The islamophobics that are the most dangerous are those that put that quasi-intellectual slant to their ignorance. Not that I consider your telling us how bin Laden often quotes the Koran anything but a cheap shot, but it is bound to disturb the casual reader. Unfortunately I doubt that I can reach you by noting that bin Laden, in his twisted world, is doing pretty much the same as Bush is, when Bush says that God is on our side in the Iraq war.
Bush sucks. If we lived in ancient times, he certainly would have been one of those leaders, like Alexander who declared himself a deity. It is a tenuous thing, to claim that God is on your side, because if you change your mind, God isn't going to change his. However, I don't think Bush is the equivalent of bin Laden. When was he quoting from the Bible specifically to justify attacking Iraq?
How many times do you suppose a lunatic has quoted the Bible to justify the unjustifiable?
Not as often as a lunatic quotes the Koran, and he will not only find more justification there, but from the mainstream theologians who teach it. That was my point.
I notice how you quote from the New Testament but avoid the Old. Why is that? Because the Old Testament is far more violent, far more unforgiving? That's also the usual tactics when the two holy scriptures are compared.
I
did quote some commonly referenced OT passages, and I addressed this in my former post. The point in that last part was to compare the teaching of Muhammad with the teachings of Jesus. Muhammad is still held as a high moral example by Muslims to today, and no, I don't think the messages that he taught were morally equivalent to what Jesus taught, and I already demonstrated how and why.
There is no compulsion in religion
(Al-Baqarah 2:256)
That's one of the 'canceled' verses, I'm afraid. Here's one that obviates it:
(Al-Baqarah 2:216) Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But God knoweth, and ye know not.
You, on the other hand, claim that
Muhammad taught his followers that there was nothing holier than jihad warfare, that non-muslims have only three choices: conversion, subjugation, or death.
He did teach this. It would be foolish denying it.
Dr. Muzammil H. Siddiqi, president of the Fiqh Council of North America, says this:
The basic rules of war in Islam are:
1. Be strong so that your enemy fear you and should not attack you.
2. Do not begin the hostilities. Work for peace as much as possible.
3. Fight only those who fight, no collective punishment; non-combatants should not be harmed. Weapons of mass destruction should not be used.
Where does the Koran address anything involving weapons of mass destruction? As I've mentioned before, the definition of "hostilities" is so vague it is often interpreted as anything that impedes the spread of Islam.
4. Stop hostilities as soon as the other party is inclined to peace.
Again, conversion, subjugation, or death. Not equality or pluralism. That was Muhammad's definition of "peace".
5. Observe the treaties and agreements as long as the enemy observes them.
Muhammad didn't. This is a documented fact.
Allah says very clearly: (Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not do aggression, for Allah loves not the aggressors.) (Al-Baqarah 2: 190)
Allah also tells you to continue fighting so that the entire world accepts Islamic rule, and doesn't specify anything about when and where to stop fighting. I've already quoted this sura in my former post. It might be possible to form a sort of moderate Islam on the basis of those teachings in the Koran that sound better, but in order for that to happen the mainstream needs to acknowledge why and how the teachings of the Koran are having a direct effect on most of the world's ongoing conflicts.
Hmm. He doesn't agree with you, that evil Muslim. You talk to him. Tell him that he's wrong.
I sincerely hope he's right and I'm wrong. However, I should reflect that his faith
does allow him to lie to advance the causes of his religion, so unless he's written a response to the critics of Islam that addresses all the points I've made in more detail rather than selectively (very selectively) quoting form the Koran, I will have approach his words with some amount of skepticism. But I'll be sure to look him up.
I can see how this could go on for a while, however. I can also see that I'm unlikely to convince you of the errors in your ways or simply that hate and distrust doesn't really get you anywhere, so I probably won't bother to reply again. Search the old threads here if you want to read me replying to others like you. Peace, and remember that all you need is love.
I'll search the old threads, then. It would be arrant nonsense for me to hate or distrust someone on the basis of their religion alone, but that doesn't mean I can have no reason for thinking there's something wrong the religion itself. I have met a few Muslims whom I've generally liked. I don't know to what degree they were familiar with (or faithful to) the teachings of the Koran, though.
