Jerry Falwell calls Muhammad a terrorist

....and again!

Kithera

 

You won't listen - instead you go on with your same blind rhetoric about how bad Islam is because of the actions of a few. As much as you say that you don't hate Islam it clearly comes across that you obviously do.


Questioning it is one thing, but to question something you have to be open to answers (something you are obviously not).

Go meet someone who is Muslim. Just a local person in your neighbourhood. An average muslim and then ask them what they think of the terrorism and the violence - I bet they won't agree with your narrow view of their religion.

I've studied Muhammed and I've studdied how Islam begun. I question their religion and the actions that take place in it frequently. However, I never equate the actions of a few with the religion as a whole. To do that would be foolishness.

Kithera

 

I think it best if I preemptively address a common rebuttal to the assertion that Jesus was a man of peace and humilty:

He was not always humble, speaking about Scriptures with the authority of God, intimating that He will have the divine responsibility of the final judgment, and assuming the divine right to forgive sins.

Nor was He always peaceful. He frequently showed little patience for the hypocritical Jewish leaders, calling them whitewashed tombs, clean on the outside, decaying within. And, in Matthew 21, He drove the moneychangers out of the temple and cursed a barren fig tree.

The seeming contradiction of His humility and bold assertions is this: Jesus, being both fully God and fully man, was asserting the authority of God *and* walking the path of God's humble servant. The former was done to make clear who He was. The latter was done to justify Him as a blameless man and to serve as an example to all who would follow Him. We should follow His example as a humble servant *because* He really is the King of Kings.

And the anger He occasionally exhibited seemed to be righteous anger: the hypocritical Pharisees and the mercenary moneychangers *were* defiling His priesthood and His temple. Not only was it righteous anger, it was exhibited with restraint. When He could have struck them all dead, He merely criticized the religious leaders and forced the moneychangers from the temple. We should follow His example by being angry for the right reasons -- true injustice rather than personal inconvenience -- and expressing that anger in the right ways.

(Note Matthew 5:22. We're warned about being angry *without* a cause. There may be times where just anger is called for, but only if it is expressed in productive ways.)

And the fig tree? It was a vivid example of the fact that Jesus will eventually judge His creation and that He will judge the hypocritical (those who look good but bear no spiritual fruit) very harshly indeed. He could have judged one of us, but instead He illustrated His point with a simple tree. He was merciful in His restraint that day.

And, at any rate, it seems amusing that people point to Jesus killing a fig tree, driving out the moneychangers, and being critical of hypocrites as proof that He was a terribly angry man -- particularly when JediBeowulf reminds us of Muhammad's checkered past.

 

I lived in Kashmir for about 6 months.

2 of my relatives were shot and killed by muslims there.

I got to know the muslims in my "neighborhood" very well, especially when they were hurtling insults/stones at me because I was a kafir [infidel]. Sure there were some good ones, but you know what? The majority of them didn't care or participated in it.

You know what else? I lived in the UK for most of my life. And it happens there too, but not to that large an extent. Muslims there are having a hard time trying to get along with anyone there nowadays (look at the Bradford Riots that were started by muslims recently, amongst others, to see my point).

So thanks.

 

The Kashmir problem. Some historical context. Kashmir is a majority muslim state. At the time of partition, when india and pakistan were born, it should have been part of pakistan, instead the british did a hash job (much like they did in palastine) and it has been split. There are treaties signed which means there should be dialouge to sort the problem, but these have been ignored by India for fear of the same thing happening with the Shiks (spl?) and there calls for independance. The Kashmiri muslim majority would rather they could split from both India and Pakistan, but they wont be listend to as neither india or pakistan want this. So both sides are used by the major powers, Hindu on one, Muslim on the other in bloody conflict unresolved. Really it is up to the UN to smash some heads together and get the negotiations going.

Bradford, nice simplification there, tell the whole story why dont you. Bradford is a northern, poor city, where the majority of the poor are made up of bangladshi muslims. There are no jobs, no money and they live in the poorest part of town and feel the worlds against them. There is large population of disinfranchised and jobless youth. Now things were peacefull but the city was invaded by the BNP (british national party, a racist, right wing party who wish to kick out all the non whites), they were causing trouble. The police did nothing, the people defended themselves and things kicked off. It has alot more to do with being jobless and pennyless, and a sense there is no justice then being muslim.

 

"Muhammad is the Exemplar of Islam - Muhammad, by many verified accounts, was an illiterate, cruel man, who constantly called for the death of "jews and infidels""

Beowulf, I think you are letting hatred run away with you. As for being cruel, how can he be cruel? When his army conquered Mecca, he gave safe haven to all the people who had personally abused him including a woman who had desecrated the body of his uncle by cutting him open and trying to chew his liver! As for calling for the death of "jews and infidels", I dare you to show me a single bit of evidence that shows this to be true.

"He also engaged in sexual acts with a 9 year old girl."

You are ignoring the fact that it was natural for the people to marry extremely young. In fact, even in the late 19th century in America, there were people marrying twelve year old girls. In Islam, it is viewed that a person is capable of marriage at the minimum age of nine so long as they have reached puberty and are capable of intercourse. During Christian and Jewish history also, there are recorded instances of 8-9 year olds marrying. For instance during the Crusades, Knight Raymond(or was it Reynauld?) was recorded as to having married an 8-year old girl. The whole point is, it is only in our modern culture where people marry around 25-30 that this is viewed with outrage. No historian of that time period ever commented shocked or outraged against this.

"Are they not "true muslims" since they are "killing infidels", just as their exemplar Muhammad did and said to do?"

Again, I ask you for proof regarding these comments. It is well documented that non-Muslims received unparalleled treatment of fairness and equality by Muslims throughout Muslim history from the early times of Islam to Saladin to the rise of Islamic Spain.

One more thing, about slavery. There were definitely slaves in Islamic history. But in no way can this be compared to American slave history. Islamic rules regarding slaves dictate that the slaves have to wear the same clothes as the master, that they should eat the same food as the master, that they should be treated well and not given a burden too heavy for them to bear and it was also very encouraged to set them free. The Muslims had a tradition of making their slaves military generals of immense armies. In fact the slaves(aka the Mamluk), eventually ended up ruling the empires of Islam and created one of the greatest Islamic civilizations ever.

 

Hey alright!

Let's make excuses for Muhammad shall we? Afterall, he is only the Prophet of one of the World's major religions!

"As for calling for the death of "jews and infidels", I dare you to show me a single bit of evidence that shows this to be true."

I really do tire of providing proof in these arguments, but here you go:

"Allah's Apostle (Muhammed) said, 'The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him.'"
(Hadith, Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 177)

"But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers (become Muslims) and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful."
(Q'uran 9:5)

Oh...you didn't mean proof in that I should magically go back in time and take pictures or interview Muhammad did you? Don't worry, i'm sure you'll have some excuse ready to respond to this. Many others on this board (and in the world) always find convenient ways to explain what is cleary written in black and white.

 

And many people on the boards will continue to find justification (however small) for thier obvious hate campaigns...

 

Sooooo...If Jesus Christ was the exemplar of the Christian religion, and Jesus Christ never had sex, does that mean that Christians shouldn't have sex? [face_shocked]

 

Beowulf, everyone, let's keep an even keel here.



RE: slavery...I think Beowulf is referring to the present-day practice of slavery that still occurs in northern Sudan (I'm not aware if it occurs at this time in other countries). As far as comparing pasts between Islam and Christianity, I think that's a fruitless avenue, and one where both religions are likely to have moments of embarressment.

 

Untill each of you read the Koran or complete some sort of course in Introduction to Islam, then everything is open to conjecture and spin. I have not done either, so it is really impossible for me to weigh in on this one way or another.

 

OKay I'm a Christian and I admit Reverend Jerry Falwall can be a idiot and stir things up to the point of actually hostility but whats so ourtrageous about telling the truth? [face_shocked] Being historicely acurrate on this Muhammad was a violent man and Islam does tell its followers to kill.

Why are people becoming outraged defending this religion were a significant portion of its members are joining groups that strap bombs to their bodies and walk into public areas full of inncocent men woman and children? Where do you think they got the idea to do this even to begin with? Did they fabricate it thinking it was their God's will? No offcourse not they read it. The branch that does'ent commit these atriocitys does so because despite the Koran they don't believe its right.

<[-]> Saber

 

Right. That's bloody it. This thread is the epotimon of hypocrosy. I can't start a thread, asking legit questions about Catholicism and it's violence, but anybody can say anything they want about Islam?? I'm sorry, that just isn't on. It's not right, and i won't stand for it. This IS hypocrisy.

The only reason this is aloud to go on is because Islam isn't a western relgion, and there aren't very many Islamic members of the JC at all. If there were, they would see and read this thread, and be EXTREMELY offended!! Were Catholics not offended by MY thread? Why is THIS thread any different?

Close this now!

 

I'm with Kaine

If there had been this level of hatred and spin leveled at Christianity a mod would have stepped in a long time ago and closed it down.

Kithera

 

Excellent points, Kaine and Kit. This thread wreaks of mulim-bashing. I thought the mods condemned such acts.

Funny, guess the rules only one-sided after all.

 

Thankyou

 

All of these shrill cries to close this thread make me chuckle. Where is all of the intelligent debate here? Come on, you apologists for Islam. Can you not hold your own without coming up with petty excuses and decrying anyone who questions it as a "muslim-basher" or an "Islam-hater"? No meaningful debate can ever take place if important issues like these are ignored, just because we might "offend" someone. You, advocates of censorship, are potentially paving the way for indoctrination regardless of your intent.

 

If one wants me to close a thread, please PM me, instead of grandstanding.

Thank you.


Edit: Pol, I'm not saying their claim is without merit. There *is* precedence for closing a thread due to religious intolerance. Perhaps I have been negligent in keepings this open since I received the ban button, and not aware that offense could be taken. I do believe that bad ideas are more often discredited through open debate than from censorship, and that there are an overwhelming number of people speaking out when someone crosses the line...and sometimes unconventional ideas need to heard out, even if they seem wrong or like bashing. I just greatly dislike the antagonistic rhetoric used talking about KW and I not locking this.

I'd appreciate it if you amend your tone, Pol. Fast.

 

RedSeven: I've already contacted Knightwriter about the situation.

 

"Why are people becoming outraged defending this religion were a significant portion of its members are joining groups that strap bombs to their bodies and walk into public areas full of inncocent men woman and children?"

"Can you not hold your own"

Why should i hold my own against people telling me the majority of the followers of Islam are suicide bombers? I used the exact same logic as i've seen used in here to say, though not being serious, that the majority of Catholics could be seen to be violent.

 

As I said...



One-sided.

Typical.

Such intolerance wouldn't be permitted were we discussing... say... the religious terrorism between extremist factions in Ireland and Great Britain.

But because it's popular to hate muslims in America right now, this thread is okay.

Speaking of violence in religious text, as I recall, the God of the Old Testament wasn't all that peace-loving. And I can think of a few Crusades when Christians killed in His name.

Every religion has their fanatics (David
Koresh) who misinterpret the teachings of their deity.

 

Like TripleB - I haven't read the Bible, let alone the Koran so I can't really comment on either.

Also, two of my friends were killed in a bomb explosion planted by Muslim fanatics. I would never be able to enter into this debate without bias against Muslims.

Therefore I won't enter it.

 

"But because it's popular to hate muslims in America right now, this thread is okay."


That is not constructive. I do not appreciate the tone or finger pointing.


I'm locking this for now. If there are complaints about this, or someone else would like to accuse KW or I of approving of religious bigotry and willful bias, PM me.