Ping

I read the interview and did not gag once.

Is it really too much for some of you to understand that Islam, as a religion is not violent at all, but rather there are violent people who are Muslims. Hitler was technically a Christian, does that mean Christianity is a violent religion? Inquisition, crusades, and witch burnings ring a bell? Do the actions of small minded people who supposedly follow a religion make that particular religion itself violent? Obviously the answer here is, no.

Please do not try to use the 9-11 terrorist attacks as a platform to legitimize your bigorty and hate.

I understand perfectly. What I was gagging at was the dragging in of the abortion issue and killing the doctors and nurses into the article. And Islam is at a crossroads right now. They need to decide to weed out the Osama bin Laden's in their midst. It has been estimated that up to 15% of Muslims are of the extremist variety.

And you don't know me at all. Please don't say that I hate Islam. I don't. I'm trying to understand it. And yes, the Crusades were horrendous. But Christianity has changed. Does Islam have the same ability? So far, IMHO, no.

Don't forget the way to tell when Muslims are lying; their lips are moving.

Seriously, the Muslim practice of "Taqiyah" means they can lie, to hide the truth about their religion, in order to advance it.

Remember your faith's Article 13 of The Articles of Faith.We must tolerate even if we don't participate.

I don't reaaly understand Islam .I sometimes feel my anger getting the better of me ,but I pray that my Father in Heaven will give strenght to overcome my own prejudices.

How can we convert the Muslims if we hate them.

I should have put my comments when I posted this article. I don't hate Islam. There are many good people who are Muslim, in fact, the great majority of them are good.

See this link for the true face of islam http://www.freedomsociety.4t.com/FREEDOM_SOCIETY.htm

"Hitler was technically a Christian, does that mean Christianity is a violent religion?"

Hitler was NOT "technically a Christian". Hitler was "technically" nothing, he professed no religion AT ALL as an adult. He was born a Catholic, but never practiced Catholicism, or any other Christian religion, as an adult at all to the very best of my knowledge.

. I don't hate Islam. There are many good people who are Muslim, in fact, the great majority of them are good.

I kind of thought you weren't a hater .Still glad you set the record straight.

Personally I don't see the Crusades as horrendous. There's just as much evidence to support the view that the Crusades were justified as not. For ex., The Crusades: A Defensive Gesture, Crusades: Truth and Black Legend, and some more.

Here's a good article on it from the Catholic Encyclopedia concerning the Crusades.

My apologies, but my comments were more directed towards those who use silly logic to justify their hatred of an entire people based solely on a religion. Bad people do bad things regardless of if they believe in Jesus, Allah, the Buddha, or nothing. Religions themselves catch a lot of crap that they do NOT deserve because of the actions of a few followers.

He was baptised. You tell me what that means *shrug*. Even if Hitler was not a Christian, I'm sure the Chruches were jam packed full of good God-fearing SS troopers ever Sunday. Germany once was a very Christian nation, so I'm suite sure many of those running the concentration camps were also Christians. Does this make Christianity a violent religion? You tell me. This is the same type of logic used HERE at the FR against Islam, but I guess its ok to apply this to Islam but not Christianity. Damn silly logic, who needs it!!

I've been reading a LOT about Islam recently and it looks as medieval as it is practiced in most of the muslim world. Check out this site:
http://www.golshan.com/rationalthinking/call_to_muslims.htm
http://www.golshan.com/rationalthinking/index.htm
-stolen quote
"We are witnessing something not seen by many people thoughout the history of civilization; the death throes of a culture."

Yeah that "Children's Crusade" was "right on the money" . . . [/sarcasm]

Thank you. You are correct, according to John Toland, Alan Bullock, and Roger Waite, each of whom wrote big, thick, (and excellent) volumes on Hitler. Hitler was raised a Catholic, and at the age of nine he stated that he would be a priest when he grew up. (Some historians say the seed of his success as an orator grew from his "play-sermons" he gave then!) But as an adult, he despised Christianity, tried to coopt it as best he could while allowing his underlings to promote nordic paganism, and was best described as an atheist who had faith in luck or destiny.

As for Karen Armstrong, I've read two of her books on religions. She's a fine writer, but a typical left/liberal Briton, who claims (at the end of one book) that high crime rates (at a time when they were actually plummeting) , the death penalty, and lack of social welfare programs proved the US a "spiritually unhealthy" society. She also equated the antiabortion movement with terrorism. This, after admitting that there's a "God-shaped" blank at thecore of European societies, where in some cases the majority of the inhabitants deny there's a God or an afterlife.

This broad is an ex nun and an athiest who writes books on religion as an "expert". She gets all sorts of things wrong about Christianity, so I expect she gets a lot wrong here.

With a couple million Muslims in the US, I wonder why they chose this bimbo?

I never liked Karen Armstrong--she's mushy. Didn't know before, but she wrote a book "A Short History of Islam." Here's a review at Amazon.com of the Book. (the reaction is mixed-one review says she "turns Islam into liberal Christianity".) Amazon Link

As a former nun, who has clearly rejected the Christian theology of Trinity, Karen Armstrong emphasizes and eagerly embraces Islam's monotheism, its universalism and its charity. But that's about it.

You won't find an open discussion of the faith, its history or its faults here. Islam means submission--in other words, making others submit to the will of Allah. Armstrong fails to cover that aspect. You will not read about early Islamic massacres of infidels, which Armstrong glosses over, as if they did not occur.

Nor does she deal with Islam's historic persecution of peoples of myriad other faiths, including, but not limited to, Zoroastrians, Ba'hai, Hindus, Coptic Christians, Sudanese Christians and Middle Eastern Jews. The chauvinism exhibited by Mecca, a city closed to all but Muslims, is similarly avoided in this (mercifully) brief, overly sugared pabulum.

For brief lessons on the faith, one is better off turning to the Internet writings of Muslim believers like the Shaykh Prof. Abdul Hadi Palazzi, who heads Italy's Muslim community. A holy--and moderate--man, he shares the rich beauties of the faith and discusses the meanings of key passages in the Qu'ran and Hadith. He also openly discusses how badly Islam has been perverted by the Islamic sects and leaders controlling more than 75% of the mosques in the western world.

For history, Bernard Lewis provides work revered by Western students of the faith and Arab and Muslim scholars alike. Islam in History provides a sound basis for understanding the faith and its place in history; Islam and the West and The Muslim Discovery of Europe are equally informative.

For an understanding of Islam's political effect on other peoples, one can turn to the scholarly works of Bat Ye'or-- Islam and Dhimitude: Where Civilizations Collide or The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam: From Jihad to Dhimmitude. The latter covers the 7th through 12th centuries.

But give Karen Armstrong a pass.