They reject hate, eh? So does the Wasatch Presbyterian Church reject the hatred for Christianity that is actually in the book they're giving away? And if they're "not afraid of truth," today is a good day to echo Pontius Pilate's question: What is truth? Is it the Christianity they're supposed to be dedicated to preaching, or is it the Qur'an's explicit rejection of central tenets of that Christian faith?
The Qur'an teaches that:
Christians have forgotten part of the divine revelations they received: "From those, too, who call themselves Christians, We did take a covenant, but they forgot a good part of the message that was sent them: so we estranged them, with enmity and hatred between the one and the other, to the day of judgment. And soon will Allah show them what it is they have done." -- Qur'an 5:14
Jesus is not the Son of God: "O People of the Scripture! Do not exaggerate in your religion nor utter aught concerning Allah save the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only a messenger of Allah, and His word which He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers, and say not "Three" - Cease! (it is) better for you! - Allah is only One Allah. Far is it removed from His Transcendent Majesty that He should have a son. His is all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. And Allah is sufficient as Defender." -- Qur'an 4:171
"It is not befitting to (the majesty of) Allah that He should beget a son. Glory be to Him! when He determines a matter, He only says to it, 'Be,' and it is." -- Qur'an 19:35
Those who believe that Jesus is God's Son are accursed: "The Jews call 'Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth! " -- Qur'an 9:30
Jesus was not crucified: "And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah's messenger - they slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them; and lo! those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain." -- Qur'an 4:157
"SLC church rejects hate, distributes Islam’s holy book," by Kristen Moulton for The Salt Lake Tribune, April 21 (thanks to Weasel Zippers):
Leaders of a Presbyterian congregation in Salt Lake City have an answer to the Florida pastor with a penchant for burning the Quran.Wasatch Presbyterian Church is giving Islam’s holy book away for free.
“Sometimes, it’s hard to know how to push back against the lunatic fringe,” said Russell Fericks, a member of the session, or governing board, of the 350-member church on the city’s east side.
So when the new pastor, the Rev. Scott Dalgarno, asked the board last week to join him in opening their wallets, the reaction was swift.
The leaders put up $600 before the meeting was over and ordered dozens of copies of an Oxford Press edition of the Quran several days ago. The books will be available as early as Monday at King’s English Bookshop, each with a bookmark bearing these words: “This book was donated by the leaders of Wasatch Presbyterian Church, who are not afraid of truth wherever it can be found.”
The idea, Fericks said, “was simple. It was creative. It was courageous in the sense of saying, ‘We’re not afraid of the truth.’
“You don’t have to let the nincompoops of the world control all the message,” he said.
Terry Jones, the Gainesville, Fla., pastor who backed down from his threat to torch the Quran last fall, nonetheless supervised burning of the book at his church on March 20.
The mainstream media in Florida deliberately ignored the stunt, but when word leaked out — and Jones videos were posted on the Internet — riots erupted in Afghanistan, killing 20 and injuring dozens more.
It was the kind of violent reaction in the Muslim world that the nation’s leaders had predicted last fall when Jones first made his threats.
The pastor has been unapologetic about his role in triggering the violence, and he was in a Dearborn, Mich., courtroom on Thursday, arguing for his right to protest outside a mosque during Friday’s prayers....
This is a blessing in disguise for the members of Rev. Scott Dalgarno's congregation. They have been given the BEST weapon possible to learn about the advancing menace.
The next step should be to establish a "Study the Quran" weekly session, and let the book itself educate us infidels about how wrong, evil and despised human beings we really are. How our beliefs will be crushed under the perfect truth. And how we ALL of us will be bowing our heads to the floor when Islam becomes the ONLY religion of the whole world...or else.
Let this become a call to ALL churches and congregations of AMERICA. Encourage your people to learn about Islam by using the best tool: The Quran.
Sweet!
In case anyone wishes to disabuse Rev Dalgarno of his rose-tinted views of Islam he can be contacted here:
sdalgarno@wpcslc.org
I think I'll copy and paste to Rev Dalgarno Mr Spencer's excerpts from the qur'an, which are self-explanatory, and see what this reverend has to say about them.
GREAT IDEA! I applaud you. We should all contact him.
One of my Christian friends made the case for Christ from the Quran. Her paper was not well received as it showed how Allah is powerless.
I disagree with people saying we should study the Quran. It is a waste of time. Evil is evil; and we need to focus our attention elsewhere for the most good.
This reminds me of Tom Sawyer and his ploy to get others to whitewash the fence for him.
I would suggest that people put their study into the Bible and learn something worthwhile.
I think the Church's Idea is great and agree with Search4truth.. This is an excellent way to educate citizens about the "religion of peace".
I do not see anything "rose-tinted" about Rev. Scott Dalgarno's opinion of Islam.
The Quran will speak for itself for those who read it. It will spew the evil all on its own and perhaps open new minds to reading the Hadith and Suras.
The Rev Dalgarno is completely without concept of what's in that book. Really, if you spend any time discussing Islamic supremacists with any person, right or left, who is a dupe for them, you realize that they are completely clueless. They have no idea.
Everyone should contact Dalgarno in a polite, matter of fact way, and educate him in a positive manner. Likely it will take an avalanche of educators, but maybe he'll actually read what's in that book that discredits his beliefs and everything he stands for.
Free speech and education on the facts is what defeats Islamic supremacists.
I couldn't stop laughing while reading this. Finally some useful idiots, or should I say nincompoops, who just happened to stumble into doing the right thing but for the wrong reason. By all means, pass out Korans to as many kuffaars as possible. You just can't make this stuff up. LOL!
Yes, waterwillows, reading the Koran is a waste of time if you're looking for any enlightenment. However, acknowledging what's actually in there is absolutely crucial to understanding and stopping Islamic supremacists. The apologists who enable them really have no idea what they're talking about. Education is good. In this case, it is required to save modern civilization.
Holy Moly !
A clear example of how some Christians have gleefully overlooked the basic fact that we don't 'all believe the same.' Indeed, the Quran serves to emphatically prove it time and time again: all infidels have to be named and shamed, they are criminal masterminds, perpetually conspiring against the only true faith of Islam. No matter how much they want to proactively apologize for this imaginary wrongdoing by facilitating the spread of Islam, no matter how much they insist on organizing non-reciprocal inter faith dialogues to 'build bridges between Abrahamic religions.'
Infidels have no redeeming qualities in Islam. When are these lunatics ever going to educate themselves by actually reading the contents ? When are they going to come to their senses ?
That's what you get when people would primarily want to be perceived as being tolerant rather than to make a joint effort in preserving civilized society.
The very fact he's giving it away to build interfaith dialogue shows that his views are rose-tinted. Do you know what rose-tinted means?
Do you think anyone is actually going to read the qur'an and study it?
No, they're going to buy it and then show it off to their friends like new aluminum siding and then ignore it, let it collect dust. It's a liberal feel-good thing, buying certain anti-establishment things, like all those idiotic pictures of che quevara or the communist manifesto.
Anyway, I've emailed this chap and I'll report back with what he has to say. I doubt he'll reply but you never know.
I respectfully but vigorously disagree with you, waterwillows, that the Koran should not be read by non-Muslims. By all means read the Bible too, but never forget the maxim, know thy enemy (and Islam is as much the enemy of Christianity and Judaism as were Communism and Nazism, notwithstanding assertions to the contrary). I wish many more people had read Mein Kampf in the late 1920s and early 1930s. Winston Churchill did read it and he knew what Hitler was all about and he tried to warn people, but many ignored Churchill just as they ignored Hitler's malevolent book----and with catastrophic results. Ditto here for the Koran. And let's throw in the hadiths and sira for good measure. Knowledge is power, waterwillows.
I'd like to see a mass-burning of all the ones they've handed out. THAT would send a message to the mohammedan world.
Waterwillows:
I could not disagree with you more: I think it is extremely important that we read the Quran as well as the sira and hadiths to understand what Islam projects towards other faiths.
There is no reason that you cannot read and study both so that you understand the conflict between Islam and Christianity.Not to do so is like playing the proverbial ostrich.
Very true. Cultural relativism, political correctness and multiculturalism are as much concepts pushed by marketing strategies in order to make people 'look good' , just as any other fashion accessory.
"The lunatic fringe." "Nincompoops." Church board member Russell Fericks is obviously more interested in sneering at those he considers his intellectual inferiors than in actually promulgating the truth about Islam. "Creative" and "courageous," my arse. These people are nothing but an unworthy gaggle of snobbish lickspittles, very much in the mold of the Black Panther-adoring New York glitterati so memorably depicted by Tom Wolfe in "Radical Chic."
Now Rev. Scott Dalgarno are you prepared to handle the truth if some of your parishioners actually open the book and read it?
@ waterwillows
'Fraid I've got to go with the posts that say people should read Al Qur'an. In fact, I'd make it compulsory for all schools to reveal how violent, misogynist and supremacist the ideology if Islam is through close reading of the plagiarized text, Al Qur'an.
Of course, as refreshment for the mind and spirit, one can delve into the King James version of The Bible and read the Psalms or the Song of Solomon as an antidote to the unrelenting bile, racism and hatred of the Qur'an.
"The Qur'an teaches that:"
The Talmud also teaches disturbing things about Christians, will join me in condemning it is a book of hatred towards Christians?
No? why not?
From Rev. Scott Dalgarno:
"What didn’t make It into print was a hope I expressed that somewhere someday an Imam might be moved to distribute copies of the Bible for the same reason our conscience led us to pay for some copies of the Qur’an. "
I have disabused him of a lot of the points he raised in his email to me, where he tried to show that Joshua's call for genocide in the Bible is similar to Qur'anic calls for the slaying of the kuffar... Also I explained abrogation to him.
I'll see what his next email has to say. He seems like a really nice guy, probably too nice, eh?
The Talmud doesn't mention Christians. Again it's an oral history, it's not prescriptive like the Qur'an.
Tinder!
Good suggestion of you to read and learn something worthwhile. But about your other suggestion NOT to read the Quran (+Hadith-Sira) I agree wholeheartedly with Wellington, Buraq the other pro-read-Quran-commenters. That is a good useful preparation for discussions.
You know, it used to be the first argument from Muslims AND Muslim-defenders that Islam-critical people "did not know anything or much about Islam". That was said to silence the critical message of the Critic.
Nowadays it seems that Islam-critical people do know so much about Islam and consequently it is often shown that the Muslim-defenders, who end up being Islam-defenders too, are almost always the more UNinformed ones about Islam.
And what you see in discussions, on TV and at many places, is that the Muslim-defenders almost invariably terminate the discussion. Or fall back on the broad accusations of hate-speech or fear-mongering, thereby showing their weakness in Islam-contents-knowledge.
But even if they would know Islam well, they would almost invariably have the weaker standpoint. As is so often shown in debates between Muslims and Islam-critics, especially when Robert Spencer is concerned.
You're a clown!
Christianity and Judaism have been transformed through the The Enlightenment-(the Jewish Enlightenment was called The Haskalah)
That means these religions are now part of secular societies that are humane, democratic and civilized in large part. Theocratic laws and commandments have been replaced by man-made laws.
Islam, on the other hand, is the same repressive, brutal ideology today as it was in the 7th Century. That's why no one is going to take your bait. Christianity and Judaism are highly refined belief systems that place The Golden Rule at their center. Islam, sadly, is the same supremacist, misogynistic, violent ideology dreamed up by your warlord so-called prophet.
It's time Islam experienced its own Enlightenment! But then, that would destroy it, wouldn't it.
Rev. Scott Dalgarno should point out to his flock the logical contradiction in Qu'ran 19.35 that is in the article above. .if the Almighty only has to say 'Be' and it is, then it follows that he wouldn't have to do any 'begetting' to conceive.
Salt Lake City: Presbyterian church "not afraid of truth," gives away free Qur'ans
.............................
Clearly, they're not afraid of idiocy and dhimmitude. "Truth", I'm not so sure about...
More:
"SLC church rejects hate, distributes Islam’s holy book"
.............................
Clearly, no one at the Wasatch Presbyterian Church knows the least thing about the *contents* of the Qu'ran...
More:
Leaders of a Presbyterian congregation in Salt Lake City have an answer to the Florida pastor with a penchant for burning the Quran.
.............................
A "penchant for burning the Quran"—this makes Pastor Jones' actions sound both random and irrational. Pastor Jones' criticism of the Qu'ran *was neither*. While I believe he might have expressed himself better, his critique of the Qu'ran was entirely sound.
More:
The mainstream media in Florida deliberately ignored the stunt, but when word leaked out — and Jones videos were posted on the Internet — riots erupted in Afghanistan, killing 20 and injuring dozens more.
.............................
Those homicidal riots just "erupted", and those killings appear to have occurred without human—or Muslim—agency of any kind. sarc/off
More:
It was the kind of violent reaction in the Muslim world that the nation’s leaders had predicted last fall when Jones first made his threats.
.............................
So—Terry Jones' musings about burning the Qu'ran were "threats", but the homicidal Muslim reaction was just expected and predictable. Doesn't anyone else have a problem with this?
More:
So when the new pastor, the Rev. Scott Dalgarno, asked the board last week to join him in opening their wallets, the reaction was swift.
.............................
Did the good pastor ask church's board to "open their wallets" to send aid to their fellow Christians, suffering under Muslim violence and oppression around the world. He did not.
If he had wanted to do something "interfaith", he might have asked that the contributions go to threatened Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, and even Baha'i and Ahmadis as well.
But *no*—he decided to spread the baleful word of Islam, instead.
More:
The idea, Fericks said, “was simple. It was creative. It was courageous in the sense of saying, ‘We’re not afraid of the truth.’
.............................
If he's "not afraid of the truth", perhaps he will crack open one of those donated Qu'rans himself, and read up on the Islamic brand of "truth" for himself...
The *only* positive outcome one can hope for here is that some of the church's parishioners may actually read the baleful Qu'ran, and learn for themselves what we're up against.
More:
“You don’t have to let the nincompoops of the world control all the message,” he said.
.............................
This line is just begging for a biting response from someone with a more ready wit than myself...
it is not. one reason I left Islam is because I read the Koran. everyone needs to read it and understand it and engae people. it is a MUST READ BOOK.
M
The Judeo-Christian religion has been 'tamed' by the Enlightenment. The passions, the Bonfires of the Vanities, the Auto-de-fe, the Inquistion and its gruesome inpliments of torture have been 'tamed.' This, to me, is evidence of the maturing of Western Civilization.
The people we lock up in prison are, for the most part, emotional children who inhabit the bodies of adults. It is this lack of emotional control, this inability to supress rage, displayed in the body of an adult that makes the criminal a danger to society. Islam is a 'religion' that encourages infantile emotional rage as part of its dogma and doctrine, thus reducing its followers to the status of criminals and emotional and mental children.
I am neither a Christian nor a Jew, but I will stand beside you to repulse the rotten corpus of Islam.
They reject hate, eh? So does the Wasatch Presbyterian Church reject the hatred for Christianity that is actually in the book they're giving away?
My estimate is that less that one fiftieth of one percent of adult Infidel adults in the West have actually read the Ko-Ran. Further reduce my estimate for those who've also looked at the Hah-Deaths and Sear-Rahs.
*** 33:11 ***
In that situation were the Believers tried: they were shaken as by a tremendous shaking... And behold! The Infidels and those in whose hearts is a disease even say: "Allah and Mohammed promised us nothing but delusion!"
Ignorance is bliss. Until the detonator goes off.
Just a defensive comment here...not all forms of Presbyterianism are equal.
This guy is the pastor of a PCUSA church (often called the "mainline" church). If a pastor in my denomination (the Presbyterian Church in America) handed out Korans while stating that they contained truth, we'd have a heresy trial.
I don't know what it is about liberalism that causes people to believe that two contradictory statements can be true. Either Jesus is the Son of God or not. Either God wants you to love your enemies or hate them. Either you live with your wife in an understanding way or you beat her if she's "disobedient." You can't have it both ways.
www.patriarchateofconstantinople.blogspot.com
I think that liberals really believe that all truth is illusory (at least moral, ethical, spiritual truth) and that every religion is a happy myth. They are completely unprepared to deal with Islam, where every jot and tittle of Koranic legislation and brutality is applicable and mandatory for today.
They reject hate, eh? So does the Wasatch Presbyterian Church reject the hatred for Christianity that is actually in the book they're giving away?
My estimate is that less than one fiftieth of one percent of adult Infidels have read the Ko-Ran. Further reduce that number for those who have looked at the Hah-Deaths and the Sear-Rah.
*** 33:11 ***
In that situation were the Moslems tried: they were shaken as by a tremendous shaking.... And behold! The Infidels and those in whose hearts is a disease even say: "Allah and Mohammed promised us nothing but delusion!"
Ignorance is bliss. Until the detonator goes off.
Thanks Old Timer. I am neither a Christian or a Jew, as well, so I guess we share the same foxhole in the fight against Islam.
@buraq
I respectfully disagree with you buraq. If anything, the Jewish "haskalah" movement was the worst thing that could happen to Judaism. It gave rise to the reformation, or what is now reform Judaism, which totally alienates itself from it's jewish roots and values. If you look at any conservative blog you'll notice a resonating question being constantly asked; why do most Jews side with liberals and in our case against Israel and with the jihadists? The answer is quite simple, it is mostly the secular and reformed Jews that side with liberals, those who have thrown off their fathers tradition from their backs, only to take "liberalism" and any other "ism" as their new religion. Ask any religious Jew what his political persuasion is. It may surprise you.
These are the fruits of the Jewish "enlightenment"
Point taken. And it's more or less the same with 'trendy' Christian vicars deciding to read the Qur'an for Easter. Secularization weakened the fibres of the muscular aspect of Christianity.
Still, secularization of societies resulting in a more balanced view of the relationship between religion and society was a good thing, I feel. The side effects you pointed out are what we have to deal with nowadays in the fight against Islam.
But, when push comes to shove, there will be lefty liberals who will 'see the light' and come over to the right side. There have been examples of some in the mainstream media already showing doubts about Islam's so-called peaceful message.
But I take your point.
Exactly buraq.
Adapting to the times and still holding on to the traditions of our forefathers is what Judaism is all about. Believe me, we've been around for a while.
O/T Terry Jones accidentally discharged his gun in a car park after leaving the Fox-owned Detroit TV station WJBK. He shot the floor of his car. (Fox News April 22nd 2011).
"They reject hate, eh? So does the Wasatch Presbyterian Church reject the hatred for Christianity that is actually in the book they're giving away?"
Which one? The Bible or the Qu'ran?
While I'm cheering you all the way in your laudable, courageous and unrelenting excoriation of Islam, I must admit to being more than a little dumbfounded that you always seem to speak and write as if the very model for so much of what is most reprehensible in that religion is not to be found in the Old and New Testaments.
"And if they're 'not afraid of truth', today is a good day to echo Pontius Pilate's question: What is truth? Is it the Christianity they're supposed to be dedicated to preaching, or is it the Qur'an's explicit rejection of central tenets of that Christian faith?"
So, Islam rejects the myths of Christianity and replaces it with an equally preposterous set of (partially overlapping) myths, and threatens that those who do not unquestioningly assent to the absolute truth of the latter will be cast into the fires of hell for all eternity come the Day of Judgement? Hmmm, now let's think: where on earth could Muhammad have ever got the idea for a cult like *that*?
And you ask which of these sets of dogmas is "the truth"? Well, ignoring for the moment the fact that this is obviously a false dichotomy, how would you suggest we set about trying to answer that question?
I realise that you are here preaching to the converted (viz., the Wasatch Presbyterian Church) in order to warn them not to be so naive as to embrace the sworn enemies of "the truth" (i.e. those recalcitrant unbelievers who refuse to accept the holy doctrine of the divinity of Christ etc.), but I can't help wondering: What happens to your critical faculties when you move from being critic of Islam to apologist for Christianity?
For example:
How is your selective quoting from the Bible different from the practice of apologists for Islam who you are so quick to accuse of hypocrisy, sophistry and intellectual dishonesty when they selectively quote from the Qu'ran?
Sure, without question, the Qu'ran has been employed for many centuries to provide putative divine sanction for all manner of atrocities. However, since it is scarcely deniable that the same is true of the Christian Bible, why is it that you devote your life to exposing the inherent dangers of uncritical adherence to the doctrines of the Qu'ran, while treating the Bible (so it seems) with nothing short of reverence? Is it because you "believe in" or "have faith in" the latter, but believe that the former is merely a tissue of pernicious falsehoods? Well hey, as you know all too well: that's what the Jihadists think about *your* religion too!
Could it be that it is *religion* and *faith* per se that are the ultimate root of the problem -- that is, of so many of the problems we witness in the world today, and that have dominated human history -- rather than Islam alone?
P.S. On my first point above, obviously, one does not find hatred of Christianity in the Bible, but the point was that one finds a great deal of hatred (for "nonbelievers", "idolators" etc.): the Qu'ran has no special monopoly on that, and indeed the Bible very obviously provides the chief model for the Qu'ran, in this respect and many others.
There is no hatred in the New Testament, its message is one of inclusiveness. There is a mention of it in the Old Testament but the Old Testament is a history of the Jewish people and their struggle to get to the land promised to them as part of their covenant with God.
The qur'an is not a history, it's the literal word of allah, perfect and inviolate, and muhammad is a perfect man to be emulated for all time. the qur'an is prescriptive, not historical like the Bible.
If you need any help with these differences I'll be happy to provide you with links.
If you've never been exposed to the Quran before, the truth you're going to discover is that it is the most unstructured, incoherent piece of thinking ever set down on a clay tablet, palm frond or piece of paper. It makes no sense at all, except that once or twice a page you read for the umpteenth squared time about how the infidels are going to get their just punishment in the Fires of Hell.
I hope many parishioners will take up their church leaders challenge, just so they'll see what true douches they are
Damian, whatever hatred and barbarism you see in the Old Testament is abrogated by the message of the New Testament. All Old Testament punishments for sins, which remain as they are in the Quran are abrogated by the example of Jesus Christ; soecifically in his treatment of Mary Magdalene
Mary Magdalene was accussed of adultery and the Pharisees took her to Jesus and demanded that he call for enforcing the punishment, which was stoning. Instead, Christ said "Let the one who is without sin cast the first stone." He then told Mary to depart from his presence and "sin no more" -- implying that she could return to Him when she was righteous.
It boggles my mind when people set themselves up as intellectually superior with their clever Muslim Christian equivalence argument which is based on complete ignorance of this story ... a story I learned when I was seven years old.
Amen Cyril. I was born and raised Presbyterian, but as I've aged I've found myself butting heads with the policies of the P.C.U.S.A (which my church is affiliated with) more and more. This is yet another stunt that sours my views.
Keep in mind I really wouldn't have a problem with this if korans were handed out and thoroughly dissected. I'd rather they be discredited through scholarship rather than burning them.
Hands up, everyone here on whom the Awful Realization about the nature of Islam really began to dawn when they cracked open a copy of the Koran and read it for the first time.
Just one example, from the jihadwatch archives:
A Scottish poster,'Reacher', whom I had asked how he found his way to jihadwatch, replied:
"Hello DDA, you asked me on another thread how I found my way here.
'Don't laugh, but it was Anjem Choudary (Muslim street 'preacher' in the UK - dda) who pointed me here.
'I googled him after a particularly vile rant and it led me to Dhimmi Watch- hence here.
'I then went into Glasgow and bought myself a Koran to see [AND] read for myself,
' I must admit that I couldn't make much sense of it ( at the time) and layed it down. I remember thinking to myself " Did I buy the right thing? "
'because what I had just finished reading was not a Holy Book but a gangster's murder manual.
' I was flabbergasted that every thing I had ever been taught since a child was a sin was condoned and applauded in this terrible book.
'I put it in the bin the next morning.
'An English lady who used to post here as Granny Weatherwax ( Esmeralda ) pointed me to New English Review and the rest is history..".
END.
Now, if 'reacher's' experience is any indication, I think Rev Dalgarno's little exercise in consciousness raising may very well be about to backfire upon him. Unintended consequences, and all that.
**i** think jihadwatch may be about to acquire a whole lotta new lurkers and posters...from Wasatch Presbyterian Church, Salt Lake City.
Hi guys!
I commend to you, for further information, Mr Robert Spencer's "Blogging the Qur'an"
http://www.jihadwatch.org/quran-commentary.html
and his useful little book, "The Complete infidel's Guide to the Koran"
http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Infidels-Guide-Koran/dp/1596981040/ref=pd_sim_b_1
"There is no hatred in the New Testament"
Thanks for your reply, but I think we must be talking about two different books (or collections of books), because the one I am familiar with contains passages such as these:
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/int/long.html
"its message is one of inclusiveness"
Yes, I understand that anyone may become a Christian, but then of course anyone may become a Muslim too. In what sense is the message of the New Testament "inclusive", then, that the message of the Qu'ran isn't? Isn't it the case that, according to both, unbelievers are threatened with being tortured for eternity in hell for their disbelief (there are, I believe, more than 160 references to hell in the NT, with over 70 directly attributed to Jesus)?
"the Old Testament is a history of the Jewish people and their struggle to get to the land promised to them as part of their covenant with God"
And as a Christian, you believe that the God of the Torah/Pentateuch is the same God as that of the New Testament, yes?
"the qur'an is prescriptive, not historical like the Bible"
Yet the Bible contains prescriptions, issued from God and His Son, for believers to follow, no?
@ dumbledorsarmy -
Count me among that crowd! I believe I was here on JW already and knew the basics and had read some passages. But it was not until I picked up that book and read it all, for myself, that the magnitude of what it was teaching really hit me. In fact, I got up to page 65 of the version I had, and had to put it aside for months.
What I was reading was so far beyond what I had even dreamed, that it was too difficult to continue. I did go back after some months and finish.
This book NEEDS to be read. Only then will we fully understand this battle!
@ Damian -
Neither the Old Testament nor the New Testament contain any open ended commands for believers (Jews or Christians) to commit violence toward unbelievers.
Nor are Jews or Christians committing such acts on a regular basis, all around the world, in obedience to such commands.
@ waterwillows
I could not disagree with you more!
Of course people need to learn what the Quran says, especially by reading it! How else can we inform others, defend the truth when we are accused by Muslims of not knowing what we are talking about, and continue this great fight we are in for freedom in America and around the world?
If you wish to be ignorant of what the Quran teaches, that is your decision. But please do not promote such ignorance as though it is a virtue. And please especially don't do this under the guise that it is Christian to do so!
"Damian, whatever hatred and barbarism you see in the Old Testament is abrogated by the message of the New Testament."
Really? Could you provide the scriptural evidence for that claim please? I thought that Jesus explicitly stated the opposite, for example in Matthew 5:17: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." Didn't he also, for example, criticise the Pharisees for not adhering to the Old Testament injunction that children who curse their parents should be killed (Matthew 15;4-7)?
You have provided one example of Jesus seemingly advising against following one of the barbaric injunctions of the Torah (and I have provided one in which he seems to criticise people for not adhering to another of them), but then Muhammad also spoke against some of the barbaric practises of his society (e.g. infanticide). The fact that Jesus "abrogated" some of the savage teachings of the earlier prophets (actually, and more puzzlingly: some of the earlier savage commandments of his Father) in no way speaks against my claim that much of the cruelty and savagery of the Qu'ran found its model in the Bible.
For a (somewhat significant) example: wasn't it Jesus who introduced the idea of eternal hell-fire as punishment for unbelief? You claim that "All Old Testament punishments for sins, which remain as they are in the Quran are abrogated by the example of Jesus Christ", but if that is so, could you please show me where in the Torah eternal hell-fire is spoken of? According to you, Muhammad must have inherited this from the Old Testament, and it must have been "abrogated" by Christ. However, on the contrary, whereas eternal hell-fire as punishment for sins is to be found throught both the NT and the Qu'ran, it does not (as far as I'm aware) appear in the OT at all.
@ Damian
It is clear by your comments that you know nothing about the Old Testament or the New. Why do I say this? Because if you did, you would know that the grand narrative of the Bible as a whole is that we are all sinners, and therefore guilty before God. This is not hate, "hate". It is justice. It is the same principle we use in human courts of law when we try and convict someone who is guilty of a crime, and then send them to prison. Again, it is rightful justice for someone who is guilty. We are all guilty before God.
The mercy comes in with Jesus' sacrifice, which Christians commemorate on Good Friday. (Today, as I type this post.)
I will repeat my previous comment:
Neither the Old Testament nor the New Testament contain any open ended commands for believers (Jews or Christians) to commit violence toward unbelievers.
Nor are Jews or Christians committing such acts on a regular basis, all around the world, in obedience to such commands.
***
The purpose of JW is to discuss Islam, not to rail against the supposed ills of Christianity.
"Neither the Old Testament nor the New Testament contain any open ended commands for believers (Jews or Christians) to commit violence toward unbelievers."
So, Jehovah never commands anyone to be killed for worshipping gods or idols other than Himself (or for tempting the Children of Israel to do likewise), does he not?
I could provide dozens of examples, but will limit myself to one (fairly typical) one from Deuteronomy 20:
"When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies. This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.
However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them — the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the LORD your God has commanded you. Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the LORD your God."
By all means read the damned Koran!
A discover that it is an incoherent compendium of the diseased revenge fantasies of Mohammad, special pleading for how "not crazy" MOhammad is, deathcult murder advice for theocratic fanaticsa, and plagiarized misquotes from the Torah and gnostic Christian heresies.
A miasma or miscreant mush.
This is the last time I will type this sentence. Perhaps then you will read it and grasp what I have said:
The Bible - neither the Old Testament nor New - contains no open-ended commands for believers (either Jews or Christians) to commit violence against unbelievers.
Nor are Christians and Jews committing such acts on a regular basis, all over the world, in obedience to those commands.
***
Again, please take your railing against the supposed evils of the Bible elsewhere.
@ Damian -
As an addendum (and because there's no Edit button here!) if I thought for a minute that you had interest in approaching this issue fairly, with a genuine desire to learn, then I'd happily go into the difference between the Old and New Testaments, the laws that were given to the Jews for a particular time and reason and the difference between prescriptive and descriptive passages.
But the truth is that in all my internet conversations - both here and all over the Web where the topic comes up - never ONCE have I met someone like that. I think I would cry for joy if I ever did!
Sadly, all I have ever met are people who despise Christianity for whatever reason, think they know something about a book they've probably never read all the way through, and who insist on making false comparisons between it and Islam - as though there are any legitimate grounds for doing so. They have their minds made up and no amount of evidence or attempts at educating them on this serious matter will sway them from these false ideas.
@ Damian
Please let me know whether my assessment is correct, so that I do not waste my time (as well as yours) waiting for a response from you. Thank you.
"the grand narrative of the Bible as a whole is that we are all sinners, and therefore guilty before God. This is not hate, "hate". It is justice."
Muslim apologists say much the same about the Qu'ran: i.e. that its core message is not one of hatred, but of compassion and mercy for those who do good, and admonishments regarding the consequences of doing bad. This is not hatred, it is justice; it is not for man to decide what is and is not just, but Allah.
"It is the same principle we use in human courts of law when we try and convict someone who is guilty of a crime, and then send them to prison. Again, it is rightful justice for someone who is guilty. We are all guilty before God."
Yes, well: except that in human courts we don't tend to assume from the outset that someone is guilty (indeed: guilty from birth, no less, before they have even acted!) and then send them to be tortured for eternity if they do not accept that some bloke who claims to be their saviour is the Son of the Creator of the Universe, and that they must therefore dedicate their lives to worshipping and loving Him with all their soul, heart and might. No, in civilised human courts we tend to assume that people are innocent until proven guilty, and judge people according to their actions, taking into account what evidence there is for those actions, etc. In other words, in modern civilised society we hold people rationally responsible for their actions (rather than casting their sins upon a goat and ritually killing it, thereby believing oneself to have been redeemed by the vicarious sacrifice of another: this is called "scapegoating").
And yes, with the (hardly trivial) exceptions of Israel and the US/UK led wars on Afghanistan and Iraq, and a few others one could mention, it is not all that common nowadays to see Jews and Christians using scriptural authority as an excuse or justification for killing people. However, for anyone who knows the history of people drawing upon the Bible (both the OT and NT) in order to lend supposed legitimacy to their atrocities, this is little comfort at all.
There are some much more general and important points to be made here too (points very well made by e.g. Sam Harris, Anthony Grayling, Christopher Hitchens, and Richard Dawkins), but I must leave it at that for nowas it is getting on for 2am here.
@ Damian -
I see my assessment was (sadly) correct. Because of your hatred of Christianity, all you can do is misrepresent Christianity and continue to promote the lie that it and Islam are more or less the same.
At the same time, you refuse to provide the evidence I requested, which was the passages from the New or OT which are open ended commands for Jews or Christians to commit violence against unbelievers, as well as evidence of where Jews or Christians are doing these violent acts today, all over the world, in obedience to these commands.
(Hint: You cannot provide them, because such things do not exist.)
It really does make me sad. But I am glad for the internet, which leaves things available for all to see. For those who choose to investigate the matter honestly, they are free to do so. Too bad you are not one of those people.
Goodbye.
Are there not a single sane person in that church congregation,who has got the nerve to go and boot out that Paster who brought out this insane plan? Hope some of the congregation members read this message in JW, and do the right thing of kicking out that pastor out of that church
You again demonstrate that you do not comprehend that any violence condoned in the Old Testament is not an instruction for all time. Violence condoned in the Koran, however, most definitely is. Holy hell, I don't understand why you don't get this. It's so damn simple. So damn plain. Your kind of moral equivalizing, by condemning all religion, only makes it more difficult for all of us who desire to show all the world that Islam is a profound menace to freedom. You unwittingly are aiding the enemy, the enemy being Islam, and you're utterly clueless about this. What you are doing is, quite simply, stupid.
Furthermore, no violence committed by man is sanctioned in the New Testament. Indeed, the greatest Christian thinkers (e.g., Augustine) have had a deuce difficult time through the centuries justifying any kind of violence and finally came up with such concepts as the "just war" in order to do so. When Christians in past centuries did commit violence in the name of their religion, they were violating the tenets of their creed. Not so for Muslims.
For Christ's sake, Muslim violence is all over the place in today's world. By contrast, violence committed by Christians and religious Jews in the name of their faith is practically non-existent. And yet still you harp on about how terrible Judaism and Christianity are. Neither religion is a threat to liberty. Islam, however, is a HUGE threat to liberty. Monstrously so.
You know, one doesn't have to be anti-religious just because they're non-religious. Being the former is a guarantee that one will NEVER be able to properly and objectively judge such efforts by man as ancient Egyptian religious art or the great artistic endeavors of the Middle Ages and Italian Renaissance. I can only imagine what a critique of Michelangelo's art would shape up as if assessed by you. It would, I am certain, be sterile in the extreme. You would miss so much, blinded as you are by your hatred of all religion. You have, ironically, made a religion out of not having one. And it's a very poor religion at that.
Hello Papa Whiskey:
I like the cut of your jib. I'm a whiskey man meself.
I tried to make this point once to a Muslim woman in another blog; but it was WAYYYY over her head. Maybe some will someday "get it".
If a Christian or a Jew were to publicly contradict whatever is said in the Torah or the Bible; NO ONE would be calling for their heads to be chopped off! I have the RIGHT to say I don't believe in any of those religions and nothing would come of it. I don't have to or even be afraid. Why? Because no one would care. It's MY BUSINESS! I'll find out if I was right or wrong when I croak!
If I was in a Muslim country; and I dared to say I don't give a crap about their religion; all hell would break loose. My ass would be on a sling in no time (if not my head) and I would be accused of "Blasphemy" (Oh MY!).
There is a misunderstanding of the concept of respect. Muslims demand that you respect their religion...to which I counter: I respect your right to believe in anything you want. I don't have to respect WHAT you believe in.
Muslims have this great trouble understanding free choice. They are SLAVES to a belief, but instead of stopping there, they are ORDERED to make everyone else slaves too. Good Luck!
All of you suggesting that reading the Qur'an will clear things up for people, I'm not so sure, unless the authentic hadith are read alongside the Qur'an, perhaps together with Robert Spencer's The Truth about Muhammad.
Rather than the Qur'an (which is fairly obscure by itself), an outstanding first intro to Islam would be to read Mark Durie's book, The Third Choice: Islam, Dhimmitude, and Freedom. It's very readable, not long, yet a masterpiece. It quotes and explains the key Islamic texts non-Muslims need to know about. It was given a very positive review by Robert Spencer.
Nothing better than getting your info from "the horse's mouth". I would not use ANY kind of "infidel written book" to argue the case with a Muslim. It would be automatically dismissed as an untruth. The two best sources (in my humble opinion) would be the Quran and "the Reliance of the Traveler". The second book is an instruction guide for Muslim behavior while traveling in Non-Muslim lands. I would love to see any Muslim trying to explain how "out of context" or "misunderstood" the instructions are. Priceless!
@ Wellington -
It is so, so frustrating with people like Damian. I've learned to cut to the chase. Not once have I ever gotten into one of these discussions where the person actually wanted to look at the issue of Christianity & Judaism vs. Islam with a fair and open mind. Not once. They are convinced they are equal, and no amount of evidence to the contrary will sway them.
It's maddening.
However, for those of you interested in reading the Qur'an in the (approximate) chronological order in which the chapters were produced by Muhammad, there is this website: http://www.chronquran.blogspot.com
There you will also find that each Qur'an chapter has a convenient link to Robert Spencer's explanation of that Qur'an chapter. There is also links to Ibn Kathir's explanations. A useful website, if I do say so myself. (I made it.)
Search4Truth,
I wouldn't, in debating with a Muslim, say something like "Mark Durie says x," or quote some other non-Muslim by name. Of course not. But one needs the help of an overview in studying the Qur'an, or else it is often impossible to understand. That's why the authentic collections of Hadith are considered essential by orthodox Muslims. You simply cannot understand the Qur'an without the Hadith. The best is of course to know the Hadith and the earliest Muslim biographies of Muhammad, together with the Qur'an, and as you mention, Islamic law, and also Islamic history, and also polls of Muslim opinion today. But how many infidels are going to do even a tiny fraction of that? Most people won't even slog through the obscurity of the Qur'an. That is why I suggest Mark Durie's incredibly lucid, short, yet comprehensively synoptic book. It entertainingly quotes most of the core Islamic texts non-Muslims should know about, and provides brilliant explanations based on Durie's encyclopedic knowledge of Islamic texts and wide experience of living among Muslims. Having read an intro text like that, or one of Spencer's books, one is perhaps more likely to go on and read the Qur'an and understand enough of what one is reading to maybe keep going and finish the darn thing, and keep on learning...
Damian,
Islam's core texts the most aggressive against other groups
Tina Magaard is a linguist who got her Ph.D. in Intercultural Communication from the Sorbonne, and did a three-year study of the original texts of the world's ten largest religions. One of her findings was that Islam's core texts are the most aggressive against other groups.
Damian,
For the sake of discussion, let's say that all religions are tissues of pure fantasy. Even so, different fantasies lead to different social outcomes over the long run. The New Testament statements attributed to JC lead over time toward a separation of church and state. The same cannot be said for the statements of Muhammad, who united religion and state in himself. JC is reputed to have said "My kingdom is not of this world," and, "Give to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, to God the things that are God's." He is reputed to have done much else consistent with those statements. By contrast, Muhammad, the chief exemplar for Muslims, became Caesar, i.e., became the ruler of a state, and a theocratic ruler at that.
It took Europeans almost two millennia to begin to understand the right division of powers between religion and state, but even from the very beginning Christians, basing themselves on JC's words, tried, often with little understanding, to institute a distinction between the two realms of Caesar and the spirit. But such a division of realms was something entirely or almost entirely new in human history. It would take a long time for people to come to understand it and implement it well. At various times in history the power swung almost entirely to one side or the other, to state dominating church, or vice versa, but never was the division of powers completely effaced, or never for very long. People always had the words of JC advocating a division. And so it was only a matter of time till human beings came to a better understood and thus more permanent implementation of the division, such as we possess now.
None of the above applies to Islam or its teachings, which differ profoundly in their view of what human beings are.
One could point to many differences in doctrine, but I'll mention just one more. In the Judeo-Christian "fantasy," God is more a creator than a commander. In the Islamic fantasy, the reverse is the case: God is much more a commander than a creator. This is a point Daniel Boorstin makes.
Muslim-majority states are quite distinct from other states in their notions of state power. The individual's rights are often quite limited, and must defer to theocratic orthodoxy, and even where the the Muslim-majority state is nominally secular, individual rights must often yield to an overbearing totalitarian religious culture among the Muslim masses. That is a fruit of Muhammad's example and teaching.
Gratifying indeed it is to read you talk sense into Damian about the comparison between Christianity and Islam and call him out on his stubborn illogical, Islam-enabling stance.
You wrote:
"Your kind of moral equivalizing, by condemning all religion, only makes it more difficult for all of us who desire to show all the world that Islam is a profound menace to freedom. You unwittingly are aiding the enemy, the enemy being Islam, and you're utterly clueless about this. What you are doing is, quite simply, stupid."
Exactly! And Mo's exasperation I only understand too well.
Because there are so many reasoning like Damian. I meet them and see them on TV all the time. I rely on you and Traeh to refine our arguments against them. But it is indeed hard for me too to get across that the Quran has more violent verses in it than the Bible, and that the Bible is descriptive and the Quran is prescriptive. that the Bible is written by faulty humans only inspired by God, but that the Quran is supposed to be written by Allah himself, who is supposed to have a copy of it in heaven.
But so far, I only keep experiencing this tired old faulty comparison, mostly by people who use it as a sort of discussion-stopper, a reason not to have to think things through. So after making the moral-equivalence-comparison they also tend to stop any conversation about it.
And on grounds of some Christian principles, like the Golden Rule, and love thy neighbors, and enemies, even masses of Christians, and preachers especially, defend Muslims against all Criticisms. Labeling that automatically as hate, which also ends discussion prematurely.
And many Christians, by virtue of defending Muslims from hate, then end up with whitewashing Islam as well, and smearing fellow-Christians and more importantly to me, fellow-Democratic people too. Oh, and they always play the card of "THE Islam does not exist, Islam is so divers, Muslims here are completely different and detached from Muslims there".
All this was shown in the article above by Robert too. And I feel the same way as you about this: It is plainly stupid. But of course it is also bad strategy to call discussion-partners stupid.
So I now commend their motivation, and try to respect the Muslims in my arguments as much as I can, and nowadays I focus on defending Geert Wilders and Terry Jones and "our girls and guys" when they are getting slandered. Arguing that when Atheists and Christians alike desire to defend and exonerate Muslims and hence Islam, out of a desire to love and protect, I can do the same for ex-Muslims and Islam-critics. Demanding the same standards and arguments for them as the Muslim-defenders use for the Muslims. So in my neighborhood nobody gets away with slandering ex-Muslims and Islam-opponents any more.
And I do admire Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, as I am a Darwinist. But I clearly see the distinction between Islam and Christianity and I thought Dawkins and Harris did too.
I'm glad those Presbyterian leaders are not afraid of truth. But was Muhammad?
In core Islamic texts, Muhammad says Allah hates when you ask too many questions
In Sahih al-Bukhari, the most canonical hadith collection:
Volume 2, Book 24, Number 555:
Note: the parenthetical insertion, "in disputed religious matters," is not mine. It's part of the hadith as available at the University of Southern California hadith database. To see for yourself, click the link at the top of this comment.
On page 222 (326 in the Arabic) of the earliest Muslim biography of Muhammad, he affirms that those who do not follow him will be slaughtered.
Said the sailor, "My old standby, spinach
Keeps me in the fight to the finich
But when the foe is the blues
And it looks like I'll lose
I just go grab a glass of Glenfiddich!"
Glad to hear from you, pokermutt!
Robert - if someone hasn't told you, let me - the Presbyterian, Episcopal, Methodist and some others of the same ilk are NO LONGER Churches - not in the sense that Christ Himself would recognize (see Revelations - Chapters 3&4 - which New Testament Book these "church's" just named consider an embarrassing fairy tale). And the destroyers of these once great denominations are scratching their heads wondering why the steady outflow for years from their pews to the likes of Independent Bible Church's, the Southern Baptist, etc...
Funny, the heading made me automatically think of more burning (rejection) of the Qu'ran, more people making their own statements of their truth. It is inevitable. But that brings me to this question: Has this Presbyterian minister read the book?
By the way, I'm not burning my copy because I need it as reference and I do not want spend any more money on this.
'All of you suggesting that reading the Qur'an will clear things up for people, I'm not so sure, unless the authentic hadith are read alongside the Qur'an, perhaps together with Robert Spencer's The Truth about Muhammad. '
True. No Muslim could ever profoundly understand anything about Islam by solely reading the Quran. Referring to the hadith is exactly what any Muslim clergyman in a mosque would do to enlighten his audience. That's basically what mosques are all about in the first place.
If Muslims would only read the Quran, then in all probability they would not even be half as militant to go rallying on the streets against infidel society as they do now. The vast majority of them would rather be walking around the streets feeling deeply bewildered about the meaning of their so-called faith. This whole doctrine wouldn't be half as dangerous to our societies if reading the Quran would be the be-all and the end-all.
Yup. I'll hold my hand up to that. The one I cracked open had some yarn about Mo finding the broken tablet in a cave, and from then on I smelt b.s. . Heck, even if had found the Rosetta stone the crazy b'tard would've used it to wipe his butt.
.my reply way to to dumbledoresarmy. The pesky 'reply' feature times out too fast sometimes.
Yup! It is true, right here in the Holy See of Mormonism, we have a Presbyterian Liberal cleric passing out Quran copies to help every get ready for Sheri ah. The poor down trodden self effacing Muslims need understanding from the nasty christians who scorn and persecute them. It is truly amazing how little education helps some people interpret the events of world around them. Liberals remind me of the blinders horses used to have one each side their eyes. Keep them in a tunnel vision where they could only focus on one thing at a time. These pro Islamic clerics seem to have neglected history in college and certainly learned less in comparative religion in seminary.
This madness is amazing to behold.
Christian are not advocating to kill members of the Islamic faith, they are not advocating christians ruling the world and they are advocating banning the Quran or murdering errant children. We are advocating christians become educated in the history of Islam. they may become very worried as some of us have.
Watching the Video of Terry Jones on Friday gives me great concern. We keep siding with Islam as oppose to our own people. Yes, there was a coming together of people of diverse religions to protest Jones, there was a coming together of people shrieking he was a racist. The Caucasians were represented by a smattering of kids from local colleges while the majority represented minority groups in the U.S. who have been in the past been victimized by racism.
One of the real issues of Islam is unite the world. It holds out hope to the those who have little that they may one day have all pie they want. The good life will be theirs, however I do not believe they understand the consequences of Shari'ah becoming the ruling legal system. Under shari'ah most of our coveted civil liberties will end, our court system will end.
Islam is certainly gathering the minorities under one banner. As an Englishman is Kenya said, "heaven help us all." As long as we consider this a racial issue we will never get to the core of the matter. It is ideologic only. Are the followers of Christ going to survive or are we going to convert to islam by force? Is the Bible the rule of faith and practice or is Quran with its jumble of interpreters of Shari'ah with a world wide theocratic dictatorship going to rule.
What would a world without Christ or the bible be like? It looks like we are going to find out.
Robert
ASSIR- a captive. a son of Korah. Korah,- a son of Esau, nephew of Ishmeal, sent away.
Muhammad turned from The Book, the people of The Book.
Islam's claim to the further mosque in Jerusalem. Islam knows nothing of Jerusalem!!!!!!!
michael
Your scottish poster was reading an english translation, which differs significantly from the original arabic, in context, meaning, grammar, and every possible thing you can think of. You can't read an english translation and think you know it all.
PIFFLE.
You have just revealed yourself to be a bog-standard Mohammedan apologist, no different from all the others who have appeared at this forum since the beginning, by invoking the boring and predictable 'mistranslation' canard.
And I suppose all those English translations made by English-speaking Muslims, that the mosques hand out on every 'open day', are hopelessly mistranslated too??
ROFLMAO.
It's interesting a Presbyterian Church in the Land of Zion picked up a Mormon cultural trait by osmosis in its use of an out-of-context paraphrase of Brigham Young, who was primarily endorsing education and the pursuit of knowledge in the arts and sciences, and that truth found in science does not conflict with the truth in religion, and to a lesser extent, and acceptance of truth as found in the Christian doctrines of other denominations.
Brigham Young is generally paraphrased as saying that we accept truth from all sources. The specific quote is not included in this brief compendium, but it shows the general thrust. Also note that our Presbyterian brothers missed Brigham Young's point while encouraging people to learn by reading books, that not all books are good:
http://lds.org/manual/teachings-of-presidents-of-the-church-brigham-young/chapter-27-learning-by-study-and-by-faith?lang=eng
What you are saying is idiotic. Strictly speaking, the Quran can never be translated from Arabic into any other language. However, this presents 2 logical consequences with regards to the spread of Islam as a 'Universal Truth' and the establishment of a global Caliphate.
1) If there were only Arabic-language Qurans available, the spread of Islam would have stopped dead in its tracks ages ago. And Muslims would exclusively be native Arabic speakers. This global caliphate would have a limited scope, geographically speaking.
2) If establishing moral universalism within the framework of a global caliphate is indeed the primary concern of Islam, then it would make sense to drop the rigid stance on not allowing the translation of the Quran in any other language, considering the fact that not all people on this planet are native Arabic speakers ! Basically it makes ideological sense to unofficially endorse such a thing, to proselytize as much people as needed for the global caliphate to exist !
When you claim 'You can't read an english translation and think you know it all.' and assume the position the Quran can only be understood in Arabic, then to a certain extent you are also implying unwittingly that imams in general don't seem to be particularly bothered with the spread of FALSIFIED Qurans, translated into any other language that potentially skews the real meaning of the content. Whereas most imams would probably endorse it based on their own logic:
'Of course, such a thing can't be endorsed officially, strictly speaking. However, from a pragmatical viewpoint, it is admissible. How else would we be able to spread our faith to all corners of the world ?'
Maybe you should point your finger first at those imams who take a lax attitude against translating the Quran ? Or would you rather be a hypocrite as well, endorsing such a thing in private while nobody takes any notice of it ?
Sent this and a few more that I have sent to MANY friends and family...maybe he'll take the time to actually KNOW what it is he talks about?
Rev. Scott Dalgarno,
Sir, Please investigate what Muslims, Islam, and Sharia law are ALL about. The world is under conquest. Get back to me.
Save these links at the bottom (in YELLOW) to your "Favorites"........visit them and sign on for regular e-mail news updates....(but NOT from Shariah4America, that one is PRO Shariah)....they even have many other site links to check out to get informed....and PLEASE pass this on to others that WANT to know what's going on w/ Islam "The Religion of Peace" and Sharia Law......do NOT think that the 2 are "separate"...Islam & Sharia Law (SL).....they are one in the same.....SL is the guiding Islamic Religious Law.
See Google search.....http://www.google.com/cse?cx=011272781630429997772%3Anyqp33fbnxu&ie=UTF-8&q=&sa=Search&siteurl=1.open.gmodules.com%2Fgadgets%2Fifr%3Fcontainer%3Dopen%26mid%3D1%26v%3Da91175eee5b86f1efc4c5493add558%26lang%3Dall%26country%3DALL%26view%3Dhome%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.google.com%252Fcoop%252Fapi%252F011272781630429997772%252Fcse%252Fnyqp33fbnxu% 252Fgadget%26source%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fatlasshrugs2000.typepad.com%252Fatlas_shrugs%252F%26parent%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fatlasshrugs2000.typepad.com%252Fatlas_shrugs%252F%26libs%3Dcore%253Acore.io%253Arpc%23rpctoken%3D2020600539
Jihad Watch at..... http://www.jihadwatch.org/
Atlas Shrugs....... http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/
"Winds of Jihad" at....... http://sheikyermami.com/
The Jawa Report at..... http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/207486.php
Creeping Sharia at....http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/
THIS is what threatens America....http://shariah4america.com/ ......This site will BLOW your mind...read it in detail!!!!
Return E-Mail from Pastor Scott Dalgarno
Dear David,
I’m afraid you’ve read something that misrepresents what we have done completely. Thank you for taking the time to write. Clearly fear has been the lens of that misinterpretation along with my own feeble efforts at communicating this action. Our church is not handing out Qur’ans. It is not promoting Islam or the Quran. It is merely funding a project to buy a few dozen for those in our city who might want to read it and see if Pastor Jones is correct in his assumption that it incites violence. His act led to many deaths and more rancor throughout the Arab world. We are trying to assuage a teeny bit of that.
I have received appreciations from American workers in Afghanistan saying that this act makes their lives safer. Does that make me feel we have done something good? You bet it does, my friend. American aid workers and soldiers there are so hungry for moderate Christians to speak up. Only then will moderate Muslims have what they need to turn back radical Islam.
As Presbyterians, David, we believe that Christ alone is Lord of the conscience. Not the church, or the pastor. Our conscience should be informed by Christ, but our forbearers also said that that conscience alone can be misguided. It needs to be informed by education. People need to be informed.
Pastor Jones people followed their consciences alone. But look where it led.
That is what we are doing – being an agent helping to inform people – if people study the Qur’an and Islam and come up with an understanding like yours, that’s fine. No problem. If they come to appreciate the progressive tradition of Sufi Muslims, seeing the good parts of the Qur’an and ignoring the rest, that’s great, too.
I hope you will see that your position as you stated it is under-informed about our actions. For my part in that lack, please accept my apologies..
Blessings at Easter
Scott
Islam is not catholocism. what mosques in the west, run by different people do, has nothing to do with muslims living in other countries.
"Hordse" wrote:
...what mosques in the west, run by different people do, has nothing to do with muslims living in other countries.
.............................
And yet violent Jihad is so much of a piece, all over the world, wherever there are Muslims. Really, it's a great mystery...sarc/off
Sorry for the error. I suppose I was conflating "Horde" and "Horse", and came up with "Hordse".
Or maybe I just need to be a little more careful with my proofreading.