Answering Allegations about Islam - !!! Come And Join Us !!!

The following is an article from Karen Armstrong, which you can see at this link

We cannot afford to maintain these ancient prejudices against Islam
Karen Armstrong

In the 12th century, Peter the Venerable, Abbot of Cluny, initiated a dialogue with the Islamic world. “I approach you not with arms, but with words,” he wrote to the Muslims whom he imagined reading his book, “not with force, but with reason, not with hatred, but with love.” Yet his treatise was entitled Summary of the Whole Heresy of the Diabolical Sect of the Saracens and segued repeatedly into spluttering intransigence. Words failed Peter when he contemplated the “bestial cruelty” of Islam, which, he claimed, had established itself by the sword. Was Muhammad a true prophet? “I shall be worse than a donkey if I agree,” he expostulated, “worse than cattle if I assent!”

Peter was writing at the time of the Crusades. Even when Christians were trying to be fair, their entrenched loathing of Islam made it impossible for them to approach it objectively. For Peter, Islam was so self-evidently evil that it did not seem to occur to him that the Muslims he approached with such “love” might be offended by his remarks. This medieval cast of mind is still alive and well.

Last week, Pope Benedict XVI quoted, without qualification and with apparent approval, the words of the 14th-century Byzantine emperor Manuel II: “Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.” The Vatican seemed bemused by the Muslim outrage occasioned by the Pope’s words, claiming that the Holy Father had simply intended “to cultivate an attitude of respect and dialogue toward the other religions and cultures, and obviously also towards Islam”.

But the Pope’s good intentions seem far from obvious. Hatred of Islam is so ubiquitous and so deeply rooted in western culture that it brings together people who are usually at daggers drawn. Neither the Danish cartoonists, who published the offensive caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad last February, nor the Christian fundamentalists who have called him a paedophile and a terrorist, would ordinarily make common cause with the Pope; yet on the subject of Islam they are in full agreement.


Our Islamophobia dates back to the time of the Crusades, and is entwined with our chronic anti-semitism. Some of the first Crusaders began their journey to the Holy Land by massacring the Jewish communities along the Rhine valley; the Crusaders ended their campaign in 1099 by slaughtering some 30,000 Muslims and Jews in Jerusalem. It is always difficult to forgive people we know we have wronged. Thenceforth Jews and Muslims became the shadow-self of Christendom, the mirror image of everything that we hoped we were not - or feared that we were.

The fearful fantasies created by Europeans at this time endured for centuries and reveal a buried anxiety about Christian identity and behaviour. When the popes called for a Crusade to the Holy Land, Christians often persecuted the local Jewish communities: why march 3,000 miles to Palestine to liberate the tomb of Christ, and leave unscathed the people who had - or so the Crusaders mistakenly assumed - actually killed Jesus. Jews were believed to kill little children and mix their blood with the leavened bread of Passover: this “blood libel” regularly inspired pogroms in Europe, and the image of the Jew as the child slayer laid bare an almost Oedipal terror of the parent faith.

Jesus had told his followers to love their enemies, not to exterminate them. It was when the Christians of Europe were fighting brutal holy wars against Muslims in the Middle East that Islam first became known in the west as the religion of the sword. At this time, when the popes were trying to impose celibacy on the reluctant clergy, Muhammad was portrayed by the scholar monks of Europe as a lecher, and Islam condemned - with ill-concealed envy - as a faith that encouraged Muslims to indulge their basest sexual instincts. At a time when European social order was deeply hierarchical, despite the egalitarian message of the gospel, Islam was condemned for giving too much respect to women and other menials.

In a state of unhealthy denial, Christians were projecting subterranean disquiet about their activities on to the victims of the Crusades, creating fantastic enemies in their own image and likeness. This habit has persisted. The Muslims who have objected so vociferously to the Pope’s denigration of Islam have accused him of “hypocrisy”, pointing out that the Catholic church is ill-placed to condemn violent jihad when it has itself been guilty of unholy violence in crusades, persecutions and inquisitions and, under Pope Pius XII, tacitly condoned the Nazi Holocaust.

Pope Benedict delivered his controversial speech in Germany the day after the fifth anniversary of September 11. It is difficult to believe that his reference to an inherently violent strain in Islam was entirely accidental. He has, most unfortunately, withdrawn from the interfaith initiatives inaugurated by his predecessor, John Paul II, at a time when they are more desperately needed than ever. Coming on the heels of the Danish cartoon crisis, his remarks were extremely dangerous. They will convince more Muslims that the west is incurably Islamophobic and engaged in a new crusade.

We simply cannot afford this type of bigotry. The trouble is that too many people in the western world unconsciously share this prejudice, convinced that Islam and the Qur’an are addicted to violence. The 9/11 terrorists, who in fact violated essential Islamic principles, have confirmed this deep-rooted western perception and are seen as typical Muslims instead of the deviants they really were.

With disturbing regularity, this medieval conviction surfaces every time there is trouble in the Middle East. Yet until the 20th century, Islam was a far more tolerant and peaceful faith than Christianity. The Qur’an strictly forbids any coercion in religion and regards all rightly guided religion as coming from God; and despite the western belief to the contrary, Muslims did not impose their faith by the sword.

The early conquests in Persia and Byzantium after the Prophet’s death were inspired by political rather than religious aspirations. Until the middle of the eighth century, Jews and Christians in the Muslim empire were actively discouraged from conversion to Islam, as, according to Qur’anic teaching, they had received authentic revelations of their own. The extremism and intolerance that have surfaced in the Muslim world in our own day are a response to intractable political problems - oil, Palestine, the occupation of Muslim lands, the prevelance of authoritarian regimes in the Middle East, and the west’s perceived “double standards” - and not to an ingrained religious imperative.

But the old myth of Islam as a chronically violent faith persists, and surfaces at the most inappropriate moments. As one of the received ideas of the west, it seems well-nigh impossible to eradicate. Indeed, we may even be strengthening it by falling back into our old habits of projection. As we see the violence - in Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon - for which we bear a measure of responsibility, there is a temptation, perhaps, to blame it all on “Islam”. But if we are feeding our prejudice in this way, we do so at our peril.

Karen Armstrong is the author of Islam: A Short History

 

To ignore the past means to re-live it. He who keeps on spreading the fairytale of Muslim tolerance, stands in the way of those Muslim intellectuals, who seriously work towards a reformation of islam, which started out so promisingly in the 19th century. He steals away their chance to overcome a past, which threatens to become a horrible present. If the reformers could achieve a radical de-politicization of Islam, the Muslims could become real citizens of their states.

 

You might want to tell that to the modern-day Crusaders.

- MENJ

 

Your remark tells me that you didn't read the above, which telling you some details of your history.

 

And obviously you did not read the above either, which refutes your version of "history".

- MENJ

 

It does not, just fits your propaganda and goal. You're trying to blind people, that's possibly your job description.

 

You mean like how your buddy Jochen Katz is doing? You might want to remind him about my promise.

- MENJ

 

What promise are you talking about?

 

Why don't you ask him?

- MENJ

 

non of my business

 

Your loss. After all he is in the same country as you are.

- MENJ

 

Who incited David to count the fighting men of Israel? (a) God did (2 Samuel 24:1) (b) Satan did (1 Chronicles 21:1).

"And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah." 2 Samuel 24:1.
"And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel." 1 Chronicles 21:1.

Answer. Since God is overall things we can say that everything happens with the approval or consent from the Lord (“…go, number Israel and Judah”, see also Matthew 8:31 and John 13:27). The Old Testament Hebrew writers understood this very well and they have a philosophy that whatever the Lord permits, He commits. We find this evident among other passages in the OT (e.g., 1 Kings 22:20-22; Jeremiah 4:10; Ezekiel 14:9) especially in 2 Samuel 24:1, “He moved David…”

In the story, David looked back at his accomplishments, with pride in his heart, he began to trust more in the might of his army than on the mercy of God who had brought him all these victorious conquest.

Thus the Lord, in His mercy on David (but angered by his pride), decided to humble him by allowing Satan to provoke him to do the census. This, however, was not done without a way out. A form of warning came from Joab in 1Chronicles 21.3. So we find that God’s intent was to purify David but Satan’s intent was malicious. This is not an unusual occurrence in the Scriptures.

Who incited David to count the fighting men of Israel? David himself, because of his pride; but the Lord allowed Satan to provoke him count his fighting men. There were three players in this census but the Hebrew writer attributed the ultimate cause to God who He is above all.

 

For questions #2 and #3
In that count how many fighting men were found in Israel? (a) Eight hundred thousand (2 Samuel 24:9). (b) One million, one hundred thousand (1 Chronicles 21:5). Also compare that of Judah.

"And Joab gave up the sum of the number of the people unto the king: and there were in Israel eight hundred thousand valiant men that drew the sword; and the men of Judah were five hundred thousand men." 2 Samuel 24:9.
Note: 800,000 valiant swordsmen from Israel. 500,000 men from Judah

"And Joab gave the sum of the number of the people unto David. And all they of Israel were a thousand thousand and an hundred thousand men that drew sword: and Judah was four hundred threescore and ten thousand men that drew sword." 1 Chronicles 21:5.

Note: 1,100,000 all Israelite swordsmen. 470,000 swordsmen from Judah

Answer. There were 1,100,000 Israelite swordsmen (800,000 of which are valiant, or battle seasoned, or veteran swordsmen while the remaining 300,000 are reserves). There were 500,000 men from Judah (470,000 of which are swordsmen and 30,000 reserves). There is no contradiction here each verse supports the other.

 

God sent his prophet to threaten David with how many years of famine? (a) Seven (2 Samuel 24:13). (b) Three (1 Chronicles 21:12).

"So Gad came to David, and told him, and said unto him, Shall seven years of famine come unto thee in thy land? or wilt thou flee three months before thine enemies, while they pursue thee? or that there be three days’ pestilence in thy land? now advise, and see what answer I shall return to him that sent me." 2 Samuel 24:13.
Note: “Shall 7 yrs of famine come to you?”

"Either three years’ famine; or three months to be destroyed before thy foes, while that the sword of thine enemies overtaketh thee; or else three days the sword of the LORD, even the pestilence, in the land, and the angel of the LORD destroying throughout all the coasts of Israel. Now therefore advise thyself what word I shall bring again to him that sent me." 1 Chronicles 21:12.

Note: “Either 3 yrs of famine…”

Answer. Carefully review the differences in the wording of each passage which will give you the hint that these are not the same conversation. Gad must have actually approached David twice. 2 Samuel recorded the first approach of Gad where he asked David “Shall 7 yrs of famine come to you?” While 1 Chronicles recorded Gad’s second approach to David where, perhaps due to the intense prayer of David after their first meeting, 7 years of famine was reduced to 3 yrs. No contradiction both passages are complimentary.

 

It took less than 10 minutes to find those answers. You are very well versed on religion which makes me think you already knew the answers. Why do you want us to tell you?

 

The Bible has been tampered with but not the Qur'an. They often allege the lack of extant manuscripts supporting the Bible, they will also allege contradictions therein by quoting sometimes atheistic sources or by misinterpreting passages, they will also misrepresent Christian doctrines or confuse Christian doctrines with heretic ones, particularly the Trinity and the Atonement. Most of them are really sincerely convinced that they are pointing the weaknesses of the Bible but sadly some of them are aware that there are already refutations to what they would like allege for Islam is a religion that permits its followers to bend the truth to achieve its goals.

And this:

This is the easiest allegation to counter. Simply ask the polemicists where can they find such a claim in the Qur'an because according to their own sacred book or according to Muhammad in the Seventh Century, God gave the Scriptures as a clear guide (Surah 2:213; 2:53; 5:44; 6:154; 23:49; 28:49; 32:23; 37:117-118; 40:53-54; 46:12). Also ask them how they understand 5:46 which says,

"And We caused Jesus, son of Mary, to follow in their footsteps, confirming that which was (revealed) before him in the Torah, and We bestowed on him the Gospel wherein is guidance and a light, confirming that which was (revealed) before it in the Torah - a guidance and an admonition unto those who ward off (evil)." (Surah 5:46. Emphasis added, Pickthal's Quran Translation)

Because the Qur'an is also said to be,

"It is He Who sent down to thee (step by step), in truth, the Book {referring to the Qur'an}, confirming what went before it {referring to the Scriptures}; and He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus) before this, as a guide to mankind, and He sent down the criterion (of judgment between right and wrong)." (Surah 3:3. Emphasis added. See also Surah 5:48; 46:12)

Then show them the unity of the Old Testament (which includes the Torah or the "Taurat" and the Psalms or the "Zabur") and the New Testament (which includes the Gospel or the "Injeel") regarding its main theme (Jesus Christ and the Way of Salvation) and then ask them, if the New Testament confirms the Old Testament while maintaining the unity in doctrines and of records, how does the Qur'an confirm the Old and the New Testaments? By contradicting it?

Ask them how the Scripture was corrupted, when did the corruption occur, and up to what extent did the corruption of the Scriptures occur. Ask them if they have considered that Christians still have more than 24,000 complete and partial manuscripts dated as far as the Second Century from different places in Europe and Asia. That is to say that if some manuscripts were corrupted in Asia, we still have other copies to compare it with from Europe. True enough we have all of this testable and observable evidences to prove that the Scripture is supernaturally preserved by God.

Furthermore, we find that contrary to what the Muslim polemicists claim, the Qur'an or Muhammad approved of the copy of the Scriptures during his time (in the Seventh Century); admonishing people to believe it (Surah 2:136; 3:184; 4:47, 136; 29:46; 42:13); to consult it (Surah 4:26; 5:77; 10:94; 16:43; 21:7) and not to hide it (Surah 3:187) because it is the foundation of faith (Surah 2:113; 3:93; 5:68). That, it is to be followed (Surah 6:155) because it is from God (Surah 6:89; 41:45; 11:110) by inspiration (Surah 16:43) and it is settled in heaven (Surah 21:105 cf. 85:21-22; 4:163). That God is its protector (Surah 17:2) from the corruption of its message (Surah 15:9) therefore none can alter it (Surah 6:34, 115; 10:64; 48:23).

"The word of thy Lord doth find its fulfilment in truth and in justice: None can change His words: for He is the one who heareth and knoweth all." (Surah 6:115. Emphasis added. See also Surah 15:9; 6:34; 10:64; 18:27; 48:23)

Make them realize that every criticism they hurl against the preservation, inspiration and authority of the Scripture is a criticism against the preservation, inspiration and authority of the Qur'an, after all, if man can alter the Scriptures which is the Word of God, man can also alter the Qur'an.

If you have to go through Surah 2:78-79,

"And there are among them illiterates, who know not the Book, but (see therein their own) desires, and they do nothing but conjecture Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say: 'This is from Allah,' to traffic with it for miserable price!- Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby." (Emphasis added.)

Please understand that the context reveals that it does not speak of global corruption of the Scriptures, for it speaks of "illiterates who do not understand but rather misinterpret the meaning of the Scriptures." After all not all Christians are alike (Surah 2:146; 3:23; 3:113; 3:119).
*********************************

I say that you will not gain respect for Islam by tearing down the Christians.

 

How about Muslims impressing Westerners with actions rather than words?

 

Islam in Al-Amrikiyyah

- MENJ

 

I concur.

All of these words seem meaningless in light of the barbaric behavior of many Muslims and the overwhelming support those Muslims appear to receive from the rest of the Islamic community.

Remember the picture of the Muslim kid wearing the Osama bin Laden T-shirt -- while standing in line to receive U.S. aid?

 

These are just your own game of words ...

Ok, Let me assume that 100% of the Bible is correct but which one ?? and where do I find the real script of it written in Hebrew on which 100% of the Chritians believe in ??

The Bible mostly read is translated by many of the Humans and the Human can make errors, He is never Error free. Just comeup with your 100% accurate script and we will start talking on it ...

But again your 100% accurate Bible says ::

JESUS HIMSELF DENIED BEING GOD

GOD IS ALL KNOWING BUT JESUS WAS NOT

Although Jesus performed miracles he admitted that his power was not his own

God does not have a God but Jesus did have a God.

God does not lose power and if someone drains him of power he would know who had done it.

God is an invisible spirit but Jesus was flesh and blood.

No one is greater than God and no one can direct him But Jesus acknowledged someone greater than himself.

Lets accept these verses as well ...