First, let me say that I am no fan of hateful Muslims. Among other atrocities, it is no secret that the murders of homosexuals in nations such as Iran and Iraq occur because believers of Islam use those beliefs as a reason to kill. Were I to travel to these countries, I would be in grave danger of being murdered because of the Islam religion, and so would many other people. Countless have been killed, imprisoned, and otherwise treated unfairly because of the Islam religion.

But I don't think that the Islam religion is inherently hateful. I mean, many people also use the Muslim religion as a reason for peace and a reason to help others.

Perhaps there are indeed words which demand murder in the Qur'an, but words which demand murder exist in the Bible, too. As Steven M pointed out, many Christians do not agree with those words in the Bible. Similarly, many Muslims may not believe the words demanding murder in the Qur'an.

So one person may call himself Muslim and be peaceful, kind, and accepting of others. Another may call himself Muslim and commit many coldblooded murders. Both people are Muslim, but their religions are not the same. It is the religion of the murderer that we must stand against, not the religion of the kind.

French police face Muslim 'intifada'
By David Rennie
LONDON DAILY TELEGRAPH
October 12, 2006


BRUSSELS -- Radical Muslims in France's housing estates are waging an undeclared "intifada," or uprising, against the police, with violent clashes injuring about 14 officers each day.
As the Interior Ministry announced that nearly 2,500 officers had been wounded this year, a police union declared that its members were "in a state of civil war" with Muslims in the most depressed "banlieue" estates. Banlieue, which means outskirts, is the commonly used euphemism for the low-income housing projects heavily populated by unemployed youths of North African origin.
The police union said it had asked the government to provide police with armored cars to protect officers in the estates, which it said were becoming no-go zones.
The number of attacks has risen by a third in two years. Police representatives told the newspaper Le Figaro that the "taboo" of attacking officers on patrol has been broken.
Instead, officers -- especially those patrolling in pairs or small groups -- are facing attacks when they try to arrest locals.
Senior officers insisted that the problem was essentially criminal in nature, with crime bosses on the estates fighting back against tough tactics.
Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy, who also is the leading center-right candidate for the presidency, has sent heavily equipped units into areas with orders to regain control from drug-smuggling gangs and other organized crime rings.
However, not all officers on the ground accept that essentially secular interpretation of the problem. Michel Thoomis, the secretary general of the hard-line Action Police trade union, has written to Mr. Sarkozy warning of an "intifada" on the estates and demanding that officers be given armored cars in the most dangerous areas.
"We are in a state of civil war, orchestrated by radical Islamists. This is not a question of urban violence any more. It is an intifada, with stones and Molotov cocktails," he said last week. "You no longer see two or three youths confronting police, you see whole tower blocks emptying into the streets to set their 'comrades' free when they are arrested."
However, Gerard Demarcq, of the largest police unions, Alliance, dismissed talk of an uprising as representing the views of a minority.
Mr. Demarcq said the increased attacks on officers were proof that the policy of "retaking territory" from criminal gangs was working.
Mayors in the worst-affected suburbs, which saw weeks of riots and car burning a year ago, have expressed fears of a vicious circle, as attacks by locals lead the police to harden their tactics, further increasing resentment.
As if to prove that point, there were angry reactions in the western Paris suburb of Les Mureaux after dawn raids in search of youths who had attacked a police unit last week. The raids led to one arrest.
Scores of youths had attacked seven officers who had tried to arrest a man for not wearing his seat belt while driving. The driver refused to stop and later rammed a police car trying to block his path.
Les Mureaux Mayor Francois Garay criticized aggressive police tactics that left "the people on the ground to pick up the pieces."

French police face Muslim 'intifada'*-*World*-*The Washington Times, America's Newspaper

I don't believe that there are words in the Bible which call for Christians to commit murder. Such words would be contrary to the "whole counsel of Scripture" by which Christians are to interpret the Bible.

I do agree that it is important to realize that while some Muslims advocate violent methods to bring about world rule, there is a majority that are very friendly. I was in England this past summer and was able to meet both types.

The difference between Islam and Christianity in this regard though is that conservative, fundamentalist Muslims sincerely believe that their holy book requires the death of those who do not subscribe to their beliefs. Conservative, fundamentalist Christians on the other hand, do not have similar beliefs.

Correct Steve. Thou shall not kill (murder) is a commandment, whereas the Quran says in more than one verse to kill (murder) the Jew or Christian.

According the Islam, the terrorists are the true muslims and not deviant because they follow their holy book.

Nonsense. That is not true, and it is not what Steven was saying. The Ten Commandments do not outlaw "killing" someone else, they outlaw "murdering" someone else. Not all killing is murder: murder is only when you violate the law. As a supporter of a war in Iraq, surely you understand that.

So what is the law of the Bible? Well, looking only at the Old Testament, there are plenty of times when you must kill someone. Here's a few things I found just by skimming Leviticus and Deuteronomy:

Leviticus, chapter 20 demands the killing of many different people. Anyone who curses his father or mother must be killed. Anyone who commits adultry must be killed. If a man sleeps with his father's wife, both must be killed. If a man sleeps with his daughter-in-law, both must be killed. Homosexuals (or maybe polygamists?) must be killed. If a man sleeps with his wife's mother, the man, his wife, and the mother must all be burned to death. Anyone who has sex with an animal must be killed. Anyone with a familiar (an animal companion which is truly a spirit) must be killed. Wizards must be killed.

Leviticus, chapter 21 demands that any priests' daughters who become whores must be burned to death.

Leviticus, chapter 24 demands that anyone who blasphemes the name of the Lord must be stoned to death by the congregation. Anyone who kills someone else must be put to death (this is part of God's idea that any blemish you cause upon someone else must be caused back upon yourself: an eye for an eye).

And most relevant to our conversation: pretty much the entire book of Deuteronomy explains that you must kill people who do not believe in God. It says that all those who hate God must be killed: utterly destroyed. It explains how their lands must be salted and their cities burned. It goes into detail about how to properly execute non-believers in your own lands, and who exactly is responsible for making sure these deaths take place. The really bad parts of Deuteronomy begin in chapter 7, in my opinion. Another spot to glance at is chapter 17, verses 2-7.

Okay, so with all these verses demanding murder, how can Steven say that the Bible doesn't have any verses demanding murder?

Well, I believe Steven refers to the modern belief that Jesus threw out almost all of God's laws from the Old Testament.

And that's my point: Anyone can quote passages in the Bible which demand murder, especially murder of people of different religions. But most Christians don't believe in those passages, even though they believe in the Bible. So you can't just quote a few passages from the Qur'an, because maybe a Muslim does not follow those passages in the the same fashion a Christian may not follow all passages of the Bible.

Like Islam, the more fundamentalist you get Christianity, the more you support murder. In the Inquisitions in Europe and the Crusades, many infidels were killed in the name of Christianity. The Dark Ages included all sorts of murders in the name of Christianity.

Still today, the most fundamentalist Christians may believe that homosexuals, or even people of other religions should be killed. This belief surely isn't very common among Christians, but this ultra-fundamentalist Christian belief must be suppressed as surely as the fundamentalist Muslim belief must be suppressed.

You see what I'm getting it? It's not the Muslim belief that is the problem: it's the belief that we should kill and hurt people who are different from ourselves. Anyone who holds that belief, regardless of religion, is wrong.

First of all, The Crusades took place nearly 1,000 years ago. Additionally, no Christian that I have ever talked to condones them. But most of all, The Crusades were CAUSED by Muslim aggression and slaughter from the South. The Crusades did NOT "just happen". That is a STUPID and BLIND untruth.

Second, I have never talked to any Christians who believe that homosexuals, or people of other religions, should be killed. I've heard lots of rhetoric about how others are "going to hell", but I've never heard of anything like Jihad. That's strictly a Muslim term.

Third, it IS the CORE MUSLIM BELIEF that is the problem. It absolutely is! Moderate and Liberal Muslims (such as our friend here on this forum) reject that, because of their moderate views. But Jihad IS called for in the Quran. Killing and terrorizing unbelievers IS called for. And you will simply NOT find that kind of crap in the New Testament of the Bible.

The first two crusades were started by Muslim aggression. The third crusade was started when Saladin conquered Jerusalm. Crusades 4-9 were started by Christian aggression.

My point is not that Christians today condones the Crusades. It's just the opposite: Christians today are not violent like Christians in the past. Christians hold a different, more peaceful interpretation of the Bible than they once did. Muslims too can change their interpretation of the Qur'an.

There have indeed been murders of homosexuals because the murderer believed God wanted him to kill. The murderer, in this case, is still a Christian, even though his beliefs do not align with popular Christianity.

Remember, I'm not saying that Christianity is bad! I'm saying that anyone who believes in murdering people is bad, no matter what that person's religion.

But you will find that kind of crap in the Old Testament, and the Old Testament is still the Bible.

What I'm trying to say is: Christians were once warlike, and they were once killers. Back in the Dark Ages, it would be easy to look at the Old Testament and say, "The Core Christian belief is the problem." But look at Christians today. They are not warlike, and they are not killers. Christians have found a different interpretation of the Bible.

People can find peace, kindness, and generosity in the Qur'an too. The peaceful Muslims we see today are proof of that.

Who are these "Christians" who killed homosexuals because God wanted them to?

Jesus did not "throw" out any law. The bible says he fulfilled the law and he did that by being sinless. That was the point of the law, to show man how far he was from perfection that God demands. That is why faith in the only perfect man makes Christians perfect. Not by our actions or deeds, but by our faith in the one who is perfect.

Those verses do not demand murder, they are punishment. Every man deserves death because of sin. That is what the law was to show. When you execute someone on death row, it is not murder, it is punishment for your sin.

And, as has been pointed out before. There is no place in the bible telling Christians or Jews to kill Muslims or anyone for their beliefs. There is in the Quran. According to the Quran, the terrorists are the true muslims because they are acting out what the book tells them to do. You liberals keep telling us that the violent Muslims are the odd ones. Not true. The peaceful muslims are the ones who are not true muslims.