Lawmakers snub imam's opening prayer

If it's so, then I have to laugh. How many of these people would have objected to an opening Christian prayer? If you want to open the door to mixing government (as an entity) with religion, then you have to open it all the way.

And I agree with Joban on this point:

"They're unable to distinguish between Islam as religion and way of life, and bad Muslims," said Joban, who also has opened a session of the Senate. "They are easily able to distinguish between Christianity and bad Christians."

 

"My god is not Muhammad," McMahan said in an interview with the Seattle Post-Intelligencer.
McMahan's statement, though well-meaning, displays ignorance. Mohammed is not the God is Islam, either.

Islam is a political system, not just a religion, as has been discussed on this Board many times.
I thought you were against Separation of Church & State . Now I suppose you're in favor.

If you lose sight of the true goal of Islam
Which has also been discussed. But some in the the anti-Muslim crowd will, like some in the KJVO crown, will believe what they want to believe, despite discussions to the contary.

I'm proud of these lawmakers for standing up for truth and rising against the current spineless tide of political correctness.
We should encourage and applaud out Jewish folks in office to do the same when the Senate Chaplain leads a prayer. After all, doesn't their presence during a Christian led prayer show spinelessness and political correctness?

 

Will, ol' buddy, I was wondering what happenned to you...

There have been several threads discussing the point before. I don't know if it would be good to rehash it. Those threads seems to go the way of evolution and KJV debates. They are generally fruitless, and often very ugly. Suffice it to say there's dissention amongst believers, and maybe agreeing to disagree on some points might be the better route.

 

However, your name calling by comparing people that you disagree with on Islam with KJVOs seems to be taking the discussion in an ugly direction. Does it not?

 

I referred to some on the anti-muslim camp, which is by no means all. If you check the previous posts in other threads, you'll see a lot of good, healthy, and positive discussions by folks on both sides. For example, Bibleboy makes some very good points that are opposite mine in many areas of the topic, but I would never liken him as being among those comparable to the KJVO crowd.

Herein lies the problem, at least for me. If I, for example, make a statement that doesn't promote an anti-Islamic sentiment, I get branded as being "pro-Islam". Frankly, I'm neither pro- nor anti-. I'm simply a Christian who has studied the Koran and Islam in general, and seek to share the information that I've learned with others. I also know full well that there is a in the Muslim community worldwide a large number of radical fundamentalists who pervert the Koran for their own gain, that are getting a lot of press right now. And right now, unfortunately, they're winning. But I also know that there are a greater number of Muslims, especially here in the US, that practice the peaceful dsictinctives taught in the Koran. Additionally, there are a great number of Christians like myself that believe that Islam, generally is can be a peaceful religious faith. But there is also a number of Christians who are promoting a message of hate towards those of the Muslim faith.

It seems the media likes to pick the stories that involving Muslim violent radicals, while virtually ignoring stories involving mainstream Muslims. This should not surprise us, however, since they seem to pick stories involving Christian hate spreading radicals, all the while ignoring the rest of us.

[ March 05, 2003, 09:04 PM: Message edited by: Johnv ]

 

If you have studied the Qur'an, then you realize that there are the early chapters written in Mecca before Muhammed was successful. In these Suras he was concilatory to other faiths. However, you then also realize there are the later Medina suras after Muhammed had in place his army. These are where the war Suras appear. A minority of media savvy Western Islamic apologists pull the Meccan Suras out of context to show its a religion of peace. The vast majority of Muslims, however apply the entire Qur'an, not just these selected chapters.

On what factual basis do you make these claims. I have asked you on other threads to back up your claims with facts.

Here is a timeline on the early history of Islam:

627 AD Muhammed's army won the Battle of Trench, capturing Mecca. Muhammed had the Jewish tribe of Qurayza massacred.

636 AD Islamic armies conquered Syria.

638 AD Jerusalem fell to Islamic forces.

641 AD Islamic armies captured Alexandria.

698 AD Carthage fell to Islamic armies.

711 AD Islamic armies invaded Spain.

720 AD Islamic armies invade France.

732 AD Islamic armies expansion is halted by defeat at the Battle of Tours to Charles Martel's armies.

750 AD Islamic armies start invasion of China, after the rape of India.

752 AD Islamic armies are repelled by the armies of the T'ang dynasty in China.

Compare that to the early church. The difference is Christianity became corrupted when it became part of the state. Islam as practiced by Muhammed was a takeover of the state. It is a political system in addition to a religous system.

Islam has never grown by any means other then the sword.

A study of Islam shows there has been no peaceful period.

 

Hello Johnv & Will,

John I have to agree with what Will is saying here. The problem is that the Qur'an contains contradictory passages that express peace and others that advocate war and violence. Therefore, it is not accurate for you to claim that are certain "radical Islamic fundamentalists who pervert the Qur'an for their own gain." They have not perverted anything about the Qur'an, they have simply applied a literal interpretation to its violent and war mongering passages and are living that interpretation out. World history bears out the fact that Islam has mainly spread by forced military conquest.

Likewise, if the "Islamic radicals" were to follow your logic they would be able to say that the non-violent Muslims here in the U.S. (or wherever) are "perverting" the teachings of the Qur'an because they do not fight for the honor of Allah and the global expansion of Islam. After all the Qur'an does teach that those who will not submit to the will of Allah shall die by the sword. You know, slay the infidels where you find them (I would quote the passage verbatim with a reference but it is not allowed in the Baptist only section of the board). Perhaps we should continue this debate in the "Other Religions/Doctrines" section?

Will, I have to disagree with your statement that Islam has never grown by any means other than the sword. That is not entirely accurate. According to the Encyclopedia of the World’s Religions

In each of these cases of Islamic expansion, with the exception of Indonesia and China, the religion was spread by military conquest. In other words, the vast majority of historic Islamic conversions occurred at the point of the sword.

I assume that the author of the quoted material above did not consider Islam moving into China by "military conquest" because the Chinese beat the Muslim invaders back. However, that does not mean that the Muslims did not leave a few converts behind when they left. Indonesia is another story completely. While Islam may well have spread to Indonesia by Islamic missionary work, certainly today Muslims in Indonesia use violence to discourage Christian evangelism and Muslim conversion to Christianity.

[ March 06, 2003, 06:18 AM: Message edited by: BibleboyII ]

 

BB, thanks for your reply. I don't think this is the best forum to rehash the discussion, as it's quite a bit off topic. I had no desire to get all of us sounding like proken records. My concern addressed in my previous post was not the discussing, but the manner of discussion.

However, you are correct when you say radical Muslims could easily say that pacifist Muslims are the ones perverting the Koran. There's really no way that either view would win that arguement. Certainly, we've had that arguement right here in regard to different Christian views, for example, in the KJVO and Calvinish/Arminianism threads.

BTW - with my family being from Indonesia, I can tell you that religious culture was less of an issue than one's ethnicity. Radicals, most of them Muslim, have not been favorable to white skinned Europeans like myself. Having followed the news in Indonesia for a while now, my family has been amused at how the Muslims get all the press, but the Buddhists don't. My mother (who is full-blooded Indo, btw), had commented that the American and European press simply tend to lump all the dark skinned asians in the region into one ethnic category. It tends to sell more. A story of radical Indonesian Muslims killing people in East Timor tends to sell more than a story on radical Indonesian Buddhists in East Timor.

[ March 06, 2003, 06:56 PM: Message edited by: Johnv ]

 

Radical Muslims will murder "moderate" Muslims...it has and continues to be done in the name of Allah. It happened just yesterday in the Philippines. It happened in Afghanistan under Taliban rule.

There is no arguement here. Radical Muslims are unfortunately Islam's greatest enemy. Just ask the Muslims here in the US. Like the radical Christianity that resulted in the crusades, the inquisition, and, on a smaller scale, the Salem Witch Trials, etc etc etc.

Furthermore, in the majority of countries where Muslims have taken over by force, as is happening now in Africa, there is no such thing as a "moderate" Muslim. You either become a radical fundamentalist like them, or you are killed. Period.
Quite right. The only place you can be a moderate Muslim is in countries where freedom of religion is permitted. Those tend to be secular governments, like those in Europe and the Americas. There are some exceptions, such as Pakistan, where women, Christians and other religious minorities are guaranteed representation constitutionally. But the freedoms are most protected in democratic secular governments.

 

I would wander away from the topic for a second to recognize my friends in the Sudan who are choosing to die rather than go along with the radical Islamic government. Their families did die by Islamic weapons or in the jungles fleeing.

Some are coming here, to the Philadelphia suburbs, to get a political or sociological education. Then a number are going to go back and risk their lives to free their people. There is a silent populace of Christians that is never polled or reported.

I wanted to interject this as a way to bring humanity and a certain perspective to the horrors of radical Islam worldwide, and the humanity of those it isolates and hates.

BTW: I would never snub an average Muslim neighbor. I would, however, snub an imam now more than ever.

 

1John 3:1-3 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

Galatians 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

 

I happen to agree. I remember when it was going on. Unfortunately, it's still going on.