Do me this dignity, a final word

[Andrew]

These Islamic Jihad kids look peaceful. Right?

EDIT:

Here's a video of jesus camp.

Good 3 min video. I see a religious war coming up in 20 years.

[Edric O]

For all of you who think that religion (rather than politics) is the cause of Islamic terrorism, I have a question: Why now? Surely, if Islam was a violent religion, all Muslims should be equally violent all the time. What took them so long to decide they want to fight the West? After all, Islam has existed for 1300 years and the United States has existed for over 200, yet there was no conflict between them until a few years ago.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Correction:

They have always wanted to fight the west..... only now have they developed the organization and resources to do it.  WE have always been the infidels needing decapitation.  Nothing new.

[Edric O]

That is incorrect. The West is more powerful today than ever before. This is not a good time to pick a fight with it. There are plenty of other, weaker "infidels" in Africa and Asia. Why aren't they the primary targets? Or why not attack China? They're infidels too.

The fact is that the terrorists believe they are fighting a defensive war against a Western assault. They think the West is taking over the (Muslim) world and it's up to them to stop it. Are they violent? Of course. Are they lashing out randomly at unbelievers for no particular reason? No. They are simply applying the old military principle that the best defense is a good offense.

As long as you fail to understand your enemy's motivation you will keep losing battles. No one ever woke up one day and said to themselves "hmm, it's a nice day, I think I'll start a war now".

[Acriku]

Your question is insightful Edric. Politics sure does have a great thing to do with what is going on in the East... that and massive manipulation (through religion itself, not because of the specific religion).

[GUNWOUNDS]

Osama bin Laden..............

He believed that the USA was a "Paper Tiger"  he thought there would be no retaliation form the west.  he thinks that arab states that are secular are being westernized.  He wants all middle eastern countries to be under Islamic law.

You can try to sugar coat it but its pretty evident that they under-estimated the west when they declared Jihad...... not only that... but the Arabs and muslims are so prideful they cannot back down from a war they started for fear of losing all credibility.

Sure politics are abusing religion.... but its easier to manipulate someone better with a materialistic, sexual,  violent religion.  No?

Muslims believe that when they die they will get tons of food and meat and sex and eternal erections. 

Christianity says you will get a new glorified body that is never hungry nor needs to reproduce.  SO no food or sex is necessary.

It just seems that a religion that offers virgins, eternal erections, appetising vaginas, and meat and chicken, and material objects is more appetising to 3rd world people living a miserable existance and living under oppression.

It just seems like Islam is more conducive to abuse.   Who knows.

[erjin999]

I dont think he underestimated the west. I think he knew what he was in for. How can you think the west will not use the opportunity to go around invading countries ?

Muslims believe that when they die they will get tons of food and meat and sex and eternal erections. 

Christianity says you will get a new glorified body that is never hungry nor needs to reproduce.  SO no food or sex is necessary.

Not really relevant, I dont think.

[alchemi2]

Actually very relevant, if you are extremely poor and very depraved, living without hope,then dying can be very attractive as a form of release.

Suicide is in most religions a cardinal sin so no truly devote person would even in desperation take that way out BUT in Islam if you die by your own hand to destroy your enemies or aid in their destruction, then all the joys of Allah are yours.

Too a true believer this is a valid option, especially with the blessing of your cleric.

[Acriku]

Actually very relevant, if you are extremely poor and very depraved, living without hope,then dying can be very attractive as a form of release.

Suicide is in most religions a cardinal sin so no truly devote person would even in desperation take that way out BUT in Islam if you die by your own hand to destroy your enemies or aid in their destruction, then all the joys of Allah are yours.

Too a true believer this is a valid option, especially with the blessing of your cleric.

Let's see the verses buddy.

[Andrew]

Why now? Surely, if Islam was a violent religion, all Muslims should be equally violent all the time. What took them so long to decide they want to fight the West?

Because they hate our freedom and democracy!

That's what Bush told me. ;)

The world has become smaller. It would be difficult for Islam to somehow invade Europe or North America back then, as I don't know if they had the capabilities to build warships or to travel to these countries. I think they were happy back then as there wasn't as much interference (or at least there was nothing they could do about it). Now they represent 1/6 of world population and are rich off oil.

[Khan]

For all of you who think that religion (rather than politics) is the cause of Islamic terrorism, I have a question: Why now? Surely, if Islam was a violent religion, all Muslims should be equally violent all the time. What took them so long to decide they want to fight the West? After all, Islam has existed for 1300 years and the United States has existed for over 200, yet there was no conflict between them until a few years ago.

Even though I do largely agree with you I feel I do just have to point out that the muslim world has been fighting a long lasting war against the west, and vice versa. I'm sure I dont need to remind you of the wars in spain and the south of france between the catholic world and the moors. The fights between the venetians and the muslims around the areas of cyprus, and of course the conflict between the ottomans and the byzantines (if you count that as the western world).

Of course there was also the counter attack on the muslim world with the british occupations of palestine, egypt and so on, the struggles in india, afghanistan and iraq. The french colonization of algeria and so on. So its not exactly true to say that the struggle with the west is a recent development but I think it is far more to do with the political climate then any particular religious aspect, and it is far from unprovoked.

[nemafakei]

And the struggle has been going on for far longer than Islam has existed. The Trojan war, the Persian war, Alexander's conquests, the Roman invasion. There's been this divide since about the beginning of recorded history.

[alchemi2]

Let's see the verses buddy.

Well if i get the time i'll search some out for you and since when have we been buddies? or was that a provocotive form of address used by Americans to cast doubt on the other persons intelligence with the intention of causing that person to become irate?

[GUNWOUNDS]

008:065: O Prophet! urge the believers to war; if there are twenty patient ones of you they shall overcome two hundred

004:074-077: [4.74] Therefore let those fight in the way of Allah, who sell this world's life for the hereafter; and whoever fights in the way of Allah, then be he slain or be he victorious, We shall grant him a mighty reward

009:005:

[Khan]

Strange that there's no direct reference to the 72 virgins its only included in the square brackets. Is there an actual verse in the Qu'ran which states that they get the virgins for matyrdom?

[GUNWOUNDS]

Now to be fair i know someone like Ordos45 will bring up the point that there is a Psalm that says "Dash the little ones against the rocks".

There is an explanation for that   http://www.brfwitness.org/Articles/1986v21n4.htm

"Some will likely find the title of this WITNESS article to be a bit shocking. At first glance, it sort of shocks me too! I have never used Psalm 137:9 as a text for a sermon and probably never will. There are many easier texts for me to work on first. Today, with the frequency of terrorist acts in our world, and with many reports of child abuse -- and with many people trying to evaluate such conduct -- this title is not quite as alarming as it otherwise at first glance might seem to be.  "

The primary issue here is, "What does one do with the statements in the Bible that seem to be out of character with the overall message of Scripture!" Some would rush to the conclusion that statements about "dashing children against rocks" are adequate proof that not all of the Bible is reliable. It usually is not wise to rush too fast to any conclusion, and especially if that conclusion would cast a shadow of doubt on the infallibility of God's Word. Here is where listening to a careful Bible interpreter, can be of help to give a proper understanding of some of the difficult passages. That is the intent of the article in the current issue of the WITNESS.  

While David did not write the 137th Psalm must be remembered that David (writer of many of the Psalms) was known as a "man of war." A common expression in Israel while David was advancing to the throne, was, "Saul has slain his thousands and David his ten thousands." Quite a few of his expressions reflect the thinking and experiences and images of a war effort. There is practically no limit to the barbaric and bloody actions that take place in the heat of battle and many of these events are described in vivid detail in the Old Testament. We are not always sure what the intended lessons are. There are some puzzles in the Bible which we have not put together completely.  

What is crystal clear, however, is that New Testament Christians are called to a higher ethic. This passage in Psalms (Psalm 137:9) belongs to the period that Jesus referred to as, "it hath been said, An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." But Jesus went beyond that kind of action in His New Testament revelation. He declared, "But say unto you, love your enemies, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them that despitefully use you and persecute you." We recognize that the Old Testament does contain a lot of violence and warmaking, and the description of it is an accurate part of God's written Word. What is crucial however is that we do not bypass what Jesus taught in the fuller and more complete revelation of the New Testament. We are Sermon-on-the-Mount'' Christians.

The problem is that the Qu'ran doesnt have any New Testament that says.... "Yes in the old days there was a history of war and bloodshed... but now i tell you that mankind is to be held to a higher standard.  No more Eye for an eye ... tooth for a tooth."

There are no "sermon on the mount" muslims........

[GUNWOUNDS]

Strange that there's no direct reference to the 72 virgins its only included in the square brackets. Is there an actual verse in the Qu'ran which states that they get the virgins for matyrdom?

The Qu'ran DOES state that virgins are given as a reward.... but it doesnt say how many.   It is Mohammed's writings in the Hadith (second most holy book) that describes that there are 72 virgins, with dark eyes, waiting to be given as a reward.  Along with meat and wine (that doesnt make you drunk).

EDIT- here they are 

Koran sura 56 verses 12 -40 ; sura 55 verses 54-56 ; sura 76 verses 12-22. I shall quote the celebrated Penguin translation by NJ Dawood of sura 56 verses 12- 39: "They shall recline on jewelled couches face to face, and there shall wait on them immortal youths with bowls and ewers and a cup of purest wine (that will neither pain their heads nor take away their reason); with fruits of their own choice and flesh of fowls that they relish. And theirs shall be the dark-eyed houris, chaste as hidden pearls: a guerdon for their deeds... We created the houris and made them virgins, loving companions for those on the right hand..."

Guns

[Egeides]

Am I arriving late in this thread? geez... 4 pages in days

Welcome around emprworm, like others landing here. Personally, I do believe that there should be freedom of saying whattever. But not of saying it however. In the same way that I do not believe in the freedom of going to some recent widow to talk without care of "how it is said". So cya again for more last words :)

[nampigai]

For all of you who think that religion (rather than politics) is the cause of Islamic terrorism, I have a question: Why now? Surely, if Islam was a violent religion, all Muslims should be equally violent all the time. What took them so long to decide they want to fight the West? After all, Islam has existed for 1300 years and the United States has existed for over 200, yet there was no conflict between them until a few years ago.

there was non-violent nazi's as well

ask any muslem to denaounce the Sharia-law and you'll see how non.-violent they are.

[Acriku]

Guns, it isn't the point that you can "explain away" verses that are obviously violent because all that is being argued here is that the Qu'ran can be construed into justifying violent acts and so can the Bible. The common man who could be convinced to commit violence will not read academic explanations for the verses, they will take it face value like in any religion. My whole position in this thread is that whatever you argue about the Muslims, Christians have been there before and now.

Also, since you mention the Hadith, you might also want to mention that in the Hadith suicide is forbidden as well. Also, read this article for some insight into the qu'ran : http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,2763,631357,00.html

[erjin999]

there was non-violent nazi's as well

ask any muslem to denaounce the Sharia-law and you'll see how non.-violent they are.

Thats asking them to denounce their religion. So is that really a sensible thing to point out ?  :-

[MrFlibble]

I remember discussing the topic of violence and Christianity with a couple of my fellow students, who are Orthodox Christians, some time ago. They told me that the passage about the sword in the New Testament (it was quoted above in this thread, sorry I don't give you the precise place in the text) clearly and undoubtedly justifies "righteous killing", such as killing an enemy when defending your Motherland (i.e. in a war). This was an answer to my argument that there aren't any places in the New Testament that justify or promote violence.

[nampigai]

Thats asking them to denounce their religion. So is that really a sensible thing to point out ?  :-

Yes - that's why I can't see how Islam and the western worlds idea of freedom and democracy can go hand in hand.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Guns, it isn't the point that you can "explain away" verses that are obviously violent because all that is being argued here is that the Qu'ran can be construed into justifying violent acts and so can the Bible. The common man who could be convinced to commit violence will not read academic explanations for the verses, they will take it face value like in any religion. My whole position in this thread is that whatever you argue about the Muslims, Christians have been there before and now.

Also, since you mention the Hadith, you might also want to mention that in the Hadith suicide is forbidden as well. Also, read this article for some insight into the qu'ran : http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,2763,631357,00.html

yes i know suicide is forbidden..... but wha they do to "get around it" is to call themselves MARTYRS ...not suicide bombers.  They are martyrs dying for Allah's cause.  They cleverly omit that they are committing suicide.

And yes i understand where you are coming from when you say that all religions can be abused.  However i feel that Modern Day Christianity is more prone to financial abuse and Modern day Islam is more prone to violent abuse.....

thats really the only point that people are making when they say Islam is violent.

Guns

[GUNWOUNDS]

I remember discussing the topic of violence and Christianity with a couple of my fellow students, who are Orthodox Christians, some time ago. They told me that the passage about the sword in the New Testament (it was quoted above in this thread, sorry I don't give you the precise place in the text) clearly and undoubtedly justifies "righteous killing", such as killing an enemy when defending your Motherland (i.e. in a war). This was an answer to my argument that there aren't any places in the New Testament that justify or promote violence.

Once again......... yes there may be some verse like that in the old testament, like "eye for an eye... tooth for a tooth".... or "defending your motherland"  ..or "self-defense".  But when Jesus gave his sermon on the mount he clearly stated that you are to love thy enemy, pray for thy enemy, feed thy enemy, shelter thy enemy, TURN THE OTHER CHEEK, etc, etc.  We are held to a higher standard in the christian NT.  We are all "sermon on the mount" christians.  Thats what seperates us from any other religion..... especially Islam.

Why was Jesus preaching all of this new radical stuff? Because he was preparing people for the world-changing sacrifice he was going to make.  Old testament "eye for an eye" works fine when you are living in a time with no divine grace.  But Jesus was preparing everyone by basically saying... "Hey Divine grace shall be available soon...and so therefore you must act towards your fellow man with the same grace that is given to you"

Guns