Your Chance to Defend Islam

[Bible-boy]

In another thread in the "Baptist Only" section several posters started a debate regarding Islam. However, the Other Religions/Doctrines section is more suitable for such a debate. So here goes. On the other thread the poster Johnv said the following:

Originally posted by Johnv:

The idea that Islam was spread through war is a myth. Although the Arabs conquered a large area of the world immediately after the rise of Islam, this does not mean that Islam was forcibly spread through war.

Sorry John, but I have to disagree with you on this point. From the very beginning, when Mohammad returned to Mecca from Medina with an army and demanded that the people of the city submit to Islam or die, Islam has spread at the point of the sword. Your answer does not fly when one considers the spread of the Islamic Empire all the way into Europe. Spain at one time was controlled by the Moors. Their advance into Europe was not stopped until the Battle of Tours in France. Likewise, the Islamic army was encamped just outside the very gates of the Austrian capital. These were not simply new Islamic nations that had to fight in self defense. These were Christian nations that were once conquered at the point of the Islamic sword.

It is one thing for a world power to conquer other nations and defeat their armies by means of the sword. However, it is entirely another story when the victor forces the defeated populace, innocent civilians, to accept his particular brand of religion or face death by the sword. That is what Mohammad and his followers did.

The first wars entered into were against Persia and the Roman empire, the two super-powers of the day who were vying for control. These battles were entered into in self-defense to prevent these powers from snuffing out the new Islamic nation. The spread of the Arab conquest was made easier by the fact that many of the peoples of the area were suffering under Persian and Roman oppression and actually welcomed the Arabs with open arms. Once the conquest gained momentum and power, it spread.

Mohammad cooked up the religion of Islam in A.D. 610. He was forced to flee from Mecca in A.D. 622. Later he returned from Medina with an army and forced the pagan citizens Mecca to accept Islam. Mohammad died in A.D. 632. I believe those are the correct dates. Anyway, by A.D. 610 the Roman Empire had long since crushed the Persians. I don’t think that there was a Persian “super-power” in the 7th century A.D. I don’t know where you are getting your historical information from.

When Islamic rule was established in a new territory, many of the existing occupants continued to practice their religion.

You are correct in that Islam is supposed to tolerate Christians, Jews, and Zorasters as “People of the Book.” These people were allowed to pay a fine, or tax, and continue to practice their religions. However, they were forbidden to try and “convert” anyone, especially a Muslim, to their faith. To do so meant that they faced the death penalty. Christians cannot thrive and obey the Great Commandment under such a requirement. We must share the Gospel as commanded by the Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, Christians face the death penalty when forced to live under Islamic law.

The Quran clearly prohibits coercion in matters of faith and as a result, there were no wholesale forced conversions.

Please explain how this statement works with the Quran passages that instruct Muslims to slay the infidels where they find them, and/or the infidel shall die by the sword.

Instead, the populations of these areas converted to Islam gradually and voluntarily over a period of decades rather than years. Today, non-Muslim minorities survive and thrive all over the Muslim world, which would not have been possible if their ancestors had been forced to convert to Islam.

No, the reason that Christians still exist within Islamic nations is that real blood bought Christians would rather die as martyrs than convert to Islam. Thus, they continue in the faith and raise their children to be Christians. As long as they are not caught “converting” anyone they can eek out an existence.

Historically, interactions through travel and trade have been the greatest factor contributing to the spread of Islam.

That may well account for some of the spread of Islam but certainly not all of it and it certainly cannot be referred to as the “greatest factor contributing to the spread of Islam.” The religion spread rapidly at the point of the sword. To suggest otherwise is to attempt to defy and/or rewrite historical fact.

As far as the Quran and terrorism, the Quran clearly prohibits killing. The Quran says that the sin of killing a single soul is equivalent to killing the whole of mankind.

Again, please explain how this statement can possibly be true when the Quran teaches that Muslims are to “slay the infidel where you find them,” and “the infidel shall die by the sword.”

Muslims are only allowed to make war in self-defense or in a just cause. Senseless or unprovoked aggression is totally forbidden. The Quran does allow for wartime defense, however, killing women, children, the elderly and the unarmed is again totally forbidden.

Ah, now you must explain what is considered by Islam to be a “just cause.” For example, is it a “just cause” to kill a Christian, living in an Islamic nation, who shares his faith with a Muslim and that Muslim rejects Islam and accepts Christ as his Lord and Savior? Likewise, what is considered to be “senseless or unprovoked aggression?” If an Islamic world leader declares Jihad and Muslims answer that call and detonate a bomb in a public place in Atlanta, GA that kills 100 innocent people, who have never even met a Muslim, is that “senseless or unprovoked?”

The rights of prisoners of war were set down by Islamic law long before the Geneva convention.

This may well be the case. However, it does not address the point that the Quran teaches that Muslims are to slay infidels where they find them and that the infidel shall die by the sword. We are not discussing how Islamic law deals with prisoners of war. We are discussing how the Quran teaches Muslims to kill followers of other world religions if they refuse to submit to Islam, or attempt to share their particular faith with Muslims in Islamic nations.

While so-called Muslims from various radical groups have committed acts of terrorism in recent times, culminating in the horror of September 11th, the vast majority of Muslims condemn these acts and consider such terrorists beyond the Muslim pale. Unfortunately, in the media, whenever a Muslim commits a heinous act, he is labeled a "Muslim terrorist".

The problem is that this “vast majority of Muslims” that you refer to all must submit to the full teaching of the Quran and the Quran does teach violence against those who refuse to submit to the will a Allah.

However, when Serbs murder and rape innocent women in Bosnia, they are not called "Christian terrorists", nor are the activities in Northern Ireland labeled "Christian terrorism". Also, when right-wing Christians in the U.S. bomb abortion clinics, they are not called "Christian terrorists".

I will be one of the first to condemn terrorism no matter who is behind it. As far as the “Serbian Christians” go, I assume that they are either Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholic. As such they were baptized as infants and told that they are Christians. However, unless a person has consciously accepted Christ as his personal Lord and Savior he is not a Christian. Hence, if such non-Christian followers of the Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholic Church raped and killed the Bosnian Muslims we cannot correctly call them “Christian Terrorists.” We can call them Terrorists but not “Christian Terrorists” because they simply are not Christians. This argument is based upon the accused terrorist’s relationship to Jesus Christ and not according to his actions and whether or not those actions agree with a particular interpretation of Scripture. Likewise, as far as I know the members of the IRA who kill innocent people in Northern Ireland and the U.K. have always been referred to as terrorists. Furthermore, anyone who claims to be pro-life and yet is willing to kill people in order to support their views contradicts everything they claim to believe.

While I would like to cite quotes from the Quran to support this position, I have been forbidden by the moderators from putting up any posts that contain quotes from the Quran, and that any posts of mine that contain such quotes will be deleted.

Again, all the Moderators in the Baptist Only section are asking of you is to refrain from posting quotes from the Quran in their section of this website. If you want to do that you can do it in the “Other Religions” section of this website.

[ January 01, 2003, 07:57 AM: Message edited by: BibleboyII ]

 

[Netcurtains3]

People often take the religion of super powers. For many centuries Athens was, Constantinople was, Islam was, UK was, USA was, Soviet Union was etc etc.

We often like things Japanese because we find them a powerful people.

At present I suspect Hinduism, Buddhism and Atheism are rising because they have success behind them.

 

[Ben W]

Its interesting on that point to see what has happened to Athiest Russia and the whole Lenin worship that went on. The hammer and sickle lie broken on the ground, and many are accepting Jesus as there Lord and Saviour.

 

[BobRyan]

The Hindus in India learned the "hard way" that Islam is spread at the point of a sword.

Today - Islam is so "violent" in Islamic countries that they still kill their own women if their daughter/wife etc is violated by another man. Women are so identified as "property" that the violation is considered to be a case of "theft" and the property is considered worthless - a disgrace to the family.

If you would like to take a bible and go preaching the loving Gospel in Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Iran, Egypt etc - and IF you find even one convert - you will be in danger - but more than that - your convert will be in danger of their lives. It is the last refuge for the dark ages - still. These people need our prayers - but we should not "Be deceived" about the violent nature of the religion.

IF a mad-max-Christian group were to sail out and kill thousands of innocent women and children in the name of "Christian progress" - the denunciation would be loud and vocal. NOT JUST that they are crazy but also that the theology they used is not Biblical.

Notice that there is almost dead silence on that point from Islam regarding 9/11. You don't see Islamic public broadcasts (even in the US) denouncing the theology of the terrorists - attacking the theology of the terrorist - denying that America is "The great Satan" or that America is the "great infidel".

You see there are "code words" in the Koran - and IF you get stuck with one of those labels - the Koran actually calls for holy war against you. So simply saying "We are peaceful and those guys are not" is not "sufficient. You must explicitly address the "Code words" they applied to the US and show that the doctrine itself is wrong. This - they do not do.

Do you really think it was an "Accident" that they were dancing in the streets in several Islamic countries over 9/11? (And then of course - put the straight face back on after a day or so.)

Why blow up a couple of buildings in America? Is it because they "think" we are two buildings away from total collapse? No!

It is because the strategy has always been to try and get the US to position itself against a terrorist state or group that "happens to be Islamic" - and then they (muslim's themselve) "imagine" that Islam itelself is so violent that ALL Islamic nations will "Finally" join together and defeat the west.

Even our friends among the Islamic moderate political leaders ask us to be careful - becuase their vast populace is violently opposed to the west. Yes - They retain control over their populations but they themselves are not deceived about the violent propensities of their religious institutions and the degree to which "Violence" is an accepted form of religious expression to their masses.

It is a ticking time bomb. We need to keep them in our prayers without deluding ourselves about exactly what it is we are dealing with.

In Christ,

Bob

[ January 01, 2003, 05:36 PM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]

 

[Netcurtains3]

Bob,
1/5th of Egypt - even to this day - is Christian. Iraq has a very large Catholic population.
You're talking tosh. Go and sober up man.

Net.

 

[DHK]

See:

Persecution Against Christians

DHK

 

[BobRyan]

If you have not followed the plight of coptic Christians in Egypt - then it is somewhat callous to hand waive over the persecution going on there and say "well there is still 20% of the population that are Christian".

The facts I listed - stand.

There are a number of Christian organizations doing business in Islamic countries and the RCC is one of them. But that does not mean that open evangelism is "tolerated" as the non-violent message of some would lead you to believe.

My message is that the self-deceived self-deluded Islam-is-peace guys are dead wrong when it comes to the real world and how it is practiced.

This does not mean that civilized nations should behave violently toward these Islamic groups. But it means we should not go in blindly assuming that the religion is promoting peace. The culture of "hate" is strong in Islam. Being honest about that does not mean that you have to hate in return. It does not mean that every follower of Islam is as violent as his neighbor.

Violence in Islam - as in any culture - is a binary weapon. It relies on two factors - complacency and moderate acceptance of violent tradition by the masses - plust an active and violent minority 10-30% willing to wage war when the opportunity arises.

Our job is to pray for them and to work for their salvation. But not in a mindless manner that is self-deceived about what it is we are facing.

In Christ,

Bob

[ January 01, 2003, 05:50 PM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]

 

[Netcurtains3]

DHK,
I have read the stories in great detail.
I do know what happens. In the 1950s/1960s Black people and "Communists" given tough time in USA and UK. Jehovahs Witnesses went to concentration camps in Germany - Orthodox Christains killed Muslims in 1990s.
MASS MURDER in IVORY COAST in 2002. Who did the killing? Who died? Yes hundreds of Muslim people mass murdered by Christians - Is this FRONT PAGE in the papers in USA?
If we say Christians are better then anyone else then I think we make Christ out to be a liar. We are all rapists.

[ January 01, 2003, 05:53 PM: Message edited by: Netcurtains3 ]

 

[DHK]

Christianity Today, Week of October 8, Covering Islam Getting beyond the feel-good bromides. By John Wilson | posted 10/8/01
Long before September 11, Americans writing from a variety of perspectives were saying that we needed to learn more about Islam, both as a world religion and as the faith of a growing number of Americans. Francis Cardinal George, for example, said that the most significant challenge for the Church in the twenty-first century would be dialogue with Islam, based on mutual respect without eliding differences. More recently, Diana Eck, in her book A New Religious America (touched on in an earlier column; we'll return to it again), emphasized the impact of Muslims on the American religious landscape.
Still, until a month ago, learning more about Islam was a low priority for all too many Americans. Since the attack, that has changed. PBS has re-broadcast its series, Islam: Empire of Faith. Newspapers, magazines, and TV news programs have been scrambling to provide some context for the attack and the larger movement it represents. Even Oprah has gotten into the act.
Well and good. The impulse to learn, to understand, is welcome, but the quality of the information has been very uneven, and it often comes with a distorting spin. This is the first in a series of columns intended to contribute (on a very modest scale) to this ongoing project. Other subjects will be taken up in this space, but Islam will be a recurring theme for some time.
Much of the recent talk has referred to historical antagonism between Islam and the West, and specifically between Islam and Christianity. Often the suggestion is made that we can't understand current attitudes in the Middle East and elsewhere in the Muslim world without this historical background. For example, Salim Muwakkil, whose column in the Chicago Tribune I regularly read with interest, observed on September 24 that "there are longstanding tensions between the Islamic and Christian world going back to the original crusades." Similar statements, always with the Crusades as the reference point, have appeared in countless commentaries since September 11.
What's wrong with this little history lesson? Well, nothing really—if you don't mind history as told by an amnesiac. The "tensions" between Islam and Christianity began long before the Crusades. The starting point was the seventh century, when Islam began a period of conquest that remade the face of the Middle East and North Africa, extended into Spain, and threatened all of Europe. It was in 638, in fact, that Muslims first captured Jerusalem.
The regions conquered in this period included the cradle of Christianity and the early church. To speak as if "tensions" between Islam and Christianity began with the Crusades, as if Christians had simply decided out of the blue to attack Muslims, is not a small error. It is a fundamental distortion of the historical record.
This does not of course excuse the evil done by Christians under the banner of the Crusades (a subject we'll take up later). Not in the least. But it does suggest the bias that infects not only popular commentary on Islam and the West today but also many more substantial works, including books written by scholars for general readers.
For example, in the book Islam: A Thousand Years of Faith and Power, by Jonathan Bloom and Sheila Blair (the companion volume to PBS's Islam: Empire of Faith), the Muslim conquest of Christian lands is recounted only briefly and in highly idealized terms, while unsavory aspects of Muslim rule—including slavery—are even more egregiously distorted to present a benign face. (For a corrective, see the interview with Bat Ye'or in the September/October 1998 issue of Books & Culture.) Again, this is a subject we'll be returning to; suffice it to say here that such brazen tampering with history is scandalously common.
Surely some of this revisionism is motivated by a laudable desire to counter deeply rooted stereotypes that denigrate Islam in general and Arabs in particular. (Although today a majority of the world's Muslims are not Arabs, in the minds of many Americans the two are synonymous.) In the aftermath of September 11, that effort has taken on considerable urgency.
But the way to counter untruths and half-truths is not to substitute for them a new set of distortions. Just as certain apologists for Christianity bring discredit to the faith by refusing to acknowledge the stains in Christian history, so many would-be apologists for Islam undermine their own cause. We have to do better than that, even when the truth hurts.
John Wilson is editor of Books & Culture and editor-at-large for Christianity Today.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2001/141/11.0.html

It should be noted that the Crusades were not Christian; they were Catholic. There is a marked difference to most of us who post here. A true Bible-believing Christian would never participate in any such Crusade, nor advocate one.
DHK

 

[Netcurtains3]

DHK,
Crusades are Catholic.
Come on that is rediculous.
There was no Baptist Church then.
What we do know is this.
When Muslims attacked Americans while Baptist Clinton was in charge he then responded in sending missles into Afghanistan.
Bush (I'm not sure which denomination he is) has responded in a similiar fashion.
The ancient pope of 1054 said the crusades were to defend Christians who were getting attacked. I agree with you that they were wrong but I feel you
knock Christianity as a whole by saying Baptists are less to blame then Catholics. We stand shoulder to shoulder or we'll fall.

Net.

[ January 01, 2003, 06:40 PM: Message edited by: Netcurtains3 ]

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Netcurtains3:
DHK,
Crusades are Catholic.
Come on that is rediculous.
There was no Baptist Church then.

Check up on your history, and use sources other than Catholic. The Catholic Church did not even exist until the fourth century. Baptists, though called by different names, have existed in every age from the time of the Apostles onward. The Crusades were distinctively Catholic, in which no Baptist group, or Baptist-like group partook. In fact at least one of the Crusades were against the Waldenses or Albigenses, innocent Christians.
DHK

 

[Netcurtains3]

To be frank the Crusades where more NORTHERN EUROPEAN (NORSE/NORMAN) then Catholic (spain/Italy etc).
Whatever, there is no claiming Clinton isn't a Baptist.
Are you saying if there was a Baptist super power in 900AD/1200AD it would not have gone into Iraq or Palastine?
You're so tied up in your Baptist/Catholic malarky that you are losing sight of the ball.

PS - I'm against a war with Iraq, but I do think the USA has a valid right to defend itself against attack.

God Bless.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Netcurtains3:

Whatever, there is no claiming Clinton isn't a Baptist.

1. Clinton has nothing to do with this conversation, or with the Crusades. Why bring in a red herring.

2. If you get your facts straight, he was a Methodist, not a Baptist.
DHK

 

[blush]

It is one thing for a world power to conquer other nations and defeat their armies by means of the sword. However, it is entirely another story when the victor forces the defeated populace, innocent civilians, to accept his particular brand of religion or face death by the sword. That is what Mohammad and his followers did.

This has probably already been said, but Christians also did this. I'm not talking about the crusades, I'm talking about Colonial missions.

It is my belief that Islam itself is not necessarily violent, though anything can be taken to an extreme. A Muslim government, however, is a different story. If we were to have a Christian theocracy, I believe that it would not take long to become a "Christian" theocracy, meaning espousing Christianity in word, but not in action. I would to so far as to say that such a theocracy would be every bit as bad as the Muslim theocracies that exist today.

Toronto is a very diverse city, and when I was in high school, I had the privelege of knowing many people of many different backgrounds. In my immediate group of friends I was the only anglophone, and one of two Caucasians. The other white girl was a Bosnian Muslim. Many of my classmates were Muslims. I was known to be a Christian. I never experienced any ill-will from any Muslim students, ever. My Bosnian friend Zlata and I did have many discussions about Christianity and Islam and she did not accept what I would say to her, but she never showed the slightest hint of disrespect towards me because of my faith. I knew a guy who was from Afghanistan. He and his family were very devout Muslims, but they fled their own country. Why? Because their own government was terrorizing them. They did not accept the government there as a valid representation of Islam and had to flee for their lives. I know that many of you do not see Bush as an accurate representation of Christianity to the world. Why then do you see Muslim world leaders as representative of that religion?

You can say what you like, but the Muslims that I knew were often the nicest, gentlest, most studious and devoted people in the entire school, and there is something we as Christians can learn from them.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by blush:

You can say what you like, but the Muslims that I knew were often the nicest, gentlest, most studious and devoted people in the entire school, and there is something we as Christians can learn from them.

Hi Blush,
I have many good Muslim friends as well, as I do Catholic friends. Most of the ones that I know want nothing more than to live in peace just as you say. It is not the person/people that I have a problem with, it is the religion.
The religion of Islam is diametrically opposed to Christianity in every way. In no uncertain terms it is a Satan-inspired religion. Just as I oppose the heresies of the Catholic Church on this board, I do just as much the Islamic doctrines that are totally anti-Christian.
As Chrisians we have an obligation to win the lost, such as the Muslims. We also have an obligation to be informed at least somewhat about their teachings. However a thorough knowledge of the Bible is more important. Keep in contact. Maintain them as friends or acquaintances. In other words, in this world one needs to win them to yourself, before you can win them to the Lord.
"Let your light so shine..." (Mat.5:16).
DHK

 

[Bible-boy]

This thread is not going in the direction that I intended when I made the first post. I wanted to see some of the posters on the board, who wish to do so, defend Islam using the Quran. I want to see how the idea of "Islam is a peaceful religion" can be explained in light of the Quran's teaching that the infidel shall die by the sword and its command to Muslims to slay the infidel where they find them. Particularly, I wanted to give the poster Johnv the chance to quote from the Quran to defend his positions.

The point is not to demonstrate which religious group has committed the most violence. Clearly, the bad things have happened in history. That is not the point. I want for someone who maintains that Islam is a peaceful religion to use the Quran and show how that Islam is a religion of peace and not cause the Quran to contradict itself.

[ January 03, 2003, 07:32 AM: Message edited by: BibleboyII ]

 

[Bible-belted]

Do you think Christianity can be held to that standard using the Bible to prove that it teaches peace, given the wars of the OT? Can you offer an explantion that does not involve a "contradiction"?

 

[sodzei]

Don't look to the followers of a certain faith... Look to it's leaders. You don't judge a faith by people who've screwed it up. You judge it by the person who began it. If Christians have murdered in the name of Jesus (Crusades) then they have done it in direct oppostition to His teachings in the Bible. If Muslims have murdered in the name of Allah, they have done it in direct obedience to the teachings of the "prophet" muhammed and the Quran.

 

[Netcurtains3]

Actually in the UK we judge teachers by the success of the students.
SATS tests give school league tables.
I see nothing wrong with quasi-government bodies giving MARKS to the "schools" of religion to see who has the "best" followers. Of course, I expect each year the league table of religions to change. Its about time we give marks to our clergy!!!

[ January 02, 2003, 02:27 PM: Message edited by: Netcurtains3 ]

 

[sodzei]

Could have been an 'okay' point... but the question wasn't "Which faith has the 'best' followers?" but "Which faith teaches peace?" In the former question you look to the followers, but in the last question you look to the teacher (Jesus or Muhammed).

Your quest to give marks to different faiths based on followers doesn't really work since the Christian faith is made up of people who have claimed to be sinners in need of the Savior Jesus Christ.