Replies

Of course, most people logically seem to view both of these courses of action repellant, which may explain why they prefer to denounce Islam from the relative anonymity of this forum rather than to the faces of actual Muslims where their views might be confronted by individuals far more knowledgeable about the nature of Islam than a couple of people who skimmed some websites, cut-and-pasted from the Qur'an, and read the same religious propoganda (and it isn't just Islam that receives this treatment, since as a Catholic I am constantly pestered by folks who are so certain that I secretly worship Mary as a goddess) that works just fine until somebody comes along to refute them.

Well, first of all, unlike you and most of the people on FR I post under my real name. I think about what I say before I post, and I stand by it to the extent that I have the guts to sign my real name to it. If that results in a Fatwah against me, so be it. My Lord is more powerful than anything them Muslims can throw against me, and if I must die I'd rather it be because I made a public stand for what I believed to be true and right rather than to cower in terror.

And that brings me to the main point: Jesus told us that we can and should evaluate people and things based upon their fruits -- the actual deeds and their character. Islam isn't something new, we have almost 14 centuries of history. It is a history that does not make for very pleasant reading. It is a history of almost unremitting war, murder, rape, pilage, slavery, destruction, persecution, a glorification and catering to the very worst of male sexual impulses, an "ends justifies means" approach to the employment of every evil deed in the book to advance the territorial reach of Islam, and the list of evil goes on and on.

Even Christianity, if broadly enough (although perhaps illegitimately) defined, has a history marred by those who have done bad things. But Christianity has been around for a lot longer, and has had more of a global reach than Islam. If "all religions are the same" and all are "just as bad", then one should expect the history of Christianity to be even worse. No objective comparison of the two religions can possibly support that conclusion. Furthermore, one is faced with this fundamental fact: Whatever bad things "Christians" did, they did in disobedience to the clear teaching of the Christian scriptures, whereas by contrast there are MANY bad things that MANY Muslims have done that are clearly in obedience to the explicit commands of the Islamic scriptures. We can debate about interpretation all we want, but the fact remains that Muslim jihadis have always gone about their work reciting the chapter and verse of the Quran motivating and justifying their actions, whereas Christian crusaders could only proclaim vague slogans based mostly on generalized sentiment. There ARE NO biblical passages justifying the Crusades or similar actions.

So then, when I stand up and say in public that Islam is not a "religion of peace" but a religion of war, when I say that it is not good but evil, that is not because I hate individual Muslims -- I do not. It is not because I am advocating a generalized war of extermination against them -- I am not. But what I am saying is that it is past time that people start standing up and speaking the truth defiantly. We cannot let ourselves secumb to terror, but must have the courage to start standing up now.

What would I say to a Muslim to their face? I would say that I do not hate them, that I wish them no harm, that I am quite prepared to accept a "live and let live" co-existence. But I also am quite cognizant that by the dictates of their own religion, I am considered an "infidel" with no rights, even the right to life, and that the dictates of their own scriptures, literally interpreted, require them to not reciprocate such mutual tolerance. I must tell them that this is not acceptable. I must tell them that I do not hold them individually and personally responsible for whatever bad things other Muslims may have done past or present, but that I do hold them personally responsible to not resort to such evil themselves, nor to aid or abet those of their co-religionists that do. I must tell them that if they wish to live in this country and enjoy its wealth and freedoms, then they must also accept the necessary responsibilities. That includes not just refraining from harming other Americans or our institutions, but also in actively participating in our common defense. That means standing with us in condemning our enemies, and that means cooperating with the authorities in reporting any enemies that might have sneaked in and are plotting the destruction of many. And if they are not willing to do this, then I think I have good reason to ask "Why?"

My name is Dan Darling.

"And that brings me to the main point: Jesus told us that we can and should evaluate people and things based upon their fruits -- the actual deeds and their character."

I agree. However, this also means acknowledging those who are fighting on our side in this, such as those I mentioned in my last post.

"Islam isn't something new, we have almost 14 centuries of history. It is a history that does not make for very pleasant reading. It is a history of almost unremitting war, murder, rape, pilage, slavery, destruction, persecution, a glorification and catering to the very worst of male sexual impulses, an "ends justifies means" approach to the employment of every evil deed in the book to advance the territorial reach of Islam, and the list of evil goes on and on.

"Even Christianity, if broadly enough (although perhaps illegitimately) defined, has a history marred by those who have done bad things. But Christianity has been around for a lot longer, and has had more of a global reach than Islam. If "all religions are the same" and all are "just as bad", then one should expect the history of Christianity to be even worse. No objective comparison of the two religions can possibly support that conclusion."

First of all, I feel that you're adopting a rather negative view of Islam by listing only the negative actions perpetrated by Muslims (and this requires thinking outside the realm of Arab history) as opposed to the positive contributions to such things as science, art, and literature that Muslims have made throughout the centuries. If you looked at Christianity picking out only the bad stuff, you can come up with a similarly distorted view. You hear all the time about how Christians are and always have been evil, racist, sex-hating, homophobic, and oppressive people from any number of left-wing sources.

Christians (which I distinguish as being separate from Christianity because I'm not a big fan of collective judgement) have commited all of the atrocities you've ascribed to Islam:

* War - Check.
* Murder - Check.
* Slavery - Check.
* Destruction - Check.
* Persecution - Check.
* Glorification and Catering to the Worst Male Sexual Impulses - Check.
* Ends Justifies the Means Approach - Check.

"But Christianity has been around for a lot longer, and has had more of a global reach than Islam."

Indeed. But how did Christianity get that global advantage? Largely through conquest of the Americas, Central Asia, and Sub-saharan Africa. I honestly fail to see the distinction between the Spanish and Portugese conquests of the New World and that of the early Muslim caliphs.

"If 'all religions are the same' and all are 'just as bad,' then one should expect the history of Christianity to be even worse. No objective comparison of the two religions can possibly support that conclusion."

I'm not arguing for moral equivalence, but rather that the distinctions are a lot grayer than many people here are willing to recognize.

"Furthermore, one is faced with this fundamental fact: Whatever bad things "Christians" did, they did in disobedience to the clear teaching of the Christian scriptures, whereas by contrast there are MANY bad things that MANY Muslims have done that are clearly in obedience to the explicit commands of the Islamic scriptures."

Once again, "explicit commands" is a matter of exegesis. I don't view the Old Testament's prohibition against inter-marriage as applying to me, but a lot of Southern whites used to. Similarly, I doubt that our Turkish Freepers believe that the Qur'an tells them that they have to go out and kill infidels. I see no reason to doubt their sincerity in this regard, anymore than I doubt my own when it comes to intermarriage.

"What would I say to a Muslim to their face? I would say that I do not hate them, that I wish them no harm, that I am quite prepared to accept a 'live and let live' co-existence."

I really appreciate the clarification. In the end, that's all I'm asking for.

Impressive debate. Your points are well taken. The person you are argueing with is not interested in facts or truth. But keep making the arguement because it is enlightening to those that are reading. You are up against a moral relativist. "There are really no differences.." blah blah. It sound slike surmans voice - very seductive - you almost think "maybe he is right" then someone says "read any headline from any Islamic newspaper" - or "consider any govt from any time that had islamic majority" or "read the Koran itself" - all pretty basic items - all point the same way - Islam is a religion of war, murder, rape, lies, deception and evil. Even their prophet Mohamed admitted he was possessed by Satan. That is what the "Satanic Verses" by Rushdie was all about - those Koran sections that Mohamed later says he was possessed by Satan when he wrote them - Anyway - arguing with this guy reminds me of Genesis 3 - and Matthew 4 - debates with a devil - but the difference is that public debates influenses the onlookers.

In both Genesis 3 and Matthew 4 - the adverseries approach is always questioning:

1) Has God REALLLLLYYYY said????

2) Add a word, change a word, delete a word

3) Change absolutes to maybe's/perhaps "ye shall die... lest ye die"

4) Change perhaps/lest's into absolutes - "if you were to dash your foot... throw yourself down"

5) Result? Its all very gray, very confusing and hard to understand ..so... do what you know is wrong. Believe what you know is a lie - its all very intellectual, very 1984, very elitist, very arrogant and very prideful.