have made, and precious few, if any, claims made by anyone else.

Stick to defending your own paranoid delusions.

For example,

I asked what Christian value he was defending

I sent Caleb a private message addressing this.

It doesn't even matter if Hitler had been a foursquare, Gospel-thumping evangelical. WWII and the Holocaust simply were not a Christian crusade against non-Christians.

And your counter-"argument" is:

According to Hitler, he did it in large part because of his religion.

... which amounts to a "nuh-uh!".

No, that amounts to: Hitler had every bit as much Christian backing in his acts as ?fundamentalist Islam? has Islamic backing in its acts.

Namely, in both cases, little to none.

Then there's my assertions (in super-executive-summary style):

1. Islam mandates violence against non-muslims (caveat: many/most muslims do not practice true Islam)
2. Recorded history (see reply #38) shows a constant, continual pattern of violence from followers of fundamental/true Islam (that list only includes news-making attacks against American/cans, and doesn't include violent acts in/against African, Asian, European, nor even Middle Eastern sites/peoples - a more complete list would be far too long to enumerate here)
3. The vast majority/all major news sources gloss over the actions of true/fundamentalist muslims in favor of "apostate" muslims for reasons unknown.

We?re all aware what you have asserted.  The issue is the total lack of proof.  You sound exactly like one of the White Supremacist groups, saying that ?the Black man is just inferior to the White man, and is infecting our society with crime.?  And then you call him on it and he goes into a rant about how ?the media covers up the criminal nature of the Black man.?

It?s exactly the same sort of bigoted nonsense.  When asked for proof, you give nothing but obvious propaganda, and then tell us that we?re ignorant because the MSM has brainwashed us, even though you?d be hard pressed to find anyone here who would believe anything presented by the MSM.  I guess, amongst all the other lies and bigotry, ignoring something small like that minor, but it is still quite telling...

According to Hitler, he did it in large part because of his religion.

If you bother to look, you'll see that Hitler created his own religious outlook, which he conformed to match his world outlook. He was contemptuous of Christianity, and blamed it for the downfall of the Roman Empire (an institution he admired and sought to emulate). He lamented that Germany and Europe were of Christian heritage, considering it a weakness. He wished that they held the "Japanese religion", which worships central power. He even preferred Islam, because it strengthens, rather than threatens, a strong government.

I hesitate to bring Wikipedia into such a serious debate, but there is an excellent collection of footnotes here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_religious_beliefs

And yet, he always maintained that he was a Christian.  Hypocrisy is nothing to the likes of him.  The Taliban outlawed smoking, but their headquarters was reportedly replete with ashtrays...

Joe

[penguins4me]

Alright, I admit that when I first jumped in the discussion (back on February fifth), the initial dialog was much more sound. However, your (commonly-used) counter-arguments were shown to be false:

Koranic verses 4:89, 9:5-6, 8:39-42, 9:29, 9:123 all explicitly promote jihad (violence and/or deceit against infidels), and the principle of abrogation (2:106, 16:101, but more an official method of dealing with Koranic contradictions), the latter which renders the argument about 2:256, "no compulsion in religion", moot.
While I am not comparing Islam to anything, your argument/justification that "Hitler had every bit as much Christian backing in his acts as ?fundamentalist Islam? has Islamic backing in its acts" is shown to be completely fallacious by the same above references, unless you can produce similar directives to "new covenant"/New Testament Christians from the Bible - this is an assertion you are making with no backing, not one I initiated. That said, even were your incorrect assertion true, it would not change the fact that Islam mandates violence against non-muslims, and as such, is not a peaceful religion.

Amusingly enough, you say, "the issue is the total lack of proof". Hogwash - I have cited each of my assertions, often multiple times, and all you have done is spout name-calling rhetoric in response, or called specific Koranic references "obvious propaganda" with absolutely no facts, cites, sources, nor even claims to back up your obviously flawed opinions.

I'm more than willing to address honest concerns about Islamic arguments and criticisms of my own statements, but you're going to have to do better than repeatedly calling me a bigoted white supremacist racist. :P

[MaineShark]

Alright, I admit that when I first jumped in the discussion (back on February fifth), the initial dialog was much more sound. However, your (commonly-used) counter-arguments were shown to be false:

Koranic verses 4:89, 9:5-6, 8:39-42, 9:29, 9:123 all explicitly promote jihad (violence and/or deceit against infidels), and the principle of abrogation (2:106, 16:101, but more an official method of dealing with Koranic contradictions), the latter which renders the argument about 2:256, "no compulsion in religion", moot.

4:89, 8:39..., and 9:123... refer to self defense only.
9:29 refers only to pagans.
9:5-6 refers to pagans and explicitly orders Muslims to seek peace and honor peace treaties.

The nonsense about abrogation is just silly.  No one without an axe to grind spouts that idiocy.

Just how many Muslims do you actually know?  None?

While I am not comparing Islam to anything, your argument/justification that "Hitler had every bit as much Christian backing in his acts as ?fundamentalist Islam? has Islamic backing in its acts" is shown to be completely fallacious by the same above references, unless you can produce similar directives to "new covenant"/New Testament Christians from the Bible - this is an assertion you are making with no backing, not one I initiated. That said, even were your incorrect assertion true, it would not change the fact that Islam mandates violence against non-muslims, and as such, is not a peaceful religion.

No religion is peaceful, from where I?m standing.  However, Islam is no more violent than any other major religion, which is what I asserted.

Amusingly enough, you say, "the issue is the total lack of proof". Hogwash - I have cited each of my assertions, often multiple times, and all you have done is spout name-calling rhetoric in response, or called specific Koranic references "obvious propaganda" with absolutely no facts, cites, sources, nor even claims to back up your obviously flawed opinions.

Taking individual lines out of context is propagandistic.

I'm more than willing to address honest concerns about Islamic arguments and criticisms of my own statements, but you're going to have to do better than repeatedly calling me a bigoted white supremacist racist.

I?ve never called you a white supremacist or a racist.  Not that I am surprised that you would try to claim that... it fits with the general level of intelligence of your other posts.

Joe

[penguins4me]

You sound exactly like one of the White Supremacist groups, saying that ?the Black man is just inferior to the White man, and is infecting our society with crime.?

I?ve never called you a white supremacist or a racist.  Not that I am surprised that you would try to claim that... it fits with the general level of intelligence of your other posts.

Oh, I'm sorry. Please explain to me what you meant, then, and be sure to use small words, seeing as you imply that I'm stupid, as well.

What is the matter with you, then, that you have become two parties about the hypocrites, while Allah has made them return (to unbelief) for what they have earned? Do you wish to guide him whom Allah has caused to err? And whomsoever Allah causes to err, you shall by no means find a way for him. [89] They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.

Drive unbelievers from their homes and/or murder them because Allah forced those unbelievers into unbelief and (since Allah pre-ordains all things) "desire muslims disbelieve Islam". Sure, self-sefense, sure. Those missionaries were nothing but trouble, anyhow.

Say to those who disbelieve, if they desist, that which is past shall be forgiven to them; and if they return, then what happened to the ancients has already passed. [39] And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah; but if they desist, then surely Allah sees what they do.

"Convert, and it's cool. Don't convert, and 'fight them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah'", fight them until Islam has dominated the world. Sure, self-defense, sure.

And it does not beseem the believers that they should go forth all together; why should not then a company from every party from among them go forth that they may apply themselves to obtain understanding in religion, and that they may warn their people when they come back to them that they may be cautious? [123] O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil).

Since 122 is completely disjointed from 123, we have "fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness". I don't think they're talking about wooing the ladies in that last verse...

Lying is wrong, except in three things: the lie of a man to his wife to make her content with him; a lie to an enemy, for war is deception; or a lie to settle trouble between people

Non-muslims are enemies. So much for treaties. (In case you aren't in the know, the Koran, the Hadith, and the Tabari are all "inspired" by Allah.)

Pagans are non-muslims. Pagans == nonbelievers == Jews/People of the Book/Christians == unbelievers == converted-to-something-else muslims == unbelievers. Two classes, remember: muslim, non-muslim.

Abrogation, nonsense? Let us consult the Koran...

Never have We sent a single prophet or apostle before you with whose wishes Satan did not tamper. But Allah abrogates the interjections of Satan and confirms His own revelations. Allah is wise and all-knowing. He makes Satan's interjections a temptation for those whose hearts are diseased or hardened - this is why the wrongdoers are in open schism - so that those to whom knowledge has been given may realize that this is the truth from your Lord and thus believe in it and humble their hearts towards him. Allah will surely guide the faithful to a straight path.

I really don't think you want to run off on the Satanic Verses tangent, but the Koran itself explicitly states abrogation applies. Abrogation simply means that some directives, usually older ones, have been overridden by newer directives - this doesn't help Islam much, though, in that the most violent directives were "revealed" last, in chronological order.

No religion is peaceful, from where I?m standing. However, Islam is no more violent than any other major religion, which is what I asserted.

However, I think that, for all intents and purposes, my job here is done.

-edit
added emphesis