Jerry Falwell calls Muhammad a terrorist

The story from CNN.com

According to CNN, Falwell said that Muhammad, the founder of Islam, was "a violent man, a man of war."

"Jesus set the example for love, as did Moses," Falwell says. "I think Muhammad set an opposite example."


My questions:

How did Falwell draw this conclusion? Is there really evidence that Muhammad was a "man of war" or that he encouraged the use of violence?

Do you think Falwell's contrast of the examples set by Jesus and Muhammad was accurate?


Keep in mind that Falwell does not represent all Christians (or even all Baptists) and that many if not most Muslims view their religion as a peaceful one. My question is whether Falwell's statements have any foundation, and what you think about his conclusions.

 

Falwell is an idiot. This statement of his is just another in a long series of what I like to refer to as "Helms-isms"...

Falwell, like other religious zealots, preys on ignorance. Funny how terrorists have never once vowed to blow up televangelists...or never even attempted.

Might it be because it furthers the ulterior motives of fundamentalism to keep people like Falwell around? As long as idiots like him are stirring up hatred, Osama and friends can continue to rationalize their idiocy... and the US can continue to rationalize defemse ("defemse?" New strategic warfare concept... airlift 10,000 feminists into Iraq...) contracts... and the world keeps turning on its axis...

It's the same reason we didn't eliminate Saddam Hussein and other kooks like him. If we did, where would all that wonderful tax money go? To education? The warmongers wouldn't appreciate that.

 

Falwell has made other "outrageous" un-p.c. claims before...about gays and lesbians being responsible for the decline of western civilization and all that. Whatever. He's entitled to his opinion, no matter how narrow-minded or "offensive" it is to other's.

I just think he's from the "old school" generation, and probably doesn't look too far outside of his own experiences. (I.E. vilifies anything that doesn't fit with his or "God's" values.) IMO, he seems like a bigot and a reactionary, but it's the U.S., you're allowed to be un-p.c., offensive, and ignorant if you want to. I just wonder what he thinks about all of the "saucy" tales in the Old Testament?

BTW: wasn't Falwell the one who was caught in the hotel room with a prostitute not too long ago...or was that another charaloten...I mean televangelist?

 

I am joining the "Anti-Idiotarian" party.

 

Darth_SnowDog, I have no doubt you are right about Falwell. However, I'm still curious to know what he's using as grounds for that statement. What could he possibly have found in the "Muslim and non-Muslim writings" he read that could be interpreted as Muhammad's endorsement of violence?

And how does that compare with someone like Moses, who had every intention of leading the Israelites to conquer Canaan? How does that set an "example of love," as Falwell claims?

 

If there is an explanation for Falwell, here's my thought: Either Falwell is incredibly stupid... or he deliberately gives the appearance of stupidity... so no one can accuse him of deliberately preying on and manipulating the wills of the ignorant.

Some people will do anything for wealth and power... Falwell is clearly no exception.

As for who it was who had indiscretions of the carnal kind... I'm sure they all have. The ones that have been caught included, correct me if I'm wrong, Jim Bakker and Jimmy Lee Swaggart.

Ironically, Jimmy Lee Swaggart is Jerry Lee Lewis's cousin... and perhaps the most vocal voice against the "evil" of rock music in the 1950s. What's that about people in glass houses?

 

I think it is debatable. I know Islam expanded very fast due to coercion (sp) while Christianity (at least originally) spread fast to do 'turning the other cheek'. I don't know enough about Islam and its orgins to know if Muhammad himself had anything to do with it.

 

Oh God no.

Let's not side-track this already into Christians never cohersed people (Inquisition, witch trials, heretics, the Crusades) and Islam is the ONLY religion with a "barbaric" past. Please. I could quote you a dozen passages from the Old Testament where "God" says it's OK to kill in CERTAIN situations (and NOT just self-defense). IMO, The point of the topic is about Falwell his comments and what "weight" they should be given if any. Not about whose religion is LESS bloodthristy.

 

Ferelwookie, I was talking about the orgins of the religions. I was comparing the founding of Islam to the founding of Christianity. I know Christianity has had its share of "bad days", but we are discussing whether it is inherent in the religions and their founders.

 

Then you're aware that Christianity (like all religions) essentially started out as a small "cult" called "the Way" and took quite a while to catch on in the middle east, later Europe. And yes, early "Christians" (Jews, basically) DID murder and forceably convert thousands of their (former) fellow Jews and Arabs.

I am agnostic myself, so I try to view things from a certain unbiased distance. But, as a former history major and "fan" of history, I cannot help but chime in on comments like that.

It scares me that many "Christians" I meet in my daily life, when questioned, aren't even aware of the SEMETIC origion of the religion that they supposedly practice. In MILLIONS of people's opinions, then and now, Christianity was not a "peaceful" religion that "endured", it was as violent and oppressive as just about all of them.

The Catholic religion is essentially a take on the Hebrew's books, with a "second book" tacked on IMO. All of the "turning the other cheek" etc. occurs in the NEW Testament. The God of the OLD Testament isn't nearly as forgiving and violence, and war are sometimes seemingly encouraged by THAT God. Pretty inconsistant IMO. Maybe it's because MAN'S interpretation of God changed in that time...but, whatever it is, almost ALL religions have bloody and repressive pasts.

Back on topic: so, is Falwell the one who was caught with the whore or not?

 

I don't know how Falwell can say Christianity is any more peaceful than Islam when it's leader Jesus Christ says stuff like this

Matthew 10
33But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven.
34"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35For I have come to turn
" 'a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law--
36a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.'[5]
37"Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; 38and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.



Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

 

Islam spread through conquests in the middle east and part of Europe. Last time I studied this however was the 10th grade. As to ferelwookie you do realize that before Christianity was polluted it spread because it was a peaceful religion. That's BEFORE everything you mentioned.

 

"And yes, early "Christians" (Jews, basically) DID murder and forceably convert thousands of their (former) fellow Jews and Arabs"

PPOR

As to the qoute above this post, that does not refer to violence, but instead it refers to deciding to behave righteously in spite of family/societal pressure.

 

I was afraid of this.

Okay, instead of discussing how the religions spread, can we just focus on the founders for now?

The claim was that Jesus and Moses set examples of love, while Muhammad's example was that of a "man of war."

I would appreciate it if anyone who has studied Islam in some detail could give us more information on what example Muhammad would have set and whether there is any basis for Falwell's claim.

The rest of us might be able to debate whether Jesus and Moses set examples of love, or whether their examples could be interpreted as condoning violence or terrorism.

 

**sigh**

Catholics good...Muslims bad.

You will deny any evidence I give you as propaganda or bias. Look it up yourself if you really are interested. There ARE books, and info on this, but I'm sure you aren't willing to accept that "Christians" did these things. Sorry I posed here. There is no point in trying to have a serious discussion about religion...it never works.

[leaves thread]

 

No, no, my poor thread!!

Please, let's get back to the original topic: the example set by Muhammad vs. those set by Jesus and Moses.

What did Muhammad do that might make him a terrorist?

How is that any different from the actions of Jesus, Moses, or any other significant Biblical figure?

 

Well, if some Muslim made the same comparison to Moses, I might still disagree, but I would see where he is coming from. However, a comparison to Jesus would be offbase. Jesus stood for non-violence and turn-the-other-cheek.

 

I can see your point, but I can't help but wonder whether Falwell's conclusion comes from an interpretation of Muhammad's writings similar to what MadMardigan did with Jesus' teachings in his post. Certain things about a religion can be painted in a negative light, but usually have a different explanation that the followers would use to defend their religion as peaceful and loving.

Of course, I suppose we would need more detail on the teachings of Muhammad to go deeper into this discussion, so I'll just wait for someone who knows a little more about Islam to join the thread.

[twiddles thumbs]

 

Taken from the History Channel's website.

Muhammad

Muhammad [Arab.,=praised], 570?-632, the name of the Prophet of Islam, one of the great figures of history, b. Mecca.

Early Life

Muhammad was the son of Abdallah ibn Abd al-Muttalib and his wife Amina, both of the Hashim clan of the dominant Kuraish (Quraysh) tribal federation. Muhammad was orphaned soon after birth, and was brought up by his uncle Abu Talib. When he was 24, he married Khadija, a wealthy widow much his senior; he had no other wife in Khadija's lifetime. Khadija's daughter Fatima was the only child of Muhammad to have issue. His position in the community was that of a wealthy merchant.
Call to Prophecy

When he was 40, Muhammad felt himself selected by God to be the Arab prophet of true religion. The Arabs, unlike other nations, had hitherto had no prophet. In the cave of Mt. Hira, N of Mecca, he had a vision in which he was commanded to preach. Thereafter throughout his life he continued to have revelations, many of which were collected and recorded in the Qur'an. His fundamental teachings were: there is one God; people must in all things submit to Him; in this world nations have been amply punished for rejecting God's prophets, and heaven and hell are waiting for the present generation; the world will come to an end with a great judgment. He included as religious duties frequent prayer and almsgiving, and he forbade usury.
Enemies and Converts

In his first years Muhammad made few converts but many enemies. His first converts were Khadija, Ali (who became the husband of Fatima), and Abu Bakr. From about 620, Mecca became actively hostile, since much of its revenues depended on its pagan shrine, the Kaaba, and an attack on the existing Arab religion was an attack on the prosperity of Mecca. While he was gaining only enemies at home, Muhammad's teaching was faring little better abroad; only at Yathrib did it make any headway, and on Yathrib depended the future of Islam. In the summer of 622 Muhammad fled from Mecca as an attempt was being prepared to murder him, and he escaped in the night from the city and made his way to Yathrib. From this event, the flight, or Hegira, of the Prophet (622), the Islamic calendar begins. Muhammad spent the rest of his life at Yathrib, henceforth called Medina, the City of the Prophet. At Medina he built his model theocratic state and from there ruled his rapidly growing empire. Muhammad's lawgiving at Medina is at least theoretically the law of Islam, and in its evolution over the next 10 years the history of the community at Medina is seen. Medina lies on the caravan route N of Mecca, and the Kurai****es of Mecca could not endure the thought of their outlawed relative taking vengeance on his native city by plundering their caravans. A pitched battle between Muhammad's men and the Meccans occurred at Badr, and the victory of an inferior force from the poorer city over the men of Mecca gave Islam great prestige in SW Arabia. More than a year later the battle of Uhud was fought but with less fortunate results. By this time pagan Arabia had been converted, and the Prophet's missionaries, or legates, were active in the Eastern Empire, in Persia, and in Ethiopia. As he believed firmly in his position as last of the prophets and as successor of Jesus, Muhammad seems at first to have expected that the Jews and Christians would welcome him and accept his revelations, but he was soon disappointed. Medina had a large Jewish population which controlled most of the wealth of the city, and they steadfastly refused to give their new ruler any kind of religious allegiance. Muhammad, after a long quarrel, appropriated much of their property, and his first actual conquest was the oasis of Khaibar, occupied by the Jews, in 628. The failure of several missions among the Christians made him distrustful of Christians as well as Jews. His renown increased, and in 629 he made a pilgrimage to Mecca without interference. There he won valuable conv

 

So presumably Falwell considers these battles on behalf of Islam as terrorist acts?

How is that any different from the battles of the Israelites recorded in the Old Testament?


Edit: Thanks for the info, Fire_Ice_Death

 

Falwell is an idiot. Remind me, does any church actually claim to support and associate with him, or is he like Jesse Jackson, Rev. by name only.

 

What I find most amusing about Falwell is his "Liberty University" located in Lynchburg, VA.

 

Welcome. LoL, Lynchburg? Sounds like something he's fond of.


EDIT: I wouldn't listen to Jerry Falwell, he does stuff like this for publicity. That or he believes his own BS.

 

I will agree with you guys that his views are a little out of wack, but lets refrain from calling him an extremist. He could always be worse. He could be like Osama or the sniper in D.C., picking off instead of picking out the people he didn't like.

 

Well he technically does snipe at the people he doesn't like. Only his attacks are much worse, they're verbal and people listen to him.