Friday, January 06, 2012

Rick Santorum on Islam, Muslims and EUrabia


His Grace has believed for many years that the 2012 US presidential race would be an Obama/Romney affair (see here and here). The fact that a relative nonentity called Rick Santorum came within a whisker of beating Mr Romney in the Iowa caucus is really neither here nor there: the name on the Republican 2012 ticket will surely still be Mitt Romney. But Rick Santorum merits a little scrutiny, not least because Mr Romney has yet to choose his vice-presidential running mate, and a Romney-Santorum partnership would represent a religio-political epiphany the likes of which hasn’t been seen since the Magi visited Bethlehem (which, incidentally, we commemorate today).

Rick Santorum was recently referred to by the BBC’s Mark Mardell as an ‘evangelical Christian’. This caused a bit of a stir, not least because Auntie was doubtless using the term in the derogative; not simply for convenient and lazy categorisation. In fact, Rick Santorum is a rather traditional Roman Catholic. Now, it is quite possible, theologically, to find synonymity between ‘traditional Roman Catholic’ and ‘evangelical Christian’ – ‘evangelion’ (εὐαγγέλιον) means ‘gospel’ or the ‘good news’ of the coming of the Kingdom of God. But Mark Mardell was talking, not writing, and it is impossible in speech to distinguish between ‘evangelical’ and ‘Evangelical’, between which terms there is as much religio-theological difference as there is between ‘catholic’ and ‘Catholic’. And such is the level of theological ignorance in the UK that 99 per cent of Mark Mardell’s audience will have heard ‘Evangelical’ – a Protestant movement with a doctrinal emphasis upon penal substitutionary atonement, justification by faith, the authority of Scripture, and the priesthood of all believers.

Rick Santorum would not, of course, be the first Roman Catholic to become President of the United States (not that he will): John F Kennedy broke down that barrier in 1961 by placating the Protestant church leaders with the declaration that he was ‘not the Catholic candidate for President’ but instead was ‘the Democratic Party's candidate for President, who happens also to be Catholic’. He went on to allege (as Mitt Romney is doing) that those who play the religion card have something to hide. He said:
But because I am a Catholic, and no Catholic has ever been elected President, the real issues in this campaign have been obscured - perhaps deliberately, in some quarters less responsible than this. So it is apparently necessary for me to state once again - not what kind of church I believe in, for that should be important only to me - but what kind of America I believe in.
But Rick Santorum is not a JFK kind of Roman Catholic: while Mr Santorum would feed on the orthodox feast provided by the Catholic Herald, Mr Kennedy would have delighted in the more liberal and progressive fare served up by The Tablet. In BBC terms, Rick Santorum is a ‘fundamentalist Catholic’, after the fashion of Pope Benedict XVI. Some will find the label oxymoronic, but we’re talking in the vernacular. To many, Rick Santorum is a ‘social conservative extremist’ because he favours amending the Constitution to outlaw same-sex marriage and to overturn the Supreme Court's ‘Roe v Wade’ ruling on a woman's right to choose to abort her baby. Essentially, he views the Presidency as a religio-political office – an instrument of governance instituted by God for the propagation of biblical values. Besieged by wars and rumours of war, economic meltdown and sin such as we have not seen since the days of Noah, he stands four-square in the millennialist tradition, believing Washington can usher in the Second Coming.

Mr Santorum’s policy priorities chime with the primary social concerns of American Evangelicals – poverty, abortion and homosexuality. But he will struggle for credibility in this constituency for as long as he believes that contraception should be illegal. And yet, and yet...

It is what Rick Santorum has to say about Islam, Muslims and EUrabia which merits rather more scrutiny, for it gives clues to what would be his foreign policy concerns. He is on record for a speech he made shortly after being ousted a senator in 2007, in which he talked of the need to ‘define the enemy’. It is averred that he ‘made little effort to distinguish between the general population of Muslims and violent Islamic extremists. If anything, he seemed to conflate the two’. He said:
"What must we do to win? We must educate, engage, evangelize and eradicate."

"Look at Europe. Europe is on the way to losing. The most popular male name in Belgium -- Mohammad. It’s the fifth most popular name in France among boys. They are losing because they are not having children, they have no faith, they have nothing to counteract it. They are balkanizing Islam, but that’s exactly what they want. And they’re creating an opportunity for the creation of Eurabia, or Euristan in the future...Europe will not be in this battle with us. Because there will be no Europe left to fight."

We should "talk about how Islam treats homosexuals. Talk about how they treat anybody who is found to be a homosexual, and the answer to that is, they kill them."

"...the Shia brand of Islamist extremists (is) even more dangerous than the Sunni [version]. Why? Because the ultimate goal of the Shia brand of Islamic Islam is to bring back the Mahdi. And do you know when the Mahdi returns? At the Apocalypse at the end of the world. You see, they are not interested in conquering the world; they are interested in destroying the world."

"The other thing we need to do is eradicate, and that’s the final thing. As I said, this is going to be a long war."
This is styled an ‘Islamophobic rant’, for which he is accorded the style and status of ‘bigot’. But is there anything here with which Pope Benedict XVI would find fault? Islam is a proselytising religion – it seeks converts. ‘Da’wa’ is the invitation to convert or submit to Islam, and is intrinsic to jihad. In a liberal democracy, which prizes freedom of speech and values freedom of religion, Muslims must be free to ‘call to Islam’ those whom Allah has chosen. But it is incumbent upon Christians to ‘educate, engage and evangelise’, as Rick Santorum said. And a logical corollary of fervent mission and successful evangelism would be the ‘eradication’ of Islam - by the power of the Word, not the sword.

Pope Benedict has long known this: his closest advisers have warned him of the ‘Islamisation of Europe’. A recurrent theme of Benedict’s pontificate has been the desperate need for Europe to rediscover its ‘Christian roots’ as the only bulwark against ‘attempts to Islamise the West’ – that is, the incremental establishment of EUrabia. And yes, let us ‘talk about how Islam treats homosexuals’, for surely wherever sharia law is supreme, ‘they kill them’.

And Mr Santorum informs us that ‘the Shia brand of Islamist extremists (is) even more dangerous than the Sunni (version)’, for the principal reason that ‘the ultimate goal of the Shia brand of Islamic Islam is to bring back the Mahdi’. His Grace has covered this (here and here).

This ‘Islamophobic rant’, even in its selective and fragmented form, is actually a politically reasoned and theologically reasonable assessment of the consequences of an aggressively ascendant school of Islam. We ignore it at our peril. Rick Santorum may be mocked and pilloried by the media for his ‘fundamentalist extremism’, but it is difficult to put a hair between his beliefs and those of Pope Benedict XVI on this matter, which really ought to be a priority concern of all Christians, whether evangelical, Evangelical, catholic or Catholic.

216 Comments:

Blogger Derek T Northcote said...

All religions are dangerous drivel.

Keep them to yourselves, brainwashed goons.

6 January 2012 at 10:59  
Blogger Juventutem London said...

"Besieged by wars and rumours of war, economic meltdown and sin such as we have not seen since the days of Noah, he stands four-square in the millennialist tradition, believing Washington can usher in the Second Coming. "

Not exactly fair is it? Millenialism is not Catholic, would be most surprised if he thought that!

6 January 2012 at 11:07  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

The first comment to this post is surely indicative of the sickness in Europe. Essentially, the poster is saying, "Don't bother me. I'm far too busy congratulating myself for my razor sharp intelligence to actually use it to evaluate the way my continent is changing around me. I don't care that my freedoms and liberties are in danger so long as I can get to sneer for a while longer".

That's not narcissism, it's downright autistic and typical of the personal space, iPod culture that Islam is sweeping aside. I'm not even sure people like this are actually worth saving.

6 January 2012 at 11:21  
Blogger Jon said...

Poverty isn't something I recognise as an Evangelical concern at all. Evangelicals mostly preach the 'prosperity gospel' (or they did when I used to attend their churches) which means that the poor are primarily poor because they have insufficient faith in the view of the Evangelicals.

However, it's interesting that one of the stated issues in the Evangelical movement is homosexuality in your view - and yet this is the litmus test by which Rick Santorum is judging the liberalism of the allegedly invading muslim hordes.

I'd find his concern more convincing if he wasn't proposing to pass a constitutional amendment enshrining inequality. But then I suspect that he is only interested in the rights of gay people (or women or ethnic minorities or the poor) when it provides him the opportunity to bash an enemy he perceives as greater.

It's just a snake shedding crocodile tears.

6 January 2012 at 11:49  
Blogger Ariadne said...

Weren't the London bombings real? Isn't Anjem Choudary still spouting hate and celebrating the Euro as a tool to lead to Sharia law?

Isn't Islam a threat? How many have been murdered in Syria this morning?

I don't think abortion as a concept has the same hold in this country. It is horrible and abused but how could anyone say it is better to bear an unwanted child.

On "speaking out of both sides of his mouth" it has to be remembered that he is a politician. The first time I ever heard that phrase it related to Arafat. I don't know its origin.

6 January 2012 at 12:12  
Blogger El said...

I whole heartedly agree with Jon's comment. I fail to see how referring to Iran and the horrific hangings of the two teenage homosexuals is enough evidence against all (or at least the majority) of Muslims residing in Europe.

The issue of Muslims living in Europe is more an economic one rather than an orchestrated religio-political attempt to proselytise atheists, non-believers and Christians in Europe.

Iran's policies are not applicable to all Muslims, hey're barely relevant to the citizens of that country! The apparent religious battle over Europe, as seen by the right, will boil down to who can convert the most non-believers and have the most kids.

We are in an age where secularism is prominent, fashionable even and whatever our feelings are towards other religions it is this Richard Dawkinsesque revile of the concept of religion that perhaps needs addressing.

6 January 2012 at 12:20  
Blogger Richard's Thoughts said...

The Islamic world now views the pontiff and Catholicism as an existential threat, and with reason. Jihad is not merely the whim of a despotic divinity, as the pope implied in his Regensburg address. It is much more: jihad is the fundamental sacrament of Islam, the Muslim cognate of the Lord's Supper in Christianity, that is, the unique form of sacrifice by which the individual believer communes with the Transcendent. To denounce jihad on theological grounds is a blow at the foundations of Islam, in effect a papal call for the conversion of the Muslims.

6 January 2012 at 12:33  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

I actually think the future could be worse that Eurabia.

The emergence of Islam in Europe is really a manifestation of the religious weakness of Europe. Secularization led to self-indulgence and a falling birthrate. The falling birthrate created a need for immigration. The Islamic states had excess people. Islam moved into the emptiness of a growing spiritual vacuum. And modern Europe is born. Rich. Fat. Weak. Growing weaker by the year. And a hostile alien religion growing right within its bosom.

This is sustainable so long as the economy is growing and people have money - at least until the Muslim population exceeds 50%. What happens when things get hard? I mean the 'collapse of Weimar' kind of hard. Because that is a very real possibility in the West. Then the stage is set not for the re-emergence of the Christian faith, but rather the re-emergence of the Reich. The population believes in nothing much in particular. They exist in a materialist world, and the whole materialist world has just collapsed around them. From their fear and poverty, they will demand someone lead them to restored prosperity and strength. And a man will arise to lead them - if only they will approve this Enabling Act. And what will act as a break on their actions? The church is gone.

Islam would be cast as the villain in this story, but having seen this script before, will fight. And thus you have my rather bleak fear for Europe. The Reich resurgent, and not just in Germany. Civil war between the Brown shirts and the Islamic minority. The liberty of Europe a distant memory reduced to ashes by the libertine behaviors of its citizens. The cultural deposit of Europe left in ruin.

The future looks very bleak to me. The West is not just declining. It is set to be consumed in a terrible fire. And there is no Winston Churchill available to take the helm at the critical moment.

carl

6 January 2012 at 12:42  
Blogger MrTinkles said...

I'm sorry...I'd love to comment Your Grace's article...thought provoking as usual...but I find myself needing to make another point...and although I try my best to be polite in my Internet dealings I am compelled to say to Jon...You don't know what you are talking about!
I am an evangelical (certainly according to his Grace's spot on definition) - my church (a very mixed congregation of "class", race and culture,with around 1000 souls) - has raised £100000s for "the poor" over the last few years and no, that's not a typo, I'm guessing that it's over the million mark for the last five years. No one was forced or coerced...it's just that those who "have" feel that Christ wants us to give to those who "have not"! And incidentally, in more than 30 years in such churches, I've never once come across the "prosperity gospel". Don't believe that the God channel reflects the views of ordinary Christians!
I'm not looking for congratulations, but it is ridiculous how so many comments are made simply because you've swallowed the standard line from the Guardian or Dawkins etc. Next you'll be repeating that other piece of moronic drivel that Christianity has has been responsible for more deaths than anything else...

6 January 2012 at 13:05  
Blogger Jon said...

Mr Tinkles - sorry, your church sounds lovely - so well done your lot. I'm talking about an argument I had in "Hill Songs" in Sydney an "Evangelical" and evangelical church in Australia, which was replicated in a number of other so called mega- churches in other places both in the UK and abroad. It just appeared to be prevalent and gaining ground.

I shouldn't have generalised, but it was my experience of a number of churches in the Evangelical movement, especially in the US.

6 January 2012 at 13:19  
Blogger Penn's Woods, USA said...

Of course Rick Santorum is a "relative nonentity" to anyone from the UK. Just as any regional and local politician from the UK would be unfamiliar to most citizens of the USA. Rick Santorum is a former United States Senator from Pennsylvania. With its nearly 13 million people Pennsylvania is one of the five most important States in any USA Presidential election for potential voters and more importantly the Electoral College votes. Santorum is not to be underestimated. There are over 65 million Roman Catholics in the USA. As an Italian American (Santorum's father is a psychiatrist who immigrated to the USA from Italy) Santorum could get far more of their vote than they gave Bush in 2004 (59%) or Obama in 2008 (52%). His Catholicism could bring the majority of Hispanics over to the Republicans because of their shared social values and that woud be a catastrophe for the Democrats. Santorum is not the nonentity in the USA as he might seem from a UK point of view. He is a person to take very seriously.

6 January 2012 at 13:46  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

a liberal democracy, which prizes freedom of speech and values freedom of religion

A liberal democracy that extends freedom to a religion that spits on liberalism and democracy needs its head seeing to, and the notion that the word of Christianity will defeat the sword of Islam is romantic hogwash. European Christendom had no qualms about using force to defend itself against Islam in the past and it should have none today. All that is necessary for Islam to triumph is for good men to do nothing.

Merry Epiphany.

6 January 2012 at 14:14  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

A politician with religious convictions who believes in putting into practice what he believes. Unlike Kennedy he doesn't accept one should seperate private morality from public service.

Well I never!

A committed evangelical Catholic who accepts the full authority of the Magisterium, regularly attends a Latin Mass and seemingly supports Opus Dei.

He wants to end and reverse homosexual 'marriages' and stop abortions and maybe even ontraception. Why? Because he considers them immoral and against the teachings of Christ.

Fervently pro-Israeli and in favour of them retaining the West Bank and East Jerusalem as part of their nation. Doubtful about the future of the United Nations and prepared to consider USA withdrawal and replacing it with an alternative supra-national body.

Imagine if he were elected.

6 January 2012 at 14:39  
Blogger seanrobsville said...

Can crystal meditation fill the spiritual void left by the decline of Christianity?

Will New Age hippies, rather than Catholics, save Europe from becoming EUrabia?

6 January 2012 at 14:52  
Blogger Jon said...

Dodo - what you're suggesting is that somehow this guy is ok because he's your kind of mullah? As opposed to the nasty kind from Iran who want to really stick it to the gays/ poor/ women/ racial minorities, to whom you're soooooo sympathetic.

This is apparently because the best way you can think of fighting mental mullahs is to find the most mental person who pretty much agrees with you, and give them power.

Yep - that sounds like an awesome plan. Why not just give Sarah Palin Hillary Clinton's job and we can all leave the planet together.

6 January 2012 at 15:15  
Blogger IanCad said...

Penn's Wood's, USA,

Unfortunately I think you are right. That a candidate who supposes that there is no Separation of Church and State, nor a Right to Privacy implied in the US Constitution, could have a chance of gaining the Presidency, is a horrifying prospect.
Whereas John Kennedy was a cultural Catholic, Rick Santorum is a visceral Son of Rome.
With a Supreme Court that has a six to three Catholic majority. (Not one Protestant member incidentally.) And, with the possibility of an American Pope. The Vatican must be delighting over it's potential good fortune.
BTW. Archbishop of Los Angeles José Horacio Gómez may not have his red hat yet, but, as an Opus Dei superstar, and, with the backing of Cardinal Levada (Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Formerly known as the Office of the Inquisition.) he's the one to watch when Benedict's time is up.

6 January 2012 at 15:42  
Blogger Span Ows said...

Oh, the BBC are going to love Rick, they must be salivating at all the bad headlines that they can use to grind him down as they protect their ineffectual Obamessiah.

6 January 2012 at 17:05  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

Jon
What's up? Troubled by people standing for office who actually hold moral values and declare them instead of 'politically correct' liberal atheism?

IanCad
Santorum stricks me as a reasoned and rational Catholic who bases his politics on his faith.

When did he say there should be no seperation between Church and State? It's certainly not a Catholic teaching!

Do tell which one of his stated policy positions you object to? Homosexual 'marriage'? Abortion? Israel? Iran? Afganhistan? United Nations?

I take it you'd prefer a 'cultural' christian, one who sets Christianity to one side in office?

Or is it anyone but a practicing Catholic who accepts and lives by the teachings of the Magisterium? Lordy, it could lead to an Inquisition! Or are you worrying it could result in the installation of the anti-Christ!

6 January 2012 at 17:11  
Blogger Oswin said...

Corrigan @ 11:21: beautifully put Sir! I don't always agree with your posts but you've nailed it exactly. Respect!

6 January 2012 at 17:20  
Blogger Flossie said...

Just for your information, Jon - and in the hope that His Grace doesn't ban me for posting offensive material - let's see who runs a website called Santorum.com, which defines his name thus:

santorum (san-TOR-um) n.1. The frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the by-product of anal sex.

Well, it's homosexual activist Dan Savage, role model for gay youth with his 'It gets better' campaign.

Some role model.

6 January 2012 at 17:23  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Your Grace;
A politician has to have a hook to hang their policies on. If they are religious, it will be the moral code of their faith. If they are not religious, then what do they have to base their opinions on? It will probably be a hotchpotch of morals of the day, their own inklings and whatever they feel the people will favour to get them re-elected.
This leaves the voter perplexed as to whom to vote for as everyone has their own view of how a country should be run. The morals of the day are very variable and subject to lobbyists and pressure groups bringing about change and making opposition almost unthinkable or even criminal. It is a matter of conjecture what policy such a politician would pursue.
The Politician of faith will probably bases his policies on the foundations of their faith.( Dependant on which faith or which sect of such faith). This might be manifest or not. No one would have said Blair was Catholic by his actions.
Ultimately it is up to the voters to decide whether they want a Government that is like the ‘Willow the Wisp’ and flitting here and there according to which way the wind was blowing.
Kennedy probably got it right in his election speeches. It was more about meeting the needs of the country than which church he went to. But did he follow he Catholic beliefs and impose them on the people? As an Evangelical Christian, I believe that a Government needs to cut a line between enforcement of some principals like murder, but leaving other issues like sexual morality up to the individual.Ariadne said‘Abortion is better than an unwanted child’. Many would disagree with that because they believe the foetus is a living person. I certainly believe that abortion should not be used as a method of contraception. I also believe that the Gay community should be left alone to do whatever they do but I do not approve of their lifestyle being promoted to children as an acceptable alternative sexual life style.
My apologies for the length of this comment but it strikes at the core of how much Christians in Government should let their faith apply to governing a very mixed social population.
Integrity

6 January 2012 at 18:22  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dan Savage wrote recently in the Guardian about Santorum.

6 January 2012 at 18:25  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

Mr Integrity
I understand where you're coming from. However, surely we've learned by now that the 'private' actions of individuals have consequences for all of us and its impossible to sheild the young from them.

I'm with Santorum in using whatever influence he has to challenge homosexuality, abortion and contraception. He is against against any relationship other than monogamous, life long marriage between a man and a woman, seeing it as the basis of a stable society.

Sounds off the wall and 'extreme' but its actually the Christian view. Have we gone so far down the road of atheism that we are going to surrender to the godless philosophies of libertarianism?

6 January 2012 at 18:42  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Dodo I agree with you but there are some issues that should be applied to everyone but some that only the believer needs to follow even if it is desirable for others to do so also.

6 January 2012 at 19:05  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I almost wish it would happen myself as it would probably cause enormous ructions. Having our own religious nutter in the style of Ahmadinejad in power in the West might crystalise opinion about religion and freedom. A baptism of fire, so to speak. Freedom-loving people may actually take the philosophy of liberty more seriously.

6 January 2012 at 19:11  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

6 January 2012 at 19:16  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

DanJ0 What is liberty? How do you define it? Biblical Christianity provides a liberty that far exceeds the so called liberty of the Libertarians. It sets people free from the curse of sin and death and they know the boundaries within they are safe. That is a very liberating freedom.

6 January 2012 at 19:54  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Mr Integrity: "That is a very liberating freedom.

Oh dear.

I suppose a coercive state based on this sort of thing is justified in coercing citizens like me because I don't know what's actually good for me, mainly because what's good for me and everyone else is a matter for another reality; a reality no-one knows for sure exists. I must be a fool not to want a coercive state like that.

6 January 2012 at 20:12  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

Mr I said ...
" ... there are some issues that should be applied to everyone but some that only the believer needs to follow even if it is desirable for others to do so also."

I think this is the basis of political division between Protestants and Catholics and it has a theological basis.

As I understand it, and I am over simplifying it, Protestants believe in irrestible Grace as a free gift from God. Once received, salvation is assurred. Catholics believe in Grace but regard it as necessary for the recipient to participate with God in a developing process of sanctification. Grace can be lost.
The social and moral climate can assist or hinder a person's ability to respond to Grace.

Catholics believe a corrupt and degenerate society will self destroy and in the process drag people down with it. The bedrock of a society is the family and the sanctity of human life. For the good of everyone these have to be protected.

Leave homosexuality, abortion, divorce and contraception to individual 'choice' and free will and everyone suffers the consequences as the mesage of Christ becomes buried under anti-Christian messages and behaviours.

DanJ0
If electing a Catholic President stops sickos like Savage polluting our language and the minds of others it has to be a good thing.

6 January 2012 at 21:44  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

Ariadne said ...

"It (abortion) is horrible and abused but how could anyone say it is better to bear an unwanted child."

Not a subscriber Judaism, I see. I did wonder whether you were a secular nationalist.

6 January 2012 at 22:15  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Ariadne on abortion. It is horrible and abused but how could anyone say it is better to bear an unwanted child..

Your comment has troubled the Inspector for some hours now. It’s off thread so he doesn’t expect an answer. But the question is this, when did pregnancy become an illness. When did the foetus be considered no better than an unwanted dog unwisely bought for Christmas....

6 January 2012 at 22:23  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

Inspector
Your quite right asking Ariadne for an explanation of this comment. Her position contradicts the traditional teachings of Judiasm. The 'foetus' is a child made in the image of God. As Christians we believe it is receives a soul at conception. Its existance was predetemined before creation. Jews believe it receives a soul once it is half-way out of its mother's womb and only then is its life inviolate. Prior to this, the 'souless' child, made in the image of God, can only be killed if it is a direct threat to the mother's life.

6 January 2012 at 22:38  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Dodo Not such a great schism. A protestant too desires a morally strong society but as you say, works do not affect the believer’s salvation. My thread has been in connection with the role of Christians in Government. I believe that it is the role of the Church to effect the great commission and thus raise the spiritual and moral standard of society. The Christian in Government should work towards a society that would permit such a work of God to have effect. An over meddling could do what other commentators fear and turn the nation away from God.
In the end though, there is little we can do other than that which God has commanded us to do without a major work of Grace by God in a new Revival or Awakening

6 January 2012 at 23:42  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

Mr I said ...

" ... works do not affect the believer’s salvation"

Agreed ... but works reflect a person's faith and commitment and strengthens one's unity with Christ.

" ... it is the role of the Church to effect the great commission and thus raise the spiritual and moral standard of society."

Raising the spiritual and moral and standard of a society is important, agreed. First, because that's the only way a society will actually hold together. Second, it opens Christ's message to those willing to hear and provides a climate wherein they can be supported in their Christian pilgrimage.

7 January 2012 at 00:27  
Blogger TL Winslow said...

The Catholic Church has its dark side and dirty laundry, but you have to credit it with bearing the brunt of the Islamic jihad for centuries and throwing it back. The Islamization of Europe is clearly a direct result of the disintegration of the Church, along with atheistic Communism, which tried in vain to make Muslims give up their religion; instead, leftists now see Islamization as a way to further weaken the West they hate, and are hypocritically supporting it.

The West is ours to lose. If you're ready to start fighting back against Islam, the best place to start is by studying my Freakin' Powerful Muslimscope that brings anybody up to speed on the Muslim World including key orgs. and personalities, all free in your browser:

http://tinyurl.com/muslimscope

7 January 2012 at 02:33  
Blogger G. Tingey said...

Evangelical can include catholic - think of the murderous bastard Saint Dominic!

As for HICK SANATORIUM he's a stark raving nutter - I therefore hope he gets the Rethuglican nomination, thus garuanteeing an Obama win ....

As for the idea of heaven & salvation, which Sanatorium and Cranmer go ON and ON about .....
Has anyone noticed how close the Christian conception of heaven is so much like North Korea: eternal rule by the great leader, his son and cronies; and the masses endlessly singing his choreographed praises. Heaven, at least, has solved the problems of food shortages and disease.

WELL?

7 January 2012 at 10:19  
Blogger martin sewell said...

RIck Santorum has interested me since I watched him talking about his excellent book "It takes a family" on a tv programme during a US visit . He was ahead of IDS/ Frank FIeld in his compassionate "conservatism". The book is worth reading.

I found him thoughtful clear and challenging. He has a real feel for ordinary people and whatever one makes of his views he states them with integrity and conviction. This is not to be sneered at.

Like Nadine Dorries over here, he has become horribly attacked in a most hateful way by those who have not one tenth of his compassion and interest in solving real problems for ordinary people.

I am not sure he can win the nomination: my suspicion was he could not but he could be VP - though Rubio is probably
a less controversial pick.

At least all 3 Iowa leaders were in their individual ways
" their own men" - not too much spin. Santorum and Paul think for themselves and Romney can' t be bought.

My guess is that Romney will seal the deal after Super Tuesday.

After that it will be all fire on Obama.

My hunch is that the Democrats will regret Sarah Palin being off the ticket . She has seen off attacks on her integrity ( cf scrutiny of her Governatorial emails -Obama's
Illinois Senatorial emails all " lost")

She will be out their, well funded, ripping Obama daily and commanding a guaranteed platform with every pronouncment. Go Rogue Momma Grisley!

7 January 2012 at 10:24  
Blogger bluedog said...

Mr Tingey @ 10.19, this communicant suggests that you log in to www.ricksantorum.com, tick the appropriate boxes and click 'Submit'.

The world will be a better place when you do.

7 January 2012 at 11:42  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

Tingey

Actually, St Dominic offers a suggestion for tackling the growing threat of Islamisation:

"Zeal must be met by zeal, humility by humility, false sanctity by real sanctity, preaching falsehood by preaching truth."

Islam is moving into the moral and spiritual vacuum created by fools such as you.

7 January 2012 at 13:36  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

Tingey

Been reflecting on your comments about Heaven.

As you're very clearly unbalanced and 'troubled' - some early life trauma, perhaps? - you may well be granted entry to Paradise. You see, God is merciful. However, I would recommend professional help in this life as a precaution as this cannot be guarenteed.

7 January 2012 at 15:15  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Dodo. Tingey making it to heaven on a Section 55 ! The Lord does indeed move in mysterious ways, his wonders to perform...

7 January 2012 at 16:43  
Blogger IanCad said...

Dodo @ 17:11

"When did he say there should be no seperation between Church and State? It's certainly not a Catholic teaching!"

As recently as last March Mr. Santorum stated that President Kennedy's wholehearted support for the principle of the Separation of Church and State "did great damage."
Pope Pius 1X certainly condemned the priciple. Pius X1 was somewhat more conciliatory, confining his contempt of the notion "more especially to Catholic countries."

Homosexual marriage and abortion are not a presidential responsibility. The decisions are delegated to the States.
Israel is quite capable of looking after herself and dealing with Iran as she sees fit. Mr. Santorum is infected with the virus that defines him as a "Chicken Hawk" Having never served in the military he seems most anxious to send other young men to their deaths.
I most certainly would prefer a "Cultural Christian" in The White House. Would Pat Robertson have been to your liking? Americans tend to be a panicky lot and shedding a few Constitutional niceties in the face of a crisis comes all too easily to them.

7 January 2012 at 17:47  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

len

As usual you don't know what you're talking about! What Santorum actually said:

"All of us have heard people say, 'I privately am against abortion, homosexual marriage, stem cell research, cloning. But who am I to decide that it's not right for somebody else?' It sounds good, but it is the corruption of freedom of conscience."

And so far as the States legislating is concerned, it is the power of the Supreme Court to overrule their laws that troubles him.

And Catholic teaching is most certainly against a theocratic union between Church and State. The Church has always taught that the Church and the State are separate powers and each has its own legitimate sphere of influence.

St. Thomas Aquinas summarised it:

"Both powers originate in God. Therefore the secular power is subordinate to the spiritual power in matters that concern the salvation of souls. In matters that concern more the civil common good, a person is obliged to obey the secular rather than the spiritual power."

But to conclude that the Church must therefore declare itself entirely separate from the Church runs contrary to the Church's perennial teaching too.

The encyclicals Immortale Dei and Libertas Praestantissimum by Leo XIII, are devoted to the Catholic Church's teaching on this.

"There are [those] . . . who affirm that the morality of individuals is to be guided by the divine law, but not the morality of the State, for that in public affairs the commands of God may be passed over, and may be entirely disregarded in the framing of laws. Hence follows the fatal theory of the need of separation between Church and State. But the absurdity of such a position is manifest. Nature herself proclaims the necessity of the State providing means and opportunities whereby the community may be enabled to live properly, that is to say, according to the laws of God. For, since God is the source of all goodness and justice, it is absolutely ridiculous that the State should pay no attention to these laws or render them abortive by contrary enactments. Besides, those who are in authority owe it to the commonwealth not only to provide for its external well-being and the conveniences of life, but still more to consult the welfare of men's souls in the wisdom of their legislation."

Pope Benedict has said:

“A true separation between church and state does not leave out the spiritual dimension but acknowledges that the latter is, in a radical way, a guarantee of our freedom and autonomy in earthly matters since Jesus said that one ought to “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s . . . .” Indeed if Roman coins bore Caesar in effigy and must be returned to him, the Creator’s fingerprint, that of the one and only lord of life, is in man’s heart.”

7 January 2012 at 18:15  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

7 January 2012 at 18:29  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

len

Apologies.

The above post should have been addressed to IanCad.

7 January 2012 at 18:31  
Blogger IanCad said...

Dodo,

I am most flattered to be addressed as "Len."

You wrote, quoting Rick Santorum:

"All of us have heard people say, 'I privately am against abortion, homosexual marriage, stem cell research, cloning. But who am I to decide that it's not right for somebody else?' It sounds good, but it is the corruption of freedom of conscience."

You are getting it completely backwards. Here is a little more of the story in the National Catholic Reporter.

American VIPs included Archbishop John Myers of Newark, N.J., a member of Opus Dei’s Priestly Society of the Holy Cross, and U.S. Senator Rick Santorum, Republican of Pennsylvania. Santorum told NCR he is not a member of Opus Dei, but an admirer of Escriva.
……

He told NCR that a distinction between private religious conviction and public responsibility, enshrined in John Kennedy’s famous speech in 1960 saying he would not take orders from the Catholic church if elected president, has caused “much harm in America.”

“All of us have heard people say, ‘I privately am against abortion, homosexual marriage, stem cell research, cloning. But who am I to decide that it’s not right for somebody else?’ It sounds good,” Santourm said. “But it is the corruption of freedom of conscience.”

Santorum told NCR that he regards George W. Bush as “the first Catholic president of the United States.”


You further wrote:

"And so far as the States legislating is concerned, it is the power of the Supreme Court to overrule their laws that troubles him."

No! it is only those laws that violate the Constitution that The Supreme Court may overule. The whims of a President matter not a whit. Or at least they should not. Now, with the likes of Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito on the bench, the whims of a visceral Catholic President could become the laws of the land.

When, and until then, you can provide a clear, unambiguous refutation of the statements made by the Popes Pius 1X and X1 regarding their positions on the Separation of Church and State, I can only adhere to my previous posts.

7 January 2012 at 19:36  
Blogger Roy said...

Jon said...

Poverty isn't something I recognise as an Evangelical concern at all. Evangelicals mostly preach the 'prosperity gospel' ...

What do you know about the history of the Salvation Army?

One of the motivations of the temperance movement in the 19th century was to stop irresponsible men wasting their wages on booze and instead to get them to fulfil their family responsibilities.

Of course, in a society that is so dumbed down that a reporter with a responsible job in the BBC does not know the difference between Roman Catholicism and Evangelical Christianity it is not surprising that many people know little about the latter.

Many trade unionists and labour leaders in the 19th century and the first 6 decades of the 20th century were staunch non-conformists. It was said that the Labour Party owen more to Methodism than to Marxism.

7 January 2012 at 20:55  
Blogger bluedog said...

Well said, Mr IanCad @ 19.36

7 January 2012 at 22:06  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

IanCad

You see, you have misrepresented the man. He has nowhere said or implied or said he would 'take orders' from the Catholic Church! He was talking about private conscience and public duty.

As for the Catholic view on the proper relationship between the Church and State, do read the documents cited. And it's not for me to enlighten you, especially when you have clearly formed a view on a misreading of Pope Pius XI.

Have you actually read Pius XI's encyclical Dilectissima Nobis from1933? When you do, you'll see he took a pragmatic approach toward the different forms of government.

"Universally known is the fact that the Catholic Church is never bound to one form of government more than to another, provided the Divine rights of God and of Christian consciences are safe."

Please don't worry, Rome isn't trying to take over the White House - just trying to get Jesus' voice heard amidst the din of atheism and secularism.

7 January 2012 at 23:38  
Blogger Frank P said...

Chris Christie will be Mitt Romney's running mate. Bookmark this.

8 January 2012 at 00:51  
Blogger IanCad said...

Dodo,

Re-read his words. He is clearly stating that his public responsibility should be in harmony with his personal religious views. As a fervent adherent to Rome this creates big problems within a pluralistic society.

Yes, I have read Pius's 1933 encyclical, and, as with all such documents it is a misleading mish-mash of confusion and convolution. What a contrast to the plain teaching of Scripture!
Read this exerpt and then tell me that the Papacy supports the priciple of the Separation of Church and State.

"---In this way means was ought to do away with the Society of Jesus - which can well glory in being one of the soundest auxiliaries of the Chair of Peter - with the hope, perhaps, of then being able with less difficulty to overthrow in the near future, the Christian Faith and morale in the heart of the Spanish Nation, which gave to the Church of God the grand and glorious figure of Ignatius Loyola.
18. In this manner they wished to strike fully, as We already have publicly declared, at the very Supreme Authority of the Catholic Church. They did not dare name explicitly the person of the Roman Pontiff, but, in fact, they have defined as extraneous to the Spanish Nation the authority of the Vicar of Christ, as if the authority of the Roman Pontiff, conferred by Jesus, Himself, could be called extraneous to any part of the world whatsoever; as if the recognition of the Divine Authority of Christ can minimize legitimate human authority; as if the spiritual and supernatural power could be in contrast with that of the State - a contrast that cannot exist except through the malice of those who desire and want it because they know that without the Shepherd little sheep would go astray and more easily become the prey of false shepherds."


Dodo,
Loyalty is one of the truly abiding virtues. On that score you are virtuous indeed.
However, loyalty can degenerate into stubborness and we all know the definition of that.

8 January 2012 at 09:24  
Blogger srizals said...

Pardon me your grace, it's not for a Muslim to ask anyone to submit to Islam.

We only 'ask' people to submit to God and try to be the best Muslim he or she can be and not to despair from the forgiveness of the Lord.

We are after all, imperfect little humans. After being 'asked', anyone is free to make a choice.

All actions have consequences. Then life goes on as it always does. Harmony in differences of almost everything that exist around us.

8 January 2012 at 11:28  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

I say Srizals, why do Muslims who wish to leave your religion end up dead ?

8 January 2012 at 12:23  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

IanCad

There is nothing in the section you've quoted implying a unity of State and Church.

As you know this was written at the time of the Socialist persecution of the Spanish Church. It is pointing out that God's will for His people should reign throughout the world and His Church should be the universal shephard under the leadership of His appointed representative.

I do agree it is a difficult letter to digest, that's why I quoted St Aquinas earlier:

"Both powers (church and state) originate in God. Therefore the secular power is subordinate to the spiritual power in matters that concern the salvation of souls. In matters that concern more the civil common good, a person is obliged to obey the secular rather than the spiritual power."

Is it wrong for Christians to actively resist liberalism and individualism and the libertarian lifestyles that come with removing Christian values from the laws governing society?

And, by the way, I am not necessarily a supporter of Santorum. His Catholicism is one thing. How he interprets this and applies it as a politician is another matter.

In my opinion, his foreign policy is potentially very dangerous. I also think his observations about Europe are somewhat overstated and unduly pessimistic at this time. Plus, I'm not sure just how one can impose a Christian morality on a nation who have grown used to exercising personal judgement, albeit ungodly. Nevertheless, if a majority in a democracy decide to roll back anti-christian laws permitting homosexuality and abortion then surely that's as valid as majority votes in favour of them?

8 January 2012 at 12:43  
Blogger srizals said...

And who would that be Mr. Inspector General, Sir?

Could you give me their names? And I would much appreciated it if you could include the instances they were in. Was there a widespread bloody conflict involved? A prolonged war or brute oppression for example.

I need to know these minute details in order to give my opinion on them.

Thanks.

8 January 2012 at 13:56  
Blogger Penn's Woods, USA said...

Dodo...We musn't forget that abortion and gay "marriage" were shoved down our throats and made legal by the courts and NOT by the vote of the people. Roe verses Wade was made law in 1973 when the US Supreme Court overturned a Texas anti abortion interpretation making abortion legal in the USA. The last poll I read concerning abortion was that 63% of the people in the USA are against it unless it's used to save the life of the mother or in caes of rape and incest. In 2010 the liberal US 9th Circuit of Appeals in California overturned Proposition 8(a bill making gay "marriage" illegal in Califoria)passed at the ballot box in 2008 by over 60% of the voters. In other States gay "marriage" was also made legal by the courts and not by the voters. We live in a tyrany of liberal judges and courts against the will of the people. All this stuff posted here about Santorum being some kind of mole for the Vatican or a modern day Catholic ayatollah is too silly to be taken seriously. Remember back in 2008 when we learned that then Presidential candidate Obama sat in the pews of a "church" in Chicago for 17 years and listened to the rantings and ravings of the Reverend Wright who spewed hatred of Jews, whites, the USA gov't, Isreal, even all of Western Civilization every Sunday? How edifying was that for Obama? During the campaign when questioned about this he denied having ever heard such hatred by his "minister" but tapes of Wright's Sunday sermons say differently. The Europeans loved this fraud we now have as our President.

8 January 2012 at 14:18  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Srizals. I would guess that you are Far Eastern muslim and you are more civilised than the south asians where this kind of behaviour is frequent in villages. The problem for you is that it is done in the name of Islam, and as we know, there is only one Islam. A similar fate awaits homosexuals and adulterers (although in the latter case it seems to be the women who get it). That kind of behaviour is going to take decades, maybe even centuries to stop, as Islam has no overall leadership to intervene and law down a more relaxed law.

So you see your situation. You advocate a religion whose excesses are well known in the West. It’s always in the back of one's mind, EVERYONE'S mind...

8 January 2012 at 14:39  
Blogger IanCad said...

Dodo,

There is a conflict between the writings of Thomas Aquinas and those of the Popes we have been debating. A clear, unequivocal statement from Benedict on the matter should settle it. Wait a minute! If he were to support the precept of the Separation of Church and State, then he would have to admit that the previous infallible Popes, were in fact, very fallible. All he really can do, if he had the mind, is to issue another declaration further obfuscating and confusing the matter.

Absolutely we as Christians should resist the "Liberalism" by which I presume you mean Homosexuality and Abortion. The latter is an offence against the innocent and defenceless. The Roe v Wade decision, I believe, should be overturned. Public acts of Homosexual behaviour can be viewed as breaches of the peace. It is up to the various States to rule on this as they see fit. Certainly, I believe that what consenting adults do within the privacy of their own homes should be no business of the States.

Quite how you can condemn Individualism and Libertarianism is beyond me. We are created as individuals. Each one of us is unique and precious to God. Are you suggesting that greed, selfishness and other shortcomings common to us all should be criminalized?
Libertarianism is the philosophy that produced the US Constitution. In our country the Whigs clave to it. Both Pitts, Robert Jenkinson and George Canning were Libertarians.
Lord Acton (fine Catholic that he was) trumpeted the doctrine.
Today, we have David Davis, Daniel Hannan and Nigel Farage, all trying to keep the faith.
Perhaps you are conflating Libertarians with Libertines; A totally different species.

Politically we seem to have similar views on Rick Santorum's foreign policy.
Perhaps he will collapse and burn as have several others. Maybe Ron Paul will be the nominee although I doubt if there are enough voters with the courage to make that happen.

One final point. The US is not a Democracy. It is a Republic with all the Constitutional restraints that limit the impulses of a fickle electorate.

8 January 2012 at 16:09  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "Is it wrong for Christians to actively resist liberalism and individualism and the libertarian lifestyles that come with removing Christian values from the laws governing society?"

You could try siding with another religious minority in the UK which wants to control other people's lives in this way based on religious principles too: Islam. Careful though, they might slip in Sharia Law into our criminal law while your back is turned and then where will you be? Wishing we had our traditional liberal society again, I expect.

8 January 2012 at 16:36  
Blogger Oswin said...

Srizals: where have you been old chap??? I was beginning to think that you'd been 'removed' for too often consorting with the enemy. Welcome back.

8 January 2012 at 17:57  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

8 January 2012 at 19:31  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

IanCad

No Pope has given an infallible teaching on the relationship between the Church and State.

The encyclicals Immortale Dei and Libertas Praestantissimum by Leo XIII are as close to authoritive teaching as you'll get but are not regarded as 'infallible'.

Leo, like all Popes, held stong views about the primacy of Christ's message and His Church as the proper foundation for society (well he was Catholic!). He wrote " ... is quite unlawful to demand, defend, or to grant unconditional freedom of thought, or speech, of writing or worship, as if these were so many rights given by nature to man".

Clearly this clashes with any man made or inspired political philosophy that prizes individual liberty over Christianity as the basic moral principle of society.

8 January 2012 at 19:35  
Blogger srizals said...

Mr. Inspector General,

Does this mean you're using hearsay for your conviction?

I ask the names and place, Mr. Inspector General, to understand the situation. Not some unlawfully, invisible and remote villages in the far south. Perhaps people do kill others in extreme disapproval, but saying that all Muslims fond of killing heretics to show just how intolerant Muslims are, is somehow absurd. I mean coming from a Christian such as you with all the historical baggages and not to mention recent blunders that somehow intertwined a liar with a bliar or something like that. And you are worried over 'Islamic expansion'?. This reality twist won't last long, Mr. Inspector General. What would happened then? People can't be fooled forever. Some of them will soon wake up.

The hundreds of thousands that died and are still suffering because of your 'civilisation' meddling somehow seemed rather puny compared to 'Islamic threat and terrorism' so well portrayed by certain quaters in the West.

And do remember, all the aggressions were all based on lies.

I think this is what going to be at the back of the head of any decent man for many, many years to come.

There are more than 50 Muslim nations in the world. Except for Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Pakistan, I don't recall any recent killings of Ex-Muslims that turned their heels. Not that I'm aware of.

Would you be kindly enough to share what you might have known more than the less informative me?

Nice to see you too Oswin. I'm still alive and kicking, Oswin. The drones can't find me yet. ;)

9 January 2012 at 15:32  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Ah, there you are srizals, you missed out Iran dear fellow. But the point remains, is not that brace of countries enough. Besides, you Far Eastern types are much more civilised than your Middle East co-religionists, but you’re tarred with the same brush you see. And it’s THEIR brush. Good point about one civilisation expanding into another though, we all want to be members of the dominant side, we don’t want to change. Must go old chap, have visitor coming soon. Do carry on...

9 January 2012 at 18:50  
Blogger Oswin said...

Srizals: I meant your own side old chap, not ours. Wouldn't want you scimitared for hobnobbing. ;o)

9 January 2012 at 19:17  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

/

9 January 2012 at 19:49  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

Srizals, Do you listen to the news? 2.5 million killed in Southern Sudan, 400,000 killed in East Timor, 1.5 million killed in the Armenian genocide. Have a look at Jihad Watch to hear about daily atrocities by Boko Harem Alqaeda, etc. , kidnappings of Christian girls and forced marriages to Muslim warlords, the beheading of Christians whose families were unable to pay the Jizya ransom and even when they paid found their son headless in a local morgue, the death sentence imposed on people because of what they said or were alleged to have said by Sharia courts. Read http://liberatednow.blogspot.com/ or http://www.fatherzakaria.net/ or Answering Islam or my own book ‘The End of Heresy’ published by authorhouse .com. Open your eyes.

9 January 2012 at 19:50  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Srizals. That fellow Shacklefree has it right you know, take it to your heart. By the way, you have the Inspector’s sincerest condolences that Islam made it to your country all the way from Mecca. Dashed bad luck old chap, you people deserve better...

9 January 2012 at 20:30  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

Srizals, apart from the daily brutality consider the evidence of Islamic history. A couple in Mohammed’s time had brought up an orphan as their own child but had a problem when he was older because a Muslim woman has to cover herself in the presence of males who are not family members. They asked Mohammed for his advice and he said that if she were to breastfeed her adopted adult son that would make him a member of the family. There was an Egyptian cleric recently who advocated the breastfeeding of adult men because of this teaching. Clearly Mohammed was not a prophet and this is even more apparent when we consider that when he was over 50 Mohammed married a 6 year old girl and consummated the marriage when she was 9. How can you follow a person like that?

9 January 2012 at 21:39  
Blogger srizals said...

On the contrary Mr. Inspector General, we survived most of Western Imperialism, while some, would call it 'Civilised Thievery'. Not much different from today scenario of course.

Funny how some of their descendents nowadays seemed to be quite allergic to their ancestor's 'former' Muslim subjects mingling among them. Maybe the loss sense of superiority I guess.

Shacklefree, may I have the resources of the casualties you have stated?

I'm sorry if I have to take some time replying. The real world, it is so demanding these days. Plus the cold and wet weather I’m having.

As for the breastfeeding issue you have brought up, the divine command to cover the modesty of a woman had just been revealed at that time. Before, Muslim women could dress like most decent women of the West nowadays. Since the revelation of the hijab, a woman can only let her face and hands appear under normal circumstances. So the Prophet offered the woman in question a solution, to feed her adopted son with her breast milk in order for his adopted son to sense her as his mother and vice versa. This solution is exclusively for her.

And if you carefully read between the lines, you could honestly see that she didn't and couldn't breastfeed his adopted son like a mother to her infant. There are many ways to give breast milk, Shacklefree, you should honestly know that. And even most of us depended on cow’s milk once; nobody would ever believe we actually suckle from any cow. Except for a pervert.

The fact that only the cleric you mentioned ever to issue such opinion, would of course, show how he’s in the wrong and far from the common practises of Muslims then and now.

As for the young marriage of Aisyah and the Prophet, maybe we can begin looking back at history and recent situation. Girls aren't little girls, Shacklefree, not when they menstruated and have the ability to conceive another human being in their wombs, give birth and of course, breastfeed their own little babies. Little girls just don't do that. It's unnaturally unnatural. Google Wanwisa Janmuk and you’ll see what I mean. Her husband was not jailed. Neither did their parents.

By the way, are you a Catholic or a Protestant? Thanks.

10 January 2012 at 07:09  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

/

10 January 2012 at 17:52  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

Srizals says. As for the breastfeeding issue you have brought up, the divine command to cover the modesty of a woman had just been revealed at that time. Before, Muslim women could dress like most decent women of the West nowadays.
Do you really think that this was revealed by Almighty God? Remember that when he first started having visions, Mohammad thought he was being visited by satan and it is clear that he continued to proclaim satan’s laws afterwards. He had people slaughtered just for writing poems about him – God’s prophet? I don’t think so.

Are you claiming that the 9 year old Aisha was menstruating – what is your evidence? Even if she was, does that justify paedophilia?

With regard to Western imperialism I do not justify it but it pales into insignificance to Islamic imperialism. Islam began invading other countries from the outset and initially all these countries were Christian so a small military elite ruled over a much larger Christian population who had to pay the Jizya tax from which converts to Islam were exempted. That’s why the Caliphs were so wealthy. For 1000 years after the invention of Islam, the countries bordering Islam were under constant threat and in the modern day the slaughter has re-occurred. Is it really surprising that Islamic countries today are generally ruled by despots. Here are some quotes from my book ‘The End of Heresy’ which references other sources.

Trifkovic relates that on the eve of the First Crusade, a formal blueprint for Islamic government was prepared by the prominent Islamic scholar Abu Ala Al-Mawardi and it re-iterated that ‘The House of Islam is in a state of permanent war with the lands that surround it [and] peace will only come with the completion of global conquest.’

Trifkovic also relates that In 712 A.D. the Muslim invasion of India began on the orders of Hajjaj, the governor of Iraq and under the leadership of Qasim. He took three days to slaughter the population of Debal.

The New York Times of May 17th, 2002 records that a judge in Pakistan sentenced a young woman to death for “adultery” by stoning. Her crime was that she had been raped by her brother-in-law and the rape was evidence to her crime of “having intercourse outside of marriage. The judge defended his actions by saying that his judgment was not a personal ruling but was mandated by Sharia law.

It is a sad fact that most Muslims had more rights and freedoms when they lived under European rule than they have had under Sharia law. … The slave trade was only abolished in Muslim countries because of European rule. http://debate.org.uk/topics/coolcalm/index.html - then click on the link “The Dark Side of Islam”
In ‘Leaving Islam’, … Muhammad bin Abdullah, described how, after Bangladesh had obtained independence from West Pakistan, the Muslims then turned on the non-Muslims who had previously been their compatriots in fighting for freedom. He described the killing of millions and the rape of hundreds of thousands justified by the Islamic leadership in which the ideological powerhouses were the mosque. He says that: The Koran does not contain a single humane teaching that was not here before Islam. Again and again, Islam was mortgaged in the hands of killer leadership … nothing can stop Islam from breeding cruel killers time and time again. That is because many of the Prophet’s deeds and Koranic instruction are always alive there to act as fertile ground for breeding killers. http://www.islamreview.com/articles/islamapostasy.shtml.

Just go through the security at airports nowadays to convince yourself about the viciousness of Islam.

Finally does any of this have anything to do with wheter I am Catholic or Protestant?

10 January 2012 at 17:53  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Srizals. Far Eastern peoples were living in villages in the jungle before Europeans arrived. Of course, the Europeans didn’t come for your benefit, there was money to be made. Now look at how well off you are. Regarding muslim immigrants in the UK, there is good and bad. The good are professional types especially in Medicine. The bad are low educated Islamic extremists. The latter not wanted here, you know.

10 January 2012 at 18:12  
Blogger srizals said...

Shacklefree, either you're deliberately hiding some facts about 'paedophillic' marriages or honestly lack the information about them. But you must know that the marriage in dispute took place around 623/624. I think the only recorded event of such a marriage.

But for sharing sake,

"In medieval Europe, Gratian, the influential founder of Canon law in the twelfth century, accepted the traditional age of puberty for marriage (between 12 and 14) but he also said consent was "meaningful" if the children were older than seven.

Some authorities said consent could take place earlier. Such a marriage would be permanent as long as neither party sought annulment before reaching puberty (12 for girls and 14 for boys) or if they had already consummated the marriage.

Even if the husband had technically raped his wife before she reached puberty, the marriage was regarded as consummated.

It was this policy which was carried over into English common law, and although consent was necessary, force and influence or persuasion seemed to have been permissible elements.

Similarly Gratian's ideas about age became part of European civil law."

http://www.faqs.org/childhood/A-Ar/Age-of-Consent.html

“And yet it is the case that in 1396, Richard II of England was joined in marriage to young Isabel of France, who had been 7 years old when their engagement was announced the previous year in Paris.

Not only was there no uproar; there was considerable happiness expressed over the assumed probability that this marriage would end the Hundred Years War then in one of its periodic states of truce between the two kingdoms. Peace was to be ensured by joining together this man and this little girl in marriage.”

John McLaughlin, PhD
English Department, East Stroudsburg University, Now Emeritus

http://www.thedigitalfolklife.org/childmarriage.htm


"Irene Ducaena, wife of Alexius I Comnenus, was twelve at her marriage, and empress before she was fifteen; the Byzantine princess Theodora, Manuel's niece, was in her thirteenth year when she married Baldwin III of Jerusalem; and Margaret-Maria of Hungary married Isaac II Angelus at the age of nine.

Agnes's age, then, was not unusual, especially as it was customary for young engaged couples in Constantinople to be brought up together in the house of the socially superior partner".
http://www.roman-emperors.org/aggiefran.htm

In the twelfth century, Pope Alexander III ruled:

“If a girl of tender age is betrothed and delivered to her husband, and afterwards desires to marry a different man, her petition is not to be granted if her husband swears that he has had carnal knowledge of her even at the early age of eleven or twelve.”

Quoted in John Fulton, The Laws of Marriage (New York: E. and J.B. Young, 1883), 112.

The marital age of brides during George Washington of America was 10 years old and that was around 1789-1797.

I hope afterwards you would retract your allegation to the Last Prophet of God. It is so unbecoming.

If you're a Catholic,

"Joseph married Mary when he was ninety and she was twelve. The Catholic Encyclopedia states:

A year after his wife’s death, as the priests announced through Judea that they wished to find in the tribe of Juda a respectable man to espouse Mary, then twelve to fourteen years of age. Joseph, who was at the time ninety years old, went up to Jerusalem among the candidates…"

The age of consent as we know it changes according to man-made law and with the introduction of modern schooling time, and of course, the sexual problems engulfing the West. That is why the age of consent changed with time. Puberty as we know it, do not follow man-made law or 'modernity'.

My time is up, will continue to address other issues brought up by you afterwards. Thanks.

10 January 2012 at 20:47  
Blogger srizals said...

Shacklefree, apart from our current discussion, I have something to ask of you. What is the Bible answer to atheism? If it is a Word of God, wouldn't God have an answer to those who do not believe in Him, since then until now? Thanks.

11 January 2012 at 09:53  
Blogger srizals said...

Shacklefree, Muslims are still but humans. Once they are tempted to the dark side of themselves and abandoned the Islamic principles that they should uphold, they are bound to transgress and lost God's favour.

Only if they are true to themselves, their faith and oath to Allah, they would be able to demonstrate the true quality of a Muslim. For example, Saladin.

Unlike Crusaders that 'cleanse' the Holy City with thousands upon thousands of Muslims, Jews and Dark Christians' blood, Saladin showed the Muslim ways of doing things.

You can never change this fact, Shacklefree. Not anyone for that matter.

If we were to play a game, let say, say a name after a name or an event after an event, in terms of similarity and contrast, what name would cross your mind if I were to say 'Vlad The Impaler'?

What event would cross your mind when I say, 'the fall of Jerusalem to crusaders'?

What would come across your mind when I say 'the Scavenger's daughter'?

You see, throughout history, only the White Christians managed to destroy a whole race and built themselves over the ruins of other races and nations.

The Red Indians, the Incas, the Australian aborigines and not forgetting the Africans, especially Congolese to name a few. Haiti was a manifestation of White Christians slavery, Shacklefree.

I’m not saying that there is no slavery in Muslims’ history. There were. I admit it. But the proportion and the end result are not the same as what the West slavery system had inflicted upon the human race. With the coming of Islam, slavery was abolished gradually. For example, Muslims are required to free their slaves as atonement to certain errs during the time of the Prophet.

You can't change historical facts, Shacklefree. For instance, only White Christians advocated the penny for cut hands of Africans, not because of thievery. But because of genocidal intent.

"In the words of author Peter Forbath's: "The baskets of severed hands, set down at the feet of the European post commanders, became the symbol of the Congo Free State. ... The collection of hands became an end in itself. Force Publique soldiers brought them to the stations in place of rubber; they even went out to harvest them instead of rubber... They became a sort of currency. They came to be used to make up for shortfalls in rubber quotas, to replace... the people who were demanded for the forced labour gangs; and the Force Publique soldiers were paid their bonuses on the basis of how many hands they collected."

Maybe you have never heard about the Congolese and their sufferings. For that I’ll share this link.

“Others had been kidnapped during the raids on villages in their childhood and brought to Catholic missions, when they received a military training in conditions close to slavery. Armed with modern weapons and the chicotte — a bull whip made of hippopotamus hide — the Force Publique routinely took and tortured hostages (mostly women), flogged, and raped the natives. They also burned recalcitrant villages, and above all, took human hands as trophies on the orders of white officers to show that bullets hadn't been wasted.”

http://www.religioustolerance.org/genocong.htm

And do find out who had killed the most and frequently appeared in history of inhumanity. It would surprise most of us.

http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/leopold.html#backg

11 January 2012 at 15:44  
Blogger srizals said...

And for those who wanted to know about Muslims, do visit this link. Thanks.

http://www.ucalgary.ca/applied_history/tutor/islam/beginnings/

11 January 2012 at 16:23  
Blogger srizals said...

Last but not least for tonight, I end with this quote.

"The Qur'an says that men and women are created equally before God, and that while they have different attributes, neither gender is superior.

Both men and women have souls and can go to Heaven if they lead a life without sin, contradicting early Christian doctrine that women do not possess souls and are inherently evil, because of Eve's original sin.

Islam does not blame Eve for what it believes happened in the Garden of Eden; it maintains that both Adam and Eve were responsible, but they repented before God and were forgiven.

Believing women descended from the sinful Eve colored Christian ideas of women's character for centuries - as untrustworthy, morally inferior, wicked beings - with menstruation, pregnancy, and childbirth believed to be punishment for all women after Eve.

The Qur'an has no such images of women, who are not put on earth solely to bear children, but also to do good deeds the same as men."

http://www.ucalgary.ca/applied_history/tutor/islam/beginnings/

Good night ladies and gentlemen. Sleep well.

11 January 2012 at 17:12  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

\

11 January 2012 at 17:48  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

Srizals: If the marriage is “the only recorded event of such a marriage” does that not raise serious questions. Islam as far as I know teaches that Mohammed by special dispensation was the only person ever to be allowed to marry more than 4 wives. He had according to Islamic tradition more than 12 wives and that doesn’t included the women he took with his right arm in battle. The true prophets did not get special dispensations to indulge their addictions.

I had to look up your reference to Gratian but the statement of a medieval canon lawyers has no authority on its own. In Islam any tin pot mullah can come up with an interpretation of what Mohammed meant. However, it is clear that very often they are accurate in their interpretation because Mohammed did kill people who insulted him, he did kidnap and ransom people, he did resort to piracy and theft to support himself when he was exiled, and he did say that breastfeeding adult males makes them part of the family. Even if we reduce that to giving them a woman’s milk by means of a cup that does not reduce the idiocy.

As we know mankind has always had a predilection for bending the rules. In medieval times marriages were sometimes arranged for financial and political reasons. That has nothing to do with Christianity. Christ gave us an example of celibacy and the example of Mary which you quoted doesn’t work because the marriage to Joseph was never consummated – Mary remained a virgin. Joseph gives us a much better example of virtue and restraint than Mohammed.

You mentioned Richard II being engaged to a 7 year old. You didn’t mention that canon law dictated that such marriages should not be consummated until the age of at least 12 for a girl and 13 for a boy.
You seem to be a very educated person who is doing his best to be faithful to the teaching you believe. I commend that and I accept absolutely that Muslims are humans and many of them live exemplary lives. My criticisms are against Islam and what it teaches so I do not retract my statement about Mohammed. He was clearly not a prophet of Almighty God.

11 January 2012 at 17:50  
Blogger Albert said...

Srizals,

The Qur'an says that men and women are created equally before God, and that while they have different attributes, neither gender is superior.

Both men and women have souls and can go to Heaven if they lead a life without sin, .


A few things, if I may. Firstly, as touching the equality of women in the Qur'an. A man may beat his wife may he not? A Hadith shows Mohammed made a woman return to her husband without admonishing him, when she had come to Mohammed complaining she was suffering such terrible domestic violence that her wounds turned green. Numerous passages in the Qur'an show men are superior to women. What kind of equality do you mean?

Now as touching Christianity:

contradicting early Christian doctrine that women do not possess souls and are inherently evil, because of Eve's original sin

(i) What is your evidence that Christians believed women didn't have souls?
(ii) How do you reconcile that with the plain teaching of the Bible (e.g. Lk.1.46)?
(iii) How do you reconcile the claim that in early Christianity women are inherently evil, with the Christian belief that nothing that exists can be inherently evil.
(iv) How do you reconcile the claim that in early Christianity women are inherently evil, with the fact that we honour Mary to such a degree that the Qur'an seems mistakenly to have taught that Mary was the third person of the Trinity?

11 January 2012 at 20:23  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

In addition, Trifkovic states that Muhammad once said to a group of women: “I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion than you. … The women asked what was deficient in their intelligence and religion, and he replied: “Is not the evidence of two women equal to the witness of one man?” They replied in the affirmative. He said: “This is the deficiency of your intelligence … Isn’t it true that a woman can neither pray nor fast during her menstrual period?” The women replied in the affirmative. He said: “This is the deficiency in your religion. [quoting Sahih of Al-Bukhari, vol. 1, Hadith No. 301. See also vol. 3, Hadith No. 826]

11 January 2012 at 21:49  
Blogger srizals said...

Albert, read the Bible,

Genesis 3

11And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?

12And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.

13And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.

14And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:

15And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

16Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

1 Timothy 2

9In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;

10But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.

11Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

12But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

13For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

14And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

15Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

12 January 2012 at 09:39  
Blogger srizals said...

Tertullian (155-245 AD) wrote,

"(“Every woman should be ....) walking about as Eve mourning and repentant, in order that by every garb of penitence she might the more fully expiate that which she derives from Eve,-the ignominy, I mean, of the first sin, and the odium (attaching to her as the cause) of human perdition.
"In pains and in anxieties dost thou bear (children), woman; and toward thine husband (is) thy inclination, and he lords it over thee."
And do you not know that you are (each) an Eve? The sentence of God on this sex of yours lives in this age: the guilt must of necessity live too.”

Johannes Teutonicus (1215 AD) opined,

“God is not glorified through the woman, as through a man, because through a woman the first sin came about”. Apparatus, C. 33, qu. 5, ch. 13, ad v
“Original sin is called original because it had its origin from a woman before it came to man.” Apparatus, C. 33, qu. 5, ch. 19, ad v

Guido de Baysio (1296 AD) said,

“Women are unfit to receive ordination, for ordination is reserved for perfect members of the church, since it is given for the distribution of grace to other men. But women are not perfect members of the church, only men are.”
“Moreover, woman was the effective cause of damnation since she was the origin of transgression and Adam was deceived through her, and thus she cannot be the effective cause of salvation, because holy orders causes grace in others and so salvation.” Rosarium C. 27, qu. 1, ch. 23

In The Hammer of Witches, written by two theologians, Jakob Sprenger OP and Heinrich Kramer OP opined,

“What else is woman but a foe to friendship, an unescapable punishment, a necessary evil, a natural temptation, a desirable calamity, a domestic danger, a delectable detriment, an evil of nature, painted with fair colours.”
“It should be noted that there was a defect in the formation of the first woman, since she was formed from a bent rib, that is, a rib of the breast, which is bent as it were in a contrary direction to man. And since through this defect she is an imperfect animal, she always deceives”.
“(When Eve answered the serpent) she showed that she doubted and had little faith in the word of God. All this is indicated by the etymology of the word; for Femina (Latin for "woman") comes from Fe (=faith) and Minus (=less) since she is ever weaker to hold and preserve the faith”.

This book was endorsed and recommended by Pope Innocent VIII in 1484 AD.

Many women would die horribly because of it. Another reminiscent of the good old days.

12 January 2012 at 09:57  
Blogger srizals said...

John Knox (1514 - 1572 AD) a well- known protestant theologian during the time of the Reformation after Luther and Calvin wrote in The First Blast of the Trumpet,

“ . . . God has pronounced sentence in these words: "Thy will shall be subject to thy husband, and he shall bear dominion over thee" (Gen. 3:16). As [though] God should say, "Forasmuch as you have abused your former condition, and because your free will has brought yourself and mankind into the bondage of Satan, I therefore will bring you in bondage to man.

For where before your obedience should have been voluntary, now it shall be by constraint and by necessity; and that because you have deceived your man, you shall therefore be no longer mistress over your own appetites, over your own will or desires.

For in you there is neither reason nor discretion which are able to moderate your affections, and therefore they shall be subject to the desire of your man. He shall be lord and governor, not only over your body, but even over your appetites and will." This sentence, I say, did God pronounce against Eve and her daughters, as the rest of the scriptures do evidently witness. So that no woman can ever presume to reign above man.”

Albert, could you quote the said hadith here? Thanks.

12 January 2012 at 10:12  
Blogger srizals said...

Ecclesiasticus Chapter 25

25:17. The sadness of the heart is every plague: and the wickedness of a woman is all evil.

25:18. And a man will choose any plague, but the plague of the heart:

25:19. And any wickedness, but the wickedness of a woman:

25:20. And any affliction, but the affliction from them that hate him:

25:21. And any revenge, but the revenge of enemies.

25:22. There is no head worse than the head of a serpent:

25:23. And there is no anger above the anger of a woman. It will be more agreeable to abide with a lion and a dragon, than to dwell with a wicked woman.

25:24. The wickedness of a woman changeth her face: and she darkeneth her countenance as a bear: and sheweth it like sackcloth. In the midst of her neighbours,

25:25. Her husband groaned, and hearing he sighed a little.

25:26. All malice is short to the malice of a woman, let the lot of sinners fall upon her.

25:27. As the climbing of a sandy way is to the feet of the aged, so is a wife full of tongue to a quiet man.

25:28. Look not upon a woman’s beauty, and desire not a woman for beauty.

25:29. A woman’s anger, and impudence, and confusion is great.

25:30. A woman, if she have superiority, is contrary to her husband.

25:31. A wicked woman abateth the courage, and maketh a heavy countenance, and a wounded heart.

25:32. Feeble hands, and disjointed knees, a woman that doth not make her husband happy.

25:33. From the woman came the beginning of sin, and by her we all die.

12 January 2012 at 10:23  
Blogger srizals said...

Thomas Aquinas in Summa Theologica wrote,

"As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active power of the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of a woman comes from defect in the active power...."

Q92, art. 1, Reply Obj. 1.

12 January 2012 at 10:26  
Blogger srizals said...

Ecclesiastes 7

23 All this I tested by wisdom and I said,

“I am determined to be wise”—
but this was beyond me.
24 Whatever exists is far off and most profound—
who can discover it?
25 So I turned my mind to understand,
to investigate and to search out wisdom and the scheme of things
and to understand the stupidity of wickedness
and the madness of folly.

26 I find more bitter than death
the woman who is a snare,
whose heart is a trap
and whose hands are chains.
The man who pleases God will escape her,
but the sinner she will ensnare."

St. Augustine of Hippo (354 to 430 CE) wrote,

"What is the difference whether it is in a wife or a mother, it is still Eve the temptress that we must beware of in any woman......I fail to see what use woman can be to man, if one excludes the function of bearing children."

Martin Luther (1483 to 1546):

"If they [women] become tired or even die, that does not matter. Let them die in childbirth, that's why they are there."

By the way, how's the weather over there Albert? It's chilling cold out here. As if the wind tries to freeze you in time in this crazy little world of ours.

12 January 2012 at 10:41  
Blogger Albert said...

Srizals,

The weather here is mixed, but mild. As for the Hadith I referred to, it is Bukhari 72:715. The Qur'anic passages permitting wife-beating are presumably obvious.

As to the rest of your comments, thank you for your efforts, and for exhorting me to read the Bible. Unfortunately, you have not replied to the point I made, but to the point I (tacitly) conceded.

Certainly, the Bible blames Eve for the Fall, that's why I didn't disagree with you on that. As a result there are plenty of comments in the tradition making a similar point.

But what I asked you for was a defence of your suggestion that (a) early Christians believed women didn't have souls & (b) they believed women were inherently evil. I asked you for evidence of that, but as far as I can see, you have provided none. Secondly, I asked you to respond to three pieces of evidence which show that women do have souls and can be highly exalted:

(i) the witness of the Bible
(ii) Christian theology which says that nothing existent can be inherently evil.
(iii) The apparent confusion of the Qur'an over the doctrine of the Trinity (thinking Mary and not the Holy Spirit is the third person of the Trinity). Even if this is not a confusion, it clearly shows the Qur'an recognises that Christian exalt at least one woman (Mary) very highly. You cannot therefore, continue your line of argument (I think) without putting yourself at odds with the Qur'an.

Finally, I referred to a Hadith and the Qur'an to show that Islam does not teach a greater gender equality than Christianity. I do not see that you have responded to either point.

Don't get me wrong. I think both Mohammed and the Qur'an were very "enlightened" considering the time and culture they came from. But I do not see that you have yet defended the positions you have asserted.

12 January 2012 at 13:30  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

I suggest that the focus on women’s faults is one-sided. Neither the Bible nor the Koran states that men are perfect. St. Paul says all our righteousness are as filthy rags and he was not referring only to women. If we look to other cultures with different faiths and none we still find women denigrated. The worldwide promotion of pornography and sexual trafficking is not the result of religious teaching.

The general condition of women in societies from the beginning has been that of subservience to men because men were stronger and could impose their will. However the focus of women was directed towards the care and nurturing of children and I suspect they obtained more fulfilment through this than the men did by warfare and competition. However we do see from the beginning a tension between men and women and I think that this supports the Judaeo/Christian teaching of the Fall and of the doctrine of Original Sin. Adam and Eve sinned and this had a physical effect as well as a spiritual one - creation was altered and Paradise lost. There were faults on both sides but in my view the main fault was Adam’s. The casting out of the Garden of Eden (whatever that might mean in metaphorical terms) was the result of Adam’s sin and not Eve’s. The sins were different because Adam had the authority. Therefore, men and women have slightly different ways to redeem that. Men must show proper authority and respect for their wives and women must show proper deference and respect to their husbands and encourage them to display a proper authority. The state has had a damaging effect in all this because over the years it has told men that they have no authority. For example, it has in some cases prevented men from stopping their wives having abortions.

12 January 2012 at 19:17  
Blogger Albert said...

Wise words Shacklefree. It's pretty clear that, 1 Tim. notwithstanding, the Bible holds Adam more responsible than Eve. Even in Genesis, the most serious consequence of the sin - death - is shown to be as a consequence of what he has done. Similarly, the parallel between Christ and Adam, shows the Bible holds Adam to be the prime mover (as it were) of evil. In any case, from early times, Christians realised that Mary had undone the curse of Eve by obeying and believing God, rather than obeying and believing the devil, as Eve had done and so the severity directed against woman in the early Church is at least tempered.

Men must show proper authority and respect for their wives and women must show proper deference and respect to their husbands and encourage them to display a proper authority.

Yes, and the Bible clearly requires more of husbands than wives:

"For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." This mystery is a profound one, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church; however, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.

I'm not sure how the dignity of woman is expressed in the Qur'an though. Perhaps Srizals can enlighten us.

12 January 2012 at 21:20  
Blogger srizals said...

Shacklefree, regarding the breastfeeding issue you've brought up

In Malik’s Muwatta, Hadith 1113, there is a background of the whole story;

“Abu Hudhaifa ibn Utba ibn Rabia, one of the companions of the Messenger of Allah -may Allah bless him and grant him peace- who was present at Badr, adopted Salim -who is called Salim, the mawla of Abu Hudhaifa- as the Messenger of Allah -may Allah bless him and grant him peace- adopted Zayd ibn Haritha.

He thought of him as his son, … When Allah the Exalted sent down in His Book what He sent down about Zayd ibn Haritha, 'Call them after their true fathers.

That is more equitable in the sight of Allah. If you do not know who their fathers were then they are your brothers in the deen and your mawali,' (Sura 33 Ayah 5) people in this position were traced back to their fathers. When the father was not known, they were traced to their mawla.

Sahla bint Suhayl who was the wife of Abu Hudhaifa, and one of the tribe of Amr ibn Luayy, came to the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and said, 'Messenger of Allah! We think of Salim as a son and he comes in to see me while I am uncovered. We only have one room, so what do you think about the situation?'

The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, 'Give him five drinks of your milk and he will be mahram by it.' She then saw him as a foster son.” (Muwatta of Malik, Hadith 1113)

In another source, the incident is futher elaborated.

Muhammad bin 'Umar (al-Waqidi) told us: Muhammad bin 'Abdullah, al-Zuhri's nephew, told us on authority of his father that he said, “An amount of a drink milk was collected in a pot or a glass, and Salim used to drink it every day, for five days.

After this, he used to enter upon her while her head was uncovered.

This was permission from Messenger of Allah to Sahla bint Suhail." (Ibn Sa’d’s Tabaqat al-Kubra 8/271 Quoted by Ibn Hajr in al-Isabah 4/11)

And the hadith in question,

'A'isha -Allah be pleased with her-reported that Sahla bint Suhail b. 'Amr came to Allah's Messenger –may Allah bless him- and said:

Messenger of Allah, Salim (the freed slave of Abu Hudhaifa) is living with us in our house, and he has attained (puberty) as men attain it and has acquired knowledge (of the sex problems) as men acquire,

whereupon he said: Feed him (i.e. make him drink your milk) so that he may become unlawful (in regard to marriage) (Sahih Muslim, Hadith 2636)

Another narration says the Prophet –may Allah bless him- said:

“Feed him, and it would remove what is there (expression of disgust) on the face of Abu Hudhaifa.

She said: (I did that) and, by Allah, I did not see (any sign of disgust) on the face of Abu Hudhaifa.” (Sahih Muslim, Hadith 2638)

Meaning of the Arabic word أَرْضِعِيهِ:

The Hadith actually uses the word أَرْضِعِيهِ to show what the Prophet –may Allah bless him- asked Sahla to do.

The word is a derivative of رضاع (Radhha) and it does not basically meaning suckling i.e. drinking from the breasts.

In Arabic it is perfectly valid to say, as it appears in classical Arabic lexicographic work Tajul ‘Uroos (1/7848) and is often used otherwise too;

رضع (من) ثدي أمه

“He did Raddha (from the) breasts of his mother.”

Other issues will be clarified afterwards. Thanks.

12 January 2012 at 23:24  
Blogger srizals said...

Ops, forgot about this one,

Umm Salama, the wife of Allah's Messenger -may Allah bless- used to say that all wives of Allah's Messenger -may Allah bless- disclaimed the idea that one with this type of fosterage (having been suckled after the proper period) should come to them.

and said to 'A'isha: By Allah, we do not find this but a sort of concession given by Allah's Messenger -may Allah bless- only for Salim,

and no one was going to be allowed to enter (our houses) with this type of fosterage and we do not subscribe to this view. (Sahih Muslim, Hadith 2641)

So you see, no one can come out with the idea of repeating this special event. This event occured during the time when the revelation from God to the mortal man is happening through His last messenger.

The revelation was completed back then before the Prophet returned to God. As any of us human will one day. It is a way out offered for a loving parents to their beloved adopted son, a former slave. Hope this will clear things up.

One important thing to remember is, none of the Muslims were on the run, hiding in fear, having pagan kings or ungodly beings to decide about matters of their faith. They were victorious against mighty and formidable oppressors.

With the two world superpowers crumbling before them, unable to destroy them.

They had to march on and eliminate the threat and free the oppressed under the feet of the two gigantic superpowers.

It was their duty to spread peace and destroy the proud evil ones.

If they had not, the two world superpowers that day would continue to harrass them and eventually annihilate them. The Muslims were no match for the two world superpowers. They won by God's favour. The bullies were the powerful Roman and Persians. They had to stand up against their bullies or perished.

That what superpowers like to do to other inferior races you know.

Look at history and current events.

12 January 2012 at 23:54  
Blogger srizals said...

The soulles women issue was brought up and believed by Christians, not Muslims, as the information I've quoted before and below.

Johannes Leyser was a Lutheran pastor from the region of Frankfurt in Germany. In 1676, he published a volume called The Triumph of Polygamy, in which he proclaimed the merits of a plurality of wives.

Leyser wrote: "Among the holy fathers (at the Council of Macon) there was one who insisted that women cannot, and should not, be called 'human beings' (homines).

And it went viral in the Christian communities. It is not strange since if you care to read the quotations I've quoted above from biblical writings and scholars of Christianity, women were considered as a mistake or a reason of condemnation.

St. Clement of Alexandria (c150-c215), the Greek Father of the Church, had such a contempt for women that he believed such a feeling must be universal.

He wrote, in his book Paedagogus that in women, "the consciousness of their own nature must evoke feelings of shame."

That women is clearly inferior to men, Clement has no doubt. As a form of exercise for this "weaker sex", he suggested that, "Women should also fetch from the pantry things that we need."

Tertullian (c160-c225), the African Father of the Church, called women "the devil's gateway."

His reasoning, based on the story of The Fall in Genesis, is theologically impeccable:

"Do you not realize that Eve is you? The curse God pronounced on your sex weighs still on the world. Guilty, you must bear its hardships.

You are the devil's gateway, you desecrated that fatal tree, you first betrayed the law of God, you who softened up with your cajoling words the man against whom the devil could not prevail by force.

The image of God, the man Adam, you broke him, it was child's play to you. You deserved death, and it was the son of God who had to die!"

Origen (c185-254) is well known for his hatred of sex and women. At the tender age of eighteen, he castrated himself in his quest to achieve Christian perfection.

Origen's teaching weaved together the Christian hatred for women and abhorrence for the sexual act into one system. According to him, women are worse than animals because they are continuously full of lust.

Origen does not approve of the sexual act even in marriage and taught that although widowers can remarry, they are by no means crowned for this.

St. Gregory of Nazianzum (329-389), the Bishop of Constantinople had this to say about women,

"Fierce is the dragon and cunning the asp; But woman have the malice of both."

The other St. Gregory (330-395), Bishop of Nyassa, taught that the sexual act was an outcome of the fall and that marriage is the outcome of sin.

St. Ambrose (c339-397), a Doctor of the Church, and Bishop of Milan reminded believers that the way women was originally created confirms her second class status:

"Remember that God took the rib out of Adam's body, not a part of his soul, to make her.

She was not made in the image of God, like man."

To him virginity was the Christian virtue. He advised that marriage was to be avoided like a burden.

For those who do marry, he forbade intercourse for any other reason except the procreation of children.

Naturally, Ambrose taught that old couples, in which the woman can no longer conceive, should not have sex at all.

13 January 2012 at 03:23  
Blogger srizals said...

St. Jerome (c342-420), the well known Biblical scholar and translator of the Bible into Latin (the Vulgate) have a simple view of women.

To him "woman is the root of all evil."

The marital act to Jerome cannot be good because it only acts as a relief valve: "Thus it must be bad to touch a woman.

If indulgences is nonetheless granted to the marital act, this is only to avoid something worse. But what value can be recognized in a good that is allowed only with a view of preventing something worse?" Jerome wrote that the only good thing about marriage is that "it produces virgins."

St. John Chrysostom (c347-407), Doctor of the Church and Bishop of Constantinople, said that women are, in general, "weak and flighty."

He opined, "It does not profit a man to marry. For what is a woman but an enemy of friendship, an inescapable punishment, a necessary evil, a natural temptation, a domestic danger, delectable mischief, a fault in nature, painted with beautiful colors?"

In his opinion on women, "The whole of her body is nothing less than phlegm, blood, bile, rheum and the fluid of digested food ... If you consider what is stored up behind those lovely eyes, the angle of the nose, the mouth and the cheeks you will agree that the well-proportioned body is only a whitened sepulchre."

St. Augustine (354-450), Doctor of the Church and Bishop of Hippo said,

"I don't see what sort of help woman was created to provide man with, if one excludes procreation. If woman is not given to man for help in bearing children, for what help could she be? To till the earth together? If help were needed for that, man would have been a better help for man. The same goes for comfort in solitude. How much more pleasure is it for life and conversation when two friends live together than when a man and a woman cohabitate?"

13 January 2012 at 03:24  
Blogger srizals said...

The Dominican theologian and Doctor of the Church, St. Albertus Magnus (c1200-1280), was a great despiser of women. His view of women can be aptly summarized by his own writing:

"Woman is less qualified [than man] for moral behavior. For the woman contains more liquid than man, and it is a property of liquid to take things up easily and to hold unto them poorly. Liquids are easily moved, hence women are inconstant and curious. When a woman has relations with a man, she would like, as much as possible, to be lying with another man at the same time.

Woman knows nothing about fidelity. Believe me, if you give her your trust, you will be disappointed. Trust an experience teacher. For this reason prudent men share their plans and actions least of all with their wives. Woman is a misbegotten man and has a faulty and defective nature in comparison to his.

Therefore she is unsure in herself. What she cannot get, she seeks to obtain through lying and diabolical deceptions.

And so, to put it briefly, one must be on one's guard with every woman, as if she were a poisonous snake and the horned devil.

If I could say what I know about women, the world would be astonished ... Woman is strictly speaking not cleverer but slyer (more cunning) than man. Cleverness sounds like something good, slyness sounds like something evil.

Thus in evil and perverse doings woman is cleverer, that is, slyer, than man. Her feelings drive woman toward every evil, just as reason impels man toward all good."

The greatest scholastic theologian of all was the "Angelic Doctor", Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274). In line with the position of his teacher, Albertus Magnus, Aquinas was equally convinced of woman's inherent inferiority to man.

To him, woman is a product of environmental pollution. Women were not, he taught, "nature's first intention" which aims at perfection but "nature's second intention" which conforms to such things as "decay, deformity and the weakness of the age."

Women are less intelligent than men. Men have "more perfect reason" and "stronger virtue" than women.

The intellectual defects of women, according to Aquinas, is similar to those "evident in children and mentally ill persons."

Women are also less resistant to sexual temptation than men "Because there is a higher water content in women, they are more easily seduced by sexual pleasure."

So, in my opinion, Christian theology is a theology of hatred of women. The act of virginity by its priesthood throughout the millenia is a glaring manifestation of this.

But man is man. Unless he castrated himself, than merely deprived himself of his own natural needs, problems will arise. As we've seen in the paedophillic menace involving the church throughout the world.

13 January 2012 at 03:24  
Blogger srizals said...

A piece of writing was published in Lyons in 1647 under the pseudonym Horatio Plato.

A M. de Vigneul (a pseudonym of Bonaventure d'Argonne (1634-1704)), gives the title as Che le donne non habbino anima e the non siano della specie degli huomini, e vienne comprobato da molti luoghi della Scrittura santa:

(Women do not have a soul and do not belong to the human race, as is shown by many passages of holy Scripture).

Whether this view is legally endorsed by most Christians nowadays or does it legally binding up until now, doesn't really matter. The main issue is not whether women are soulles or not, but what does Christianity thinks of them then and now. I have presented my proof for my views of Christianity. Now it is your turn. Thanks.

13 January 2012 at 03:58  
Blogger srizals said...

The hadith in question, Albert.

Narrated 'Ikrima:

Rifa'a divorced his wife whereupon 'AbdurRahman bin Az-Zubair Al-Qurazi married her. 'Aisha said that the lady (came), wearing a green veil (and complained to her (Aisha) of her husband and showed her a green spot on her skin caused by beating).

It was the habit of ladies to support each other, so when Allah's Apostle came, 'Aisha said, "I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes!"

When 'AbdurRahman heard that his wife had gone to the Prophet, he came with his two sons from another wife. She said, "By Allah! I have done no wrong to him but he is impotent and is as useless to me as this," holding and showing the fringe of her garment,

'Abdur-Rahman said, "By Allah, O Allah's Apostle! She has told a lie! I am very strong and can satisfy her but she is disobedient and wants to go back to Rifa'a."

Allah's Apostle said, to her, "If that is your intention, then know that it is unlawful for you to remarry Rifa'a unless Abdur-Rahman has had sexual intercourse with you."

Then the Prophet saw two boys with 'Abdur-Rahman and asked (him), "Are these your sons?" On that 'AbdurRahman said, "Yes." The Prophet said, "You claim what you claim (i.e.. that he is impotent)? But by Allah, these boys resemble him as a crow resembles a crow,"

At least, now you really know about this hadith. I have to go for a while. Will continue afterwards. Albert, do you know who invented the Breast Ripper? Thanks.

13 January 2012 at 04:50  
Blogger srizals said...

"The worldwide promotion of pornography and sexual trafficking is not the result of religious teaching."

Shacklefree, I entirely agree with you. But somehow, they were save and sound in mostly Western and Christian Nations, so is abortion. In Asia, it is sanctioned in most Buddhist nation.

As the hadith in question by you, Shacklefree, it is not an insult towards women, but the truth stated by the Prophet regarding women so that they would strive harder in their struggle of perfection and in the quest of obtaining God's mercy.

Women as you do know at that time were not required to fight against oppressors and they were not required to pray and fast during menses. So there is a lacking when compared with men that fights and continously pray throughout their life, don't you think so? So women are required to compensate that lacking through charity which is in the hadith itself.

Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: Once Allah's Messenger went out to the Musalla (to offer the prayer) o 'Id-al-Adha or Al-Fitr prayer. Then he passed by the women and said, "O women! Give alms, as I have seen that the majority of the dwellers of Hell-fire were you (women).

" They asked, "Why is it so, O Allah's Messenger?"

He replied, "You curse frequently and are ungrateful to your husbands.

I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion than you. A cautious sensible man could be led astray by some of you.

" The women asked, "O Allah's Messenger! What is deficient in our intelligence and religion?"

He said, "Is not the evidence of two women equal to the witness of one man?" They replied in the affirmative.

He said, "This is the deficiency in her intelligence. Isn't it true that a woman can neither pray nor fast during her menses?" The women replied in the affirmative. He said, "This is the deficiency in her religion." (Sahih Bukhari, Hadith 293)

And another hadith related to the first hadith,

Jabir b. 'Abdullah reported: I observed prayer with the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) on the 'Id day. He commenced with prayer before the sermon without Adhan and Iqama. He then stood up leaning on Bilal, and he commanded (them) to be on guard (against evil for the sake of) Allah, and he exhorted (them) on obedience to Him, and he preached to the people and admonished them.

He then walked on till he came to the women and preached to them and admonished them, and asked them to give alms, for most of them are the fuel for Hell.

A woman having a dark spot on the cheek stood up and said: Why is it so, Messenger of Allah?

He said: For you grumble often and show ingratitude to your spouse. And then they began to give alms out of their ornaments such as their earrings and rings which they threw on to the cloth of Bilal. (Sahih Muslim, Hadith 1467)

And if you observed the occasion, it was a day of celebration where the mood is joy. I don't think the Prophet or anyone on that day was in an angry or grieve mode, don't you think so? They were in the mood of happiness, Shacklefree.

And if you resort to Scientific research and conclusion, women are not the same with men. Need I give the evidence on these too?

13 January 2012 at 07:24  
Blogger srizals said...

"Academics in the UK claim their research shows that men are more intelligent than women.

A study to be published later this year in the British Journal of Psychology says that men are on average five points ahead on IQ tests."

"As intelligence scores among the study group rose, the academics say they found a widening gap between the sexes.

There were twice as many men with IQ scores of 125, for example, a level said to correspond with people getting first-class degrees.

At scores of 155, associated with genius, there were 5.5 men for every woman."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/4183166.stm

Shacklefree, where's the evidence that the Prophet had someone killed as you have claimed? Could you share it with us? I need it in order to understand and give my opinion about it. Thanks.

13 January 2012 at 07:34  
Blogger IanCad said...

srizals,

This is a thread is seeming never to die, Your dialogue with Shacklefree is offering up much info that needs digesting.
Let me point out a couple of inaccuracies or contextual deceits that stood out in a quick scan of your many quotes.
Firstly, the average age of marriage for girls during the US Rebellion was sixteen years of age. Not unreasonable at all.
Your quotes from Ecclesiates are the observations of an inspired author. I'm sure most men of experience would nod their heads.
In the creation of woman, Adam, other than contributing a rib, had no input. God knew best, and created a being totally unfathomable to man. Silly creatures throughout the ages have tried to "Explain" women. Can't be done. So much of our poetry and prose is devoted to the magic, mystery and wonder of her race. And so it will always be.

13 January 2012 at 08:29  
Blogger srizals said...

Albert, the way Muslims were to hit their wives if it comes to that extent are not the same with Muhammad Ali hitting his opponent in the ring you know. If any Muslims believe this too than they should be very ashamed of themselves for disobeying the Prophet of God, and in a way, disobeying God Himself. And a Muslim would know what does that mean.

Life as we know it is full of colours, happiness made us feel blessed and trials sometimes are truly testing. We're not in heaven and we're surely not angels. So Islam has set a rule on doing things, their limits and guidelines so that Muslims won't transgress.

In his last sermon, he even mentioned about women and how men should be weary in treating them,

the Prophet said,

"Beware of Satan, for the safety of your religion. He has lost all hope that he will be able to lead you astray in big things so beware of following him in small things."

"O People it is true that you have certain rights with regard to your women but they also have rights over you.

Remember that you have taken them as your wives only under Allah's trust and with His permission. If they abide by your right then to them belongs the right to be fed and clothed in kindness.

Do treat your women well and be kind to them for they are your partners and committed helpers.

And it is your right that they do not make friends with any one of whom you do not approve, as well never to be unchaste."

"O People! listen to me in earnest, worship Allah, say your five daily prayers, fast during month of Ramadan, and give your wealth in Zakat .Perform Haj if you can afford it."

"All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a White has no superiority over a Black nor a Black has any superiority over a White except by piety and good action.

Learn that every Muslim is a brother to every Muslim and that the Muslims constitute one brotherhood. Nothing shall be legitimate to a Muslim which belongs to a fellow Muslim unless it was given freely and willingly."

"Do not therefore do injustice to yourselves. Remember one day you will meet Allah and answer your deeds. So beware, do not astray from the path of righteousness after I am gone."

http://www.iium.edu.my/deed/articles/thelastsermon.html

Another hadith regarding men conduct on women,

"Fear Allah concerning women! Verily you have taken them on the security of Allah, and intercourse with them has been made lawful unto you by words of Allah.

You too have right over them, and that they should not allow anyone to sit on your bed whom you do not like.

But if they do that, (in that case) chastise them in a way that leaves no mark (i.e. not severe).

Their rights upon you are that you should provide them with food and clothing in a fitting manner."
(Sahih Muslim, Hadith 2137)

And the verse of the Qur'an in question,

Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand. (34)

http://tanzil.net/#trans/en.sahih/4:34

Did not you observe the three steps a husband have to take in dealing with a problematic wife?

And I repeat again what the Prophet had reminded Muslims as in the hadith above in case you miss it,

"But if they do that, (in that case) chastise them in a way that leaves no mark (i.e. not severe)."

Thanks.

What about the Bible, Albert, any guidelines that you would like to share regarding marital conflict?

13 January 2012 at 09:17  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

Srizals, You haven’t picked up on my point about the natural tension between men and women being common to all people of all religions and none. You can even see it in young children which indicates it is part of our fallen nature rather than the result of religious teaching. I do not dispute that men down the ages ( including Christians and Muslims) have had a negative view of women but the teaching is clear and from the beginning Christianity regarded Mary the mother of Jesus as being exalted above even the apostles. Jesus did not have the woman caught in adultery stoned but admonished her to sin no more. In Islamic countries we still have women adulterers being stoned but not the man and we have fathers killing their daughters because they don’t agree to marry the person chosen for them and have thereby besmirched the family honour. You don’t find that in any other religion.

To answer your question about the killing orchestrated by Mohammed:

The first in the series of assassinations that the prophet ordered was an old Jewish man named Ibnu’l-Ashraf. His crime was writing poetry against Muslims … In the very next incident in this biography of prophet Muhammad we read, “The apostle said, ‘Kill any Jew that falls into your power.’” …In another famous incident … the prophet orchestrated the execution of all the adult males of the last Jewish tribe of the city. Answering Islam, Geisler and Saleeb

It continues today. Muklas, a perpetrator of the 2002 Bali jihadist bombings addressed his fellow Muslims thus:
have you forgotten that to kill infidels and the enemies of Islam is a deed that has a reward above no other … Aren’t you aware that the model for us all, the Prophet Mohammed and the four rightful caliphs, undertook to murder infidels as one of their primary activities. Spencer, The Truth about Muhammad, quoting from ‘The Australian’, December 18, 2005

13 January 2012 at 10:07  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

With regard to superpowers ,the Roman Empire had fallen 200 years earlier and was in decline. You say it was the Muslims duty to spread peace but they did it with the sword. They continuously invaded neighbouring Christian countries and were even about to sack Vienna in the 17th century. All the countries they invaded had a small Muslim military (Christians were not allowed to join) which ruled over a Christian population. Christians had to pay the jizya tax but those who converted didn’t. Are you paying a higher tax where you live because you are a muslim? They never desisted in using the sword to spread their heresy. The Crusades were initiated as a request from the Byzantine Emperor because of continual Muslim aggression. We still see it today – Muslims invaded Cyprus and have not apologised or retreated and all the time we hear about the invasion of the occupied territories. You haven’t answered the aggression I mentioned in Southern Sudan, East Timor or Armenia in the 20th century nor the continual aggression we have to be protected from worldwide every time we go through an airport all due to people who do it in the name of Islam.

13 January 2012 at 10:08  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

About breastfeeding – the desire to foster was a generous and holy desire by decent people which conferred a family on an orphan. I am completely unwilling to accept that providing a woman’s milk legitimated this and I cannot see how you can. It is a ridiculous teaching but Mohammed made many such. He allowed his soldiers away from home to rape defenceless women once the men had been slain. That is the origin of the temporary marriage we see in Islam today.

In conclusion, I have not claimed that Christians are perfect but Almighty God has to work with human nature and he does it gently and not by fatwas and stones. He expects us gradually to come to knowledge of him. The Old Testament is full of his chosen people following false Gods and of his continual admonitions so there has been a continual history of people getting it wrong but God is faithful and leads us back. Jesus came to correct the errors that had crept in such as the idea that eating certain foods can make you unclean or that you need to be circumcised to be saved. Islam however has taken us back to the old teaching that has been superseded like an eye for an eye. With that being so, why do Muslims hate the Jews so much? Why not have a look at www.liberatednow.blogspot.com where a young lady has finally seen the light.

13 January 2012 at 10:09  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

Srizals you say: Learn that every Muslim is a brother to every Muslim and that the Muslims constitute one brotherhood. Nothing shall be legitimate to a Muslim which belongs to a fellow Muslim unless it was given freely and willingly.

In other words Islam has one rule for the relations between Muslims but a different rule in their relationships with kafirs which is a derogatory term. Mohammed taught that it is legitimate to use lies and trickery to deceive infidels in pursuit of the way. In other words morality is subjective under Islam. Your own words proclaimed it.

13 January 2012 at 10:16  
Blogger srizals said...

I mean the numbers of the hadith and the book it is in. For example Sahih Bukhari, the reference number and etc. If not, it would take me days to remember and try to seek the said hadith, Shacklefree.

You have to provide the relevant information searchable at least for most of us for personal references. We can't make anything out of the wind now can we, Shacklefree?

Shacklefree, does this mean that you use criminals' behaviour as the rightful representative of Islam and Muslims? Are you out of your mind?

What would you have felt if I'd done the same? I've known many, many criminals related to Christianity you know. Many of them are serial killers. But I'm still not sure what faith do the soldiers cheerished when they peed on the corpse of dead Talibans in Afghanistan, just out in the open recently. Could they have been Spencer's fan? Should they be presenting the deeds of their race and religion?

Sorry LanClad if I've quoted the wrong information. It is true as far as my limited knowledge permitted it. If some of them are wrong, I am truly sorry and will try to double check them afterwards.

13 January 2012 at 10:23  
Blogger srizals said...

Shacklefree, how could I respond to your allegations when you yourself fail to provide the proof for me to ponder?

You simply said 'they're in the news, written here and there', the question is, Shacklefree, are they of reliable source? The numbers of the dead and the incidents, show me where and how did you obtain them?

Where did you get the silly ideas that Muslims hate the Jews? There are many Jews commanded the respect of Muslims. Gilad Atzmon, Norman Finkelstein, Neturei Karta and the Jews that speak out against the attrocities of Zionist and Israel. We only have problems with arrogant Zionist Jews that love to kill babies, that's all. Maybe if they ceased their tyranny and disobedience to God, returned what was not godly and rightly theirs, we could learn to love them too.

13 January 2012 at 10:40  
Blogger srizals said...

Shacklefree, do you pay taxes? Do you think you should be exempted in any way? That what a social system and good governence require us to do. Muslims had to pay 2.5% of their wealth yearly, Shacklefree. Then and even now, until the end of days. If they do not, it would be a grave sin.

Do you even have an idea how much did the non-Muslims paid as jizya to question it to me here?

13 January 2012 at 10:45  
Blogger srizals said...

Here are some links of the Jews I've mentioned.

http://www.nkusa.org/

http://www.gilad.co.uk/

http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/

I don't think any Muslims could hate them. But they are hated by many powerful, influential and wealthy people. Many are under their power.

I am obviously not one of them. Are you?

13 January 2012 at 10:56  
Blogger srizals said...

By the way, have you ever seen the peacemakers of the UN, Shacklefree?

They too had to bring in the guns and etc. to bring peace to turmoiled lands. I don't recall seeing any of them, ever, going to any country with just holding a Bible in their hands and ask people to be good to each other.

Like I've said, we're not living a fairy tale, Shacklefree, well, not most of us anyway.

13 January 2012 at 11:03  
Blogger Albert said...

Sizrals,

The soulles women issue was brought up and believed by Christians, not Muslims, as the information I've quoted before and below.

No, you have given no evidence for that, neither have you replied to the evidence I have given that Christianity cannot teach that.

Johannes Leyser was a Lutheran pastor from the region of Frankfurt in Germany. In 1676, he published a volume called The Triumph of Polygamy, in which he proclaimed the merits of a plurality of wives.

I'm surprised you're reduced to quoting that. Luther allowed polygamy, and this showed how far he was from Christian tradition.

Leyser wrote: "Among the holy fathers (at the Council of Macon) there was one who insisted that women cannot, and should not, be called 'human beings' (homines).

The Bible speaks of women as human beings made in the image of God. Who cares what Leyser says some Bishop said at a Council centuries earlier than him?

You also said that early Christians regarded women as inherently evil. But again, you have provided no evidence for that, neither have you replied to the evidence I gave to the contrary (including some from the Qur'an - you appear to be quite happy to contradict it.).

Beyond that, all you have done is copy a load of quotations from (male) Christian writers. While I have already conceded that some attitudes towards women have been wrong, your rather wooden approach to quotations fails to do justice to them. Firstly, you fail to notice that most of these men were monks. For them women obviously are a snare.

Secondly, you fail to give the fullness of their opinions. Let me take two examples:

St John Chrysostom: yes, he said some dim things about women. But he also said some wonderful things. For example, having praised the women for following Jesus to the cross "when the [male] disciples had fled" he then said "Let us men imitate the women". Of Junia he says "Oh how great is the devotion (philosophia) of this woman, that she should be even counted worthy to be called an apostle!". He even describes God as being like a devoted mother.

Or take St Thomas Aquinas. You only quoted half of what he said. He goes on to say "Woman is not misbegotten, but is included in nature's intention as directed to the work of generation" and points out that this perfection comes from God. Why then did he say "Woman is defective and misbegotten". Not because of anything in Christian theology, but (as he makes clear) because he was following Aristotle's science, which saw a woman as entirely like a field and the seed of the child coming entirely from the man. This was reasonable, as being the best science available. And where had Aquinas got Aristotle from? The Muslims. With the science corrected, Aquinas would logically drop the "misbegotten" and be left only with the rest of the quotation, in praise of women.

Nevertheless, even if one ignores all these points, the simple fact is that never in any of these quotations have you come up with anything as disgraceful as permitting a man to beat his wife. Yes, I had read the Hadith before you quoted it, and I cannot see how it alters my original interpretation. Of course a man is not permitted to beat his wife like Mohammed Ali, but according to that Hadith he can beat her until she is green with bruises. But it's okay because the man has to go through several stages to get to that point. If Muslim men can treat their wives thus, it's a bit inconsistent of them to complain about the abuses of Guantanamo Bay.

any guidelines that you would like to share regarding marital conflict?

Sorry, are you saying that beating your wife is the Qur'an's answer to marital conflict? I say it is one of the most cowardly and dishonourable things a man can do.

13 January 2012 at 11:41  
Blogger srizals said...

I guess, that means no. The Bible do not give any guidance to settle differences between a husband and a wife then.

Albert, what are the prophets in the Old Testament to you? Weren't they the prophets and messengers of God? Wasn't they a manifestation of your profoundly Judeao-Christian heritage?

If so, doesn't it bother you that these prophets of God themselves do not follow your condemnation of polygamy? Did not they themselves practised polygamy and have concubines as written in the Old Testament?

So my question to you is

1. Did Jesus ever claimed that he was sent to abolish the old laws of the prophets before him?

Proof A.

1 Kings 11

1But king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites:

2Of the nations concerning which the LORD said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in unto you: for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods: Solomon clave unto these in love.

3And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his heart.

700 wives, Albert and 300 concubines.

Abraham, Jacob, David (2 Samuel 5:13; 1 Chronicles 3:1-9, 14:3), Solomon (1 Kings 11:3), and others (In 2 Chronicles 11:21, King Solomon's son Rehoboam had 18 wives and 60 concubines.

Abraham too, Albert, so how could Christians be claiming that they were of Abrahamic religion when they despised something that was practised by Abraham and the prophets of God?

" The Bible records almost fifty men by name with multiple wives, including four Gentile kings (Gen 12:15; 20:17; Est 2:3; Dan 5:2). At least half the men had more than two wives. The earliest recorded plural marriage was Lamech (two wives, Gen 4:19), six generations after Adam. Even though Lamech is the only polygamist identified before the global flood, there is no reason to believe that he was alone in that status.

13 January 2012 at 14:22  
Blogger srizals said...

The post-flood patriarchs (Terah, Nahor and Abraham) continued the plural marriage tradition (Gen 11:26; 16:3; 20:12; 22:20-24; 25:1-6). While Isaac was monogamous his two famous sons were polygamous. Esau had five wives (Gen 26:34; 28:9; 36:2-3) and Jacob had four (Gen 29:23-28; 30:4, 9).

"The twelve sons of Jacob and their descendants no doubt continued to be polygamous considering the number of men of fighting age and the number of firstborn counted after the Exodus (Num 1:2; 3:40). Other notable men during the Israelite confederacy had plural marriages: Simeon, (Gen 46:10; Ex 6:15), Manasseh (1 Chron 7:14), Moses (Ex 2:21; 18:1-6; Num 12:1), Caleb (1 Chron 2:18-19, 46, 48), Gideon (Judg 8:30), Jair (Judg 10:4), Gilead (Judg 11:1-2), Ibzan (Judg 12:9), Abdon (Judg 12:14), Elkanah (1 Sam 1:2), Jerahmeel (1 Chron 2:26), Ashur (1 Chron 4:5), Ezra (1 Chron 4:17f), Shimei (1 Chron 4:27), and Machir (1 Chron 7:15f). The tribe of Issachar was particularly noted for its practice of polygamy (1 Chron 7:4)."

"The church father Justin Martyr (110-165) mentions that in his time Jewish men were permitted to have four or five wives.[5] His comment echoes the attitude of the Jewish Mishnah, codified in writing c. 220 CE. (The Mishnah reflects Jewish traditions and debates of Jewish leaders from as early as 70 CE.) Rabbinic scholars assumed the continuance of plural marriage and imposed rules for treatment of multiple wives and their children in estate matters. They even laid down that the maximum number of wives that a man may marry is eighteen based on the example of David."

"Jesus made it clear that He had not come to subvert the Torah (Matt 5:17). He also conveyed to His apostles the authority to make binding decisions to guide the people of God (Matt 16:19; Eph 2:19-20). One would think that if either the Lord or the apostles had intended any change to be made to the Torah permission and regulation of polygamy, they would have articulated new laws. The silence of Jesus and the apostles on this matter should not be ignored."

http://www.blainerobison.com/concerns/polygamy.htm

Albert,

don't you find it strange, Jesus himself were said that he came not to abolish the God's laws before him, but Saint Paul abolished them all together, just like that. Does this mean Saint Paul is higher in ranks compared to Jesus?

Matthew 5

17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

Now tell me, do you believe in Jesus or you believe in Paul?

Or is it contradictory is common in Christianity?

13 January 2012 at 14:24  
Blogger Albert said...

Srizals,

do you believe in Jesus or you believe in Paul?

I believe in both, or rather, I believe in Paul because I believe in Jesus. Let's begin with the question of marriage:

And Pharisees came up and in order to test him asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?" He answered them, "What did Moses command you?" They said, "Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce, and to put her away."
But Jesus said to them, "For your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. But from the beginning of creation, `God made them male and female.' `For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.' So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder."
And in the house the disciples asked him again about this matter. And he said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery."


Now how does this work? It seems that Jesus is contradicting the Law, because Moses allowed divorce. But in fact, Moses did not allow divorce. He simply said that if a man was to divorce his wife he must behave in a particular way. But Jesus gets behind that and goes back to the original intention of the Law regarding marriage: one man and one woman. The two become one flesh. It is not possible to have polygamy or divorce in this context. Jesus has gone to origin of the Law.

How then is it that we find both divorce and polygamy in the Law, given that they are so clearly in contrast to God's original intention (which is obvious, once you listen to Jesus)? The OT is seen by Christians as a preparation for the coming of Christ. It was not possible to convert society in a single go, rather some things which were wrong had to be tolerated for a time. Moses' law about divorce (which does not permit divorce) simply acknolwedges divorce as a part of life that needs regulating. It would of course be better to eliminate it altogether, but that needed preparation. Similarly, polygamy: as Jesus teaches it, it s plainly against God's original revelation, but it was tolerated in the OT. But the fullness of revelation comes with Christ, who clearly restores the original intention of the Law: abolishing divorce and polygamy. There is no contradiction therefore.

There are many things in the OT which were only temporary. For example, the Temple sacrifices were done away with by the sacrifice of Jesus on the
cross, his cleansing of the Temple is a symbolic act of showing it has been surpassed - something that is obvious from his sayings. He declared all foods clean, Christians do not have to be circumcised, they worship on the day of the Lord's resurrection, not on the Saturday, as the Jews do, the Passover he replaced with the Eucharist, and so on.

There's no contradiction therefore. I can see how it might appear that there is a contradiction if all one knows is a few isolated passages on a website designed to show there are contradictions. But then, it's easy enough to do that with the Qur'an too. Contradictions in scripture are not deadly to Christianity, because Jesus is the heart of our faith - we are not required to believe the Bible was dictated by God. But contradictions and errors of fact in the Qur'an would appear to undermine the whole religion, I would have thought. Or perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps you would enlighten me on this point. I do not pretend to know your religion as well as you think you know mine.

13 January 2012 at 15:43  
Blogger Albert said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

13 January 2012 at 15:44  
Blogger Albert said...

Cont... (reposting because I mistakenly put the following in italics)

But this all seems to be a digression from your original points: early Christians believed women do not have souls and thought they were inherently evil. I have asked for evidence, and you have produced none. I have provided counter-evidence which you have not refuted. Perhaps you are withdrawing the point given that it so clearly contradicts the witness of the Qur'an to early Christianity.

As for this question of marital conflict. I don't think beating one's wife is a way of resolving such things. In fact, I think it is naive to think that there is a one size fits all answer that can be given to marital conflict. But perhaps you would be so kind as to answer whether you think it is acceptable for a man to beat his wife to the point that the wounds go green. Is that an appropriate way to deal with such conflict?

13 January 2012 at 15:44  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

Albert is right srizals. You keep asking us to provide evidence which we do. I have given you the sources of my evidence which refer to the original Islamic documents. Why not obtain a copy of ‘Islam Answered’ by Geisler and Saleeb and/or ‘The Sword of the Prophet’ by Trifkovic. Why not access the ‘http://www.fatherzakaria.net/ or http://www.liberatednow.blogspot.com/ to mention only a few. They are full of references to the original documents. They won’t make comfortable reading for you but they are pretty extensive. In a blog it is not possible to cover subjects in great depth.

As Albert indicates, you keep using anecdotal examples of what some Christians in the past have said, not revealing the full context and claiming this to be authoritative Christianity. With regard to proof have you ever tried to take a bottle of water through airport security? Did you never hear of the genocide in Sothern Sudan, East Timor or Armenia or the Bali bombings? Have you not heard about the recent killings currently underway in Nigeria by Boko Harem, or of the activities of Al Qaeda in Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan. The Christian population of Iraq only a few decades ago was 20% - now it is 2%. Have a look at http://www.jihadwatch.org/ . New atrocities are reported there EVERY DAY. Now tell me where are the Hindu, Buddhist , Mormon or Christian suicide bombers.
You mentioned that Muslims had to bring peace to troubled lands. Yes many Christian lands were troubled by Islamic aggression and eventually fell and the Christians who did not convert were made second rate citizens in their own country by a small but powerful military elite. They didn’t bring peace but oppression.
With regard to the hatred of Jews here is a quote from Trifkovic P P188

“The second most influential Egyptian daily is Al-Akhbar, which went a step further on April 18, 2001: “Our thanks go to the late Hitler who wrought, in advance, the vengeance of the Palestinians upon the most despicable villains on the face of the earth. However we rebuke Hitler for the fact that the vengeance was insufficient.” … It is hard to imagine hatred more vitriolic than that which reproaches the Nazis for not completing the Final Solution more thoroughly. What is remarkable is not that such sentiments exist, but that they are freely circulated in the mainstream media and internalized by the opinion-making elite throughout the Muslim world.” Trifkovic, The Sword of the Prophet.

13 January 2012 at 18:51  
Blogger srizals said...

Albert, there is a continuity of the so-called wife-beating instruction you have questioned,

An Nisa ( The Women)

And if you fear dissension between the two, send an arbitrator from his people and an arbitrator from her people. If they both desire reconciliation, Allah will cause it between them. Indeed, Allah is ever Knowing and Acquainted [with all things]. 35

Man is a creature of emotion, Albert, we do get carried away at times. That is why guidelines are good. And you deliberately missed the clear instruction of the Prophet about the manner of beating. And I find it most frustrating.

Do you have a verse in the bible that were named 'The Women'? You said that Mary is an important figure in Christianity, do you have any verse in the Bible with her name on it? If the Bible doesn't have any verse with the women or Mary as their names, how could you say that women or Mary are important in Christianity?

I did give the proof on why Christianity considers women as evil, source of evil and malice, you just can't see it. If it is not now, or your church is not now, certainly, in the past, Christianity did view women as such.

Unlike you that ask me to read a whole webpage/several webpages, I ask you only to read the piece of writings by influential men of Christianity but you'd brushed them aside as mere petty monks. Maybe those writers you have quoted are just monks too. Spencer's cutting sure looks like a friar of the medieval days.

The problem is that you have somehow believed that the wound is green, gangrened or something, while there's no proof even in the said hadith that is is a bad wound. You said the Prophet somehow allowed or encouraged it, while he did not in the hadith.

You are trying to put something that isn't there, Albert.

I on the other hand, have quoted exactly the sayings of the men without edition or inserting my own interpretations. They are as they are.

If Christianity has no problem with women, why can't the men of God marry, Albert?

Are you one of the Christians that marry gays in the house of God?

You've said Mary cancelled the sin of Eve, that means thousand upon thousand of years between the time Eve's sins and Mary gave birth to Jesus, all women of that time were cursed for Eve's sin. Am I right?

If you are only able to quote 'webpages or blogs' to make you point that Islam is evil, then I have to say I'm sorry for you.

You should have known people are biased. We have to read from both sides of the story, better still if we could read from someone or groups that do not belong to the two contrasting groups, in order to make the perfect evaluation of what really matters and truer between two conflicting parties.

Will continue afterwards, have to sent the kids to school.

Do forgive me for any typos, when the Misses and kids call me, my mind would get distracted. I'm a man, sorry.

13 January 2012 at 23:53  
Blogger srizals said...

Jesus said,
Matthew 5

17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfil them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

If we looked at Muslims and Christians nowadays, we would see two contrasting practises as I will underlay below. There are many, but I'll only be focusing on these glaring three.

1. Circumcision is practised by the Prophets and those believed in God in biblical times. Only Muslims continue to do so. Majority of Christians have not. Even though St. Paul himself said he was circumcised.

2. Polygamy is practised by the Prophets and those believed in God in biblical times. Only Muslims carried on with this practise. A minority of Christians still do, but they are considered as out of the norm.

3. Stoning was a capital punishment for adultery when the sinners were brought to authority in biblical times. None of the nations on earth nowadays practised it, except for Muslim nations. Christians abhor it, whereas they knew it was a divine law. Even though many Muslim nations nowadays do not practise it because of technicalities, they do not claim that it is ungodly.

In consequences of not obeying God's law regarding lawful and decent sex practices, infanticide grew in the millions and became a lucrative industries profiting death of the helpless millions. But it has become so common that if the tigers and hyenas would ever find out what mankind have done to their own unborn, we would be in total disgrace. Sexual diseases become common and widespread plague, causing millions more to suffer accross the globe.

Since not all men can be a good husband, with the abandonment of polygamy, many women are deprived of their rights of a husband and children. Therefore they are left being childless and never to experience the blessing of love and a family of their own.

As for circumcision, most Christians believed that only their hearts must be circumcised. Well, not all are manly enough to undergo such event, I can understand that, but abandoning this manlihood is sure far away from any Judaeo-Christian influence or practises. And therefore, today Christianity is far from the teaching of the Prophets of God and is only an innovation of a man that is not even a Prophet nor was he a messenger of God. He did however acknowledge that he was a persecutor of those who believed in Jesus. Particularly stonning them to death if I'm not mistaken, one of the recorded incident would be Stephen.

14 January 2012 at 03:34  
Blogger srizals said...

For references,

Acts 7

51 “You stiff-necked people! Your hearts and ears are still uncircumcised. You are just like your ancestors: You always resist the Holy Spirit! 52 Was there ever a prophet your ancestors did not persecute? They even killed those who predicted the coming of the Righteous One. And now you have betrayed and murdered him— 53 you who have received the law that was given through angels but have not obeyed it.”

The Stoning of Stephen

54 When the members of the Sanhedrin heard this, they were furious and gnashed their teeth at him. 55 But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. 56 “Look,” he said, “I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.”

57 At this they covered their ears and, yelling at the top of their voices, they all rushed at him, 58 dragged him out of the city and began to stone him. Meanwhile, the witnesses laid their coats at the feet of a young man named Saul.

59 While they were stoning him, Stephen prayed, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” 60 Then he fell on his knees and cried out, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.” When he had said this, he fell asleep.

"Acts 8

1 And Saul approved of their killing him.

The Church Persecuted and Scattered
On that day a great persecution broke out against the church in Jerusalem, and all except the apostles were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria. 2 Godly men buried Stephen and mourned deeply for him. 3 But Saul began to destroy the church. Going from house to house, he dragged off both men and women and put them in prison."

What say you, Albert and Shacklefree?

But what caught my attention is,

"They even killed those who predicted the coming of the Righteous One."

Paul was there as Saul, but Stephen didn't point at him. I wonder who would this be the Righteous One that is said to be coming by Stephen?

Would Saul/Paul know about it? I mean, he did say that Jesus himself appointed him to be something, didn't he? Why was he oblivious on that day of stonning? Thanks.

14 January 2012 at 03:35  
Blogger srizals said...

As for suicide bombers, I'm sorry to let you know, you're obviously oblivious.

"Estimates vary, but since 1987 the so-called Black Tiger unit of the group has reportedly carried out more than 150 such attacks, their victims including former Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi.

If it was the Tamils who were the first modern group to perfect suicide bombing, it is now in the Middle East where such attacks are most common – first in Lebanon during the 1980s, to the Palestinian territories and now to Iraq where suicide bomb attacks appear to be an almost daily occurrence."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/history-of-the-suicide-bomber-harks-back-to-tamils-481218.html

"Mr. PAPE: The very first suicide attacks are the Jewish zealots in Zakari(ph) in the first century AD. The Jewish zealots sought to foment a rebellion against Roman occupation by often walking up to a Roman soldier in a square and pulling out a knife and killing the soldier, often cutting his throat, knowing that there were other Roman soldiers standing right by that would immediately execute or kill the zealot. "
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4760240

"An Arab Christian military officer from Syria, Jules Jammal, used a suicide bomb attack to bring down a French ship during the Suez Crisis in 1956."

"In Northern Ireland, in the early 1990s, as part of the Provisional IRA campaign 1969-1997, the IRA used the tactic it called the the "proxy bomb" -a sort of involuntary suicide bomb, where a victim was kidnapped and forced to drive a car bomb into its target. In one infamous operation in Derry in 1990, the PIRA chained a Catholic civilian to a car laden with explosives, held his family hostage and forced him to drive to a British Army checkpoint as a "human bomb" where the bomb exploded, killing himself and five soldiers. This practice was stopped due to the revulsion its caused among the Irish nationalist community."

"During the Crusades, the Knights Templar destroyed one of their own ships, killing 140 Christians in order to kill ten times as many Muslims. Another early example of suicide bombing occurred during the Belgian Revolution, when the Dutch Lieutenant Jan van Speijk detonated his own ship in the harbour of Antwerp to prevent being captured by the Belgians."

So I would say, you have intentionally left out everyone else but Muslims who had gone against their own faith that condemn suicide and killing of non-combatants. The only religion that strictly has rules of combat.

But what's trouble me is not the suicide bombers, it's the bombers that hide behind the joysticks of the drones, the bombers that didn't kill themselves along with their victims.

14 January 2012 at 05:00  
Blogger srizals said...

They got to kill over and over again, each time perfecting their killing skills and extending their capabilities. That's what worries me the most. And a lot of children around Palestine, Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan would die again and again. But I guess you as the priority of mankind, shouldn't be annoyed with all the steps taken to safeguard youself from future suicide attacks. Well, guess what, that's what people of any nation should realized when their nation is at war. If you want to feel safe and secure, maybe you should convinced your government to stop preaching war all over the globe and preach peace instead. No one would want to bomb you in any retaliation, now would they?

They would have no reasons to do so. But if your country is involved in non-suicide bombings almost on daily basis, killing and maiming innocent lives in the tens of thousands without remorse, of course others would've wished to inflict the same suffering to you. It's called the sweet old vengence.

Come on, as a human, you should know that we all have the craving to destroy our destroyers. Only our faith in God would wake us up from our blinding hate to do the right thing when we were so grossly wronged by the wrongdoers.

Stop your part of killing and oppressing. The reason to kill will dissapear by itself. Teach the terrorists to just kill soldiers and commanders by first, showing them noble examplary killings by your side as you are having the upper hand and the more powerful should set an example for the less powerful. Kill their babies, children and helpless families would surely enraged them with long lasting hate. Destroying everything that they have, their country and livelihood would surely put yourself in danger of vengence. Have you forgotten your own Christian teachings?

Matthew 7

1 “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

Do you dare give peace and justice a chance? If not, don't ever think of whining. Many more are suffering in far worse condition and witness bloody death and sufferings on daily basis, because of non other than you know who.

Romans 2:1
You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.

Luke 6:37
"Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.

14 January 2012 at 05:00  
Blogger Albert said...

Srizals

Do you have a verse in the bible that were named 'The Women'? You said that Mary is an important figure in Christianity, do you have any verse in the Bible with her name on it? If the Bible doesn't have any verse with the women or Mary as their names, how could you say that women or Mary are important in Christianity?

No, there are no verses named "the Women", but then, there are no verses named "Jesus" or "God" either. Our verses are not named, but numbered. However, there are whole books named after women - extolling them - Ruth, Esther, Judith, Susanna.

how could you say that women or Mary are important in Christianity?

I refer you to your own Qur'an:

'Jesus, son of Mary, did you say to people, "Take me and my mother as two gods alongside God"?'

The Qur'an appears to be confused here because we do not take Mary as a god. But the fact that the Qur'an even says this indicates that Mohammed knew Christians had a high regard for Mary.

You go on:

I did give the proof on why Christianity considers women as evil, source of evil and malice, you just can't see it.

On the contrary, I have conceded that there is a strain which associates women with evil, through Eve. What I have challenged is your claim that early Christianity sees woman as "inherently evil", and pointed out that you only quote part of the picture. You have given no evidence in support of the assertion.

I ask you only to read the piece of writings by influential men of Christianity but you'd brushed them aside as mere petty monks.

Where have I brushed them aside? I simply put them into their proper context. In fact, I showed how to them (being monks) what they say is true: women are a snare to them. Beyond that, far from brushing them aside, I have given a more rounded picture by offering fuller quotations than you did. These you have brushed aside.

The problem is that you have somehow believed that the wound is green, gangrened or something, while there's no proof even in the said hadith that is is a bad wound. You said the Prophet somehow allowed or encouraged it, while he did not in the hadith.

No. I didn't say anything about it being gangrene. I said it was green, as the Hadith says it was: Her skin is greener than her clothes. The word I have used is not gangrene but bruise. What do you think the green was? Make up? It is disgraceful, dishonourable and cowardly for a man to beat his wife. If he does it to the degree that she is so bruised she is green, that simply shows contempt for her. It's pretty obvious that the man was piqued because she said he was impotent. So, to make up for that, he beats her. He's a coward and Mohammed should have said so.

14 January 2012 at 11:54  
Blogger Albert said...

If Christianity has no problem with women, why can't the men of God marry, Albert?

It's nothing to do with there being something wrong with women - nuns can't marry men, but that doesn't show there is a problem with men. It is, as St Paul says:

I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband. I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord.

In any case, some priests are married. If there was something wrong with women, this would be impossible.

Are you one of the Christians that marry gays in the house of God?

"Gay marriage" is self-contradictory.

You've said Mary cancelled the sin of Eve, that means thousand upon thousand of years between the time Eve's sins and Mary gave birth to Jesus, all women of that time were cursed for Eve's sin. Am I right?

Actually, the teaching is that men and women inherit Adam's sin. Does that make men inherently evil?

If you are only able to quote 'webpages or blogs' to make you point that Islam is evil, then I have to say I'm sorry for you.

I have not said Islam is evil (see my earlier comment). Neither did I need to read webpages to find the examples I have given.

Jesus said, Matthew 5

Why are you quoting Jesus, when you have failed to answer the point I have already made? His teaching plainly contradicts polygamy, because he goes back to the origin of the Law, not to the temporary dispensation.

1. Circumcision

Circumcision was part of the dispensation before Christ. But you who want to keep the Torah, do you offer sacrifices in Jerusalem and keep all the Jewish Feast Days?

14 January 2012 at 11:55  
Blogger Albert said...

Stoning was a capital punishment for adultery when the sinners were brought to authority in biblical times. None of the nations on earth nowadays practised it, except for Muslim nations. Christians abhor it, whereas they knew it was a divine law. Even though many Muslim nations nowadays do not practise it because of technicalities, they do not claim that it is ungodly.

The death penalty was rarely inflicted in biblical times, because the Torah usually allowed it to be commuted. In any case, Jesus, rather famously, intervened to stop a woman caught in adultery being stoned to death, so this is a pretty odd example for you to use. By the way, in Islam, is it just the woman who gets stoned or the man as well?

In consequences of not obeying God's law regarding lawful and decent sex practices, infanticide grew in the millions and became a lucrative industries profiting death of the helpless millions.

If you mean that promiscuity, abortion and infanticide occur as a result of us not inflicting the death penalty for adultery, I would only point out that we have never inflicted these punishments, but that these ills did not arise until nearly two thousand years later. They are a consequence of secularism. Good Christians do not participate in them. But secularism has been boosted by Islam.

Having said that, were you aware that in the UK there has been a particular problem with Muslim men in particular "grooming" under-age non-Muslim girls for sex? Why do you think that happens?

Since not all men can be a good husband, with the abandonment of polygamy, many women are deprived of their rights of a husband and children. Therefore they are left being childless and never to experience the blessing of love and a family of their own.

Thank you for that. I will use it the next time I argue against gay marriage.

is only an innovation of a man that is not even a Prophet nor was he a messenger of God

I have shown repeatedly that the "innovations" you attribute to St Paul, actually originate in the Torah and are proclaimed by Jesus. Do you deny Jesus was a prophet?

On that day a great persecution broke out against the church in Jerusalem, and all except the apostles were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria. 2 Godly men buried Stephen and mourned deeply for him. 3 But Saul began to destroy the church. Going from house to house, he dragged off both men and women and put them in prison."

What say you, Albert and Shacklefree?


Nothing. I haven't the faintest idea what your point is.

But what's trouble me is not the suicide bombers

Just to clarify: you don't think suicide bombing is wrong? I think that any targeting of innocent civilians is wrong. I hold that as firmly in the case of Muslims killed by the West as I hold it in the case of Westerners killed by Muslims.

14 January 2012 at 12:00  
Blogger srizals said...

Then you're my friend, Albert. I despised all killers of the weak. I respect killers of mighty soldiers and heavily armed warriors, that's what they do. It is acceptable.

Warriors kill warriors in war. It is their knightly right to die a beautiful death, not on the deathbed. It is their glory to be cleansed by their own martyred blood. Vanquished or be vanquished.

But, I never and couldn't endorsed nor support targeting non-combatants, regardless of race, religion and their sense of humour.

It goes against my faith. And shame on those who do believe they have the right to kill helpless women and men, unarmed babies and those who couldn't kill them in return.

Cowards will be cowards. And they are cursed to live as a coward and die a cowardly death.

14 January 2012 at 14:48  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

Srizals says: What say you, Albert and Shacklefree? But what caught my attention is,
"They even killed those who predicted the coming of the Righteous One."

Yes, the Jews had in the past killed or persecuted their prophets because they did not want to hear what they said and if you look, the Old Testament is full of prophecies of the Righteous one – the Messiah, none of which refer to Mohammed. Isaiah 53 is one such prophecy which clearly predicts the crucifixion of Jesus and gives the reason thus – by his sufferings shall my servant justify many and through his wounds we are healed. The Jewish people recognized him as the Messiah and welcomed him into a Jerusalem as the king prophesied in Zechariah:
Rejoice greatly, Daughter Zion! Shout, Daughter Jerusalem! See, your king comes to you, righteous and having salvation, lowly and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey. (compare Matthew 21: 1 – 7).

Regarding the IRA murderers, they did not do so in the name of any religion but in the name of Irish nationalism but Jesus had already answered them when he said to the Jews give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and the God what is God’s.

14 January 2012 at 18:41  
Blogger Albert said...

Well Srizals, it seems that we have reached a measure of agreement which I am pleased about. I love this bit:

I never and couldn't endorsed nor support targeting non-combatants, regardless of race, religion and their sense of humour.

But you almost seem surprised that I am appalled by targeting of innocent Muslim people. I think you will find that most people in the West are. Of course, from here, it's hard to evaluate the exact situations, but the principle would be shared: innocent people shouldn't be put to death, and we don't care what religion they are. Remember that in the West Muslims live among us. We all have good Muslim friends and neighbours. But in any case, human rights are universal.

14 January 2012 at 19:07  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

Srizals, You are very knowledgeable about the Bible. Can I ask please if you accept it as inspired by God or do you take the view of other Muslim commentators that the Torah and Bible have become corrupted and unreliable?

14 January 2012 at 19:09  
Blogger Albert said...

Shacklefree,

Regarding the IRA murderers, they did not do so in the name of any religion but in the name of Irish nationalism

That's an important point. I remember that when Pope John Paul made his first visit to Ireland he demanded an end to the violence, even using the expression "On my knees I beg you." No Catholic can claim to engage in terrorism in the name of Catholicism, but especially not after the Pope had said that.

14 January 2012 at 19:09  
Blogger srizals said...

Albert, here are some proof about terrorism that you should know.

Bernard Lewis states, "The emergence of the now widespread terrorism practice of suicide bombing is a development of the 20th century. It has no antecedents in Islamic history, and no justification in terms of Islamic theology, law, or tradition."

Lewis, Bernard and Churchill, Buntzie Ellis, "Islam: The Religion and the People", Wharton School Publishing, 2008, p53


"The technique of suicide bombing is anathema, antithetical and abhorrent to Sunni Islam. It is considered legally forbidden, constituting a reprehensible innovation in the Islamic tradition, morally an enormity of sin combining suicide and murder and theologically an act which has consequences of eternal damnation."

http://www.ihsanic-intelligence.com/dox/The_Hijacked_Caravan.pdf

Unless there is a verse from Al Qur'an or an authentic hadith that encourages/endorses suicide and killings of the innocents, it would be unfair to tie Islam to terrorism. If Muslims are so prone to terrorism, suicide bombings and so on, trust me, I won't be spending my time talking in here nor do Muslims worldwide, they would be busy killing themselves, don't you think so, in order for a quick transit to paradise? I mean what do we got to lose?

Interestingly, do you know about the bombing of King David Hotel prior the creation of Israel, what's your opinion on it?

What's your opinion on this event,

"Below is a Byzantine account of the sack by Nicetas Chroniates.[10]

3. . . How shall I begin to tell of the deeds wrought by these nefarious men ! Alas, the images, which ought to have been adored, were trodden under foot ! Alas, the relics of the holy martyrs were thrown into unclean places ! Then was seen what one shudders to hear, namely, the divine body and blood of Christ was spilled upon the ground or thrown about. They snatched the precious reliquaries, thrust into their bosoms the ornaments which these contained, and used the broken remnants for pans and drinking cups,-precursors of Antichrist, authors and heralds of his nefarious deeds which we momentarily expect. Manifestly, indeed, by that race then, just as formerly, Christ was robbed and insulted and His garments were divided by lot; only one thing was lacking, that His side, pierced by a spear, should pour rivers of divine blood on the ground."

http://www.shsu.edu/~his_ncp/1204.html

Who was the bad guys? Muslims?

15 January 2012 at 09:20  
Blogger len said...

Srizals has his own blog and comes collecting material to post on it(that is his sole intention)to support Islam.

Hello Srizals!.

15 January 2012 at 10:25  
Blogger Albert said...

Srizals,

I know: terrorism, especially suicide bombing is essentially a Western and secular invention. A very good author on this is Michael Burliegh, in his book Blood & Rage.

I do not associate Islam with terrorism. When I think of Islam, what comes to mind is beautiful Mosques and the Medieval Islamic achievements in Maths, science and philosophy.

I think the difficulty with Islam though is that it does have passages in the Qur'an that appear to commend violence to unbelievers, and because there is no such thing as a Church, it is easier for Muslims to interpret these passages in a way that endorses violence.

I don't know much about the bombing of the King David Hotel but as far as I can see it was gravely wrong: an act of mass murder.

15 January 2012 at 10:28  
Blogger srizals said...

Shacklefree, I acknowledge Jesus as a mighty prophet of God, even the Bible says so, that he was sent by The Father to the lost sheep of Israel.

We have to admit that the Bible does contain certain confusion cannot be ignored if it is to be a Word of God, since we all know that God is not the author of confusion. So I have to say that the Bible is not the Word of God.

The New Testament if I'm not mistaken is a recollection of events involving Jesus by mouth to mouth tradition and ends in writing. The only known recorded Bible by Jesus' own companion was rejected by Christians as unauthentic.

My reasons for not accepting the Bible as the Word of God is,

1. In the OT, we cannot differentiate between God and man. God was depicted in such a way unfitting for Him. For example,

In Genesis, Jacob was said to wrestle with God and managed to overpower Him, the Giver of life and death.
"So Jacob was left alone, and a man wrestled with him till daybreak. When the man saw that he could not overpower him, he touched the socket of Jacob's hip so that his hip was wrenched as he wrestled with the man. Then the man said, "Let me go, for it is daybreak." But Jacob replied, "I will not let you go unless you bless me." The man asked him, "What is your name?" "Jacob," he answered. Then the man said, "Your name will no longer be Jacob, but Israel, because you have struggled with God and with men and have overcome." Jacob said, "Please tell me your name." But he replied, "Why do you ask my name?" Then he blessed him there. So Jacob called the place Peniel, saying, "It is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared." The sun rose above him as he passed Peniel, and he was limping because of his hip. (Genesis 32:24-31)

A Muslim believed that God is pure from all weaknesses of anything that we do not or do know of. God is above all. He is the Judge of Judgement Day. He is the Almighty Creator.

2. The good guys and the bad guys in the Bible were portrayed much the same. Blood thirsty, unsure of themselves, weak, far worse, they are prone to drunkenness and immoral and illegal sex. Jacob was said to have sex with his own daughters. A man of God couldn’t be as lowly as him. So someone has intentionally made us believe that God’s messengers were defective.

3. God couldn’t suffer His creation’s existence and condition. I cannot believe in a god that could be killed by his own weak creations. What if he end up dead again, killed by some men, angels or demons? What if he is already dead and something else has taken his place instead, being more vulnerable compared to most his creations that survived assassination attempts?

So I cannot believe a god could be whining to other god asking why he had forsaken him on the cross for example. Such a weak and confined creature can't be the All Powerful Creator. God is the Almighty and powerful over everything.

15 January 2012 at 14:30  
Blogger srizals said...

Surely some remnants of Jesus' teachings do survived in the gospels. For that I could not say that I disbelieve the Bible completely, whether the OT or the NT. Any part not in harmony with my faith is of course, rejected by me. You find it ridiculous for the Prophet to give a solution to a woman desperate of her need of motherhood. And yet you do not find what I’ve mention in the Bible as ridiculous.

Albert, Shacklefree,

Throughout the ages, God has sent His messengers to mankind all over the globe. It is also in the Bible. So we have universal truth in God inspired religions throughout the passing of time such as there is judgement day where the good and the evil will get what they deserved. Good deeds won't be wasted, justice will prevail in the end, the evil ones will suffer for their arrogance. God is unseen, wise and powerful above all as the only Creator without partners, in full dominion. The coming of the saviour before the end of days, eternal bliss and eternal damnation.

God has never ever been recorded to have to come down here Himself to preach to His undeserving creatures so that they would believe in Him. It would be most ungodly. All pure is He from the innovation of man.

So, I'm sorry to say Shacklefree, the Bible is corrupted. Back then, not everyone can read the Bible or have the Bible in their possessions. It has never been recorded that anyone could memorise the whole of the Bible, the NT or the OT. Only the Koran has this characteristic. It is not only widely read by every Muslims, it is also preserved in the hearts and minds of the memorisers of the Koran. There was never any secrecy or exclusivity to the Koran. No one has any chance to temper with it since it is so available to everyone, now and then.

The early Muslims unlike the early Christians, were triumphant against their mightier oppressors. Even two most powerful superpowers at that time cannot destroy them. Early Christians ended up in Colosseum.
They have to have pagans to decide the matter of their faith. Council of Nicae would be one proof of it.

The Koran was secured. The only book of religion to be recorded still intact page by page in its original language is only the Koran as far as I know. The language of the Koran is also a widespread and a living language. Not that many speak Latin and Aramaic these days.

Shacklefree, Albert,

Do you know why the ancient Israelites conspire to have Jesus killed on the cross? The cross was the most humiliating and despicable punishment invented at that time. By doing so they would manage to destroy the faith of certain Israelites who believed in the truth of Jesus. That is why they had devised such a plan. But Jesus was saved from such humiliation. His enemies were unable to harm him.

15 January 2012 at 14:30  
Blogger srizals said...

Albert, you can read about it here,

"On the morning of the 22nd of July 1946 a party of between 15 and 20 Jews, dressed as an Arabs entered the King David Hotel. The hotel housed the Secretariat of the Government of Palestine and Headquarters of the British Forces in Palestine and Transjordan."

http://britains-smallwars.com/Palestine/Kingdavid.htm

15 January 2012 at 14:40  
Blogger srizals said...

As for Christians taking Mary as god,

Here is the proof of what the Koran says,

"Since Mary is Jesus’ mother, it must be concluded that she is also the Mother of God: If Mary is the mother of Jesus, and if Jesus is God, then Mary is the Mother of God. There is no way out of this logical syllogism, the valid form of which has been recognized by classical logicians since before the time of Christ.

Although Mary is the Mother of God, she is not his mother in the sense that she is older than God or the source of her Son’s divinity, for she is neither. Rather, we say that she is the Mother of God in the sense that she carried in her womb a divine person—Jesus Christ, God "in the flesh" (2 John 7, cf. John 1:14)—and in the sense that she contributed the genetic matter to the human form God took in Jesus Christ.

To avoid this conclusion, Fundamentalists often assert that Mary did not carry God in her womb, but only carried Christ’s human nature. This assertion reinvents a heresy from the fifth century known as Nestorianism, which runs aground on the fact that a mother does not merely carry the human nature of her child in her womb. Rather, she carries the person of her child. Women do not give birth to human natures; they give birth to persons. Mary thus carried and gave birth to the person of Jesus Christ, and the person she gave birth to was God."

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/mary-mother-of-god

"In the 4th and 5th centuries debates about the nature of Christ raged in the Church. The debate was about the relationship of Christ's divine and human natures. At the center of this debate was a title of Mary. Since at least the 3rd century, Christians had referred to Mary as theotokos, meaning "God-bearer." The first documented usage of the term is in the writings of Origen of Alexandria in AD 230. Related to theotokos, Mary was called the mother of God. Referring to Mary this way was popular in Christian piety, but the patriarch of Constantinople from 428-431, Nestorius, objected. He suggested that Mary was only the mother of Jesus' human nature, but not his divine nature. Nestorius' ideas (or at least how others perceived his arguments) were condemned at the Council of Ephesus in AD 431, and again at the Council of Chalcedon in AD 451. The Church decided that Christ was fully God and fully human, and these natures were united in one divine person, Jesus Christ. Thus Mary could be called "mother of God" since she gave birth to Jesus who was fully divine as well as human. Since this time, Mary has been frequently honored as the "mother of God" by Catholics, Orthodox, and many Protestants."

http://www.churchyear.net/motherofgod.html

In the Koran, God told us about Himself,

Al Ikhlas, 112

Say, "He is Allah, [who is] One, (1) Allah, the Eternal Refuge. (2) He neither begets nor is born, (3) Nor is there to Him any equivalent." (4)

http://tanzil.net/#trans/en.sahih/112:1

Hi Len, glad you're here.

15 January 2012 at 14:58  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

Srizals says: Since Mary is Jesus’ mother, it must be concluded that she is also the Mother of God: If Mary is the mother of Jesus, and if Jesus is God, then Mary is the Mother of God. There is no way out of this logical syllogism.

Why would we want get out of this syllogism. This is what Christianity taught from the earliest times and that is why Mary was born without the stain of Original Sin because a person tainted with Adam's sin would be too flawed to be the mother of the perfect God.

15 January 2012 at 15:16  
Blogger Albert said...

Srizals

We have to admit that the Bible does contain certain confusion cannot be ignored if it is to be a Word of God, since we all know that God is not the author of confusion.

No, God is not the author of confusion (the Bible says so!), but it does not follow that just because there is some confusion in the Bible that it is not the Word of God. The question to ask is "What do we mean by calling the Bible the Word of God?"

Here it is important to distinguish between Christianity and Islam. For Islam, as I understand it, the Word of God is the text - dictated to Mohammed. For Christianity, the Word of God is a person: the Second Person of the Trinity, who is made flesh as Jesus Christ. The Bible is the word of God insofar as it proclaims him. We believe it was inspired, but only the fundamentalists believe it was dictated. In other words, the Holy Spirit guided human beings, to use their own human skills, slowly but surely to grasp what God was revealing, in their history and ultimately in Christ. There is a developing revelation, a kind of progress, as individual prophets grasped more and more clearly the nature of God, until HE came in person.

As such, we expect there to be some unevenness in the text. God can never be nailed down or grasped in his fullness. So the kinds of problems you point to are not problems for us, in the same way. In contrast, when we look at the Qur'an, it is clear that that text reflects the same problems. It seems contradictory to us, and seems so obviously to reflect Mohammed's own experience and needs that it is implausible to believe it to be the eternal word of God. It seems implausible to believe God actually dictated it. And so, we conclude that it is not the word of God - although it clearly has some revelation in it, such as when it agrees with the revelation we have received.

The only known recorded Bible by Jesus' own companion was rejected by Christians as unauthentic.

What are you referring to there?

3. God couldn’t suffer His creation’s existence and condition. I cannot believe in a god that could be killed by his own weak creations. What if he end up dead again, killed by some men, angels or demons? What if he is already dead and something else has taken his place instead, being more vulnerable compared to most his creations that survived assassination attempts?

If God chose to become human, he could clearly suffer weakness. However, you need to read you own post on the Mother of God. We do not think that the Godhead was converted into divinity: the Godhead is immutable. We believe humanity was taken up into the Godhead. Thus God suffers, but only as man, and though he dies, in his divinity he never dies.

So I cannot believe a god could be whining to other god asking why he had forsaken him on the cross for example.

But then neither do we. Rather, one person of the Trinity, said this, in his humanity to the First Person of the Trinity. There is no question of different gods for us.

You find it ridiculous for the Prophet to give a solution to a woman desperate of her need of motherhood.

Yes, because it plainly violates what God revealed in the beginning, as interpreted by Jesus, who is the Word of God, himself.

God has never ever been recorded to have to come down here Himself to preach to His undeserving creatures so that they would believe in Him. It would be most ungodly. All pure is He from the innovation of man.

It is recorded in the Bible. Who are you to say a priori what God can and cannot do? What is Godly and ungodly? Are you God? We know our place, and simply receive what he gives us, however astonishing it may be. Why shouldn't you be astonished and mercy and love of God?

the hearts and minds of the memorisers of the Koran

The Qur'an is short read relative to the Bible.

15 January 2012 at 16:09  
Blogger Albert said...

The early Muslims unlike the early Christians, were triumphant against their mightier oppressors. Even two most powerful superpowers at that time cannot destroy them. Early Christians ended up in Colosseum.

Yes, and with St Paul we boast of our weakness. Christianity is a religion based on love, on trust in God, not on human strength. Hence Jesus says to St Paul: "My grace is sufficient for you now, for my strength is made perfect in weakness." The Christian martyrs we prophesied by Jesus, so why should anyone be surprised or think they tell against Christianity. Rather Jesus said: the servant is not above his master. If they persecuted me they will persecute you too."

But Islam seems to be a religion which takes a certain pride in force (your own comment hear shows that). If this is how God shows Islam is the true religion, why are the Islamic countries so weak in the world today? The have been colonised, and although they are free now, it's pretty clear the West can walk into more or less any Muslim country if it wants to. Even when they combine their forces against the tiny state of Israel, they cannot prevail.

I take not pride in the power of the West: it reflects corrupt human nature. But the question must surely be addressed: why if Islam is the religion which prides itself on force (as you have done here) and not on the weakness of the martyrs, why is it so weak in the world today?

They have to have pagans to decide the matter of their faith. Council of Nicae would be one proof of it.

The people who can vote at such Councils are Bishops. In any case, no decision can be taken as fully authority without the support of the Bishop of Rome.

But Jesus was saved from such humiliation.

No: he shows his perfect love by dying for us. "God proves his love for us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us." Why does God not do this in Islam? Because to show such mercy and love would be "beneath" him. But God is love, so since God in Islam does not truly love, it follows he is not God.

I cannot see how what you have written about Mary shows how the Qur'an is not confused about her. You seem instead to be reflecting the same confusion. But as you say, God is not the author of confusion, ergo...

15 January 2012 at 16:12  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

This conversation indicates one of the main differences between Christianity and Islam and demonstrates that Islam does not even begin to comprehend the extent of God’s generosity. It teaches that now is the time for punishment if people will not convert and death is the answer to those who apostasise. Christianity however teaches that God is so generous that he is prepared to come down and take the punishment due to us because we are incapable of saving ourselves. He is prepared to suffer and atone for our sins. He even prayed for those who were crucifying him because ‘They know not what they do’ i.e they were killing the person who existed before all ages and who created them. As Jesus said it is easy to die for the righteous but to die for wretched sinners because they do not have the power to save themselves that is generosity. I’m sure you do not accept that but it displays a level of generosity that is completely incomprehensible to Muslims. It’s not incomprehensible to us because we teach that God IS love. Love is his nature. Therefore it follows that it is impossible for God to do evil. Islam however teaches that God is completely free and if he wishes to do evil he can and if he asks us to do evil we must obey simply because it is his will. That is a blasphemy and those who proclaim it will one day have to explain why they so disgracefully misrepresented him.

15 January 2012 at 19:21  
Blogger len said...

The reason that Srizels is so confused about Christianity is partly because because of Catholic teachings and partly because Jewish scribes sold Mohammed 'Bible stories' which they made up(to mock Mohammed.) Because Catholics have vastly exaggerated the importance of Mary(Mother of Jesus) Muslims assume that she is part of the 'Trinity'which consists of Father,Jesus ,and Mary.
And who could blame them?.God quite clearly says that He is ONE!.
Therefore this confusion has led Muslims to believe the Bible has been corrupted.The Koran has faithfully recorded all these errors.

(And no I am not a Muslim, Catholic posters)

Srizels the question I would ask you was the Bible corrupted BEFORE Mohammed or AFTER Mohammed?
And do you realise that a lot of Catholic teachings are NOT in the Bible?.

15 January 2012 at 20:16  
Blogger Albert said...

Over to you then Len. You defend the Christian teaching on the Trinity and the Incarnation. I will watch with interest.

15 January 2012 at 20:57  
Blogger srizals said...

Albert, maybe it's a way the truth is trying to present itself to you. Muslims nowadays are in a poor state, most who are living in Palestine, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. But Muslims are brothers, they can't live in complete happiness when their brothers are still being oppressed. It's just how Muslims see things. So it would be like a splinter at the back of every decent Muslims.

They are not in a sorry state in other 'areas' Albert. Other than Muslims also reside in those said countries, with Christians deligently defending their holy sites in Palestine, never forget that Albert. Or is it the Holy land comes second after the Vatican?

This is because life as we know it is like a turning wheel, sometimes we are on the top, sometimes we end up at the bottom. We can't stay on top all the time. We would forget the reason why we are here in the first place. But do remember, Muslims had a thousand years of glory before in history. It has not been a thousand years of infamy yet, like what the Christian Europe once was. And time as we know it will change as Christian Europe had went through its thousand years of dark ages. Its encounter with Muslims changed its motivation and condition.

Early Muslims had to be victorious. They were fighting for their survival against powerful enemies that seek to destroy them completely due to their lowly status in the eyes of the two great highly civilised and modern empires. They were seen as lowly servants of both empires. There were no human rights watch at that time, you know. Defeat was not an option. One great example would be the fall of Jerusalem to the crusaders. None survived in the city. The rest had to flee or die.

Nowadays most Muslims have forgotten that they are one. And until they all do, Muslims would be in the dire state that they're in. But don't forget, there are more than 50 Muslim nations in the world. Not every Muslim nations are in turmoil or failures. The weakest Muslim nation can't even be defeated by the only world superpower nowadays. That should be a sign in a way to you. How Muslims there keep on going under impossible condition for decades. Proving themselves to the world. Poor in possessions and dying for what they believed in. Greatly outnumbered and overpowered by far more mightier enemies. But still no military might can defeat them. Interestingly, they encountered two world superpowers also. Should they march out and eliminate the threat at the source like the previous early Muslims? Would they be considered as the bully if they did so?

15 January 2012 at 22:34  
Blogger srizals said...

The 'tiny' state of Israel is backed by the whole of Europe and the West in terms of armaments and most importantly, economically. It looks tiny but with such support it received since the guilt in world war two, it shouldn't be seen as so tiny.

Gaza is tiny but it is still undefeated by the nuclear powered Israel. It was wounded badly, but it prevailed. And what made it so speacial? It is the only place where Muslims and Christians are persecuted together. They face a common enemy. The state of Israel.

Albert, of many nations in the world, only the nation of Muslims deprived themselves from worldly desires at the interval of times. They fast for a month yearly, enduring starvation and weaknesses. Some of them fast every Monday and Thursday. A complete abstinence of food, drinks, legal sex and worldly desires from dawn to dusk for more or less 13 hours a day. This is in order for them to never forget humility and the poor.

Albert,
The Prophet and the early Muslims were constantly oppressed, some were tortured to death, besieged and was economically sanctioned by their enemies until they have but hides to eat and eventually had to left everything behind. They were driven out of their own land with constant threat and harrasment. The prophet himself was nearly killed.

That's the beauty of it, Albert, how a people oppressed in such a way managed to defeat the odds. That's what we need in our daily struggle. The ability to stay true in testing time and beat the odds. It is what we need in the real world. Not just sacrifice and die when the going gets tough.

15 January 2012 at 22:35  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

Len, You believe in Jesus as God who is perfect in every way. Do you believe therefore that the God of perfection was born to a woman who was corrupted by Adam's sin?

16 January 2012 at 03:12  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

Srizals, If you want to keep defending the Islamic idea that God is free to do evil, don't say you weren't warned when you stand before the throne of goodness asking for entry.

16 January 2012 at 03:14  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

Srizals, Aisia Bibi has been on death row in Pakistan for 3 years because she said to a Muslim neighbour “Jesus died for my sins, what has Mohammed done for you?” Do you support the death sentence for blasphemy and do you think she should be killed? A short direct answer will be appreciated.

16 January 2012 at 03:44  
Blogger IanCad said...

Shacklefree @ 03:12

'Do you believe therefore that the God of perfection was born to a woman who was corrupted by Adam's sin?'


This is the dilemma that the false doctrine of Original Sin creates.
The dogma of the Immaculate Conception was invented to overcome the problems caused by OS.
One false teaching leads to another.

16 January 2012 at 07:26  
Blogger Albert said...

Srizals,

I defend the right of Muslims or anyone else to defend themselves in just ways against unjust oppression. I was not meaning to say that they shouldn't I meant simply that Muslims, though numerous are not really strong in the worldly sense, but that this strength seems important to them. For example:

Early Muslims had to be victorious.

No they didn't. They could have been like early Christians: powerless and martyred, yet growing in number because they relied on the grace of Christ and not in their swords. As it was observed at the time: the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church. This Muslim need to be humanly strong seems very worldly and sits uneasily with their present weakness. It implies too much of an anthropomorphic view of God, for us.

The weakest Muslim nation can't even be defeated by the only world superpower nowadays. That should be a sign in a way to you.

Not really, the same could be said of Vietnam and the communists. It just is the case these days that organisation and information enables powerful nations to conquer more or less any country, but face insurgency. There's nothing particularly Islamic about the success of the latter.

of many nations in the world, only the nation of Muslims deprived themselves from worldly desires at the interval of times. They fast for a month yearly, enduring starvation and weaknesses.

This point is well made and taken.

The Prophet and the early Muslims were constantly oppressed, some were tortured to death, besieged and was economically sanctioned by their enemies until they have but hides to eat and eventually had to left everything behind. They were driven out of their own land with constant threat and harrasment. The prophet himself was nearly killed.

That's not really going to impress a Christian is it? Our Christ was killed and his followers have suffered ever since in some places.

16 January 2012 at 13:08  
Blogger Albert said...

Ian,

This is the dilemma that the false doctrine of Original Sin creates.

No it isn't, as Shacklefree's post showed. The need is for Mary to be free from all sin. Whether that includes original sin depends on whether original sin is real.

Having said that, we do believe original sin is real - as do Protestants. What do you believe in, instead?

16 January 2012 at 13:10  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

IanCad, I’m not sure what your basic philosophy so it is difficult to position my response. I assume that you are not a Christian because Original Sin is a foundational doctrine of all branches of Christendom. However we are agreed that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception derives logically from the doctrine of Original Sin. Therefore I think we would need to focus our discussion not on the Immaculate Conception but on Original Sin itself. We see the evidence of Original Sin all around us. For example, it has been established that children of abusers are likely to become abusers themselves – it seems that they have an inbuilt tendency towards the sin. The tendency of course is not sinful but the action is. One abuser sentenced to life imprisonment in America some years ago insisted on his right to be executed because he knew that if he was ever freed he would do the same thing again and he hated himself because of it. It appears that it needs spiritual power i.e. God’s grace to overcome such deep seated sin.

16 January 2012 at 17:51  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

Srizals says “Gaza is tiny but it is still undefeated by the nuclear powered Israel. … It is the only place where Muslims and Christians are persecuted together.

Sorry, the Christians in Palestine do not get a good deal from the Muslims. Some years ago Nazareth was 100% Christian and they wanted to build a car park for their Church so the Palestinian Authority built a mosque in a town without Muslims on the place designated for the car park. Don’t forget also the persecution by Muslims after Bangladesh won its independence from West Pakistan. In ‘Leaving Islam’, edited by Ibn Warraq, Muhammad bin Abdullah, writes about events in Bangladesh in 1971 describing how, after Bangladesh (previously East Pakistan) had obtained independence from West Pakistan, the Muslims then turned on the non-Muslims who had previously been their compatriots in fighting for freedom. He described the killing of millions and the rape of hundreds of thousands justified by the Islamic leadership in which the ideological powerhouses were the mosque. He says that:

• The Koran does not contain a single humane teaching that was not here before Islam.
• Again and again, Islam was mortgaged in the hands of killer leadership
• … nothing can stop Islam from breeding cruel killers time and time again. That is because many of the Prophet’s deeds and Koranic instruction are always alive there to act as fertile ground for breeding killers.
http://www.islamreview.com/articles/islamapostasy.shtml

16 January 2012 at 17:59  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

IN addition, once the Arab Spring settles down, Christians in Egypt and Syria etc are likely to find a new wave of persecution as is currently the case in Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan.

16 January 2012 at 18:17  
Blogger srizals said...

Shacklefree, if your prediction is proven false, would you consider reading the history of Christianity?

We all know that before Paul were said to see 'vision' of Jesus asking him why he's persecuting him, he was a persecutor of Christians that do not share his trinitarian values. After the said 'vision' he changed suddenly from a destroyer of church, befriended Barnabas, a companion of Jesus, then departed ways since he started to preach Jesus' messsage to the pagan Greeks. These Greeks are very much familiar with Zeus, son of Zeus and etcetera. They despised the Israelites and their worship of the One God. So adjustment had to be made by Saint Paul in order not to be rejected by the pagan Greeks that were very much in love with what the Israelites hate, for example drunkenness and the meat of pigs.

Christians that do not share the trinitarian concept were continued to be persecuted. Many were burnt with their 'heretical' gospels. Some did survived but were considered nowadays as non canonical and mere fabrication. Had the Christian Church still possessed the power they once had, many would end up in places similar to Narni or the stakes like Cranmer.

Christianity was erected through oppression, Albert. History was written by crusades after crusades. The Northern crusades against Pagan Europeans, Albigensian crusades and the failed crusades against the Muslims, Christians however managed however to sack Constantinople and destroy the purity of Jerusalem with carnage never to be seen again in history.

"Unlike those crusades whereupon Christians had descended upon infidels, however, the Albigensian Crusade of 1209 consisted of some thirty thousand knights and foot soldiers from northern Europe descending like a whirlwind on the Languedoc -- the mountainous northeastern foothills of the Pyrenees in what is now southern France. And incidentally, wherein lies the town of Rennes-le-Chateau (which keeps cropping up in this history).

The extermination of populations, cities and crops occasioned by the Albigensian Crusade was extensive enough so as to constitute what might be called the first "genocide" in modern European history. In one town, for example, fifteen thousand men, women, and children were slaughtered wholesale -- many of them in the sanctuary of the church. When an officer inquired of the Pope's representative how he might distinguish heretics from true believers, the reply was, "Kill them all. God will recognize his own."

You cannot associate yourself with the early Christians, Albert. These Christians do not share your faith of a human god and were persecuted by Christians like you. They were badly persecuted and patiently awaited the coming of the Righteous One. They do not believe in either the Godheads. They were not pagans. Their house enterence was written with 'In the name of Allah, the Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate.' The cross was nowhere to be found.

Even the remnants of their perveted faith remained in the Bible.

You said Islam said that God could do evil? This is a very grave accusation, where's your proof?

In Christianity, God is shown as to be remorseful just like a poor old man.

Genesis 6:6 “And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it
grieved him at his heart.”

This can't be God.

God was portrayed to be like man, sleeping and drunk most of the time.

Psalms 78:65 “Then the LORD awaked as one out of sleep, and like a mighty man
that shouteth by reason of wine.”

So, as before Len, the Bible was corrupted before the Prophet. That is why he was sent to the world in the first place. It continued to be corrupted by Saint Paul and countless more. Jesus was sent when the Israelites corrupted the Torah.

16 January 2012 at 21:58  
Blogger srizals said...

"The crusade, or war, lasted for nearly forty years. Having been called by the Pope himself, its participants wore a cross on their tunics, like crusaders in Palestine, and their rewards were imminently spiritual, i.e. remission of all sins, an expiation of penances, an assured place in Heaven, and all the booty one could plunder. At least, they had their priorities."

Unlike Islam expansion, Christian expansion ensure the termination of faith and lives that do not agree with them. Subjects under Muslims' control live on as they were. Their church was not burned. They themselves were not.

I wonder what made the soldiers that skinned human face while the person was still alive, gang raped and chopped to pieces a girl and her family, burned and peed on dead corpses as if killing them was not enough, did what they did?

Does it have anything to do with their faith, culture or race?

I can understand this craziness if it is resulted from years of oppression and inhumane tyranny. I'm not giving an excuse for it though, but if it's not cruelty, what could have tempted them to be so cruel?

16 January 2012 at 22:43  
Blogger IanCad said...

Albert
Mary was "Blessed Among Women." This does not necessarily make her sinless.
She was chosen by God to be the Mother of Christ; Just as Saul was chosen on the Damascus Road.
That Christ was without sin there is no dispute. The greatness of His Sacrifice was magnified by the fact that He "Came in the Flesh" and was prey to all the temptations and trials that we are met with.
The doctrine of Original Sin, in essence, gives Christ an advantage over man and essentially condradicts the Biblical truth that he was like us in all ways.
Not all Protestants accept the teaching of OS. Wesley, Arminius and others have their voices heard, to a greater or lesser degree in many denominations.
Calvin was a great supporter of OS and his influence within Protestantism has greater resonance than do those who reject his position.
I do apologise for so tardy a response but it was a long, late day.

16 January 2012 at 23:31  
Blogger srizals said...

Albert, do you not find it strange that god seemed to hold a grudge against mankind that he needed to kill his only son on the cross or needed his son to undergo such cruelty and savegery in order to forgive the sins of Adam and Eve?

Can't he tolerate the weaknessess of his first creations and their children, the imperfect man? Can't he show his mercy?

And why should the descendents of Adam and Eve hold the blame. They weren't they ones that disobeyed god in the first place?

You keep on asking the history of India partition. I have to read up first to help my understanding. I don't know where did you get such grossly figure and the conclusion behind it, but I'll try to check them out.

17 January 2012 at 06:47  
Blogger srizals said...

Shacklefree, what did Jesus mean when he said this, were he referring to Muslims or to Christians that took him as a god?

Matthew 15:9

King James Version (KJV)

"9But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men."

Other than the incident of Jesus were said had revealed himself to Paul, was there any other occasion that he appeared to him afterwards? Or did he sent his angels to do the job for him?

Why didn't Jesus revealed himself before to the other Prophets of God? Was he afraid that the Prophets could not understand the concept of trinity, being so unreliable and all?

How could a son of god be a part of god which means the son is the father and the father is also the son?

I am a father and I have three sons. I know that I'm not them and they have their minds of their own, even though a part of them do come from me. Thanks.

17 January 2012 at 07:00  
Blogger srizals said...

Albert, Shacklefree,

"Pope Urban II instigated the first crusade in the end of the 11th century ...mobilised a gigantic army from the whole of Europe [which] marched eastwards to "save" Jerusalem from the Moslems. [In] 1099 the army attacked the holy city. The result was a complete slaughter, and according to the Chronicles, God's holy soldiers massacred almost 70,000 people."

"Chronicles record a story of a crusader-bishop who referred to the impaled heads of slain Muslims as a joyful spectacle for the people of God.

When Muslim cities were captured by Christian crusaders, it was standard operating procedure for all inhabitants - no matter what their age - to be summarily killed. ...Jews who took refuge in their synagogues would be burned alive, not unlike the treatment they received in Europe.

In his reports about the conquest of Jerusalem, Chronicler Raymond of Aguilers wrote that "It was a just and marvelous judgment of God, that this place [the temple of Solomon] should be filled with the blood of the unbelievers."

St. Bernard announced before the Second Crusade that "The Christian glories in the death of a pagan, because thereby Christ himself is glorified."

http://www.freetruth.50webs.org/A2c.htm

I can understand soldiers must be killed. But why the civilians? Were not the killed, killed in the name of Christianity? Thanks.

17 January 2012 at 07:22  
Blogger srizals said...

And about Vietnam,

"The Vietnam War was declared as a crusade by the American bishops. Those same bishops also declared, in the second Vaticanum, that one should use the atomic bomb(!) against Vietnam to defend the Catholism there (Deschner 1986)."

The Vietnamese were supported by powerful Communist Nations. The Taliban is alone.

17 January 2012 at 07:47  
Blogger Albert said...

Ian,

Mary was "Blessed Among Women." This does not necessarily make her sinless.

I don't think anyone has ever based the doctrine on that passage. The basis of it is in the reality of God's holiness, which has no communion with sin (as St Paul points out), but rather "You can tell a tree by its fruit. An evil tree cannot bear good fruit." The fruit of Mary is not just good, but God.

Wesley accepted original sin: it's in the 39 Articles of the CofE, which he retained:

Original sin standeth not in the following of Adam (as the Pelagians do vainly talk), but it is the corruption of the nature of every man, that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam, whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and of his own nature inclined to evil, and that continually.

Granted, his doctrine may have been more moderate than Calvin's, but then so is the Catholic doctrine.

17 January 2012 at 10:23  
Blogger Albert said...

Srizals,

do you not find it strange that god seemed to hold a grudge against mankind that he needed to kill his only son on the cross or needed his son to undergo such cruelty and savegery in order to forgive the sins of Adam and Eve?

I would find that very odd, but I don't think that is what the teaching is.

17 January 2012 at 10:24  
Blogger Albert said...

Srizals,

I'm a bit busy at the moment, but looking at your post at 7.00 it's pretty obvious (as it is obvious from other things you've said) that you don't really understand much about Christianity. In order to refute something, you first have to understand it.

17 January 2012 at 10:29  
Blogger srizals said...

It's okay, Albert. We all are.

But if you have the time, may I have your opinion on this verse of the Bible, Saint Paul said,

"For if the truth of God has more abounded through my lie unto His glory; why am I still judged as a sinner?"

Romans 3:7

Here we see that Saint Paul himself confided that he was a liar. How could a man that admit that he had lied in order to glorify God so that men would believe in Him can be trusted?

Does God need lies to help Him out? Is God that desperate? This is the problem of humanizing God. God is great. He is not like His creations. He doesn't need us. It is the other way around. Only for His love and mercy that he sent messsengers to guide us to live our lives.

I'm talking about the Gospel of Barnabas, a true apostle of Jesus, it was he that helped Paul to be accepted by the apostles and the Jews as a true convert. Everyone was afraid of him, since you do know that his job was arresting and killing Christians and destroyed Churches.

Some Christians are wary of Muslims' taqiyya. Do they even know about Paul's confession? What if his followers were also fond of his doctrine, lying to glorify God to men?

Whatever happened to Len? I'm afraid he would forget our discussion and ask me the same question again next time.

Don't worry Albert, take your time. When you've responded, I'll get an email. Thank you for your time.

A piece of writing by Barnabas, a true apostle of Jesus, respected by the rest of the apostles.

"True Gospel of Jesus, called Messiah, a new prophet sent by God to the world according to the description of Barnabas his apostle.

Barnabas, apostle of Jesus the Nazarene, called Messiah, to all them that dwell upon the earth desire peace and consolation.

Truly beloved, the great and wonderful God has in these past days visited us by His apostle Jesus (the) Messiah in great mercy of teaching and miracles, by reason
whereof many, being deceived by Satan, under pretense of piety, are preaching most impious doctrine, calling Jesus the Son of God, repudiating the circumcision ordained by God forever, and permitting every unclean meat: among whom also Paul has been
deceived, whereof I speak not without grief: for which cause I am writing the truth which
I have seen and heard, in the fellowship that I have had with Jesus, in order that you may
be saved, and not be deceived by Satan and perish in judgment of God.

Therefore, beware of everyone that preaches to you a new doctrine contrary to that which I write, that you may be saved eternally.

The great God be with you and guard you from Satan
and from every evil. Amen.”

Amin, Ya Rabbal alamin.

17 January 2012 at 12:16  
Blogger srizals said...

Jesus' warning is in the same tone with his apostle Barnabas.

Mark 13

5 Jesus said to them: Watch out that no-one deceives you.

6 Many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am he,' and will deceive many.

Muhammad s.a.w. didn't come in his name, but many Christians had come to the world with his name, one famous figure would be Saint Paul himself.

17 January 2012 at 12:27  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Oh Strewth !

Srizals + RC's. 'Blind and Blinder the movie?. Synopsis - The cross-religious adventures of two superstitious but incredibly stupid groups who go in search of religious memorabilia but bump into each other and discover another bunch of cultic outcasts, much like themselves..' The Religious Reviewer stated 'HolyWood it ain't!!!' *Hysterical Giggles*

Well, its like a bloom'n yeast infection..To be expected at least once a year. INDEED!!!!

Ernsty 'I iz outta ere bluds' Blofeld

17 January 2012 at 13:22  
Blogger srizals said...

As you are not keen of Muhammad's victory over the pagan Arabs, maybe you should consider this prophecy,

Isaiah 21

21st Century King James Version (KJ21)

"13 The burden upon Arabia: In the forest in Arabia shall ye lodge, O ye traveling companies of Dedanites.


14 The inhabitants of the land of Tema brought water to him that was thirsty; they were ready with their bread for him that fled.


15 For they fled from the swords, from the drawn sword, and from the bent bow and from the grievousness of war.


16 For thus hath the Lord said unto me: "Within a year, according to the years of a hireling, all the glory of Kedar shall fail.


17 And the residue of the number of archers, the mighty men of the children of Kedar, shall be diminished. For the LORD God of Israel hath spoken it."

The Arabs were the descendents of Kedar. And only Muhammad s.a.w. had been victorious against them, all of Arabia would become Muslims without a massacre suffered by the Pagans, the Unitarian Christians and countless more in the hands of Crusading Christians.

"The burden upon Arabia", fits the description of the Arabs very well. They had to carry the message of God throughout the world. Hence they had to march on against two giants at the same time, in two different directions.

In modern day military strategies, it would be a suicide to take on conventionally two mighty armies at the same time, having to divide your forces so far from each other and facing armies mightier than you. Look what happened to the Germans when they enggaged Russia at the same time they were engaging the British and Americans.

"13The burden upon Arabia: In the forest in Arabia shall ye lodge, O ye traveling companies of Dedanites.

14The inhabitants of the land of Tema brought water to him that was thirsty; they were ready with their bread for him that fled."

This is the description of the people of Madinah towards the Prophet who had fled persecution from the pagan Arabs in Mecca. He had to travel only with Abu Bakar, his companion, hiding in the wilderness of Arabia just the two of them to avoid the pagans that were tracking them down to kill him at that time. He barely escapes.

How much more coincidence would you need?

According to J. Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible, Teman/Tema is an Oasis North of Medinah.

17 January 2012 at 13:34  
Blogger IanCad said...

Albert,

Having met many Methodists who reject the doctrine of OS. I will have to concur with you that Wesley had a kinder, gentler view than did Calvin. But, nevertheless, He never rejected it. You are right, the RC position is also not quite so fierce. It's just all the baggage that goes with it that I have trouble with. The Nature of Christ, The diminishing of His Sacrifice, The punishment for the sins of others, etc...
Then, of course, we have the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary, both rites created to mitigate the problems inherent to OS.
I will just have to confess my Arminianism if I am to be consistent I suppose.
Before you jump all over me I do understand that in RCism you are only held responsible for your own sins.
I think.

17 January 2012 at 14:37  
Blogger Albert said...

Ian,

The Nature of Christ, The diminishing of His Sacrifice, The punishment for the sins of others,

I'm not quite sure what you are getting at there.

Then, of course, we have the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary, both rites created to mitigate the problems inherent to OS.

I'm not so sure that is true. For surely, these doctrines have simply positive sides which can stand without OS. Immaculate Conception simply defends a prior belief that Mary was all holy (a prior belief which is easier to hold without OS). Assumption: that resurrection comes from deep and faithful communion with Christ.

I will just have to confess my Arminianism if I am to be consistent I suppose.

I just wonder what you mean by that.

17 January 2012 at 15:42  
Blogger srizals said...

But Ernst, you're the one who's holding a cat without a head. ')

17 January 2012 at 16:07  
Blogger Oswin said...

Ernst @ 13:22 :

I'm not sure whether srizals is an actual ''yeast infection'' but I do advise the taking of strong liquor after contact. Well, before, during AND afterwards. Dib dib!

17 January 2012 at 16:33  
Blogger Albert said...

Blofeld,

It is evident that Srizals writes long post, which are challenges to Christianity, not to Catholicism. It's hard to keep up with Srizals if only because of the sheer volume of what he writes. But rather than defend your faith, your contribution is simply to be offensive.

17 January 2012 at 19:08  
Blogger Albert said...

Srizals

Here we see that Saint Paul himself confided that he was a liar.

No he hasn't. He is saying if someone is a sinner or a liar, that will simply show up God's justice all the more.

Whatever happened to Len? I'm afraid he would forget our discussion and ask me the same question again next time.

You and I may be separated by many things Srizals, but some things clearly unite us!

Regarding the Gospel of Barnabas. There is no evidence that this "Gospel" is sufficiently ancient to be biblical. It contrasts with the Epistle of Barnabas, which is clearly ancient and says we do not need to have circumcision. The reason this "Gospel" was not included in the Bible was because it did not exist.

I think the suggestion that Isaiah is predicting Mohammed is a little odd. What it predicts is to take place within one year. That was in perhaps the 8th century BC. Unless Mohammed miraculously travelled through time as well as space, I suspect therefore, it wasn't referring to Mohammed.

In any case, Isaiah is a long book, talking about similar geography to that Mohammed would experience over 1000 years later. It is not surprising that there are odd sentences which may - with a little imagination and ignoring of details - seem to describe Mohammed. In fact, I would be surprised if there were no such coincidences.

17 January 2012 at 19:33  
Blogger IanCad said...

Albert

The Nature of Christ, The diminishing of His Sacrifice, The punishment for the sins of others,

I am saying that Christ would not be like as we are in every way thus contradicting Biblical teaching.

It was my understanding that the exalted state granted to Mary by the RC's was after the doctrine of OS was established. Please correct me on that if such is not the case.

Total Freedom of the Will is the doctrine that I hold dear. I was not refering to OS. in that statement. Arminius was another Calvin lite.

17 January 2012 at 19:39  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

Srizals, We do not in any way condone the attrocities committed by Christians in the past. We know the historical record and it causes us shame. However, if that is a reason to condemn Christianity, how much more can it be used to discredit Islam. The historical record of Islam was violence from the start right up to the present day. We don't have to go back hundreds of years to find Muslim genocide. You haven’t answered my charge of 2.5 million killed in Southern Sudan in order to impose Sharia law in a place where Muslims did not live. Here is another quote about the East Timor genocide.

Dili’s bishop, Mgr. Coste Lopez later stated: “The soldiers who landed started killing everyone they could find. There were many dead bodies in the streets.” They had been told that they were fighting a jihad, and whole villages – for example Remexio and Aileu – were slaughtered. In Dili, hundrerds of Chinese were shot and thrown off the wharf into the sea. In Maubara and Luiquica, the entire Chinese populations were wiped out … By November 1976, the death toll had reached 100,000. … Once East Timor was out of the way, the next target was the Christian minority in Indonesia itself. In 1999-2000 the perse4cution, destruction of property, and killing of Indonesia’s Christians amounted to a deliberate campaign of religious cleansing. … The campaign of anti-Christian violence finally abated in 2001, after the Muslim migrants from the overpopulated islands of Java and Sulawesi had been well established in the homes and on the lands of expelled Christians. From ‘The Sword of the Prophet’ by Trifkovic.

These things were done in the last 50 years. Please do not assume we are in favour of Christian violence. However, your own blog indicates a certain glorification of Muslim violence and a tendency to only see injustice when Muslims are the victims.

17 January 2012 at 19:41  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

IanCad, I think we tend to talk about the sin of Adam and Eve in the way we talk of other sins. Sin is a reality in our world and we know that forgiveness is a great virtue and we believe that even the worse sins can be forgiven if they are repented of. However these sins occur in a world which has been flawed.

However, the sin of Adam occurred within perfection and we mean absolute perfection - the type of perfection that we can speculate about but which we are completely ignorant of. It’s like a spider trying to understand space travel. I think we have to accept that the sin of Adam was a betrayal of stupendous proportions and it broke the fabric of the universe and created the flawed world we now live in. The Original Sin of Adam tainted us all but because God is absolute perfection it just was not possible for Jesus the completely perfect Lord of the Universe to be formed in a body tainted by imperfection. However it is not true that this gives Jesus an advantage but in fact a much greater disadvantage if we think about it.

17 January 2012 at 19:57  
Blogger Albert said...

Ian

I am saying that Christ would not be like as we are in every way thus contradicting Biblical teaching.

But he isn't like we are in one respect: he is without sin. As Hebrews says: For we have not a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin.

I don't see what difference it makes whether one's sin is original or not. He never had it.

Of course, there are other ways in which he is different too: he has no human father. We need to be careful about inferring our Lord's characteristics from our own.

It was my understanding that the exalted state granted to Mary by the RC's was after the doctrine of OS was established. Please correct me on that if such is not the case.

Historically, that is true. But it doesn't follow that Mary's exalted state is dependent on original sin. Rather it comes from an awareness that Mary is all holy, which itself comes from the incarnation viewed in the light of God's holiness.

Total Freedom of the Will is the doctrine that I hold dear. I was not refering to OS. in that statement. Arminius was another Calvin lite.

I thought perhaps that is what you meant. Do you mean though that man does not have a tendency towards sin?

17 January 2012 at 20:35  
Blogger Albert said...

Srizals,

Having a look at the "Gospel" of Barnabas, it turns out that it opposes polygamy:

Let a man content himself therefore with the wife whom his creator has given him, and let him forget every other woman

Now that's rather interesting, I think, for you said of this man:

A piece of writing by Barnabas, a true apostle of Jesus, respected by the rest of the apostles.

So which will you abandon:

(i) Polygamy
(ii) Gospel of Barnabas
(iii) Jesus

17 January 2012 at 21:16  
Blogger srizals said...

Be steadfast, Albert, don't mind little children. That's what the little ones will do. They can never argue with reason. You command my respect.

In no way I'm trying to insult you and your faith. Like you and many Christians that have questioned my faith, sometimes to the extent of vilifying it without any hesitation, don't you think I'm entitled to my right of defending my faith? Let's discuss like men or like brothers of humanity. We can be different, argue without the need to throw insult and harm each other. Let show these little children, blind faith is just what it is, blind. Do not waver. Take your time, don't rush. Read and read, you'll be a much better person than before. I'm not asking anyone to believe in what I believe. Your religion is your religion, to me, mine. But issues must be discussed. That's why they are called issues. We addressed them and give our point of views, no matter how contradicting they are from each other. Embrace differences. Don't be afraid of it. We would be much better person. Able to live with differences and diversity. Let's not question God's plan for us now. Everything existed is by His leave. We do our small part in His plan. He is the best planner. It is up to us to choose which path do we want to follow. That's the beauty of it. Have to go.

I'll be back.

17 January 2012 at 22:02  
Blogger srizals said...

Albert, you should have not use simple quotation to refute me. You must see the whole context, the related words and sentences uttered the same time with it. We cannot quote them separately, you know that.

Jesus was teaching his disciples about lust, not polygamy.

He said not to desire woman, Albert.

He didn't say not take other women as wives. Even Muslims nowadays know that they must not, and cannot desire women other than their wives. It is a sin thinking of other women when one already have a wife. They can only take other women as their wives if they are able to be a husband which provides everything for his wives and think of them only to avoid sex and unlawful relationship between man and woman outside marriage. You know how strict Islam is.

That is why not many Muslims practise polygamy, it is not because they do not believe in it, but the requirement is heavy.

Let's see the whole story in context. Was he talking about polygamy or lust. No interpretation, no hidden meaning. Let the words speak for themselves, side by side.

"The abominable lust, that maketh man like the brute beasts, ought greatly to be feared; for the enemy is of one's own household, so that it is not possible to go into any place whither thine enemy may not come.

Ah, how many have perished through lust! Through lust came the deluge, insomuch that the world perished before the mercy of God and so that there were saved only Noah and eighty-three human persons.

`For lust God overwhelmed three wicked cities whence escaped only Lot and his two children.

`For lust the tribe of Benjamin was all but extinguished. And I tell you verily that if I should narrate to you how many have perished through lust, the space of five days would not suffice,'

James answered: `O Master, what signifieth lust?'

Jesus answered: `Lust is an unbridled desire of love, which, not being directed by reason, bursts the bounds of man's intellect and affections; so that the man, not knowing himself, loveth that which he ought to hate.

Believe me, when a man loveth a thing, not because God hath given him such thing, but as its owner, he is a fornicator; for that the soul, which ought to abide in union with God its creator, he hath united with the creature.

And so God lamenteth by Isaiah the prophet, saying: "Thou hast committed fornication with many lovers; nevertheless, return unto me and I will receive thee."

`As God liveth in whose presence my soul standeth, if there were not internal lust within the heart of man, he would not fall into the external; for if the root be removed the tree dieth speedily.

`Let a man content himself therefore with the wife whom his creator hath given him, and let him forget every other woman.'

Andrew answered: `How shall a man forget the women if he live in the city where there are so many of them?'

p. 115.

I'll repeat what Andrew had said, "How shall a man forget the women (not wives) if he live in the city whwere there are so many of them?"

All the women of the city cannot be Andrew's wives.

17 January 2012 at 22:47  
Blogger srizals said...

Jesus continued in p. 116,

`It behoveth a man to live in the city, even as the soldier liveth when he hath enemies around the fortress, defending himself against every assault and always fearing treachery on the part of the citizens.

Even so, I say, let him repell every outward enticement of sin, and fear the sense, because it hath a supreme desire for things impure.

But how shall he defend himself if he bridle not the eye, which is the origin of every carnal sin?"

(My emphasis, the eyes played a major part in carnal sin, we desire what we see, so we must control our eyes, if we cannot control our environment. This goes hand in hand with the teaching of Islam.)

"As God liveth in whose presence my soul standeth, he who hath not bodily eyes is secure not to receive punishment save only to the third degree, while he that hath eyes recediveth it to the seventh degree."

Still the theme is about lust and how to control it. Not polygamy. Thanks.

17 January 2012 at 22:48  
Blogger IanCad said...

Albert

We are both referring to the same scripture; Hebrews 4:15. I should have quoted the entire verse.
If we are born bearing the indictment of OS. then Christ would also have to bear this guilt if he was to be like us. We know He was without sin therefore on this basis the doctrine of OS is on dodgy ground.

God was the Father of Our Lord.

"We need to be careful about inferring our Lord's characteristics from our own." I totally agree.

No doubt! We have a sinful nature. The saving grace of Christ can give us the power, through Him, to overcome sin on a day to day basis. When He returns our nature will be changed. "For this corruptible must put on incorruption,---" 1 Corinthians 15:53.

18 January 2012 at 08:05  
Blogger srizals said...

No, Albert, you got it all wrong, exactly after a year after the Prophet migrated to Madinah, the pagans were defeated in the Battle of Badr. 313 Muslims against 750 footmen and 200 horsemen. The Muslims defended themselves with bows and arrows as in the prediction, Albert.

Okay, let's say that it has nothing to do with Prophet's Muhammad journey from Mecca to Madinah, and his ability to defeat the attacking forces of the pagans, then what would he be talking about?

And further elaboration of the polygamy problem you've brought up,

"Believe me, when a man loveth a thing, not because God hath given him such thing, but as its owner, he is a fornicator; for that the soul, which ought to abide in union with God its creator, he hath united with the creature."

Here clearly we can see, a man must only love his wife/wives that were given to Him by God in the hand of marriage. He is a fornicator if he loves a woman/women other than his.

18 January 2012 at 08:16  
Blogger srizals said...

Len, we never did finish our discussion about which religion is influenced the most by paganism.

Rev. James Houston Baxter, Professor of Ecclesiastical History in the University of St. Andrews writes in The History of Christianity in the Light of Modern Knowledge:
"If paganism had been destroyed, it was less through annihilation than through absorption. Almost all that was pagan was carried over to survive under a Christian name. Deprived of demi-gods and heroes, men easily and half-consciously invested a local martyr with their attributes and labeled the local statue with his name, transferring to him the cult and mythology associated with the pagan deity. Before the century was over, the martyr cult was universal, and a beginning had been made of that imposition of a deified human being between God and man which, on the one hand, had been the consequence of Arianism, and was, on the other, the origin of so much that is typical of medieval piety and practice. Pagan festivals were adopted and renamed: by 400, Christmas Day, the ancient festival of the sun, was transformed into the birthday of Jesus."

18 January 2012 at 12:52  
Blogger srizals said...

You mentioned about inhumane taxes under Muslim rule, known as the jizya, what about the taxes under Byzantine rule?

"Syria, another fair dominion of the Byzantine Empire, was always treated as a hunting ground for the
imperiousness and expansionist policy of the imperial government. Syrians were treated as slaves, at the mercy of their master, for they could never pretend to have any claim to a kind or considerate behavior upon their rulers.

The taxes levied upon them were so excessive in amount and so unjust in incidence that the Syrians had very often to sell their children for clearing the government dues.
Unwarranted persecution, confiscation of property,
enslavement and impressed labor were some of the common features of the Byzantine rule. (Kurd 'Ali, Khutat Sham,
Vol. i, p.101)

18 January 2012 at 13:10  
Blogger srizals said...

Albert, Shacklefree,

How was the world back then before the coming of the Prophet?

Were the nations and empires in perfect harmony, or were they ridden with tyranny? There must be a reason for the coming of the Prophet of God to the worlds.

There must be a reason why the people of both empires embrace Islam in masses when the light of Islam reaches them or supported the Muslim troops against their rulers without changing their faith. What's your opinion? Do the people at the time need something to revitalise themselves? Thanks.

18 January 2012 at 13:24  
Blogger Oswin said...

Albert @ 19:08 :

With genuine respect Sir, but you'll learn! We've been here many times before etc.

However, someone has to do it, and I truly wish you well with srizals; but I suspect his capacity for delusion will defeat your attempts at reason. Which is NOT to deny your powers of reason Sir, but merely acknowledging srizals capacity for flim-flam.

May God be with you! ;o)

18 January 2012 at 13:52  
Blogger Albert said...

Srizals,

I think your interpretation of Barnabas is special pleading. The text is clearly speaking of only one wife and forgetting all others. But this doesn't alter the other problems. The book is far far too late to be authentic, and, if it does permit polygamy, it contradicts the known opinions of Barnabas, from texts which are ancient. You cannot have it both ways.

Regarding Isaiah. Not being an OT scholar, I don't know exactly what that passage is about. But taken as a whole it is clearly talking about circumstances contemporary with the author.

18 January 2012 at 14:16  
Blogger Albert said...

There must be a reason for the coming of the Prophet of God to the worlds.

That assumes the point to be proved.

There must be a reason why the people of both empires embrace Islam in masses when the light of Islam reaches them or supported the Muslim troops against their rulers without changing their faith.

With regard to the former, the sword had something to do with it, together with the clever way in which marriage was used. With regard to the latter, the Byzantines had been persecuting Middle Eastern Christians whom they regarded as heretics. Hence they welcomed new rulers. There's nothing terribly surprising about that. The Ukrainians welcomed the Nazis, because they hated the Communists. Nothing terribly divine about it.

18 January 2012 at 14:19  
Blogger Albert said...

Oswin,

Thank you. I can see that Srizals doesn't defend any argument for long, he just has a lot of them!

18 January 2012 at 14:21  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

Srizals, If the Syrians were persecuted can you name any Christian leader who justifies that today? In addition there is no point quoting the Gospel of Barnabbas. They were defined as being unworthy almost 2000 years ago so we do not accept their authenticity. However there are plenty of Youtube videos that tell us that Islam is at war with the rest of the world until they submit to Islam. Can you please tell us if you hold the same views as Anjem Choudry as expressed in this Hard Talk interview and please don’t answer with a long winded diatribe which doesn’t answer the question. A short direct answer is all that is required.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maHSOB2RFm4

I have also seen others where Islamic clerics tell us that the hatred between Muslims and Jews is an eternal hatred which will not end until the Jews are wiped out.

Only today we heard that the Nigerian police had let go the person who bombed the Christian Church. They feign surprise that this had happened.

18 January 2012 at 14:57  
Blogger Oswin said...

Albert : 14:21 : if you read old srizal's blog/web-page, you'll see that he hates ''liars and twisters of the truth and, foremost, hypocrites.''

Which, in reality, translates as: 'anyone who disagrees with his self-deluded love of old Mo'...even though the koran, sura and hadiths, are testament to the blatant vileness of the man.

You just can't argue with such a person. Srizals is a teacher/lecturer, it's not as if he's some uneducated peasant. What hope for the rest of them eh?

18 January 2012 at 15:43  
Blogger srizals said...

But Oswin, people are judged not for what they are, we are judged for what we do.

Shacklefree, will address them afterwards.

Albert, when people do not respond to your argument, then you have to be polite and move on. It is called good manners. We don't want to put them in an awkward position for too long. It would be embarrassing for them and for us. So when we have made our point. We move on and hope that the person would eventually think for himself afterwards. We can't teach them everything. We can only hope that they would think for themselves and see through the fog of lies, someday. Have to go. The call to pray is in the cool morning air.

18 January 2012 at 22:06  
Blogger Albert said...

Sirzals,

when people do not respond to your argument, then you have to be polite and move on. It is called good manners.

I think I have responded to every argument you have put to me (though I may have missed some in the sheer volume of correspondence). Consider where we started: women don't have souls and are inherently evil. We still haven't had any evidence to support that, and you haven't responded to the evidence I gave against. All you do is change the subject. Where you have responded to me, your arguments have shown an unfamiliarity with Christianity - such as your attempt to show Paul is a liar. I have contradicted your emphasis on the need for violence if a new religion was to be successful - a true religion can rely on God, not the sword. I have shown how Jesus excluded polygamy, by appealing to the law itself. We have talked about the Gospel of Barnabas, which you say the Church rejected. I say there is no evidence of it existing at a time it could have been rejected, and that its teaching contradicted (if it supports you) the known views of Barnabas. And so on.

As you say:

We move on and hope that the person would eventually think for himself afterwards. We can't teach them everything. We can only hope that they would think for themselves and see through the fog of lies, someday.

19 January 2012 at 09:21  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

Very concise Albert and accurate.

19 January 2012 at 11:33  
Blogger Oswin said...

srizals @ 22:06 : fair comment old chum; if only we might all operate from that basis alone, the world would be a better place.

19 January 2012 at 14:07  
Blogger srizals said...

Albert, where's the original sin in this event?

"In the tenth century, Odo of Cluny stated “To embrace a woman is to embrace a sack of manure.”

Women were regarded as impediments to true spirituality and union with God, which helps explain why investigators focused on women and ignored men. The church had a long-standing prejudice against women, and this was given vent when the doctrine of devil worship was revealed.

Of course interrogations of witches followed the standard Inquisition procedures, but with some added bonuses. Accused witches were all stripped naked, had all of their body hair shaved of, and then “pricked.”

The sexually neurotic Malleus Maleficarum had become the standard text on how to deal with witches, and this book stated authoritatively that all witches bore a numb “devil’s mark” which could be detected by sharp prodding.

Inquisitors were also quick to search for the purported “witches’ tits,” blemishes which were supposed to be extra nipples used by witches to suckle demons. If the men interrogating the witches were to become aroused, it was assumed that the desire originated not in them, but instead was a projection from the women. Women were supposed to be highly sexually-charged beings, while the celibate Inquisitors were supposed to be beyond such things.

No longer merely adherents to a more ancient religious tradition, witches had been made into slaves of Satan. Instead of a healer or a teacher, the witch was made into an instrument of evil. The witch was portrayed — and treated — as a heretic."



One by one, now, Albert. One at a time. Women are inherently evil, as viewed by Christianity, maybe not now, but it surely did.

As for the soulles issue, like I've said, it was brought up by Christians, not Muslims. The quotation that I've quoted was not from a Muslim source.

Second, name me any race, tribe or nation that were eliminated by Muslims. Who were converted to Islam under the sword of the Prophet,then and now?

Just these two this time.


Shacklefree,

there is no compulsion in religion. It's in the Koran, read it. That's the problem of Islam haters, they do not know which verses should they be referring to, having others to do the thinking for them.

If God has said so, that there is no compulsion in religion, now, how could I or any Muslims could have said otherwise?

Unlike Saint Paul that said what he had said, by using "I", but of course, to a Christian point of view, we shouldn't be reading it literally, there's always deep mysterious meaning known only to certain selective 'monkly' people.

Shacklefree,

The Prophet had said,

"Whoever hurts a Non-Muslim citizen of a Muslim state hurts me, and he who hurts me annoys God." (Bukhari)

Do you know about this? And in the Koran,

2:256

There is no compulsion in religion, for the right way is clearly from the wrong way. Whoever therefore rejects the forces of evil and believes in God, he has taken hold of a support most unfailing, which shall never give way, for God is All Hearing and Knowing.

Thanks.

19 January 2012 at 15:49  
Blogger Albert said...

Nothing you have said shows women are inherently evil. Perhaps there's something being lost in the translation of the word "inherently". Nothing can be inherently evil in Christianity. But you have also failed to take account of other things that are said about sexuality. The Bible has a whole book devoted to sexuality. The Bible says "Be fruitful and multiply", it commends marriage and the marriage-bed. If there were monks and others who held strange opinions on women, you must also recognise that the Medieval marriage rite involved the priest blessing the couple in bed!

As for the soulless issue, you haven't provided a quotation on that (unless you are referring to the Lutheran heretic referring to an unnamed bishop at an unspecified council (there are several councils of that name) several centuries earlier.

This is the problem with your manner of reasoning: you look only at very limited aspects of evidence and you draw your whole conclusion from there in the face of evidence that either contradicts or qualifies your position. That's not reasoning, it's special pleading.

As for the conversion by the sword, of course, we know from the Qur'an that "there is no compulsion in religion". And yet, we are also told "Fight those who believe not in God nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by God and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book (Christians and Jews), until they pay the jizya [tribute] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."

In a strict sense then, no one was converted by the sword, but they faced one of three options:

(i)Convert
(ii) Pay a special tax
(iii) Fight.

That's what I call "converted by the sword".

19 January 2012 at 16:29  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older