Free Republic

Maybe they're waiting for us to do that for them. If Christians engaged in such acts in the name of Christ, would we expect the Christian Churches to root out (apprehend and punish) the perpetrators? Seems to me the leaders of Islamic nations have condemned the terrorists, and our government and other legitimate governments are working on the problem.

Among Moslems there are obviously those who would like to see more westerners (and Jews) killed, and among Christians there seem to be many who want to see Moslems killed(and, traditionally,also jews). It seems to me, however, that the middle east fanatics hate our government, not the Christian religion. I'm sorry to say I seem to be hearing many Christians (and maybe some Jews) who are promoting religious war against Moslems, basing their promotion on their versions of "hermeneutics" and "exigesis" with regard to Islamic and Judeo-Christian literature. As if hermeneutics and exigesis ever resolved the multitudinous disagreements among scriptual scholars within or between faiths. Not likely. So get frothed up to kill for your particular prejudice if you wish, but don't be surprized if many of us Christians don't join your crusade, and many Moslems don't join the terrorists' jihad.

The citations "proving" that the Koran requires Muslims to kill non-Muslims reminded me of the following exchange that occurred on a different thread: Got me to wondering about the context of the quotations presented by freedom_from_socialism. Any Koran students know?

(Chuckmorse wrote)"Islam views the world as divided between the "Dar es Salaam" or the House of Peace, which is Islamic, and the "Dar el-Harb" or the House of War, which is non-Islamic." (Chuckmorse)

(John Locke responded)"That should be, respectively, Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb."

(John Locke continued)"And what about this quotation?

"When the sacred months are over, slay the idolaters (non-Muslims) wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them. If they repent (convert) and take to prayer and render the alms levy, allow them to go their way. God is forgiving and merciful." Sura 9:5

(John Locke says further)"Well, let's look at the context. Here is the verse above: at-Taubah 9:4: "Excepting those of the idolaters with whom ye (Muslims) have a treaty, and who have since abated nothing of your right nor have supported anyone against you. (As for these), fulfil their treaty to them till their term. Lo! Allah loveth those who keep their duty."

"In other words, you attack only those "infidel" who have broken their treaties or who have supported your enemies. Again,I doubt any Freeper would object.

(Jon Locke continues)"The sura continues:

at-Taubah 9:7: "And if anyone of the idolaters seeketh thy protection (O Muhammad), then protect him so that he may hear the Word of Allah, and afterward convey him to his place of safety. That is because they are a folk who know not."

(John Locke says)"Gee, Islam actually calls for protecting the "infidels" in your power and giving them safe conduct. Who'da thunk it?:"

at-Taubah 9:7 "How can there be a treaty with Allah and with His messenger for the idolaters save those with whom ye made a treaty at the Inviolable Place of Worship ? So long as they are true to you, be true to them. Lo! Allah loveth those who keep their duty."

(John Locke says)"Again, Moslems are told to keep their agreements with "infidels". The Koran requires formal treaties to be made in a Place of Worship, as a further reminder that they are sacred.

"As in any religion, there are fools, fanatics, and criminals. But Mr Morse (who evidently knows no Arabic) is here clearly distorting what the Koran teaches by his selective (and inaccurate) quotation. And I'm sure this is deliberate."

17 Posted on 09/23/2001 20:17:09 PDT by John Locke http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3bae42c64ffe.htm

Mine too. Bump.

Marvelous!!!!!!!!! Bump.

My ancestors signed the Mayflower Compact and fought in the Revolutionary War, and I'm still pi$$ed off at George III. :-)

"A reasonable man might conclude that upon treaty expiration, they would be subject to the same tender mercies as other non-moslems."

A "reasonable man", or an "unreasonable man"?

"As in any religion, there are fools, fanatics, and criminals. But Mr Morse (who evidently knows no Arabic) is here clearly distorting what the Koran teaches by his selective (and inaccurate) quotation. And I'm sure this is deliberate."

I applaud your response, John Locke. I believe that Quoting the Koran out of context (or falsely) to support one's negative bias is just as evil as the same misuse of our Bible. And I, too, understand that the Arabic version of the Koran is the only official version.

Good point, Twodees, but I suspect the word "crusade" has larger negative value to Muslims in the mideast than to American Christians.

Big yes!

You wrote: "It really upsets me that our President seems to know so little about Islam."

Are you suggesting Bush is ignorant? I thought that was the Liberal line. Is it possible he has well informed input on the Islamic faith?

Are you proposing a new Christian military crusade against Islamic people and nations? A new Inquisition? Conversion of our constitutional republic into a theocracy? Are you calling for all Americans to join you in aggression against non-Christians here and abroad? Are you voicing your opposition to the words of President bush in his speech thursday night? Are you really a Christian, or a Jerry Falwell-Pat Robertson type of fanatic looking to escalate hate against others?

Are you ending the conversation because I accepted your offer to back up your statements with the sources and citations you offerred? I have found that often frustrates those who want others to accept their "pearls" without question. I guess I must be "in denial" to question your perspective. Probably good to end the conversation before I experience a full psychotic break. You wouldn't want that on your conscience, would you?

I agree with the article, and I agree with your points regarding aid and comfort for the terrorists. That was my point as well. Would you be so kind as to define your use of the phrase "spew platitudes", using specific examples from my posts? Or are you just "spewing venom"?

The "dhimma" laws are civil laws loosely based on Moslem beliefs. They are much more severe than the "blue" laws in the U.S.that are based on Christian beliefs, but only because we are a Constitutional Republic rather than a Theocracy. I agree that a Moslem theocracy in the U.S. would mean the end of the freedom we enjoy. The same would be true of a Christian theocracy.

I would be happy to see your sources, and quotes from the Koran. But then I would want to cite sources, and quotes from the Bible supporting the notion of the evil of Christian beliefs. Promise not to cherry pick?

We do agree that all religions are not the same. We might also agree on the notion that the real danger lies in the combining of religion and government into theocracy, where the force of government is used to enforce doctrine. Thank God the founders of our government understood that.

You make some very good points. However, with regard to your request that you be shown "proof" that the Muslim faith is a "peaceful" and "tolerant" religion. It saddens me to realize that many Moslems have a legitimate right to make the same request with regard to the Christian faith. From their perspective the actions of the U.S. Government probably aren't separate from our identification with Christianity and Judaism. Can you "prove" that the Christianity represented by the actions of our government ("One nation under God") is a peaceful and tolerant religion?

I don't recall the Koran mandating conquering opposing faiths by the force of the sword. My understanding is that it mandates peaceful co-existance with other faiths. Of course, like the Bible, it doesn't prohibit use of force to resist attackers. On the other hand some parts of the Old Testament could be taken out of context to indicate that our God demands violence and destruction against other religions. Some part of that would of course be common with the Moslem Holy Writ.

Be that as it may, the "Attack on America" was not an act of war, it was an act of mass murder. I'm sure innocent people of all faiths died in that attack, including Moslems. I don't believe the Koran mandates or condones mass murder. Like the author of my original post, I'd like to hear mainstream leaders of the Moslem faith state publicly that the mass murder perpetrated on Sept. 11 was, if carried out by Moslems, a grave violation of the Moslem faith, and that the perpetrators will not be going straight to Heaven and 72 virgins, but straight to Hell where they belong. I believe that would be consistent with the Moslem faith, but if that announcement has occurred I haven't heard of it. Seems to me it might help in discouraging young Moslems from joining radical, suicidal, extremist, Islamic cults.

Raised the hackles on the back of my neck too.

I believe the Koran teaches religious tolerance. But see my post 20 regarding the Christian war against Moslems. How should they regard us?

Do you speak for all of us, or only you?

Check out my post 20, regarding the Moslem experience with Christians from 1091AD onward. Are you familiar with the "Treaty of Tripoli"? Underscores why we really need to know what the mainline Moslem attitudes are at present.