Compareing Islam and Christainty

[Grace Seeker]

Grace Seeker addressed the primary point, which is that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not executed with the intention of killing as many non combatants as possible. If that was the case why stop at two?

Two reasons:
First, the Japanese did surrender.

Second, we didn't have enough fissionable material to make another bomb.

 

[Keltoi]

Two reasons:
First, the Japanese did surrender.

Second, we didn't have enough fissionable material to make another bomb.

Well, I wasn't trying to gather historical facts there, I was making an overall point. I know the Japanese surrendered, but the point wasn't to kill as many Japanese civilians as possible in any event.

 

[MustafaMc]

It is quite interesting that the last 17 or so posts on suicide bombing and terrorism were between Christians. All three of you have put forth your respectful and well thought out perspectives. This is obviously something that you didn’t first think about last night.

GraceSeeker, I appreciate your empathy and pointing to my post for illustration. Jayda, I have also thought of the same comparisons regarding war. We (USA) have done a lot of atrocious things in the name of war that people don’t think about – for example WWII bombing of Dresden, Germany and firebombing of 67 major Japanese cities including Tokyo and the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And don’t forget the Vietnam War where we dropped 7.6 million tons, yes tons, of bombs. More recently, how many Iraqi and Afghani civilians have been killed by the American military? ….and yet we are the ones “wearing the white hat”. Now that I got that off my chest, I will try to address Keltoi’s question.

My opinion is that there are some people in positions of authority that are misguiding some Muslims to do things that are not consistent with Islam, as I understand it. Fighting is indeed prescribed in Islam for specific justifiable reasons, such as to repulse an attack or to oppose oppression. Giving one’s life during such a struggle is an honorable deed in Islam with the promise of Paradise for the martyr; however, even the merit of this deed before Allah (swt) depends upon one’s intention. Muslims live and strive for the Hereafter and nothing has more value than that – not even one’s life on Earth.

However, my opinion is that these suicide bombers have been sold a “bill of goods” with false hopes. I believe that they will be held accountable before Allah (swt) for their own life that they took as well as the lives of the women, children and other innocent people that died as a result of their deed. Even more accountable will be the leaders and instigators of these atrocious acts.

 

[Grace Seeker]

My opinion is that there are some people in positions of authority that are misguiding some Muslims to do things that are not consistent with Islam, as I understand it. Fighting is indeed prescribed in Islam for specific justifiable reasons, such as to repulse an attack or to oppose oppression. Giving one’s life during such a struggle is an honorable deed in Islam with the promise of Paradise for the martyr; however, even the merit of this deed before Allah (swt) depends upon one’s intention. Muslims live and strive for the Hereafter and nothing has more value than that – not even one’s life on Earth.

However, my opinion is that these suicide bombers have been sold a “bill of goods” with false hopes. I believe that they will be held accountable before Allah (swt) for their own life that they took as well as the lives of the women, children and other innocent people that died as a result of their deed. Even more accountable will be the leaders and instigators of these atrocious acts.

Now the follow up to that, is where, I think, Keltoi has been coming from -- You have made that statement plainly and clearly here. Where are the other voices? Why do we not hear the clerics and ayatollahs and Islamic scholars saying these things so as to put a stop to those who misguide Muslims and lead them from the truth?

If, as you say, these who do these things will, in accordance with Islam, be held accountable rather than rewarded by Allah, why are not more people vocally, vociferously, and publically preaching against this sort of perversion of Islam? Where are the true leaders of true Islam? Have they given over the religion to the militant Jihadists? And if they have, isn't that the same as saying that Islam accepts the violent teachings of those Jihadists as an acceptable way to practice Islam?


I guess another way of asking the question is: Mustafa, are you alone in this view? Because I hear nill to nothng from the Islamic community speaking out against these previously mentioned acts as being anti-Islamic. If they are not representative of Islam, why are they being implicity condoned by silence?

 

[Jayda]

It is quite interesting that the last 17 or so posts on suicide bombing and terrorism were between Christians. All three of you have put forth your respectful and well thought out perspectives. This is obviously something that you didn’t first think about last night.

GraceSeeker, I appreciate your empathy and pointing to my post for illustration. Jayda, I have also thought of the same comparisons regarding war. We (USA) have done a lot of atrocious things in the name of war that people don’t think about – for example WWII bombing of Dresden, Germany and firebombing of 67 major Japanese cities including Tokyo and the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And don’t forget the Vietnam War where we dropped 7.6 million tons, yes tons, of bombs. More recently, how many Iraqi and Afghani civilians have been killed by the American military? ….and yet we are the ones “wearing the white hat”. Now that I got that off my chest, I will try to address Keltoi’s question.

My opinion is that there are some people in positions of authority that are misguiding some Muslims to do things that are not consistent with Islam, as I understand it. Fighting is indeed prescribed in Islam for specific justifiable reasons, such as to repulse an attack or to oppose oppression. Giving one’s life during such a struggle is an honorable deed in Islam with the promise of Paradise for the martyr; however, even the merit of this deed before Allah (swt) depends upon one’s intention. Muslims live and strive for the Hereafter and nothing has more value than that – not even one’s life on Earth.

However, my opinion is that these suicide bombers have been sold a “bill of goods” with false hopes. I believe that they will be held accountable before Allah (swt) for their own life that they took as well as the lives of the women, children and other innocent people that died as a result of their deed. Even more accountable will be the leaders and instigators of these atrocious acts.

hola Mustafa,

but again... this (bold) seems subjective to me. i forget who said this but there is a phrase 'all wars are defensive.' let me give you two examples...

the first is the United States:

largely in the pursuit of oil, the United States over the last 100 years has supported a dictatorial non muslim regime in Iran, a dictatorial regime in Saudi Arabia, a dictatorial non muslim regime in Egypt and has not dealt evenhandedly with respect to the Israeli Arab continued conflict... most recently allowing Israel to pursue a war on Lebanese soil, destroying infrastructure, killing civilians and bombing everything in sight. our presence in the middle east has increased their misery and we are by many middle eastern peoples estimations a cruel and miserly tyrant, hurting their way of life.

with such a perception, isn't it self defense for them to fight us?

next example: islam expanded into the byzantine empire largely, if not exclusively, through war - especially during the time period of mohamed and immediately following his death. the time period that you now look to as examples of good islamic action. these wars were unprovoked, unnecessary and exceedingly cruel. innocent people like the clergy and citizens too poor to escape were intentionally killed, even though the Roman army was retreating and the day was won. to quote a survivor, Thomas the Presbyter, again:

In the year 947 (635—36ad), the Arabs invaded the whole of Syria and went down to Persia and conquered it. The Arabs climbed the mountain of Mardin and killed many monks there in the monasteries of Qedar and Bnata. There died the blessed man Simon, doorkeeper of Qedar, brother of Thomas the priest.

In January the people of Hims took the word for their lives and many villages were ravaged by the killing of the Arabs of Muhmd and many people were slain and taken prisoner from Galilee as far as Beth.

On the twenty-sixth of May the Saqilara went from the vicinity of Hims and the Romans chased them.

On the tenth of August the Romans fled from the vicinity of Damascus and there were killed many people, some ten thousand. And at the turn of the year the Romans came. On the twentieth of August in the year nine hundred and forty-seven there gathered in Gabitha a multitude of the Romans, and many people of the Romans were killed, some fifty thousand.

with such a perception, wasn't it self defense to fight the Caliphs and Prophet that today you hold as an example of righteous action and righteous combat?

depending upon your perspective the people who have invaded, conquered and then ruled (in both scenarios) are liberators, good people fighting for a noble purpose... or they are unwelcome savage cultural aliens, who destroy, exploit and tear at the fabric of civilized life. and since everybody seems to agree that fighting is only okay for self defense the second opinion justifies any kind of conflict... even though there is really no certainty that their perspective is true.

and so 'self defense' just becomes a pretty mask for a subjective decision to hurt people.

que Dios te bendiga

 

[Jayda]

Grace Seeker addressed the primary point, which is that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not executed with the intention of killing as many non combatants as possible. If that was the case why stop at two?

That being said, to the poor people on the ground it didn't make much difference what the intent was. I don't argue that point. The point I'm attempting to address doesn't involve two world powers on the brink of destruction. It doesn't even involve nations. It is about individuals, many of whom live or have lived in the West, and who carry out suicide attacks in the name of their religion. Yes, sometimes they join groups. Hamas, Hezbollah, Al-Qaeda, whatever. My original question was where this phenomenon comes from. Oppression isn't the answer.

As for the idea of a "clean" war vs. a "dirty" war, I'm inclined to agree. Killing is killing, whether it is an individual wearing a uniform or not. That being said, I think most people would agree that if war is inevitable, it is more "clean" to keep the bloodshed between the military factions involved. That is about as "clean" as war can get.

hola,

actually the arithmatic of choosing nagasaki and hiroshima was quite inhuman. it should be the eternal shame of the united states... but because we are so powerful it is a crime (like others) we will never have to answer for. i fear the day our power cannot protect us from the anger that our actions generate... while we forget the things we do with each presidential cycle, the rest of the world remembers.

but i have two questions for you:

1: in your original statement the suicide bomber is a rather mindless creature that 'straps a bomb to himself to kill as many people as possible,' is that true? is the suicide bombers intention to kill as many people as possible or is it to terrify the population into bending to their political will? how is that different than the choosing of nagasaki and hiroshima for their 'psychological effects' ?

2: why didn't we drop our atomic bombs over the ocean near toyko or in an uninhabited place for the japanese to witness the destructive power of an atom bomb? we chose to bomb cities, which we knew were filled with civilians, with a weapon we knew could not be defended against...

and just as an historic point of inquiry, what right do we (americans) have to decry hitler for his use of V2 rockets against London?

que Dios te bendiga

 

[Keltoi]

hola,

actually the arithmatic of choosing nagasaki and hiroshima was quite inhuman. it should be the eternal shame of the united states... but because we are so powerful it is a crime (like others) we will never have to answer for. i fear the day our power cannot protect us from the anger that our actions generate... while we forget the things we do with each presidential cycle, the rest of the world remembers.

but i have two questions for you:

1: in your original statement the suicide bomber is a rather mindless creature that 'straps a bomb to himself to kill as many people as possible,' is that true? is the suicide bombers intention to kill as many people as possible or is it to terrify the population into bending to their political will? how is that different than the choosing of nagasaki and hiroshima for their 'psychological effects' ?

2: why didn't we drop our atomic bombs over the ocean near toyko or in an uninhabited place for the japanese to witness the destructive power of an atom bomb? we chose to bomb cities, which we knew were filled with civilians, with a weapon we knew could not be defended against...

and just as an historic point of inquiry, what right do we (americans) have to decry hitler for his use of V2 rockets against London?

que Dios te bendiga

Jayda, with all due respect, you are centering on this "nation vs. nation" concept of war. I didn't bring this up to suggest the USA or any other country is blameless or is existing without blood on their hands. A nation doesn't gain power and a nation doesn't hold on to power without spilling blood. That has been the case long before Moses led the slaves out of Egypt. That isn't the issue.

What I am concerned with here, and what I'm trying to address, is that a religion that I do have alot of respect for, i.e. Islam, has been for all intents and purposes hijacked(no pun intended) for the political aims of a certain ideology. I believe this ideology is as much of a threat if not more of a threat to Muslims themselves. It seems to revolve around the word "jihad" and "mujahideen", as if adopting these labels will equate to an automatic acceptance by the global Muslim community. So far it seems to be working like magic. My logical question would be, who is the real "mujahideen", those who are willing to blow up Muslim mothers and children to serve a political aim of their own, or those whose goal it is to stop these people from their reign of terror? I'm not talking about the U.S., Britain, or any other Coalition force, I'm talking about the forgotten and despised Muslim police officers and community leaders who are trying to protect their people from these self-described "mujahideen". Who should be appreciated more, the scared police officer who is walking around the marketplace in an attempt to protect innocent life, or the "mujahideen" who is willing to kill all of them and his or herself to create chaos? Which is a better representative of Islam?

 

[Jayda]

hola,

ultimately my question for you is this... has Islam really been 'hijacked' ? or is this the natural consequence of a moral system that allows violence for what are, ultimately, subjective reasons?

que Dios te bendiga

 

[Keltoi]

hola,

ultimately my question for you is this... has Islam really been 'hijacked' ? or is this the natural consequence of a moral system that allows violence for what are, ultimately, subjective reasons?

que Dios te bendiga

Perhaps you are correct, but I understand from what I know of Islam that taking innocent life is never allowed and should never be defended, regardless of the subjective goal involved. I'm finding it hard to reconcile what I know of the moral code of Islam and the somewhat blind defense of the indiscriminate slaughter we see on TV every day.

Here is my theory. In my experience, those who are the quickest to denounce these atrocities are normally older, more mature, and more educated Muslims. More educated in general, but also more educated about Islam the religion. It seems there is a very large segment of the Muslim population who are young, lack maturity, and are somewhat uneducated about the faith they embrace. I believe this is fertile ground for extremist groups like Al-Qaeda or Hamas in Palestine. I've come to believe there is a serious age gap within Islam, with the younger generations embracing this idea that anyone calling themselves "mujahideen" must be accepted as such, and that suicide murder is in fact "martrydom".

 

[Grace Seeker]

You may be right on that, Keltoi. I don't know. I have had some similar suspicions. I know that youth can breed a degree of impetuousness in any culture. Over the years I have certainly seen it, been guilty of it, among young youth pastors who are filled with passion, but lack good direction. It would seem to me that those who are passionate about Islam, but young, might also be looking for some direction to their faith and be easy prey for others that might take advantage of their passion for ends that on the surface might appear to be about Islam, but really have other roots. Of course, these people may be acting not out of ignorance or Islam, but known nationalistic or tribal loyalties, and we in the west mistakenly call them Islamic terrorist, when in fact they are simple nationalists who (like Begin and Rabin before them) happen to be using terror as their weapon of choice and who also happen to be at least nominally Muslim as regards their faith.


With Mustafa, I had already personally noted, and find it interesting, that this side discussion is basically occuring amongs Christians. But today is the Eid, so perhaps we should give our Muslims brothers the courtesy of waiting a day before expecting a response.

 

[Keltoi]

This should probably be a different thread all its own actually.

 

[MustafaMc]

This should probably be a different thread all its own actually.

I agree. The latest discussions have gotten way off topic. A new thread should be started. I don't know if discussions such as these are technically allowed according to the forum rules. I personally see these discussions as relevant as any - except perhaps the "fish" thread.

 

[Grace Seeker]

This should probably be a different thread all its own actually.

I agree. The latest discussions have gotten way off topic. A new thread should be started. I don't know if discussions such as these are technically allowed according to the forum rules. I personally see these discussions as relevant as any - except perhaps the "fish" thread.

Well, I reported Keltoi's post. Asked the mods if they could split the thread. We'll see what becomes of it.



Oh, and Happy Kurban Bayrami, Mustafa! Sorry, that's the name in Turkish, I don't actually know the proper name for this Eid in English.

 

[Talha777]

Oh, and Happy Kurban Bayrami, Mustafa! Sorry, that's the name in Turkish, I don't actually know the proper name for this Eid in English

It's called Eid-ul-Adha, the other Eid is Eid-ul-Fitr which is commemorated at the end of Ramadhan.

 

[aamirsaab]

Edit: Thread opened. If my memory is correct the tangent of off-topic posts occured within a post that was also on-topic. However, the dialogue that resulted was quite interesting so for that reason, I shall let the posts remain. I did give this some consideration mind you.

All posts from this one should now relate to the original question. This thread is one of the better ones - mainly 'cus it hasn't been jacked, so let's keep it that way.

 

[MustafaMc]

Oh, and Happy Kurban Bayrami, Mustafa! Sorry, that's the name in Turkish, I don't actually know the proper name for this Eid in English.

Thank you, GraceSeeker. The proper Islamic term is Eid Mubarak.

 

[BlackMamba]

This is an awesome lecture of the similarities of Islam and other religions. It is really interesting and its not the same old stuff you always here. I guarantee that you'll learn something new here. And its by Dr. Zakir Naik,the best in the business.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...106&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0
http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...106&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1

 

[munssif]

20 Questions to the Christian( By Harun Yahya)

1. WHY IS THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION NOT SCIENTIFICALLY VALID?
2. HOW DOES THE COLLAPSE OF THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION DEMONSTRATE THE TRUTH OF CREATION?
3. HOW FAR BACK DO TRACES OF MAN GO? WHY DO THESE NOT SUPPORT EVOLUTION?
4. WHY IS THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION "NOT THE BASIS OF BIOLOGY"?
5. WHY IS THE EXISTENCE OF DIFFERENT RACES NOT EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION?
6. WHY IS THE CLAIM THAT HUMAN AND APE GENOMES ARE 99 PERCENT SIMILAR AND THAT THIS CONFIRMS EVOLUTION NOT TRUE?
7. WHY IS THE CLAIM THAT DINOSAURS EVOLVED INTO BIRDS AN UNSCIENTIFIC MYTH?
8. WHAT SCIENTIFIC FORGERY IS THE MYTH THAT "HUMAN EMBRYOS HAVE GILLS" BASED ON?
9. WHY IS IT DECEPTIVE TO PORTRAY CLONING AS "EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION"?
10. COULD LIFE HAVE COME FROM OUTER SPACE?
11. WHY DOES THE FACT THAT THE EARTH IS FOUR BILLION YEARS OLD NOT SUPPORT THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION?
12. WHY ARE WISDOM TEETH NOT EVIDENCE OF EVOLUTION?
13. HOW DO THE COMPLEX STRUCTURES OF THE
MOST ANCIENT CREATURES DEMOLISH THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION?
14. WHY IS DENYING THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION
PORTRAYED AS REJECTING DEVELOPMENT AND PROGRESS?
15. WHY IS IT MISTAKEN TO THINK THAT GOD COULD HAVE CREATED LIVING THINGS BY EVOLUTION?
16. WHY IS IT WRONG TO THINK THAT EVOLUTION COULD BE CONFIRMED IN THE FUTURE?
17. WHY IS METAMORPHOSIS NOT EVIDENCE OF EVOLUTION?
18. WHY IS IT IMPOSSIBLE TO ACCOUNT FOR DNA BY "CHANCE"?
19. WHY IS IT THAT BACTERIAL RESISTANCE TO ANTIBIOTICS IS NOT AN EXAMPLE OF EVOLUTION?
20. WHAT KIND OF RELATIONSHIP IS THERE BETWEEN CREATION AND SCIENCE?

 

[Grace Seeker]

I don't even understand the context of your questions, munssif.

Lots of Christians have no problem with the theory of evolution. Lots of scientists are Christians.

True some Christians have made it a big issue, but one certainly cannot say that Christianity is against such theories as an article of faith. Darwin himself was a very devout man.

Maybe I'm not the right type of Christian to answer your questions.

 

[ricardo_sousa]

In fact, Darwin was a very religious man, following the Christian faith, and he thought that his "evolution theory" was a way of proving God's "work".