My other point, Alias; is that while you quote correctly; I still don't see how this is cause or reason to hate the Muslims as a whole.You don't agree with the religion- fine. That is your right. Is this really a reason to hate or convict a person who may drive your next taxi or work at your local 7/11? What have any of these individuals done to earn your contempt and hatred?

You know I have read through this entire post and I would like to set a few things straight. First, it is assinine to judge a whole group of people based upon the actions of a few. SO to judge Christians by the actions of the Church in the Middle ages is ridiculously assinine today. And so it should also be with Muslims to judge them by the actions of the Islamofascists. However, if we want to judge the actions of the whole by the actions of the few, then we need to call all teachers pedophiles, all priests pedophiles, all cops racist, all politicians liars, all homosexuals pedophiles, all heterosexuals pedophiles, all Christians murderers, all Jews murderers and all Muslims terrorists. Until you are ready do to that, do not stoop to the level of throwing the past of any group, or the action of the few of a group into the debate.

Now having said that, one can compare the history of one group and its actions today, to the history of another group and its actions today. That is fair game. During the Middle Ages did the Roman Catholic Church commit attrocities in the name of God, yes. Does the Roman Catholic Church still continue to do so, NO. Did Mohammed preach to hate Chrisitian and Jew to his followers, yes, do Imans today continue to do so, YES. That argument is fair game.

Now, this discussion about the Old and New Testament, and especially Paul needs to be addressed. Does the Old Testament laws apply to Christians today, in a way yes. This was the divide amongst the early Church, and especially between Peter and Paul. Peter, brother of Jesus, believed that the old law, the Old Testaments and its laws should apply to the Jews who converted to Christianity. To this day, many Jewish converts to Christianity still keep the old covenant.

Paul brought Christianity to the Gentiles, the non Jews, and his belief was that the old covenant did not apply to the Gentiles, a belief widely accepted and held today. Paul taught the Gentiles the new convenant, the teachings of Christ.

Now as far as Islam and Mohammed, when Mohammed first began he believed that the Jews, Christians and Muslims all believed in the same God, and tried to convert as many to Islam as he could. However, when the Jews and Christians did not convert to Islam this is when he began to preach his hatred of the non-believers. Mohammed believed that their was only one God, and that a true believe would only worship this one God. His problem with Jews was their belief that Ezra was the Son of God. Mohammed believed that God did not take a wife, therefore, Ezra could not be his son, thus the Jews broke their covenant with God. For the Christians, their belief that Jesus was the Son of God also broke this covenant, and since Christians actually believe that not only was Christ, the Son of God, but also God incarnate, and that Christians believe in the Holy Trinity - The Father, The Son and the Holy Ghost this also sets them at odds with God.

Having said this, this brings a strange problem to Muslims, you see Muslims while they believe that their is only one God - Allah, they also believe that Mohammed was his messenger, and believe that they must follow Mohammed example in living, this then creates a problem, for to live like Mohammed, means that Muslim follow not only the teachings of God, but also Mohammed.

So today, are not Muslims also breaking the covenant with God by following Mohammed. While they may not outright worship him, they commit the same sin as Jews and Christians.

The simple fact for Muslims remains this, that the majority of their leadership remains believers in the teachings of hating Jews and Christians. While a great many of the worshippers today accept the non-believers, to few of the leaders accept this belief.

So let us be fair and accurate in our depicitions of religions. Have Christians committed attrocities in the past, yes, but how do we act now?

dmk

Dude you always wind up sounding like a whiny little girl.

I never supported hezbollah tactics.. I just state that the current method of dealing with their threat is plain stupid.

I do not ask you to convert or show reverence to mohammad. I merely request you to stop your mud slinging. I mean I GET IT.. you don't like mohammad or what he stands for.. now since that fact has been established, is there any reason to keep up the abuse?? Other than you infantile attempts to goad me into your brand of stupidity? I will NOT get agry at you and i will NOT threaten you and i will not CONDEMN you.. i will do only that which you deserve.. PITY you.

I ask you to accept me as a human being. I have never threatened you with ANYTHING if you don't.. That is something you have made up in that twisted little mind of yours.

OF COURSE i will call you a racist and a bigot. That is not because i want to make a scene. But rather it is a fact you have proved time and again to me and to a large nuber of other posters on this site. Maybe when a jew, a muslim and a gay man ( sounds like the intro to a bad joke no?) openly agree that you are a racist and a bigot.. Well don't you think that is a pretty clear sign that maybe you ARE a racist and a bigot. And if you ARE, then saying so is speaking the truth.. it is NOT a warrantless cry.

I have spoken of pacifist policies from the start. I have condemned violence and aggression ACROSS the board.. something you are incapable of since you consider ALL VIOLENCE abhorrent.. EXCEPT US VIOLENCE which you unquestioningly term as righteous.. HAH!! pardon the outburst, but i cannot help but laugh at your self contradictions.

You know what the cool thing is though?? There is absolutely NO DOUBT that "liberal" policies will be responsible for progress ( note i say liberal policies.. that means the direction of the policies.. not the party which proposes them.. see i can actually think beyond the black/white political divisions whihc are the only ones you seem capable of seeing.).

YOu are heading straight for the "final glorious battle" ( a thought that muslim fundos agree with you on.. I don't). BUt you can never win.. neither can the fundos.. The final glorious battle will be between tolerance and intolerance.. and tolerance will win.

And by that i do not mean that the " muslims " will win you sad simian.. i mean tolerant people ( hindu, muslim, christian, atheist, buddhist ). And the loser will ALWAYS be violent intolerant bitter men like urself ( muslim fundos, US fundos, christian fundos, hindu fundos, communist fundos, capitalist fundos.. you know.. the people incapable of bending).

But you can already feel that you have lost.. a man sure of victory retains some dignity in his dealings.. however a man who slings mud has already lost his dignity because he has proven that his arguments hold no water so he has to fill them up with mud..

You , my dear friend , are a loser.

Excellent post btw.. i'll deal with it in bits and pieces. Anyhow i agree with the above bit.. The actions of a few do not represent the beliefs of the entire group.. that's a pretty simple concept.

Regarding the hate towards jews and christians, i believe you are wrong about that. There is no endemic hatred towards jews and christians. Muslim law allows muslims to marry "people of the book". By that it means jews and christians. Please understand that this is a VERY important point. Marriage is a CORE issue in most muslim cultures. Being allowed to marry someone is tha same as stating that their belief is ACCEPTABLE.

During mohammad's time non-muslims were accorded the same rights as muslims. MOhammad's administration was just that.. ADMINISTRATIVE.. there was freedom to pray and preach as one wished.. EVERYBODY had to pay tax ( it was called by different names for muslims and non-muslims) and EVERYBODY had the same rights int he courts of law at the time.

Very often the sieges against the jews of Medina and Khyber are taken as proofs of mohammad's anti-semitism. That is not true. Both situations were political. Both groups were acted against NOT because of their religious affiliation, but rather because of the covert and overt actions against the muslim population. Taking the law of the land into consideration, the jews of khyber and medina would have fared the SAME WAY REGARDLESS of their religious affiliation.

TO prove this we can speak of the movement against the apostates during Abu Bakr's time. Those were muslims making a political move against the mainstream because of their support for Ali as the Khalifa.. And they were given the same treatment as anybody else. The cruelty of the time was just that.. A FACTOR OF THE TIME AND SOCIAL CIRCUMSTANCES.. roughly the way the witch burdning was a sign of the cruelty of the TIME in europe.. not of the evilness of christianity.
Well from a purely historical perspective it is clear that doubt was cast int he very infancy of christianity of the validity of certain text and their application. It is one of the main reasons the church has had to resort to dogma in order to retain importance.
This is a VERY ASTUTE OBSERVATION. And incidentally one that i agree with. It is m main reason for considering myself an Ahmedi. I can not believe that one place our religion says believe int he quran EXCLUSIVELY.. but int he very next breath a mullah will tell you that you must believe all the hadith unquestioningly also.

IN mainstream Islam, Mohammad has gone from being a HUMAN, to being a demi god.The simple fact is that mohammad can only be a figure of relevance as long as his humanity is remembered. But the fact is that it works int he favor of muslim clerics for mohammad to be a demi god. From what i can see, the actions of the muslim clerics is mimicking those of the christian church a few hunded years ago. These bastards are trying to place themselves between man and god. God's bureaucracy so to speak.

Anyhow you are right.. Most mainstream muslim HAVE elevated mohammad to demi god status and have as such gone against their own religion. It is the nature of clergy to revere a HUMAN, simply because it is harder to solidify power with an abstract concept such as god. The common man can more easily understand the actions of a human god.

From a theological prespective God never gave an guarantee for the authenticity of the Hadeeth. As per the Quran, the Quran is ENOUGH. The fact that the hadith are trumpeted by the clergy is simply because the hadith are more readily twisted. They are after all man-made instructions.
That is correct.. and it is also contrary to the teachings of Islam. I say this because a distinction must be made between those who commit vile acts in the NAME of Islam, and the actual edicts of Islam itself. LIke the Inquisition was an atrocity committed in the NAME of christianity, but quite obviously in CONTRADICTION to christian belief.
Well you are right there too. NOt many christians are primitive enough to commit bombings ( except the IRA, the Basques and KKK) .

However, it should also be remembered that the christian religion has had 600 years extra to sort out stuff. That, plus development ( economic, social and theological) is LEAPS AND BOUNDS ahead in the western christian world. That makes a huge difference. Half the stupidity, violence and intolerance int he muslim world is a direct result of worse social circumstances.

Whil ei understand the comparison, i am telling you that it is an apples and oranges comparison. You know as well as i do that social circumstances dictate the direction and effects of mainstream religion. A well fed, well clothed and well sheltered community is MUCH LESS LIKELY to resort to violence and intolerance than one in which people consider their daily lives a constant battle for survival.

No dude. I will not stop speaking the truth about Mohammed that you call mud slinging. If the truth hurts, then deal with it. Your insults are not going to intimidate me to shut up. If you can't take it, find a new hobby. Dude.

Instead of trying to intimidate me and calling me names Mr. Muslim, why not do the honorable thing and prove me wrong instead of repeating your tired worn out insults every day you whiny little punk.

Mohammed screwed goats, little boys, and murdered innocent people.

You say out of one side of your mouth you will not call me names, then out of the other side of your mouth you call me a racist and a bigot. You don't get it. You can't see you are in a mind controlling religious cult. Don't pity me dude. You are the one who needs pitying. My mind is free. Yours is imprisoned.

hkbajwa - Great post!!! I appreciate much of what you had said in response to my posting. I agree that there remains a lot of work for people of all faiths, especially those of us that recognize and accept the God of Abraham.

One of the most difficult problems that I face as a conservative and a believer in God is the differences regarding the treatment of Jews and Christians by Islam. I agree that early in his life Mohammed accepted the People of the Book as believers in the same God, it would seem that as his life continued his tolerance decreased. Thus many Muslims believe that these newer revelations outweigh the former. Which means that those that use the Koran to justify their actions are just as correct as those who use the Koran to say we are of the same God. It creates a serious problem and one that is difficult to resolve.

dmk

It all changed when Muhammad left Mecca and went to Medina. He changed from being a neglected prophet to a violent war-lord.

Power and greed do funny things to people.

This is what makes this situation insane. People accualy back the palistinian side. As if they dont elect know terrorists to goverment. As if there soul mission isnt to destroy Israel and kill every last Jew standing. Israel in good faith uprooted several thousand people from the Gaza strip and was in the process of giving up the west bank, and other territories. At the same time the palistinian goverment still refuses to even recognize Israel. And how do the Pals thank Israel for giving up Gaza? They let every know terrorist group set up camp to bring war to Israel. Since then Israel endures and average of 300 rocket attacks per day. No other country in the world would be expected to tolerate suck crap. Imagine Mexico or Canada, lobbing rockets into the US everyday. How do you think we would respond? I can definitly say we would hold ALOT less restraint than Israel has had to. BTW How the Hell is Israel an occupation force? They were given the land by the League of nations, as a direct result of ww2. No One EVEN LIVED THERE AT THE TIME.

Wrong. According to Wikipedia:
In 1920 at the Conference of Sanremo, Italy, the League of Nations mandate over Palestine was assigned to Britain. This territory at this time included all of what would later become the State of Israel, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, a part of the Golan Heights, and the Kingdom of Jordan. The majority of the approximately 750,000 people in this multi-ethnic region were Arabic-speaking Muslims, including a Bedouin population (estimated at 103,331 at the time of the 1922 census [2] and concentrated in the Beersheba area and the region south and east of it), as well as Jews (who comprised some 11% of the total) and smaller groups of Druze, Syrians, Sudanese, Circassians, Egyptians, Greeks, and Hejazi Arabs.
Source: Palestine (mandate) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

According to the Palestine Center:
Land Acquisition: Despite their contention that Palestine was a land without people, Zionists discovered that Palestinian land was not uninhabited nor was it readily available. Palestine was densely populated and intensively cultivated. Moreover, the land tenure and ownership system was complex. Available land was expensive and became more so with the rising demand of a population growing as a result of both natural increase in-migration. With the establishment of the Palestine Mandate, Zionist hopes that state land—perceived as vast and potentially accessible—would serve as a basis for land acquisition also turned out to be unrealistic. From the data, it is possible to discern three periods of land acquisition by Zionists and Jews. While Jews in 1922 owned 3 percent of the land of Palestine, the additional land purchased by 1947 raised the total owned by the immigrant Jews to 7 percent of the whole area of the country. The British Mandate government classified Palestinian land as good, medium, and poor. After the general armistice of the 1948 war, Israel had captured over 77 percent of Palestine and more than 95 percent of the “good” soil. The newly sovereign state of Israel also expropriated 80 percent of privately owned Palestinian land and confiscated at least 40 percent of properties held by Palestinian Arabs who remained on the land and became citizens. The total losses of Palestinians are estimated at a staggering 7.43 billion Palestinian pounds (equal then to the British pound).
Source: Palestine Center - 1920-1947: The British Mandate Period

I suggest attempting to understand the situation by learning more about it, and also by listening to all sides.

I personally find the situation between Palestine and Israel to have some similarities to the one between American settlers and Native Americans. And we all know how that turned out...