Will anyone defend Islam?

In ch 8 v 12-Allah is talking only to angels.U say that ch 9 v 29 urges people to war,war is never mentioned in that verse,U R taking wrong meaning,war means a fight with arms between nations or groups,logically speaking Allah says in ch 5 v 32(don't kill innocent human beings unless for murder or mischief),so in future verses the word fight will b only for those who cause harm or mischief,not for innocent beings,another eg of fight is a reporter through his article revolts against corrupt government,literally he is fighting but he is not causing harm,fight means to strive to victory,so U R taking wrong meaning of verses to prove urself right!!!mischief means any destruction,harm or injury.Allah in fact says how to argue with non Muslims in ch 16 v 125-invite to the way of lord with beautiful words and wisdom and argue with them in best possible peaceful manner.

Ron Webb wrote: Now, is anyone interested in responding to this guy?

Well, it's a dirty job, but somebody has to do it. This Ramadan, as a gift to my Muslim friends, it might as well be me.

Ronson wrote: All I can say is that if peaceful, ordinary Muslims would come out of hiding and actually condemn the jihadists who are attacking everything that moves, then maybe Christians wouldn't have to do it for them.

And all I can say is that if the Evangelical Christian Zionist types who seem to frequent Matt Slick's board would loosen their laconic tongues and condemn their own jihadists, sometimes in IDF uniforms, who, with comparative impunity, incinerate Palestinian children in the Gaza Strip with white phosphorus, who decimate a largely hapless Iraq with depleted uranium, and who stand by, as mute as they are mum, while war profiteers and others ransack the Treasury to finance their "crusade" (GW Bush's malapropism, correction, apropism) to make the Middle East safe for no-bid oil contracts and Israeli nuclear hegemony, then maybe Muslims wouldn't have to do it for them.



Serv
Male (vestigial) Christian

Edited by Servetus - 25 July 2013 at 7:15pm

Experiential wrote: Hello Servetus

Hello in return, Experiential, and, in answer to Jimi Hendrix, yes, as a matter of fact, I am experienced. Standby, here's a little smiley face:   :)

Experiential wrote: The question here as posed at the beginning of the thread was whether there is violence inherent in the doctrines and theology of Islam itself.

That is one of the points at issue, but not the only one. Moreover, the issue here does not restrict itself exclusively to a comparison of the (unapologetically martial) Islam vs. the (presumably but far from actually pacifistic) Christianity, but also includes the increasingly militant, avowedly expansionistic and colonizing Judaism, under its dominant nationalistic form of Zionism, which has its own, decidedly non-Christian, often ersatz, Messianic agenda in the Middle Eastern region and beyond.

Experiential wrote: What secular governments may do out of secular motives is beyond the question.

Is it? I think the distinction you are drawing between secular and religious governments is a bit facile, especially if you point to the USA as a model of the former. Allow me to quote the late Senator George McGovern who, at the National Press Club, summed things nicely by quoting Bob Woodward and impertinently asking GW Bush:

"Mr. President, Sir, when reporter Bob Woodward asked you if you had consulted with your father before ordering our army into Iraq you said, "No, he's not the father you call on a decision like this. I talked to my heavenly Father above."(1)

Ref:
http://www.thenation.com/article/impartial-interrogation-george-w-bush#

Evidently, GW Bush's heavenly Father above -by means of a compliant, spineless Congress- gave him and his administration permission to invade and occupy Iraq and, perhaps in a larger PNAC-ian sense, permission to redraw the entire map of the Middle East. May we then, as GW Bush did, call that a "crusade" of sorts? Yes, we may.

Experiential wrote: So the question is whether Mohamad set a violent example as a war lord and man of the sword. Also are their passages in the Quran that promote violence?

It seems to me that Muhammad would be better and more accurately compared to Joshua than to Jesus. Unlike Jesus, both Muhammad and Joshua were military commanders, whose kingdoms, ultimately, were of this world.

Experiential wrote: I challenge any one to show violence inherent in the life of Jesus and / or the New Testament.

Christians are often closet jihadists - they hide out behind (and provide funds to) people in IDF uniforms, for instance. In any case, a significant difference between Christians and Muslims is this: that when we Christians go to war, which is often enough in our history, we have to largely disregard and ignore our prophet and his emasculating -as Nietzsche put it- Sermon on the Mount, but when Muslims do, they don't. Thus Christians, it seems to me and in this regard, are often considerably more hypocritical than Muslims.

Experiential wrote: I challenge any one to show violence inherent in the life of Jesus and / or the New Testament.

Would you consider that here Nocholas Kristof, published in the New York Times, has risen to your challenge? Read him here:

"Jesus and Jihad"
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/17/opinion/jesus-and-jihad.html

Best regards,

Serv
Male (vestigial and often embarrassed) Christian


Edited by Servetus - 26 July 2013 at 8:25am

Experiential wrote: The question here as posed at the beginning of the thread was whether there is violence inherent in the doctrines and theology of Islam itself.

Well no, that wasn't my purpose in starting this.  I am taking it as given that Muslims do not consider Islam to be an inherently violent religion.  I am asking them to say that where it matters, -- not just here, but wherever their religion is being attacked.

It seems to me that this would be a worthy project for Ramadan.  But what do I know?