Wednesday, June 30, 2010

Will the Senseless Harassment of Muslims Never End?

More Islamophobia. Watch this video, as police officers and returning British soldiers mercilessly harass innocent Muslims. One thing is clear: Anyone who tries to hand these Muslims a copy of the Gospel of John must be stopped at all costs. As Westerners, we must never let anything stand in the way of Sharia.

53 comments:

Matlin said...

Kick these thick heads out of UK and all Europe and USA!

minoria said...

I am not surprised.In the forum I participate several Muslims support the terrorists.The OTHERS,I don't know,since they do NOT SPEAK UP.
If a Christian in a forum where to say he supported the Lord's Resistance Army,a Christian terrorist group in Africa,the leader is JOSEPH KONY.Founded in 1987 and with 3,000 soldiers,it operates in Uganda,then ALL the Christians would condemn him.
I wouldn't be silent.

MY POINT
It is that the Muslims who are against the Sharia law people say NOTHING,they are afraid or don't care.

ALSO
The video,if I heard rightly,said a group of "Muslims and non-Muslims" protested against Sharia law.They showed MARYAM NAMAZIE,she is an ATHEIST and EX-MUSLIM,not a Muslim.She's Iranian.

kate said...

WOW! England, maybe one day u will wake up. Or maybe not, it might take another bomb attack on in your country to wake you guys up.
I have never, NEVER in my entire life seen a hate group get so much freedom to express what they feel out in public.
If Christians were to start up a group marching and shouting for the thousands of deaths that happen to our Christian brothers and sisters, we will get arrested in seconds!, no question.
Thats the difference between us Christians and muslims. We have hope but they dont, so they express what they feel right now. There is a better place waiting for us Christians, but for muslims? I doubt they even believe in their paradise promise.
All i can do is pray for their Salvation. but they still make me mad! LOL

John Lollard said...

Gosh, those poor Muslims, having some mean and nasty English woman yell obscene and hateful things at her. If only she was a bit more educated, if only she had done the slightest bit of research, she would know just how bigoted and ignorant her opinions are.

frency varghese said...

this is just the beginning of the end of UK and Europe.This would happen even in the US.
I feel sorry for the native Britishers. Give them an inch and they will take a square and later on the whole country.

mkvine said...

I commend the moderate Muslims for standing up to their extremist counterparts by opposing Sharia Law. But notice the differences between those who do not want Sharia Law and those that do. The ones that don't want Sharia Law were very civilized, were not shouting profanities and were very calm. The ones that did want Sharia Law looked like an uncivilized angry Mob. Also notice how those Muslims opposed to Sharia Law had very few fellow Muslims supporting them. I wonder why that is?

ned said...

Well that’s what a snake does; you may feed or show love or do what ever but it will bite you on the day. Where ever muslims go in the world they bring violence and aggression with them. Unless west and especially UK take some urgent drastic steps in crushing the head of the snake the things will go worse. Most of the mob looked like pakis or Indians. Paki muslims don’t want to establish sharia in India cause Hindus are equally or rather more aggressive than them and they are ready to give them the taste of their own medicine. In West they exploit the system and human rights to upset the society. Unless West gives them the taste of their own medicine of violence and terror they will not back off? Let’s pray for deliverance of UK and West from the evil that is upon us.

Traeh said...

What a mob! That's what Islam seems to be about, the rule of the animalistic collective, and forget the individuals.

Traeh said...

mkvine,
Your rhetorical question causes me to suppose that you know that the reason the anti-Sharia Muslims have far fewer people is that Sharia is core Islam. The anti-Sharia Muslims are Muslims who have been Westernized and don't really follow Muhammad or Islam's core teachings. Also, those anti-Sharia Muslims, some of them, are apparently Iranians, who have had the dubious pleasure of experiencing Sharia and its evil in their flesh for many years, so they know it to be evil.

Mike said...

This is extremely disturbing. While there are times when I find the behavior of Christians annoying and hypocritical, I know I don't have to worry about them some day violently attempting to force me to convert me to their religion. Sure, there is the Christian dominion movement, and there are a lot of things you could say about it, but it isn't violent.

Unfortunately, this is what happens when Muslims want to take dominion in a society. I still believe, because of my personal experiences with several muslims (I live right near a mosque) that there are several of them who are peaceful people who would not hurt a fly, but they are peaceful despite their religion and not because of it.

John Lollard said...

Mike,

For some reason I feel like talking to you.

I have also known many Muslims who were very kind and peaceful people that I respected a lot. Observing how they practiced Islam, it seemed to be confined to a way of knowing God and praying to him, but stopped short of informing their morality or politics. Maybe I'm not being clear, but it seemed like Islam meant to them that God kept a constant watch on mankind through prophets, heard their prayer, and left them with a beautiful book of poetry.

Since you live near a mosque, would you say that's been your observation?

Would you say that this version of Islam is helpful or harmful or neutral to the peaceability of these Muslims?

Since you're views on God and religion are different from those of myself and most of the people who frequent this blog, I figured that I would ask you. I myself am kind of conflicted on the issue, believing that the perfect peace of Jesus is necessary to have true peace with your fellow man.

Do you think Christians who act violently do so because of or in spite of their religion?

What are your thoughts on the issue of peace and deity?

Love in Christ,
JL

The Berean Search said...

Non Muslim citizens of the USA pay close attention. If we do nothing, this will be happening in our country.

It's not a matter of "if", it is a matter of "when", unless we resist Islamization.

hugh watt said...

Traeh said:

"What a mob! That's what Islam seems to be about, the rule of the animalistic collective, and forget the individuals."

You mean like 'The Borg' in Star Trek. 'You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile. We are Islam!'

Mike said...

John, you are being clear. I understand what you are saying. I think you are summing up the mindset of many muslims who practice their faith peacefully. Although the Islamic scriptures do encourage violence, it is possible to practice Islam in a peaceful manner. Of course, in order to do this, one has to deny portions of the very scriptures they claim came from God. An example of muslims practicing a peaceful form of Islam is the brand of Islam that Nabeel came out of: Ahmadiya (spelling?). Of course, several muslims do not even consider that a true brand of Islam. That should tell us something right there.

By the way, with many Muslims, I see the same thing that I see with people of other faiths. One may call himself a catholic, muslim, Jew, lutheran whatever, but it's just for cultural reasons, and they do not practice their faith at all. With people like that, I understand why they still give themselves a religious label, but I wish they'd be more honest about where they really are when it comes to religion.

To answer your other questions, I guess this peaceful brand of Islam is helpful, but it's scary to think about what could happen if these same muslims decided to embrace the violent portions of the Koran and Hadith.

I would definitely say Christians who act violently do so in spite of Christianity. Yes, the Old Testament is very violent, but the New Testament, which is the era that Christians are supposed to be living in now, is almost pacifistic in my opinion. I say almost because there are verses that would probably indicate violence for self-defense is acceptable. The only verse in the New Testament that might be interpreted as promoting violence is I think in Luke, where Jesus is telling his disciples to bring a sword, among other things, on their journey. If someone finds this verse, please let me know where it is, and yes, I know we have to look at everything in context.

John Lollard said...

Hey Mike,

The verse you're speaking of is Luke 22:36. One time, an old bible-study leader quoted this verse, and concluded jokingly that Jesus was secretly a samurai. I would say that it is definitely important to take that verse in context.

It's funny you mention Christianity being almost pacifist. I have been really, really struggling with pacifism. So far as I can tell, Christianity is completely pacifist. The only non-pacifist element I can sneak in there would be something like defensive war on behalf of the state based on Romans 13 and "give unto caesar", but even that sits uncomfortably for me. I say I've been struggling because being pacifist implies an awful lot once one starts thinking about things like marriage.

I think I agree with you about "watery" theists sort of ending up practicing the same thing. I have a pretty cool story on the lines of cultural religion about a sikh young man who accepted Jesus, but it's kind of long.

I was sort of asking you because I'm sort of an inclusivist and you brought up the subject of peaceful Muslims, which is sort of related. But then you took it in a totally different direction, which is cool, too.

Here's a question I've been curious about for a while. Your opinion of an Islamic extremist seems pretty clear, but what do you think a Christian extremist would look like?

Love in Christ,
JL

Nakdimon said...

I'm really confused: How is this not treason?

Nabeel Qureshi said...

I'm not sure, but I think you can only be charged with treason during wartime...

But then again, they're at war. Hmm....

minoria said...

I have been thinking of Mike's comment of Dawkings and others as being "extremist atheists".

I know their ideas.

WHAT IS AN EXTREMIST?

To Mike and others Muslims play with words.Some leftists also hold to the Muslim position,due to ignorance,even lack of intelligence.

"SECULAR EXTREMISTS"

When Muslims argue with non-Christian Westerners(the great majority of Westerners by the way)they can't argue using Christianity.So they call Westerners who criticize Islamic practices like the BURKA or POLYGAMY "extremists"....secular extremists.

Mike would be that for them.They say:"ALL EXTREMISTS are EQUALLY BAD"...that includes Dawkings,Barker,Hitchens,Sam Harris,Michel Onfray(the secular "extremists".

WRONG IDEA

By making a man like Michel Onfray,the most famous philosopher of Europe,an ATHEIST,who is FOR human rights,for democracy,and eventual disappearence of religion(through education) the SAME THING(by calling him an "extremist"of secularism)as BEN LADEN is what Muslims what to accomplish.To make the general public stupid.
I a talking about Muslim INTELLECTUALS,the leaders of the Western Muslims.For the common Muslim,I don't know.

You all know PAT CONDELL,the atheist who speaks against Islam,for them he is an "extremist"no better than the "Christian extremist Jerry Falwell" or the extremist Ben Laden.The DIFFERENCE is that Condell and Falwell would not agree to kill you for criticism.It is the WORD GAME.

1moremuslim said...

Christians have two faces,
When they are in a debate, they pull out every verse to prove that Christianity is a religion of no-war, Christians should not participate in wars, they are commanded to love their enemy, bless those who persecute them... In the real life, Christians ( In this blog ) are pro-war thugs. suddenly, they forget the verse " My kingdom is not of this world". Sheer hypocrisy! Do you remember the Phelps family, welcoming the dead US soldiers? Why you didn't rebuke that? There are anti-war protests in all the world, these days there are violent anti-war protests in Toronto, hundreds were arrested, you didn't report that? Why? If you are truly Christians, you would join anti-war protests, but I don't think you are.

John Lollard said...

"Do you remember the Phelps family, welcoming the dead US soldiers? Why you didn't rebuke that?"

1moremuslim, the Phelps family is the most hated family in America. They get rebuked everywhere they go. They simply aren't amenable to reason. If you mean, why didn't they rebuke them on this blog, it's because the Phelps family aren't Muslim and this blog is dedicated to Islam.

As to pacifism, I don't think that anyone has ever argued for pacifism in a debate, they've argued that Christianity is a peaceful religion and that wars of the secular state are merely wars of the secular state. The idea of a "crusade" is an idea in direct opposition to the teachings of the New Testament, but there is such a thing as a non-crusade war, such as World War II.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that we are "pro-war thugs". Did someone say something that was pro-war?

Love in Christ,
JL

1moremuslim said...

To John Lollard :
Watch every debate made by David Wood "Is Christianity is a religion of peace?" Especially againt Abdullah Al Andalusi. And tell me how david wood's position is not Pacifism? The Muslim debater was arguing that early Christians like Augustine, were for just wars, David Wood's response was to declare that Augustine was not consistent with Christian teachings. He was clear: No war is allowed in Christianity, he used verse like turn the other Cheek. He recalls when Jesus asked Peter to lay down his sword in his arrest. If you are not a pacifist how do you understand "Turn the other cheek"? I think that anti-war humanists have higher morals then the so called Follower of Christ in this Blog. Phelps family is more consistent with the Bible, Homosexuality is a horrible abomination, but you hold the USA law as the highest authority instead of God's law.

Ryan S said...

1moremuslim

I have a some questions for you:

Are you willing to condem Muslim aggression after the death of Muhammad, when the surrounding nations of Saudia Araba where invaded without cause?

Will you condem Muslim aggression against Western Euorpe PRIOR to the Crudades? When without any cause Muslims repeated raided and invaded Europe?

Will you condem the Barber muslims states of North AFRICA which sized US merchant ships in the 1780's-1805 when the US did not even have A NAVY to defend with?

Will you state the the USA was NOT justifed in attacking Tripoli in defence of our Merchant fleet?

Do you intend to remain ignorent on purpose on the differnce between the actions of a Secular Government and Christinity?

John Lollard said...

1moremuslim,

I don't pretend to know if David is a pacifist. Before watching his debate with Al-Andalusi I would have thought that he was. I cannot remember the debate properly, but I do know that in Augustine's City of God, Augustine proposes the use of secular power like the military be put to "godly" use in eradicating heresy, an idea which later led to crusades and the Inquisition. Augustine's idea had nothing at all to do with the New Testament and in fact contradicted the New Testament. You may need to re-watch the debate, as David actually says multiple times that he's not proposing strict pacifism, but merely rejecting the Islamic notion of jihad having any place within Christianity.

Even while I am a pacifist and thus would not fight in a war, believing it contradict as you said the command the "turn the other cheek", I still appreciate just war theory. There are times when war is necessary for the sake of establishing order and protecting a nation's citizens. It has nothing at all to do with Christianity, however, even if that nation is composed mostly or entirely of Christians. The NT is not anti-war, the NT just enjoins it on the believer to be perfectly peaceful.

1moremuslim, you can't possibly believe that kafir like anti-war humanists have a higher morality than Christians and remain a consistent Muslim. Firstly, that contradicts the Quran. More importantly, if you're going to acknowledge the anti-war stance as the highest moral good, then great! But you have to leave Islam, as Islam clearly advocates war. And those anti-war humanists tend to be pretty big about homosexual rights, too. Are you so sure you want to join up with these guys?

The Phelps family are legalistic and crude. A follower of Christ is to be peaceful, gentle, merciful, and kind in everything they do. Their actions give them away, that their theology is anti-biblical and heretical. Their understanding of sin and salvation, to be perfectly honest, looks something much closer to Islam, so I'm glad that you've taken a liking to them. You can keep them.

Love in Christ,
JL

minoria said...

Wait a moment 1moremuslim,I remember clearly that David in a debate,I believe it was the Andalusi one,that he said clearly he was not a pacifist,that sometimes you have to use force.Of course it would be as a last resort,but it is necesarry to protect the weak,for example.

Jesus said:"Do to others as you woudl have them do to you."If that means using force to help others who are going to be killed by evil people,then so be it.
It is common sense.

Kaitou Jeanne said...

As a bit of an outsider who's followed/skimmed this blog over the last two years, I guess I'll introduce my grounds a bit : )
I usually skim around for the sake of people's discussion and first got into here when reading about women across different religions.
I'm usually really interested in people's viewpoints and arguments of things, even in newspaper comics.

Most of what I know of the Bible's stories are from The Brick Testament, Jehovah watchtower things, and what I know of the Koran is from sites such as this one, including WikiIslam and The Religion Of Peace.
I also went into Muslim sites but can't get a good variety of opinion, and tend to just read by so many praise allah, allah knows best things that it's just not the discussion I was looking for. Plus my antivirus goes crazy on a few careless sites.

I pretty much keep my views of religion mum from my friends, unless they ask first, and am a bit shy to contradict anything.

I've already been familiar with interpretations if a friend believes she must cover her hair which is god's glory with a mantilla when entering church, and she doesn't want to cut it as it is god's glory.

Still, I've had religious things happen to myself and reason to have faith in a bit of something.

Anyway, if you come across a video like this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzU3xjBj8m0

and comments like
Allah made her beautiful for herself and her husband to enjoy. but she respects herself enough to not want to expose her beauty to other men. Why is it difficult to understand that a muslim woman doesnt want her beauty oggled at by strangers?? She has self respect and doesnt grade her worth on the amount of attraction she gets from men."

Is that worth debating at all, or just a lost cause to trolls?
Related videos lead into ones like
Beautiful Burqas.

John Lollard said...

Hey Kaitou,

You said you learned the Bible from Jehovah's Witness tracts? Oh man! I am so sorry! I think they've actually made a manga version of the gospel story, if you're interested, though I'm not sure how accurate it is, or if it involves samurai and girls with cat ears.

I for one respect a woman's decision to cover her hair or cover any part of her body. I think the full ninja burqa is kind of silly, but I think women should have a right to wear one. I used to know a Coptic woman who also wore a burqa.

The main problem is the hijaab covers the woman's face except her eyes, leading some men to use them as clever disguises in robberies and the like. Even if someone reported being robbed by a man in a burqa, the police would have to go actually remove the hijaab in order to determine the identity of any burqa-wearers, and that would cause a huge scandal (maybe not as big of a scandal).

And it's probably not worth bringing up, as now we're both probably revealing ourselves as secret muslims (shh).

I agree with you about the Muslim sites, btw. I started off trying to go to those, but they look like virus pools, are hard to navigate, and are half in Arabic.

Are you from Japan? I have a friend over there right now teaching English. If you ever happen across her, she could teach you the Bible really well. And keep posting.

Love in Christ,
John Lollard

1moremuslim said...

To John Lollard.
Is the war on Iraq is a just war? Is millions of babies killed due to economic embargo on Iraqi people justified?
When I say Humanists have more morals then Christians, I mean Christians in this Blog, I don't contradict the Quran. The Quran's view on Christians and Jews is nuanced. There are those who fear God, give charity, support the oppressed, and there are those Christians monks who are liars, war mongers, thirsty for money and power. And there are the hypocrites who have the two faces, depending on the situation. In one hand, you believe in the rule of law ( free speech), on the other hand you think that Muslims should not be given the right to build mosques.

John Lollard said...

Hey 1moremuslim,

"Is the war on Iraq is a just war?"

I have never thought so. I have opposed the Iraq War since people first started talking about it. The idea that Al-Qaida would have anything to do with Saddam Hussein doesn't even make sense culturally, and I cannot understand how so many people fell for it.

War is an evil that should only ever be tolerated so far as it prevents worse evil.

But as I said earlier to Mike, I'm very uncomfortable with the idea of allowing war at all. It does not sit comfortably for me with Jesus' commands. I only know that there are times in history where, had there not been war, evil men would have done terrible things unchallenged. After reading a book by Corrie ten Boom on her suffering in the Holocaust, I am a bit more confident that the Christian ethic of love and forgiveness could have conquered Germany just as it did the Roman Empire. I'm still not totally settled.

Even if I'm not settled, however, it doesn't nullify the issue of the secular governmental power being different from the Kingdom of God.

1moremuslim, it is really very irksome when you shotgun accusations all over the place. Can we just focus on one issue before you launch out seven more? I'd also appreciate it if you not make such rash judgments of character based on text people enter in the comment section of a blog. It really gives you no basis for decision on what any of us are like or even what any of us do when we're not reading this blog.

Love in Christ,
JL

Haecceitas said...

"In one hand, you believe in the rule of law ( free speech), on the other hand you think that Muslims should not be given the right to build mosques."

I may well have missed something, but I'm under the impression that the majority of people posting here are in favour of Muslims' right to build mosques. There's about 99.99% difference between Muslims not being allowed to build mosques and Muslims not being allowed to build a mosque near Ground Zero, so if that's what you're referring to, you are misrepresenting the opinions of these people.

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

Haecceitas said:

There's about 99.99% difference between Muslims not being allowed to build mosques and Muslims not being allowed to build a mosque near Ground Zero

I say:

I for one think that Muslims should be able to build a mosque wherever they want if they can afford it.

There is however 99.99% difference between the decision to build a mosque at ground zero being constitutional and it being wise.

Its like the white supremacist militia movement building a recruitment center on the site of the Oklahoma city federal building after the bombing. I suppose they would have the right to do so but you would expect to see protests.

That is what free speech is all about.

If a mosque is built on the site of the worst incidence of Islamic terrorism in American history you can expect to see a never ending protest at it‘s front door. It is foolish to think otherwise.

It is the utmost hypocrisy to accuse David and Nabeel of only trying to provoke a reaction and at the same time defend the building of this mosque.

It is also important to note that here in the USA no one in government is seriously trying to stop the building a mosque even in the most culturally sensitive places yet in Muslim nations Christians are routinely denied permission to build churches at all

Peace

minoria said...

Well I think nobody was in favor of the ridiculous and evil UN embargo that did nothing to topple Sadam and killed many Iraqis through lack of medicine and food.They say 500,000 children died.

As for the Iraq war I supported it initially not because I thought Sadam had anything to do with Ben Laden but because he had already killed 300,000 of his own people in cold blood.

1moremuslim,if Israel had done that to Muslims you would be in favor of an invasion of it,correct?

I think the war lasted 1 month.More than 100,000 Muslim civilians have been killed by Al-Qaida,so you can't throw the blame on the US.Muslims in general seem to NOT CARE 2 cents about the fact,or NOT CARE 2 cents about 250,000 Muslims killed by the Sharia government of Sudan,in Darfur.And they make a bit deal about 9 violent men killed by the Israelis on a ship.

ned said...

1moremuslim
Your statement about Iraq war is not valid as it is a political war and has nothing to do with Christianity. At the same time there are no slogans for Jesus or God are raised in this war. on the other hand where you see muslims in aggression or violence allah akbar is part of it, Whether it be taliban suicide attack on fellow innocent muslims in pakistan or a show of in US or UK. A true Christian following Jesus will never be aggressive but a true practicing muslims would be aggressive in heart or outside since quran commands them to do so. A aggressive Christian would be acting in contradiction to the teaching of Jesus but a peaceful muslim is acting in contradiction to orders from allah. It is not a debate as now we all know what allah commands muslims to do (fight and kill). I firmly belive muslims should not be allowed to build mosques anywhere in the world unless they allow Christians to build churches in muslims countries especially mecca. U cannot fool people in their face after the true Islamic practices and teachings stand exposed.

1moremuslim said...

To Haecceitas:

"There's about 99.99% difference between Muslims not being allowed to build mosques and Muslims not being allowed to build a mosque near Ground Zero"

The constitution doesn't put location limits. These protests against building mosque near Groud zero is hate disguised as "respect for the fallen" You want to make people believe that there is a direct cause to effect relation between Mosques and 9/11 which is absurd. The ones who made 9/11 did not want to build a mosque in USA or bring the message of Islam into USA. They could have handed literature. That was not their goal. So trying to make people think that a mosque is somehow a victory to the terrorists is a nonsense! Saudis could have build the mosque without 9/11.
Following you rational, we should not allow building churches anywhere in Europe or Latin america since Christians made horrible things during the inquisition, because that would not honor the victims. Or may be we should also ban the catholic churches to honor the victims of child abuse?

Haecceitas said...

1moremuslim,

Should I take your comment as an admission that you were misrepresenting the situation by 99.99%? In other words, were you really referring to peoples' resistance to the idea that a mosque would be built near Ground Zero and just chose to characterize it as a general resistance to building mosques? Or is there evidence that many people who post here are really opposing the building of mosques in general?

And no, it's not necessary to establish a direct cause and effect relationship between mosques and 9/11 for the resistance to be legitimate (as long as it stays on the level of expressing opinions - obviously I wouldn't accept sabotage, physical violence, etc). Since it's true that the 9/11 attacks were motivated by the perpetrators' interpretation of Islam and would not have happened without their Islamic belief, it establishes enough of a connection between the two to warrant a concern for the feelings of the family members etc. of the 9/11 victims - even if one thinks that the terrorists didn't practise the purest form of Islam.

I myself wouldn't advocate a legal prohibition of building the mosque there, but I see it as very legitimate for people to express their opposition against the building of this mosque in this particular location and using any honest and nonviolent forms of persuasion that they have available for them to make their point.


"Following you rational, we should not allow building churches anywhere in Europe or Latin america since Christians made horrible things during the inquisition, because that would not honor the victims. Or may be we should also ban the catholic churches to honor the victims of child abuse?"

There are so many things wrong with this comparison that I don't even know where to begin.

- The size of the time gap.
- Conflation of a specific location with whole continents.
- Conflation of banning an institution vs. being opposed to building a religious building on a specific location.
- Etc.

John Lollard said...

"You want to make people believe that there is a direct cause to effect relation between Mosques and 9/11 which is absurd."

The Mosque is right next to Ground Zero, scheduled to open on September 11. Several people in the administration have been linked to violent jihadists and to support jihad and sharia law.

"Following you rational, we should not allow building churches anywhere in Europe or Latin america since Christians made horrible things during the inquisition, because that would not honor the victims."

No, following that rational we shouldn't be allowed to build churches anywhere in Islamic countries because.... oh, wait. We can't build churches in Islamic countries. At all. Gosh that stinks.

Wow. I'm sorry, 1moremuslim, what self-righteous point was it you were just making about intolerant Christians trying to keep those good ol' Muslims from building mosques? I distracted myself by the fact that Muhammad prohibited Christians from building or repairing churches anywhere.

I understand that you see Christians do things you don't like and so you feel free to bash us as evil and immoral, but it'd work a lot better if Muhammad wasn't hundreds of times worse. So far you've accused us of warmongering and intolerantly refusing to allow muslims to build mosques. If you really think tht these things are bad, then great! But you'll actually have to convert to Christianity if you want to maintain that position. I mean, after all, Muhammad did them, so they can't possibly be wrong.

Love in Christ,
JL

The Berean Search said...

1moremuslim,

"The constitution doesn't put location limits."

The Constitution also guarantees us the right to peacefully protest buildings and organizations. Please try not to drape your feigned outrage in one aspect of the Constitution to the exclusion of other aspects. That same Constitution is what gives people the right, as Americans, to sternly and publicly express the opinion that Mosque shouldn't be built in that location.

You don't get to defend only one part of the Constitution because it's convenient for you, 1moremuslim. You treat the Constitution with the exact same disrespect you show for the New Testament. You quote parts of it only when it serves your purposes.

John Lollard said...

Oh! I almost forgot child abuse. 1moremuslim, if you think there is something immoral with having sex with, say, 9-year-olds, then great! I do too! But you're going to have to leave Islam to keep that position, since Muhammad didn't see anything wrong with it at all. And Muhammad is the perfect example or morality.

Love in Christ,
JL

minoria said...

Hello 1more muslim:

I have stated before that the guy in charge of the Cordoba House mosque is FAISAL RAUF.He TWICE refused to condemn Hamas as a terrorists.READ:

http://frontpagemag.com/2010/06/21/imam-of-islamic-supremacist-mega-mosque-at-ground-zero-refuses-to-condemn-hamas/

SO WHAT?

Hamas APPROVES of killing the 3,000 Americans on 9/11.So his claim it is to honor the victims is meaningless.

ZUDI JASSER

He is,I think,the REAL thing.He is a Muslim doctor who condemns with no ifs,buts,or maybe(and by NAME,not just using the general word "terrorist")the terrorist groups.He also condemns CAIR.He is ALSO against the idea of the mosque.
WALID SHOEBAT asked him HOW MANY followers he had,Zudi was honest,he said:"Less than 100".

Here is ZUDI JASSER on the idea.His organization is the "American Islamic Forum for Democacy"(with less than 100 followers).He made the documentary THE THIRD JIHAD:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cD036QAWWZM


Here is WALID SHOEBAT on RAUF and on ZUDI(he has a good opinion of him)(15 min).RAUF says ONE THING in ENGLISH and ANOTHER thing in ARABIC to Muslims:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-UDl3j8WZQ

IF,and I repeat IF the guy in charge were ZUDI JASSER,then I would not be against it,since I know extremism would not be preached there.In the OPEN LETTER to RAUF in the online petition against the msoque they asked Rauf to have a SYNAGOGUE and a CHURCH also in the building.No word from Rauf yet.I think ZUDI would accept it immediately.

MAGDI ALLAM

ZUDI JASSER reminds me alot of MAGDI ALLAM,the most famous Muslim of Italy,who always,in several books,fought against the terrorists.I think it is 50% probable ZUDI JASSER will leave Islam one day,like Magdi Allam(who became a Christian).

ned said...

1moremuslim,

Building mosque at ground zero is the next phase of or stage of the 9/11 attack. You are just trying to shy away from what the mosque means there and again trying to win the sympathy from the US constitution. I think constitution should be available for those who respect and follow it. Answer truthfully do all the muslims follow or respect the constitution of US except to exploit it and shred it. Latest in the chain is the Pakistani guy shehzad who had all many benefits for him and his family but in his heart he had hatred for US. I rather see sheer characterlessness on part of muslims where they try to put a hole in the bowl that God provided them to feed from. I don’t see it here alone but in the parts of the world where muslims countries feed on US dollar but rebule US at the sametime.
Coming to point of handing literature please tell me where in world islam was spread based on peaceful missions.
Coming to my rationale of disallowing mosques anywhere in the world is based on the fact that muslims discourage and deny building new churches and even burn churches where ever they can, and therefore should not be allowed unless they are open to allow building churches and protecting them.
Coming to your point of Christians doing horrible things: I would say that they acted in contradiction to commands of God and Jesus where as muslims unfortunately act according to the commands from quran when they are violent.

Mike said...

John, sorry for the delayed response. What would a Christian extremist look like? Well, you can probably tell what my definition of a Christian fundamentalist is. Regarding what I believe a Christian extremist is, hmmmm... To me, a Christian extremist is someone who does stuff like blow up abortion clinics and kill abortion doctors, in Christ's name of course. An example would be the guy who killed that Abortion doctor in Wichita, Kansas.

ned said...

Dear Mike,
A christian extremist would be following Jesus to the core and not going against His commands. Please do no not label the one who are led to violence and aggression based on their own ideology. Judge all by the Word and commands of Jesus.
In Christ
Ned

John Lollard said...

Hey Mike,

Thanks for your answer! I find it especially interesting given your stance on Christianity and violence.

I started thinking about this a while ago, talking to an atheist about Jainism. He noted that as Jainists go extremist they get more peaceful (cheesecloth breathing guards and such), and it didn't make any sense to me why people who blow up abortion clinics are called "Christian extremists" and not "disobedient Christian". But I guess what a word does mean is different from what a word should mean.

Since you know the Scriptures pretty well, do you think fundamentalist Christians are actually an obedient and sincere representation of what Christ and the Apostles commanded, or do you think fundamentalism is not indicative of what the Scriptures call for?

And there's no trickery here, I promise :P
If your former church was disobedient, then that's all that it means, and if they were obedient, then that's all that it means.

Love in Christ,
JL

Mike said...

"Since you know the Scriptures pretty well, do you think fundamentalist Christians are actually an obedient and sincere representation of what Christ and the Apostles commanded, or do you think fundamentalism is not indicative of what the Scriptures call for?"

When they are caring for the orphan, widow, and the poor, and preaching the gospel, yes, I think they are following the teaching or scripture.

When they are idolizing the military and supporting unjust immoral wars and governments, no they are not.

1moremuslim said...

To minoria:
USA is not the Ultimate reference of who is terrorist and who is not. If you ask the Wolf about who is the terrorist, he would say Goats!! I saw you one day saying that there is no blockade on Gaza, that tells volume about your perception of realities. Now do this homework: check how many civilians were killed by Israel versus how many Civilians killed by Hamas. Are going to condemn (like many Jews did) Israel as a terrorist state? Have you condemned Nelson Mandela as a terrorist? Why not ? he was on the US terrorists list for decades, even when he received the Nobel peace price.
There is something that you need to understand, and all scholars agree, the USA has no moral authority.

To John Lollard;
Show me one Christian Government in history which allowed building mosques.
You know, Christian have false advantage on Muslims they have just one book from where they derive everything they believe in. Muslims have shelves of books and authentic traditions. Christians have nothing about Jesus's intimate, for example how a 33 year old Jew is living his celibacy? How Jesus lived his true human nature ( like sexual desires for example), basically , the Christians find refuge in their darkness. Everything said by Jesus would fit in 2 newspaper pages. If we eliminate the plagiarism and the unreliable sayings , we would have almost nothing.

But still, John Lollard, I can find you a substantiating text that can be interpreted to justify the killing of Jews, or a doctor in an abortion clinic. You are commanded do be like Jesus right? Why don't you go to the nearest bank and turn the tables upside down?

And About the 20th century Christian objection of the marriage of Aisha, there are books and shelves written about that love story, but I bet you don't know about the story other than the 9 year old detail. Qualifying that relation to a child abuse, tells volumes of how much of an intellectual you are.

John Lollard said...

Mike,

Brilliant answer :P

Love in Christ,
JL

Chris said...

This is what indifference got Europe and the US isn't far behind.

We've got to wake up and realize it's not about religious tolerance as Islam is no religion. It's a political system. For some reason, as long as you seek to overthrow the government under the name of Islam, it's ok...

John Lollard said...

"Show me one Christian Government in history which allowed building mosques."

Show me one Christian government in history :P
My kingdom is not of this world

"Everything said by Jesus would fit in 2 newspaper pages."

You actually mean two newspaper columns. At least if you're quoting Gary Miller you do.

I don't see how your point is a point in your favor, though. More teaching from Muhammad is a detriment to Muslims while less teaching from Jesus is a detriment to Christians? Yeah, I absolutely agree.

And where does the Injiil fit into this deal?

"I can find you a substantiating text that can be interpreted to justify the killing of Jews"

Wicked men will always seek justification for their wickedness in religion, in order to quelch their conscience. That is why they do violence to the Scriptures and that is why they establish false religions.

As maybe I've said to you before, I'm a mathematician/physicist and I'm not a theologian or a historian. Islam is little more than a hobby for me. So to be honest, no, I am not much of an Islamic scholar. I do know more about Aisha than that she was 9 when the prophet decided to ejaculate inside of her. But that's really all I need to know to know that Muhammad was not a prophet but a pervert.

I'm sorry with how inflammatory that statement must have been, but I don't think the problem is with my saying it, but with the reality of it. It is offensive not that I'd call a prophet of God a pedophile, but that a pedophile would call himself a prophet of God.

I mean, doesn't that strike you as off?

Love in Christ,
JL

1moremuslim said...

John Lollard,

The argument of pedophilia: Show me a single Historian, psychiatric, a Christian scholar, a Jewish scholar who qualifies the behavior of Muhammad as an act of pedophilia. You don't know even what pedophilia means. I am surprised that you are a mathematician, How can you label the whole Arab society as a society of pedophilia, including the Arab Christian and jews. As I said, we have very little about Jesus in the Bible, we cannot use the same slander to the problem of 33 year old man private sexual life. You have no scientific mind. One who believes that a person can be fully God and fully man at the same time, has no perception of rational or logic. One who believes that the Bible has no mistakes nor contradictions has no understanding or may be honesty with himself.
Attacks against our prophet will not stop, haters will always find NEW objections. That even the Christians of old have not even thought about.
Anyway, by the Biblical standard ( if you are bible believer) anyone could be a prophet, You have prophets that are idol worshipers, mass killers ones who sleep with his daughters. The Bible has no problem making criminals as prophets, why do you have a problem with that?

John Lollard said...

Hey 1moremuslim,

I'm not sure how my qualifications as a mathematician have anything to do with my ability to recognize pedophilia. But okay

http://www.tegenwicht.org/40_kleine_seksuologie/dsm.htm

At this point, you sort of just start swinging wildly at me. I mean, your normal approach is the buckshot approach, but you usually refrain from insulting me personally, so this is sort of unexpected of you.

I didn't attack your prophet. I described an action that he did. He married a 7-year-old. He waited two years before ejaculating inside of her, possibly causing her intense physical pain, as a 9-year-old's genitalia are not fully developed, definitely not enough for sexual intercourse with a 50-year-old man. If describing what your prophet did is an attack on him, then that should say something about your prophet, shouldn't it?

I'm not so sure that Christians have changed our "attacks" on Muhammad. According to his actions he was a false prophet, according to his knowledge he was a false prophet, according to his message he was a false prophet. I don't think you understand that Christians have a Quranic command to investigate the Book to look for signs of the prophethood of Muhammad. We are just following the Quran, then. When we look, there are no signs of the prophethood of Muhammad. In fact, every sign points Muhammad as a false prophet. The Quran appeals over and over again, making claims that we can investigate, and they all check out false. And so that's that. It isn't an attack, or hatred of the prophet, it is just simple honesty, consistency, and respect for truth.

Anyway, I'm sorry for upsetting you, but I have very serious problems with the behavior of Muhammad. And apparently you do, too.

Love in Christ,
JL

1moremuslim said...

To John Lollard,
Being mathematician should allow you to recognize a case of pedophilia, something that you failed to do. I realized also that you rely on hear to say stories without checking facts for yourself. Aisha said in that famous Hadith, that she did not go to his husband's house until she reached PUBERTY, so your whole accusation falls apart, according to your definition of pedophilia.
And who handed Aisha to his husband? His mother! So your mathematical rational says that the whole society was pedophile.
And Surely, Christians invented new attacks, Christians have never thought of making this accusation prior to 100 years ago. You know why? Because in USA, in the late 19th century, the age of consent was SEVEN YEARS, in some states! So if you claim to be consistent, show us your consistency and admit that USA was a country of pedophiles.
According to your link, most western countries were practicing pedophilia. Are you not ashamed of your grandfathers? What about your God, Jesus, ordering his jewish elites to slaughter all the men and women , and keep the virgins for the soldiers! Do You know how old is a virgin 2000 years ago John Lollard? Your consistency is a joke!
What is a prophet according to your Bible? One who commits incest while drunk? One who worships idols, like Solomon?

SEE! the difference between you and Gary Miller, is that he is a real Mathematician who made good use of his God given brain.

Finally John Lollard, I am not upset by your slandering, why should I ? You are a practical prophecy of Surah 3:186 .

That was my last post in this low level blog.
Peace.

John Lollard said...

Hey 1moremuslim,

"Being mathematician should allow you to recognize a case of pedophilia"

It's a funny a thing about mathematics... it tends to be mostly just about numbers and stuff.

"I realized also that you rely on hear to say stories without checking facts for yourself."

If you want to consider the hadith sources to be hearsay, then yeah, they probably are. But I'm not sure how you are a Muslim and say this. The hadith says that she was nine, and handed to Muhammad by her parents. I don't see reason to implicate the entire society in this, unless you want to talk about early Islamic willingness to just do whatever Muhammad said after he harangued them enough about it, like let your 9-year-old have intercourse with a 50-year-old.

It's a funny thing about David and Solomon and Lot and the like. No Christian or Jew thinks those people were prophets. David and Solomon wee kings, straight up. Lot was just a relative of Abraham, and Abraham wasn't a prophet either, he was just a guy that God chose, promising to make his inheritance a mighty nation. The prophethood of, say, Lot, is something that Muhammad made up, probably by misunderstanding the bible paraphrasals that he heard on his caravan trips. Who are prophets? Moses, Elijah, Elisha, Isaiah, Ezekiel, and those sorts.

"Finally John Lollard, I am not upset by your slandering"

Apparently you are, since you're decided to peace out. But hopefully my "slandering" - that is, my description of what you think the perfect moral example did - will stick enough with you to make you realize the truth. Which is the real difference between Gary Miller and I.

I first watched Gary Miller's address with Deedat about two years ago, and it strongly convicted me. It really did. I knew that I couldn't go on ignoring Islam, and that I had to give him answers. I got a Quran and stared reading it. It took about midway into surah 2 to start sending up flags, but it was really somewhere in surah 5 when I realized that the Quran constantly appeals to the Bible for its relevancy, and yet could not establish a connection to it.

It's a shame you won't be commenting further. This is the most fun that I get all day. So let me just ask you, and maybe you know an answer, what is this Injiil that I'm supposed to look to for guidance and truth and to confirm that the Quran is revelation? How can I as a Christian even start being a good Muslim when you can't even explain to me what this command means?

If you get an answer, to what on earth the Injiil is, feel free to email me, since you won't comment here further.

Love in Christ,
JL

Search 4 Truth said...

1moremuslim, The total amount of dead does not constitute who is in the right or who is in the wrong. It just tells you whose doing a better job. Hamas sends rockets from homes and Mosques and uses human shields, including women and children. Israel defends itself and has better technology. So they are more succesful. Just because more have died on one side does not constitute who is just. I find this to be typical Muslim logic and propaganda tactic for non thinkers like yourself.

It's funny hoiw I havent see a response to the invasions of all the nations surrounding Saudi Arabia and into Europe by the Muslims. And lets not forget the attempted genocide of 50 million Hindus over a 500 year period that the Muslim Sultans were exacting, oh and what about the Ottoman Empire and the Genocide of the Armenians. The hypocrisy is making me throw up in my mouth a little. And are you on the side of the Taliban? What about the U.S.'s aid to Afghanistan that stopped Russia? Did you enjoy Saddams regime?
And one more thing, If we were atempting to colonize these nations, why didnt we colonize Europe after WWII? Germany, Japan, Italy, Poland, these nations seem to be thriving without our colonization. So your arguments are empty, and void of critical thinking.

Search 4 Truth said...

Oh and David, I live in the area, if you would like I would love to help in any way I can. God Bless you and the work you do.

I believe you have my e mail address. I love the Abn Jesus or Mohamed. You are a blessing. Thansk again.