What is Islam?

[abdulhaqq]

Dear 2ndAmendment,

First, your claim that Christianity espouses the doctrine of monothiesm. I wanted to remind you that a critical view of the trinity has been adopted not only by the predecessor of Christianity, namely Judaism, and the antecedor to Christianity, namely Islam, but there are a plethora of sects within Christianity from its early age until the modern era that have rejected the Trinity as well. This is a point that you ignored. When you are discussing "Christian beliefs" please state which sectarian perspective you are adopting and on what grounds. There are something like 200 sects within Christianity that differ on important theological questions. In Islam, there are only a handful of sects, none of which differ greatly over the nature of God or the textual integrity of the Qur'an. Christianity, on the other hand, possesses no such uniformity. To me, this doesn't seem to be an illustration of a 'divinely revealed religion', does it?

Secondly, with regards to your continued claim that you believe that the trinity is a manifestation of monotheism, this is patently absurd. In order to reference the Bible as an authentic narration from God, you have to first establish its textual integrity and some sort of proof that it is from God. In Islam, we believe that God not only sent His prophets (upon them be peace) who were of the utmost character, truthful, noble, eloquent, and free from sin, but he sent with them miracles as proofs that they were true representatives from God. The miracle of the Prophet MUhammad (peace be upon him) is the Qur'an which is a book that has been unchanged for 1400 years and challenges all of humanity to produce a piece of literature that is capable of breaking the laws of language, but still remaining coherent.

Thirdly, and this is the most pertinent point. You claim that God is not divided into parts, but it is merely possible for God to divide into parts if he wanted to.

I never said God is divided. I said that if God chose to divide Himself, then He can and we can do nothing about it.

This is a cop-out on your part. Just because the bible claims to believe in one god doesn't mean this is so. If something looks like a duck, it walks like a duck, it quacks like a duck, in all likelihood, it is a duck. With regards to the trinity, the division of Godhood can mean one of two things: Either these parts are unified through substance or they are separate.

You asserted that God cannot be limited and Muslims agree with this assertion. You claimed that you God isn't divided into parts and the trinity isn't a division of being, but of attributes. Lets assume arguendo that godhood is shared by a tripartite being. Previously, I argued that the parts define the whole. It is logically absurd to assume that if the parts of a being possess a certain characteristic, that the whole lacks it. You have not responded sufficiently to this claim except by muttering 'Its in the Bible' which is a form of blind faith and not a form of rational proof. If God is not three separate entities, but is divided into three separate parts, than according to Christians, he possesses contradictory elements. If God as a whole is unlimited and eternal, than his parts must be unlimited and eternal. If the parts of God are limited and temporal, than are his parts unlimited and eternal? If God is unlimited and eternal, than surely, his parts must be unlimited and eternal. Since you claim that Jesus is an integral of Godhood, this would mean that god is limited since an integral of him was born, died, and suffered in hell. You have failed to respond to this claim except based on blind faith by referring to the Bible. If you say 'the integral of god that existed in his creation was god' then you've placed god in his creation and have adopted a belief that is more similar to hinduism and other pagan religions than other monothiestic religions such as judaism and Islam.

Either God is made up of parts that are not eternal and limited in which the law of non-contradiction negates his existence, or he is divided into three separate entities in which case Trinitarians are not worshipping one God, but three.

My point in this exercise was to illustrate that the claim that Muslims do not worship the God of Jews and Christians is absurd because of the glaring differences between Jewish theology and Christian theology. From the perspective of a purely neutral observe, trinitarians would be the odd one out of the three abrahamic faiths, not Islam. Islam is more cogently affiliated with the predecessor judaism in its theology. So if anything, the question should be "Do Christians worship the god of judaism and islam?"

With Peace,
Abdulhaqq

 

[abdulhaqq]

Dear 2ndAmendment,

A lot of your claims about God, His nature and attributes, are not derived from reason (some are plainly absurd and utilise weak argument to justify that which is inherently and apparently contradictory), but through blind faith in a text whose integrity you believe to be impeccable.

In your post, you claimed that the Bible was a reliable document and cited to some statistics that might impress a novice student of theology, but won't impress minds with more capable powers of perception.

In your previous post, you made the following claims:

1. The earliest portions of The New Testament date to within just 25 years of the originals.

2. Some nearly complete books of the new testament date to within one century or less from the originals.

3. There are nearly 25,000 complete manuscripts of the New Testament, with more than 15,000 that date to before the 7th Century A.D. (or C.E. if you prefer). These include 5,300 copies in the original Greek, over 10,000 in Latin Vulgate, 4,100 Slavic translations, 2,000 Ethiopian translations and about 1,000 other early translations.

4. There are small differences in all those manuscripts - however, all these differences, most are a matter of spelling or word order changes that were made as the styles changed over the ages. In fact a total of only about 200 words, or 1/10 of 1 percent of the entire new testament are subject to more than trivial differences.

5. As for the Old Testament, the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls show that in over 2,000 years those who copied the Old testament were so meticulous that no significant changes were made to the texts. The Dead Sea Scrolls represent a major library of over 800 total documents dating between 250 B.C. to 68 A.D. Every book of the Old Testament is included except for some minor prophets, and Esther.

Firstly, the relevant question isn't when the copies were made, but when the originals were made.

The earliest available manuscripts, known as P64, P67, P104 were written around 200 years after the purported death of christ. Even if we assume the textual integrity of the this manuscript, it was merely fragments and covered little of the New Testament.

P4 was made of Luke 1:58-59; 1:62-2:1, 6-7; 3:8-4:2, 29-32, 34-35; 5:3-8; 5:30-6:16.

P64 was made of Matthew 26:7-8, 10, 14-15, 22-23, 31-33.

P67 was made of Matthew 3:9, 15; 5:20-22, 25-28.

If the earliest biblical manuscripts were written 200 years after the death of christ and were mere fragments, than what does that say about the textual integrity of the Bible as a whole?

Secondly, the relevant question isn't how many copies exist, but the reliability of the originals existed. If the originals were defective, then obviously, the copies will be defective as well.

If the original manuscripts were written hundreds of years after the existence of Christ, how could they possibly be construed as being 'reliable' and 'authentic'? Furthermore, the earliest manuscripts weren't even discovered until the 19th and 20th centuries which means that for the overwhelming majority of Christianity's history, the supposed word of God was being defectively circulated!!!! If God is so powerful, why couldn't He preserve His own book? Why did He allow 2000 years to pass before the "comprehensive" version of His book was revealed?

Furthermore, you've exaggerated the relevance of these ancient manuscripts.

For example, only 8% of the Greek manuscripts cover most of the new testament. The remaining 92% of the Greek manuscripts are only fragments.
(Source: L. M. McDonald and S. E. Porter, Early Christianity And Its Sacred Literature, 2000, Hendrickson Publishers, Inc.: Peabody (MA), p. 27.)

Thus, it doesn't matter if there are 25,000 manuscripts if the overwhelming majority of them were copies whose originals are lost and are comprised of fragments.

Lastly, the primary method of textual reconstruction of these fragments was done through from the perspective of the Latin manuscripts which we all know weren't even in existence until the 4th century, casting doubt as to the authenticity of the earlier texts as being a reliable interpretation.

With Peace,
Abdulhaqq

 

[meelak]

Wrong. John was one of Jesus' disciples. John was a contemporary of Jesus. Are you saying John lives for 100 to 150 years after the resurrection of Jesus. John did die on the island of Patmos at an old age after the Roman tried several times to kill him. Oh, and Jesus did rise from the dead. Jesus is not dead. He is alive and quite well. Did Mohamed do that? Nope.


OUR savior is better then your Savior.. Nyah nyah nyah!!

Did Mohammed do that?

That is exactly the point. If he did that, people will again make the same mistake and start worshiping him as god.

When you are going in the right direction, you don't need to make any turns. Only when you are going in the wrong direction that you need to change the course. Since people mistakenly beleived the messayah to be the god, god had to send another messayah - the last and final messenger to the whole humanity.

Read John chapter 14 again and you see will see that jesus is foretelling the people of the coming of mohammed who will confirm what jesus preached and show them the new signs/message (which according to jesus the people did not have the comprehension to understand those at that time). Some christians believe this to be the holy spirit. If it is infact the holy spirit what new signs/messages did the holy spirit give which jesus did not give in his time?

1) When jesus was on the cross, what did he say

Matthew chap 27 verse[46] "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"

Eli, Eli when translated to Arabic Alah, Alah!! Jesus cried to god. If he is god, why would he have to cry to god and ask god why god has forsaken him. What does this prove? Verse 47 says, people heard him calling to god.

2) What about John Chap 20 and verse
[17] Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

Here jesus is saying my god and your god. If he was god, why would he say my god and your god. This means his god and other people's god are the same and he is not the god.

3) Here is yet another proof that Jesus did not pay for everybody's sins.

Look into Matthew Chap 7 Verse
[21] Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
[22] Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
[23] And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

The above verses say who ever does righteous deeds that god prescribes us to do only will enter paradise and it is the same belief of the muslims as well. Also, to the people who called him Lord/God, in his second coming, he will not even recognize them and will ask them to get away.

Also, we muslims believe jesus was raised up alive and he will come again.

 

[meelak]

If that is the case, when Iraq fought with Kuwait and took over Kuwait, why did we go to liberate Kuwait. Iraq was not willing to give Kuwait back? So why didn't we say - Oh they captured it and it is theirs. But no, all the countries formed a coalition and went and liberated Kuwait (which is a sign of civilized world).

We cannot chose who we liberate and who we not liberate. If we call ourselves unbiased, freedom loving, just and hold ourselves to higher moral grounds, then why did we not liberate palestine?

 

[Pete]

Isn't America grand? Muslims and Christians can come together and attempt to debunk each others religious views and Christians don't hunt down the Muslims and Shoot them 8 times, slit thier throats then jam 2 knives into their torso pinning a note threatening others to stop being critical of Christianity.

<a href="http://photobucket.com/" target="_blank"><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y124/dpete2q/Gogh126.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting"></a>

This is what happens when you are critical of Islam in Europe.

 

[Baja28]

If that is the case, when Iraq fought with Kuwait and took over Kuwait, why did we go to liberate Kuwait. Iraq was not willing to give Kuwait back? So why didn't we say - Oh they captured it and it is theirs. But no, all the countries formed a coalition and went and liberated Kuwait (which is a sign of civilized world).

We cannot chose who we liberate and who we not liberate. If we call ourselves unbiased, freedom loving, just and hold ourselves to higher moral grounds, then why did we not liberate palestine?

Kuwait did not attack Iraq and lose dum dum.

 

[abdulhaqq]

Dear 2ndAmendment,

With regards to your claim that 'islam spread by the sword and imposed slavery', this is a argument is weak just like the rest of the ones you've been conjuring up today. The fact that you didn't even bother quoting a reputable historical source for a timeline that listed a bunch of dates doesn't mean anything. For example, the mere fact that Muslims conquered Jerusalem doesn't mean that it was done violently.

Here is the peace treaty between the Second Caliph Umar (may God elevate him) and the Jewish and Christian inhabitants of Jerusalem:

“This is the protection which the servant of God, Umar, the Ruler of the Believers, has granted to the people of Jerusalem. The protection is for their lives and properties, their churches and crosses, their sick and healthy and for all their coreligionists. Their churches shall not be used for habitation, nor shall they be demolished, nor shall any injury be done to them or to their compounds, or to their crosses, nor shall their properties be injured in any way. There shall be no compulsion for these people in the matter of religion, nor shall any of them suffer any injury on account of religion...

The French historian Michaud (1767-1839), who traveled in the Middle East and wrote a book on the Crusades called Bibliotheque des Croisades (Library of the Crusades), says on the conquest of Jerusalem by the Crusaders in 1099, “The Muslims were massacred in the streets and in the houses. Some fled from death by precipitating themselves from the ramparts; others crowded for shelter into the palaces, the towers and above all, in the mosques where they could not conceal themselves from the Crusaders. The Crusaders, masters of the Mosque of Umar, where the Muslims defended themselves for sometime, renewed their deplorable scenes which disgraced the conquest of Titus. The infantry and the cavalry rushed pell-mell among the fugitives. Amid the most horrid tumult, nothing was heard but the groans and cries of death; the victors trod over heaps of corpses in pursuing those who vainly attempted to escape.”

When the Muslims re-conquered Jerusalem in 1187, they again showed extreme mercy and kindness. The ruler at the time, Sultan Salahuddin Ayyubi, gave free pardon to the Christians in the city. Only the soldiers were required to pay a very small fee. However, the Sultan himself paid the fee for about ten thousand people. His brother paid it for seven thousand people. Salahuddin also allocated one of the gates of the city for people who were too poor to pay anything to leave from there.

These historical facts completely refute your claim on this one particular instance. In fact, if necessary, an entire thread could be dedicated in refuting the absurd allegations raised in your hitherto uncited article.

However, instead of doing so, I will argue general principles that will refute your claims, one by one.

Firstly, Islam itself prohibits forced conversions.

The Qur'an itself says "There is no compulsion in religion." Contrary to the Pope's erroneous claim that this verse was an early verse, this verse was a later verse revealed during the Madinan period where the Prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him) had established a government. The verse was a prohibition on him and his followers to force people to convert.

Secondly, historians of notable repute agree that Islam spread peacefully, not by force.

"The question of why people convert to Islam has always generated intense feeling. Earlier generations of European scholars believed that conversions to Islam were made at the point of the sword, and that conquered peoples were given the choice of conversion or death. It is now apparent that conversion by force, while not unknown in Muslim countries, was, in fact, rare. Muslim conquerors ordinarily wished to dominate rather than convert, and most conversions to Islam were voluntary."
- p 198 of "A History of Islamic Societies" by Ira Lapidus -

Professor Thomas Arnold has dedicated an entire book on the topic of the peaceful spread of Islam entitled "The Spread of Islam in the World"

Thirdly, even today, Islam is spreading peacefully, all through out the world

In fact, over 60,000 people converted to Islam in Rwanda.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A53018-2002Sep22.html

Note how 4 clergyman from the Catholic church were charged with assisting genocide and face charges of war crimes.

Christians had actively participated in the a genocide that resulted in the death of 800,000 people. This isn't from a few centuries ago, this is within the past decade.

Lastly, Christianity has a history of forced conversions during the Crusades, Inquisition, and the entire history of colonization where Christopher Columbus forced thousands of Native Americans into slavery and Christianity. Lets not forget that the same thing happened to African Americans, of which 20% are estimated to have been Muslim who were forced into Christianity. Some as recent as 150 years ago.

With Peace,
Abdulhaqq

 

[PJay]

If that is the case, when Iraq fought with Kuwait and took over Kuwait, why did we go to liberate Kuwait. Iraq was not willing to give Kuwait back? So why didn't we say - Oh they captured it and it is theirs. But no, all the countries formed a coalition and went and liberated Kuwait (which is a sign of civilized world).

We cannot chose who we liberate and who we not liberate. If we call ourselves unbiased, freedom loving, just and hold ourselves to higher moral grounds, then why did we not liberate palestine?

Keep right on posting...please do not stop. Your agenda keeps shining more bright...

 

[Baja28]

<a href="http://photobucket.com/" target="_blank"><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y124/dpete2q/Gogh126.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting"></a>

This is what happens when you are critical of Islam in Europe.

But Islam is such a peaceful religion.

 

[meelak]

Isn't America grand? Muslims and Christians can come together and attempt to debunk each others religious views and Christians don't hunt down the Muslims and Shoot them 8 times, slit thier throats then jam 2 knives into their torso pinning a note threatening others to stop being critical of Christianity.

<a href="http://photobucket.com/" target="_blank"><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y124/dpete2q/Gogh126.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting"></a>

This is what happens when you are critical of Islam in Europe.

You are right Pete. But a true muslim will practice what allah prescribes in the holy qur'an

Qur'an 16:125 "Invite (all) to the Way of thy Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious: for thy Lord knoweth best, who have strayed from His Path, and who receive guidance."

We are asked to invite people in a gracious way not forecefully because you cannot force people in the matter of faith and qur'an also says the same in the following verse.

Qur'an "2:256 Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things."

America is a beautiful country. I am glad we can all share our views on this forum in a civilized manner.

 

[Pete]

But Islam is such a peaceful religion.

I think that is what they named the knives that were jammed into Theo Van Gogh's rib cage "Love" and "Peace"

 

[Pete]

You are right Pete. But a true muslim will practice what allah prescribes in the holy qur'an

Qur'an 16:125 "Invite (all) to the Way of thy Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious: for thy Lord knoweth best, who have strayed from His Path, and who receive guidance."

We are asked to invite people in a gracious way not forecefully because you cannot force people in the matter of faith and qur'an also says the same in the following verse.

Qur'an "2:256 Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things."

America is a beautiful country. I am glad we can all share our views on this forum in a civilized manner.

It's a shame so many in Islam don't read and comply with the qur'an. Islam is viewed far and wide as the religion of bloodletting and violence because of their actions and not words.

 

[Baja28]

You are right Pete. But a true muslim will practice what allah prescribes in the holy qur'an

Qur'an 16:125 "Invite (all) to the Way of thy Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious: for thy Lord knoweth best, who have strayed from His Path, and who receive guidance."

We are asked to invite people in a gracious way not forecefully because you cannot force people in the matter of faith and qur'an also says the same in the following verse.

Qur'an "2:256 Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things."

Oopsie..... we seem to have a contradiction in our peaceful quran.... Wonder what Theo did.

The Qur'an unequivocally prohibits the murder of innocents:

...whoever kills a soul - unless for a soul[1] or for corruption [done] in the land[2] - it is as if he had slain mankind entirely.

 

[abdulhaqq]

Dear Pete,

As a Muslim, I condemn the attacks on innocents just for the speech or beliefs they've espoused. Islam doesn't recognize acts of vigilantism and terror.

As has been repeatedly stated through out this thread, Islam condemns terrorism and advocates the death penalty for those that partake in it.

The same types of smear tactics that you are engaging in can be done in the name of Christianity:

Christian Terrorists Kill 44, Wound 118 in Attacks in Northeast India
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...&u=/afp/20041002/ts_afp/india_northeast_blast

Eric Rudolph: Christian Terrorist
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A1196-2003Jun1?language=printer

Seattle Synagogue Shooter Was Christian
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/279424_convert30ww.html

The group known as the "Seas of David" who planned attacks on the Sears Tower (which was designed by a Muslim) "train through the Bible... not only physically but mentally"

"Given the group's reported affinity for al-Qaeda, what makes this incident especially interesting is the fact that Seas of David is not a Muslim organization. By all accounts, the group uses Muslim discourse and symbols. Yet it also relies heavily on Jewish and Christian discourse and symbols. This includes what is described as a homemade Star of David arm patch worn by its estimated 40 members (Miami Herald, June 23). Friends and family of the suspects claim that none of them are Muslims but in fact are practicing Christians, some devout. Batiste's father, a Christian preacher in Louisiana, claims that his son may be emotionally disturbed, but that he is certainly not a terrorist. Local sources say that Batiste could often be seen walking with a cane and wearing a black robe (Miami Herald, June 24, June 25). "
http://www.jamestown.org/terrorism/news/article.php?articleid=2370059

Should we start talking about how many Catholic priests molest children?

Or perhaps about mormon's abusing children through polygamous relationships?

Or how about radical Christian attacks on abortion clinics?

Or what about the Protestant-Catholic fighting in Ireland?

Or how about General Boykin's reference to the war in iraq as being a 'crusade'?

Or how about this guy:

A Roman Catholic priest accused of taking part in the 1994 Rwandan genocide has gone on trial at the UN war crimes tribunal in Tanzania.

Athanase Seromba refused to appear in court, accusing the tribunal of bias.

He is the first Catholic priest to go on trial at the tribunal, set up after the slaughter of some 800,000 ethnic Tutsis and moderate Hutus.

He denies charges that he organised the massacre of more than 2,000 Tutsis at a church in the west of Rwanda.

Former Rwandan army chief of staff Major-General Augustin Bizimungu also boycotted the start of his separate, trial on Monday.

They are unhappy at plans to speed up the work of the tribunal in the town of Arusha, by transferring those found guilty, and possibly trials, to Rwanda.

They say that, as Hutus, they will face "victor's justice" in Rwandan, where key government positions are now held by Tutsis.

Brutal

The BBC's Rob Walker in Kigali says that today vast mounds of earth and concrete are all that remain of the church at Nyange.

Flowers and a row of crosses mark the site, but otherwise it has been left untouched for a decade - one of Rwanda's countless monuments to the dead.


5,000 Tutsis were massacred at Ntarama Church, today it is preserved as a memorial site

Rwanda's religious reflections
But the killings here, even by the standards of the genocide, were particularly brutal, our correspondent says.

As Hutu militias stood guard outside, the church doors were locked, then bulldozers arrived to demolish the building.

More than 2,000 Tutsis sheltering inside were crushed to death.

It is the parish priest, Father Athanase Seromba, 41, who now stands accused of directing this massacre of Tutsis from among his own congregation.

Faster justice

Rob Walker says the start of Father Seromba's trial at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda will revive heated debate about the role of the Catholic Church during the dark days of 1994.

The Catholic hierarchy in Rwanda had close ties to extremist politicians in the run up to the genocide and some priests like Father Seromba are accused of actively assisting the Hutu militias.


ARUSHA TRIBUNAL
20 guilty verdicts
20 suspects on trial
23 suspects awaiting trial
Source: ICTR
In 2001, two nuns were found guilty of taking part in the genocide in a Belgian court.

The Vatican accepts there are individuals in the church who committed crimes, but controversially, it says the Church as an institution cannot be held to blame.

At the time of the genocide, some 60% of Rwandans were Catholic but some have since converted to Islam, saying the Church failed them in 1994.

Rwanda's government has criticised the slow pace at which the Arusha tribunal has worked.

But our correspondent says that it has speeded up its work in the past year.

It is supposed to complete all investigations by the end of this year and all trials by the end of 2008.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3671464.stm

The list is endless.

With Peace,
Abdulhaqq

 

[abdulhaqq]

Dear Pete, Baja, et al,

Its a pity that some people can't use their intellect in discussions, but have to resort to blind faith and smear campaigns. These tactics won't weaken my resolve to present my faith in an unbiased fashion.

What's the matter? Can't use your mind to defend your claims?

The irony is that people have been claiming that Islam is a violent religion, yet the entire course of this thread I have shown both textually that Islam condemns terrorism and historically that Islam didn't spread by force. However, there are people in this thread who openly advocate violence against Muslims for the sole reason that they are Muslim.



With Peace,
Abdulhaqq

 

[vraiblonde]

then why did we not liberate palestine?

I can't believe you even said that. And you were doing so well, too.

 

[Pete]

Dear Pete,

As a Muslim, I condemn the attacks on innocents just for the speech or beliefs they've espoused. Islam doesn't recognize acts of vigilantism and terror.

As has been repeatedly stated through out this thread, Islam condemns terrorism and advocates the death penalty for those that partake in it.

The same types of smear tactics that you are engaging in can be done in the name of Christianity:

Christian Terrorists Kill 44, Wound 118 in Attacks in Northeast India
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...&u=/afp/20041002/ts_afp/india_northeast_blast

Eric Rudolph: Christian Terrorist
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A1196-2003Jun1?language=printer

Seattle Synagogue Shooter Was Christian
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/279424_convert30ww.html

The group known as the "Seas of David" who planned attacks on the Sears Tower (which was designed by a Muslim) "train through the Bible... not only physically but mentally"

"Given the group's reported affinity for al-Qaeda, what makes this incident especially interesting is the fact that Seas of David is not a Muslim organization. By all accounts, the group uses Muslim discourse and symbols. Yet it also relies heavily on Jewish and Christian discourse and symbols. This includes what is described as a homemade Star of David arm patch worn by its estimated 40 members (Miami Herald, June 23). Friends and family of the suspects claim that none of them are Muslims but in fact are practicing Christians, some devout. Batiste's father, a Christian preacher in Louisiana, claims that his son may be emotionally disturbed, but that he is certainly not a terrorist. Local sources say that Batiste could often be seen walking with a cane and wearing a black robe (Miami Herald, June 24, June 25). "
http://www.jamestown.org/terrorism/news/article.php?articleid=2370059

Should we start talking about how many Catholic priests molest children?

Or perhaps about mormon's abusing children through polygamous relationships?

Or how about radical Christian attacks on abortion clinics?

Or what about the Protestant-Catholic fighting in Ireland?

Or how about General Boykin's reference to the war in iraq as being a 'crusade'?

Or how about this guy:



The list is endless.

With Peace,
Abdulhaqq

Right here is the difference

>>>>>>>>A Roman Catholic priest accused of taking part in the 1994 Rwandan genocide has gone on trial at the UN war crimes tribunal in Tanzania. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<

At a "trial" being tried and "punished". Talk to me when Hezbollah leaders are tried in a court and punished for kidnapping and rocketing Israel. Talk to me when Hamas leaders give up the leaders of groups who send suicide bombers to kill innocent people.

 

[Kain99]

Dear Pete, Baja, et al,

Its a pity that some people can't use their intellect in discussions, but have to resort to blind faith and smear campaigns. These tactics won't weaken my resolve to present my faith in an unbiased fashion.

What's the matter? Can't use your mind to defend your claims?

The irony is that people have been claiming that Islam is a violent religion, yet the entire course of this thread I have shown both textually that Islam condemns terrorism and historically that Islam didn't spread by force. However, there are people in this thread who openly advocate violence against Muslims for the sole reason that they are Muslim.



With Peace,
Abdulhaqq

You are absolutely right, my friend.

I truly understand your cause but we watched our brothers flesh burn and bleed before our eyes.

This is going to take understanding on both sides.

 

[abdulhaqq]

Dear Pete,

I'm not sure what your level of reading is, but perhaps you should spend more time reading the news:news.

I await your response on the refutation of the trinity, unless you want to base your belief in blind faith and not reason.

With Peace,
Abdulhaqq

PS: If it seems that I am harsh with you, I apologize. However, if you are going to aggressively make false claims about my faith, I will politely but aggressively refute your claims using logic and proof, not blind faith and slander.

 

[Baja28]

Dear Pete, Baja, et al,

Its a pity that some people can't use their intellect in discussions, but have to resort to blind faith and smear campaigns. Not smear campaings, COLD HARD TRUTH!!! These tactics won't weaken my resolve to present my faith in an unbiased fashion.

What's the matter? Can't use your mind to defend your claims?

The irony is that people have been claiming that Islam is a violent religion, yet the entire course of this thread I have shown both textually that Islam condemns terrorism and historically that Islam didn't spread by force. You can claim anything you want but over the last 20 years, wars have been fought because of islam. Indisputable facts negating all of your claims!! However, there are people in this thread who openly advocate violence against Muslims for the sole reason that they are Muslim. if the finger is poisoning the body, cut off the finger....

With Peace,
Abdulhaqq

What's the matter? Can't islam use peace vs. terrorism to sell their wares?

Defend what claims?? Everything posted is FACT.

Islam kills....plain & simple.

Islam created the 3rd world war.