Okay, sorry it's taken me a while to post. In this post I will outline my problems with Islam. I don't intend for it to be the final statement, though (and there's more where it came from). If I am wrong, then please tell me why. I'd also like to say that I'd gotten off on the wrong foot with my first post on this thread, and namely because I took for granted that there'd probably be some other people who shared my opinion, so I was caught rather off-guard. And my thanks to Lucifer (never thought I'd say that phrase!) and Portland Bill for writing such thoughtful replies. I did not have the opportunity to post a complete reply and gather my resources for quite some time. I will reply to a few specific points the two of you made.
I have lots to say but Thagomizer is just your average garden-variety islamophobic and IMO not worth the effort. I've heard and seen it all before.
So what is an Islamophobic other than someone who criticizes Islam? As the incident involving the Danish cartoon demonstrates, many Muslims seem to want Islam to be above criticism, and to be given the right to scare everyone else into submission, because
all problems involving Islamic terrorism in today's world are the result of the capitalistic west's intolerance of Arab people. Frankly, they aren't very tolerant of us. The western world values plurality, equality, and freedom of speech. The Islamic world doesn't.
Haven't you ever noticed that every critic of Islam has to either write pseudonymously (as Ibn Warraq and the authors of
http://www.faithfreedom.org/), has a price on their head (like Irshad Manji), lives in an undisclosed location (like Robert Spencer), or has been murdered (like Theo van Gogh)? I'm still waiting to hear news about the crazy Christian fundamentalists (because Christianity is every bit as capable of inspiring violence as Islam, remember?) who are out for Dan Barker's blood and the death threats he must surely receive.
Regarding Islamophobia, historian Victor Davis states in
this article:
There really isn’t a phenomenon like “Islamophobia†— at least no more than there was a “Germanophobia†in hating Hitler or “Russophobia†in detesting Stalinism. Any unfairness or rudeness that accrues from the “security profiling†of Middle Eastern young males is dwarfed by efforts of Islamic fascists themselves — here in the U.S., in the U.K., the Netherlands, France, Turkey, and Israel — to murder Westerners and blow up civilians. The real danger to thousands of innocents is not an occasional evangelical zealot or uncouth politician spouting off about Islam, but the deliberately orchestrated and very sick anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism that floods the airways worldwide, emanating from Iran, Lebanon, and Syria, to be sure, but also from our erstwhile “allies†in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar.
Meh. I put as much effort into it as you did your original argument. Pie sure, I could have called you a delusional dinofucker or summat but I couldn't be bothered. Want a point?
Just hoping to inject a little humor into what was turning into a heated argument.
Would you really consider the dangerous fundies currently overrunning swathes of your country and holding an increasing influence over the body politic less of a threat to peace and freedom than the mullah-maddened jihadis?
I have no love for them, or Bush for that matter, but the answer is a firm, resounding, YES.
Saying that the religious right of America is equally capable of giving rise to violence would have a lot more credibility if Pat Robertson or the late Jerry Falwell (neither of whom I like) were writing articles defending the stoning of adulterers, (Muslim writer Hani Ramadan published
one such article in the French journal
Le Monde in September 2002 defending exactly that), or calling for the killing of blasphemers (blasphemy is a capital offense in Pakistan and many other places in the Islamic world), or flying planes into the buildings of countries they considered enemies. Evangelical Christians do not condone or commit these acts, and that alone should be a clear indication that not all religious "fundies" are alike.
I've partly answered this above; I've heard the 'some religions are more right than others (and you don't wanna be in the wrong one when the rapture comes, praise the Lawd)' argument before from the door-to-door god botherers. Again, it all comes down to interpretation of the 'correct' bits of dogma. A roomful of theologians probably couldn't come to the conclusion you had, but as you have already picked a team its irrelevant. If you're happy with your choice of shepherd good for you, as long as you can recognise that those who chose a different one could do exactly the same thing to you/your faith.
My 'team' doesn't even have to be correct in order for my point to be valid. It may have sounded like I was arguing religious apologetics or patriotism, but I was trying to make the point that religions still have objective truth values. This should apply to moral teachings as well. If I were an atheist I would certainly still regard Christianity a bit higher than Islam.
however, this conflicts massively with your belief in "absolute truth". and define good and bad - surely that's a matter of perspective and context?
Not quite. To accept that there may truths to be found in all religions, even profound truths, does not make them
equally true. They cannot be, because they all make objective truth claims. If they are all wrong, then some are still more wrong than others. As for "good and bad", I am not a moral relativist, and I'm assuming you believe that there is evil behavior that human beings are capable of, whether it is in the form of violence, deceit, or something else that knowingly brings needless harm to other people. If you don't believe that some actions are good and some are evil (before we take into account circumstance--I don't for example, believe that rape and pederasty can ever be justified as good actions), then there would no point in discussing it any further.
to, or for, whom?
Anyone who believes in objective truth. If you don't believe in any reality beyond perception, there's no point in debating it.
it isn't Islam wherein the fault lies, it's some of the proponents of Islam, who choose to (or follow blindly those who've chosen to) interpret it according to their own political agenda.
Why are you so certain of this? Anyway, I believe the problem
is the core teachings of Islam, and it will not go away until we recognize why Islam continues to produce peole like bin Laden and Zarqawi and why Judaism and Christianity, for the most part, don't. But I'll get into that in more detail below.
nonsense. no "holy text" is carved in stone (no pun intended). all require interpretation. you have to ask yourself who's doing the interpreting, and for what reason.
Considering the degree of interpretation these sets of holy bog roll require I think its fair to say you can find a line or two of scripture in any of them to support your jihad/crusade/witchhunt/persecution/land grab. Any verses you could quote for either religion in support of xyz position can be countered by others I'm fairly sure - so sure, if you want to produce reams of quotations thats up to you. But at the end of the day it always degenerates to cherry picking since the 'holy' books are so widely interpreted and full of (apparently) contradictory statements.
For the record, I disagree with both of you about interpretation. While examining any holy text can certainly be a daunting task, I think this is too easy a way out of it. It's not cherry picking to quote what the Koran has to say about jihad warfare when it is a constant and undoubtedly affirmed element of mainstream Muslim theology. Religions are
not entirely determined (or distorted) by their faithful over time. Are you both asking me to believe that western culture would be enjoying it's secularization today if Islam succeeded in conquering Europe some 1300 years ago (to which the crusades were actually a long-delayed defensive backlash against)? That there would be Christian jihadists bombing the west if Christianity were relegated to the Middle East, that we would have experienced the Renaissance and Enlightment in the same way in a Muslim Europe? It is impossible to be certain, but I believe the answers to all of these questions are "no".
Would it make a difference today, and would history have unfolded the same way, if India was Zoroastrian, China Odinist, and Japan Hindu? Again, I'm no expert, but I seriously doubt it. Culture
does affect our behavior, I'm afraid. Whether we like it or not, we are all products of the cultures that spawned us.
All religions are
not the same. The lives and words of their founders, which are certainly not equal in meaning, remain central, no matter how long ago they lived. The notion that only believers shape religion is derrived from the literary philosophy of deconstructionism, according to which written words have no meaning other than that given to them by the reader, and equally important, that if only the reader finds meaning, there can be no truth, and certainly no religious truth. We are all, in a deconstructionist perspective, capable of creating our own set of "truths", none of which are better or worse than any other.
Now onto the founder of Islam. I have respect for most of the founders of today's religions. I have respect for Jesus, Moses, Abraham, Buddha, Zoroaster, Krishna, and Confucius. But I do not respect Muhammad. While I can surely accept that moral standards are different now from the way they were during his lifetime, I can't call a man who forces himself on a girl 40 years younger than him, whom he captured in one of his raids in the same day that he killed her husband, her father and many of her relatives, anything other than a rapist. I can't call a man who has sex with a pubescent girl anything other than a pedophile. I can't call a man who aquires his wealth by looting caravans, killing the men, usurping their properties and selling their wives and daughters as slaves anything other than a bandit. I can't call a man who assassinates his critics (who commited no violent crimes against him) in the middle of the night anything other than a terrorist. I can't call a man who instructed his men to kill everyone who didn't accept his dogma, and impose a tax penalty to make life miserable for subdued Jews and Christians anything other than a bigot. I can't call a man who deliberately breaks a treaty anything other than a liar. I can't call a man who conveniently receives a revelation from God that permits him to claim his adpoted son's wife and exceed his quota of four wives anything other than a lech. And I can't call a man who mentions the teachings of Jesus in order to lend credibility as God's ultimate prophet--and then leads a campagin and teaches a doctrine that is diametrically opposite of everything Jesus stood for--anything other than a hypocrite.
Don't believe me? Then try reading about the life of Muhammad yourself. The earliest written biography of Muhammad, by Ibn Ishaq, supports these facts and many more. In particular, you might try
The Life of Muhammad: A Translation of Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasual Allah, Oxford University Press, 1955. This translation was written by a pious Muslim, no less, and almost every page is a devestating refutation of the notion that Muhammad was a peaceful leader. Another useful title is
23 Years: A Study of the Prophetic Career of Mohammad, by 'Ali Dashti; Costa Mesa, CA: Mazada Publishers, 1994. Dashti was an Iranian Muslim who was courageous enough to write honestly about Muhammad's career and violence. For this, he was ultimately imprisoned, tortured, and eventually murdered by thugs in the employ of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Robert Spencer, (who wrote much of the material on which my argument are based), just released
The Truth About Muhammad,
.
There would be insufficient space in this post to outline the prophet's life, but make no mistake: Muhammad was a warlord. The religion he founded is a religion of war. Muhammad did not teach "peace and tolerance"; he lead armies and ordered assassinations of his enemies. At the end of his life he succeeded in conquering Arabia through a series of brutal conquests. The Islamic tradition he set up allows for negotiations only in the service of the ultimate goal of Islamic conquest. Muhammad taught his followers that there was nothing holier than jihad warfare, that non-muslims have only three choices: conversion, subjugation, or death.
There are more than a hundred verses in the Koran which explicitly exhort believers to wage warfare against nonbelievers. These teachings are not marginal doctrines or historical relics. They're still taught in mainstream Islam today. No Islamic sect has ever renounced the proposition that Islamic law must reign supreme over the entire world, and that Muslims must, under certain circumstances, take up arms to this end. Today's Jihadists have the same goals and motives as Muhammad's original followers, the Muslims who wreaked havoc in Spain and occupied it for 700 years, the Muslims who fought the Crusaders, and the Turks who sacked Constantinople.
Jihad warfare is the highest duty: "Do ye make the giving of drink to pilgrims, or the maintenance of the Sacred Mosque, equal to the pious service of those who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and strive with might and main in the cause of Allah [
jihad fi sabil Allah]? They are not comparable in the sight of Allah: and Allah guides not those who do wrong. Those who believe, and suffer exile and strive with might and main, in Allah's cause [
jihad fi sabil Allah], with their goods and their persons, have the highest rank in the sight of Allah; they are the people who will achieve salvation (Koran 9:19-20)"
Jihad fi sabil Allah, I am told, refers specifically to taking up arms for Islam. Paradise is guaranteed for those who kill and are killed for the cause: "Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth (Koran 9:111)" I suppose one may attempt to spiritualize Muhammad's words, but there can be no doubt from the historical record that he meant them literally.
There is, of course, some support for the view of jihad seen as a defensive warfare in the Koran, but there is no clear definition in Islamic law of what constitutes sufficient provocation for taking up arms in self-defense, or whom should strike first, making it possible to portray any struggle as defensive without violating the strict canons of that law. A common teaching in Islam seems to be that Muslims are required to wage war against any country that is percieved to be hindering the spread of Islam, and this is seen as a defensive conflict. It renders the concept of taking up arms in self-defense so elastic as to be meaningless (you need only visit
The Islam Q & A for a few disturbing examples of this).
Worse still, the doctrine of abrogation states that Allah can change his mind or cancel anything he says: "None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things?" (Koran 2:106). This means that most Muslim theologians consider the most violent verses (belonging to the ninth sura, which is generally agreed to have been the very last revelation to be revealed to Muhammad) to cancel out every treaty or promise made to infidels (stemming from the earlier parts of Muhammad's career). This is a rather infamous sura, called the Verse of the Sword (Koran 9:5), which is among the Koran's final words on the jihad: "When the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them captive, and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pray the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful." In other words, convert or die.
Osama bin Laden quotes extensively from the Koran in his 1996 "Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places", including suras 3;145, 47:4-6, 2:154, 9:14, 47:19, 8:72, and of course, 9:5. You can read it
hereDoes anyone care to tell me how he is being unfaithful to the spirit of Islam? How is he "interpreting it according to his own political agenda" rather than the agenda of the Koran itself?
Some Islamic apologists have pointed to Timothy McVeigh and Eric Rudolph as examples of Christian terrorists, but Spencer points out three reasons why they are not equivalent to bin Laden and Zarqawi: 1) They made no attempt to justify their actions by refering to Christian scripture or tradition, 2) They weren't acting according to mainstream Christian teachings, and 3) There are no large Christian groups around the world dedicated to implementing the same teachings.
This demonstrates the difference between aberrant acts and aberrant teachings. Yes, any human being with a belief system can commit terrible atrocities, but such acts will be more numerous and frequent when they're encouraged by religious texts and the people who teach from them.
Okay, so what about the majority of Muslims, who are said to be moderates and want nothing to do with the global jihad? I sincerely hope this is the case, but to what extend does moderate Islam exist in the world today? Where Muslims peacefully coexit with non-Muslims (as in Central Asia and Turkey) it isn't because the teachings of jihad in the Koran have been reformed or rejected; they've just been ignored. American historian and counter-terrorism analyst
Daniel Pipes estimates that 10 to 15 percent of the world's Muslims support the jihadist's agenda, but there are indications elsewhere that the actual numbers of jihadist supporters might be higher.
Kamal Nawash, and American moderate Muslim leader said on the
O'reilly Factor in August 2004 that 50 per cent of of Muslims worldwide supported the jihad.
According to
a survey done in Pakistan, 65 per cent favored Osama bin Laden. 47 per cent believed Palestinian suicide attacks on Israelis were justified. 46 per cent thought attacks on Westerners in Iraq were justified.
So what is a moderate Muslim? One who will never engage in terrorist acts? That certainly makes them an overwhelming majority in the Muslim world. Or is a moderate instead one who sincerely disapproves of terrorist acts? That reduces the number of moderates a bit. Is a moderate a Muslim who actively speaks out against jihadists? That lowers the number even more. Or what about a Muslim who actively engages the jihadists in a theological discussion, trying to convince them that jihad terrorism is wrong on Islamic grounds? That's only a tiny handful. But I hope I'm wrong.
I do not claim to be an expert on anything. If you feel the critics of Islam quote the Koran or quoted out of context, then by all means educate me and elaborate on how they're wrong. And herein is where it is important to compare the structure of the Koran with those of the Bible. Unlike the most violent passages of the Bible, the Koran does not contain a narrative at all. Rather, it is a recording of Muhammad's dialogue with God. The exhortations to violence against unbelievers in the Koran are entirely without specificity of where or who they are or any other distinction. They are open-ended, universal commands.
Islamic apologists (and anyone who hates Christianity) often quote embarassing verses from the Bible to prove that it too, can have pernicious effects. From the New Testament, we often get:
"I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what he has will be taken away. But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them-bring them here and kill them in front of me." (Luke 19:26-27)
The fallacy here is that these are the words of a king in a parable that Jesus is telling, not instructions that the is actually giving to his followers, but this sort of subtlety is often ignored. Oh, and how can we forget this one?
"Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. I am sent to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law." (Matthew 10:34-35)
Does anyone actually believe that Jesus is calling for a intra-familial jihad of sorts? It's absurd to quote this as the equivalent of the Koran's jihad passages, and it fails to recognize the poetry in the Bible. Even the crusaders didn't quote biblical passages like these. Unlike Muhammad, Jesus never took part in battles (the most violent he ever got was making a scene in the temple). It should be obvious that the "sword" he is talking about is a metaphorical one.
The juicier samples of the Bible are, of course, to be found in the Old Testament. Some of the most frequently quoted verses include Dueteronomy 7:1-2 ("And when the LORD your God delivers them before you and you defeat them, then you shall utterly destroy them. You shall make no covenant with them and show no favor to them."), Deuteronomy 20:10-17 ("When the LORD gives it into your hand, you shall strike all the men in it (the city) with the edge of the sword. Only the women and the children and the animals and all that is in the city, all it's spoil, you shall take as booty for yourself . . ."), and Numbers 31:17-18 ("Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man."). This chronicles God's commands to the Israelites when they made war against specific people (Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites). These passages certainly fall harshly on modern ears, but unless you happen to be one of these peoples, they simply do no apply to you. It's one reason among many that Jews and Christians do not form international terror groups that quote these Scriptures to justify killing civilians and non-combatants. Centuries of interpretative traditions have moved away from literalism regarding passages like these, but in Islam, there is no comparable interpretative tradition. Osama's use of the Koran passages he quoted were consistent with the traditional Islamic understanding of the Koran.
Muhammad vs. JesusOkay, here are some direct comparisons between the teachings of Muhammad (taken from the Koran and the
Sahih Muslim, which is also considered cannon) and the teachings of Jesus (taken from the four New Testament Gospels) to demonstrate how ludicrous it is to claim that the words of both are equally capable of inspiring violence.
On opposition:
"But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you" Jesus (Matthew 5:44)
"Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know." Koran 8:60
"But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High; for he is kind to the ungrateful and the selfish." Jesus (Luke 6:35)
"Let not the believers take for friends or helpers unbelievers rather than believers. If any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah; exept by way of persecution, that ye may guard yourselves from them. " Koran 3:28
On reciprocity:
". . . if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also . . ." Jesus (Matthew 5:39)
"Will ye not fight who broke their solemn pledges, and proposed to drive out the messenger and did attack you first?" Koran 9:13
On persecution:
Blessed are you when men revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, your reward is great in heaven." Jesus (Matthew 5:11)
"And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the place whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter." Koran 2:191
On adultery:
"Then the scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery and made her stand inthe middle. They said to Him, 'Teacher, this woman was caught in the very act of committing adultery. Now, in the law, Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?' They said this to test Him, so that they could have some charge against Him. Jesus bent down and began to write on the ground with His finger. But when they continued asking Him, He straightened up and said to them, 'Let the one among you whois without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.' Again He bent down and wrote on the ground. And in response, they went away one by one, beginning with the elders. So He was left alone with the woman before Him. Then Jesus straightened up and said to her, 'Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?' She replied, 'No one, sir.' Then Jesus said, 'Neither do I condemn you. Go, and from now on do not sin any more.'" John 7:53-8:11
"There came to him (the Holy Prophet) a woman from Ghamid and said: 'Allah's Messenger, I have committed adultery, so purify me. He 9the Holy Prophet) turned her away. On the following day she said: Allah's Messenger, Why do you turn me away? . . . By Allah, I have become pregnant. He said: Well, if you insist upon it, then go away until you give birth to the child. When she was delivered she came with the child wrapped in a rag and said: Here is the child whom I have given birth to. He said: Go away and suckle him until you wean him. When she had weaned him, she came to him . . . She said: Allah's Apostle, here is he as I have weaned him and he eats food. He (the Holy Prophet) entrusted the child to one the Muslims and then pronounced punishment. And she was put in a ditch up to her chest and he commanded people and they stoned her. Khalid bin Walid came forward with a stone which he flung at her head and there spurted blood on the face of Khalid and so he abused her. Allah's Apostle heard his (Khalid's) curse that he had hurled upon her. Thereupon he (the Holy Prophet) said: Khalid, be gentle. By Him in Whose Hand is my life, she has made such a repentance that even if a wrongful tax-collector were to repent, he would have been forgiven. Then giving command regarding her, he prayed over her and she was buried." Muslim vol. 3, book 17, no. 4206
On Murder:
"You have heard that it was said to the men of old, 'You shall not kill; and whoever kills shall be liable to judgement. But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgement; whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says, 'You fool!' shall be liable to the hell of fire." Jesus (Matthew 5:21-22)
Therefore, when ye meet the unbelievers in fight, smite at their necks; at length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly on them: thereafter is the time for either generosity or ransom, until the war lays down its burdens . . . But those who are slain in the Way of Allah, He will never let their deeds be lost." Koran 47:4
On God's consistency:
"No one is good but God alone." Jesus (Mark 10:18)
"The jews say: 'Allah's hand is chained.' May their own hands be chained! May they be cursed for what they say! By no means. His hands are both outstretched: He bestows as He will." Koran 5:64
Spencer says: "The idea that Allah's hand is 'not chained' is a reflection of his absolute freedom and sovereignty. If God is good, as Jesus says, His goodness may be discernable in the consistency of creation; but in Islam, even to call Allah good would be to bind Him."
On salvation:
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life." John 3:16
"Alah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs in return is the garden of Paradise: they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth . . ." Koran 9:111
On violence:
"All who take the sword will perish by the sword." Jesus (Matthew 26:52)
"Know that Paradise is under the shades of swords (jihad in Allah's cause)." Bukhari, vol. 4, book 56, no. 2818
"Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God. Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God. Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." Jesus (Matthew 5:8-10)
"Allah assigns for a person who participates in (holy battles) in Allah's Cause and nothing causes him to do so except belief in Allah and His Messengers, that he will be recompensed by Allah either with a reward, or booty (if he survives) or will be admitted to Paradise (if he is killed in the battle as a martyr)." Bukhari, vol. 1, no. 36
"And when those who were about him saw what would follow, they said, 'Lord, shall we strike with the sword?' And one of them struck the slave of the high priest and cut off his right ear. But Jesus said, 'No more of this!' And he touched his ear and healed him." Luke 22:49-51
"Narrated by Abu Qilaba: anas said, 'Some people of 'Ukl or 'Uraina tribe came to Medina and its climate did not suit them. After they became healthy, they killed the shepherd of the Prophet and drove away all the camels. The news reached the Prophet early in the morning and he sent (men) in their pursuit and they were captured and brought at noon. He then ordered to cut their hands and feet (and it was done), and their eyes were branded with heated pieces of iron. They were put in Al-Harra and then they asked for water, no water was given to them.' Abu Qilaba added, 'Those people committed theft, murder, became infidels after embracing Islam and fought against Allah and His Messenger." Sahih Bukhari, vol. 1, book 4, no. 233
On Mercy:
"Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy . . . For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you salute only your bretheren, what more are you doing than others?" Jesus (Matthew 5:7, 46-7)
"Muhammad is Allah's Apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another." Koran 48:29
On Hatred:
"And you will be hated by all for my name's sake. But he who endures to the end will be saved." Jesus (Mark 13:13)
"There is for you an excellent example to follow in Abraham and those with him, when they said to their people: 'We are clear of you and of whatever ye worship besides Allah: we have rejected you, and there has arisen, between us and you, enmity and hatred forever, unless ye believe in Allah and Him alone.' " Koran 60:4
On divine authority:
"My kingship is not of this world; if my kingship were of this world, my servants would fight." Jesus (John 18:36)
"I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah." Bukhari, vol. 1, book 2, no. 25.
On unbelievers:
"And if anyone will not recieve you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or town." Jesus (Matthew 10:14)
"Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him" Bukhari, vol. 9, book 88, no. 6922
On generosity:
"So whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them; for this is the law and the prophets." Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
"None of you will have faith till he likes for his (Muslim) brother what he likes for himself" Bukhari, vol. 1, book 2, no. 13
Spencer also adds: "The Muslim version of the Golden Rule extends only to fellow Muslims, not to unbelievers."
And this one just speaks for itself:
"The hour is coming when whoever kills you will think he is offering service to God." Jesus (John 16:2)
"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been frbidden by Allah and His Messenger, not acknowledge the religion of Truth, even if they are the People of the Book [Jews and Christians], until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." Koran 9:29
That's it for now. Toodles!
