Jerry Falwell calls Muhammad a terrorist

It seems as if nowadays, people can get away with saying anything about Christians or Jews.

Where are you from? I live in Southern California, and nobody would get away with any racist or biggoted comments without being severely ridiculed.

 

C'mon Guy.

You know as well as I that California's political and entertainment climate is solidly anti-JudeoChristian.

 

You know as well as I that California's political and entertainment climate is solidly anti-JudeoChristian.

Heh, not in my city.

 

Ever see the movie Dogma?

Can you possibly imagine American filmmakers perverting the beliefs of Islam for the sake of a couple cheap laughs?

Precisely.

 

Can you possibly imagine American filmmakers perverting the beliefs of Islam for the sake of a couple cheap laughs?

They do it with Hiduism on The Simpsons. I'm sure that there are more examples that can disprove your point, but my tired brain isn't working well tonight.

 

Uh...that's Hinduism. You know, spiritual balance, karma, and all that Jazz? In Hinduism, the believers aren't called to kill other people if they commit so-called "blasphemy" against the religion. Heck, we Hindus poke fun at our selves every once in awhile (btw - I love The Simpsons and it along with Seinfeld are possibly my favorite TV programs of all time - anyone that gets offended by either of these shows is an idiot, in my mind).

With muslims, however, you can't say anything bad about Islam or the Prophet Muhammad without bringing about a fatwa (death warrant) on your head. And these fatwas are issued by major governments of Islamic states! Ever heard of Salman Rushdie and his famous novel "The Satanic Verses"? This guy, who used to be a muslim, just sits down and views Islam objectively and asks some tough questions in his book, and whammo, he's got a death sentence in like 4 countries!

Recently, Pakistan and Nigeria have been in the lime-light for cases where people who have committed "blasphemy" against Islam have been ordered to death by the state. For example, the woman journalist in Nigeria that simply stated about the Miss World Pagent that "Muhammad would have happily married any of the contestents" now has a death warrant on her head (not to mention the riots that were caused when muslims went nutzo over this remark)! She's had to leave the country and assume a new identity for god's sake!

So like I said before, Political Correctness has reared its ugly head again...because you can't question the violence and beliefs of Islam, because *gasp*, muslims might get offended at the truth! In light of the current discussion however, I bet they would get more than offended - they would probably call for a fatwa on your head.

 

In Hinduism, the believers aren't called to kill other people if they commit so-called "blasphemy" against the religion.

I've been to India. I've seen children with their arms and hands mutilated or removed by parents who want to make it easier for them to beg. India has a caste-ridden society. Much of this is perpetrated by Hindu's.

Does that make Hinduism evil? Of course not. It makes certain humans evil, who ascribe their beliefs to Hinduism. Same goes for Muslims.

- Scarlet.

 

JediBeowulf doesn't have a bald monkey's uncle what he's talking about. I could post something to disripute what he's saying. But to be frank, i just can't be bothered. It's all been said before. The guy above just can't be bothered to educate himself. Yep, ONE major terrorist incident in America perpetuated by Muslims, and that makes them alllllllll evil! You betcha! I bet there are more secterians in Ireland than there are Muslim terrorists in the entire world.

 

But Scarlet, from what I know of the Hindu religion, they believe in reincarnation. If you built enough good deeds in your life, you will come back in a higher position. If you did bad deeds, then you will come back in a lower position.

The caste system is a direct extension of this belief. Many (if not most) Hindus believe the lower castes, such as the untouchables, deserve what they are getting. They believe that it is against their religion to help those people.

 

Just like it's ok by Christians to keep slaves and treat women as a lower species, and treat homosexuals like complete outsiders. All religions have their faults. There isn't a religion in the world that is without sin.

 

"With muslims, however, you can't say anything bad about Islam or the Prophet Muhammad without bringing about a fatwa (death warrant) on your head. And these fatwas are issued by major governments of Islamic states!"

The Genghis has a question: if a mute swears, does his mother wash his hands with soap? NO!! The question is: is Muhammad the President/Prime Minister/Grand Exalted Poo-Bah of any of these governments?

 

Yep, ONE major terrorist incident in America perpetuated by Muslims, and that makes them alllllllll evil!

One Major terrorist incident? How about the constant "minor" terrorist attacks that happen throughout the World on a daily basis? Shall we add how many people have been killed at the hands of muslim militants throughout the rest of the world in the past year alone? It would surely amount to more than the 3,000 lives that were lost in 9-11. Hmmm...maybe you're forgetting about the daily killings in Israel by muslims? Maybe you're forgetting about the daily killings in Kashmir and other parts of India. Maybe you're forgetting about the killings throughout the Phillipines and Indonesia. Maybe you're forgetting about the killings in Nigeria.

The fact is that the rest of the world has long been subject to the terrorism of Islam, and only once America was attacked did it dawn upon the American people that something was amiss in the "peaceful" religion of Islam.

 

Just like it's ok by Christians to keep slaves and treat women as a lower species, and treat homosexuals like complete outsiders. All religions have their faults. There isn't a religion in the world that is without sin.

There isn't a blameless set of followers, but I think one should ask questions like, did Christians own slaves despite the Bible's teachings or because of them? I think it's the latter. In which case, the Christians were wrong, but Christianity was not to blame.

I honestly don't know if these Islamic terrorists are an actual product of the religion or are perverting their faiths: I don't know enough about the faith to know either way.

 

Christianity didn't condemn slavery, Bubba. It told slaves to be obedient to their masters, to not rebel, and regulated slavery.

The thing is, Beowulf, you say that some Muslim beliefs are wrong because they interfere with the mainstream idea of "right." Then you proceed to become morally relative with the Hindu's and say "it's okay to treat them subhumanly because they believe they're a lower caste and deserve it." That isn't right, no matter what their beliefs are. It's wrong.

The point is that Hinduism, Christianity, Islam and Judaism - in fact, most religions - have some systemically bad parts. And a lot of these are expressed by their followers. However, you can't blame a religion for the actions of its followers. You can condemn certain parts of it, certainly, but one must be inclined to take an overall positive view of Judeo-Christianity + Islam + Hinduism, in theory, if not in practice.

Which is why your hatred of Muslims and Islam is unfounded and wrong.

- Scarlet.

 

Which is why your hatred of Muslims and Islam is unfounded and wrong.

I agree.

 

I don't believe JediBeowulf is talking about religion, particularly... I think he's addressing, more or less, culture. Contemporary culture, which should be talked about in the present tense.

If anyone feels the need to cite something more than 40 years old (much less 4,000) to bolster their argument, then they've lost sight of the debate.

 

TheScarletBanner said

Christianity didn't condemn slavery, Bubba. It told slaves to be obedient to their masters, to not rebel, and regulated slavery.

Ah, you could not be more wrong, TSB, but considering you still have a problem acknowledging your own country's dark legacy with slavery, what is there to expect.

FACT: It was the first Christian Roman Emperor (Constantine) that ended Slavery in Europe in the 4th Century, which ended Slavery in Europe untill the Age of Exploration began.

FACT: The Catholic Church DID allow for slavery during the Age of Exploration, of both African's and American Indians, and virtually every state church of that era similarly allowed and even encouraged the slave trade, as it was easy money, to be sure.

However, there is also the fact that it was fundamentalist Christians in the US, and even in Great Britain, that led the Abolitionist movement. And by the 1800's, the Catholic Church was calling for an end of Slavery everywhere, which was one of the reasons that caused Mexico and most of Spain's South America holdings to rebel.

Compare that to Islam, which when founded flat out allowed Slavery, which continued to allow Slavery thru out it's 1500 year history, and which still has slavery practiced in it's name to this very day in many Muslim nations, and Christianity is the religion that ended Slavery.

Sure there were many Christian Slavers over the years, I am not denying that, btw.

 

Compare that to Islam, which when founded flat out allowed Slavery, which continued to allow Slavery thru out it's 1500 year history, and which still has slavery practiced in it's name to this very day in many Muslim nations, and Christianity is the religion that ended Slavery.

This is the first time I'm ever going to say this....but...

PPOR

I've studied the beginnings of Islam and the impact they had on the ancient world. I never, once, came across the mention of slavery.

Kithera

 

Excellen post, TripleB.

Besides, the expectation that the Bible would outright condemn slavery seems to be a bit out of place, assuming that one believes in progressive revelation, that unchanging God's dealings with man changed as man changed -- much the way a parent treats a toddler and teenager differently.

In the Old Testament, the Mosaic Law allowed for slavery, but did not command it, and its allowances always benefitted the slaves. Consider Exodus 21:2-4:

When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing. If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master's and he shall go out alone.

Note that it never said you *should* have slaves, but its commands are clear: if you have a slave, treat him like a human being.

The New Testament likewise never endorsed slavery; it merely suggested that we serve the Lord regardless of our circumstances:

Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. "Honor your father and mother" (this is the first commandment with a promise), "that it may be well with you and that you may live long on the earth." Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord. Slaves, be obedient to those who are your earthly masters, with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as to Christ; not in the way of eye-service, as men-pleasers, but as servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart, rendering service with a good will as to the Lord and not to men, knowing that whatever good any one does, he will receive the same again from the Lord, whether he is a slave or free. Masters, do the same to them, and forbear threatening, knowing that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and that there is no partiality with him.

Notice the last bit: we are equal in the eyes of God. This principle and the command to love everyone ultimately unraveled the institution of slavery.

Did Jesus and His followers personally condemn the institution? No, but nor did they speak about the military or Roman occupation -- beyond Jesus noting that we should give to Caesar what is his and give to God what is God's (Matthew 22:21).

None of this is surprising: Jesus came not to be a political revolutionary, but to bring hope and salvation to us as individuals -- to change the world one heart at a time.

Jesus explicitly asserted that His kingdom was not an earthly kingdom (John 18:36). Why does it surprise anyone that He didn't make too many political proclamations?

 

When Islam was formed, Slavery was already an institution, and as such. It has continued in the Middle East and Africa, where the majority of the world's muslims live.

It continued thru the ages, and at no point did anyone every condemn Slavery from a muslim stand point, in fact, many Arabs were all in favor of seeing their african brethren enslaved for profit. Even today, it is still being practiced in muslim nations.

That was what I meant to imply, not that the actual prophet Muhammad actually said "Enslave the blacks". Sorry if I was not more clear on that.

 

(Drunk, darngarnet)

I'll say this one more time. Muslims... are... not... evil!! Christians have been more violent than any of the religions in the past, but Christians ain't evil either.

It has nothing to do with Political Correctnetss. It is simple common sense.

 

I'll say this one more time. Muslims... are... not... evil!! Christians have been more violent than any of the religions in the past, but Christians ain't evil either.

It has nothing to do with Political Correctnetss. It is simple common sense.

I agree 100%.

 

Scarlet said:

"Then you proceed to become morally relative with the Hindu's and say "it's okay to treat them subhumanly because they believe they're a lower caste and deserve it.""

For the record, this is an outdated and horrible practice. Those Hindus that practice this are in just as bad as fundamentalist muslims, in my eyes. The difference with this practice and muslim practices (such as making women wear hijabs and burquas, and calling on muslims to kill "infidels", etc) is that Hindu society is reforming itself and trying to abolish these heinous prejudices. Islamic society is still perpetuating ancient practices of killing all infidels and violence.

"However, you can't blame a religion for the actions of its followers."

So I can't at least question why it is that muslims are in conflict with nearly all the other major religions of the World? I can't question why muslims can't assimilate into other societies and just get along with non-muslims?

"Which is why your hatred of Muslims and Islam is unfounded and wrong."

Here we go again. Just because I question the beliefs of Islam, I have "hatred" for it? It's so easy to label someone as "hating" something, just because they look critically at it. Look, I don't even look at the past transgressions of Islam when I view it Negatively. I don't even need to, and I never did! All I have to do is look at what muslims are doing today in the name of their religion. That's how I started out questioning the beliefs of Islam, by looking at the actions of its followers today. Only after this, did I learn of the worse atrocities committed in the past by Muslims, and to learn that they were still doing it in modern times was very disheartening.



Waning Drill said:

"If anyone feels the need to cite something more than 40 years old (much less 4,000) to bolster their argument, then they've lost sight of the debate."

Exactly. Look at the actions of muslims today and judge. You don't have to look at the past (even though in this case, it does bolster the argument).



Kit' said:

"I've studied the beginnings of Islam and the impact they had on the ancient world. I never, once, came across the mention of slavery."

Here's your "mention" of slavery in Islam:

"Narrated 'Umar: I came and behold, Allah's Apostle (Muhammed) was staying on a Mashroba (attic room) and a black slave of Allah's Apostle was at the top of its stairs. I said to him, '(Tell the Prophet) that here is 'Umar bin Al-Khattab (asking for permission to enter).' Then he admitted me."

(Hadith, Sahih Bukhari 9:91:368)

Hmmm...did it mention anywhere in the Bible that Jesus had slaves? I don't think so.


KaineDamo said:

"I'll say this one more time. Muslims... are... not... evil!!"

I agree...unlike most other "church-lady" type critics of Islam out there, I do not think Islam is evil. Let's get that straight, shall we? Muslims aren't compelled by some boogy-man evil dude to go around killing people. But for some reason, the fact remains that they do go around killing people. And that's what is being questioned here, not whether these people are inherantly evil at their core. How did this behavior come about? Why is it happening? That's what should be being addressed.

I still have yet to hear an argument from the likes of Scarlet where they don't bring in another religion's past crimes in order to justify Islam's present crimes.

Here's the jist of how the arguments progress:

Me: Muslims are currently committing heinous atrocities against non-muslims. Why is this so?

Other Person: So what? Other people did in the past. Everyone does it.

As you can see, this doesn't address the issue at all. It just side-tracks it.

 

Beowolf - there are so many holes in your arguements that I could crawl through them.

You found one passage from a time where Slavery was institutionalised event. It was literally everywhere and particularly in the area where Muhammed was. You found your mention in that Haddith not the Qu'ran. I admit I havent found that passage before. However, are you going to condemn democracy simply because the Greeks owned slaves and treated their women poorly?

So what if Jesus didn't have slaves. Does that make Christianity morally right in every sense? No. I'd say it doesn't. Does the actions of a few Christians condemn the whole religion? I'd say it doesn't.

Unfortunately it seems you'd rather look at the minority and equate it with the majority rather then the other way around.

Yet again, the nebulous character of Muhammad is brought into light. Not to mention the fact that he also married a girl when she was 6, and consummated his
marriage with her when she was only 9.

I suppose you are also going to condemn the Romans, the Europeans from the Middle Ages, people in India and some people from western society as well. Child marriages and consumation were common in those days. When you only have a life expectancy of 30 years you need to have children early. Kids then were not treated the same as they are today in terms of protecting their innocence. When you only have a short time to reproduce then consumation and childbirth have to happen at a young age. If you are going to condemn Muhammed without seeing that it was a common practice virtually everywhere in the ancient world then you really scrapping the bottom of the barrel.

Having read many, many books on Muhammed's life and the Qu'ran I actually have to say that it seems like he loved his young wife very, very much.

The fact that you have condemned the whole by the actions of the few show that you're not really thinking about it at all. If I condemn Christianity by the actions of Timothy McVeigh or the Branch Davidians or anti-abortionists who blow up cliniques then I could say that Christianity is a BAD religion.

I'm not going to though. Instead I'm going to see past the actions of a few people perverting a religion to support their political cause. Instead I'm going to look at what the relgion teaches and how the majority and not the minority use their faith to support their actions in everyday life. And you know what I'd find? That Christianity, like Hinudism, Buddhism, Islam and the like has its faults. It has its people who pervert the cause but on the whole the everyday people who just practice it quietly have good intentions and that is what makes the religion a good one.



Kithera

 

I hate the JC sometimes