Quite a stretch: Denying a connection between Islamic terror and Islam itself is causing a backlash

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette ^ | 3/19/2006 | Jack Kelly

[Irene Adler]

"Modern Islam is no more violent than late medieval Christianity. The big difference is Christianity had its renaissance and reformation, before it got the nuclear bomb. Islam may get the bomb first."

In order to believe this, I would have to completely ignore the scripture of both religions. Which scripture clearly advocates the murder or forced conversion of non-adherents? Which scripture clearly does not?

[bordergal]

There was a comparison recently done by a Swedish?? professor doing a textual comparison for the major religions.

Hands down, Islam had the most violent verses.

Sorry I can't remember the title.

[Graymatter]

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1592249922

Newt Gingrich reviews Churchill's "The River War" here. (The book is online in its entirety at Project Gutenberg:
http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/4943 )

[dynachrome]

"The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam" by Robert Spencer also does some comparison of verses. Very good read on Islam, also.

[maine-iac7]

Which scripture clearly advocates the murder or forced conversion of non-adherents?

Are you saying that because there was not a scripture advocating the inquisition that killed/slaughtered, staked, burned, hung-drawn and quartered - that it must not have happened? OR must not have been perpetrated by Christians - ordered by Popes?

[Celtjew Libertarian]

I don't know enough of either the Koran or the Christian Bible to be able to answer what each says. I do know enough of history to know how each were used and misused.

[Malesherbes]

"Democratic demagoguery and Republican cowardice." That pretty well sums up the political situation.

[Irene Adler]

My point was that it makes no sense to ask devout members of a religion to start acting substantially differently from what their scripture requires when the religion itself maintains that it does not, and cannot, change (is eternally true).

Biblical references to warfare are descriptive and historical, not active exhortations to murder others. From my own knowledge and from the comments of Biblical scholars, I am quite confident that you will not find such material in the Bible. Koranic references that are exhortations to mistreat and murder nonMuslims are legion. Many have been quoted on FR.

I have family who are Muslim converts and have studied Islam to some extent. I cannot claim a high level of expertise in the subject, but in my experience, truly "moderate" Muslims are largely casual, inactive Muslims.

[Irene Adler]

".....that it must not have happened? OR must not have been perpetrated by Christians - ordered by Popes?"

Please don't be silly. Of course Christians have persecuted others, mostly about 400 years ago, and involving, at most several thousand deaths over the entire course of Christian history (not to diminish the cruelty of any religions persecution). On the other hand, literally millions of Christians have been martyred during the 2000 year history of the Church especially when massive waves of persecution hit the early church.

For the remainder of the point of my post, please see my more recent post, above.

Evil people, posing as true Christians, can misuse Christianity for evil ends; but its scripture and doctrine do NOT advocate such action, and good Christians do not do such things. Koranic scripture and doctrine are quite another matter.

[NutCrackerBoy]

It makes no sense to ask devout members of a religion to start acting substantially differently from what their scripture requires when the religion itself maintains that it does not, and cannot, change (is eternally true).

People outside and inside the faith must certainly "ask" devout Muslims to act differently. Murderous, terroristic behavior will not be tolerated. I believe a change can and will happen, perhaps after much bloodshed.

[sheik yerbouty]

All ten of them..

[MarkL]

This is laughable.

God (Allah in the case of the Muslims) sets the agenda, and not the adherants. If you can't follow the fundamentals of Islam or at least try to follow them; then get out of the religion.

I disagree. It's the interpretation of the Word of the G-d in question that sets the agenda. If not, then there would never have been any change in Church doctorine. At one time, many sects of Christianity were rather bloodthirsty, and over time, this changed. I hope that Islam is able to change as well, but it must change from within. At this time, I don't think that it will change, because they (those in charge) don't want it to change, and they're getting plenty of funding to see that it doesn't.

Mark

[buck61]

We have many, so called moderate Muslims in America. Are they in the forefront against the war on terror, do they really love America and, are they willing to defend America? If they are I haven't heard of it and, neither have you because it isn't there.
Don;t give me that $h*t that they are all hard working Americans, it just isn't so. Someone needs to look at the welfare roll of these people in America.
The Muslims in America are a dangerous and welfare riding
dependent society on our great nation.

[VOA]

Are you saying that because there was not a scripture advocating the
inquisition that killed/slaughtered, staked, burned, hung-drawn and
quartered - that it must not have happened? OR must not have been
perpetrated by Christians - ordered by Popes?

This is what happens when pretend-Christians don't read "the manual"
or did read it and decided to do just the opposite.

Besides awaiting the development of the printing press, there was
a reason that The Bible was kept in such short supply so that
even Catholic priest had trouble accessing one.
That was one reason Luther got rolling...he actually got hold of one
and really read it. And what he found didn't match what he saw
and heard when he'd visited Rome.
(I'm not bashing Catholics...just saying the Church organization
seriously went off the rails as an organization as far as trying to
follow what was in the New Testament)

[Capt. Tom]

I disagree. It's the interpretation of the Word of the G-d in question that sets the agenda. If not, then there would never have been any change in Church doctorine. At one time, many sects of Christianity were rather bloodthirsty, and over time, this changed.

If Christian sects were blood thirsty, they certainly didn't get the idea from the New Testament or following the advice of Christ.

You can get bloodthirsty from a reading of the Koran and Hadiths and following the advice of Allah.
Subjugate ,convert or kill non believers. This is the interpretation I get from reading the Koran and Hadiths.

Unfortunately for us it is the same interpretation of many Muslims who take the time to read their religion. They put their life on the line for that belief , and put us in peril.

I am not worried to much about the Infidel, because time will make things clear. Especially if they can wipe out Infidel leadership in an attack. Then we will get serious about addressing this problem. Until then we will kick the problem down the road; like the Europeans have done.

As Robert Spencer put it,the other day:
Only now are Europeans realizing that their culture, their soul, has been sold by their leaders for oil, and the jihad is upon them.

It is a reality so bleak that it's no wonder that most officials prefer fantasy.
But they won't be able to maintain their comfortable illusions much longer. - tom ,

[Uncle Jaque]

IIRC, Martin Luther, after he had read the Scriptures (which apparently were chained to the altar in certain Churches - since only the elite Priests could - in some instances - read them, they got to "interpret" them as they saw fit... or to advance their agendas.) he confronted the establishment elite of the Roman Church, and soon found himself under a "Holy Roman Fatwah" being hunted down like an animal.

Had he not been able to hide out in a freind's remote mountain castle, he probably would not have lasted long.

After Luther's open Gospel theory met the Guttenburg press, the Bible became available in the "people's language", so that the priests were no longer able to manipulate the populations and governments with their "creative interpretations" of it.

Sort of like our current "Law", always written in convoluted "Legaleze", and Lawyers/Judges, wouldn't you say?

The political dominance of the RCC went into decline after that, and people began converting to Christianity because they WANTED to, not just to keep themselves and their Families from being tortured and/or killed.

From my admittedly limited reading of History, for a while there around the various Crusades, there seems to have been precious little distinction in terms of how people were treated - especially dissidents from "the Faith" - between Muhummedean and "Christian".

People who wanted to live out their lives to a natural conclusion worshipped whatever or whoever the guy holding the sword over your neck did.

[RightOnline]

"Curious how the xenophobes continually fail to realize the bulk of the people doing the fighting and dying ON OUR side of the War on Terror are also Arab Muslims."

Oh, I don't think so, sparky. Care to back that one up with numbers? Iraqi military? Iraqi police? Afghani military? Add 'em all up........not even close.