Topic: Christians Unite!

[Thomas]

In view of the current  attacks upon Christians , both East and West, by Islam there is a need for Christians (Orthodox and Heterodox) to meet together to resolve their issues and present a united front against the very definite attack of militant Islamist against  Christians.

Thomas

[EkhristosAnesti]

Dear Thomas,

I empathise with your sentiments, but the way you've raised the issue seems rather ad hoc. Has there been a recent incident that has instigated you to all of the sudden create a thread about this?

[Entscheidungsproblem]

"They have occupied more and more of the lands of those Christians, and have overcome them in seven battles.  They have killed and captured many, and have destroyed the churches and devastated the empire.  If you permit them to continue thus for awhile with impurity, the faithful of God will be much more widely attacked by them.  On this account I, or rather the Lord, beseech you as Christ's heralds to publish this everywhere and to persuade all people of whatever rank, foot-soldiers and knights, poor and rich, to carry aid promptly to those Christians and to destroy that vile race from the lands of our friends.  I say this to those who are present, it meant also for those who are absent.  Moreover, Christ commands it."

Sorry, the quotation just fit too perfectly.   

I agree completely though.  A lot of the dialogue recently, especially between the Vatican and the various Orthodox Patriarchates, has stated that even though communion does not exist, the RCC and Orthodox Church are in agreement with various issues (safety of Christians, bioethics, etc) and this is a front they must stand united against (militant Islam).  Especially in Muslim majority countries where being Christian is a death wish; an example being the murder of Father Ragheed Ganni and 3 of his deacons in Iraq at the beginning of the month.

[minasoliman]

In my experience, I've found that a great weapon Christianity has against Islam is ancient history.  Apostolic Christianity in the forms of Catholicism and Orthodoxy can only be destroyed via persecution.  It is why in Protestantism there is a great weakness, since they only know Luther as their reformer, and nothing before.  Islam's weakness is to deal with Ancient Christian history, which is something they easily avoid when they deal with Protestants.

God bless.

[scamandrius]

In my experience, I've found that a great weapon Christianity has against Islam is ancient history.  Apostolic Christianity in the forms of Catholicism and Orthodoxy can only be destroyed via persecution. 

They tried persecuting Christians in the Middle East, in Russia, in Eastern Europe and the faith continues and grows.  Persecution may put us in the witness protection program, but never in the Hudson River with cement shoes! 

[Bono Vox]

I think it would be wise for Christian countries, whether they be eastern or western, to do everything they can to limit the spread of Islam (the religion of peace  This is the role of the governments.

[scamandrius]

I think it would be wise for Christian countries, whether they be eastern or western, to do everything they can to limit the spread of Islam (the religion of peace  This is the role of the governments.

I'm always weary of suggesting the government is a solution to everything. First of all, what kind of Christianity would the government be defending?  Would they have a say in church issues?  I hope not.

I don't think the issue is the limiting of Islam's spread.  There should be no compulsion, whether forcing religion on someone or prohibiting one from becoming an adherent.  What is needed is more missionary outreaches into those places where Christianity is forbidden, e.g. Saudi Arabia, Iran.  IF we start limiting religious proseletyzing, then are we any better than those autocratic regimes?

[Bono Vox]

'm always weary of suggesting the government is a solution to everything. First of all, what kind of Christianity would the government be defending?  Would they have a say in church issues?  I hope not.

I don't think the issue is the limiting of Islam's spread.  There should be no compulsion, whether forcing religion on someone or prohibiting one from becoming an adherent.  What is needed is more missionary outreaches into those places where Christianity is forbidden, e.g. Saudi Arabia, Iran.  IF we start limiting religious proseletyzing, then are we any better than those autocratic regimes?

I didn't say the government was the solution to everything. The government has a different role than the church does. The government has the authority to regulate it's boarders an be selective of whom it allows into it's country. Also, governments decide how to deal with other governments.

Islam is not a peaceful religion. In my opinion, it is the most dangerous and harmful religion in the world. I think it is any governments role to reduce the spread of islam. It doesn't mean that it has to be violent means.

Just look at Europe. Islam is ruining it. It is like a cancer that is growing. If it is not removed, it will kill all of the other good cells.

I'm not advocating a crusade, or using violent means. I think that through various policies, the various "christian" (I am referring to christian civilizations of all kinds, so lets not make this a word game) governments throughout the world can affect trade and implement policies that can undermine fanatical Islamic governments. Whatever it takes to stop its growth.

I even think it would be better to secularize the islamic nations rather than have them continue in islam. It is the safest thing for the world.

[Heorhij]

Islam is a strange religion. I never understood it. What I seem to understand is that they do not have clergy (not even an equivalent of Protestant ministers). They have their sacred texts, the Qur'an, but it's just a collection of various teachings (mostly borrowed from the Old Testament), which one can interpret in various ways. Muslims always say that their religion is a religion of peace, but if one interprets certain suras of Qur'an literally, it really becomes a vengeful and ruthless religion... and many local "imams," supposedly "learned" representatives of the "ulema" (Muslim communities), especially in poor Muslim countries, really do interpret these suras quite literally and quite radically. Scary. 

[Nacho]

I didn't say the government was the solution to everything. The government has a different role than the church does. The government has the authority to regulate it's boarders an be selective of whom it allows into it's country. Also, governments decide how to deal with other governments.

Islam is not a peaceful religion. In my opinion, it is the most dangerous and harmful religion in the world. I think it is any governments role to reduce the spread of islam. It doesn't mean that it has to be violent means.
Just look at Europe. Islam is ruining it. It is like a cancer that is growing. If it is not removed, it will kill all of the other good cells.

I'm not advocating a crusade, or using violent means. I think that through various policies, the various "christian" (I am referring to christian civilizations of all kinds, so lets not make this a word game) governments throughout the world can affect trade and implement policies that can undermine fanatical Islamic governments. Whatever it takes to stop its growth.

I even think it would be better to secularize the islamic nations rather than have them continue in islam. It is the safest thing for the world.

Where's GIC when you need him... We could use his expertise on the Islamo-facists and the dangers they pose to modern western societies. I have no idea why Muslims would want to live in these civilized western democratic countries; the values, culture, and governments seem counter to everything they believe. I also don't understand why these countries let in such hostile people. Europeans seem to either be naive or too liberal/politically correct; which could lead to horrible consequences for them down the road. The mass rioting in France is just a small foretaste to come and many of these Muslims act more like ruthless medieval barbarians that have no regard for the freedoms they are allowed in thier 'host' country. It's just take, take, and take more and always disagree with the infidel, even to the point of violence if need be.....

[Veniamin]

I didn't say the government was the solution to everything. The government has a different role than the church does. The government has the authority to regulate it's boarders an be selective of whom it allows into it's country. Also, governments decide how to deal with other governments.

Islam is not a peaceful religion. In my opinion, it is the most dangerous and harmful religion in the world. I think it is any governments role to reduce the spread of islam. It doesn't mean that it has to be violent means.

Just look at Europe. Islam is ruining it. It is like a cancer that is growing. If it is not removed, it will kill all of the other good cells.

I'm not advocating a crusade, or using violent means. I think that through various policies, the various "christian" (I am referring to christian civilizations of all kinds, so lets not make this a word game) governments throughout the world can affect trade and implement policies that can undermine fanatical Islamic governments. Whatever it takes to stop its growth.

I even think it would be better to secularize the islamic nations rather than have them continue in islam. It is the safest thing for the world.

What Islam needs is its own Nietschze.

Failing that, we could build a wall around all Muslim states, preventin general interaction with them.  Then, we deport all citizens refusing to renounce Islam to one of those states, while taking all children under the age of 5 and raising them in other states as anything else (preferably Orthodox Christians, but in this case, even a militant atheist would be an improvement).  Eradicate all Islamic texts on the outside, then wait for the religion to die out.  (I'm not saying we should; just throwing it out as a possibility.)

[scamandrius]

I didn't say the government was the solution to everything. The government has a different role than the church does. The government has the authority to regulate it's boarders an be selective of whom it allows into it's country. Also, governments decide how to deal with other governments. 

Yes, governments are to deal with other governments, but you want government to deal with members of a specific religion.  We always want government to come in and do things which either we are too busy to do ourselves, too unwilling to do ourselves or are apathetic.  If Christians in this country were acquainted with the dangers that Islam can (notice I did not say do), then perhaps they would be more willing to educate their children, bring them up in the faith correctly and not simply "let them make their own decisions" before they are old enough to get behind the wheel of the car.  Responsibility for our identity rests with ourselves, not with some inflated bureaucracy that seeks things only for itself.  Stop passing the buck.  Parents need to educate their kids and ensure they hold firm in the faith.

[Bono Vox]

Yes, governments are to deal with other governments, but you want government to deal with members of a specific religion.  We always want government to come in and do things which either we are too busy to do ourselves, too unwilling to do ourselves or are apathetic.  If Christians in this country were acquainted with the dangers that Islam can (notice I did not say do), then perhaps they would be more willing to educate their children, bring them up in the faith correctly and not simply "let them make their own decisions" before they are old enough to get behind the wheel of the car.  Responsibility for our identity rests with ourselves, not with some inflated bureaucracy that seeks things only for itself.  Stop passing the buck.  Parents need to educate their kids and ensure they hold firm in the faith.

You are speaking as if I am concerned my kids would convert to islam. I don't worry about that at all. Islam converts by the sword, not a free exchange of ideas. If you look in europe, the muslims are having 6-8 kids per family. Most europeans don't even have 1 child per family. Once the islamofacists take controll from inside out (either by overpopulating or military force), they will be in control. Do you think they will allow people to be free thinkers?? Do you think they will let people speak freely of their religion?? Do you think they will allow christians to evangelize?? They will destroy society.

It is our responsibility to educate our kids; however, this is not the issue. The government has the POWER (we do not), to prevent islam from infecting our societies. This is what I am advocating. Societies who do not want to live in a muslim society should support the governments to do everything they can to thwart the spread of islam. Governments, not individual citizens, have this power.

[Nacho]

^^ Wow, excellent post OB..

Dude, you are totally right about the Islamo-facist and the POTENTIAL danger they are to us & future generations. I'm so worried about what Europe will turn into in 50 years and what that means to the rest of us, our children and our christian heritage. I don't know what kind of Kool Aid these Europeans are drinking, but they have to be nuts to not see how drastically thier societies COULD & PROBABLY will be changing in the matter of a few decades. These people that run these governments are nothing but turncoats that are selling out the freedoms, technology, and values that took centuries to build...and for what? So they can tell the PC police at the UN how TOLERANT they are because they let in 'X' amount of Muslims into their country last year....

[Nacho]

Also, why is multiculturalism forced upon mostly white European countries with the expectation that they have to let a constant flow of Muslims in? Why isn't multiculturalism forced upon the so-called Muslim countries where they allow others in and immigrants are allowed to live and associate in a free manner? Why aren’t  the lackies at the UN demanding the same of Muslim countries? This sounds awfully hypocritical and unfair. In my opinion, multiculturalism is not truly living up to supposed multi-cultural values (as the left defines them I guess) because it seems too one sided. It's always the civilized people that get the bad end of the deal when these immigrants with a totally different worldview move in and try to change a free democratic society to the customs of their native country. If one truly believes in multiculturalism, then Europeans should be able to keep and maintain their long-standing customs and heritage and same goes for the Muslims, but in THERE OWN RESPECTIVE LANDS. In other words, different cultures should be respected and separate if one is too really believe in multicultural values. What I see happening in Europe is not multiculturalism, but one culture competing and trying to take over the culture of a host country. Do any of you want to see this happen? Think of the loss fore example if the French or English culture were wiped off the face of the Earth in about 50 years. Would that finally make all the hypocrites at the UN happy?  --but I guess I'm one of the few that dare ask such questions....  

[scamandrius]

Governments, not individual citizens, have this power.

I don't want to get into a debate about civil liberties, social contracts, Lockian or Hobbesian or Rousseauean influences on the U.S. Constitution.  As much as I agree with you and with Nacho about the potential dangers Muslims have and not ignoring that they have converted by the sword since their inception, the fact is Islam is winning many adherents from atheists, Hindus, Buddhists, Christians with some sort of appeal sans force.  And let's face it, as for Christians, too many of them hold a lukewarm faith which they then pass on to their children which makes them more susceptible to the wiles and power of the evil one.  I know of no forced conversions here in the United States.  If someone would cite a specific example, I'd like to hear it.  But right now, as far as the U.S. is concerned, people are converting to Islam because of some specific appeal and also because of the failure of parents and the churches to properly catechize their children in the tenets of true, historic Christianity.

Or maybe I should just echo Veniamin and suggest that every group gets a walled in area for themselves where they have no contact with others.

[ozgeorge]

There are many more pressing issues than this that need ot be addressed.

Christian blood being spilt by Muslim hands not only in the Middle East, but also Europe, Asia, Indonesia etc is somehow less pressing? Well, that may be your opinion, but this thread is not about abortion or homosexuality, it's about Christian Unity in defence against Islam. There are plenty of other threads in which you can discuss the issues you wish to discuss (and I see you already have done so, including starting a thread about homosexuality yourself). Could we not turn every thread into a thread about gay civil unions please?
At any rate, welcome to the forum Pravoslavije-gal!

[Thomas]

IN REPLY TO THE REQUEST ON WHY THIS TOPIC AND WHY NOW.

Over the last week several Moslems whom are here in the US have seperately stated to me, "How can you Christians win against the True Believers (Moslems) when you can't even agree among yourselves what you believe and agree among yourselves?"

While I know that there are at least three denominations of Islams (possibly  four if you account for the Saudi Sect of Wahhabis) plus many very small movements within Islams primarily local off shoots of either the Sunni or Shia sects.The the Sunnis and the Shi'ites, with the Sunnis being the largest of all and representing the vast majority of Muslims. Shi'ites are a minority everywhere except Iran.The Sufis represent a mystical tradition in Islam, whereas the Wahhabis are a strict traditionalist tradition which is dominant on the Arabian peninsula, but has little support elsewhere (but seems to be influencial with militant islamists).

I wonder how long Christianity, through its divisions and politics will continue to weaken it's witness  by refusing to talk with each other and actively seek reunion? As Orthodox Christians, why do many of us refuse to even talk with Roman Catholics and protestants to bring greater understanding of our common ground and understand our  differences aside from politics. Our fear of Ecumenism has shut down our ability to honest and fruitful dialog  presenting to  Islamists a much divided front theythey see as porous and weak capable of breaking and destroying. [We of course know this is not fully possible as the Church according to our Lord will withstand the onslaught of the very gates of Hell] but are we failing in our true call of being One as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one?

In Christ,
Thomas

[ozgeorge]

"How can you Christians win against the True Believers (Moslems) when you can't even agree among yourselves what you believe and agree among yourselves?"

When the "True Believers" are currently killing each other in Lebanon, Palestine and Iraq, I don't think they have a leg to stand on. People living in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

[Didymus]

From an historical perspective I believe you will find that only Shi'ites are truly followers of the founder of their religion. Every other 'branch' of Islam are rather like what Protestants are to us. Hope that made sense.

[Didymus]

In my experience, I've found that a great weapon Christianity has against Islam is ancient history. Apostolic Christianity can only be destroyed via persecution.  It is why in Protestantism there is a great weakness, since they only know Luther as their reformer, and nothing before.  Islam's weakness is to deal with Ancient Christian history, which is something they easily avoid when they deal with Protestants.

Indeed it is so.

[minasoliman]

They tried persecuting Christians in the Middle East, in Russia, in Eastern Europe and the faith continues and grows.  Persecution may put us in the witness protection program, but never in the Hudson River with cement shoes! 

   That's true also.

[Bono Vox]

Christian blood being spilt by Muslim hands not only in the Middle East, but also Europe, Asia, Indonesia etc is somehow less pressing? Well, that may be your opinion, but this thread is not about abortion or homosexuality, it's about Christian Unity in defence against Islam. There are plenty of other threads in which you can discuss the issues you wish to discuss (and I see you already have done so, including starting a thread about homosexuality yourself). Could we not turn every thread into a thread about gay civil unions please?

hen the "True Believers" are currently killing each other in Lebanon, Palestine and Iraq, I don't think they have a leg to stand on. People living in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Wink

Well said George, well said!!!! I give a hearty amen!

[Jonas Suender]

You are speaking as if I am concerned my kids would convert to islam. I don't worry about that at all. Islam converts by the sword, not a free exchange of ideas. If you look in europe, the muslims are having 6-8 kids per family. Most europeans don't even have 1 child per family. Once the islamofacists take controll from inside out (either by overpopulating or military force), they will be in control. Do you think they will allow people to be free thinkers?? Do you think they will let people speak freely of their religion?? Do you think they will allow christians to evangelize?? They will destroy society.

It is our responsibility to educate our kids; however, this is not the issue. The government has the POWER (we do not), to prevent islam from infecting our societies. This is what I am advocating. Societies who do not want to live in a muslim society should support the governments to do everything they can to thwart the spread of islam. Governments, not individual citizens, have this power.

This post and your previous posts on this thread are really good.

I've often thought when people decry illegal immgration to the U.S.:  At least our illegal immigrants are from Latin America and therefore they are Christians.  They are not like the immigrants to Europe, who are often Muslim.

[Ebor]

While I know that there are at least three denominations of Islams (possibly  four if you account for the Saudi Sect of Wahhabis) plus many very small movements within Islams primarily local off shoots of either the Sunni or Shia sects.The the Sunnis and the Shi'ites, with the Sunnis being the largest of all and representing the vast majority of Muslims. Shi'ites are a minority everywhere except Iran.The Sufis represent a mystical tradition in Islam, whereas the Wahhabis are a strict traditionalist tradition which is dominant on the Arabian peninsula, but has little support elsewhere (but seems to be influencial with militant islamists).

There are more then these, some of which are considered "heretical".  There is the Ahmadiyya. http://www.alislam.org/introduction/index.html

Baha'i also is from Islam.
http://www.bahai.org/faq/facts/bahai_faith

 Then there's the Black Muslims and the Ismailis which are a branch from the Shi'ites that have splits on their own including the Ismaili Druze.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ismaili

It is not a monolithic bloc by any means, though different branches claim that theirs is the only correct one.

Ebor

[GiC]

It is a most unfortunate thing that Islam has used the very advances of western Civilization against her. It is our ideals of freedom, enlightenment, equality, human rights, civil rights, and tolerance that has allowed Islam to make the attacks she has against our very civilization. But if we allow Islam to continue to advance we will loose all that we have gained, the progress of humanity from barbarism to enlightenment will be overturned. To quote George Orwell, 'To survive it is often necessary to fight and to fight you have to dirty yourself.'

In this fight we will have to dirty ourselves; however, if it is we who limit our tolerance, restrict human rights, and in this limited scope eliminate civil rights in order that we may eradicate the cancer of Islam, I believe we are more likely to not only recover but preserve these values for our society. If the Mohammedan is the one to make these restrictions we will never again recover our values and all peoples will be denied all freedoms for all time.

Let us take responsibility for our society, let us defend the accomplishments of our civilization, let us uphold the greatest advancements of the human race against the Mohammedans. Our loss of sleep at night and loss of self-esteem because we had to commit acts that we believe to be unspeakable and unthinkable would be a small price to pay to defend our civilization against an evil so great. And hopefully our children will one day condemn us for these acts, how great it would be for them to have that luxury, but the important part is that they would remain free to make such determinations for themselves.

It is well past time for total and unrestricted warfare against the Mohammedan, there can be no rules and no restrictions in this war; victory alone should be our concern and no price is too high to pay.

[GabrieltheCelt]

For those of you who have only looked in from without (even from those of us who have been Muslim), Islam can seem strange or scary but first, I would implore each of you to stop using generalities when discussing Islam (to say nothing of the outright lies and hostilities that some *Christians* here are saying). If you have never taken the time to study Islam yourself, or spoken to Muslims, then I respectfully ask that you keep your mouths closed. Have any of you bothered to think that *maybe* there could be Muslim guests here who are curious about Christianity? Have any of you considered that the majority of Muslims worship and love God with the same sincerity that you profess to love and worship Him? Most Muslims are sincere, loving, and peaceful people who happen to fall victims to the same extremists that we fall victims to! To hear some of you talk, one would think the subject is plague infected rats rather than human beings made in the same image and likeness as yourselves.

[GiC]

For those of you who have only looked in from without (even from those of us who have been Muslim), Islam can seem strange or scary but first, I would implore each of you to stop using generalities when discussing Islam (to say nothing of the outright lies and hostilities that some *Christians* here are saying). If you have never taken the time to study Islam yourself, or spoken to Muslims, then I respectfully ask that you keep your mouths closed. Have any of you bothered to think that *maybe* there could be Muslim guests here who are curious about Christianity? Have any of you considered that the majority of Muslims worship and love God with the same sincerity that you profess to love and worship Him? Most Muslims are sincere, loving, and peaceful people who happen to fall victims to the same extremists that we fall victims to! To hear some of you talk, one would think the subject is plague infected rats rather than human beings made in the same image and likeness as yourselves.

Victims eh? When fundamentalist Christians make absurd remarks they are called out and condemned by mainstream Christianity. Whenever Falwell misspoke he had a plethora of Christian leaders condeming him as anit-Christian and stating in no uncertain terms that not only did his views not represent Christianity but that they were outright rejected by Christianity.

So when the Islamist extremists say absurd things (which seems to be on a daily basis), where are these 'sincere, loving, and peaceful people' to condemn them in no uncertain terms. To insist that they do not represent Islam, to denounce them, and to dismiss their words as the blathering of extremists?

The answer is that you don't...rather you see intolerance as common place, you see no moslem leaders (or common people, for that matter) taking a stand for religious freedom and speach, such as the right of moslems to convert to other faiths. How do you see your common mohammedan react to the misogynistic extremist rhetoric coming out of their leaders? Do they condemn it and condemn the Imams in the name of egalitarianism and the most basic understanding of social justice? No, infact they export it our countries where the situation has become so bad that in the UK the CPS had to set up a special task force to deal with so-called 'honour killings'. When one of these 'honour killings' took place, you think the community would take to the streets, demanding the head of whoever instigated it, but does this happen? No, rather there is silence, denial, and obstruction of justice.

Heck, in recent days we have seen violent protests due to the honouring of a successful writer in the UK. Have we seen widespread condemnation of riots and violence and appeals for tolerance amongst the mohammedan people? No, we have seen demands for censorship, destruction of fundamental freedoms, and murder of authors who do not support their religion. 'Sincere, loving, and peaceful people', I think not. Mohammedanism is a cancer and a plague on to the human race, the mohammedans have begotten nothing but evil and they have destroyed any good they have ever come in contact with.

Whether or not they are 'humans' are irrelevant in this instance. The Nazis were humans too, but we realized that their ideology allowed to foster unrestricted was a threat to civilization. Thus the ultimatum came: reject your ideology, denounce your beliefs or we will destroy you. When they failed you yield we crushed their country, flattend their cities, slaughtered their armies, made the people destitute, captured those unrepentant and hanged them. I only suggest we give the same ultimatum to the islamofascists, reject Islam, denounce your beliefs or we will crush you, we will destroy your cities, we will slaughter your armies, we will make your people destitute, and if you still fail to repent, if you still persist in threatening the very foundation of western civilization by professing the doctrines of Mohammedanism, we will give you the same justice we gave the unrepentant fascists at Nuremberg and history will thank us for it.

[GabrieltheCelt]

While I know that there are at least three denominations of Islams (possibly  four if you account for the Saudi Sect of Wahhabis) plus many very small movements within Islams primarily local off shoots of either the Sunni or Shia sects.The the Sunnis and the Shi'ites, with the Sunnis being the largest of all and representing the vast majority of Muslims. Shi'ites are a minority everywhere except Iran.The Sufis represent a mystical tradition in Islam, whereas the Wahhabis are a strict traditionalist tradition which is dominant on the Arabian peninsula, but has little support elsewhere (but seems to be influencial with militant islamists).

Not a bad breakdown, but as you probably know, it's more complicated. But to begin, like all Semitic languages, Arabic words come from a tri-letter root word. Islam and Muslim come from the same root word which is s-l-m. It does, in fact, mean "Peace" but Muslims understand this word a bit differently in the context of religion. They generally understand that by submitting (another meaning of s-l-m) to God and His laws, one will unltimately have peace in their lives. In fact, when Muslims greet one another, they say assalaamu' aleykum, meaning 'peace be upon you'. The two main 'sects' of Islam, Sunni and Shi'a, initially had their roots in an historical event (namely the death of Muhammad), but now have so many differences between them that only the language of Arabic is now thier commonality. Although Sufis can and do have their own mosques and sacred writ (in addition to the Qur'an), Sufism has also influenced Sunnis and Shia's as well. BTW, Sunni's get their name from the 'Sunna' (sayings and doings of Muhammad), while the Shi'a get their name of Shi'at ul 'Ali (the party of Ali - Muhammad's cousin or grandson, depending upon whom you ask). The two sects each interpret the Qur'an differently, each have their own set of Hadith (sayings) with the Sunni's holding only to Muhammads' and the Shi'as holding to Muhammad's and Ali's.
 Any other sect, I would argue, comes from Shi'ism either directly or indirectly due to what is called istiqlal, or interpretation/understanding. For the Sunni's, istiqlal was settled in the early centuries of Islam's beginnings, while the Shi'as believe that, while the Qur'an is a constant, the meanings of the verses are not static. And since fresh interpretations are never immediately dismissed as in Sunnism, one can immediately see how new understandings can give rise to new beliefs.
 

[GabrieltheCelt]

So when the Islamist extremists...

And herein lies my point. All Muslims are not Islamist extremists.

The answer is that you don't...rather you see intolerance as common place, you see no moslem leaders (or common people, for that matter) taking a stand for religious freedom and speach, such as the right of moslems to convert to other faiths. How do you see your common mohammedan react to the misogynistic extremist rhetoric coming out of their leaders? Do they condemn it and condemn the Imams in the name of egalitarianism and the most basic understanding of social justice? No, infact they export it our countries where the situation has become so bad that in the UK the CPS had to set up a special task force to deal with so-called 'honour killings'. When one of these 'honour killings' took place, you think the community would take to the streets, demanding the head of whoever instigated it, but does this happen? No, rather there is silence, denial, and obstruction of justice.

Actually, many Muslim leaders speak out daily against the violence perpetrated in the name of Islam. And not just in America, but everywhere. The problem isn't apathy but fear. The same fear that we have of the extremist, they have as well. And don't think that extremism is anemic only to Islam- extremist Christians today routinely take up arms against others who don't hold their views. And don't forget that many of these extremists aren't necessarily religious in the sense that the Qur'an requires of them. They're actually motivated by political ideologies under a so-called Islamic banner.

Heck, in recent days we have seen violent protests due to the honouring of a successful writer in the UK. Have we seen widespread condemnation of riots and violence and appeals for tolerance amongst the mohammedan people? No, we have seen demands for censorship, destruction of fundamental freedoms, and murder of authors who do not support their religion. 'Sincere, loving, and peaceful people', I think not. Mohammedanism is a cancer and a plague on to the human race, the mohammedans have begotten nothing but evil and they have destroyed any good they have ever come in contact with.

I think you're referring to the Ayatollah Khomeini's 'fatwa' against the Pakistani born author Salman Rushdie. That 'fatwa' has since been retracted and Mr. Rushdie has generally been left alone to write as much rubbish as he pleases. I say 'rubbish' because most folks who read it thought it was [crap], but applauded his right to write whatever, and he only gained fame because of the fatwa. He's since written two or three other books but not too many people noticed because it's well....rubbish. But back to my point that most Muslims rejected the death threat ruling against him but the environment of fear was so great, most simple Muslims were afraid to say anything.

Whether or not they are 'humans' are irrelevant in this instance. The Nazis were humans too, but we realized that their ideology allowed to foster unrestricted was a threat to civilization. Thus the ultimatum came: reject your ideology, denounce your beliefs or we will destroy you. When they failed you yield we crushed their country, flattend their cities, slaughtered their armies, made the people destitute, captured those unrepentant and hanged them. I only suggest we give the same ultimatum to the islamofascists, reject Islam, denounce your beliefs or we will crush you, we will destroy your cities, we will slaughter your armies, we will make your people destitute, and if you still fail to repent, if you still persist in threatening the very foundation of western civilization by professing the doctrines of Mohammedanism, we will give you the same justice we gave the unrepentant fascists at Nuremberg and history will thank us for it.

Although your secular views are not without merit, I respectfully remind you and others that this is a Christian forum. While we have the concept of a Just War and should not hesitate to use it, we are first and foremost Christians, meaning we set the standard, not secular governments. And once again (I fear my voice will go hoarse from screaming this), there is a difference between Islam and extremists (Islamofascists as you call them- or rather as you parrot from neo-con, far right talk show hosts).

[GiC]

And herein lies my point. All Muslims are not Islamist extremists.

And my point is that who stand idly by, do nothing, and tolerate the extremists in their midst, they too are culpable. Furthermore, they offer material support by sustaining the economies the extremists use to finance their war against civilization.

Actually, many Muslim leaders speak out daily against the violence perpetrated in the name of Islam. And not just in America, but everywhere. The problem isn't apathy but fear. The same fear that we have of the extremist, they have as well. And don't think that extremism is anemic only to Islam- extremist Christians today routinely take up arms against others who don't hold their views. And don't forget that many of these extremists aren't necessarily religious in the sense that the Qur'an requires of them. They're actually motivated by political ideologies under a so-called Islamic banner.

Oh yes, we constantly hear of the far reaching equality between men and women in the middle east. The opinions of the extremists are simply dismissed by the common people in their day to day life. And so far as your fear theory goes, we observe the same behaviour in Mohammedans who have immigrated to the West as we observe in those from the middle east. This is not fear, this is a radicalism that is at the very fabric of their society, a radicalism they cannot abandon even when the leave for a place like America. And don't tell me they're afraid of their neighbours, we have the God-given right to keep and bear arms...I can think of nothing that my neighbour could do to compel my actions through fear (through greed, perhaps, but not through fear ). The fact of the matter is that they choose to continue a barbaric and oppressive culture even when they live in a society free from the same.

I think you're referring to the Ayatollah Khomeini's 'fatwa' against the Pakistani born author Salman Rushdie. That 'fatwa' has since been retracted and Mr. Rushdie has generally been left alone to write as much rubbish as he pleases. I say 'rubbish' because most folks who read it thought it was [crap], but applauded his right to write whatever, and he only gained fame because of the fatwa. He's since written two or three other books but not too many people noticed because it's well....rubbish. But back to my point that most Muslims rejected the death threat ruling against him but the environment of fear was so great, most simple Muslims were afraid to say anything.

The quality of the work is irrelevant to the discussion, the point is compare it to something like the Da vinci Code, what I did see of it (no, I haven't read much of it) is not very well written (it sure the hell isn't Shakespeare or Chaucer) and it's quite offencive towards Christianity. But beyond a general disgust with the work from a few more conservative elements of Christianity there was no overreaction. Certainly no one called for the death of the author and there were no riots in the streets.

As far as fatwas go...why is it that we get all these fatwas against western civilization but none against the so-called perversions of Islam by the 'extremists'. These 'extremists' are placing all of Islam at risk on account of their foolishness and if it is truly contrary to the ideals of Islam, shouldn't it be condemned? Where were the fatwas condemning the taliban? Where are the fatwas demanding equality between men and women? Where are the fatwas endorsing the freedom of religion? The fact of the matter is that they do not exist, because there is no Imam so moderate and rational as to make a decree supporting these things that we in the West understand to be so basic and fundamental to even being a human.

Although your secular views are not without merit, I respectfully remind you and others that this is a Christian forum. While we have the concept of a Just War and should not hesitate to use it, we are first and foremost Christians, meaning we set the standard, not secular governments.

And I will remind you that from its inception Islam has been at war with Christianity. From the first assaults against the Empre to the fall of the Imperial City, to the very gates of Vienna, to the battlefields of the Greek War for Independence we have been at war with the Mohammedan. I am hard pressed to see how one could call themselves a Christian and not advocate war against Mohammedans, how one could be willing to surrender the conquered lands, and how one could think so lowly of the Blessed soldiers of Christendom who gave their life fighting the mohammedan hordes. War against Islam is the most just of any war, in fact it is a state intrinsic to Christianity herself. Furthermore, it is not only because I am a Christian but also because I am a human being that I advocate war against Islam (extremists and cowardly 'moderates' who tolerates said extremists, alike...cowardice is hardly a virtue to be rewarded). Islam is, and has been since its beginning, a war against humanity, it has dehumanized everything and everyone it has touched. It has produced no good and an abundance of evil.

And once again (I fear my voice will go hoarse from screaming this), there is a difference between Islam and extremists (Islamofascists as you call them- or rather as you parrot from neo-con, far right talk show hosts).

But I will confess that it is wrong to compare it to fascism; fascists were, at least, not entirely devoid of good, they built up the economies of much of europe, they spoke up for the oppressed working classes, they did some good. But the Mohammedan is entirely devoid of good, anything it touches turns to corruption. If we could replace every Mohammedan with ten radical Nazis, the world would be a better place (ignoring the overpopulation problem that would be created ).

[GabrieltheCelt]

And my point is that who stand idly by, do nothing, and tolerate the extremists in their midst, they too are culpable. Furthermore, they offer material support by sustaining the economies the extremists use to finance their war against civilization.

I never suggested that we 'stand idly by, do nothing and tolerate the extemists'. But I don't think debilitating an entire economy because of a few extremists (statistically speaking) is the answer either. I would think that poverty would cause more extremism. In fact, I'm certain of it.

Oh yes, we constantly hear of the far reaching equality between men and women in the middle east.

This is a good point, but we're talking about the difference between a major religion and the extremists within.

The opinions of the extremists are simply dismissed by the common people in their day to day life. And so far as your fear theory goes, we observe the same behaviour in Mohammedans who have immigrated to the West as we observe in those from the middle east.

They're not entirely dismissed, GiC. The average Muslim living in the Middle East does not have the where-with-all to rise up against the extremist down the street with a gun toting posse. S/he simply tries his/her best to avoid them and tells their children to do the same. And I don't recall any Islamic immigrant(s) behaving in an extremist manner (burning flags, blowing up cafe's,...). And BTW, the WTC tower murderers were not immigrants.

I can think of nothing that my neighbour could do to compel my actions through fear...

So, you don't lock your doors at night? I betcha do...common GiC, tell the truth now.     And since you quoted the 'right to bear arms' clause, I'm assuming you have a gun? And if so, why? Assuming it's not a water gun, I'd say you're a tad bit scared.   

The quality of the work is irrelevant to the discussion, the point is compare it to something like the Da vinci Code, what I did see of it (no, I haven't read much of it) is not very well written (it sure the hell isn't Shakespeare or Chaucer) and it's quite offencive towards Christianity. But beyond a general disgust with the work from a few more conservative elements of Christianity there was no overreaction. Certainly no one called for the death of the author and there were no riots in the streets.

Again, we're talking about a major religion and the extremists within. These extremists (no matter what religion they profess) typically aren't very educated, so a well reasoned argument is usually out of the question. It's like the school yard bully who can't express himself so he resorts to violence.
Bully: Gimme your nickel.
Boy: I don' wanna. It's mine. Go get a job an getcher own nickel.
Bully: Oh yea? How'd you like a knuckle san'wich?

And I will remind you that from its inception Islam has been at war with Christianity.

Seemingly so, until one bothers to read about it. For one instance, did you know that the Meccan pagan elite sought to kill Muhammad, so he fled to Ethiopia, where the Christian king gave him refuge? Muhammad decreed that Ethiopia would be a protected land. Or how about the Sultan who gave special protection to Mt Athos and St Catherine's monestary? I could go on and on, but why bother? The point I'm trying to make is that there's a difference between Islam and the extremists within.

It has produced no good and an abundance of evil.

Alas, yet another uneducated statement. *Sigh* How about Algebra? It was Muslim mathematicians who invented Al-jibr (Algebra). Or maybe you'd care to look into anotomical science? Yup, Muslims drew up anotomical charts that were used from around the 12th century up until around the 18th century. I could go on and on. All this when Europeans were defecating in the streets creating a situation that would devastate many countries (yup, the bubonic plague came from the enlightened West).

But I will confess that it is wrong to compare it to fascism; fascists were, at least, not entirely devoid of good, they built up the economies of much of europe, they spoke up for the oppressed working classes, they did some good. But the Mohammedan is entirely devoid of good, anything it touches turns to corruption. If we could replace every Mohammedan with ten radical Nazis, the world would be a better place (ignoring the overpopulation problem that would be created ).

I don't know what to say in response to this, except I'd rather listen to my 8 yr old niece sing Brittney Spears' "Oops I did it again" over and over rather than listen to this type of *reasoning*.

[scamandrius]

I never suggested that we 'stand idly by, do nothing and tolerate the extemists'. But I don't think debilitating an entire economy because of a few extremists (statistically speaking) is the answer either. I would think that poverty would cause more extremism. In fact, I'm certain of it.

One need only look at Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia as European counterparts.

They're not entirely dismissed, GiC. The average Muslim living in the Middle East does not have the where-with-all to rise up against the extremist down the street with a gun toting posse. S/he simply tries his/her best to avoid them and tells their children to do the same.

This just reaffirms the fact that power is not taken, it is given away.  Again, look at Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia.  The deep poverty of the masses forced revolutions and the people kept giving their new overlords more and more power which was then used not only to repress the countries but others outside as well.  Perhaps, in a perfect world, revolutions would spring up all the time against extremists who have been given power by timid people.  I do think that people in those countries do bear a modicum of responsibility.

And since you quoted the 'right to bear arms' clause, I'm assuming you have a gun? And if so, why? Assuming it's not a water gun, I'd say you're a tad bit scared.   

And so what if he does?  Contrary to what gun-control advocates say, owning a gun is not always about compensating for lack of masculinity.  I'm certain that there are gun-owners who need extra confidence.  But it is a right.  Why not affirm and practice our rights actively instead of just believing in it?  When we reduce our rights to mere belief systems instead of what to practice, then we are all the more complacent in giving power away to those who would wish to reduce them, even though those that are brought in say they are "restoring" rights.

Alas, yet another uneducated statement. *Sigh* How about Algebra? It was Muslim mathematicians who invented Al-jibr (Algebra). Or maybe you'd care to look into anotomical science? Yup, Muslims drew up anotomical charts that were used from around the 12th century up until around the 18th century. I could go on and on. All this when Europeans were defecating in the streets creating a situation that would devastate many countries (yup, the bubonic plague came from the enlightened West).

OK, the Muslims do get a majority of the credit for inventingAlgebra but the truth is that what the Muslims did was a culmination of centuries of work influenced by the Hindus and Greeks.  As for anatomical charts, the first person to do that was the Roman physician Galen, whose work was finessed by the Muslims.  The Bubonic plague was imported into the west from the East by the Venetians who had trading contacts in Muslim dominated lands. 

I don't know what to say in response to this, except I'd rather listen to my 8 yr old niece sing Brittney Spears' "Oops I did it again" over and over rather than listen to this type of *reasoning*.

Yeah, right! 

[Ebor]

Alas, yet another uneducated statement. *Sigh* How about Algebra? It was Muslim mathematicians who invented Al-jibr (Algebra). Or maybe you'd care to look into anotomical science? Yup, Muslims drew up anotomical charts that were used from around the 12th century up until around the 18th century. I could go on and on. All this when Europeans were defecating in the streets creating a situation that would devastate many countries (yup, the bubonic plague came from the enlightened West).

There were also many studies in medicine and astronomy among other advances in learning from muslim persons as well as in the arts.  Other advances came from European cultures and others from China and other parts of the world. 

However, if I may make one correction historically, and *I am not trying to give you a hard time on this*.  The Bubonic Plague/Black Death did not come from the "enlightened west" nor from waste in the streets.  It is carried by fleas on rats.  It has also been around for millennia and there were a number of pandemics.  If you are thinking of the one in the 14th century commonly meant by "The Black Death", that has been traced to an out-break in China that then spread west and with caravans and then ships traveling to so many places, the rats or their fleas (which jump to people) were widespread.

http://dpalm.uth.tmc.edu/courses/BT2003/BTstudents2003_files%5CPlague2003.htm
http://www.themiddleages.net/plague.html

Ebor

[Ebor]

As far as fatwas go...why is it that we get all these fatwas against western civilization but none against the so-called perversions of Islam by the 'extremists'.

Perhaps because such 'fatwas' are the ones that make the news.  Just because one does not know about such things does not mean that they don't exist.  I will have to recall the one that I found in the last couple of weeks, but in doing a search I found this from an 2005 article in the Washington Times:

<Quote starts>
Moderate Muslims celebrate public rebuke of bin Laden

From combined dispatches
    CAIRO -- The condemnation of Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda by the Islamic Commission of Spain on the first anniversary of the train bombings in Madrid that took 200 lives is making waves throughout the Muslim world.
    The Spanish commission's fatwa, or condemnation, follows other signs of the kind of public theological debate rarely seen in the Muslim world, openly challenging the dominance of Saudi Arabia's wealthy Wahhabi fanatics.

One Islamic scholar even calls it a sign of "a counter-jihad."
    In a recent interview with the Qatari daily newspaper Al-Raya, for example, Abd Al-Hamid Al-Ansari, the former dean of Shariah and law at the University of Qatar, urged his fellow Muslims to purge their heritage of fanaticism and adopt "new civilized humane thought."
    Such humane thought, he said, "must be translated [into deeds] in educational ways, via the media, tolerant religious discourse, nondiscriminatory policy and just legislation."
    "We must purge the school curricula of all sectarian implications and elements according to which others deviate from the righteous path and the truth is in our hands alone. We must enrich the curricula with the values of tolerance and acceptance of the other who is different [in school of faith, ethnic group, religion, nationality or sex].
<End Quote>

the Mohammedan is entirely devoid of good, anything it touches turns to corruption.

Sigh.  That name is offensive to muslims, but one might guess that such a fact is known and it's done on purpose. Well, just to go along with your sig, it doesn't shock me... it's just boring while trying to be tendentious.  Sometimes the use of perjorative labels makes the speaker feel good, maybe.

There's no such thing as "The X"  There are individual human beings who believe or do something. Human beings are not "it" though a strawman is I'd guess. 

Our vet is muslim and he is a wonderful compassionate vet.  His children go to the neighborhood school and his wife walks them  there with the other parents as has been the custom in our neighborhood for decades.  They are my neighbors and human beings. 

Ebor

[GabrieltheCelt]

 Ebor, thank you for your posts and insights.

 As for Scamandrius and GiC's arguments go, they're not without merit, but my initial point was/is that there is a difference between Islam and extremism. When some blanket statements were being made about homosexuals, it seemed that many of you rushed to qualify (and rightly so) that Christians are their friends. That was a very Christian act of love. Yet, when Islam is brought up, we tend to lump the entire problem of the Middle East on Islam's lap. Islam, like any other religion or belief system, is not monolithic, nor is are the problems of the Middle East so easily diagnosed.
 
 Because this is a Christian forum, I expect there to be many disagreements  with Islam, and rightfully so. Whatever arguments we have with Islam, bring them up and let's hear them. But when we begin to smear a people based on the actions of a violent minority, your words will ring hollow with those whom you wish to convert (and this should be your main concern), and will begin to take on an extremist outlook in the end. I'm not trying to pick on GiC, but this is an individual who espouses an extremist and exceptionally violent outlook. What truly saddens me is that not one of you responded to this statement:

Whether or not they are 'humans' are irrelevant in this instance. The Nazis were humans too, but we realized that their ideology allowed to foster unrestricted was a threat to civilization. Thus the ultimatum came: reject your ideology, denounce your beliefs or we will destroy you. When they failed you yield we crushed their country, flattend their cities, slaughtered their armies, made the people destitute, captured those unrepentant and hanged them. I only suggest we give the same ultimatum to the islamofascists, reject Islam, denounce your beliefs or we will crush you, we will destroy your cities, we will slaughter your armies, we will make your people destitute, and if you still fail to repent, if you still persist in threatening the very foundation of western civilization by professing the doctrines of Mohammedanism, we will give you the same justice we gave the unrepentant fascists at Nuremberg and history will thank us for it.

 "Ultimatum to the islamofascists, reject Islam..." You see, this is a major faux paux here. In six words, you just equated everyone who practices Islam as an Islamofascist. You then go on to advocate detroying cities and making people destitute. Please help me out here. I am just naive or dumb? Is this what Christianity espouses? Or just the Christians on this forum?

[GabrieltheCelt]

When the "True Believers" are currently killing each other in Lebanon, Palestine and Iraq, I don't think they have a leg to stand on. People living in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Very true. But, again, the problems these regions are having have more to do with politics than religion. I'm not saying that religion has nothing to do with the problems, but it's only a small part. I fear that this topic will soon be blocked or moved to the Politics section, but some explanations are in order. Sectarian violence encountered in Lebanon and Iraq (and we can thank GWB and his neo-con advisors for the problems of Iraq MEANING a power vaccuum was created when Saddam was toppled and no viable replacement was thought about) has its roots in politics. The problems with Lebanon are more complicated. The presidency is reserved for a Christian Maronite, while the prime minister is reserved for a Sunni Muslim, and the speaker of the parliament goes to a Shi'a Muslim. Lebanon is historically part of Syria, and Syria has never forgotten that. By de facto, Lebanese politics are run by Syrian thugs who are by religion, Alawi (a sect of Shi'ism), but many of them are also Ba'athists (just like Saddam was). To further complicate matters, the Shi'a in the region are controlled by the Iranian backed satellite militia Hizb'Allah, which Syria uses to it's advantage when it suits the Assad regime of Syria.

 What about the Christians there? I feel for them, as I feel for the rest of the poor sincere people in the region, yet the Christians are not without fault either. In 1982, the Israelis (the real proverbial thorn in the side of peace) installed the Maronite Phalange militia. The Phalange not only murdered thousands and thousands of Druze, they fought with other Maronite militia's.
 Back to the Ba'athists. It's known that that's the ideology that Saddam Hussein (Iraq) and Hafiz Assad (Syria) belonged to. But how many of you realize that it was a joint venture created by a Christian named Michel Aflaq and a Muslim named Salah al-Din Bitar?

  Now onto Palestine. I'm not going to repeat what I've already said in other posts, but suffice it to say, the problem here is not simply the religion. It's the abject poverty that has been created by the Zionist government. Because the majority of Palestinians are Muslim, they tend to fall back on a highly politicized version of Islam just as Eastern Europeans fell back on a highly politicized version of Christianity during the pograms against the Jews.

 To put the region into a bigger perspective, after the fall of the Ottoman Empire (thankfully), a power vaccuum was created. France and England rushed in created the modern Middle East that we have today. This, in reality, has created many of the problems we see today.

 With each page of history we read, with each layer we peal back, we see that Muslims and Christians and Jews all have a part in the atrocities. They all must share equal amounts of blame.
 

[Heorhij]

Gabriel, as a side note, how is it that Syria, with its largely Sunni population, is for so many years controlled by a clan of Alawites (Shiites)? Just curious. Thanks.

[scamandrius]

 Now onto Palestine. I'm not going to repeat what I've already said in other posts, but suffice it to say, the problem here is not simply the religion. It's the abject poverty that has been created by the Zionist government.

OK, the U.S. and the Europeans have been giving massive amounts of money to the Palestinians for years, even before there was such a thing as the Palestinian Authority.  Rather than use that money to build up an economic infrastructure and working civil service, a great many of Palestinians live in abject poverty because those who are in control of the Palestinians use that money for more guns, more bombs, etc.  On the other hand, those Arabs and Muslims who live in Israel, do have a good standard of living and constitutional rights.

With each page of history we read, with each layer we peal back, we see that Muslims and Christians and Jews all have a part in the atrocities. They all must share equal amounts of blame.

Very true.  But you seem to single out Israel and the Jews more than anyone else.

[Bono Vox]

Jibrael,

I have noticed a common theme in your current posting is that there is a difference between Islam and the extremists within. The question I have for you is this-how would you propose a modern industrialized nation protect itself from the extremists within Islam which seek its destruction. I am curious as to your take??

[GabrieltheCelt]

Gabriel, as a side note, how is it that Syria, with its largely Sunni population, is for so many years controlled by a clan of Alawites (Shiites)? Just curious. Thanks.

Good question. The Syrians I used to know back when I was Muslim would tell me every imaginable reason why; most seemed to me as conspiracy theories although it wouldn't surprise me if there were some truth to them. The main vein that ran through all of the stories went something like this. Hafiz al-Asad ran a dictatorial cult of personality like his Iraqi counterpart Saddam Hussein. Once he took control over the country, he quickly built up his power base of other Alawis. Just as Saddams dreaded mukhabarat kept him informed of any dissident group (real or imagined) and then set about massacreing them, so to did Hafiz's security force. They both belonged to minority groups within a majority populace (Saddam was Sunni -at least in name- while most Iraq is Shi'a). Hafiz's son Bashar, a dentist by trade, is the same type of thug as his daddy. I remember reading somewhere shortly after Hafiz died in the late '90's (I think), that Bashar ran unopposed (surprise!). Like any dictator's policy, if you're suspected of not towing his party line, it's curtains for you and/ or your family.

OK, the U.S. and the Europeans have been giving massive amounts of money to the Palestinians for years, even before there was such a thing as the Palestinian Authority.  Rather than use that money to build up an economic infrastructure and working civil service, a great many of Palestinians live in abject poverty because those who are in control of the Palestinians use that money for more guns, more bombs, etc.  On the other hand, those Arabs and Muslims who live in Israel, do have a good standard of living and constitutional rights.

The Middle East is essentially run by tribes/clans with the Arabs still tenaciously holding on to this antiquated system. One can see immediately by this fact that, if I'm in power, any money that comes my way will largely go towards my clan's well being. So yes, there is corruption. It's not unlike what you will find in much of the former communist Eastern Europe/Balkans. Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) was trying very hard to centralize the Palestinian government but Hamas pretty much spoiled that. Along with the Israel's policies toward the Palestinians.

But you seem to single out Israel and the Jews more than anyone else.

Well, someone must add balance to the conversation. We all are aware of the Islamic extremists in the Middle East, right? Yet we don't hear too much about the Jewish extremists. You do remember Yitzhak Rabin was killed by a Jewish extremist don't you? And I must finally add, friend, that I don't single out the Jews, I single out the Zionists. There is a difference.

I have noticed a common theme in your current posting is that there is a difference between Islam and the extremists within. The question I have for you is this-how would you propose a modern industrialized nation protect itself from the extremists within Islam which seek its destruction. I am curious as to your take??

I'm sure the same as the rest of you. War is a necessary evil, yet before it comes to that, maybe we should re-evaluate our policies in the Middle East and here at home (meaning the US of A). BUT, as Christians, prayer is OUR best weapon.

[GiC]

I never suggested that we 'stand idly by, do nothing and tolerate the extemists'. But I don't think debilitating an entire economy because of a few extremists (statistically speaking) is the answer either. I would think that poverty would cause more extremism. In fact, I'm certain of it.

One may argue that poverty is the cause of extremism, but I would suggest that the opposite is more likely to be the case. It is the rejection of western culture and values and the maintaining of primitive tribal systems and theocracies that has kept these people poor, their restrictions on women's rights have severely limited their workforce and economic potential, making large families that are beyond one's means of support commonplace, all resources that can be produced are needed for survival, advancement is impossible. They have chosen to be poor by choosing to reject western culture and values, this truth is reinforced by the fact that we have sent billions of dollars to them in foreign aid, we have attempted to build up their economies and increase their participation in the global market, yet they are still poor and show no signs of advancing. Many Middle Eastern countries have great amounts of wealth comming in due to the value of their natural resources, but still we see very little wide spread, society-wide economic growth. These people choose to live in poverty and extremism, throwing more money at them won't help, but I can think of some other things to throw at them which may aid our cause.

This is a good point, but we're talking about the difference between a major religion and the extremists within.
They're not entirely dismissed, GiC. The average Muslim living in the Middle East does not have the where-with-all to rise up against the extremist down the street with a gun toting posse. S/he simply tries his/her best to avoid them and tells their children to do the same. And I don't recall any Islamic immigrant(s) behaving in an extremist manner (burning flags, blowing up cafe's,...). And BTW, the WTC tower murderers were not immigrants.

But the people guilty of 'honour killings' in England are immigrants. The mohammedan comes to the west and is presented with the blessings of western culture, philosophy, and society yet they reject it, they continue to oppress women and fail to embrace the ideals of egalitarianism. They still support their barbaric religious system of laws, they openly reject western civilization and attempt to destroy it by converting it to an Islamic civilization.

So, you don't lock your doors at night? I betcha do...common GiC, tell the truth now.     And since you quoted the 'right to bear arms' clause, I'm assuming you have a gun? And if so, why? Assuming it's not a water gun, I'd say you're a tad bit scared.   

Lock my doors? No, breaking in to an occupied house where I live is tantamount to a death sentence...it generally doesn't happen. And of course I have a gun, I would argue that it is the patriotic duty of every citizen, but that's an issue for another thread. And it is presicely because we have this right that there is no reason to fear anyone. Everyone is afforded this basic means of self-defence, so no one can truthly claim that their actions are coerced by their neighbour through fear. So those Mohammedan immigrants who fail to embrace western values and continue in their barbarism, they are without excuse.

Seemingly so, until one bothers to read about it. For one instance, did you know that the Meccan pagan elite sought to kill Muhammad, so he fled to Ethiopia, where the Christian king gave him refuge? Muhammad decreed that Ethiopia would be a protected land. Or how about the Sultan who gave special protection to Mt Athos and St Catherine's monestary? I could go on and on, but why bother? The point I'm trying to make is that there's a difference between Islam and the extremists within.

Which begs the question what where the Turks doing near Mt. Athos? There is a presumption of violent conquest to the situations you pose.

Alas, yet another uneducated statement. *Sigh* How about Algebra? It was Muslim mathematicians who invented Al-jibr (Algebra).

Stolen by military force from the Hindus, falsely claimed as their own by the Mohammedans. It was their name that stuck, and that's about the extent of their contributions.

Or maybe you'd care to look into anotomical science? Yup, Muslims drew up anotomical charts that were used from around the 12th century up until around the 18th century. I could go on and on.

As mentioned above, those charts actually came from Galen...oh, and it should be noted that they were wrong because of the over-reliance on animal anatomy. It wasn't until we started cutting up cadavers in the west that we got accurate charts.

All this when Europeans were defecating in the streets creating a situation that would devastate many countries (yup, the bubonic plague came from the enlightened West).

As mentioned above, it was another gift to the west from the Middle East...go figure.

I don't know what to say in response to this, except I'd rather listen to my 8 yr old niece sing Brittney Spears' "Oops I did it again" over and over rather than listen to this type of *reasoning*.

Makes sense, the Mohammedans reject any argument of substance, why would their sympathizers do otherwise?

Because this is a Christian forum, I expect there to be many disagreements  with Islam, and rightfully so. Whatever arguments we have with Islam, bring them up and let's hear them. But when we begin to smear a people based on the actions of a violent minority, your words will ring hollow with those whom you wish to convert (and this should be your main concern), and will begin to take on an extremist outlook in the end. I'm not trying to pick on GiC, but this is an individual who espouses an extremist and exceptionally violent outlook. What truly saddens me is that not one of you responded to this statement:

Violent minority? Well, this violent minority has essentially managed to maintain a state of war with the west for the past 1400 years. You'd think the peaceful majority would manage to step up at some point. The point I've made time and time again is that while it may be true that there are extremists and moderates, the very fact that the moderates do not control the extremists and are complacent in their actions, fail to take responsibility for their country and control the extremists, and even offer material and moral support for these extremists makes them as much enemies of the west as the extremists. Would you suggest that we should not have made unrelenting war on Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan because your average person wasn't a fascist extremist and was simply trying to get by? (And the speed with which the citizens of Germany and Japan adopted our values following the war bears witness to this truth, as opposed to the reaction of the Mohammedans to our culture and values when presented to them at their feet.) The notion is absurd, citizens are responsible for the actions of their state and states are responsbile for the actions of their citizens.

"Ultimatum to the islamofascists, reject Islam..." You see, this is a major faux paux here. In six words, you just equated everyone who practices Islam as an Islamofascist.

You then go on to advocate detroying cities and making people destitute. Please help me out here. I am just naive or dumb? Is this what Christianity espouses? Or just the Christians on this forum?

I have offered them many choices, no one really wants to destory anyone, but the choice is theirs. They must reject Islam, but we will not force them to our religion, they can choose any faith they wish to practice save Islam, they can become Christians, or perhaps they'd rather become practicing Jews, they can be Hindus, or Buddhists, they can embrace the Pagan religions of old, or they are free to reject religion all together and become Agnostics or even Atheists. Or they can even keep parts of their religion, if they change it into something new, if they reject Mohammed and the Quran and the Hadith and rather turn their religion into a Humanistic expression of Western Culture and Values...at times in their history certain Sufis have made a good go at this, perhaps they could build on this and create an entirely new religion. But they cannot keep their current one, because it is incompatable with the Western Values and Culture which they must be compelled, at all costs, to embrace; it is too dangerous to allow them to do otherwise.

And before you complain of some injustice in this position remember: they started it, they struck first, they invaded the Empire, to this day they still occupy many lands that once belonged to the Empire...we, the descendants of Ancient Rome, the inheritors of the blessings of the Empire, that is to say of Western Civilization, simply intend to recover these lands and destroy the invading hordes as is our ancient right.

[GabrieltheCelt]

 My dear brothers and sisters,

 As this discussion is becomming ever more hostile and personal with each new post, I've decided it's in everyone's best interest if I simply bow out of the conversation altogether. I still maintain that Muslims are created in the same image and likeness that Christians are and that most of them are sincere and loving people who both disdain and fear extremists as much as we do. I implore each of you to remember that Muslims come from very diverse backgrounds. Indonesian Muslims (whom I have a lot of experience with) really have very little in common with say, a Saudi Muslim. The same thing could be said for a Chinese Muslim with a Pakistani Muslim. The point is that their religion may be the same, but their respective interpretations don't hold with each other across Dar Ul Islam. And although most of us don't see the difference between an ordinary Muslim and a fanatical Muslim, I assure each of you: there is a very wide chasm between the two. Call me a sympathizer, a Muslim lover, or whatever. I've known many kind, patient, and loving Muslim people that I wouldn't be surprised to hear made it into heaven.

 Gabriel

[scamandrius]

One may argue that poverty is the cause of extremism, but I would suggest that the opposite is more likely to be the case.

One need only look at the hijackers of 9/11.  All of them were wealthy and very well educated in western institutions. 

[Ebor]

One may argue that poverty is the cause of extremism, but I would suggest that the opposite is more likely to be the case.

One wonders how that would apply to, say, parts of the Applachians, or place like the Reservations out west or just places in where there have been adverse conditions like drought.

Stolen by military force from the Hindus, falsely claimed as their own by the Mohammedans.

   And what support do you have for this, umm, peculiar assertion please?  "stole" mathematics?  So anyone who builds on previous work is somehow "stealing" it?   

As mentioned above, it was another gift to the west from the Middle East...go figure.

Yersinia pestis has been around for a long time; it long predates the birth of Mohammed.  And just to repeat, the source of the Black Death epidemic was in Asia/China and traveled west.

You'd think the peaceful majority would manage to step up at some point. The point I've made time and time again is that while it may be true that there are extremists and moderates, the very fact that the moderates do not control the extremists and are complacent in their actions, fail to take responsibility for their country and control the extremists,

And how do moderates "control" extremists, one wonders.  It is not often moderate voices that make news, so perhaps you have not heard of any that are out there.

Would you suggest that we should not have made unrelenting war on Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan because your average person wasn't a fascist extremist and was simply trying to get by? (And the speed with which the citizens of Germany and Japan adopted our values following the war bears witness to this truth

One wonders just how much knowledge you have on the history military and otherwise and the culture of Japan.  The above statement shows little understanding of how that country interacted with the US and Europe after the Meji Restoration and during the first few decades of the 20th Century.

It is not for *this* thread, but the factors of Japan being in World War II are very complicated with decades of factors.  Japan was under the Occupation from 1945-1952 during which there was much rebuilding and many Americans and other "westerners" living in that country.   However that was not the start of interaction with "Western" cultures by any means.  Following the Meiji restoration there were many things that came in with greater or lesser success. Some were embraced, others were not. There were women radicals in politics in the late 1800's and early 1900's that perhaps you did not know about for instance, at least one of whom was executed for a plot to assassinate the Emperor, not because he was an evil man but because he was viewed as the political corner stone of the society iirc.

It could be discussed in another thread if you are interested and I can recommend a number of books on the subject.  But I am curious as to just how you think that Japan has adopted "our values" and which ones you have in mind.

I have offered them many choices, no one really wants to destory anyone, but the choice is theirs.

Choices?  It reads more like an ultimatum  "Change or die".  and who are you to demand that of other people?  I would also submit that in the history of the world there have been plenty of people who *did* want to destroy the "Other" or those who would not do what they were told to do.

And before you complain of some injustice in this position remember: they started it, they struck first,

Ebor
umm so in such times and places as the "empire" "started it" by moving in to conquer other groups and lands, they were wrong?

  simply intend to recover these lands and destroy the invading hordes as is our ancient right.

And when one's own ancestors were an invading horde?...  When will it stop?