i think this edito from today's guardian outlines a reasonable critique of both the pope's speech and reactions to it from all sides.

it takes some account of the current pope's reactionary politics and uses it to brush aside the defense that was floating about on the weekend that he had, somehow, forgotten that he was pope for a bit.

there are two main problematic areas in the speech--the first comes not so much from this:

in itself as from the fact that it was the pope who made the allusion.

second is the wholly false claim that islam is an irrational religion and that christianity is the logical successor of athenian thought. if you look at the last paragraph of the pope's speech in the quote from akul;a above, you'll see the argument---it's premises are worth prcisely nothing if you are not yourself christian and are thereby inclined to treat biblical material as a source that crosses or trumps all others.

anyway, onto the edito:


source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...876422,00.html

Lovely piece roachy, its great seeing how the left is trying to remain blind to the issue and blaming the west for the conflict.

I'm taking the pope over the leftwing columnist on this one. Also I'd think there should be a form of 'Goodwining' for comparing one to Bin Ladin.

This is where he missed the point. The religion may be the center but its NOT a clash of religions, its a clash of civilizations, of people, the religion is just being used by one side as a way to motivate their people and justify barbaric acts.

Oh christ, has this guy been LISTENING to what the Islamic religious 'leaders' have been saying lately? How do they feel about Jews? I don't think I need to quote these guys here to prove THIS point now do I.

ustwo: you yourself buy the same logic that the edito criticizes, the same logic it attributes to bin laden, but from the bush admin side. so i cant see why you would try to swat it away.
but you dont seem to understand the basic point of the article, which is that is you repeat the huntington thesis in the context of tfp, no-one really cares (it is irritating because it is a stupid argument, but really no-one cares) but if the pope says the same thing, then its significance is different.
because the pope is the pope, you see.
q.e.d.

this is not rocket science.

Slightly off-topic, but in response to a quote I saw earlier in this thread...

While not all Muslims are religious extremists, it's no coincidence that most religious extremists are Muslims.

It's just something to think about.

(PS> When I say religious extremists, I mean those people who advocate the death of a specific group of people based solely on religious ideology.)

Very good. That gives a base from which to work.
The question is, are the extremists "extreme" because of their religion? What I mean is, does Islam, in itself, specifically call for death and violence? Or, is it more a cultural thing?

The religion calls for it.

These are just a couple, and strictly from the Qur'an. The various other texts and teachings get much worse. So you see why the whole "Religion of Peace" is PC crap.

OMG NOT THIS AGAIN. Seaver, do I really have to post the numerous Christian, Jewish, Hindu, etc. texts that seem to allow for violence, racism, war, murder, etc. etc.? This has been done over and over and over, you'd think people would finally stop making that argument. Jesus Christ.

I was told by a Jordanian friend (one of the nicest guys I know) of a profficy where the Jews would be all pushed into the sea and murdered. I looked it up for a post a while back and found out he wasn't making it up.

"The Prophet said: the Resurrection will not take place until the Muslims fight the Jews, and the Muslims kill them. The Muslims will kill the Jews, rejoice [in it], rejoice in Allahs Victory. The Muslims will kill the Jews, and he will hide

The Prophet said: the Jews will hide behind the rock and tree, and the rock and tree will say: oh servant of Allah, oh Muslim this is a Jew behind me, come and kill him!. Why is there this malice? Because there are none who love the Jews on the face of the earth: not man, not rock, and not tree everything hates them. They destroy everything they destroy the trees and destroy the houses. Everything wants vengeance on the Jews, on these pigs on the face of the earth, and the day of our victory, Allah willing, will come."
-Sheik Ibrahim Madiras Friday sermon, PA TV Sept. 10, 2004:

If this is a religion of peace I'd hate to see one of the violent ones.

THE DIFFERENCE WILL IS THIS IS BEING PREACHED CURRENTLY BY THEIR LEADERS.

Plus please find such things in the new Testiment.

The leader of our country preaches the benifits of war, and talks about how our wars were given a big okay from God. Bush thinks he can talk to God, and he's going to war over it. Still think our leaders aren't preachig war?

You should check out this movie:
http://www.apple.com/trailers/magnol...scamp/trailer/'

Edit: Silly me, I forgot to mention a few New Testiment verses tha you asked for.

Matthew 10:34 (Jesus speaking) Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

Matthew 11:20 Then began he to upbraid the cities wherein most of his mighty works were done, because they repented not: (Jesus condeming entire cities to death for not believing in Him)

Romans 1:31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
Homosexuals (those "without natural affection") and their supporters (those "that have pleasure in them") are "worthy of death."

I have a feeling you don't know what 'upbraid' means. It basically means to use harsh words. There are alternate translations to this as well...

ASV: Then began he to upbraid the cities wherein most of his mighty works were done, because they repented not.

BBE: Then he went on to say hard things to the towns where most of his works of power were done, because they had not been turned from their sins.

DBY: Then began he to reproach the cities in which most of his works of power had taken place, because they had not repented.

KJV: Then began he to upbraid the cities wherein most of his mighty works were done, because they repented not:

WEY: Then began He to upbraid the towns where most of His mighty works had been done -- because they had not repented.

WBS: Then he began to upbraid the cities in which most of his mighty works had been done, because they repented not.

WEB: Then he began to denounce the cities in which most of his mighty works had been done, because they didn't repent.

YLT: Then began he to reproach the cities in which were done most of his mighty works, because they did not reform.

I'm sorry Will Jesus did not 'condemn' cities to death.

As for
Matthew 10:34 (Jesus speaking) Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

The sword was not a physical sword, it was a metaphorical one, for Jesus was telling the disciples that when they preach his word, it will cause strife at first as some will believe and some will not and they will often fight and even kill each other. So he was saying the words of the disciples will cause destruction as people will fight over religious beliefs. It’s a far cry from from saying go kill people who don't believe.

Also if you take the christian tradition, it wasn't the christians doing the killing for their beliefs but being killed and driven out, in the same passage as the sword reference...

Don't be afraid of those who kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul. Rather, fear him who is able to destroy both soul and body in Gehenna.

So what he is saying is they will kill you for preaching christianity, but do not fear death on earth, fear not being saved.

and finally...

Romans 1:31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
Homosexuals (those "without natural affection") and their supporters (those "that have pleasure in them") are "worthy of death.

Yes we know, God hates fags. Homosexuality was considered a horrible sin.

So lets get this straight, on the one hand we have Christians, who speak harsh words to unbelievers, are willing to be killed for preaching their faith (but not kill others), and they think homosexuality is a capitol offense.

Then we have Islam which wants to wage war with all unbelievers and preaches genocide vrs the Jews.

Now that I look at it this way Will, how could I have missed the moral equivalence?

Edit:Oh and I forgot, the last execution for homosexuality that got world attention was in .... Iran.

Actually Wil, Jesus was stating how God would punish. The sword he was talking about was the flaming sword, and the condemned cities were an allusion to Soddom and Ghemorra from prior acts of God.

Jesus never said to go out and kill non-believers. He never stated to fight them, disgrace them, force them to subjegation, or flat out kill them. In Jesus' teachings God would take care of that in the afterlife.

You left out they also believe that homosexuality is a sin unto God, and is more than death-worthy (and they practice it).

Yea I just added that in an edit while you were typing this it seems. So in Christianity we have a tradition of executing homosexuals, though when the last one was I don't know, and in Islam, they still do it.

It's like the only voice everyone hears is their own.

Seaver posted wonderful quotes from the Qu'ran out of context. In response and because of Ustww's polite invitation, I posted quotes from the New Testament out of context. I know what "I came not to send peace, but a sword." means to me and most Christians, but to a fringe few it could be used to justify the killing of non-Christians....oh say like the Qu'ran is used by the extreeme minority to try and excuse their acts.

Blaming the Qu'ran is like blaming a tool for the way that it is used. Imagine if someone was beating people to death with an olive branch (there's some symbolism for you). Would the olive branch be evil? THE MINORITY of muslims might try to use the Qu'ran to excuse their violence, but THE MAJORITY of Muslims accept a peaceful understanding of the Qu'ran, and do not condone the acts of the violent few.

Oh Will the irony of your words can be heard from here to the parinoia board.

Islam is a religion that has been spread almost entirely through violence and conquest since its inception. It seeks not to convince but to subjugate. This is there history, it is undeniable, it is in their preaching past and current, it is still their stated goal.

Will just where IS this MAJORITY of muslims, I haven't heard from them, I haven't seen them. Would they be in Iran? Sudan? Saudi Arabia? Syria? Lebanon? Where is this peaceful majority?

I always wonder when this comes up:
Why only in the new Testiment? when did the old one became obsolete?

0 B.C.E. if you are a Christian.

Ad hominem argument. My posts in Paranoia have nothing to do with my argument here. Ignoratio elenchi, the suggested irony of my words has nothing to do with Tilted Paranoia.

When, oh when, are you going to stop arguing with fallacies? I've decided to start calling you on them, btw, so expect more responses like this one as you continue to try and argue without making any real arguments.
Was Islam spread in the US through violence? Nope. I Islam being spread by violence right now? Nope.
The US, Canada, South America, Europe, Asia, Africa, and yes even in the Middle East. You see, majority means "the most of something, more than 50%". Most of Muslims are not suicide bombers. Most of Muslims do not protest against disrespectful cartoons or Popes that talk out of their asses. Most of them are dissapointed, but they are not violent in the least. Howdo I know this? Well, I don't start the day with a cup of coffee and a fit of bigotry. When you assume that most Muslims are violent, you can watch the news of a suicide bombing or protest and let that wash over you. "There you go," you think, "That is what all Muslims act like." Outside of that, of course, is reality. Very few people in general are violent, most prefer to either work it out with words or run away. That's just the way the world works. The same is true of any religon.

BTW, did you know that violence against Muslims in the US is up 30% since 2004? Do you think those are Muslims beating up Muslims?

So which Christian church do you go to that only preaches from the New Testemant?

I'm not, but:

cool, so no more 10 commandments?

Only on courthouses. :rolleyes:

The beauty of being Christian is that you get to pick and choose which of the laws, that are explicitly spelled out in the Old Testament, are applicable.

Not unlike a buffet line, really.

I take the whole package, not just one thread :thumbsup:

Oh noes!

I did forget about the peaceful role model Luis Faracon. The rest are due to mainly imigration. Is Islam being spread through violence? I can't say I know all locations, but its attempting to become the dominant force in many nations it is currently. Somalia, Indonesia, the Phillipines, all using terrorism as a way to gain control.

About the bigotry issue, if you are calling me a bigot you can fornicate yourself with a sharp stick. If you are not please disreaguard, so which is it?

Now for the rest. I never said they were all suicide bombers, most people don't want to die, but I stand by my belief that the MAJORITY of Muslims support the use of violance, including terrorism against the US and Israel. You don't have to put dynamite on your back to support terrorism. You recall all the street celebrations in Egypt and the PA after 9/11 (The ones the PA tried to crack down on due to bad press). Those were not terrorists they were terroist supporters. The fact that they are not violent themselves does not matter, they are doing nothing to stop it and are lauding those who are 'martyrs', encouraging young people to kill themsleves in Allah's name. Its in their childrens TV shows for gods sake.

Sigh, I was going to link pictures of these celebrations but I can't because all of the ones I found CONTAIN CHILDREN. This is your majority. They might not have the guts to blow themsleves up but they cheer on those that do.

And?

I don't I'm an atheist. As a Catholic I was always told New Testemant > Old.

Muslim culture in most muslim nations has been subverted by the extremists, they have been teaching their children the special brand of hate and revisionist history. This is the majority of muslims in muslim lands. Not every muslim is a terrorist, but their culture has become such.

I don't want to turn this into a religious thread as it is a major tangent but the reason Christians hold the new testament with more reguard than the old is because everything changed with Jesus. He came and fulfilled the law so you would not have to. Much of the old law no longer applies because of this.

Gaining political control and converting people are two seperate issues. They occasionally cross paths, but I doubt many victims of terrorism are going to convert to Islam because of it.
I don't have to call you a bigot. You took care of that yourself.
No one made you write that. You wrote it yourself, and I think you actually belive that. BTW, a bigot is a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

Another quick thing: TFP isn't ruled by anarchy. There are rules that we all follow in order to remain a member of this community. When you suggested that I fornicate on a sharp stick you broke those rules. Now, I can give as good as I get, but it's a side issue in this thread and it would be against the rules for me to come down to your level. The level you do operate on is a dangerous one, however, because you not only walk the line of good taste and forum rules, you often cross it. I suspect that your comment is ban-worthy, but I'll leave that to the moderation. Needless to say, whether you're banned or not you just destroyed your own argument by acting like a child.

If you would like to exchange insults, I will gladly give you my e-mail and we can do that all day long. TFP isn't for trading insults.
Where do you get the idea that most Muslims support violence? How many muslims do you know (the second time I've asked this question)?
...and that is very relevant information. Whether you are violent - or support violence - against Muslims is beside the point here. People who are not Muslims are becoming more and more violent against the Muslim community here in the US. The suspected 9/11 hijackers were all Saudi. None of them was an American. There were no street celebrations in the US after 9/11 by Muslims.
Yes, the New Testimant is more relevant to Christians than the Old (because of that Jesus fellow), but that hardly negates the Old. The Old Testimant is taught in great detail in all Christian churches. Speaking as the son of a pastor who lived his childhood in a bible, I can say that with great confidence. How can we understand Jesus without the massive context given by the Old Testament?
When was the last time you were in Iraq? Lebanon? Israel? UAE? Iran? I've not been to the UAE or Iran, but I do have friends and acquaintences scattered all over the ME. I've been to Iraq. I've been to Israel. I've been to Lebanon. One of my good friends in Lebanon was just killed, as a matter of fact (not to elicit sympathy for my argument, but to show that innocent Muslims die in the ME, too).

You can't speak for these people just by reading a newspaper or watching a news program, Ustwo. In order to speak for a culture, espically one that is not your own, you must be intamately familiar with it. Judging by your posts, you are not. Therefore, all this huffing and puffing about Muslim extreemism being the norm and not the exception is useless. It would be like me teaching a class on 16th century French Literature. I don't know jack shit about the subject except for maybe a week of English classes my Sophmore year in college, but I could pretend to know what I was talking about enough to where I could actually fool a few people into thinking I knew. How could I do that? Well I'm a pretty sharp guy and I'm good at talking at people, just like you.

Hey, you know what, there were many things spread by the sword. Well, at least until the use of gunpowder. Democracy, for example, was spread by the sword... and guillotine... and probably a lot of gunpowder too. Why so? Well, you can't quite request the king to hold general elections now, can you? (Especially if you didn't vote for him.)

As a sidebar:

In the Qur'an, there are references to one they call:
"God's Word"
"a Spirit from Him"
"The Messiah"
"prophet"
"envoy"
"messenger"
"among those who are close to God"
"worthy of esteem in this world and the next"
"blessed"
"sure word"
"Servant of God"

Can you guess who this is?

"Jesus son of Mary"


I find this interesting, actually. So much that I'm thinking of reading more about Islam. You know, to understand it a bit more. Can anyone here recommend any good books?

The Qu'ran. :thumbsup: There is a whole chapter in the Qu'ran named "Mary" refering to the mother of JESUS.

Read the new Testiment and the Old. While still vengeful, God turns a MUCH nicer page. In the old he was cranky, mean, and impatient. In the new he turns forgiving, accepting, and borderline friendly. Most modern Christians lean more heavily to accepting the latter. The Old Testiment is still very prominent, however aside from the 10 Commandments and Genesis it is mostly not taught or relied much upon. However, by the hard liners and "God-fearing" the Old provides the good ol' fire and brimstone.

Man I had a whole bunch of books on it, unfortunately I sold them all to half-priced books because I moved. The only ones I know off-hand are Hourani and Khuri, but they are primarily modern scholars that track the social/religious/political areas of modern-day. Hourani is my favorite, extremely detailed however it takes him about 50 pages to cover one topic.

hmm...a friend of mine mentioned that Jew will hide behind trees and forced out into the sea (btw he himself is a non practicing muslim arab) was something that is taught commonly to children in the middle east, specifically palestinian children. at first i found it funny because i thought it was some sort of stupid story that they made up, but apparently it has a source.

willravel. after the whole thing with the pope and you see images with people screaming death to america, death to israel (they have nothing to do with this), what is your response. don't you think a lot of has to do with ethnic and religous hatred?

Most aren't extreemists, but some are. The ethnic and religous hatred stems from ultra-conservative lifestyle. Conservatism is just starting to leave the ultra-conservative theocratic nations of the ME. I suspect that if the US and UK are able to stop interfering with the ME, it will finally give liberalism, and thus freedom of thought and choice, to take root and grow across the desert. But...every time a US bomb kills a family, every time the Pope declairs the Muslims to be violent, every time Israel occupies foriegn land, it sets back freedom and postpones peace. It takes two to tango, so don't think that I only blame the invading forces, I realize that a lot of Arab Muslims feel a lot of hate and many of them let that hate out in terrible was, unforgivable ways.

So to answer your question: yes, a lot of it has to do with deeply seeded bigotry built into their ancestory and society, but it's decreasing. We can help by allowing the liberal youth to grow in their understanding of peace and freedom. We can help by allowing them to learn on their own and shatter old world hatreds.

Actually in my opinion, they are regressing. 80 years ago it was perfectly acceptable to be openly gay in Iraq (the most popular entertainer was a cross-dressing man), now people are killed for much less. 45 years ago a woman walking around without a burqua in Egypt would be seen as independent and successful, now she is hounded and called a whore.

i don't know. i know arabs who were born and raied here and still say hezbollah is entirely legitimate and the rockets that they launched into israel were, in their words, "no big deal." they continued to say israel is the agressor and that they have no right to go into lebanon. so basically, arab factions that actually do have a strong representaiton in the country can do what they want but israel can't respond because it was "no big deal." if this is a person born and raise din the US, i can only imagine what i would here from an arab living in the middle east.

I dont know how many people also get this, but ive talked to so many muslims about 9/11 and i've always gotten this "ye it was terrible BUT..."

Religion of Peace or Death Cult.

Let the actions speak for themselves.

It's the old "look at this from their perspective" thing. There are a lot of people in the US that treat arabs like garbage out of some misplaced sence of vengence or fear for 9/11. Even in a liberal place like the San Francisco Bay Area, known for being ultra liberal and ultra open minded, I do notice a difference in word and deed by people. It is similar to the way some people act around black people, but it seems more specific. Public transportation, malls, the HP Pavilion, planes, etc. all seem to be different since 9/11.

Arabs in the US are not unaware of how the people in their home countries are treated. Most are able to look at the situatuion objectively, but they have the benifit of having vested interest in both groups, the Israeli-US-western side and the Hezbollah-Lebanese or Palestinian-etc. side. That's something that a lot of Americans don't have.

Of course, I, a white as snow son of a Lutheran pastor born and raised in the US, also think that Israel was the aggressor. This conflict is longer than a few months, it goes back to before I was born. Israel invaded Lebanon because they chased all the Palestinians out and they started to cause trouble from Lebanon. The Lebanese got pissed when Israel invaded and fought back (and lost). Israel pulled out most of it's troops about 5 or 6 years back, but not all of them. Israel still occupied a small part of Lebanon and still does so today. Why? Because Israel doesn't recognize the land as being Lebanese, despite the fact that Lebanon claims it and the country that Israel claims the land belongs to say it ain't theirs. You know, that old chestnut.

I'm still not convinced that your "majority" constitutes more than 50% of muslims. However, I do have a better idea where this repeated statement comes from. I wonder though if you think it be as fair to claim that just before the Iraq invasion the majority of Americans supported violence in the spread of democracy... To me it seems an equivalent sort of supporting violence, if not more vigorous. Is it different only in that one is "terrorism" and the other is state sanctioned? Or is it that one is in support of your moral ideals and the other is not? Or is it something less relative? I'm genuinely curious.

Oh, and because no one else saw it, I understand that you are sensitive to being labelled bigot. Let's keep the labels like that out of the conversation on both sides.

And let's also not suggest that others fornicate themselves with sharp sticks. It sounds dangerous.

Splinters.

Okay, this is what was missing from one "Islam: Religion of Peace?" argument (omissions are in blue):

Quote:
[2.190] And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits. [2.191] And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.

Don’t exceed the limits? The Koran teaches restraint!?

Quote:
[2.216] Fighting is enjoined on you, and it is an object of dislike to you; and it may be that you love a thing while it is evil for you, and Allah knows, while you do not know. [2.217] They ask you concerning the sacred month about fighting in it. Say: Fighting in it is a grave matter, and (hindering men from) the Sacred Mosque and turning its people out of it, are still graver with Allah, and persecution is graver than slaughter; and they will not cease fighting with you until they turn you back from your religion, if they can; and whoever of you turns back from his religion, then he dies while an unbeliever—these it is whose works shall go for nothing in this world and the hereafter, and they are the inmates of the fire; therein they shall abide [2.218] Surely those who believed and those who fled (their home) and strove hard in the way of Allah these hope for the mercy of Allah and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

Fighting is disliked? And could be evil?

Quote:
The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement…

Okay, I admit this punishment is a bit severe… but do we know what is meant by “mischief” (and is this a good translation)? And is this that much worse than what America could be doing in secret?

Quote:
[8.39] Shakir: And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah; but if they desist, then surely Allah sees what they do.

Then surely Allah sees what they do… and hmm, maybe fighting is no longer necessary?

Quote:
[9.12] And if they break their oaths after their agreement and (openly) revile your religion, then fight the leaders of unbelief—surely their oaths are nothing—so that they may desist. [9.13] What! will you not fight a people who broke their oaths and aimed at the expulsion of the Apostle, and they attacked you first; do you fear them? But Allah is most deserving that you should fear Him, if you are believers. [9.14] Fight them, Allah will punish them by your hands and bring them to disgrace, and assist you against them and heal the hearts of a believing people.

Breaking an oath is a serious offense. Openly reviling one’s religion is too. But expulsing the Apostle and attacking first? That sounds really bad.

Quote:
Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.

This sounds like a call to fight any who aren’t of an Abrahamic religion [edit: or who don't follow the laws and customs of Muslims in Muslim lands], and Islam wasn’t the only religion to persecute pagans. But if this does refer to anyone who isn’t Muslim, then this model isn’t that bad. Paying a tax as a non-Muslim within a Muslim state is better than being exiled or killed. Actually, isn’t this similar to the economic systems found in monarchies? Monarchies have subjects too, right?

Why was so much left out of these passages? These weren't culled directly from sleazy propagandist websites, were they? Does anyone else here think that much of the meaning was altered in these omissions? This does not help us get the the truth, does it? The other issue is that we're missing other elements of context in terms of where these passages appear in the Koran and which passages are missing in between.

Yes, there is violence in the Koran, but these are instructions for preservation of a belief, a Truth. Both the Jews and the Christians have been historically violent for the same reason. Violence is a painful part of our humanity. Pointing fingers doesn't solve the problem of why people are committing evils which we are all capable of.

Baraka_Guru, that was one of the most brilliant posts I've read on TFP. Thank you for taking the time to share the truth of the situation. I sincerly hope the truth of your post isn't lost on everyone.

Truth is elusive to those who refuse to see with both eyes.

Baraka, I left those out because that is how it's been quoted for centuries. From Sal al-Din (Saladin), to Qutb, to Hamas, Hezbolla, Iran, or every terrorist organization in Islamic history dating back to day one with the Assasins.

There are many rules of war mensioned. You can not cut down the trees of your enemies, you can not kill non-combattants or seize their items. You can not kill PoW's or poison water supplies. Unfortunately for these teachings even Muhammad ignored them (Battle of the Trench).

I know the truth as Will so eliquently puts it, I see with both eyes. I see how they are simply statements which are ignored by the very people who write them. How half of the sentence is worthy of repeating in a blood-chant, while the rest are suitable for being ignored.

The Old Testiment mensions the treatment of slaves and lepurs, are we to judge it based on that... or what is taught to our children (the golden rule, etc)? If they teach their children only the parts I quoted, and ignore the others are we to judge them based on what is taught or what is left out?

just wondering, would it take massive explosion leading to the deaths of thousands in israel for you to say that they are not the aggressor? I don't know how you say that they are still occupying lebanon if the U.N. has stated many times that they have legally left lebanon.

This is the crisis of Islam. Influential "Muslims" are bastardizing the faith, using it for political purposes. This is not true Islam. Just as the West corrupts concepts of "Truth," "Justice," democracy, "Liberty," and "Freedom," Islamic extremists are corrupting what is essentially a religion of peace. And, yes, this includes the corruption of Palestinian children.

I'm not sure how one calls it a religion of peace when it was spread by the sword. Christianity had its moments where conquest = conversion, but the highest calling a Christian could have was to be a missionary in some far off land to teach the 'true faith'. They faced death and perhaps worse, but thats the church ideal. Christianity spread far without bloodshed, while the Islamic world is limited mostly to the extent of their conquests.

Its very peaceful on paper IF you are a muslim, if not, good luck.

I must apologize and admit that I am speaking on scant knowledge considering I haven't actually read the Koran in its entirety, nor have I read any good books that represent a fair scholarship on the subject. Are you saying that the highest calling for a Muslim is to wield a sword? Because I read somewhere that it's actually the al-jihad al-akbar (the greater jihad): to veer away from evil, to be charitible.

And you're making sound as though Islam was spread only by the sword, when millions of people have embraced it by choice.

You're right, the highest calling is the inner-struggle. However, confronting inner-demons requires an ability to accept oneself as wrong infront of God. More would choose to fight an outer-demon, a face one can deal with instead of the depths of one's inner-self. The interpretations forged by Sal al-Din's father (sorry, can't remember his name) put forth the argument that facing and dying to a worldly enemy forgives all of one's sins.

Thus they have the same ideology that led us on the crusades a thousand years ago, only they have continued theirs to this day.