A man of War cannot found a "religion of Peace".
I've spent the last few years trying to make people get the obvious point.
I wonder if your forehead is as sore as mine?
The problem when dealing with this so-called "religion of peace" is that people don't understand that it is actually the peaceable Muslims who are on shaky theological ground.
A comparable theological brouhaha can be found in those liberal churches that assert that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality as a behavior: this despite the fact that the scriptures are very clear that homosexual behavior––like any form of sexual misconduct––is a sin worthy of divine condemnation.
However a belief to the contrary may be justified, it must always fall down to excusing away the scriptures to allow for the behavior.
In a similar vein, "liberal Muslims" can be peaceable (which means more than just not being pugnacious, hostile or openly warlike) only by ignoring the abundant commandments for jihad.
In essence, to be peaceable a Muslim must excuse away the Koran ... which is not really a proposition I have any problem with (since I, myself, am utterly dismissive of the book).
I wonder if your forehead is as sore as mine? The problem when dealing with this so-called "religion of peace" is that people don't understand that it is actually the peaceable Muslims who are on shaky theological ground.
Exactly the point we make regularly at The Ponderosa.
If being a devout Christian means following Christ's example, it necessarily follows that a devout Muslim emulates Mohammet's life.
I have yet to receive ANY retort to this, let alone a plausible one.