Redstone said:

---

Great. Now that we've established a mainstream Islamic view, the next question is: "what is the word of God?"

---

For me it is Jesus.

Redstone said:

---

Great. Now that we've established a mainstream Islamic view, the next question is: "what is the word of God?"

---

Are you asking me for Sunni orthodoxy or my own Isma'ili creed's belief?

When it takes that many words to explain how…it is a lie that a woman claimed to have been married as a child…by a guy who coveted babies and married so many others (13?).

Oh, but the narratives/apologists for his sex/marriage life have an even more complicated path of excuses/lies/obfuscation to wade through.

He also impregnated a christian slave girl (but he was popular with slaves per above!).

LOL.

nortex97 said:

---

When it takes that many words to explain how…it is a lie that a woman claimed to have been married as a child…by a guy who coveted babies and married so many others (13?).

Oh, but the narratives/apologists for his sex/marriage life have an even more complicated path of excuses/lies/obfuscation to wade through.

He also impregnated a christian slave girl (but he was popular with slaves per above!).

LOL.

---

The irony of you complaining about words when all you do is copy paste polemics from geocities tier websites lulz

Muhammad married a lot of women because he lived in a tribal society and was building a tribal coalition. Yawn and next.

You spend a bit of time insulting Christians on a thread about what Christians think of mohammed and the Koran, pal. I'm fine if you stop replying to my 'geocities' links again, fwiw.

nortex97 said:

---

You spend a bit of time insulting Christians on a thread about what Christians think of mohammed and the Koran, pal. I'm fine if you stop replying to my 'geocities' links again, fwiw.

---

Kindly point out where I insulted Christians lulz.

The only thing I don't do with Christians is share the exact same beliefs. Otherwise you'll find nothing but civility from me, even with your ctrl+v posts my guy. You go on tirades about Muhammad and you get back rebuttals and then you cry about insults. Absolute comedy.

For Christians (first 1,400 years of Apostolic, liturgical, Sacramental practice), the word of God is Jesus, the reason and order of all creation - in fact, Reason and Order itself.

The Logos of St. John ch. 1.

The Bible is a holy product of the Church, finalized 300 years after the founder.

In Islam, the prophet is a transcriber of the holy text, which God speaks directly. (Abstractly, the Protestants did move toward this understanding.)

Now, let's assume the Islamic position of dates of the holy text summarized here is valid.

Who decides? Who is sovereign to interpret?

This is the opening to much Islamic violence: bin laden et al. can make a legitimate claim of interpretation.

As a Catholic, I must accept a given interpretation. The Church decides - with much room to argue still, of course. But this is a large difference.

Redstone said:

---

Great. Now that we've established a mainstream Islamic view, the next question is: "what is the word of God?"

---

The Sunni orthodox view is that Qur'an is divine speech spoken through Muhammad by God.

The Ismaili view is that the Qur'an is not a book. The Word is embodied by a man on Earth, whose nature is human but houses the Divine Universal Intellect. So as Jesus Christ was the locus of kalimat Allah - the Word of God - and possessed a ruhu minhu (the "spirit from God" - the Holy Spirit) and was the Lord of the Age and Time of his cycle, so too is the Imam of the final cycle, the cycle that sealed Prophethood and will end with our species-wide attainment of true knowledge of God at the Last Day.

This view is a fringe view. It is Shi'i and specifically Ismaili in its outlook, but you asked me the question and not a Sunni

Redstone said:

---

For Christians (first 1,400 years of Apostolic, liturgical, Sacramental practice), the word of God is Jesus, the reason and order of all creation - in fact, Reason and Order itself.

The Logos of St. John ch. 1.

The Bible is a holy product of the Church, finalized 300 years after the founder.

In Islam, the prophet is a transcriber of the holy text, which God speaks directly. (Abstractly, the Protestants did move toward this understanding.)

Now, let's assume the Islamic position of dates of the holy text summarized here is valid.

Who decides? Who is sovereign to interpret?

This is the opening to much Islamic violence: bin laden et al. can make a legitimate claim of interpretation.

As a Catholic, I must accept a given interpretation. The Church decides - with much room to argue still, of course. But this is a large difference.

---

Sorry - just responded to you above. You did summarise the orthodox Sunni (but not universally nor was it the original Sunni view - Asharitism won over Mutazilism but it was not a done deal from the start). I don't ascribe to that nor does Isma'ilism from a theological perspective.

Ok. The nuance is important, so thanks.

The philosophical generalization, which is applicable in the many hundreds of millions, has explanatory power…who decides? Who interprets?

Redstone said:

---

Ok. The nuance is important, so thanks.

The philosophical generalization, which is applicable in the many hundreds of millions, has explanatory power…who decides? Who interprets?

---

Do you mean who has the ultimate power of interpretation in the Ismaili view? It would be the Imam as the possessor and living locus of manifestation of the Word.

That actually raises a question from me to you because I am curious and don't quite know: Is Jesus considered to have been the Living Scripture/Living Word during his lifetime? Or in other words, as the NT had not yet been compiled, Jesus was the Bible for all intents and purposes?

canadiaggie said:

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

So the disputed age range is somewhere between…6 to 10?

---

No. The disputed age range is 9-19.

Tldr: Aisha stated she was 9. I outlined a few brief reasons why she had reason to understate her age. However, Aisha's statements don't match up with her statements about her parents' conversion, her own age at the time, her sister's well attested age, and their recorded death dates.

---

So why have I heard about muslims defending thighing and Mohammed doing it. Clearly there's a majority cultural context that child marriage was happening, and that Mohammed was doing 'admirable' sexual acts for such young girls (sick to write out). If we're dealing with a girl who is of age, in a society that only married girls of age, none of this even comes up.

No, not at all. The modern understanding of "the Word of God" = scripture is incorrect. The Word is a person. Throughout the OT the Word is a person, who comes to Israel. St John's summary in John 1 is that the Word, who was known to Israel, became flesh as Jesus Christ. It's not some embodiment or manifestation of the scriptures. The connection is actually the other way around: the scriptures are an icon of Christ.

canadiaggie said:

---

Redstone said:

---

Ok. The nuance is important, so thanks.

The philosophical generalization, which is applicable in the many hundreds of millions, has explanatory power…who decides? Who interprets?

---

Do you mean who has the ultimate power of interpretation in the Ismaili view? It would be the Imam as the possessor and living locus of manifestation of the Word.

That actually raises a question from me to you because I am curious and don't quite know: Is Jesus considered to have been the Living Scripture/Living Word during his lifetime? Or in other words, as the NT had not yet been compiled, Jesus was the Bible for all intents and purposes?

---

From the Gospel of St. John
The divinity and incarnation of Christ. John bears witness of him. He begins to call his disciples.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him: and without him was made nothing that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.
There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. This man came for a witness, to give testimony of the light, that all men might believe through him. He was not the light, but was to give testimony of the light. That was the true light, which enlighteneth every man that cometh into this world. He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, he gave them power to be made the sons of God, to them that believe in his name. Who are born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we saw his glory, the glory as it were of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth


There is a extreme amount of nuance especially when taken in the Greek because logos means so much more than word, it has to do with proper order amongst other things.

Zobel said:

---

No, not at all. The modern understanding of "the Word of God" = scripture is incorrect. The Word is a person. Throughout the OT the Word is a person, who comes to Israel. St John's summary in John 1 is that the Word, who was known to Israel, became flesh as Jesus Christ. It's not some embodiment or manifestation of the scriptures. The connection is actually the other way around: the scriptures are an icon of Christ.

---

Ah okay. This is in line with with the Ismaili view of the Imamate.

But then I ask: is the Word created? Or is it eternal?

canadiaggie said:

---

Zobel said:

---

No, not at all. The modern understanding of "the Word of God" = scripture is incorrect. The Word is a person. Throughout the OT the Word is a person, who comes to Israel. St John's summary in John 1 is that the Word, who was known to Israel, became flesh as Jesus Christ. It's not some embodiment or manifestation of the scriptures. The connection is actually the other way around: the scriptures are an icon of Christ.

---

Ah okay. This is in line with with the Ismaili view of the Imamate.

But then I ask: is the Word created? Or is it eternal?

---

It is eternal.
The word, the son Jesus, is eternal begotten of the Father, begotten not made.
Consubstantial with the Father.

Jesus was the Living Scripture/Living Word during his lifetime, gradually revealed to His followers.

Quote:

---

as the NT had not yet been compiled, Jesus was the Bible for all intents and purposes?

---

Bible is a product, debated for 300+ years. Canon might be better word, to denote the process.

Logos, from which all good came, always existed and incarnated to relate to us.

100% eternal. Hence, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Muhammed asked for forgiveness.

Jesus had authority to forgive.

Big difference.

bmks270 said:

---

Muhammed asked for forgiveness.

Jesus had authority to forgive.

Big difference.

---

Muhammad advocated for killing, war on unbelievers, married over a dozen women/girls, supported slavery (as do many muslims up to today), hatred of jews, and his adherents still to this day do things like this daily, based on his teachings/book.

This morning, a Palestinian terrorist armed with this knife got out of a vehicle & ran toward a bus stop where civilians & IDF soldiers were standing in Judea and Samaria. Our forces at the scene neutralized the attacker.

We are currently pursuing the vehicle & other suspects. pic.twitter.com/OM8LGfzr19

— Israel Defense Forces (@IDF) December 31, 2021

He had a lot of things to ask forgiveness for. He was apparently so insecure about his appearance he also banned anyone from depicting him. Early, and all modern christian analyses has to really take his life/writings seriously, when deciding what to 'think of' him; 'When and why was Muhammad demonized?'

Quote:

---

Towards the end of the seventh and beginning of the eighth centuries, learned Christians began to scrutinize the theological claims of Islam. The image of Muslims went from bad to worse. The Koranthat "most pitiful and most inept little book of the Arab Muhammad"was believed to be "full of blasphemies against the Most High, with all its ugly and vulgar filth," particularly its claim that heaven amounted to a "sexual brothel," to quote eighth century Nicetas Byzantinos, who had and closely studied a copy of it. Allah was denounced as an impostor deity, namely Satan: "I anathematize the God of Muhammad," read one Byzantine canonical rite.[url=https://www.raymondibrahim.com/2017/12/22/west-began-demonize-muhammad/#_edn6][vi][/url]

But it was Muhammad himselfthe fount of Islamwho especially scandalized Christians: "The character and the history of the Prophet were such as genuinely shocked them; they were outraged that he should be accepted as a venerated figure."[url=https://www.raymondibrahim.com/2017/12/22/west-began-demonize-muhammad/#_edn7][vii][/url] Then and now, nothing so damned Muhammad in Christian eyes as much as his own biography, written and venerated by Muslims. For instance, after proclaiming that Allah had permitted Muslims four wives and unlimited concubines (Koran 4:3), he later declared that Allah had delivered a new revelation (Koran 33:50-52) offering him, the prophet alone, a dispensation to sleep with and marry as many women as he wanted. In response, none other than his favorite wife, Aisha, the "Mother of Believers," quipped: "I feel that your Lord hastens in fulfilling your wishes and desires."[url=https://www.raymondibrahim.com/2017/12/22/west-began-demonize-muhammad/#_edn8][viii][/url]

Based, then, on Muslim sources, early Christian writers of Semitic origins foremost among them St. John of Damascus (b. 676) articulated a number of arguments against Muhammad that remain at the heart of all Christian polemics against Islam today.[url=https://www.raymondibrahim.com/2017/12/22/west-began-demonize-muhammad/#_edn9][ix][/url] The only miracle Muhammad performed, they argued, was to invade, slaughter, and enslave those who refused to submit to hima "miracle that even common robbers and highway bandits can perform." The prophet clearly put whatever words best served him in God's mouth, thus "simulating revelation in order to justify his own sexual indulgence"[url=https://www.raymondibrahim.com/2017/12/22/west-began-demonize-muhammad/#_edn10][x][/url]; he made his religion appealing and justified his own behavior by easing the sexual and moral codes of the Arabs and fusing the notion of obedience to God with war to aggrandize oneself with booty and slaves.

Perhaps most importantly, Muhammad's denial of and war on all things distinctly Christianthe Trinity, the resurrection, and "the cross, which they abominate"proved for Christians that he was Satan's agent. In short, "the false prophet," "the hypocrite," "the liar," "the adulterer," "the forerunner of Antichrist," and "the Beast," became mainstream epithets for Muhammad among Christians for over a thousand years, beginning in the late seventh century.[url=https://www.raymondibrahim.com/2017/12/22/west-began-demonize-muhammad/#_edn11][xi][/url] Indeed, for politically correct or overly sensitive peoples who find any criticism of Islam "Islamophobic," the sheer amount and vitriolic content of more than a millennium of Western writings on Muhammad may beggar belief.

Even charitable modern historians such as Oxford's Norman Danielwho rather gentlemanly leaves the most severe words against Muhammad in their original Latin in his survey of early Christian attitudes to Islammakes this clear: "The two most important aspects of Muhammad's life, Christians believed, were his sexual license and his use of force to establish his religion"; for Christians "fraud was the sum of Muhammad's life…. Muhammad was the great blasphemer, because he made religion justify sin and weakness"; due to all this, "There can be no doubt of the extent of Christian hatred and suspicion of Muslims."

---

There are no fair comparisons with Jesus in any way other than they were both male on earth, from a Semitic people. Sorry, I'll try not to post anymore 'geocities' links/analyses, as only allowable Islamic scholars can be used, but it is inarguable that he/hadiths have taught muslims it is ok to have sex with female slaves.

Quote:

---

Shariah law allows a man to be married to 4 wives. He doesn't have to have 4 wives, but he cannot have more. The Prophet had exemptions from these limitations. There is not a clear number telling us how many wives Muhammad had. It is clear that he had at least 12 wives, but some suggest he may have had as many as 18. In addition to this he had a high number of concubines, or sex slaves. We don't know how many, but there are places where it is stated that he had over 6,000 slaves. Many of these would have been men and boys, but a great number of them would have been women.

There is a whole chapter in the Qur'an that deals with how you divide up the war booty. The Prophet received 1/5th of the war booty. The rest was divided among the other jihadis who fought with him. They, then had to pay 1/5th of what they received to the Prophet. For example, if there were 50 women who were taken captive, Muhammad would get 10 of them, plus 5% of the rest.

Men would be given the option of becoming Muslim or being executed. A child under the age of 14 would be taken as a slave, as would the women. The women's marriages were immediately annulled, whether or not the husband became a Muslim. It is illegal for a Muslim to have sex with another man's wive, unless that marriage has been annulled. Once the woman is his slave, a Muslim can have sex with her.
We are not sure how many sex slaves Muhammad had, but he had many.

---

Quote:

---

There are a number of battles in the Qur'an. Muhammad was involved in 66 military campaigns. He was the aggressor in all but 2 of them. The biggest battle was the Battle of the Ditch. This battle took place in Medina. The people of Arabia had enough of this tyrant who kept robbing their caravans. They came to do away with him at Medina. Muhammad dug a ditch, but one side was vulnerable so he made a league with the last Jewish tribe in the area. There had been 3 tribes there, but he had killed or banished the others out of Arabia.

Muhammad won the battle. The way the text reads, Muhammad was taking off his helmet and sword, and the spirit through whom he received is "revelation" came to him and said, why are you putting down your sword, you need to deal with the treachery of those Jews. He laid siege against them, and after about a week, he made a peace agreement with them. He told them he would let them live, but they had to leave Arabia.

The Jewish men came out first, and Muhammad reminded his men that war is deceit. It is acceptable for a Muslim to lie to unbelievers. When the Jewish men came out, he beheaded 600 to 900 of them, and their bodies are buried in the market place of Medina.

---

Jihadis are fundamentalized in his teachings, not 'radicalized.

Quote:

---

Jihadis are Not Radicalized, But Fundamentalized

Since we see so many Islamic terrorist attacks around us we need to understand what is happening. How are these people being "radicalized?" Another question we must ask is; Are the things they are doing consistent with Islam, or are they, as the media and our political leaders like to say, "radicalized?"

The use the term "radical" to say that this is a radical version of Islam and there is a peaceful version of Islam is false. They want us to believe that if we could just get the terrorists to buy into the peaceful version we wouldn't have the problems with terrorism and terrorists. We need to understand that we have had these problems through all of the 1,400 year history of Islam.

Using the word "radicalize" to describe the jihdis is wrong. They are being "fundamentalized," not "radicalized." They are being made scriptural and militant because they are trying to model what they do after what their Prophet did.

What we want to do is look at how we can look at Muslims, be it a neighbor, a coworker, a family member, or someone in the community, and tell if they are becoming a fundamentalist Muslim.
Everyone, our law enforcement, our political leaders, everyone, needs to hear this message. We need to know the steps someone goes through to become a terrorist.

---

This is why muslims, as a group, are dangerous threats within western countries/constitutional republics. Members/subsets can at any time become quickly fundamentalized.

It can be taken as an excuse for violence to even say 'Good Morning' to a devout/fundamental muslim.

Would like to hear want Canadia has to say about Mohammed's harem, war mongering, lying to others, and death to non converts. Especially since those actions are 'Allah endorsed' not just humans acting against Gods will.

I try to not get caught up in the 'who is doing bad things right now' since there's a lot of blood on everyone's hands. Mohammed giving himself not only carte blanche to rule mercilessly but also saying God allows it and it's Gods final word is the biggest issue in my mind. It's not consistent with anything in the Bible.

Sapper Redux said:

---

Lol. Minus the over 1 billion Muslims who disagree with your interpretation, of course?

---

Apparently their 'interpretation' is to elaborately claim that Aisha was a liar about her age, as canadaggie illustrated, I suppose. There's no interpretation needed to know he had thousands of slaves, and at least a dozen wives, and that he granted himself a unique exception (or rather, Allah did) to the cap on the number of wives allowed (4 for all other muslim males). 20% for the big guy, making Biden's 10% seem fair by comparison. LOL.

As nortex has linked, the widespread consensus among christians who have studied mohammed for millennia now (especially the 1st one after his life, if he did exist), is that he was a liar/false prophet who advocated violence. Here is a good book about Christian Martyrs early on in the history of islam. The sacrifices by these men (and many others) very significantly shaped informed christian views of the koran/false prophet from that time forward.

LOL, there is zero chance Sapper ever comprehends this thread is not about "what muslims believe and how they are right and christians are wrong."

nortex97 said:

---

LOL, there is zero chance Sapper ever comprehends this thread is not about "what muslims believe and how they are right and christians are wrong."

---

"The Christian consensus" also does not mean, "here's some right wing blogs I read."

Sapper Redux said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

LOL, there is zero chance Sapper ever comprehends this thread is not about "what muslims believe and how they are right and christians are wrong."

---

"The Christian consensus" also does not mean, "here's some right wing blogs I read."

---

Oh look, another angry non-substantive response about how ('right wing') christians are wrong. Shocked!

Just stop. Canada has dragged you up and down this thread and the best you can do is the same tired garbage.

Sapper Redux said:

---

Just stop. Canada has dragged you up and down this thread and the best you can do is the same tired garbage.

---

Disagree.

Think Norte has very much held his own and I agree with his take on Islam. I pray daily for Christian's being persecuted in predominantly Muslim countries. And I pray daily that all people accept the free gift of grace offered by faith in Jesus the Son of God.

And I do not read "right wing blogs".

dermdoc said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Just stop. Canada has dragged you up and down this thread and the best you can do is the same tired garbage.

---

Disagree.

Think Norte has very much held his own and I agree with his take on Islam. I pray daily for Christian's being persecuted in predominantly Muslim countries. And I pray daily that all people accept the free gift of grace offered by faith in Jesus the Son of God.

And I do not read "right wing blogs".

---

I'm not in the least surprised that you agree with him. Canada has provided detailed sources from Islamic texts and authorities. He hasn't gotten much quality in the way of a response. Do you pray for Muslims being persecuted?

Sapper Redux said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Just stop. Canada has dragged you up and down this thread and the best you can do is the same tired garbage.

---

Disagree.

Think Norte has very much held his own and I agree with his take on Islam. I pray daily for Christian's being persecuted in predominantly Muslim countries. And I pray daily that all people accept the free gift of grace offered by faith in Jesus the Son of God.

And I do not read "right wing blogs".

---

I'm not in the least surprised that you agree with him. Canada has provided detailed sources from Islamic texts and authorities. He hasn't gotten much quality in the way of a response. Do you pray for Muslims being persecuted?

---

Sure. Where are Christians persecuting Muslims? When is the last time Christians beheaded people simply for being Christians? Are we imprisoning Muslims in the US for their religious beliefs? Do we forbid them openly carrying the Koran? Why do you always revert to moral relativism?

But then every one I know with your views always reverts to that.

Abstractly and philosophically, criticism of Islam is like criticism of Protestantism:
division upon division for over a thousand years, so the critics are always many shades of correct and not correct at all.

bin Laden et al. had a valid interpretation, as do Sunni fanatics now…..

And if not, then by what mechanism, by whose authority?

Zobel said:

---

100% eternal. Hence, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.

---

I think that's a point of difference. From what I understand, the early Isma'ili dawa refer to the Logos - the Aql i Kull, which translates to Universal Intellect, also referred to as the Kalimat, the Word - as the creation of the beginning. The Logos is the First and Last, the Awwal and Akhir. It is sometimes referred to as 'eternal' but in the sense that it marks the beginning and end of time as will be present so long as Creation is. God's creative act occurs at all times through the Aql - hence Imam Ali's statement in Kitab al-Kashf that "I am Christ who creates the birds and disperses the clouds… he is the Supreme Word."

However, Isma'ili thought doesn't equate the Logos with God - just the attainable aspects of God. The early Ismaili dawa ascribed to apophatic theology. They argued that the names of God were not truly descriptive, as God was above and beyond all attributes, characteristics, and qualities. What humans can approach is the Logos. Nasir Khusraw's writings can be summarised as:

" The [Universal] Intellect is complete and perfect. It knows all things, and knows them all at once; there is nothing for it to know later or better. There is no motion or time within the Intellect or within which the Intellect functions, for time and motion have not yet come into existence in the realm of the Intellect. Not only does the Intellect know all things; it encompasses all beings, material and spiritual. In fact, following the Command 'Be!', the Intellect is all being; there is nothing outside of itself. The Intellect also lacks nothing and needs nothing, because there is nothing other than its actual perfection."
(Alice Hunsberger, The Ruby of Badakhshan, p. 159)

Christ, and the Imamate - the Mazhar of the Logos - are the underpinning of creation. It's why the Ismaili exegetes argued that the crucifixion of Christ's physical body did occur - but the Logos can never be killed, and therefore Christ did only physically die.

dermdoc said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Just stop. Canada has dragged you up and down this thread and the best you can do is the same tired garbage.

---

Disagree.

Think Norte has very much held his own and I agree with his take on Islam. I pray daily for Christian's being persecuted in predominantly Muslim countries. And I pray daily that all people accept the free gift of grace offered by faith in Jesus the Son of God.

And I do not read "right wing blogs".

---

I'm not in the least surprised that you agree with him. Canada has provided detailed sources from Islamic texts and authorities. He hasn't gotten much quality in the way of a response. Do you pray for Muslims being persecuted?

---

Sure. Where are Christians persecuting Muslims? When is the last time Christians beheaded people simply for being Christians? Are we imprisoning Muslims in the US for their religious beliefs? Do we forbid them openly carrying the Koran? Why do you always revert to moral relativism?

But then every one I know with your views always reverts to that.

---

Why do you assume things aren't relative? Life and history is far more complex than most blog posts assume.

That sounds surprisingly Platonistic. Though I suppose with the exchange of philosophical ideas with the Byzantines that shouldn't be surprising. Have you read Sailing from Byzantium? Has a section on the impact the Byzantines had on Islamic culture. You might like it.

The important thing I think is that St John wasnt philosophizing in the prologue. He's calling on extant concepts and writings from the OT about who Yahweh was, how He is depicted, and saying the Word who is Yahweh became flesh and we knew Him as Jesus Christ.

Sapper Redux said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Just stop. Canada has dragged you up and down this thread and the best you can do is the same tired garbage.

---

Disagree.

Think Norte has very much held his own and I agree with his take on Islam. I pray daily for Christian's being persecuted in predominantly Muslim countries. And I pray daily that all people accept the free gift of grace offered by faith in Jesus the Son of God.

And I do not read "right wing blogs".

---

I'm not in the least surprised that you agree with him. Canada has provided detailed sources from Islamic texts and authorities. He hasn't gotten much quality in the way of a response. Do you pray for Muslims being persecuted?

---

Sure. Where are Christians persecuting Muslims? When is the last time Christians beheaded people simply for being Christians? Are we imprisoning Muslims in the US for their religious beliefs? Do we forbid them openly carrying the Koran? Why do you always revert to moral relativism?

But then every one I know with your views always reverts to that.

---

Why do you assume things aren't relative? Life and history is far more complex than most blog posts assume.

---

There is a difference between thinking a religion is false(like most Christians do with Islam) and beheading and imprisoning Christian just for their religious beliefs. Or prohibiting the Bible. Or killing gay people. Or killing family members who convert.

There is nothing "relative" about it.

Redstone said:

---

Abstractly and philosophically, criticism of Islam is like criticism of Protestantism:
division upon division for over a thousand years, so the critics are always many shades of correct and not correct at all.

bin Laden et al. had a valid interpretation, as do Sunni fanatics now…..

And if not, then by what mechanism, by whose authority?

---

Theologically I agree with you.

But Protestants are not going around beheading anyone. Or throwing people in prison for their belief. Or flying planes into buildings filled with innocent victims.

There is a huge difference.

And as I stated above nothing relative about it,