Can A "good" Muslim be a good American?

[amity]

I am very busy tonight, so I am not going to be posting much I don't think.

Let me just say that although I can't speak for Muslims, I have thought it over and decided that for myself I would not bear arms against any Baptists anywhere.

Amen.

 

[reformedbeliever]

I am very busy tonight, so I am not going to be posting much I don't think.

Let me just say that although I can't speak for Muslims, I have thought it over and decided that for myself I would not bear arms against any Baptists anywhere.

Amen.

Awwww....... c'mon Amity. I think you are just over the border from me. I thought we could line up on both sides of the red river and plink away. You are not game? :laugh:

 

[LadyEagle]

None of the verses in LE's quotation are more than a single isolated verse. None of them are presented in any context whatsover.

As DHK said, "If you think they have such a specific context in that they don't mean what they say, then demonstrate how Mohammed didn't mean what he said by using context."

 

[amity]

Don't think I will. First of all there are a lot of individual verses and that would be a greater investment in time than this thread warrants. Secondly, it is my hope that people will research the context in the Koran for themselves.

 

[DHK]

DHK, ANYTIME one chooses to quote ONE VERSE of the Bible OR the Koran it is out of context. It is just one verse, so how can it NOT be out of context? If then one follows it with another verse from a remote part of the book, followed by another verse from yet some entirely different chapter, and tries to string them together into one meaningful passage by saying that they are all referring to the same thing, then that is not a proper citation. All one REALLY has is a bunch of verses taken out of context.

That is not true. We use many verses without context because they are timeless truths needing no context. In fact that is the way we most often present the plan of salvation:

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Romans 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

Romans 10:9-10 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

Do you think it is possible for you to understand those verses without me having to teach you the context, the entire chapter and book in which those verses were written?

None of the verses in LE's quotation are more than a single isolated verse. None of them are presented in any context whatsover. Putting them all together that way makes it appear as though there is context, when there is most definitely not. They are nothing but a random sequence of verses, that is all.

If I do a Bible Study on the blood of Christ I will take all the related verses on the blood and write them down (or type them out). This is a valid form of Bible study. And this is what LE has done with the sayings of Mohammed and his view toward the persecution of infidels which includes Christians.

 

[amity]

Well, we can also see there is a problem with taking any of those verses out of context! But we can discuss the Calvinist/ Arminian debate elsewhere, as we have.

But even moreso trying to present these verses as pithy eternal truths to someone from a non-Christian background who would not understand what you were taking about.

A text without a context is a pretext.

 

[reformedbeliever]

That is not true. We use many verses without context because they are timeless truths needing no context. In fact that is the way we most often present the plan of salvation:

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Romans 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

Romans 10:9-10 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

Do you think it is possible for you to understand those verses without me having to teach you the context, the entire chapter and book in which those verses were written?

If I do a Bible Study on the blood of Christ I will take all the related verses on the blood and write them down (or type them out). This is a valid form of Bible study. And this is what LE has done with the sayings of Mohammed and his view toward the persecution of infidels which includes Christians.

But what about Jesus saying that in order to see the kingdom of God one must be born again? I don't see that in any of the verses of scripture you provided DHK. I would almost bet that we would disagree with each other anyway. You do know that one must be born again first before they can believe don't you?..........:laugh:
I don't think you or Lady Eagle considered the historical context of the Quran in either of your isogesis. Get real! Close this hateful thread before I start a bunch more of just such hate. I don't think that would benefit anyone....... anymore than this thread has.

 

[DHK]

Well, we can also see there is a problem with taking any of those verses out of context! But we can discuss the Calvinist/ Arminian debate elsewhere, as we have.

But even moreso trying to present these verses as pithy eternal truths to someone from a non-Christian background who would not understand what you were taking about.

A text without a context is a pretext.

John 3:16 is easy enough to understand on itself. An unsaved person need not to get into a Calvinist/Arminian debate. That was a red herring on your part. If John 3:16 needs more explanation, a person would not need to explain through the immediate context of John 3 or the verses surrounding verse 16. He would more likely go to other verses speaking about the topic of salvation. John 3:16 is a message in itself.

 

[reformedbeliever]

John 3:16 is easy enough to understand on itself. An unsaved person need not to get into a Calvinist/Arminian debate. That was a red herring on your part. If John 3:16 needs more explanation, a person would not need to explain through the immediate context of John 3 or the verses surrounding verse 16. He would more likely go to other verses speaking about the topic of salvation. John 3:16 is a message in itself.

I don't think so at all. I think way too many people take John 3:16 out of context. The context is being born again. See? I told you we would disagree. Now please close this hateful thread.

 

[DHK]

But what about Jesus saying that in order to see the kingdom of God one must be born again? I don't see that in any of the verses of scripture you provided DHK. I would almost bet that we would disagree with each other anyway. You do know that one must be born again first before they can believe don't you?..........:laugh:
I don't think you or Lady Eagle considered the historical context of the Quran in either of your isogesis. Get real! Close this hateful thread before I start a bunch more of just such hate. I don't think that would benefit anyone....... anymore than this thread has.

Agan, salvation can be presented without presenting the need for the new birth, although presenting John 3:1-11 is one way of presenting the plan of salvation--it is not the only way. One does not have to present every verse on salvation in order for that person to be saved.
A person to be saved needs to believe on the finished work of Christ. I hope that you do believe that much.

 

[amity]

And again we are now discussing ...

I am going to solve this for myself by not contributing to this thread anymore. I for one am considering it closed.

 

[DHK]

And again we are now discussing ...

I am going to solve this for myself by not contributing to this thread anymore. I for one am considering it closed.

Islam is a religion of violence and not of peace. You don't want to believe that. You make assertions that you cannot back up. You don't have to contribute to this thread. It is probably better if you don't. You haven't met the challenges that have been set before you. You can't provide any context that would demonstrate any of the verses that were taken from the Koran were out of context. You just beat around the bush, and say that it is not possible. But you haven't not demonstrated it and given any context of any of the verses quoted. You have shown considerable ignorance of the subject of Islam when at the same time you claim to be an authority.

Debate is the presentation of facts and the ability to back up those facts with evidence. It is not the emotional contradition of another's postion without any evidence.

This is a debate forum. One would expect facts and evidence to back up what is said.

 

[amity]

I never claimed to be any sort of authority whatsoever. I just read the chapters that LE's citation were from, or most of them. Anyone else is welcome to do the same. I did study Islam and Judaism in college, in separate courses from the Middle East history courses I mentioned earlier, both courses designed for "non-believers" in those religions. I think I had two courses in Judaism and one in Islam, and that is of course not much. Plus the M.E. history courses. I also lived in the Middle East for about 8 years all together. Lived in Lebanon, Kuwait, and Israel. Also visited Egypt, Syria, etc.

I am trying to tell you that any isolated verse out of anything is out of context. All that citation was, was a bunch of isolated verses strung together to make it seem like they made sense together. I did the same with the Bible as a demonstration.

Islam is no more a religion of violence than Judaism is. See this about Jihad:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad

Also see this on the treatment of Christian and Jewish minorities historically in Muslim countries. The story is not all good news, but this gives a realistic picture:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_of_the_Book
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millet_system

 

[DHK]

I never claimed to be any sort of authority whatsoever. I just read the chapters that LE's citation were from, or most of them. Anyone else is welcome to do the same. I did study Islam and Judaism in college, in separate courses from the Middle East history courses I mentioned earlier, both courses designed for "non-believers" in those religions. I think I had two courses in Judaism and one in Islam, and that is of course not much. Plus the M.E. history courses. I also lived in the Middle East for about 8 years all together. Lived in Lebanon, Kuwait, and Israel. Also visited Egypt, Syria, etc.

I am trying to tell you that any isolated verse out of anything is out of context. All that citation was, was a bunch of isolated verses strung together to make it seem like they made sense together. I did the same with the Bible as a demonstration.

The comparison is apples to oranges. And I have already explained why. I have read through the Koran, and have been studying the Bible for years. The books of the Bible are all written with a definite purpose in mind, each one being very unique, and in fact, each chapter is unique. To take Scripture, as you did, out of its context in the Bible is quite a bit different than what LE did.

LE took verses in the Koran all related one to another on the same subject--the subject of persecution. The Koran is written differently than the Bible. It is written in a poetic style where verses become more like short pithy sayings. Thus the context has very little to do with the verses quoted. If they do, then I challenge you to show how the context would change the meaning of any of the verses that LE quoted. This is the third time I have asked you to do so. But since you cannot, I will assume that LE is correct in her postings, and you are wrong.

Islam is no more a religion of violence than Judaism is. See this about Jihad:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad

Also see this on the treatment of Christian and Jewish minorities historically in Muslim countries. The story is not all good news, but this gives a realistic picture:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_of_the_Book
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millet_system

The difference is that Israel is trying to defend itself. The sole existence of Islam is to drive the nation of Israel into the sea; to drive them off their land; to destroy them entirely. Even during the Gulf War, Sadam Hussein was firing his scud missiles at Israel.

Since coming to power, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had been a leader of the rejectionist Arab states and one of the most belligerent foes of Israel. On April 2, 1990, Saddam's rhetoric became more threatening: "I swear to God we will let our fire eat half of Israel if it tries to wage anything against Iraq." Saddam said his nation's chemical weapons capability was matched only by that of the United States and the Soviet Union, and that he would annihilate anyone who threatened Iraq with an atomic bomb by the "double chemical" (Reuters, April 2, 1990).
Several days later, Saddam said that war with Israel would not end until all Israeli-held territory was restored to Arab hands. He added that Iraq could launch chemical weapons at Israel from several different sites (Reuters, April 18, 1990). The Iraqi leader also made the alarming disclosure that his commanders had the freedom to launch attacks against Israel without consulting the high command if Israel attacked Iraq. The head of the Iraqi Air Force subsequently said he had orders to strike Israel if the Jewish State launched a raid against Iraq or any other Arab country (UPI, April 22, 1990).

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Gulf_War.html

 

[amity]

The comparison is apples to oranges. And I have already explained why. I have read through the Koran, and have been studying the Bible for years. The books of the Bible are all written with a definite purpose in mind, each one being very unique, and in fact, each chapter is unique. To take Scripture, as you did, out of its context in the Bible is quite a bit different than what LE did.

LE took verses in the Koran all related one to another on the same subject--the subject of persecution. The Koran is written differently than the Bible. It is written in a poetic style where verses become more like short pithy sayings. Thus the context has very little to do with the verses quoted. If they do, then I challenge you to show how the context would change the meaning of any of the verses that LE quoted. This is the third time I have asked you to do so. But since you cannot, I will assume that LE is correct in her postings, and you are wrong.

Don't buy it.

The difference is that Israel is trying to defend itself. The sole existence of Islam is to drive the nation of Israel into the sea; to drive them off their land; to destroy them entirely. Even during the Gulf War, Sadam Hussein was firing his scud missiles at Israel.

Do you ever read anything but biased sources with axes to grind? EVERYONE who persecutes Christians will always claim some security need to do so. It does NOT justify it in any way, shape, or form. I will definitely claim some level of expertise on this subject. Israel has always been on the offensive, never trying to defend itself, internally. As far as Islam's sole rationale (which I assume is what you mean) being to drive Israel into the sea, I think you know that is ridiculous. Israel was only founded in 1948. The Koran was written in the 600s. Or do you have some Koran quotes for that allegation as well?

Moreover, I can only say Israel had their chance to have a democratic secular state, and chose instead to foment right wing extremism. I hope they can live with what they got as a result, because it looks as though they are going to have to.

A very good book for you to read would be Alfred M. Lilienthal's The Zionist Connection: What Price Peace? This was written years ago, but is a very good first hand look at the foundation of the state of Israel, written by an American Jew. The chapter on "Christians in Bondage" you might find especially interesting. There are also numerous first-person accounts by various Israeli citizens. Try The Decadence of Judaism in Our Time by Moshe Menuhin (father of Yehudi Menuhin, the great violinist). Then try some of the many books by Felicia Langer, Israeli human rights attorney. Her most well known is called With My Own Eyes.

I won't even go into the histories by Palestinians (whether Christian or Muslim) because I would really prefer you to hear it from the Israelis and other Jews themselves, so you will believe it.

 

[DHK]

Don't buy it.

You don't have to buy it. As I have already advised: you have to demonstrate it. Demonstrate that LE's quotes are out of context or have any other meaning because of so-called context other than what the verse states.

Do you ever read anything but biased sources with axes to grind?

Because fact goes contrary to your opinion you say it has an axe to grind. That is not debate. If the information is wrong, then give evidence to the contrary.

I will definitely claim some level of expertise on this subject. Israel has always been on the offensive, never trying to defend itself, internally.

This is a totally false statement. In the Gulf War Israel didn't even retaliate or try to defend itself. Iraq was fortunate that it didn't enter the war even after it fired scud missiles into Israel.
Nowadays, Israel finds itself constantly on the defensive. However it is very difficult to defend oneself against suicide bombers.

EVERYONE who persecutes Christians will always claim some security need to do so. It does NOT justify it in any way, shape, or form. As far as Islam's sole rationale (which I assume is what you mean) being to drive Israel into the sea, I think you know that is ridiculous. Israel was only founded in 1948. The Koran was written in the 600s. Or do you have some Koran quotes for that allegation as well?

Did you not read the quote I gave you from Saddam Hussein which he made during the Gulf War. He in as much stated the goal of the entire Islamic world:
Saddam said that war with Israel would not end until all Israeli-held territory was restored to Arab hands.
What Muslim does not believe the same?

Moreover, I can only say Israel had their chance to have a democratic secular state, and chose instead to foment right wing extremism. I hope they can live with what they got as a result, because it looks as though they are going to have to.

Not only are you pro-Islam; you are anti-Semitic.

 

[amity]

Not only are you pro-Islam; you are anti-Semitic.

Read the books. One day you will agree with me that this is not anti-Semitism. The anti-Zionist contingent among Jews has always been strong.

 

[rbell]

Islam is no more a religion of violence than Judaism is.

Tell that to our World Trade Center and Pentagon victims.

 

[LadyEagle]

I don't think you or Lady Eagle considered the historical context of the Quran in either of your isogesis.

Well, let's do that then, but it doesn't change the content or the meaning of the verses I quoted earlier, but let's look at the historical context just for a technicality:

The latter violent suras of Medina supercede the earlier peaceful suras of Mecca.

A Genocide, the Jews of Medina: http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina/jews.htm

The early years of Muhammad’s prophetic carrier, in his native town Mecca, were peaceful. After 13 year of preaching no more than 70 or 80 people had embraced his cause. Not all of them were able fighting men. That explains why those early years were peaceful. Muslims did not have the strength to fight. However soon after Muhammad migrated and settled in Medina, and the Arab population of that town accepted his religion, he began invading and looting first the merchant caravans and then the human settlements to survive and to provide for his followers who had accompanied him and because of their lack of expertise had a difficult time finding employments in Medina.

The fifth year of hijrah (migration to Medina) was an eventful year. That was the year that Muslims fought the famous war of the ditch against the Meccans and soon after that they surrounded the Jewish quarter of Bani Qaynuqa of Medina who were a prosperous population of goldsmiths and blacksmiths and after confiscating their properties (vineyards and homes) and belongings (jewelry and arms) they were banished from their ancestral home. After that he set his sight on another Jewish tribe, the Bani Nadir. He did a similar thing to them. He killed their leaders and many of their able-bodied men and after confiscating their properties and much of their wealth, expelled the rest from Medina. In neither of these cases the Jews offered any resistance. They were taken by surprise and simply surrendered under the superior forces of Muhammad’s men.

Emboldened by his victories over these weaker, non-combative and non-threatening people who agreed to give up their wealth in exchange for their lives and goaded by an insatiable greed and his lust for power this self styled messenger of Allah then set his eyes upon other Jewish tribes of Arabia living outside of Medina. This time it was the turn of Bani al-Mustaliq.

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina/Juwairiyah.htm

Ever hear about what happened to 800-900 Jews of Medina? Islamic apologists will deny that they were beheaded with their heads falling into ditches and their property plundered and their wives and children raped and sold into slavery.

Mohammed was angry with Jews who rejected his new self-proclaimed religion with him as the new self-proclaimed prophet on a par with Moses! So he butchered them!

More Articles here:

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles.htm

Islam under scrutiny by ex-Muslims: (a bunch of articles on the history of islam)

http://www.islam-watch.org/

Testimonies of ex-Muslims:

http://bibleprobe.com/islamapostates.htm

Again, please provide any context that would demonstrate any of the verses that were taken from the Koran were out of context in an effort to skew their meaning.

Or provide proof that the earlier peaceful suras of Mecca (when Mohammed was trying to persuade the Jews to turn to his religion) supercede the later violent suras of Medina (after he had gathered enough followers to begin genocide).

And since you seem to want to throw Christianity and the Bible into this thread as a straw man debate tactic, apples and oranges, as DHK mentioned, shall we do a comparison between the character and life of Jesus Christ and the character and life of Mohammed?

Here, I'll start: Jesus Christ died so that others may live.
Mohammed lived so that others may die.

 

[amity]

Did you ever study statistics? Are you aware of what a spurious connection is? The classic example given in textbooks is that of rape and ice cream. We note that a statistical analysis will show that rape increases every single year at the same time that ice cream sales start to rise. When ice cream sales fall, so does the incidence of rape. Does this mean that rape is caused by eating ice cream? No one in full possession of their faculties would even suggest it.

It is like that with terrorism. The fact that you can personally think of however-many incidents of terrorism where the terrorists claimed to be Muslim, does not mean that Islam causes (or advocates) terrorism. Most terrorists are not Muslim, just the ones you hear about because of where you live. And most definitely, most Muslims do not support terrorism! Islam truly does condemn acts of violence against noncombatants in war, very explicitly. What you are doing is like *some* people in WWII who concluded that there was something about Japanese that just made them violent. But instead of racism, it is "religionism."

Please refuse to allow your minds to be filled with hate toward those of another religion. This is not good for, and does not even make sense for, a Christian. Try to gain a deeper understanding of what in going on in your own hearts, as well as in the world. Someone is fooling you into hating, despite what Christ said. It can only be Satan, the great deceiver.

Those citations again:
Alfred Lilienthal - The Zionist Connection
Moshe Menuhin - The Decadence of Judaism in Our Time
Felcia Langer - With My Own Eyes

It is late. Good night.