Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [apologetics] Re: What causes Muslim terrorism?

Expand Messages
  • Tedd Hadley
    Hello Anne, and sorry for the delay. I probably won t be able to guarantee better than a week response time for these replies so I hope that won t hinder
    Message 1 of 22 , Oct 1, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Hello Anne, and sorry for the delay. I probably won't be able
      to guarantee better than a week response time for these replies
      so I hope that won't hinder continuing discussion.

      To summarize, I continue to object strongly to your characterization
      of the modern, non-"fundamentalistic" Islam majority --especially
      Islam in America-- as implicitly or subtley promoting war or
      violence. I consider your admonition that Muslims in America
      be viewed with "caution" and a "watchful eye" to be not warranted
      in light of their beliefs (and a tad poorly considered in light
      of the recent increase in hate crimes against Muslims here in
      America).

      To any who might misunderstand: nothing I write here is meant
      to say that Islam is TRUE. I don't believe in Islam, I think
      it's rules and regulatoins are nonsense. But I don't agree
      that the majority of its adherents are any more dangerous in
      civilized contexts than any other belief system. (I mention
      "civilized" because third-world problems--drought, famine,
      disease, poverty, overpopulation-- seem to contribute the most
      to conflict in those nations.)

      If Muslims in America are potentially dangerous, shouldn't we
      be able to see it in the statistics? In acts of violence in
      the US by citizens against other belief systems, is the percentage
      higher for those claiming to be Muslim or for those claiming to
      be Christian? I'm pretty sure it's the latter, if only because
      I assume that anti-Christian crime by Muslims would be widely
      reported.

      Islam's majority do seem to be comfortable in secular societies
      and do not seek to overthrow governments or commit acts of
      terrorism against those who aren't Muslim:

      |Because of Islam's great growth geographically in the first two
      |centuries of its inception, there needed to be a larger set of
      |Islamic laws capable of handling the different needs of throughout
      |the Empire. The Qur'an and the Hadith were not detailed enough to
      |provide all the answers. Therefore, in the 8th century A.D., there
      |arose a school of legal experts who interpreted and applied Islamic
      |principles to different situations throughout the Empire. However,
      |different scholars disagreed with these experts in various areas.
      |This led to a variety of legal schools of thought within Islam.
      |
      |These different schools became different sects within Islam. The
      |largest of the sects is the Sunni which comprises about 90% of all
      |Muslims. The next two largest are the Shi'i and Sufi. After these,
      |there are numerous splinter groups which are often named after the
      |individual scholars who began them: Hanifa, after Abu Hanifa;
      |Maliki, after Malik ibn Anas; Shafi'i, after Muhammad ibn Idris
      |al-Shafi'i; Zaydi, after Zayd ibn Ali; the Nusayri, Ismaili,
      |Murji'ah, etc.
      |
      |Sunni Muslims These are followers of the Hanifa, Shafi, Hanibal
      |and Malik schools. They constitute a 90% majority of the believers,
      |and are considered to be main stream traditionalists. Because they
      |are comfortable pursuing their faith within secular societies, they
      |have been able to adapt to a variety of national cultures, while
      |following their three sources of law: the Qur'an, Hadith and
      |consensus of Muslims. The Sunni emphasis the power and sovereignty
      |of Allah and his right to do whatever he wants with his creation.
      |As strict predeterminism is taught. Its rulership is through the
      |Caliphate, the office of Muslim ruler who is considered the successor
      |to Muhammad. This successor is not through hereditary lineage.
      (http://www.carm.org/islam/divisions.htm)

      It is the latter group, the Sunni, that I refer to when
      I talk about mainstream Islam. These mainstream traditionalists
      are comfortable in secular societies and not found enacting or
      promoting violence.

      I will, however, agree there is one particular faction within
      Islam that does bear watching, and from this sect comes Bin
      Laden and the majority of all terrorist attacks on the west:
      Wahhabism. But this sect is no more Islam than Identity Christians
      can be considered Christianity, if we compare their beliefs and
      number of adherents to the majority.

      | The Wahhabi sect (named after the 18th century warrior-ideology
      | Ibn `Abd al-Wahhab) propounds a version of Islam that sees all
      | Sufism as infidelity, all popular Islam (shrine veneration, local
      | pilgrimages) as idolatry, and has put in a historically unprecedent
      | banning of all Jews and Christian from the "holy land" defined as
      | the entire Arabian peninsula. Wahhabism is an extreme minority in
      | Islam, the vast majority of Muslims being tolerant of Sufism,
      | engaging in popular Islam of some kind, and unconcerned with blowing
      | up Sphinxes, Buddhas, or other alleged idols.
      http://www.haverford.edu/relg/sells/reports/WahhabismBuddhasBegova.htm
      (articled dated Mar. 2001, Michael Sells is a professor of
      comparative religions at Haverford College)

      There's an article in Newsweek last week that discusses the
      Wahhabism and its direct connections to terrorism in the West.

      Some more recent quotes from the media:

      |Last week, two journalists who know considerably more about Islam than I
      |do-Stephen Schwartz in the rightish Spectator of London and
      |Christopher Hitchens on the leftish Nation's website-found the
      |roots of this movement in Saudi-based Wahhabism, the two-century-old
      |schismatic sect that believes that, ever since its first glorious
      |century, Islam has been corrupted by the West and is going to hell
      |in a handbasket.
      |
      |The best description I've seen of Wahhabism is the one given by
      |the Dallas Morning News' Jeffrey Weiss: "It was as if a Christian
      |suggested that Augustine and Aquinas and every later Christian
      |theologian were heretics. Or as if an Orthodox Jewish scholar
      |challenged the validity of the Talmud." Certainly some subtle
      |thinking and some stable communities have come out of Wahhabism.
      |But so has most of the terrorism we know of. Schwartz draws the
      |distinction that, while few Wahhabis are terrorists, most terrorists
      |are Wahhabis. Hitchens says they practice "fascism with an Islamic
      |face." These are the people who chop off the legs of women who show
      |them and will blow a man's brains out if they catch him reading,
      |say, Time.

      http://www.nypress.com/14/39/news&columns/beans.cfm

      The Spectator article is here:
      http://www.spectator.co.uk/article.php3?table=old§ion=back&issue=2001-09-22&id=1104

      The "The Nation" article is here:
      http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20011008&s=hitchens

      All this makes a strong case that Islam is not the enemy, the
      Qur'an is not the enemy, but that a climate of anger, frustration,
      and resentment is fertile ground for Wahhabism or for any kind
      of militant, radical fundamentalism.

      What about mainstream Islam and it's origins? Islam is the
      youngest of the major World religions, originating about 600
      years after Christianity and many thousands of years after
      Judaism, although it borrows from both. Certainly Islam has
      participated in all manner of wars and forced conversions, but
      if we were to shift Islam back into the times of the Old Testament
      would we then consider Islam to be any more warlike than the
      Israelites of Moses and Joshua's time? This is a question I
      doubt can be easily answered, but I do know that modern Jews
      should not be viewed with suspicion because of wars their
      ancestors participated in with the apparent blessing of their
      God.

      And further, it appears clear that much of the violence called
      for by the Qur'an is in response to aggression and persecution
      -- a sentiment as nobel as America's Revolutionary War -- and
      it is by no means certain that all Islamic wars have been
      consistent with the reasonable interpretation of the Qur'an
      adopted by modern Islam (some of those verses I'll discuss
      below).

      The way many conflicts appear to start in modern times is through
      Islamic conversion movements that gradually sweep a country
      until an opposing religion or government takes notice and,
      understandably, attempts to halt the spread of Islam. This, of
      course, is perceived as persecution by the faithful (newly
      converted faithful which have always perceived the country as
      their own, I might add, and who now resent the oppression) and
      the conflict goes downhill from there. But the question ultimately
      is this: is Islam to blame for the conflict or is it those who
      seek to stop Islam ...or is it this just a potential problem
      with any proselytizing religion? There can be no fighting
      without opposition.

      Of course, a call for a violent response to persecution is still
      a call to violence, no question. And despite the fact that many
      Christians would agree that war in response to oppression or
      persecution of innocents is sanctioned by God, there is no easily
      interpreted verse in the NT that justifies a violent response
      to persecution. Thus, one should expect Christianity to have
      a more peaceful history than either Judaism or Islam.

      However, the proper response to persecution and aggression
      according to Christianity remains somewhat ambiguous. Christ
      said to turn the other cheek. But did that happen in the
      Revolutionary War? In the Gulf War? At Kosovo? How about in
      response to terrorism? Our government is secular, but the fact
      of democracy and the fact that this is a Christian nation in
      many ways, means our government's actions are undertaken with
      the consent of Christians in large part.

      Imagine if Muslims here in America mounted an attack on Christianity
      -- not the short-term effectiveness of violence but a concentrated
      campaign to influence political power in this country -- how
      would Christians react? I agree that violence would be unlikely,
      but I also don't see Christianity lying down quietly to die,
      either. Fighting in the cause of God need not mean with a
      sword.

      Getting back to the intpretation issue, you've several times
      made the claim that the Qur'an promotes unprovoked violence
      against non-believers. I don't see that that's a reasonable
      interpretation without reading into the text somewhat.

      Some of the quotations:
      [2:190]
      And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you, and
      do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who
      exceed the limits. [2.191] And kill them wherever you find them,
      and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution
      is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred
      Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you,
      then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers. [2.192]
      But if they desist, then surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
      [2.193] And fight with them until there is no persecution, and
      religion should be only for Allah, but if they desist, then there
      should be no hostility except against the oppressors.

      The verse makes it clear that persecution of Islam is the reason
      for violence. Fight with "those who fight with you",
      "do not exceed limits", "drive them out from whence they drove
      you out", etc.

      [8:15] O you who believe! when you meet those who disbelieve marching
      for war, then turn not your backs to them.
      ...
      [8:30]
      And when those who disbelieved devised plans against you that they
      might confine you or slay you or drive you away; and they devised
      plans and Allah too had arranged a plan; and Allah is the best of
      planners.
      ...
      [8:38] Say to those who disbelieve, if they desist, that which is
      past shall be forgiven to them; and if they return, then what
      happened to the ancients has already passed. [8.39] And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only
      for Allah; but if they desist, then surely Allah sees what they
      do.

      Persecution and war against Islam is the context of this chapter
      and the reason for violence.

      [9:5} So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters
      wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them
      and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and
      keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them;
      surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
      ...

      The context of the chapter makes it clear that hostilities, i.e.
      war, is already going on. This is not a peacetime exhortation.
      Many of the early chapters of the Qur'an were written while war
      was going on. That context can not be ignored for interpretation.

      On the other side of the coin, there is much in the Qur'an that
      is devoted to the treatment of disbelievers that does
      not involve outright killing. Here's a list:

      Disbelievers 48:26
      - ask Muhammad to invoke God's wrath upon them as proof 6:57-58, 8:32,
      10:49-52
      - bear their company in kindness 31:15
      - bear what they say in patience 6:34, 20:130, 50:39
      - communities that were punished (summary) 22:42
      - covenants with 8:56, 8:72, 9:4, 9:7
      - breaking of 8:58, 9:12
      - do not be remiss in helping them 24:22
      - God brings their scheming to nought 8:30, 8:36
      - leave company of those in the act of mocking God's law 4:140, 6:68, 28:55
      - protect them if they ask you to 9:6
      - punishment
      - during war 8:12, 8:50, 8:59
      - in the hereafter 8:37
      - repulsed during War of the Confederates 33:25
      - should not visit or take care of mosques 9:17
      - speak kindly to them 17:53
      - striving hard against 9:73, 25:52, 66:9
      - treat non-belligerents with equity 60:8
      - will only ally with other disbelievers 8:72

      So it can not be argued that killing unbelievers without serious
      provokation is a good thing or even sanctioned by the Qu'ran
      without selective quotes.

      More insight into the modern Islamic view of jihad and war
      can be found here:
      http://www.submission.org/human-rights.html
      http://www.submission.org/war.html

      Of course, these references are biased towards Islam and its
      historical accounts are probably slanted, but, nevertheless, it
      demonstrates that a reasonable approach to the Qur'an and Islamic
      doctrine forbids terrorism, aggression and unchecked violence.

      Now to a few items in the point-by-point discussion to ensure
      that the important points have been covered by my "monologue"
      so far.

      AnneAKim@... writes
      in message <165.1691f33.28e14737@...>:
      > Hi there, & hope all had a good weekend.
      >
      > There was some continuation of the discussion of Islam and its relation to
      > terrorism.
      >
      > Hadley maintains the view << Christians and Jews lived peacefully
      > with Muslims throughout centuries in the Middle East and other
      > Asian and African countries. >>

      Actually that statement is from an Islamic scholar who is careful
      not to claim that Christians, Jews and Muslims have *always*
      lived in peace. Nevertheless it is true that there were centuries
      of fairly peaceful coexistence. And certainly the Qur'an teaches
      that such coexistence should occur without violence as long
      as there isn't persecution.

      > Bullcookies. Ask the Christians how peaceful it was. And look
      > at the Jewish records for that matter. Or the *Muslim* records,
      > for crying out loud. For that matter, ask the Hindus how many
      > million Hindus have been slaughtered over the years.

      The Islam religion has evolved over time. At the time of the
      invasion of India, only Jews and Christians were considered
      "zimmis" (and required to pay the 'jiziya' tax). Buddhists,
      Hindus Jains, Sikhs, Zoroastrians, however, were considered
      heretics. Like the mode of thought during the Spanish Inquisition
      and the Crusades, heretics must either convert or be killed.

      Since then, Islam has extended "zimmis" to the Hindu and other
      beliefs. Like all religions, Islam has evolved and reinterpreted
      its scriptures in light of cultural and social evolution and
      generally became more "liberal". However, once in a while
      new, strict, fundamentalist strains sweep through it and
      gather momentum, especially in times of hardship. This isn't
      a phenomena unique to Islam, all religions experience this.
      The violence we read about is invariably due to fundamentalism.

      http://www.anglicanjournal.com/124/07/lambeth09.html

      <snip>
      > The oppression continues. Will the conquests also continue?

      The oppression/conflict seems to take place largely in third world
      countries that have to cope with disease, drought -- i.e., severe
      economic hardship. I would like to see *any* religion that has
      dealt with this sort of thing over an extended period of time
      without giving rise to radical factions that attempt to
      solve problems with force.

      > >Hadley: No, I don't deny that anymore than I would deny that
      > >verses in the Bible have been used at times to justify all
      > >manner of atrocities.
      >
      > It's a predictable move to try pretend that the Bible contains
      > the same category of statements as the Qur'an, as if Christians
      > had *even one* injunction to violence given them anywhere. It
      > takes *active distortion* to get from the Bible to to justifying
      > atrocities.

      You mistakenly assume I refer to Christianity. What about
      Judaism?

      | If a man or woman living among you in one of the towns the LORD
      | gives you is found doing evil in the eyes of the LORD your God in
      | violation of his covenant, and contrary to my command has worshiped
      | other gods, bowing down to them or to the sun or the moon or the
      | stars of the sky, and this has been brought to your attention, then
      | you must investigate it thoroughly. If it is true and it has been
      | proved that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, take
      | the man or woman who has done this evil deed to your city gate and
      | stone that person to death.
      Deut. 17:2-5

      See also Deuteronomy 13.

      Indeed, even for the Christian, the NT must be examined closely
      and within a careful interpretive framework to be assured that the
      above verse is no longer applicable. Even today, Christians are
      divided over exactly where to draw the line between the OT civil and
      ceremonial laws and I have had long discussions with Christians
      who believe the death-penalty might be lawful for public homosexuality
      and for adultery.

      > Muslims, on the contrary, have *multiple* injunctions to war
      > and slaughter in the Qur'an, all applicable until kingdom come
      > or "until all religion should be for Allah." I know that you
      > really want Christianity to be no different than Islam and the
      > Bible to be no different than the Qur'an, but the facts are
      > against that.

      There are many differences, of course. But one striking
      similarity is this: the beliefs of Christians and Muslims can
      not be predicted by the most simple or literal interpretation
      of their religious scriptures; instead, their beliefs are a
      reflection of history, culture, conflict, and economic status.

      > > The important point is what modern-day, non-radical Islam believes
      > > and the simple fact of its universal condemnation of terrorism
      > > and killing of innocents based on its culture and scriptural
      > > interpretation.
      >
      > If there were universal condemnation of terrorism, then why were
      > the Palestinians celebrating in the streets when they heard the
      > trade center had been bombed?

      I said "non-radical".

      > If there were universal condemnation of terrorism, why was there
      > a Muslim cleric on 60 Minutes last night saying how the suicide
      > bombers were surely enjoying their 72 virgins now?

      ditto

      > (Why do they always concentrate on the 72 virgins and leave out
      > the 28 young boys also promised to the faithful?)

      That's interesting. Islam does not condemn homosexuality?

      > If there were universal condemnation of terrorism, there wouldn't
      > be terrorist camps harbored by the governments in so many
      > Muslim nations.

      Obviously, radical, extremist governments do support
      terrorism.

      > The "universal condemnation of terrorism" is a myth -- empty
      > words that haven't led to, say, action against terrorism, or
      > telling terrorists that they aren't welcome, or that they should
      > stop. Any "condemnation of terrorism" is only for show while
      > terrorists are still welcomed and harbored

      The voices in Islam I refer to who condemn terrorism are not
      involved in active war or violence. Obviously, there are
      self-serving claims being made, like the transparent Afgan
      "condemnation" just after the attack. But at the same time
      there are sincere claims made by many who have never been
      involved in violence.

      > in the earth, it shall be as if he has killed all mankind, and who so ever
      > saves the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all
      > mankind," (Al-Ma'dah:32). >>
      >
      > Now if the Muslims in general really thought that applied to terrorism,
      > then they would be hunting down terrorists with the same vigor they use to
      > hunt down murderers or other criminals. Fact is, the Muslim nations do not
      > hunt down terrorists as they would hunt down a murderer. In fact, they
      > harbor terrorists.

      This is far too broad a brush stroke. *Some* Muslim nations harbor
      terrorists, and, invariable it's the ones already sympathetic to
      fundamentalist radicals.

      > The Qur'an makes no bones about saying it considers Christians
      > and Jews to have corrupt beliefs -- which is to say, killing
      > Jews & Christians is not prohibited by the above verse, since
      > we're considered corrupt.

      That's false. That verse (2:191) only sanctioned fighting
      in response to persecution and fighting.

      > And read the very next verse in the
      > Qur'an (5:33): "The punishment of those who wage war against
      > Allah and the apostle and strive to make corruption in the land
      > is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their
      > hands and feet should be cut off on opposite sides or the y
      > should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in
      > this world, an in the hereafter they shall have a painful
      > chastisement." So it looks like those who make corruption in
      > the land, who are sanctioned to be killed, includes those who
      > speak out against Islam.

      While probably unintentional, this is shown to be a distortion
      of the meaning of the Qu'ran.

      > >He added that haphazard killing where the rough is taken with
      > >the smooth and where innocents are killed along with wrongdoers
      > >is totally forbidden in Islam.
      >
      > Really, where? Is there a reference in the Qur'an where it says
      > so? Or is it an opinion? If it is an opinion, of which person,
      > and is that person' opinion binding on anybody?

      It's the popular view of modern Islam. You can find similar
      concepts in Christianity that may be difficult to extract
      literally as injunctions from the Bible but are consistent with
      a particular viewpoint and the consensus of scholars and popular
      Christian figures converge to it. Of course, these same
      viewpoints are often denied by the far right.

      > >Qaradawi then asserted that is why killing hundreds of helpless
      > >civilians who have nothing to do with the decision-making process
      > >and are striving har d to earn their daily bread, such as the
      > >victims of the latest explosions in America, is a heinous crime
      > >in Islam.

      > Really? If it's true that the attacks are considered a heinous
      > crime, then I'm sure the Muslims will be first in line to find
      > the perpetrators. I eagerly await the news that Muslims really do
      > oppose terrorism and have handed over the culprits or dealt with
      > them in their own justice, and have in fact moved to stamp out
      > all the many terrorist camps in their lands.

      Obviously that's not likely to happen since terrorists take
      shelter in fundementalist Muslim countries.

      > The whole argument from "extremist" view versus "modern" view
      > is flawed -- if you choose to call the militants "extremists"
      > then you have to admit that there are entire countries run by
      > extremists. If there are entire countries run by extremists,
      > then to what extent can you call those views unusual?

      By simple virtue of numbers. Do the math. 90% of 1.3 billion
      mainstream Muslims comfortable in secular society equals ..?

      > > How is it any more mean-spirited than the OT?
      >
      > Where in the OT (or NT) does it say that God will scald
      > peoples' faces when they ask for mercy? You specifically
      > asked about the OT -- the meanest hell-verse in the OT is at
      > the end of Isaiah, and the people who were in the fire have
      > already died the second death & aren't suffering. If you don't
      > see the difference between that & a cry for mercy being answered
      > with someone's face being scalded, then there's not much I can
      > add to the words there.

      I don't see a moral difference between torturing someone in a lake
      of burning sulfur regardless of their pleas, and scalding
      someone's face in response to a plea.

      <snip>
      > worst 5 chapters of the OT, the stock favorites of the skeptics,
      > absolutely pale in comparison to the Qur'an, which enjoins such
      > violence not just until Joshua gets the people settled, but *for
      > the rest of world history* or until everybody is suitably
      > conquered &/or converted.

      Your quotes so far have focused on just about 5 chapters
      of the 114 of the Qu'ran, actually.

      > Even if you hate the OT, it's *still* an important distinction
      > to make that *not one* Bible-believer is under *any* command to
      > perform violence today (haven't been of years, while we're on
      > the subject), while *every* believer in the Qur'an is under
      > *many* commands to seek out chances to destroy non-Muslims til
      > kingdom come.

      No, that's wrong. Even the most extreme, radical, millitant
      fundamentalists do not kill unbelievers without a declaration
      of war (jihad) first -- which is supposed to happen only in
      response to strong persecution or aggression.

      > It may be they just wait for a proper chance for
      > war, as one of the Muslim authors you quote suggests that the
      > proper way to do these things is in a declared war.

      Even the term 'jihad' is now being reinterpreted by mainstream
      Islam to refer primarily to an inner battle, a spiritual
      struggle much like Pauls' "armor of God" metaphorical language
      in Corithinians.

      > > BTW, the "we" above is the Angel of God, not Islam. In
      > > that light, this verse is no more meanspirited than the description
      > > of the lake of fire in Revelations.

      > Really? So it's ok if they arrange for an angel to scald
      > peoples' faces?

      If you're going to be torturing people with fire, what could
      possibly be the moral difference?

      <snip>

      >>The same could be said for the Crusades. >>

      >Really? How many Muslims were enslaved as a result of the Crusades?
      >And while you can rightly wonder whether Christianity should have
      >taken arms to rescue their Christian brothers & free them again,
      >or whether they did a good job of sticking to their goals, you
      >can't say that the Muslims conquered the Christian lands to free
      >their brothers.

      Britannica.com puts it this way:

      |Crusades: any of a series of military expeditions organized by
      |Western Christians against Muslim powers in order to take possession
      |of or maintain control over the Holy City of Jerusalem and the
      |places, particularly the shrine of the Holy Sepulchre, associated
      |with the earthly life of Jesus Christ. Between 1095, when the First
      |Crusade was launched, and 1291, when the Latin Christians...

      So, rescuing the Holy Land from the infidels seems to be the
      foremost goal. Strangely familiar, that goal...

      And if they were so concerned with rescuing their Christian
      brothers from the Muslims, why were they killing Jews?

      I understand that all manner of atrocities have been committed
      in the name of any god, but the blame for that, in my mind, goes
      to human nature accompanied by a culture and historical framework
      that permits or sanctions violence.

      > You are somewhat familiar with the Muslim view of "jihad" -- killing
      > is justified in the cause of Allah.

      The mainstream Islamic view of "jihad" is an inner spiritual
      struggle.

      > Are you familiar with the Muslim view of "outwitting"? It is
      > their view of whether telling lies is justified in the cause of
      > Allah. Did anybody see the Muslims interviewed on 60 Minutes by
      > Bradley? Did you hear how they said that the terrorist attacks
      > couldn't possibly have been by Arabs or Muslims, they just don't
      > do things like that? Was that one of the baldest lies ever?

      Okay, let's see. The facts are that, prior to this attack, 5
      out of 1 billion Muslims committed or attempted to commit
      non-suicidal attacks on US soil. By your reasoning, therefore,
      if .00000005 percent of the adherents of a particular religion
      commit a particular violent act, than all are suspect and all
      must be willing to admit that they are capable of such acts?
      I don't buy that. Use a little empathy here.

      > Now come on, when the WTC was bombed, was everybody's first thought,
      > "Oh no it's the Buddhists"? How about "Oh no it's the Israelis"?
      > How about "Oh no it's the Russians"? *Get real.*

      If it wasn't for the fact that WTC was attacked before, the most
      logical explanation would have been
      "Oh no, Timothy McViegh wasn't alone after all!"

      A suicide attack with a hijacked airplane is not something that
      used to be a trademark of Islamic terrorism.

      > Islam has the
      > worst record of that type on the face of the earth, and pretending
      > otherwise is just that: pretending. Indonesia has seen roughly
      > 500 churches demolished in the last 10 years -- the June 9, 1996
      > riots had an estimated 5000 Muslims participating in a single city.
      > Now, 5000 Muslims in one city: are they all "extremists"? Is this
      > only a fringe group?

      Relative to mainstream Islam, yes.

      > In Algeria, estimates are that roughly 100,000
      > people have been killed by Muslims in the 1990s.

      Boy, is that only half the story. In 1991, the Islamic
      Salvation Front had the widest suppose of any political party
      in the country and would have won the elections if the army
      hadn't canceled the elections in response. Now it's a civil
      war, what do you expect? And the killing is taking place on
      both sides with both sides blaming the other. Like the civil
      war in the US, two sides disagree on a particular ideology,
      can't agree peacefully, and so they fight it out with great loss
      of life.

      >In Nigeria (Oct 1991), thousands of Muslims attacked Christian
      >churches, businesses, and homes in the city of Kano, with an
      >estimated 300 Christians murdered by Muslim mobs.

      That's a far more complex issue than you imply here.

      The Muslim side can be read at:
      http://www.arches.uga.edu/~godlas/sanusi.html

      As always, I don't believe people with an axe to grind against
      Islam or against Christianity know the entire unvarnished truth.
      The truth always lies somewhere between the respective claims.

      >In Pakistan, a similar riot was joined by roughly 30,000 Muslims
      >-- a riot in which the only Christian-majority town (Shanti Nagar)
      >was attacked, churches & businesses destroyed, mass rapes,
      >widespread fires being set. It was only because of the outrage
      >of the international community that Pakistan's Prime Minister
      >Sheriff agreed to help rebuild what had been destroyed. (Now if
      >the problem were really a handful of extremists, where did the
      >mob of 30,000 come from?)

      Yes, and Pakistan is a hotbed for fundamentalist Islam,
      especially Wahhabism. These are the same factions making
      trouble now in response to Pakastan's cooperation with the US.

      Your account also neglects to mention that some Muslims attempted
      to protect Christians, and some Muslim organizations attempted
      to help afterwards with food and clothing.

      http://www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/acnsarchive/acns1400/acns1411.html

      > Look, Hadley, I will not continue a discussion on whether Islam is
      > peaceful. It's a fundamentally ludicrous discussion because neither
      > their writings nor their history is even remotely peaceful, and
      > the voices speaking out for religious tolerance are a minority.
      > I will probably spend a week or two collating & gathering some
      > information on Muslim history, & will post it here.

      I've agreed that Islam has a history of more violence than
      Christianity. But I've also pointed out that modern Islam is
      much different from historic Islam in a way similar to the
      differences between modern Christianity and the early Catholic
      church. I've pointed out that most of the violence today comes
      from radical, militant fundamentalist Islam, which originates
      as much from economic hardship and lack of the modern civilized
      perspective we have here in the West than anything else.

      Islam's peaceful majority, unfortunately, is not 99% as is
      Christianity's, but probably more like 90-95% -- and terrorism
      appears to be an infinitesimal fraction of 1%. Still, 90% of
      Islam does not deserve to be labeled potentially dangerous
      because of a conservative 10%. It's unfair.
    • KRINKS@PFNMAIL.NET
      ... 8:32, ... Christains are arrested for preaching the gospel in much of the middle east ... It is illegal to preach the gospel in much of the Islamic world
      Message 2 of 22 , Oct 1, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        >
        > Disbelievers 48:26
        > - ask Muhammad to invoke God's wrath upon them as proof 6:57-58,
        8:32,
        > 10:49-52
        > - bear their company in kindness 31:15

        Christains are arrested for preaching the gospel in much of the
        middle east


        > - bear what they say in patience 6:34, 20:130, 50:39

        It is illegal to preach the gospel in much of the Islamic world


        > So it can not be argued that killing unbelievers without serious
        > provokation is a good thing or even sanctioned by the Qu'ran
        > without selective quotes.
        >

        The old Soviet Union also guaranteed the right of free speech in
        its constitution.Similarly, if the foundation is not found in Godly
        principles, which the Koran and the communist regimes clearly were
        not, then there word means nothing. To say peace is writen in the
        Koran is to be ingorant of its history. It is one thing to say live
        and let live with civil rights for all regardless of belief, as we in
        the U.S. do, but is entirely another matter when one becomes an
        apologist for thier heresy. This is not necesssary to defend them as
        residents of our country. A nation which does not arrest those who do
        not believe as we do, as happens in the kindly peacful folks home
        country. Just as Jesus did not commit violence against those who did
        not believe his word,nor should we. However, it is a dangerous
        concept to become a Koranic apologist. It is wrong, their beliefs are
        a dead end a street where God's grace does not reside.
        Matthew 7: 18 put is best "A good tree cannot bring forth evil
        fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit." This says
        it all. They co-exist as peaceful no doubt,here in the U.S anyway.
        But to apologize for thier beliefs in heresy and a wrong road to
        travel my friend as the Bible says. If one person lived and acted as
        Jesus lived and another lived and acted as as Mohammed lived, which
        one would be more prone to violence, sexual immorality including the
        rape of non-believers, and the spreading of thier faith by the sword
        and not by the love in thier word?

        Mark Penn
      • Nikolai Razouvaev
        Hi Mark, you wrote: The old Soviet Union also guaranteed the right of free speech in its constitution. ... subject... but anyway, the SU did not guarantee free
        Message 3 of 22 , Oct 1, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi Mark, you wrote:

          The old Soviet Union also guaranteed the right of free speech in its
          constitution.



          ----> this is a rather quick note, maybe not precisely relevant to the
          subject... but anyway, the SU did not guarantee free speech in its latest
          constitution (1977), this is a common misconception in the West of several
          things that used to make up 'the SU'. A 'free speech' in the Soviet
          constitution is quite a different specie as to what a Westerner would
          normally call 'free speech'. Therefore, 'free speech' in the Western
          understanding of this concept was not at all guaranteed in SU. Prior to 1977
          SU was under 1936 (I think) version of its constitution sponsored of course
          by Joseph Stalin. I'm not very familiar with that version since in 1977 I
          was still a teenager and didn't really care what constitution there was but
          I would assume 'free speech' would be defined in some funny way under J
          Stalin too...

          Nikolai
        • R. Jane
          how does this discussion have anything to do with the Muslims we may come into contact with daily ? Part of this discussion is encouraging fear or to see the
          Message 4 of 22 , Oct 1, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            how does this discussion have anything to do with the Muslims we may come
            into contact with daily ? Part of this discussion is encouraging fear or to
            see the Muslims as "them." The other part, while not agreeing the Muslim
            belief is Truth, is saying your fellow Muslim is not going to kill you. So
            I reiterate, how does this discussion have anything to do with the Muslms we
            may come into contact with daily ?

            Jane



            From: <KRINKS@...>


            > >
            > > Disbelievers 48:26
            > > - ask Muhammad to invoke God's wrath upon them as proof 6:57-58,
            > 8:32,
            > > 10:49-52
            > > - bear their company in kindness 31:15
            >
            > Christains are arrested for preaching the gospel in much of the
            > middle east
            >
            >
            > > - bear what they say in patience 6:34, 20:130, 50:39
            >
            > It is illegal to preach the gospel in much of the Islamic world
            >
            >
            > > So it can not be argued that killing unbelievers without serious
            > > provokation is a good thing or even sanctioned by the Qu'ran
            > > without selective quotes.
            > >
            >
            > The old Soviet Union also guaranteed the right of free speech in
            > its constitution.Similarly, if the foundation is not found in Godly
            > principles, which the Koran and the communist regimes clearly were
            > not, then there word means nothing. To say peace is writen in the
            > Koran is to be ingorant of its history. It is one thing to say live
            > and let live with civil rights for all regardless of belief, as we in
            > the U.S. do, but is entirely another matter when one becomes an
            > apologist for thier heresy. This is not necesssary to defend them as
            > residents of our country. A nation which does not arrest those who do
            > not believe as we do, as happens in the kindly peacful folks home
            > country. Just as Jesus did not commit violence against those who did
            > not believe his word,nor should we. However, it is a dangerous
            > concept to become a Koranic apologist. It is wrong, their beliefs are
            > a dead end a street where God's grace does not reside.
            > Matthew 7: 18 put is best "A good tree cannot bring forth evil
            > fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit." This says
            > it all. They co-exist as peaceful no doubt,here in the U.S anyway.
            > But to apologize for thier beliefs in heresy and a wrong road to
            > travel my friend as the Bible says. If one person lived and acted as
            > Jesus lived and another lived and acted as as Mohammed lived, which
            > one would be more prone to violence, sexual immorality including the
            > rape of non-believers, and the spreading of thier faith by the sword
            > and not by the love in thier word?
            >
            > Mark Penn
          • JCampbell
            ... Jim: Let s look at this among Christians. I figure you know some people who say they are Chrsitians, yet they quickly deny certain teaching of the Bible,
            Message 5 of 22 , Oct 1, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In apologetics@y..., "R. Jane" <r-jane@h...> wrote:
              > how does this discussion have anything to do with the Muslims we
              > may come into contact with daily

              Jim: Let's look at this among Christians. I figure you know some
              people who say they are Chrsitians, yet they quickly deny certain
              teaching of the Bible, and bicker among themselves over doctrines.
              Some believe and try to practice every part of the Bible, while
              others don't appear to practice enough of it to make them
              recognizable as believers. Do you think of a term for people who say
              they believe something, but in reality don't or just haven't bothered
              to take time to learn what they report as believed?

              The world of Islam has a similar problem. There are fundamentalists
              who believe all the Koran, and there are moderates who concentrate on
              certain parts of it. There is a great difference between Christians
              and Muslims in how they deal with that problem. Fundamentalist
              Muslims simply kill moderate Muslims. Anwar Sadat of Egypt was
              assinated by fundamentalist Muslims because of his watered down
              attitude toward the ideals of the fundamentalists. They knew his
              leaning because of his friendliness with "Satan"- America and
              willinglness to work for peace with Israel.

              America is full of moderates. Thank God. There are maybe 7 million of
              them. However, many experts are concerned about how they will deal
              with the future demands to obed the Koran or face executions,
              persecutions, and other miseries for taking a weak stance toward
              Islam. Just like many Christians, most Muslims can't give much
              doctrinal fact about their belief. They are Muslim because their
              family was and is. Their children go off to college and there taste
              of freedoms not allowed at home or in their home nations. Some are
              alarmed over those freedoms, and express their dismay toward other
              non-Muslim students. Others seethe in their contempt. My own daughter
              was forced to share her dorm woom with a Muslim girl who made it
              impossible for her to study there. The prayer rituals, the refusal to
              call her by her Christian name, the oppressive female Muslim friends
              that demanded her absense for "private" visitation, and many other
              problems caused her to loose interest in college without another
              place to live. There, Muslim males wait outside the dorm to escort
              each of the women to classes or wherever, forbidding anyone to speak
              to them- even a room mate. They refused to eat in cafeterias, cooking
              obnoxious smelling dishes in the room and stinking candles and
              insence. The college allows them to do those things, but not other
              students since it is part of the religion.

              The day will come when all existing Muslims will be expected to obey
              the law of Qu'ran and straighten out 100%, or face extreme penalties,
              such as individual tewrrorist attacks on their own. Once their own
              house is in order in America, they will enforce Qu'ran and carry out
              its instructions for all the infidels. All will be required to
              convert or perish.

              You can read all about it in the Qu'ran at
              http://mukhtar.home.mindspring.com/index.html

              If you need more direct quotes, say so. It is written. If you are a
              non-Muslim, you will be a target- someday. That goes for unbelievers
              of any brand- Christian, Jew, Buddhist, Hindu, whatever. All will bow
              to Allah and obey Muhammad, or perish- if they have the nerve to
              carry it out. Or they might choose to die as a sacrifice for all the
              rest of us, rejecting the fundamentalist demands at their own peril.

              In His Royal Service,
              Jim Campbell
            • R. Jane
              I m just not so sure and it sounds too much like the fear that was directed to the Japanese after Pearl Harbor. Are we going to round up all US Islams and put
              Message 6 of 22 , Oct 1, 2001
              • 0 Attachment
                I'm just not so sure and it sounds too much like the fear that was directed
                to the Japanese after Pearl Harbor. Are we going to round up all US Islams
                and put them in camps too ? It's just the promoting fear factor that puts
                up signals for me, dividing ala the Us and Them. I'm sure if I desired to
                take the time, I could find sources to counteract the fear-all-Islams that
                have been in some of these posts. There are sources out there to back up
                most any opinion. As Judeo-Christians, are we to fear Islams, or lay down
                our life loving them ?

                Jane




                ----- Original Message -----
                From: "JCampbell" <jcampbell90@...>
                To: <apologetics@yahoogroups.com>
                Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 5:09 PM
                Subject: [apologetics] Re: What causes Muslim terrorism?


                > --- In apologetics@y..., "R. Jane" <r-jane@h...> wrote:
                > > how does this discussion have anything to do with the Muslims we
                > > may come into contact with daily
                >
                > Jim: Let's look at this among Christians. I figure you know some
                > people who say they are Chrsitians, yet they quickly deny certain
                > teaching of the Bible, and bicker among themselves over doctrines.
                > Some believe and try to practice every part of the Bible, while
                > others don't appear to practice enough of it to make them
                > recognizable as believers. Do you think of a term for people who say
                > they believe something, but in reality don't or just haven't bothered
                > to take time to learn what they report as believed?
                >
                > The world of Islam has a similar problem. There are fundamentalists
                > who believe all the Koran, and there are moderates who concentrate on
                > certain parts of it. There is a great difference between Christians
                > and Muslims in how they deal with that problem. Fundamentalist
                > Muslims simply kill moderate Muslims. Anwar Sadat of Egypt was
                > assinated by fundamentalist Muslims because of his watered down
                > attitude toward the ideals of the fundamentalists. They knew his
                > leaning because of his friendliness with "Satan"- America and
                > willinglness to work for peace with Israel.
                >
                > America is full of moderates. Thank God. There are maybe 7 million of
                > them. However, many experts are concerned about how they will deal
                > with the future demands to obed the Koran or face executions,
                > persecutions, and other miseries for taking a weak stance toward
                > Islam. Just like many Christians, most Muslims can't give much
                > doctrinal fact about their belief. They are Muslim because their
                > family was and is. Their children go off to college and there taste
                > of freedoms not allowed at home or in their home nations. Some are
                > alarmed over those freedoms, and express their dismay toward other
                > non-Muslim students. Others seethe in their contempt. My own daughter
                > was forced to share her dorm woom with a Muslim girl who made it
                > impossible for her to study there. The prayer rituals, the refusal to
                > call her by her Christian name, the oppressive female Muslim friends
                > that demanded her absense for "private" visitation, and many other
                > problems caused her to loose interest in college without another
                > place to live. There, Muslim males wait outside the dorm to escort
                > each of the women to classes or wherever, forbidding anyone to speak
                > to them- even a room mate. They refused to eat in cafeterias, cooking
                > obnoxious smelling dishes in the room and stinking candles and
                > insence. The college allows them to do those things, but not other
                > students since it is part of the religion.
                >
                > The day will come when all existing Muslims will be expected to obey
                > the law of Qu'ran and straighten out 100%, or face extreme penalties,
                > such as individual tewrrorist attacks on their own. Once their own
                > house is in order in America, they will enforce Qu'ran and carry out
                > its instructions for all the infidels. All will be required to
                > convert or perish.
                >
                > You can read all about it in the Qu'ran at
                > http://mukhtar.home.mindspring.com/index.html
                >
                > If you need more direct quotes, say so. It is written. If you are a
                > non-Muslim, you will be a target- someday. That goes for unbelievers
                > of any brand- Christian, Jew, Buddhist, Hindu, whatever. All will bow
                > to Allah and obey Muhammad, or perish- if they have the nerve to
                > carry it out. Or they might choose to die as a sacrifice for all the
                > rest of us, rejecting the fundamentalist demands at their own peril.
                >
                > In His Royal Service,
                > Jim Campbell
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > Brought to you by W.I.T.N.E.S.S. Ministries.
                > http://apologetics.hypermart.net/
                > 1 Peter 3:15, Jude 3
                >
                > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                >
                >
              • JCampbell
                ... Jim: Please tell me where the Bible teaches us to lay our lives down for anyone. Scarcely will a man do that for his friends. I believe Jesus did that for
                Message 7 of 22 , Oct 1, 2001
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In apologetics@y..., "R. Jane" <r-jane@h...> wrote:
                  > As Judeo-Christians, are we to fear Islams, or lay down
                  > our life loving them ?

                  Jim: Please tell me where the Bible teaches us to lay our lives down
                  for anyone. Scarcely will a man do that for his friends. I believe
                  Jesus did that for all men that they might believe on Him and be
                  saved. Believers are said to die to sin once then reckon ourselves
                  dead to sin daily. Nor is it necessary for us to fear any man- but
                  God only. So it is that each true Christian has already laid down
                  their former lives, arising fresh in Christ. With our new life we
                  can love our enemies. Jesus taught that means preaching the Gospel to
                  them, not tolerating their erronious religious beliefs. Permit, yes,
                  tolerate, no.

                  Maybe this will help put my thoughts in perspective. If our
                  television programming were to be suddenly taken over all over
                  America with a message from a strange green man from Mars claiming we
                  will all be rounded up for market on Mars, we would all be upset,
                  right? Am I to suppose you would the next day spot some green men on
                  the street and submit to them, choosing to love them regardless the
                  promised destiny? You wouldn't surprise me if you said "yes", for
                  many Christians are pacifists who would welcome the creatures in
                  hopes their show of faith would preserve them.

                  Muslims around the world are going around rounding up Christians and
                  other peoples, subjecting them to the greatest persecution unto death
                  ever in history. No other time has seen the level of martyrdom
                  existing around the world today. They are represented loudly by
                  extremist fundamentalists who have vowed to destroy America, which
                  they refer to as "The Great Satan". Beginning with our embassies,
                  then our military baracks, and now the trajedy of 9/11, what they
                  have promised will come has come. Much more is on the way. As long
                  as pacifists block our path to reasonable security, their journey is
                  an easy one down a very wide path of destruction. As with any group
                  it is the vocal minority that leads the way. The Christian majority
                  sits by and allows some liberal church people to represent us,
                  promoting homosexuality in classrooms, and many other abominations
                  the Bible expressly forbids. We let them! We could stop it, but
                  won't. Muslims in America could assure their extremists could not
                  prosper here too, but they won't risk their liberty either. So all
                  tolerate sin in the camp. But with this, the reluctance of American
                  Christians to defend themselves could be our total undoing as it has
                  been around the world. We are drowning in misbegotten concepts of
                  liberty expressed in terms of tolerance, forgetting the very
                  foundations of our great nation. It was upon Jesus Christ. Now it is
                  more on prosperity.

                  Christians are permitted to take up a sword for defense, by the very
                  words of Jesus. So who should be at the point of our swords? All
                  who threaten the basis upon which our free worship of Jesus Christ
                  rests. Anyone who really believes the Quran cannot accept that. I
                  am not interested in targeting Muslims who reject the Quran's
                  commands to cram Islam down every creature's throat. It is the ones
                  who do believe that who should be targeted. That religious belief
                  has no place in a land of liberty. It is totally incompatible. We
                  have laws against hate groups that would eliminate blacks, Jews,
                  homos, etc. Their very beliefs as groups are condemned by law.
                  They must meet in secret. The reason for that treatment by our legal
                  arm is to preserve order, in the name of decency and constitutional
                  rights. So why shouldn't we add laws forbidding groups that hold to
                  forced conversion of non-Muslims? If that involves profiling, then
                  why not. What other tool is available to force the groups to be
                  identified? Profiling allows men to put people on the spot,
                  discovering any illegal intent before terrorism occurs. So how else
                  shall we find them? Ask them all to fill out a questionnaire?

                  It is my hope that Muslims everywhere will decide to seek out whether
                  their Quran actually teaches the things the extremists promote,
                  rather than simplisticaly declaring Islam isn't about that. Sorry,
                  but pure Islam IS about mandatory acceptance of Islam world-wide.
                  Maybe some or even most of them will give up Islam if they truly
                  believe in peace and tolerance of other religions. I figure few know
                  what is there other than what is read to them. I am exposing what it
                  says about us, that some of them might see it for what it is- a lie
                  from Hell.

                  Our own Bible has accounts of God commanding the Hebrews to slaughter
                  men, women, children and beasts for the simple reason they were in
                  the way of establishment of Israel. Some people today could
                  mistakenly take that as a precident to go around removing peoples
                  that interfere with the Kingdom of Heaven. It is possible that
                  happened in the past, but that is not what Christians do now, for
                  Jesus didn't promote that. There was a specific purpose in those
                  terrible things men had to do long ago. They were commanded.

                  The Quran, however, is not specific as to a particular purpose or era
                  other than the overall goal of converting the whole world to Islam.
                  The difference between events of the Bible and standing commands of
                  the Quran are as wide apart as the east is from the west.

                  The time has come for Muslims to specifically condemn the Quran, at
                  least the parts that offend so greatly. And if they do that, then
                  what does that say of its "Holy" nature, given by God? Could a
                  Muslim recant those things? Would he remain a Muslim? Those are the
                  tough decisions that must be laid in the laps of all Muslims that
                  claim to be trustworthy Americans we can live side by side with.

                  It's a matter of survival. Go share Christ with a Muslim and turn it
                  around. It appears from the Barna reports they are doing a better
                  job in America than American Christians are soing here. Get to it,
                  CHURCH!

                  In His Royal Service,
                  Jim Campbell
                • John Sabatino
                  Hey Ted, Long time no chat, bud. Skimming through quickly here...please forgive the lack of rigor... Certainly Islam has ... I don t know....Isn t the
                  Message 8 of 22 , Oct 1, 2001
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Hey Ted,

                    Long time no chat, bud.

                    Skimming through quickly here...please forgive the lack of rigor...


                    Certainly Islam has
                    > participated in all manner of wars and forced conversions, but
                    > if we were to shift Islam back into the times of the Old Testament
                    > would we then consider Islam to be any more warlike than the
                    > Israelites of Moses and Joshua's time? This is a question I
                    > doubt can be easily answered, but I do know that modern Jews
                    > should not be viewed with suspicion because of wars their
                    > ancestors participated in with the apparent blessing of their
                    > God.

                    I don't know....Isn't the discussion certain doctrines that promote
                    continued acts of violence in the name of God? I don't know how relevant
                    alleged instances in a religion of direct divine mandate are to that. The
                    conquest of Joshua doesn't seem to, in any way, lend itself to some sort of
                    generalized principle about justified violence.

                    > You mistakenly assume I refer to Christianity. What about
                    > Judaism?
                    >
                    > | If a man or woman living among you in one of the towns the LORD
                    > | gives you is found doing evil in the eyes of the LORD your God in
                    > | violation of his covenant, and contrary to my command has worshiped
                    > | other gods, bowing down to them or to the sun or the moon or the
                    > | stars of the sky, and this has been brought to your attention, then
                    > | you must investigate it thoroughly. If it is true and it has been
                    > | proved that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, take
                    > | the man or woman who has done this evil deed to your city gate and
                    > | stone that person to death.
                    > Deut. 17:2-5

                    This seems to be off track a bit...I think we should stick to what we *all*
                    would agree is unjustified violence - i.e. acts of terrorism/war
                    specifically involving intentional destruction of large amounts of innocent
                    lives - not what was an agreed upon legal measure and shows no sign of
                    lending itself to illegal vigilante-type justice interpretations in modern
                    times.


                    >
                    > See also Deuteronomy 13.
                    >
                    > Indeed, even for the Christian, the NT must be examined closely
                    > and within a careful interpretive framework to be assured that the
                    > above verse is no longer applicable. Even today, Christians are
                    > divided over exactly where to draw the line between the OT civil and
                    > ceremonial laws and I have had long discussions with Christians
                    > who believe the death-penalty might be lawful for public homosexuality
                    > and for adultery.

                    Which doesn't seem to have anything to do with the issue of war/terrorism
                    that's being discussed. And I don't see these issues or discussion of them
                    as often provoking people to take matters into their own hands as perhaps
                    the extremist interpretations of the Quran have. Usually its a matter of
                    trying to affect the legal system, isn't it?


                    > > Where in the OT (or NT) does it say that God will scald
                    > > peoples' faces when they ask for mercy? You specifically
                    > > asked about the OT -- the meanest hell-verse in the OT is at
                    > > the end of Isaiah, and the people who were in the fire have
                    > > already died the second death & aren't suffering. If you don't
                    > > see the difference between that & a cry for mercy being answered
                    > > with someone's face being scalded, then there's not much I can
                    > > add to the words there.
                    >
                    > I don't see a moral difference between torturing someone in a lake
                    > of burning sulfur regardless of their pleas, and scalding
                    > someone's face in response to a plea.

                    I'm not sure that's literal there but perhaps that's beside the point :-).

                    Take care,

                    John
                  • R. Jane
                    From: JCampbell ... It is at John 15 : 12 and 1John 3 :16 : the 1John -- This is how we know what love is : Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we
                    Message 9 of 22 , Oct 2, 2001
                    • 0 Attachment
                      From: "JCampbell

                      > --- In apologetics@y..., "R. Jane" <r-jane@h...> wrote:
                      > > As Judeo-Christians, are we to fear Islams, or lay down
                      > > our life loving them ?
                      >
                      > Jim: Please tell me where the Bible teaches us to lay our lives down
                      > for anyone.

                      It is at John 15 : 12 and 1John 3 :16 : the 1John -- This is how we know
                      what love is : Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay
                      down our lives for our brothers.

                      In the time I devoted to it I was unable to find an online translation from
                      the Greek for these verses. I just think of the lesson of the Good
                      Samaritan and who is our neighbor and that essentially is everyone.

                      >Scarcely will a man do that for his friends.

                      Seems I've read those same words in the Bible too.

                      >I believe
                      > Jesus did that for all men that they might believe on Him and be
                      > saved. Believers are said to die to sin once then reckon ourselves
                      > dead to sin daily.

                      Yes, I agree with you on that. But that is different from what I mean that
                      the extent of our love is to go to laying down our life - actual physical
                      life -- life and dead in the ground ashes to ashes thing.

                      >Nor is it necessary for us to fear any man- but God only.

                      Amen and love doesn't have fear and God is love. So why put out words that
                      generate fear of the "them", the Islams. Fear is not love and is not of
                      God.

                      > So it is that each true Christian has already laid down
                      > their former lives, arising fresh in Christ. With our new life we
                      > can love our enemies. Jesus taught that means preaching the Gospel to
                      > them, not tolerating their erronious religious beliefs. Permit, yes,
                      > tolerate, no.

                      There is an "us" and "them" ala those who have accepted Christs death as
                      propitiation for their sin and those who have not. But again I say it is
                      not of God to fear "them" nor generate fear of "them." Further, my own
                      belief, there really is no "us" and "them" because even though I have
                      accepted Christ's death as paying for my sin, "them" and "us" still are
                      sinners living under God's grace and mercy and compassion. Yes, there is a
                      fine line to be walked only with the help of the Holy Spirit to be able to
                      love and adhere to holiness. It is not preach the gospel over here and love
                      everyone over there. Love and preaching are hand in hand and my opinion,
                      the love speaks louder than preaching. We are not to make this a nation of
                      all christians. We are to live our lives as a witness and be able to speak
                      of our belief ie preach the gospel. Christians one by one, not the goal of
                      a nation of all christians. (oh boy am I going to get the flak for that)

                      > Maybe this will help put my thoughts in perspective. If our
                      > television programming were to be suddenly taken over all over
                      > America with a message from a strange green man from Mars claiming we
                      > will all be rounded up for market on Mars, we would all be upset,
                      > right? Am I to suppose you would the next day spot some green men on
                      > the street and submit to them, choosing to love them regardless the
                      > promised destiny? You wouldn't surprise me if you said "yes", for
                      > many Christians are pacifists who would welcome the creatures in
                      > hopes their show of faith would preserve them.

                      What I see here is you are promoting that we fear all green men from Mars
                      before they've shown they all intend us harm. What you are supposing with
                      the mars green men has not happened with Islam. Some extremist
                      fundamentalist Islams crashed the planes. I do not believe your regular Joe
                      Islam on the street is to be feared because of what an extremist group is
                      doing. Instead of promoting fear, how about promoting that we talk with the
                      Islams we come into contact with and find out what they think ? I get
                      nervous anytime any group of people are lumped into a "them."


                      > Muslims around the world are going around rounding up Christians and
                      > other peoples, subjecting them to the greatest persecution unto death
                      > ever in history. No other time has seen the level of martyrdom
                      > existing around the world today. They are represented loudly by
                      > extremist fundamentalists who have vowed to destroy America, which
                      > they refer to as "The Great Satan".

                      Yes ! you said it right there -- extremist fundamentalists. And I agree,
                      there have been pockets on this globe where *extremist* Muslims have
                      slaughtered those who do not adhere to their faith. There also have been
                      pockets on this globe where ethnic groups have or are slaughtering each
                      other. Does that mean I should then fear Africans or Croatians ?

                      Beginning with our embassies,
                      > then our military baracks, and now the trajedy of 9/11, what they
                      > have promised will come has come. Much more is on the way. As long
                      > as pacifists block our path to reasonable security, their journey is
                      > an easy one down a very wide path of destruction. As with any group
                      > it is the vocal minority that leads the way.

                      Sorry bro, what I hear here is more fear, fear, fear.

                      The Christian majority
                      > sits by and allows some liberal church people to represent us,
                      > promoting homosexuality in classrooms, and many other abominations
                      > the Bible expressly forbids.

                      From Islams to homos, again what I hear is the fear, fear, fear of "them",
                      "them", "them."

                      We let them! We could stop it, but
                      > won't. Muslims in America could assure their extremists could not
                      > prosper here too, but they won't risk their liberty either. So all
                      > tolerate sin in the camp. But with this, the reluctance of American
                      > Christians to defend themselves could be our total undoing as it has
                      > been around the world. We are drowning in misbegotten concepts of
                      > liberty expressed in terms of tolerance, forgetting the very
                      > foundations of our great nation. It was upon Jesus Christ. Now it is
                      > more on prosperity.

                      Lost me there bro.

                      > Christians are permitted to take up a sword for defense, by the very
                      > words of Jesus. So who should be at the point of our swords? All
                      > who threaten the basis upon which our free worship of Jesus Christ
                      > rests.

                      Sounds to me what a call from the time of the Crusades might have sounded
                      like. Kill the infidels ! -- "They" promote a belief that differs from the
                      pure christian faith !

                      I am not interested in targeting Muslims who reject the Quran's
                      > commands to cram Islam down every creature's throat.

                      Good, then upon this we agree.

                      It is the ones
                      > who do believe that who should be targeted.

                      Anyone who kills another for whatever reason, is due the justice of the
                      land. Those who crashed the planes, those who help those who crashed the
                      planes, yes, justice should come to them. But not suspicion and fear of all
                      Muslims.

                      That religious belief
                      > has no place in a land of liberty. It is totally incompatible. We
                      > have laws against hate groups that would eliminate blacks, Jews,
                      > homos, etc. Their very beliefs as groups are condemned by law.
                      > They must meet in secret. The reason for that treatment by our legal
                      > arm is to preserve order, in the name of decency and constitutional
                      > rights. So why shouldn't we add laws forbidding groups that hold to
                      > forced conversion of non-Muslims?

                      Perhaps we agree here too. To bring justice upon those Muslims who kill if
                      you don't agree to their faith, yes.

                      If that involves profiling, then
                      > why not. What other tool is available to force the groups to be
                      > identified? Profiling allows men to put people on the spot,
                      > discovering any illegal intent before terrorism occurs. So how else
                      > shall we find them? Ask them all to fill out a questionnaire?

                      <clip>

                      > The Quran, however, is not specific as to a particular purpose or era
                      > other than the overall goal of converting the whole world to Islam.
                      > The difference between events of the Bible and standing commands of
                      > the Quran are as wide apart as the east is from the west.

                      And as you pointed out there may be Muslims who really haven't examined
                      their faith and may abandon it if what is happening now causes them to
                      examine what they espouse to believe.

                      > The time has come for Muslims to specifically condemn the Quran, at
                      > least the parts that offend so greatly. And if they do that, then
                      > what does that say of its "Holy" nature, given by God? Could a
                      > Muslim recant those things? Would he remain a Muslim? Those are the
                      > tough decisions that must be laid in the laps of all Muslims that
                      > claim to be trustworthy Americans we can live side by side with.
                      >
                      > It's a matter of survival. Go share Christ with a Muslim and turn it
                      > around. It appears from the Barna reports they are doing a better
                      > job in America than American Christians are soing here. Get to it,
                      > CHURCH!
                      >
                      > In His Royal Service,
                      > Jim Campbell

                      Yes, but I remember Jim, that ultimately God is in charge. (hoo-boy, please
                      not the Calvinist/Armenian thing Again ! )

                      Bumbling beside God,
                      Jane
                    • KRINKS@PFNMAIL.NET
                      Once again Jim Cambell, well done and I couldn t agree more. If Extremist Muslims from certain countries were profiled after the first World Trade Center
                      Message 10 of 22 , Oct 2, 2001
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Once again Jim Cambell, well done and I couldn't agree more. If
                        Extremist Muslims from certain countries were profiled after the
                        first World Trade Center bombing, Sept 11th would never have
                        happened.If I lived in Iraq during the gulf war, I would have
                        expected such treatment. Similarly, those that fit the profile here
                        should expect such treatment as well and consider it a price to pay
                        to live in a free society.We can not turn our backs on and apologize
                        for a satanic belief whose ultimate goal is our elimination as
                        Infidels who deny Mohammed. All of the apologies going on in the
                        defense of Islam is disgusting.To say that we can trust those who
                        believe in Mohammed, but not too much, is ignorant of Muslim
                        fundamentalism. If forced to choose between Allah and loyalty to the
                        U.S., which side do you think they will choose? I'll keep r5epeating
                        this for it bears remebering: Matthew 7:16&17 "Ye shall know them by
                        their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
                        Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree
                        bringeth forth evil fruit." Those that do not accept the love and
                        word of Jesus as the Christ are bad fruit from a bad tree. When
                        trying to apologize for other belief systems this bears remebering.


                        Mark Penn
                      • JCampbell
                        ... Jim: Reconcile that with this, then propose what Jesus meant... Luke 22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and
                        Message 11 of 22 , Oct 2, 2001
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In apologetics@y..., "R. Jane" <r-jane@h...> wrote:
                          > It is at John 15 : 12 and 1John 3 :16 : the 1John -- This is how
                          > we know what love is : Jesus Christ laid down his life for us.
                          > And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers.

                          Jim: Reconcile that with this, then propose what Jesus meant...
                          Luke 22:36
                          "Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him
                          take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him
                          sell his garment, and buy one."

                          I don't think He had carving wood, splitting melons, or making a show
                          of sport swordsmenship in mind. He had in mind enemies who would
                          threaten. The subject is a weapon used to slay men and wild animals,
                          and He didn't distinguish which should be the targets. Enemies are
                          not "brethren" to Christians, but are indeed "neighbors". We are to
                          help neighbors, pray for enemies, obviously slay those who would rise
                          above the law to kill us, while loving the brethren who are in union
                          with us. If we can't love fellow Christians regardless the
                          differences, what hope will the world have they too can be loved?

                          What of 1 Jn 3:16? The "brother" in that passage is from the Greek
                          adelphos, from Greek as a connective particle) and delphus (the
                          womb); a brother in union (literal or figurative) near or remote
                          [much like Hebrew 1 ('ab)] :- brother.
                          That diesn't indicate our enemies. Jesus just said we should pray for
                          them. Maybe you could elaborate on what Jesus offered as a model for
                          such a prayer.

                          > In the time I devoted to it I was unable to find an online
                          > translation from the Greek for these verses. I just think of the
                          > lesson of the Good Samaritan and who is our neighbor and that
                          > essentially is everyone.

                          Jim: A good start would be www.onlinebible.com, which offers the KJV,
                          and Strongs, free, as well as lots of other goodies to study with.
                          That lesson has to do with neighbors, not enemies in position to kill
                          us. The man in despair of life was incapitated, in need. I think
                          the US is demonstrating that principle by feeding the Afgans fleeing
                          the terror. What shall befall the Taliban forces and other national
                          terrorist supporters like Saddam is of other lessons.

                          > Further, my own belief, there really is no "us" and "them" because
                          > even though I have accepted Christ's death as paying for my
                          > sin, "them" and "us" still are sinners living under God's grace and
                          > mercy and compassion.

                          Jim: You are entitled to your belief, but I find that contradictory
                          to what the Bible teaches. If you are still a sinner, you have no
                          part in Jesus Christ. 1 John 3:8
                          "He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth
                          from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested,
                          that he might destroy the works of the devil."

                          Are you born again? If so, what kind of creature are you? Just like
                          the one that died, or like Jesus?

                          > We are not to make this a nation of all christians. We are to live
                          > our lives as a witness and be able to speak of our belief ie preach
                          > the gospel. Christians one by one, not the goal of a nation of all
                          > christians. (oh boy am I going to get the flak for that)

                          Jim: Mark 16:15
                          "And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the
                          gospel to every creature."
                          Matthew 24:14
                          "And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the
                          world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come."

                          Our task is to present the gospel to ALL, including our own land. It
                          is God's job to save those who believe. The Bible doesn't indicate
                          all in any land will become Christians, though there is no teaching
                          that prevents such a lofty goal of having a nation 100% Christian. I
                          think that if we seek to see less would be somewhat of unbelief.

                          > What I see here is you are promoting that we fear all green men
                          > from Mars before they've shown they all intend us harm.

                          Jim: In my scenario I made it clear the stated intent was our
                          destruction. I gave no example of other green men giving assurance
                          the announcers would not succeed. What you call "fear" of little
                          green men I call being aware of who my enemies are, calling for due
                          care around them. It is normal for people of a threatened nation to
                          become alarmed, organize around a common threat which is tuned with
                          fear, then take up arms necessary to deal with the threat. You no
                          doubt have had no military training or experience. One of the first
                          things you learn in battle is extreme fear. It is inescapable. But
                          without it you are too naive and will be run over because of a lack
                          of desperation to win in battle. Even a Christian soldier in a
                          foxhole will experience it or he has a bullet through his head
                          already.

                          > What you are supposing with the mars green men has not happened
                          > with Islam.

                          Jim: This very night the Arab nations are before the UN pledging to
                          eradicate terrorism while demanding statehood for Palestine on
                          Israeli territory, which includes all of Jerusalem, not just the Arab
                          quarters. I'd say that is a pretty solid confirmation of all I've
                          been saying. ALL the Arab nations of the UN are demanding we turn on
                          Israel, support Palestinian muslims. IF we will do this they will do
                          that. We have an ultimatum before us. The urgency is no less
                          dangerous that the threat of the green men. The intent is there.
                          Arab muslims are offering peace and hope on condition, while the
                          backers of terrorism are not backing down. It is a two-edged sword.
                          Do you suppose the Arab nations don't represent the Islam held by
                          American Muslims? If not, where did the change come from, and are
                          Amrican Muslims really Muslims?

                          > Instead of promoting fear, how about promoting that we talk with the
                          > Islams we come into contact with and find out what they think ? I
                          > get nervous anytime any group of people are lumped into a "them."

                          Jim: OK, so what are we hearing from the Muslim world in America? I
                          am hearing what is being proposed in the UN tonight. "Awful, that
                          terrorism, BUT, if we would re-examine our policy concerning
                          Palestine.....". Point is, the Muslims ARE being asked to support
                          our national obligation to respect the nation Israel. What are THEY
                          saying about that? Visit us at yahoo group "Christian-Answers" to
                          get a good archived record of a great battle beteween Christians and
                          Muslims, and a brief chat with one current today. None of it is
                          pretty, but you can get a good taste for what they are actually up to.

                          > > Muslims around the world are going around rounding up
                          Christians...

                          > Yes ! you said it right there -- extremist fundamentalists.

                          Jim: What do you say concerning the silent majority of Muslims in
                          those countries that stand by allowing the extremists to have their
                          way? I place them in the same category of the majority of Germans
                          who stood by allowing the Holocast. All became guilty and all
                          suffered, rightfully.

                          > And I agree, there have been pockets on this globe where
                          > xtremist* Muslims have
                          > slaughtered those who do not adhere to their faith.

                          Jim: Please don't trivialize the impact. It is many places, with
                          hundreds of thousands of extremists killing hundreds of thousands.

                          > There also have been pockets on this globe where ethnic groups have
                          > or are slaughtering each other. Does that mean I should then fear
                          > Africans or Croatians ?

                          Jim: If you went to Afganistan tomorrow and were discovered preaching
                          the gospel to an Afgan, you would be arrested and probably killed. If
                          the Lord so directs you to do that, then you will soon be with Him.
                          Otherwise, it's OK to fear that and use common sense, staying away,
                          preaching the gospel somewhere else. If you went to certain African
                          nations you would probably not even get a chance to preach. You would
                          quickly understand what "fear" is and what its value is toward
                          guidance. While not fearing men concerning our eternal security,
                          there is a healthy fear of unnecessary, untimely death for no purpose.

                          > > Christians are permitted to take up a sword for defense, by the
                          > > very words of Jesus. So who should be at the point of our
                          > > swords? All who threaten the basis upon which our free worship
                          > > of Jesus Christ rests.

                          > Sounds to me what a call from the time of the Crusades might have
                          > sounded like. Kill the infidels ! -- "They" promote a belief that
                          > differs from the pure christian faith !

                          Jim: Our Bible deals with infidels differently. A man that won't
                          support his family is worse than an infidel. We don't kill fathers
                          who leave their families without support, not do we kill lesser forms
                          of sinners.
                          The Crusaders had a justifiable mission, that of wresting Jerusalem
                          from the Muslims. They failed, but kept them where they are, except
                          for more modern conquests, such as Egypt, Indonesia, etc.

                          In His Royal Service,
                          Jim Campbell
                        • R. Jane
                          Jim, I think since we live in a broken world of course there are times where we must unfortunately kill those who propogate evil. I agree that Bin Laden and
                          Message 12 of 22 , Oct 2, 2001
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Jim, I think since we live in a broken world of course there are times where
                            we must unfortunately kill those who propogate evil. I agree that Bin Laden
                            and those who support Bin Laden and help Bin Laden are such people. I will
                            not agree that the John Doe Muslim who walks the street of my town is in the
                            same category. Would you support the action of rounding up all Muslims and
                            put them in camps because of what some of them may do ? I don't. I can't
                            remember where, but I saw a Bible reference that God established governments
                            to enact justice and your reference to Jesus saying to take a sword, I would
                            tie to that, and we are to pray for our governmental people and submit to
                            their authority unless it is ungodly. Then that can spawn a whole other
                            argument of when was the last time there really was a godly war.

                            I agree, there's times we must kill. I am not advocating unilateral across
                            the board pacifism. But as I keep saying, I don't think it's good to
                            promote fear. Speak of the what's and the why's, but not to promote the
                            fear of "them."

                            I'm willing to stop at this and admit there are points 1) we are not hearing
                            each other and 2) we are talking past each other and 3) there are points we
                            agree on but points we won't agree on

                            Jane


                            .
                            From: "JCampbell"

                            > --- In apologetics@y..., "R. Jane" <r-jane@h...> wrote:
                            > > It is at John 15 : 12 and 1John 3 :16 : the 1John -- This is how
                            > > we know what love is : Jesus Christ laid down his life for us.
                            > > And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers.
                            >
                            > Jim: Reconcile that with this, then propose what Jesus meant...
                            > Luke 22:36
                            > "Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him
                            > take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him
                            > sell his garment, and buy one."
                            >
                            > I don't think He had carving wood, splitting melons, or making a show
                            > of sport swordsmenship in mind. He had in mind enemies who would
                            > threaten. The subject is a weapon used to slay men and wild animals,
                            > and He didn't distinguish which should be the targets. Enemies are
                            > not "brethren" to Christians, but are indeed "neighbors". We are to
                            > help neighbors, pray for enemies, obviously slay those who would rise
                            > above the law to kill us, while loving the brethren who are in union
                            > with us. If we can't love fellow Christians regardless the
                            > differences, what hope will the world have they too can be loved?
                            >
                            > What of 1 Jn 3:16? The "brother" in that passage is from the Greek
                            > adelphos, from Greek as a connective particle) and delphus (the
                            > womb); a brother in union (literal or figurative) near or remote
                            > [much like Hebrew 1 ('ab)] :- brother.
                            > That diesn't indicate our enemies. Jesus just said we should pray for
                            > them. Maybe you could elaborate on what Jesus offered as a model for
                            > such a prayer.
                            >
                            > > In the time I devoted to it I was unable to find an online
                            > > translation from the Greek for these verses. I just think of the
                            > > lesson of the Good Samaritan and who is our neighbor and that
                            > > essentially is everyone.
                            >
                            > Jim: A good start would be www.onlinebible.com, which offers the KJV,
                            > and Strongs, free, as well as lots of other goodies to study with.
                            > That lesson has to do with neighbors, not enemies in position to kill
                            > us. The man in despair of life was incapitated, in need. I think
                            > the US is demonstrating that principle by feeding the Afgans fleeing
                            > the terror. What shall befall the Taliban forces and other national
                            > terrorist supporters like Saddam is of other lessons.
                            >
                            > > Further, my own belief, there really is no "us" and "them" because
                            > > even though I have accepted Christ's death as paying for my
                            > > sin, "them" and "us" still are sinners living under God's grace and
                            > > mercy and compassion.
                            >
                            > Jim: You are entitled to your belief, but I find that contradictory
                            > to what the Bible teaches. If you are still a sinner, you have no
                            > part in Jesus Christ. 1 John 3:8
                            > "He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth
                            > from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested,
                            > that he might destroy the works of the devil."
                            >
                            > Are you born again? If so, what kind of creature are you? Just like
                            > the one that died, or like Jesus?
                            >
                            > > We are not to make this a nation of all christians. We are to live
                            > > our lives as a witness and be able to speak of our belief ie preach
                            > > the gospel. Christians one by one, not the goal of a nation of all
                            > > christians. (oh boy am I going to get the flak for that)
                            >
                            > Jim: Mark 16:15
                            > "And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the
                            > gospel to every creature."
                            > Matthew 24:14
                            > "And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the
                            > world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come."
                            >
                            > Our task is to present the gospel to ALL, including our own land. It
                            > is God's job to save those who believe. The Bible doesn't indicate
                            > all in any land will become Christians, though there is no teaching
                            > that prevents such a lofty goal of having a nation 100% Christian. I
                            > think that if we seek to see less would be somewhat of unbelief.
                            >
                            > > What I see here is you are promoting that we fear all green men
                            > > from Mars before they've shown they all intend us harm.
                            >
                            > Jim: In my scenario I made it clear the stated intent was our
                            > destruction. I gave no example of other green men giving assurance
                            > the announcers would not succeed. What you call "fear" of little
                            > green men I call being aware of who my enemies are, calling for due
                            > care around them. It is normal for people of a threatened nation to
                            > become alarmed, organize around a common threat which is tuned with
                            > fear, then take up arms necessary to deal with the threat. You no
                            > doubt have had no military training or experience. One of the first
                            > things you learn in battle is extreme fear. It is inescapable. But
                            > without it you are too naive and will be run over because of a lack
                            > of desperation to win in battle. Even a Christian soldier in a
                            > foxhole will experience it or he has a bullet through his head
                            > already.
                            >
                            > > What you are supposing with the mars green men has not happened
                            > > with Islam.
                            >
                            > Jim: This very night the Arab nations are before the UN pledging to
                            > eradicate terrorism while demanding statehood for Palestine on
                            > Israeli territory, which includes all of Jerusalem, not just the Arab
                            > quarters. I'd say that is a pretty solid confirmation of all I've
                            > been saying. ALL the Arab nations of the UN are demanding we turn on
                            > Israel, support Palestinian muslims. IF we will do this they will do
                            > that. We have an ultimatum before us. The urgency is no less
                            > dangerous that the threat of the green men. The intent is there.
                            > Arab muslims are offering peace and hope on condition, while the
                            > backers of terrorism are not backing down. It is a two-edged sword.
                            > Do you suppose the Arab nations don't represent the Islam held by
                            > American Muslims? If not, where did the change come from, and are
                            > Amrican Muslims really Muslims?
                            >
                            > > Instead of promoting fear, how about promoting that we talk with the
                            > > Islams we come into contact with and find out what they think ? I
                            > > get nervous anytime any group of people are lumped into a "them."
                            >
                            > Jim: OK, so what are we hearing from the Muslim world in America? I
                            > am hearing what is being proposed in the UN tonight. "Awful, that
                            > terrorism, BUT, if we would re-examine our policy concerning
                            > Palestine.....". Point is, the Muslims ARE being asked to support
                            > our national obligation to respect the nation Israel. What are THEY
                            > saying about that? Visit us at yahoo group "Christian-Answers" to
                            > get a good archived record of a great battle beteween Christians and
                            > Muslims, and a brief chat with one current today. None of it is
                            > pretty, but you can get a good taste for what they are actually up to.
                            >
                            > > > Muslims around the world are going around rounding up
                            > Christians...
                            >
                            > > Yes ! you said it right there -- extremist fundamentalists.
                            >
                            > Jim: What do you say concerning the silent majority of Muslims in
                            > those countries that stand by allowing the extremists to have their
                            > way? I place them in the same category of the majority of Germans
                            > who stood by allowing the Holocast. All became guilty and all
                            > suffered, rightfully.
                            >
                            > > And I agree, there have been pockets on this globe where
                            > > xtremist* Muslims have
                            > > slaughtered those who do not adhere to their faith.
                            >
                            > Jim: Please don't trivialize the impact. It is many places, with
                            > hundreds of thousands of extremists killing hundreds of thousands.
                            >
                            > > There also have been pockets on this globe where ethnic groups have
                            > > or are slaughtering each other. Does that mean I should then fear
                            > > Africans or Croatians ?
                            >
                            > Jim: If you went to Afganistan tomorrow and were discovered preaching
                            > the gospel to an Afgan, you would be arrested and probably killed. If
                            > the Lord so directs you to do that, then you will soon be with Him.
                            > Otherwise, it's OK to fear that and use common sense, staying away,
                            > preaching the gospel somewhere else. If you went to certain African
                            > nations you would probably not even get a chance to preach. You would
                            > quickly understand what "fear" is and what its value is toward
                            > guidance. While not fearing men concerning our eternal security,
                            > there is a healthy fear of unnecessary, untimely death for no purpose.
                            >
                            > > > Christians are permitted to take up a sword for defense, by the
                            > > > very words of Jesus. So who should be at the point of our
                            > > > swords? All who threaten the basis upon which our free worship
                            > > > of Jesus Christ rests.
                            >
                            > > Sounds to me what a call from the time of the Crusades might have
                            > > sounded like. Kill the infidels ! -- "They" promote a belief that
                            > > differs from the pure christian faith !
                            >
                            > Jim: Our Bible deals with infidels differently. A man that won't
                            > support his family is worse than an infidel. We don't kill fathers
                            > who leave their families without support, not do we kill lesser forms
                            > of sinners.
                            > The Crusaders had a justifiable mission, that of wresting Jerusalem
                            > from the Muslims. They failed, but kept them where they are, except
                            > for more modern conquests, such as Egypt, Indonesia, etc.
                            >
                            > In His Royal Service,
                            > Jim Campbell
                          • JCampbell
                            ... Jim: Jane, maybe this will get my point across and expose where we are not coinciding on the issue. Fear you will, and so will I, if and when what is
                            Message 13 of 22 , Oct 3, 2001
                            • 0 Attachment
                              --- In apologetics@y..., "R. Jane" <r-jane@h...> wrote:
                              > But as I keep saying, I don't think it's good to
                              > promote fear. Speak of the what's and the why's, but not to
                              > promote the fear of "them."

                              Jim: Jane, maybe this will get my point across and expose where we
                              are not coinciding on the issue. Fear you will, and so will I, if
                              and when what is reported below is revisited. The US is about to
                              become officially a "goat" nation if we cave in to Muslim demands of
                              Palestinian statehood in exchange for their cooperation. It almost
                              happened, and presently the US is not arguing in the UN against the
                              Arab proposal of peace for statehood. We are simply siding with the
                              wrong guys by not taking a hardline stance against anything that
                              opposes God- "them" who in their heart hope Americans will abandon
                              Israel and support Palestinians, securing a "peace" we all desire so
                              much. We want Bin Laden enough to throw away our destiny in exchange
                              for allegiance with Arab forces to end terrorism. It may be too late
                              to salvage our would-be blessings from the Lord as a nation, but not
                              too late to pray for His mercy for the Church in America for standing
                              by and allowing this evil to overwhelm us. Like Esau selling his
                              inheritance for a pot of deer stew, so America could forfeit a
                              wonderful inheritance side by side with Israel in exchange for
                              protection of American property and lives.

                              The cost could well be that none of our fighting forces make it home,
                              God having abandoned them in the midst of troubles such as by tiny Ai
                              defeating the mighty Hebrew forces long ago, and the new "allies"
                              having turned on them in disgust for abandoning friends, the Jews,
                              even though they hate them so much.

                              They won't touch Israel without great harm, but all the forces
                              arrayed toward Israel can defeat us if God sees us side against the
                              sovereignty of Israel. Jerusalem will not be divided up between two
                              states. God will see to it if He has to send in billions of angels to
                              destroy anyone that tries or lets.

                              Fear? You bet! Read on....

                              In His Royal Service,
                              Jim Campbell

                              From a digest service came this excerpt of a complete digest of KNews:
                              KHouse eNews
                              For The Week Of October 02, 2001

                              **Table of Contents**

                              The Abandonment Of Israel
                              Homeland Security
                              Third Temple Cornerstones To Be Laid In Jerusalem
                              The Feast Of Tabernacles
                              Indonesian Christians Attacked

                              **IN THE NEWS**

                              THE ABANDONMENT OF ISRAEL

                              Prior to the September 11 attacks, a speech had been prepared for
                              Secretary of State Colin Powell to speak out in favor of a
                              Palestinian state. Both President Bush and the National Security
                              Council had approved the recognition of a Palestinian State as part
                              of a major Middle East peace initiative. Plans were also being made
                              for President Bush to meet for the first time with Palestinian leader
                              Yasser Arafat at the United Nations General Assembly meeting
                              scheduled for late September. Due to the September 11 attacks,
                              however, these meetings have been postponed.

                              While the Bush administration has consistently said that it would not
                              impose a settlement on the two sides, the speech Powell was to have
                              made would have laid out general principles for settling the Israeli-
                              Palestinian conflict. Since the September 11 attacks, Arab diplomats
                              have worked hard to push the Bush administration into a stronger role
                              as peacemaker in Israel.

                              Bush admitted Tuesday morning that the U.S. has always supported the
                              creation of a Palestinian state, as long as the right of Israel to
                              exist was respected. The plan would establish Jerusalem as the
                              capital of both states, with American embassies in both the
                              Palestinian and Israeli-governed areas. Powell has been calling on
                              Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to push the cease-fire
                              and resume peace talks. Sharon will resume the talks when the Arab
                              violence stops. Arafat called for a cease-fire two weeks ago but acts
                              of violence against Israelis has continued. Nevertheless, the U.S. is
                              urging the two sides to make efforts toward settling the major issues
                              of the conflict.

                              During the Cold War, America stood behind Israel and Turkey as allies
                              against pro-Soviet nations. Now that the Cold War is over, America
                              has less need for Israel from a strategic perspective. The U.S. will
                              not altogether abandon Israel because of the intelligence resources
                              and military backup in the Middle East that it offers. However, as
                              this war against terrorism progresses, Washington will continue to
                              court the favor of the Islamic countries in the Middle East. Muslim
                              nations can provide intelligence information regarding the locations
                              of terrorist groups, as well as support for making attacks on
                              intractable governments like the Taliban. These Muslim governments
                              will pressure the U.S. to continually reduce support for Israel.

                              If the Bush administration is serious about routing out terrorism in
                              the Middle East, then Israel will truly be a stumbling stone. A large
                              number of terrorist groups currently support, not only the formation
                              of a Palestinian state, but the complete eradication of all the Jews
                              in Israel. These groups do not want peace unless peace means that
                              Israel does not exist at all. President Bush is making negotiations
                              with Muslim nations to build up the anti-terror coalition, and
                              because America has been siding with Israel, many of the Muslim
                              nations are backing away. [Ed Note: If Bush leaves Israel to stand
                              alone, then God will be Israel's last backer, and America will have
                              stepped onto the wrong side of the line.]

                              God has repeatedly promised to protect Israel, and to bless those who
                              bless her. Since Israel was reestablished as a state in 1948, Arab
                              countries have repeatedly tried to destroy her and take back the land
                              by force. Every attempt, however, has ended in complete failure and
                              has added more land to Israel's borders.

                              Zechariah 12 promises that eventually all the nations on earth will
                              turn on Israel and will unite against her, but that every nation that
                              does will be injured in the attempt. God Himself will keep watch over
                              Israel, and when He protects Israel against every nation, the leaders
                              of Judah will give the credit to the Lord of Hosts. God will destroy
                              all the nations that come against Jerusalem.

                              …They shall call on my name, and I will hear them: I will say, It is
                              my people: and they shall say, The LORD is my God.
                              Zechariah 13:9
                            • AnneAKim@aol.com
                              Hi Hadley
                              Message 14 of 22 , Oct 5, 2001
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Hi Hadley

                                << To summarize, I continue to object strongly to your characterization of
                                the modern, non-"fundamentalistic" Islam majority --especially Islam in
                                America-- as implicitly or subtley promoting war or violence.>>

                                >>> There are people then there are ideologies. Islam promotes the Qur'an &
                                Mohammad. The Qur'an promotes war & violence, so do the Hadiths & the
                                histories the life of Mohammed. The Muslim theological schools (even the ones
                                you call mainstream) have a long history of promoting jihad & endorsing the
                                systematized degradation of non-Muslims in conquered territories.

                                >>> Speaking of Sept 11, 2001, there was another interesting event that day:
                                India submitted a report to the U.N. about Pakistani-sponsored terrorism and
                                oppression of Hindus. Terrorist attacks in India have taken (in round
                                numbers) 40 lives already THIS WEEK. Pakistan has moved to put itself on the
                                good side of the U.S. & of world opinion as a very political move.

                                << I consider your admonition that Muslims in America be viewed with
                                "caution" and a "watchful eye" to be not warranted in light of their beliefs
                                (and a tad poorly considered in light of the recent increase in hate crimes
                                against Muslims here in America).>>

                                >>> I consider keeping a watchful eye on people spreading the Qur'an & the
                                Hadiths to be a simple recognition of the content of the Qur'an & the
                                Hadiths. You criticize me more strongly for objecting to those violent
                                teachings than you have to those injunctions to violence, which you've
                                systematically defended.

                                >>> Distributing facts on the history & teachings of Islam is important and
                                does not remotely equate to encouraging hate crimes. Any vigilantism against
                                Muslims is condemned & by necessity must be condemned. But that does not mean
                                we stick our heads in the sand about what is happening, or about what has
                                happened historically, or what the Qur'an & the Hadiths say. Why is Muslim
                                history, or the life of Mohammed, above reproach & critical examination?
                                Awareness of Muslim teachings & history is low, & the historical teachings &
                                historical actions of Islam are all too often ignored or swept under the rug.

                                << But I don't agree that the majority of its adherents are any more
                                dangerous in civilized contexts than any other belief system. (I mention
                                "civilized" because third-world problems--drought, famine, disease, poverty,
                                overpopulation-- seem to contribute the most to conflict in those nations.)>>

                                >>> So people are innocent of their actions under bad circumstances? & if
                                being third-world is the problem, then put it in historical perspective.
                                Right before the first great Muslim jihad in the 600's, there were
                                established civilizations in Northern Africa, Mesopotamia, & Byzantium. Who
                                now speaks of the greatness of Baghdad as a center of world culture, or of
                                the greatness of the learning of Alexandria?

                                << If Muslims in America are potentially dangerous, shouldn't we be able to
                                see it in the statistics?>>

                                >>> Do you count the thousands of people who died last month or not?

                                << Islam's majority do seem to be comfortable in secular societies and do not
                                seek to overthrow governments or commit acts of terrorism against those who
                                aren't Muslim:>>

                                >>> Muslims who are in relatively small numbers (compared to the native
                                population) tend to live peacefully. The question remains: is that because
                                Islam teaches peace, or is it a more pragmatic matter when Muslims are in
                                relatively small numbers?

                                << |Sunni Muslims These are followers of the Hanifa, Shafi, Hanibal
                                |and Malik schools. They constitute a 90% majority of the believers,
                                |and are considered to be main stream traditionalists. �

                                >>> Question: Of the 4 main Islamic schools mentioned (based on teachings of
                                Hanifa, Shafi, Hanibal, & Malik), how many of them supported jihad &
                                systematic oppression of conquered peoples? Answer: All 4.

                                >>> The Muslims became "enlightened" about how awful it was to abuse &
                                degrade the conquered indigenous populations only recently, & under
                                considerable pressure. Europe (esp Britain & France) gained a political power
                                in Africa & the Middle East. European countries used that influence & the
                                leverage of the military aid given by Britain in the Crimean War to pressure
                                for reforms of the oppressive Islamic laws. This "Westernization" of Islam
                                was strongly resisted at the time (esp mid to late 1800s) & resulted in
                                various massacres of Christians throughout the Muslim-conquered regions world.

                                << I will, however, agree there is one particular faction within Islam that
                                does bear watching, and from this sect comes Bin Laden and the majority of
                                all terrorist attacks on the west: Wahhabism. But this sect is no more Islam
                                than Identity Christians can be considered Christianity . . .

                                >>> The Wahabi school draws its historical origin from the Hanbali school
                                that you named as mainstream. The "mainstream" Hanbali school has been cited
                                as a factor in some of the harsher occupations of formerly-Christian nations.
                                Not that any of the conquests & occupations were especially friendly.

                                |The Wahhabi sect (named after the 18th century warrior-ideology
                                |Ibn `Abd al-Wahhab) . . . and has put in a historically unprecedent
                                |banning of all Jews and Christian from the "holy land" defined as
                                |the entire Arabian peninsula. Wahhabism is an extreme minority in
                                |Islam, the vast majority of Muslims being tolerant of Sufism,
                                |engaging in popular Islam of some kind, and unconcerned with blowing
                                |up Sphinxes, Buddhas, or other alleged idols.
                                http://www.haverford.edu/relg/sells/reports/WahhabismBuddhasBegova.htm
                                (article dated Mar. 2001, Michael Sells is a professor of comparative
                                religions at Haverford College)

                                >>> Mr. Sells may be a professor of comparative religions, but what he wrote
                                about "historically unprecedented banning" etc from the Arabian peninsula is
                                very selective about its facts. When Umar I, an early Caliph, revoked the
                                legal right to remain in their own country of the conquered Christians and
                                Jews, he cited Mohammed's dying wish: "Two religions should not co-exist
                                within the Arabian peninsula." Who remembers the Persian Gulf War? It was an
                                issue whether non-Muslim troops could be temporarily housed in Arabia, and
                                the US troops who wore crosses had to hide them because Saudi Arabian law
                                forbids even so much as the display of crosses in that land.

                                |Saudi-based Wahhabism, the two-century-old
                                |schismatic sect that believes that, ever since its first glorious
                                |century, Islam has been corrupted by the West and is going to hell
                                |in a handbasket.

                                >>> Wahabism is a reaction against the West, & as such has only been around
                                since there has been a significant Western influence in Muslim lands -- the
                                1800's & on. It is accurate to place Wahabism in the 1800's. It is not
                                accurate to place the belief in a worldwide jihad or Muslim intolerance only
                                in the Wahabi sect. All of Islam has that as their "sacred" heritage. I think
                                most people have no idea of the extent of the horrors that have been
                                perpetrated in the name of Islam and the official endorsements by the Quranic
                                schools.

                                |The best description I've seen of Wahhabism . . . "It was as if a Christian
                                |suggested that Augustine and Aquinas and every later Christian
                                |theologian were heretics.

                                >>> Would you apply that analogy to the case of a Muslim who denied the
                                universal war of jihad & extended genuine friendship to Christians & Jews in
                                contradiction to the Qur'an ("Do not take Jews and Christians for your
                                friends" etc, 5:51.) That would be like a Christian who had to deny parts of
                                every major Christian theological school in the first 1100 or 1200 years of
                                Christianity, deny parts of the Bible considered sacrosanct for over a
                                millenium, including some of the teachings of Christ Himself. That is the
                                situation in which any reinventors of Islam would have to work.

                                << All this makes a strong case that Islam is not the enemy, the Qur'an is
                                not the enemy, but that a climate of anger, frustration, and resentment is
                                fertile ground for Wahhabism or for any kind of militant, radical
                                fundamentalism.>>

                                >>> Let's not oversimplify. A climate of anger, frustration, & resentment is
                                fertile ground as you said, or kindling waiting for a spark. A religion that
                                has approved looting of unbelievers where the looters get to keep 4/5 of the
                                loot is gasoline on the kindling. A history of warfare & conquest extending
                                over a thousand years is not easily undone by a century of British & French
                                lobbying which is easily seen as intrusive meddling by infidels. What you
                                call "mainstream" Islam may or may not even exist in the grass roots of many
                                Muslim countries.

                                << Certainly Islam has participated in all manner of wars and forced
                                conversions, but if we were to shift Islam back into the times of the Old
                                Testament would we then consider Islam to be any more warlike than the
                                Israelites of Moses and Joshua's time?>>

                                >>> To answer your question: Yes, definitely, they didn't have a command to
                                conquer the world. More to the point: This is the 21st century AD, not the
                                13th century B.C.. The Muslims are still up to the same old games, just with
                                more modern weapons & a far bigger horizon.

                                << I do know that modern Jews should not be viewed with suspicion because of
                                wars their ancestors participated in with the apparent blessing of their
                                God.>>

                                >>> Muslims are still a leading cause of violence in the world today. It's
                                not about what someone's ancestors did, it's about current events.

                                << And further, it appears clear that much of the violence called for by the
                                Qur'an is in response to aggression and persecution -- a sentiment as nobel
                                as America's Revolutionary War -->>

                                >>> As noble as the Revolutionary War?! Look at the historical background to
                                those Surahs. Not all of the violence called for by the Qur'an is in
                                "response" to aggression. The "persecution" & "fighting" Mohammed faced was
                                often in the face of looting raids he was conducting on caravans, on the
                                cities of Mecca & Medina, or various assassinations of his critics that he
                                had ordered. This is according to the Muslim traditions & biographies of
                                Mohammed.

                                << However, the proper response to persecution and aggression according to
                                Christianity remains somewhat ambiguous. Christ said to turn the other cheek.
                                But did that happen in the Revolutionary War? In the Gulf War? At Kosovo?
                                How about in response to terrorism? >>

                                >>> It's ok for me to turn my cheek. But who am I to look the other way when
                                someone else is attacked? Where does it stop being a matter of turning the
                                other cheek and start being an issue of negligence & failure to protect
                                people?

                                << Imagine if Muslims here in America mounted an attack on Christianity --
                                not the short-term effectiveness of violence but a concentrated campaign to
                                influence political power in this country -- how would Christians react?
                                I>>

                                >>> The question is, "How are Christians reacting to that?"

                                << Getting back to the intpretation issue, you've several times made the
                                claim that the Qur'an promotes unprovoked violence against non-believers. I
                                don't see that that's a reasonable interpretation without reading into the
                                text somewhat.>>

                                >>> Again, bullcookies. The Quran also mentions starting the aggression. Do
                                you consider the historical context of how often Mohammad started the
                                fighting? Learn about the life of Mohammad.

                                [2:190 & following]

                                << The verse makes it clear that persecution of Islam is the reason for
                                violence. Fight with "those who fight with you", "do not exceed limits",
                                "drive them out from whence they drove you out", etc.>>

                                >>> While I'd mentioned before that that particular verse is just for those
                                already fighting; that doesn't equate to only self-defense. Don't forget that
                                Mohammad was in the habit of starting fights. The verse applies to ongoing
                                wars; that does not mean that Mohammed & followers were the innocent victims.
                                If Mohammad was only acting in self-defense, his conquest of much of the
                                Arabian peninsula becomes fairly hard to explain. The biographies of Mohammed
                                & the Hadiths also mention that Mohammed was often the aggressor. Other
                                places say that it's fine to be the aggressor.

                                [8:30] And when those who disbelieved devised plans against you that they
                                might confine you or slay you or drive you away

                                >>> Why were people so eager to put him in jail (confine him) or slay him or
                                make him go away? Could the caravan raids & marauding have had anything to do
                                with that? Or his conquering other tribes & ordering assassinations of people
                                who criticized him? What would we call that today?

                                << On the other side of the coin, there is much in the Qur'an that is devoted
                                to the treatment of disbelievers that does not involve outright killing.
                                Here's a list:>>

                                Disbelievers 48:26

                                - ask Muhammad to invoke God's wrath upon them as proof 6:57-58, 8:32,
                                10:49-52

                                >>> Jesus says "pray for those who persecute you" -- what a contrast.

                                - bear their company in kindness 31:15

                                >>> But don't take unbelievers as friends (4:144). Especially not Jews or
                                Christians: "O you who believe! Do not take the Jews and the Christians for
                                friends! They are friends for each other, and whoever amongst you takes them
                                for a friend, then surely he is one of them. Surely Allah does not guide the
                                unjust people." (5:51)

                                - protect them if they ask you to 9:6

                                >>> In context of their fleeing the jihad (prev verse), like we'd already
                                discussed. That was one of the classic passages where the noble holy warriors
                                were besieging & lying in ambush for people (9:5). Besieging the enemies
                                isn't what I'd call self-defense.

                                << So it can not be argued that killing unbelievers without serious
                                provokation is a good thing or even sanctioned by the Qu'ran without
                                selective quotes.>>

                                >>> They're commanded to wage war on the world until everyone is Muslim. I
                                never said Muslims were to walk up to people in the streets & kill them. But
                                killing unbelievers has been part & parcel of Islam from the very beginning,
                                following Mohammed's "illustrious" example. Reading peace into Islam is what
                                takes a lot of selectiveness, overlooking the call to war & the history of
                                Islam. Mohammed started battle after battle. This was the precedent which his
                                followers pursued & codified into their laws, this is the background to the
                                "revelations" he received on how to divide the booty or deal with the
                                conquered.

                                << Actually that statement is from an Islamic scholar who is careful not to
                                claim that Christians, Jews and Muslims have *always* lived in peace.
                                Nevertheless it is true that there were centuries of fairly peaceful
                                coexistence.>>

                                >>> Bullcookies, unless your definition of "fairly peaceful coexistence"
                                includes systematic degradation & institutionalized humiliation. The Jewish
                                historian Bat Ye'or put it well, she said that the idyllic picture of a
                                "peaceful" Muslim occupation amounts to "historical amnesia." "Peaceful
                                coexistence" where it occurred, was exceptional, short-lived, & contrary to
                                codified Islamic laws; systematic degradation & oppression was the rule.

                                << The Islam religion has evolved over time. At the time of the invasion of
                                India, only Jews and Christians were considered "zimmis" (and required to pay
                                the 'jiziya' tax). Buddhists, Hindus Jains, Sikhs, Zoroastrians, however,
                                were considered heretics. Since then, Islam has extended "zimmis" to the
                                Hindu and other beliefs. Like all religions, Islam has evolved and
                                reinterpreted its scriptures in light of cultural and social evolution and
                                generally became more "liberal".>>

                                >>> First, being a dhimmi / zimmi was, in most times & places, a very
                                oppressive life. Next, there's less 'evolution' than you might think. Even
                                Mohammed allowed some idolaters to be dhimmis when he needed money (dhimmis
                                have to pay protection money regularly to their conquerors). It was also ok
                                to slaughter Christian men & enslave Christian women / children (same goes
                                for Jewish people), especially those who didn't have the protection of walled
                                towns.

                                << The violence we read about is invariably due to fundamentalism.>>

                                >>> You've defined fundamentalism to be the cause of terrorism, therefore all
                                terrorism is due to fundamentalism, by (your) definition. That's not
                                analytical, it's circular.

                                << What about Judaism?>>

                                >>> Even if you say that the conquest of Israel was wrong, it's far more
                                limited than world conquest. The Jews aren't obliged to war til all the world
                                believes in YHWH. If you want to compare the two, then don't forget to
                                compare the scale.

                                << Indeed, even for the Christian, the NT must be examined closely and within
                                a careful interpretive framework to be assured that the above verse is no
                                longer applicable. Even today, Christians are divided over exactly where to
                                draw the line between the OT civil and ceremonial laws and I have had long
                                discussions with Christians who believe the death-penalty might be lawful for
                                public homosexuality and for adultery.>>

                                >>> Not hardly, but the bigger point is this: according to Christians, the
                                world has had a new covenant & new holy teachings from one greater than
                                Moses. Unless the same happens for Islam, the Qur'an will still stand as the
                                "holy" book of Islam & the violent life of Mohammed as the "inspiring" role
                                model. Problem is, Mohammed said he was the greatest of all prophets ever ...
                                how do you reform the greatest prophet ever?

                                << But one striking similarity is this: the beliefs of Christians and Muslims
                                can not be predicted by the most simple or literal interpretation of their
                                religious scriptures; instead, their beliefs are a reflection of history,
                                culture, conflict, and economic status.>>

                                >>> Beliefs also become a cause of the history, culture, conflict, & (more
                                complex way) economic status. There are teachings & there are people. People
                                will always have good & bad til kingdom come. But what are they taught? What
                                example do they follow? Ideologies do more than reflect the past, they also
                                actively form the people who form the future.

                                >Qur'an (5:33): "The punishment of those who wage war against
                                >Allah and the apostle and strive to make corruption in the land
                                >is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their
                                >hands and feet should be cut off on opposite sides or the y
                                >should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in
                                >this world, an in the hereafter they shall have a painful
                                >chastisement." So it looks like those who make corruption in
                                >the land, who are sanctioned to be killed, includes those who
                                >speak out against Islam.

                                << While probably unintentional, this is shown to be a distortion of the
                                meaning of the Qu'ran.>>

                                >>> According to whom? Crucifixion (as recommended in the verse above) was
                                used against Christians in conquered lands at points in Muslim history, & the
                                death penalty for speaking out against Islam was part of the terms of
                                surrender for conquered non-Muslims.

                                << You can find similar concepts in Christianity that may be difficult to
                                extract literally as injunctions from the Bible but are consistent with a
                                particular viewpoint and the consensus of scholars and popular Christian
                                figures converge to it.>>

                                >>> That's the closest you've come to admitting that peace is difficult to
                                extract literally from the Qur'an.

                                << By simple virtue of numbers. Do the math. 90% of 1.3 billion mainstream
                                Muslims comfortable in secular society equals ..?>>

                                >>> An oversimplification, since the other 90% still have roots that teach
                                war in all 4 major schools.

                                Old/ref >You specifically asked about the OT -- the meanest hell-verse in the
                                OT is at the end of Isaiah, & the people who were in the fire have already
                                died the second death & aren't suffering.

                                << I don't see a moral difference between torturing someone in a lake of
                                burning sulfur regardless of their pleas, and scalding someone's face in
                                response to a plea.>>

                                >>> On the one hand, you say you see no difference between not answering a
                                plea for help (to escape justice) & answering a plea for help (to escape
                                justice) with torture. Amazing. But on the subject of Isaiah (that was the
                                verse I was talking about since it was OT) it doesn't say anybody was being
                                eternally tortured. If Isaiah were all we had to go by, we'd have to conclude
                                that those who make themselves enemies of their Creator are annihilated. In
                                Isaiah, the fire contains dead bodies, not tormented souls.

                                << Your quotes so far have focused on just about 5 chapters of the 114 of
                                the Qu'ran, actually.>>

                                >>> I haven't exhausted the Quran's violent passages either. Read chapter 48
                                of the Qur'an, if you want to see Muslims marching off on the offensive for
                                the holy purpose of raiding for loot. Pick up at v15 where they get ready to
                                march off for "holy" plundering raids.

                                > while *every* believer in the Qur'an is under
                                > *many* commands to seek out chances to destroy non-Muslims til
                                > kingdom come.

                                << No, that's wrong. Even the most extreme, radical, millitant
                                fundamentalists do not kill unbelievers without a declaration of war (jihad)
                                first>>

                                >>> Now sure it's in the context of jihad (possible exception of terrorists).
                                But the call to jihad lasts til the whole world is Muslim.

                                << Even the term 'jihad' is now being reinterpreted by mainstream Islam to
                                refer primarily to an inner battle, a spiritual struggle much like Pauls'
                                "armor of God" metaphorical language in Corithinians.>>

                                >>> Well, on the one hand, I'm aware that some people want to re-interpret
                                "jihad", & reinterpreting the word jihad to erase the bloody history of Islam
                                is a baby step, half in the right direction (towards peace) & half in the
                                wrong (obfuscating the bloodiest past in the history of religion). If (God
                                forbid!) the RC church had made the "Inquisition" a fixed part of its
                                immovable theology, then wouldn't the call to a modern "inquisition" among
                                the believers (internal inquisition to purify your own mind, of course) just
                                turn your stomach? Do you have any idea how many millions of people --
                                Christians, Jews, Hindus, Zoroastrians, Manicheans, Buddhists, animists --
                                have died in the jihads & subsequent oppressions? I've read several books on
                                the subject now, & am only getting a glimmer of an idea of the numbers of
                                millions of people massacred & / or enslaved &/or reduced to a servile &
                                degraded status. But it's many, many millions across three continents & over
                                a thousand years.

                                |Crusades: any of a series of military expeditions organized by
                                |Western Christians against Muslim powers in order to take possession
                                |of or maintain control over the Holy City of Jerusalem and the
                                |places, particularly the shrine of the Holy Sepulchre, associated
                                |with the earthly life of Jesus Christ. Between 1095, when the First
                                |Crusade was launched, and 1291, when the Latin Christians...
                                << So, rescuing the Holy Land from the infidels seems to be the foremost
                                goal. Strangely familiar, that goal...>>

                                >>> As much as I don't want to defend the Crusades, neither do I want to slam
                                them when they don't deserve it (there are enough times when they do!) So
                                that said, I don't see in the quote any acknowledgment that these places had
                                been seized by force by Muslims, that those regions had previously had a
                                Christian majority. I also don't see any acknowledgment of the events that
                                triggered the first Crusade, when European visitors to Jerusalem had
                                protection money extorted from them at each site they visited, were treated
                                badly (to put it nicely) & many were killed.

                                << And if they were so concerned with rescuing their Christian brothers from
                                the Muslims, why were they killing Jews?>>

                                >>> & while we're on the subject, why did one of the later Crusades plunder
                                their fellow Christians of opposing sects on the way home? If the Allies
                                were really in the right against Hitler, why did Dresden happen? Wartime
                                actions are notoriously hard to control, other limits having been broken, &
                                it is without any qualification a bad thing to kill non-combatants. It's
                                completely indefensible for people to perform atrocities under cover of a
                                just war. But atrocities, by themselves, do not make an associated war unjust.

                                << I understand that all manner of atrocities have been committed in the name
                                of any god, but the blame for that, in my mind, goes to human nature
                                accompanied by a culture and historical framework that permits or sanctions
                                violence.>>

                                >>> If you look at the way human nature interacts with a "culture or
                                historical framework that permits or sanctions violence," then do not neglect
                                to see the historical framework of Islam. Historically, jihad is part of the
                                deal.

                                > Did anybody see the Muslims interviewed on 60 Minutes by
                                > Bradley? Did you hear how they said that the terrorist attacks
                                > couldn't possibly have been by Arabs or Muslims, they just don't
                                > do things like that? Was that one of the baldest lies ever?

                                << Okay, let's see. The facts are that, prior to this attack, 5 out of 1
                                billion Muslims committed or attempted to commit non-suicidal attacks on US
                                soil.>>

                                >>> You change the context to US soil, as if that were the topic of the
                                interview. Terrorism in general was the subject, & their assertion was that
                                Muslims would never do such a thing. Bullcookies.

                                << By your reasoning, therefore, if .00000005 percent of the adherents of a
                                particular religion commit a particular violent act, than all are suspect and
                                all must be willing to admit that they are capable of such acts? I don't buy
                                that. Use a little empathy here.>>

                                >>> Your attack is fairly unrelated to my point. If 100% of the adherents of
                                a religion revere a book which promotes violence & has a
                                nearly-1400-year-long history of violence, then it's wise to keep your eye
                                out for signs of violence.

                                >Now, 5000 (rioting) Muslims in one city: are they all "extremists"? Is this
                                >only a fringe group?

                                << Relative to mainstream Islam, yes.>>

                                >>> Sigh. What would it take to show you that that -is- mainstream Islam,
                                historically speaking?

                                > In Algeria, estimates are that roughly 100,000 people have been killed by
                                Muslims in the 1990s.

                                << Boy, is that only half the story. In 1991, the Islamic Salvation Front had
                                the widest suppose of any political party in the country and would have won
                                the elections if the army hadn't canceled the elections in response. Now it's
                                a civil war, what do you expect? >>

                                >>> Calling it "civil war" overlooks a lot. Remember our own civil war. Even
                                though atrocities were committed on both sides, it's not like the two sides
                                were morally equivalent. In Algeria as recently as 1912 there were reports
                                that the Jews there were still forbidden to wear shoes outside the Jewish
                                quarter. It's not like non-Muslims were being treated equitably under the law.

                                << Like the civil war in the US, two sides disagree on a particular ideology,
                                can't agree peacefully, and so they fight it out with great loss of life.>>

                                >>> So you would characterize the US civil war as a "disagreement" over
                                "ideologies", without any reference to moral difference on a human level?
                                Come on. Was that in an effort to justify Islam?

                                >In Pakistan, a similar riot was joined by roughly 30,000 Muslims
                                >-- a riot in which the only Christian-majority town (Shanti Nagar)
                                >was attacked, churches & businesses destroyed, mass rapes,
                                >widespread fires being set. It was only because of the outrage
                                >of the international community that Pakistan's Prime Minister
                                >Sheriff agreed to help rebuild what had been destroyed. (Now if
                                >the problem were really a handful of extremists, where did the
                                >mob of 30,000 come from?)

                                << Yes, and Pakistan is a hotbed for fundamentalist Islam, especially
                                Wahhabism. These are the same factions making trouble now in response to
                                Pakastan's cooperation with the US.>>

                                >>> At least you're not acting as if this one is justified.

                                << Your account also neglects to mention that some Muslims attempted to
                                protect Christians, and some Muslim organizations attempted to help
                                afterwards with food and clothing.>>

                                >>> Sheesh, would it be "neglect" to talk about Nazi atrocities without
                                mentioning the underground? A few Muslims protecting Christians were far
                                outnumbered by those raping & killing Christians & burning that Christian
                                town. Of course any help makes a difference, but it's not on the same scale,
                                & it's not a proper balance to imagine the protection was on the same scale
                                as the destruction. As far as rebuilding, the international community put a
                                lot of pressure on the Pakistanis to rebuild. How appropriate is it to give
                                people credit for things which were done not-quite-voluntarily?

                                << I've agreed that Islam has a history of more violence than Christianity.>>

                                >>> That difference can be traced in a direct line to Mohammed and Christ.

                                << But I've also pointed out that modern Islam is much different from
                                historic Islam in a way similar to the differences between modern
                                Christianity and the early Catholic church.>>

                                >>> You've asserted it, without demonstrating it. History will tell whether
                                nouveau-Islam gains the upper hand. If certain Islamic countries ever allowed
                                free speech, that would be interesting.

                                << 90% of Islam does not deserve to be labeled potentially dangerous because
                                of a conservative 10%. It's unfair.>>

                                >>> It's the ideology that promotes violence. The Qur'an has to be carefully
                                & energetically reinterpreted to reach a peaceful reading, & many think such
                                "energetic reinterpretation" is sacrilege.

                                Now I'm compiling hard facts so people can see the substance behind this.
                                It's taking awhile to type, I'm trying to document the references & check
                                those that I can.

                                Take care & God bless
                                Anne K.
                              • Cheryl Young
                                Anne wrote: (full text appears at end of post)
                                Message 15 of 22 , Oct 5, 2001
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Anne wrote: (full text appears at end of post)

                                  << To summarize, I continue to object strongly to your
                                  characterization of the modern, non-"fundamentalistic"
                                  Islam majority --especially Islam in America-- as
                                  implicitly or subtley promoting war or violence.>>

                                  << 90% of Islam does not deserve to be labeled
                                  potentially dangerous because of a conservative 10%.
                                  It's unfair.>>

                                  << |Sunni Muslims These are followers of the Hanifa,
                                  Shafi, Hanibal |and Malik schools. They constitute a
                                  90% majority of the believers,|and are considered to
                                  be main stream traditionalists.

                                  << Even the term 'jihad' is now being reinterpreted by
                                  mainstream Islam to refer primarily to an inner
                                  battle, a spiritual struggle much like Pauls'
                                  "armor of God" metaphorical language in
                                  Corithinians.>>

                                  Hadley wrote:
                                  >>> Question: Of the 4 main Islamic schools mentioned
                                  (based on teachings of Hanifa, Shafi, Hanibal, &
                                  Malik), how many of them supported jihad & systematic
                                  oppression of conquered peoples?
                                  >>> Answer: All 4.

                                  Cheryl replies:

                                  What is 10% of 1.3 billion? It's 130 million.

                                  I lived in Iran from 1974 to 1979. In 1974, Iran was
                                  a country with Iranian (Shiite) Muslims, Iranian
                                  Christians (assyrians and Armenians), Iranian Jews,
                                  Iranian Zororastrians, Iranian Bahais, and many, many
                                  residents from other countries. I was amazed at the
                                  momentum of the revolution, at how swiftly (more
                                  swiftly that you can possibly imagine) the minority
                                  Islamic fundamentalists became the MAJORITY.

                                  Islam does NOT always advocate peace. The word Jihad
                                  merely means struggle but
                                  *** JIHAD IN THE CAUSE OF ALLAH ***
                                  is very specifically addressed in the Qur'an.

                                  Furthermore, whereas suicide to escape pain or social
                                  problems IS forbidden in the Qur'an, sacrificing one's
                                  life for the jihad in the cause of Allah -- being a
                                  (Shahid) martyr -- is considered an HONOR!!!

                                  ALL Muslims regardless of their country of origin or
                                  residence have an OBLIGATION (Fard Ein) to participate
                                  in JIHAD IN THE CAUSE OF ALLAH. Jihad in Allah's
                                  cause is a kind of worship and is even more important
                                  than Haj!!!

                                  What can we do to respond the Muslims in the
                                  US???Witnessing to Muslims is difficult. However,
                                  some have an interest in the Injil (Gospel) of Isa
                                  (Jesus) particularly as outlined in Matthew Chapter 5.

                                  As Christians we SHOULD forgive and love our enemies.
                                  As Christians our nature is to negotiate and resolve
                                  conflict. Muslims have a different mindset based in
                                  the teachings of Islam.

                                  Our American sense of security was only temporarily
                                  disrupted after the September 11 violence. Now we are
                                  returning to normal, non-vigilant mode. Fortunately,
                                  our President realizes the grave peril we face. We
                                  must stop the terrorists from hurting us and others.
                                  We must take away their ability to hurt us, level
                                  their places of refuge and put them out of business.

                                  Perhaps, you may be interested in the following
                                  excerpted quotations from Islamic scholars. I have
                                  provided the URLs so that you may read the entire
                                  content.

                                  +++++++

                                  http://www.islam-online.net/fatwa/english/FatwaDisplay.asp?hFatwaID=50281

                                  Title of Fatwa Muslims� Reaction to the Prospect of US
                                  Attacking Afghanistan
                                  Date of Fatwa 24/ September/ 2001

                                  My questions are: What is the role of Muslims if their
                                  fellow victimized brothers seek help and call for
                                  Jihad ? What do we have to do with the Americans
                                  residing in Muslim countries, especially the US
                                  military stationed in Muslim lands? When a call for
                                  Jihad is made, shall we respond or shall we do
                                  something else?

                                  Name of Mufti Dr. `Abdul-Fattah `Ashoor

                                  As regards the role of Muslims if such attack is
                                  carried out or their fellow Afghan brethren seek their
                                  support, I think the only thing available for Muslims
                                  to do, away from hysterical or empty slogans and
                                  uncontrolled passion, is to make money or blood
                                  donation or any kind of such assistance when the case
                                  needs be

                                  +++++++++++

                                  http://www.islam-online.net/fatwa/english/FatwaDisplay.asp?hFatwaID=27952

                                  Title of Fatwa Martyr Operations and Not Suicide
                                  Date of Fatwa 18/ March/ 2001

                                  I know that suicide is forbidden in Islam, but some
                                  people have said to me that due to the situation
                                  Muslims are facing, they are allowed to do suicide
                                  operation. Is suicide operation permissible or not?

                                  Name of Mufti Islam Online Fatwa Committee

                                  ...there is a big difference between a mere suicide
                                  and "sacrificing one's soul for the sake of one's
                                  country". So it is incorrect to term resistant acts
                                  staged against aggressors or imperialists as "suicide
                                  operations", because these resistant acts, which
                                  result in martyrdom, bring tremendous reward, and
                                  staging such acts against aggressors is obligatory if
                                  it is the only way to repel attacks and aggressions,
                                  otherwise, it is forbidden.

                                  ++++++++++

                                  http://www.islam-online.net/fatwa/english/FatwaDisplay.asp?hFatwaID=35121

                                  Title of Fatwa Martyr Operations Carried out by
                                  Palestinians
                                  Date of Fatwa 28/ April/ 2001

                                  Some people say that the operations carried out by
                                  Palestinians are considered suicidal acts and not a
                                  kind of Jihad, is that true? Please tell me whether
                                  these acts are martyr operations and a kind of
                                  striving in Allah's Cause or not?

                                  Name of Mufti Sheikh Faysal Mawlawi

                                  Martyr operations are not suicide and should not be
                                  deemed as unjustifiable means of endangering one's
                                  life.

                                  Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him, had
                                  strictly forbidden suicide and threatened that anyone
                                  who commits suicide would be cast into hell. But in
                                  such case suicide means Muslim's killing himself
                                  without any lawfully accepted reason or killing
                                  himself to escape pain or social problems. On the
                                  other hand, in martyr operations, the Muslim
                                  sacrifices his own life for the Sake of performing a
                                  religious duty which is Jihad against the enemy as
                                  scholars say.

                                  This means that martyr operations are totally
                                  different from the forbidden suicide. Those missions
                                  are quite permissible, they are even a religious duty.
                                  Concerning the Palestinians, the enemy has occupied
                                  their land, their houses and their sacred places and
                                  has driven about four million of them out of their
                                  houses replacing them with even larger numbers of
                                  Jewish settlements.

                                  The enemy has also sought the help of the greatest
                                  military power and denied the Palestinians their basic
                                  human rights, they still kill their women, children
                                  and men mercilessly while the Palestinians are
                                  powerless and incapable of defending themselves � even
                                  all the Arab countries face the same fate, lacking
                                  necessary weapons. So the Palestinians have nothing
                                  but stones to throw at their enemy in order to defend
                                  their country. This denotes a high morale but they
                                  cannot deter the enemy this way so they had to resort
                                  to martyr operations in which one can seriously harm
                                  the enemy meanwhile sacrifice his own life.

                                  I believe that in such conditions those missions are a
                                  sacred duty on every capable man, and whoever is
                                  killed in such missions is a martyr, may Allah bless
                                  him with high esteem. I call on every Palestinian not
                                  to hesitate in carrying out such operations as long as
                                  they are the only way of making Jihad and are made
                                  with an intention of sacrificing one's life for the
                                  Sake of one's religion and nation.

                                  ++++++

                                  http://www.islam-online.net/fatwa/english/FatwaDisplay.asp?hFatwaID=30215

                                  Title of Fatwa Joining Fighting with Muslims in
                                  Palestine and Chechnya
                                  Date of Fatwa 24/ March/ 2001

                                  Is it the responsibility of Muslims from other nations
                                  to join the Jihad being performed in a specific
                                  nation? For instance, is a Muslim living in the US or
                                  Germany obliged to join the Jihad in Chechnya or
                                  Palestine?

                                  Name of Mufti Islam Online Fatwa Committee

                                  if a Muslim is able to join fighting with them, he is
                                  obliged to do so; if not able or if prevented, he
                                  should use other methods to help them, such as
                                  donating some of his money for them, calling people to
                                  donate, praying for them, boycotting all products made
                                  by their enemies and so on.

                                  If one does not have any of the previous means, he
                                  should keep supplicating for them, and make his
                                  intention to fight in Allah's Cause

                                  +++++++++

                                  http://www.islam-online.net/fatwa/english/FatwaDisplay.asp?hFatwaID=18245

                                  Title of Fatwa Jihad in the Cause of Allah
                                  Date of Fatwa 6/ November/ 2000

                                  Is there any Hadiths concerning the virtue of Jihad in
                                  the Cause of Allah?

                                  In the two Sahihs it has been reported that the
                                  Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: "What
                                  is the best deed (in the Sight of Allah)?" The Prophet
                                  (peace and blessings be upon him) replied, "To believe
                                  in Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad). The questioner
                                  then asked, "What next?� He replied, "To take part in
                                  Jihad in Allah�s Cause." The questioner asked further,
                                  "What next?� He replied, "To perform Hajj Mabrur (i.e.
                                  pilgrimage that is performed with the sole intention
                                  of seeking Allah's satisfaction, and in accordance
                                  with the Tradition of the Prophet (peace and blessings
                                  be upon him).

                                  We implore Allah to help Muslims return to their
                                  religion, reform their leaders and their aides, and
                                  make them one hand on the path of truth and help them
                                  to understand their religion and strive in the Cause
                                  of Allah, the Lord of the worlds, so that they may
                                  achieve supremacy on earth and put their enemy to
                                  rout. It is Allah Almighty Who bestows success and
                                  grants victory.

                                  ++++++

                                  http://www.islam-online.net/fatwa/english/FatwaDisplay.asp?hFatwaID=18232

                                  Title of Fatwa Jihad in the Cause of Allah
                                  Date of Fatwa 6/ November/ 2000

                                  When does Jihad become an individual duty (Fard `Ein)
                                  on all Muslims? And is it necessary for one to take
                                  his parents� permission before he participates in
                                  Jihad?

                                  Name of Mufti Sayyed Sabiq

                                  Jihad becomes an individual duty on all Muslims in
                                  certain cases:

                                  1) When Muslims, who are legally responsible, attend
                                  the battlefield. At that time they are obliged to
                                  fight their enemy. Hence, Allah, the Almighty says, �O
                                  ye who believe! When ye meet an army, hold firm and
                                  think of Allah much, that ye may be successful."
                                  Al-Anfāl: 45)

                                  2) If enemies attack the country where Muslims live,
                                  all of them, male and female, must confront them. No
                                  one has the right to abandon this duty as long as
                                  there is no other way to repulse the enemy. In this
                                  respect, Allah, Exalted be he, says: �O ye who
                                  believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near
                                  to you.� (At-Tawbah: 123)

                                  3) If the Muslim ruler ordains someone to fight, it
                                  will be incumbent upon him to obey the order, as Ibn
                                  `Abbās (may Allah be pleased with him) reported
                                  that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him)
                                  said, �There is no migration after the conquest (of
                                  Makkah); but let there be a Jihad and good intention,
                                  and if you are called (by the Muslim ruler) to fight,
                                  then go forth immediately.�(Reported by Al-Bukhari)

                                  And Allah, Exalted be He, says, �O ye who believe!
                                  What aileth you that hen it is said unto you: Go forth
                                  in the way of Allah, ye are bowed down to the ground
                                  with heaviness. Take ye pleasure in the life of the
                                  world rather than in the hereafter? The comfort of the
                                  life of the world is but little in the Hereafter.�"
                                  (At-Tawbah: 38)

                                  Who must fight in Allah�s Cause?
                                  Jihad, in general, is obligatory upon anyone who is
                                  Muslim, male, sane, has reached the age of puberty,
                                  and healthy, and leaves enough sustenance for his
                                  family during his absence in the battlefield.

                                  On the authority of Ibn`Umar who says: �Allah's
                                  Messenger summoned me on the eve of the battle of
                                  Uhud, while I was fourteen years of age at that time,
                                  and he did not allow me to take part in that battle.�
                                  (Reported by Al-Bukhari and Muslim) Since Jihad is a
                                  kind of worship, it is not obligatory except on those
                                  who are mature.

                                  As for the part of the question, it is not necessary
                                  to take parents� permission for the obligatory Jihad.

                                  Ibn Mas`ūd reported: �I asked the Prophet of
                                  Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), which deed is
                                  the best in the Sight of Allah?� He said: �Prayer at
                                  its appointed time.� I then asked, �What next?� He
                                  replied, �Showing kindness to one�s parents.� I asked
                                  further, �What next?� He relpied, �Jihad in the Cause
                                  of Allah.� (Reported by Al-Bukhari and Muslim)

                                  ++++++++++=

                                  http://www.islam-online.net/fatwa/english/FatwaDisplay.asp?hFatwaID=16844

                                  Title of Fatwa Jihad in Islam
                                  Date of Fatwa 13/ October/ 2000
                                  Name of Mufti Muhammad Ali Al-Hanooti

                                  "Islam believes in stopping injustice, oppression and
                                  any threat to peace or freedom. In many instances,
                                  there is no way to guarantee these goals without arms
                                  and fighting.

                                  The Qur'an says, "...And fight the elites of
                                  blasphemy. They don't honor any vow." When Muslims
                                  fight, it means that this is the only way that they
                                  can enforce peace, freedom and justice to the earth.
                                  That is the origin of jihad in Islam."

                                  ++++++++++

                                  http://www.islam-online.net/fatwa/english/FatwaDisplay.asp?hFatwaID=18231

                                  Title of Fatwa Fighting with the Mujahidīn in
                                  Chechnya
                                  Date of Fatwa 6/ November/ 2000

                                  Name of Mufti Yousif Ali Qardawi

                                  I think � Allah knows best� that the marvelous
                                  fighting carried out by our brothers in Chechnya is
                                  considered one of the best kinds of Jihad in the Cause
                                  of Allah. They fight, in defense of their lands, honor
                                  and religion, a tyrannical oppressive force, which
                                  does not fear Allah nor have mercy on any creature.

                                  There is a scholarly consensus (Ijmā`) that
                                  whoever fights in defense of his religion, land and
                                  household, and is killed in that fighting, is
                                  considered a Martyr (Shahīd).

                                  We all know that the people of Chechnya did not launch
                                  an attack against anyone; however they have been
                                  attacked and killed in their homes. But we are sure
                                  that Allah the Almighty will help them put their enemy
                                  to rout, grant them victory and help them gain
                                  supremacy in their lands. Allah, Exalted be He, says:
                                  �Permission to fight (against disbelievers) is given
                                  to those (believers) who are fought against them
                                  (believers) victory.� (Al-Hajj: 39) The recent days
                                  augurs victory for Chechnya, and the Promise of Allah
                                  will for sure come true soon. Allah, Exalted and
                                  Glorified be He, says, � If Allah is your helper none
                                  can overcome you...� (Al-`Imrān: 160)

                                  +++++++++
                                  The entire text of the Qu'ran (Koran) translated to
                                  English by Abdullah Yusuf-ali is searchable and has an
                                  index can be found at:
                                  http://mukhtar.home.mindspring.com/

                                  The Scholarly Technology Group website at Brown
                                  University offers several different English
                                  translations of the Qu'ran and is searchable.
                                  http://www.stg.brown.edu/webs/quran_browser/pqeasy.shtml

                                  The following quotations are from the translation of
                                  the Qu'ran by Abdullah Yusuf-ali found at:
                                  http://mukhtar.home.mindspring.com/

                                  2.190
                                  Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do
                                  not transgress limits; for God loveth not
                                  transgressors.

                                  2.216
                                  Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But
                                  it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good
                                  for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for
                                  you. But God knoweth, and ye know not.

                                  3.157-
                                  And if ye are slain, or die, in the way of God,
                                  forgiveness and mercy from God are far better than all
                                  they could amass

                                  3.158-
                                  And if ye die, or are slain, Lo! it is unto God that
                                  ye are brought together.

                                  3.160-
                                  If God helps you, none can overcome you: If He
                                  forsakes you, who is there, after that, that can help
                                  you? in God, then, Let believers put their trust.

                                  3.169-
                                  Think not of those who are slain in God's way as dead.
                                  Nay, they live, finding their sustenance in the
                                  presence of their Lord;

                                  3.170-
                                  They rejoice in the bounty provided by God: And with
                                  regard to those left behind, who have not yet joined
                                  them (in their bliss), the (Martyrs) glory in the fact
                                  that on them is no fear, nor have they (cause to)
                                  grieve.

                                  4.104
                                  And slacken not in following up the enemy: If ye are
                                  suffering hardships, they are suffering similar
                                  hardships; but ye have Hope from God, while they have
                                  none. And God is full of knowledge and wisdom.

                                  8.12
                                  Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the
                                  message): "I am with you: give firmness to the
                                  Believers: I will instil terror into the hearts of the
                                  Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all
                                  their finger-tips off them."

                                  8.15
                                  O ye who believe! when ye meet the Unbelievers in
                                  hostile array, never turn your backs to them.

                                  8.16
                                  If any do turn his back to them on such a day - unless
                                  it be in a stratagem of war, or to retreat to a troop
                                  (of his own)- he draws on himself the wrath of God,
                                  and his abode is Hell,- an evil refuge (indeed)!

                                  8.17
                                  It is not ye who slew them; it was God: when thou
                                  threwest (a handful of dust), it was not thy act, but
                                  God's: in order that He might test the Believers by a
                                  gracious trial from Himself: for God is He Who heareth
                                  and knoweth (all things).

                                  8.39
                                  And fight them on until there is no more tumult or
                                  oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God
                                  altogether and everywhere; but if they cease, verily
                                  God doth see all that they do.

                                  8.41
                                  And know that out of all the booty that ye may acquire
                                  (in war), a fifth share is assigned to God,- and to
                                  the Apostle, and to near relatives, orphans, the
                                  needy, and the wayfarer,- if ye do believe in God and
                                  in the revelation We sent down to Our servant on the
                                  Day of Testing,- the Day of the meeting of the two
                                  forces. For God hath power over all things.

                                  8.59
                                  Let not the unbelievers think that they can get the
                                  better (of the godly): they will never frustrate
                                  (them).

                                  8.60
                                  Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of
                                  your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror
                                  into (the hearts of) the enemies, of God and your
                                  enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but
                                  whom God doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the
                                  cause of God, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall
                                  not be treated unjustly.


                                  9.5
                                  But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and
                                  slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them,
                                  beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every
                                  stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish
                                  regular prayers and practise regular charity, then
                                  open the way for them: for God is Oft-forgiving, Most
                                  Merciful.

                                  9.14
                                  Fight them, and God will punish them by your hands,
                                  cover them with shame, help you (to victory) over
                                  them, heal the breasts of Believers

                                  9.29
                                  Fight those who believe not in God nor the Last Day,
                                  nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by
                                  God and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of
                                  Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book,
                                  until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and
                                  feel themselves subdued.

                                  9.123
                                  O ye who believe! fight the unbelievers who gird you
                                  about, and let them find firmness in you: and know
                                  that God is with those who fear Him.

                                  47.4
                                  Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight),
                                  smite at their necks; At length, when ye have
                                  thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them):
                                  thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or
                                  ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens. Thus (are
                                  ye commanded): but if it had been God's Will, He could
                                  certainly have exacted retribution from them
                                  (Himself); but (He lets you fight) in order to test
                                  you, some with others. But those who are slain in the
                                  Way of God,- He will never let their deeds be lost.

                                  47.35
                                  Be not weary and faint-hearted, crying for peace, when
                                  ye should be uppermost: for God is with you, and will
                                  never put you in loss for your (good) deeds.

                                  48.16
                                  Say to the desert Arabs who lagged behind: "Ye shall
                                  be summoned (to fight) against a people given to
                                  vehement war: then shall ye fight, or they shall
                                  submit. Then if ye show obedience, God will grant you
                                  a goodly reward, but if ye turn back as ye did before,
                                  He will punish you with a grievous Penalty."

                                  You might also be interested to visit this website,
                                  scroll down a few lines to External links in the right
                                  hand column and click on the link for the Real player
                                  vides Jihad in America.
                                  http://www.cdn-friends-icej.ca/islam/r_islam.html


                                  ----- Original Message -----
                                  From: AnneAKim@...
                                  To: apologetics@yahoogroups.com
                                  Sent: Friday, October 05, 2001 11:38 PM
                                  Subject: Re: [apologetics] Re: What causes Muslim
                                  terrorism?


                                  Hi Hadley

                                  << To summarize, I continue to object strongly to your
                                  characterization of the modern, non-"fundamentalistic"
                                  Islam majority --especially Islam in America-- as
                                  implicitly or subtley promoting war or violence.>>

                                  >>> There are people then there are ideologies. Islam
                                  promotes the Qur'an & Mohammad. The Qur'an promotes
                                  war & violence, so do the Hadiths & the histories the
                                  life of Mohammed. The Muslim theological schools (even
                                  the ones you call mainstream) have a long history of
                                  promoting jihad & endorsing the systematized
                                  degradation of non-Muslims in conquered territories.

                                  >>> Speaking of Sept 11, 2001, there was another
                                  interesting event that day: India submitted a report
                                  to the U.N. about Pakistani-sponsored terrorism and
                                  oppression of Hindus. Terrorist attacks in India have
                                  taken (in round numbers) 40 lives already THIS WEEK.
                                  Pakistan has moved to put itself on the good side of
                                  the U.S. & of world opinion as a very political move.

                                  << I consider your admonition that Muslims in America
                                  be viewed with "caution" and a "watchful eye" to be
                                  not warranted in light of their beliefs (and a tad
                                  poorly considered in light of the recent increase in
                                  hate crimes against Muslims here in America).>>

                                  >>> I consider keeping a watchful eye on people
                                  spreading the Qur'an & the Hadiths to be a simple
                                  recognition of the content of the Qur'an & the
                                  Hadiths. You criticize me more strongly for objecting
                                  to those violent teachings than you have to those
                                  injunctions to violence, which you've systematically
                                  defended.

                                  >>> Distributing facts on the history & teachings of
                                  Islam is important and does not remotely equate to
                                  encouraging hate crimes. Any vigilantism against
                                  Muslims is condemned & by necessity must be condemned.
                                  But that does not mean we stick our heads in the sand
                                  about what is happening, or about what has
                                  happened historically, or what the Qur'an & the
                                  Hadiths say. Why is Muslim history, or the life of
                                  Mohammed, above reproach & critical examination?
                                  Awareness of Muslim teachings & history is low, & the
                                  historical teachings & historical actions of Islam are
                                  all too often ignored or swept under the rug.

                                  << But I don't agree that the majority of its
                                  adherents are any more dangerous in civilized contexts
                                  than any other belief system. (I mention "civilized"
                                  because third-world problems--drought, famine,
                                  disease, poverty, overpopulation-- seem to contribute
                                  the most to conflict in those nations.)>>

                                  >>> So people are innocent of their actions under bad
                                  circumstances? & if being third-world is the problem,
                                  then put it in historical perspective. Right before
                                  the first great Muslim jihad in the 600's, there were
                                  established civilizations in Northern Africa,
                                  Mesopotamia, & Byzantium. Who now speaks of the
                                  greatness of Baghdad as a center of world culture, or
                                  of the greatness of the learning of Alexandria?

                                  << If Muslims in America are potentially dangerous,
                                  shouldn't we be able to see it in the statistics?>>

                                  >>> Do you count the thousands of people who died last
                                  month or not?

                                  << Islam's majority do seem to be comfortable in
                                  secular societies and do not seek to overthrow
                                  governments or commit acts of terrorism against those
                                  who aren't Muslim:>>

                                  >>> Muslims who are in relatively small numbers
                                  (compared to the native population) tend to live
                                  peacefully. The question remains: is that because
                                  Islam teaches peace, or is it a more pragmatic matter
                                  when Muslims are in relatively small numbers?

                                  << |Sunni Muslims These are followers of the Hanifa,
                                  Shafi, Hanibal |and Malik schools. They constitute a
                                  90% majority of the believers,|and are considered to
                                  be main stream traditionalists.

                                  >>> Question: Of the 4 main Islamic schools mentioned
                                  (based on teachings of Hanifa, Shafi, Hanibal, &
                                  Malik), how many of them supported jihad & systematic
                                  oppression of conquered peoples? Answer: All 4.

                                  >>> The Muslims became "enlightened" about how awful
                                  it was to abuse & degrade the conquered indigenous
                                  populations only recently, & under considerable
                                  pressure. Europe (esp Britain & France) gained a
                                  political power in Africa & the Middle East. European
                                  countries used that influence & the leverage of the
                                  military aid given by Britain in the Crimean War to
                                  pressure
                                  for reforms of the oppressive Islamic laws. This
                                  "Westernization" of Islam
                                  was strongly resisted at the time (esp mid to late
                                  1800s) & resulted in
                                  various massacres of Christians throughout the
                                  Muslim-conquered regions world.

                                  << I will, however, agree there is one particular
                                  faction within Islam that
                                  does bear watching, and from this sect comes Bin Laden
                                  and the majority of
                                  all terrorist attacks on the west: Wahhabism. But this
                                  sect is no more Islam
                                  than Identity Christians can be considered
                                  Christianity . . .

                                  >>> The Wahabi school draws its historical origin from
                                  the Hanbali school
                                  that you named as mainstream. The "mainstream" Hanbali
                                  school has been cited
                                  as a factor in some of the harsher occupations of
                                  formerly-Christian nations.
                                  Not that any of the conquests & occupations were
                                  especially friendly.

                                  |The Wahhabi sect (named after the 18th century
                                  warrior-ideology
                                  |Ibn `Abd al-Wahhab) . . . and has put in a
                                  historically unprecedent
                                  |banning of all Jews and Christian from the "holy
                                  land" defined as
                                  |the entire Arabian peninsula. Wahhabism is an extreme
                                  minority in
                                  |Islam, the vast majority of Muslims being tolerant of
                                  Sufism,
                                  |engaging in popular Islam of some kind, and
                                  unconcerned with blowing
                                  |up Sphinxes, Buddhas, or other alleged idols.
                                  http://www.haverford.edu/relg/sells/reports/WahhabismBuddhasBegova.htm

                                  (article dated Mar. 2001, Michael Sells is a professor
                                  of comparative
                                  religions at Haverford College)

                                  >>> Mr. Sells may be a professor of comparative
                                  religions, but what he wrote
                                  about "historically unprecedented banning" etc from
                                  the Arabian peninsula is
                                  very selective about its facts. When Umar I, an early
                                  Caliph, revoked the
                                  legal right to remain in their own country of the
                                  conquered Christians and
                                  Jews, he cited Mohammed's dying wish: "Two religions
                                  should not co-exist
                                  within the Arabian peninsula." Who remembers the
                                  Persian Gulf War? It was an
                                  issue whether non-Muslim troops could be temporarily
                                  housed in Arabia, and
                                  the US troops who wore crosses had to hide them
                                  because Saudi Arabian law forbids even so much as the
                                  display of crosses in that land.

                                  |Saudi-based Wahhabism, the two-century-old
                                  |schismatic sect that believes that, ever since its
                                  first glorious century, Islam has been corrupted by
                                  the West and is going to hell in a handbasket.

                                  >>> Wahabism is a reaction against the West, & as such
                                  has only been around since there has been a
                                  significant Western influence in Muslim lands -- the
                                  1800's & on. It is accurate to place Wahabism in the
                                  1800's. It is not accurate to place the belief in a
                                  worldwide jihad or Muslim intolerance only in the
                                  Wahabi sect. All of Islam has that as their "sacred"
                                  heritage. I think most people have no idea of the
                                  extent of the horrors that have been perpetrated in
                                  the name of Islam and the official endorsements by the
                                  Quranic schools.

                                  |The best description I've seen of Wahhabism . . . "It
                                  was as if a Christian |suggested that Augustine and
                                  Aquinas and every later Christian |theologian were
                                  heretics.

                                  >>> Would you apply that analogy to the case of a
                                  Muslim who denied the universal war of jihad &
                                  extended genuine friendship to Christians & Jews in
                                  contradiction to the Qur'an ("Do not take Jews and
                                  Christians for your friends" etc, 5:51.) That would be
                                  like a Christian who had to deny parts of every major
                                  Christian theological school in the first 1100 or 1200
                                  years of Christianity, deny parts of the Bible
                                  considered sacrosanct for over a millenium, including
                                  some of the teachings of Christ Himself. That is the
                                  situation in which any reinventors of Islam would have
                                  to work.

                                  << All this makes a strong case that Islam is not the
                                  enemy, the Qur'an is not the enemy, but that a climate
                                  of anger, frustration, and resentment is fertile
                                  ground for Wahhabism or for any kind of militant,
                                  radical fundamentalism.>>

                                  >>> Let's not oversimplify. A climate of anger,
                                  frustration, & resentment is fertile ground as you
                                  said, or kindling waiting for a spark. A religion that

                                  has approved looting of unbelievers where the looters
                                  get to keep 4/5 of the loot is gasoline on the
                                  kindling. A history of warfare & conquest extending
                                  over a thousand years is not easily undone by a
                                  century of British & French lobbying which is easily
                                  seen as intrusive meddling by infidels. What you
                                  call "mainstream" Islam may or may not even exist in
                                  the grass roots of many Muslim countries.

                                  << Certainly Islam has participated in all manner of
                                  wars and forced conversions, but if we were to shift
                                  Islam back into the times of the Old Testament would
                                  we then consider Islam to be any more warlike than the

                                  Israelites of Moses and Joshua's time?>>

                                  >>> To answer your question: Yes, definitely, they
                                  didn't have a command to conquer the world. More to
                                  the point: This is the 21st century AD, not the
                                  13th century B.C.. The Muslims are still up to the
                                  same old games, just with more modern weapons & a far
                                  bigger horizon.

                                  << I do know that modern Jews should not be viewed
                                  with suspicion because of wars their ancestors
                                  participated in with the apparent blessing of their
                                  God.>>

                                  >>> Muslims are still a leading cause of violence in
                                  the world today. It's not about what someone's
                                  ancestors did, it's about current events.

                                  << And further, it appears clear that much of the
                                  violence called for by the Qur'an is in response to
                                  aggression and persecution -- a sentiment as nobel
                                  as America's Revolutionary War -->>

                                  >>> As noble as the Revolutionary War?! Look at the
                                  historical background to those Surahs. Not all of the
                                  violence called for by the Qur'an is in "response" to
                                  aggression. The "persecution" & "fighting" Mohammed
                                  faced was often in the face of looting raids he was
                                  conducting on caravans, on the cities of Mecca &
                                  Medina, or various assassinations of his critics that
                                  he had ordered. This is according to the Muslim
                                  traditions & biographies of Mohammed.

                                  << However, the proper response to persecution and
                                  aggression according to Christianity remains somewhat
                                  ambiguous. Christ said to turn the other cheek.
                                  But did that happen in the Revolutionary War? In the
                                  Gulf War? At Kosovo? How about in response to
                                  terrorism? >>

                                  >>> It's ok for me to turn my cheek. But who am I to
                                  look the other way when someone else is attacked?
                                  Where does it stop being a matter of turning the
                                  other cheek and start being an issue of negligence &
                                  failure to protect people?

                                  << Imagine if Muslims here in America mounted an
                                  attack on Christianity -- not the short-term
                                  effectiveness of violence but a concentrated campaign
                                  to influence political power in this country -- how
                                  would Christians react?
                                  I>>

                                  >>> The question is, "How are Christians reacting to
                                  that?"

                                  << Getting back to the intpretation issue, you've
                                  several times made the claim that the Qur'an promotes
                                  unprovoked violence against non-believers. I
                                  don't see that that's a reasonable interpretation
                                  without reading into the text somewhat.>>

                                  >>> Again, bullcookies. The Quran also mentions
                                  starting the aggression. Do you consider the
                                  historical context of how often Mohammad started the
                                  fighting? Learn about the life of Mohammad.

                                  [2:190 & following]

                                  << The verse makes it clear that persecution of Islam
                                  is the reason for violence. Fight with "those who
                                  fight with you", "do not exceed limits", "drive them
                                  out from whence they drove you out", etc.>>

                                  >>> While I'd mentioned before that that particular
                                  verse is just for those already fighting; that doesn't
                                  equate to only self-defense. Don't forget that
                                  Mohammad was in the habit of starting fights. The
                                  verse applies to ongoing wars; that does not mean that
                                  Mohammed & followers were the innocent victims.
                                  If Mohammad was only acting in self-defense, his
                                  conquest of much of the Arabian peninsula becomes
                                  fairly hard to explain. The biographies of Mohammed
                                  & the Hadiths also mention that Mohammed was often the
                                  aggressor. Other places say that it's fine to be the
                                  aggressor.

                                  [8:30] And when those who disbelieved devised plans
                                  against you that they might confine you or slay you or
                                  drive you away >>> Why were people so eager to put him
                                  in jail (confine him) or slay him or make him go away?
                                  Could the caravan raids & marauding have had anything
                                  to do with that? Or his conquering other tribes &
                                  ordering assassinations of people who criticized him?
                                  What would we call that today?

                                  << On the other side of the coin, there is much in the
                                  Qur'an that is devoted to the treatment of
                                  disbelievers that does not involve outright killing.
                                  Here's a list:>>

                                  Disbelievers 48:26

                                  - ask Muhammad to invoke God's wrath upon them as
                                  proof 6:57-58, 8:32, 10:49-52

                                  >>> Jesus says "pray for those who persecute you" --
                                  what a contrast.

                                  - bear their company in kindness 31:15

                                  >>> But don't take unbelievers as friends (4:144).
                                  Especially not Jews or Christians: "O you who believe!
                                  Do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends!
                                  They are friends for each other, and whoever amongst
                                  you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of
                                  them. Surely Allah does not guide the unjust people."
                                  (5:51)

                                  - protect them if they ask you to 9:6

                                  >>> In context of their fleeing the jihad (prev
                                  verse), like we'd already discussed. That was one of
                                  the classic passages where the noble holy warriors
                                  were besieging & lying in ambush for people (9:5).
                                  Besieging the enemies isn't what I'd call
                                  self-defense.

                                  << So it can not be argued that killing unbelievers
                                  without serious provokation is a good thing or even
                                  sanctioned by the Qu'ran without selective quotes.>>

                                  >>> They're commanded to wage war on the world until
                                  everyone is Muslim. I never said Muslims were to walk
                                  up to people in the streets & kill them. But killing
                                  unbelievers has been part & parcel of Islam from the
                                  very beginning, following Mohammed's "illustrious"
                                  example. Reading peace into Islam is what takes a lot
                                  of selectiveness, overlooking the call to war & the
                                  history of Islam. Mohammed started battle after
                                  battle. This was the precedent which his followers
                                  pursued & codified into their laws, this is the
                                  background to the "revelations" he received on how to
                                  divide the booty or deal with the conquered.

                                  << Actually that statement is from an Islamic scholar
                                  who is careful not to claim that Christians, Jews and
                                  Muslims have *always* lived in peace. Nevertheless it
                                  is true that there were centuries of fairly peaceful
                                  coexistence.>>

                                  >>> Bullcookies, unless your definition of "fairly
                                  peaceful coexistence" includes systematic degradation
                                  & institutionalized humiliation. The Jewish historian
                                  Bat Ye'or put it well, she said that the idyllic
                                  picture of a "peaceful" Muslim occupation amounts to
                                  "historical amnesia." "Peaceful coexistence" where it
                                  occurred, was exceptional, short-lived, & contrary to
                                  codified Islamic laws; systematic degradation &
                                  oppression was the rule.

                                  << The Islam religion has evolved over time. At the
                                  time of the invasion of India, only Jews and
                                  Christians were considered "zimmis" (and required to
                                  pay the 'jiziya' tax). Buddhists, Hindus Jains, Sikhs,
                                  Zoroastrians, however, were considered heretics. Since
                                  then, Islam has extended "zimmis" to the Hindu and
                                  other beliefs. Like all religions, Islam has evolved
                                  and reinterpreted its scriptures in light of cultural
                                  and social evolution and generally became more
                                  "liberal".>>

                                  >>> First, being a dhimmi / zimmi was, in most times &
                                  places, a very oppressive life. Next, there's less
                                  'evolution' than you might think. Even Mohammed
                                  allowed some idolaters to be dhimmis when he needed
                                  money (dhimmis have to pay protection money regularly
                                  to their conquerors). It was also ok to slaughter
                                  Christian men & enslave Christian women / children
                                  (same goes for Jewish people), especially those who
                                  didn't have the protection of walled towns.

                                  << The violence we read about is invariably due to
                                  fundamentalism.>>

                                  >>> You've defined fundamentalism to be the cause of
                                  terrorism, therefore all terrorism is due to
                                  fundamentalism, by (your) definition. That's not
                                  analytical, it's circular.

                                  << What about Judaism?>>

                                  >>> Even if you say that the conquest of Israel was
                                  wrong, it's far more limited than world conquest. The
                                  Jews aren't obliged to war til all the world believes
                                  in YHWH. If you want to compare the two, then don't
                                  forget to compare the scale.

                                  << Indeed, even for the Christian, the NT must be
                                  examined closely and within a careful interpretive
                                  framework to be assured that the above verse is no
                                  longer applicable. Even today, Christians are divided
                                  over exactly where to draw the line between the OT
                                  civil and ceremonial laws and I have had long
                                  discussions with Christians who believe the
                                  death-penalty might be lawful for public homosexuality
                                  and for adultery.>>

                                  >>> Not hardly, but the bigger point is this:
                                  according to Christians, the world has had a new
                                  covenant & new holy teachings from one greater than
                                  Moses. Unless the same happens for Islam, the Qur'an
                                  will still stand as the "holy" book of Islam & the
                                  violent life of Mohammed as the "inspiring" role
                                  model. Problem is, Mohammed said he was the greatest
                                  of all prophets ever ... how do you reform the
                                  greatest prophet ever?

                                  << But one striking similarity is this: the beliefs of
                                  Christians and Muslims can not be predicted by the
                                  most simple or literal interpretation of their
                                  religious scriptures; instead, their beliefs are a
                                  reflection of history, culture, conflict, and economic
                                  status.>>

                                  >>> Beliefs also become a cause of the history,
                                  culture, conflict, & (more complex way) economic
                                  status. There are teachings & there are people. People
                                  will always have good & bad til kingdom come. But what
                                  are they taught? What example do they follow?
                                  Ideologies do more than reflect the past, they also
                                  actively form the people who form the future.

                                  >Qur'an (5:33): "The punishment of those who wage war
                                  against Allah and the apostle and strive to make
                                  corruption in the land is only this, that they should
                                  be murdered or crucified or their hands and feet
                                  should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be
                                  imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in
                                  this world, an in the hereafter they shall have a
                                  painful chastisement." So it looks like those who
                                  make corruption in the land, who are sanctioned to be
                                  killed, includes those who speak out against Islam.

                                  << While probably unintentional, this is shown to be a
                                  distortion of the meaning of the Qu'ran.>>

                                  >>> According to whom? Crucifixion (as recommended in
                                  the verse above) was used against Christians in
                                  conquered lands at points in Muslim history, & the
                                  death penalty for speaking out against Islam was part
                                  of the terms of surrender for conquered non-Muslims.

                                  << You can find similar concepts in Christianity that
                                  may be difficult to extract literally as injunctions
                                  from the Bible but are consistent with a particular
                                  viewpoint and the consensus of scholars and popular
                                  Christian figures converge to it.>>

                                  >>> That's the closest you've come to admitting that
                                  peace is difficult to extract literally from the
                                  Qur'an.

                                  << By simple virtue of numbers. Do the math. 90% of
                                  1.3 billion mainstream Muslims comfortable in secular
                                  society equals ..?>>

                                  >>> An oversimplification, since the other 90% still
                                  have roots that teach war in all 4 major schools.

                                  Old/ref >You specifically asked about the OT -- the
                                  meanest hell-verse in the OT is at the end of Isaiah,
                                  & the people who were in the fire have already
                                  died the second death & aren't suffering.

                                  << I don't see a moral difference between torturing
                                  someone in a lake of burning sulfur regardless of
                                  their pleas, and scalding someone's face in
                                  response to a plea.>>

                                  >>> On the one hand, you say you see no difference
                                  between not answering a plea for help (to escape
                                  justice) & answering a plea for help (to escape
                                  justice) with torture. Amazing. But on the subject of
                                  Isaiah (that was the verse I was talking about since
                                  it was OT) it doesn't say anybody was being
                                  eternally tortured. If Isaiah were all we had to go
                                  by, we'd have to conclude that those who make
                                  themselves enemies of their Creator are annihilated.
                                  In Isaiah, the fire contains dead bodies, not
                                  tormented souls.

                                  << Your quotes so far have focused on just about 5
                                  chapters of the 114 of the Qu'ran, actually.>>

                                  >>> I haven't exhausted the Quran's violent passages
                                  either. Read chapter 48 of the Qur'an, if you want to
                                  see Muslims marching off on the offensive for the holy
                                  purpose of raiding for loot. Pick up at v15 where
                                  they get ready to march off for "holy" plundering
                                  raids.

                                  > while *every* believer in the Qur'an is under
                                  > *many* commands to seek out chances to destroy
                                  non-Muslims til kingdom come.

                                  << No, that's wrong. Even the most extreme, radical,
                                  millitant fundamentalists do not kill unbelievers
                                  without a declaration of war (jihad) first>>

                                  >>> Now sure it's in the context of jihad (possible
                                  exception of terrorists). But the call to jihad lasts
                                  til the whole world is Muslim.

                                  << Even the term 'jihad' is now being reinterpreted by
                                  mainstream Islam to refer primarily to an inner
                                  battle, a spiritual struggle much like Pauls'
                                  "armor of God" metaphorical language in
                                  Corithinians.>>

                                  >>> Well, on the one hand, I'm aware that some people
                                  want to re-interpret "jihad", & reinterpreting the
                                  word jihad to erase the bloody history of Islam
                                  is a baby step, half in the right direction (towards
                                  peace) & half in the wrong (obfuscating the bloodiest
                                  past in the history of religion). If (God forbid!) the
                                  RC church had made the "Inquisition" a fixed part of
                                  its immovable theology, then wouldn't the call to a
                                  modern "inquisition" among the believers (internal
                                  inquisition to purify your own mind, of course) just
                                  turn your stomach? Do you have any idea how many
                                  millions of people -- Christians, Jews, Hindus,
                                  Zoroastrians, Manicheans, Buddhists, animists --
                                  have died in the jihads & subsequent oppressions?
                                  I've read several books on the subject now, & am only
                                  getting a glimmer of an idea of the numbers of
                                  millions of people massacred & / or enslaved &/or
                                  reduced to a servile & degraded status. But it's many,
                                  many millions across three continents & over
                                  a thousand years.

                                  |Crusades: any of a series of military expeditions
                                  organized by Western Christians against Muslim powers
                                  in order to take possession of or maintain control
                                  over the Holy City of Jerusalem and the places,
                                  particularly the shrine of the Holy Sepulchre,
                                  associated with the earthly life of Jesus Christ.
                                  Between 1095, when the First Crusade was launched, and
                                  1291, when the Latin Christians...

                                  << So, rescuing the Holy Land from the infidels seems
                                  to be the foremost goal. Strangely familiar, that
                                  goal...>>

                                  >>> As much as I don't want to defend the Crusades,
                                  neither do I want to slam them when they don't deserve
                                  it (there are enough times when they do!) So
                                  that said, I don't see in the quote any acknowledgment
                                  that these places had been seized by force by Muslims,
                                  that those regions had previously had a Christian
                                  majority. I also don't see any acknowledgment of the
                                  events that triggered the first Crusade, when European
                                  visitors to Jerusalem had protection money extorted
                                  from them at each site they visited, were treated
                                  badly (to put it nicely) & many were killed.

                                  << And if they were so concerned with rescuing their
                                  Christian brothers from the Muslims, why were they
                                  killing Jews?>>

                                  >>> & while we're on the subject, why did one of the
                                  later Crusades plunder their fellow Christians of
                                  opposing sects on the way home? If the Allies
                                  were really in the right against Hitler, why did
                                  Dresden happen? Wartime actions are notoriously hard
                                  to control, other limits having been broken, &
                                  it is without any qualification a bad thing to kill
                                  non-combatants. It's completely indefensible for
                                  people to perform atrocities under cover of a
                                  just war. But atrocities, by themselves, do not make
                                  an associated war unjust.

                                  << I understand that all manner of atrocities have
                                  been committed in the name of any god, but the blame
                                  for that, in my mind, goes to human nature
                                  accompanied by a culture and historical framework that
                                  permits or sanctions violence.>>

                                  >>> If you look at the way human nature interacts with
                                  a "culture or historical framework that permits or
                                  sanctions violence," then do not neglect to see the
                                  historical framework of Islam. Historically, jihad is
                                  part of the deal.

                                  > Did anybody see the Muslims interviewed on 60
                                  Minutes by Bradley? Did you hear how they said that
                                  the terrorist attacks couldn't possibly have been by
                                  Arabs or Muslims, they just don't do things like that?
                                  Was that one of the baldest lies ever?

                                  << Okay, let's see. The facts are that, prior to this
                                  attack, 5 out of 1 billion Muslims committed or
                                  attempted to commit non-suicidal attacks on US
                                  soil.>>

                                  >>> You change the context to US soil, as if that were
                                  the topic of the interview. Terrorism in general was
                                  the subject, & their assertion was that Muslims would
                                  never do such a thing. Bullcookies.

                                  << By your reasoning, therefore, if .00000005 percent
                                  of the adherents of a particular religion commit a
                                  particular violent act, than all are suspect and
                                  all must be willing to admit that they are capable of
                                  such acts? I don't buy that. Use a little empathy
                                  here.>>

                                  >>> Your attack is fairly unrelated to my point. If
                                  100% of the adherents of a religion revere a book
                                  which promotes violence & has a nearly-1400-year-long
                                  history of violence, then it's wise to keep your eye
                                  out for signs of violence.

                                  >Now, 5000 (rioting) Muslims in one city: are they all
                                  "extremists"? Is this only a fringe group?

                                  << Relative to mainstream Islam, yes.>>

                                  >>> Sigh. What would it take to show you that that
                                  -is- mainstream Islam, historically speaking?

                                  > In Algeria, estimates are that roughly 100,000
                                  people have been killed by Muslims in the 1990s.

                                  << Boy, is that only half the story. In 1991, the
                                  Islamic Salvation Front had the widest suppose of any
                                  political party in the country and would have won
                                  the elections if the army hadn't canceled the
                                  elections in response. Now it's a civil war, what do
                                  you expect? >>

                                  >>> Calling it "civil war" overlooks a lot. Remember
                                  our own civil war. Even though atrocities were
                                  committed on both sides, it's not like the two sides
                                  were morally equivalent. In Algeria as recently as
                                  1912 there were reports that the Jews there were still
                                  forbidden to wear shoes outside the Jewish quarter.
                                  It's not like non-Muslims were being treated equitably
                                  under the law.

                                  << Like the civil war in the US, two sides disagree on
                                  a particular ideology, can't agree peacefully, and so
                                  they fight it out with great loss of life.>>

                                  >>> So you would characterize the US civil war as a
                                  "disagreement" over "ideologies", without any
                                  reference to moral difference on a human level?
                                  Come on. Was that in an effort to justify Islam?

                                  >In Pakistan, a similar riot was joined by roughly
                                  30,000 Muslims >-- a riot in which the only
                                  Christian-majority town (Shanti Nagar) was attacked,
                                  churches & businesses destroyed, mass rapes,
                                  widespread fires being set. It was only because of the
                                  outrage of the international community that Pakistan's
                                  Prime Minister Sheriff agreed to help rebuild what had
                                  been destroyed. (Now if the problem were really a
                                  handful of extremists, where did the mob of 30,000
                                  come from?)

                                  << Yes, and Pakistan is a hotbed for fundamentalist
                                  Islam, especially Wahhabism. These are the same
                                  factions making trouble now in response to Pakistan's
                                  cooperation with the US.>>

                                  >>> At least you're not acting as if this one is
                                  justified.

                                  << Your account also neglects to mention that some
                                  Muslims attempted to protect Christians, and some
                                  Muslim organizations attempted to help afterwards with
                                  food and clothing.>>

                                  >>> Sheesh, would it be "neglect" to talk about Nazi
                                  atrocities without mentioning the underground? A few
                                  Muslims protecting Christians were far outnumbered by
                                  those raping & killing Christians & burning that
                                  Christian town. Of course any help makes a difference,
                                  but it's not on the same scale, & it's not a proper
                                  balance to imagine the protection was on the same
                                  scale as the destruction. As far as rebuilding, the
                                  international community put a lot of pressure on the
                                  Pakistanis to rebuild. How appropriate is it to give
                                  people credit for things which were done
                                  not-quite-voluntarily?

                                  << I've agreed that Islam has a history of more
                                  violence than Christianity.>>

                                  >>> That difference can be traced in a direct line to
                                  Mohammed and Christ.

                                  << But I've also pointed out that modern Islam is much
                                  different from historic Islam in a way similar to the
                                  differences between modern Christianity and the early
                                  Catholic church.>>

                                  >>> You've asserted it, without demonstrating it.
                                  History will tell whether nouveau-Islam gains the
                                  upper hand. If certain Islamic countries ever allowed
                                  free speech, that would be interesting.

                                  << 90% of Islam does not deserve to be labeled
                                  potentially dangerous because of a conservative 10%.
                                  It's unfair.>>

                                  >>> It's the ideology that promotes violence. The
                                  Qur'an has to be carefully & energetically
                                  reinterpreted to reach a peaceful reading, & many
                                  think such "energetic reinterpretation" is sacrilege.

                                  Now I'm compiling hard facts so people can see the
                                  substance behind this. It's taking awhile to type, I'm
                                  trying to document the references & check those that I
                                  can.

                                  Take care & God bless
                                  Anne K.




                                  __________________________________________________
                                  Do You Yahoo!?
                                  NEW from Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month.
                                  http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1
                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.